Note: Updated and revised version included as chap. 3 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston: Papinian Press, 2023). Below.
“Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense services from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.” Rothbard, Anatomy of the State
***
“What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist,” LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004). Reprinted in reprinted in Keith Knight, ed., The Voluntaryist Handbook: A Collection of Essays, Excerpts, and Quotes (2022). Revised version in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (forthcoming 2023).
Related
- Several translations available
- audio version
- See also Kinsella, “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism,” Mises Economics Blog (Aug. 20, 2009)
From Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston: Papinian Press, 2023)
3
What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist
Originally published at LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004; https://perma.cc/QAJ6-KHKN); reprinted in Keith Knight, ed., The Voluntaryist Handbook: A Collection of Essays, Excerpts, and Quotes (2022; https://perma.cc/N8UX-4PX4). See also Kinsella, “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism,” Mises Economics Blog (Aug. 20, 2009).
Butler Shaffer’s recent LRC article, “What is Anarchy?,”[1] prompted discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas I’ve also had along these lines.
Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to “but anarchy won’t work” or “we need the (things provided by the) state.” But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will “work” (whatever that means), nor that you predict it will or “can” be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.
Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.
Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)
As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression—the initiation of force against innocent victims—is justified. No surprise; it is not possible[2] to show this.[3] But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?
Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won’t “work” or is not “practical” is just confused. Anarchists don’t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved—I for one don’t think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.
Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and “should” not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.
Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others’ rights. Then there would be no crime. It’s easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, “but that’s an impractical view” or “but that won’t work,” “since there will always be crime.” The fact that there will always be crime—that not everyone will voluntarily respect others’ rights—does not mean that it’s “impractical” to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some “flaw” in the proposition that crime is wrong.
Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, “anarchy won’t work” or is “impractical” or “unlikely to ever occur.”[4] The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors’ rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.[5]
Other utilitarian replies like “but we need a state” do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims—i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that “we” “need” things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else—making sure certain public “needs” are met, despite the cost—but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same—innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized—libertarian, one might say—and prefer peace over violent struggle.
As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.
It’s time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or against it?[6]
[Endnotes, adapted from the footnotes; some formatting like italics may be missing]
[1] Butler Shaffer, “What Is Anarchy?,” LewRockwell.com (Jan. 13, 2004).
[2] “Defending Argumentation Ethics” (ch. 7).
[3] “Dialogical Arguments for Libertarian Rights” (ch. 6).
[4] Another point: In my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What is striking is that almost every criticism of “impracticality” that minarchists hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply don’t care much about.
[5] Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or “feasibility,” any more than the case against private crime depends on there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within government, as pointed out in a seminal and neglected JLS article by Alfred G. Cuzán, which argues that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally—the President does not literally force others in government to obey his commands, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized, hierarchical structure. Government’s (political) anarchy is not a good anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible—indeed, that we never really get out of it. See Alfred G. Cuzán, “Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?,” J. Libertarian Stud. 3, no. 2 (Summer 1979): 151–58. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we are in “anarchy” with our neighbors. If most people did not already have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors’ rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the degree of goodness could rise—due to education or more universal economic prosperity, say—sufficient to make support for the legitimacy of states evaporate. It’s just very unlikely.
[6] For discussion of other aspects of anarchist libertarian theory, see references in “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society” (ch. 13), n.25, and others listed in Kinsella, “The Greatest Libertarian Books,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 7, 2006) and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography,” LewRockwell.com (Dec. 31, 2001).
Stephen wrote, “Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.
“Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression.”
On the contrary, neither (a) nor (b) is required for a rejection of anarchism. It is not essential to the nature of a government that it tax its citizens. It can get revenue voluntarily in a number of different ways. What is essential to government is not that it tax its citizens but that it have a uniform system of laws over a well-defined geographical area.
Stephen continues: “They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression.”
Just the opposite: A defense agency uses physical force in defense of its clients. Competing defense agencies would, therefore, use physical force in defense of their clients’ competing claims and interests, which would necessarily entail aggressive force on the part of at least one of the competing agencies.
In order to prevent this kind of civil warfare and corresponding aggression, a uniform code of laws based on individual rights would have to be established with procedural rules guaranteeing its proper administration. This would require a single authorized enforcement agency administering a legitimate form of retaliatory force against those who violate is laws: in other words, a government.
The government would, in turn, require that whoever is enforcing its laws be certified as understanding its enforcement procedures so as to ensure respect for the rights of any accused violators. Accordingly, a civil constitution would have to be established overseeing the administration of the government’s laws and procedures.
Far from ensuring a respect for individual rights, anarcho-capitalism necessarily involves a violation of those rights. It necessarily entails the use of aggressive force on the part of competing defense agencies. Only a government with a monopoly on retaliatory force can ensure a respect for the rights and liberties of its citizens.
William’s comment seems to make some hidden assumptions. Otherwise, I don’t see how his conclusions follow from his premises.
“A defense agency uses physical force in defense of its clients. Competing defense agencies would, therefore, use physical force in defense of their clients’ competing claims and interests, which would necessarily entail aggressive force[…].” A defense agency is an organization to which persons may delegate their right of self-defense. If persons have no right to commit aggression, they cannot delegate such a right to others. If they have a right of self-defense, they may delegate this right. William seems to assume that defense agencies are just thugs for hire who will sound the battle cry at their customers’ whim, rather than peace officers who try to prevent aggression or put an end to it when it occurs. I agree that we cannot merely assume that a DA will perform as we wish, but we have even less reason to believe the state monopoly will perform as we wish.
I’m Stephan, not Stephen. Do you call a girl named Stephanie “Stevenie”?
“On the contrary, neither (a) nor (b) is required for a rejection of anarchism.”
This is a common habit of statists: instead of saying they favor the state and its aggression, they say they “reject anarchism.” It’s a way of avoiding admitting what they really are for. Instead of saying “I favor murder and robbery by the state” they say “Oh, libertarians haven’t come up with a convincing case for their view.” That kind of thing.
“It is not essential to the nature of a government that it tax its citizens.”
Notice he says “government” instead of the more accurate state. And also–if there is an agency that doesn’t tax, well, news for you–anarchists don’t oppose it. But of course statists favor the state and its ability to tax. Sometimes they call it “government” to confuse or equivocate. Sometimes they pretend that it can get its taxes voluntarily. Though funnily enough, it never, ever, does so.
” It can get revenue voluntarily in a number of different ways. What is essential to government is not that it tax its citizens but that it have a uniform system of laws over a well-defined geographical area.”
And if it can outlaw competition and force people to join and force them not to hire competing agencies, it can charge a monopoly price for its services. Hmm, you know, this monopoly price sure sounds like a tax to me!
“Just the opposite: A defense agency uses physical force in defense of its clients. Competing defense agencies would, therefore, use physical force in defense of their clients’ competing claims and interests, which would necessarily entail aggressive force on the part of at least one of the competing agencies.”
Stupid, braindead, Randian bullshit. Not even worth refuting, it’s so retarded.
“In order to prevent this kind of civil warfare and corresponding aggression, a uniform code of laws based on individual rights would have to be established with procedural rules guaranteeing its proper administration. This would require a single authorized enforcement agency administering a legitimate form of retaliatory force against those who violate is laws: in other words, a government.”
Aaaaand this logic would require a one-world government. Congrats, Randians, welcome to 1984!
“The government would, in turn, require that whoever is enforcing its laws be certified as understanding its enforcement procedures so as to ensure respect for the rights of any accused violators. Accordingly, a civil constitution would have to be established overseeing the administration of the government’s laws and procedures.”
Yes, yes, we’ve all read the razzle-dazzler Robert Nozick. Snooze.