Anarcho-capitalism

I received a few e-mails from yesterday’s post/slashdot-crosspost, [Slashdot] Couple Who Catch Cop Speeding Could Face Charges. Here is one such e-mail:

Greetings.
I noticed on a slashdot post you made.
I have been interested in anarcho-capitalism for quite a while but in discussion with my friends and others with such leanings a problematic question keeps recurring. What stops the development of overwhelmingly powerful private armies? I am familiar with the non-aggression maxim, but with the destructive capability of modern weapons systems couldn’t an individual with several billion dollars coerce just about anyone other than others with similar amounts of money? This is a problem that I can’t seem to find a good solution too. I apologize for the unsolicited e-mail but not many people at my university are familiar with anarcho-capitalism and I find that I am often the most educated one on the subject yet still had questions.

The main premise/question of a majority of the e-mails comes down to a debate-topic that has plagued the anarcho-capitalism debate since it started decades (centuries?) ago — will anarcho-capitalism devolve into feudalism?

If you do a search online for the two terms together, you’ll come up with a good foundation of the basis of the debates. The Austrian Forum has a good debate thread on the very topic, but I believe that debate, like others, fails to realize the basic comfort in the mind and heart of the anarcho-capitalist: we can’t care about you until we’re able to care for ourselves.

For myself, this is the most honest interpretation of anarcho-capitalism that I can provide to those who don’t understand why I want freedom to pursue my political/faith beliefs without intervention or force of others. It sounds callous and egotistical, but it isn’t. My life, my faith and my politics are based on one idea: I can’t convince anyone of anything except by example. My example of freedom is difficult to display to others because I am forced to support wars, welfare systems and force-structures that are counter to my “Utopian dream,” which is a term I really don’t like.

Let’s look into the main problem with this debate: you’re looking too large! When I ask for anarcho-capitalism for myself, the first thing that happens is people exclaim that it is impossible for the world to be free of the State. Yes, you’re right! But that isn’t what I am asking for. I am asking for the ability for myself and my brethren to be able to extricate ourselves from the madness that the State forces on us. We’re not asking for the world to be anarcho-capitalist, we’re asking for the ability to attempt anarcho-capitalism on our own. As online-friend J. David Blackstone has said, Secession is the right of all sentient beings. The basis for anarcho-capitalism is the right to declare your property as yours — not the State’s. I’m not asking for the entire world, nation, state or county to immediately be dismissed of the State — that would truly be nihilism, and I’m not a anarcho-nihilist. I’m asking for the ability to withdraw from the “social contract” and attempt to live life without the State within the boundaries of my property.

What would happen if I did it alone? I’d likely die, or I’d fail, or I’d mooch off the State by trespassing into it — the free rider argument. Yet that also is not what I am asking for. You could say that I want something akin to the Free State Project, but I think that is still Statist to a large degree. I’d call it the Free Stateless Project, maybe. Many friends of mine believe this would be similar to communism where all within this Stateless zone would be equal, but I think that’s wrong if everyone who joins the Stateless zone (leaves the State zone) understands the basic premise of anarcho-capitalism: no one will help you unless you can help them, but we’re all free now to try to help ourselves as long as we harm no one else. This means we are free to do what we want, even if it kills us, as long as it does not harm anyone else or their property.

So what of the volatility of a State or another anarcho-capitalist zone attempting to overrun our Stateless zone? Sure, it is possible. Some anarcaps believe that they can unite and hire a protection company to offer them defense against attack, but I don’t see this as reliable or even intelligent. If we’re truly anarcho-capitalists, we can not unite as one group for any reason — none of us are the same, exactly, and none of us agree perfectly on all subjects. Due to J. David Blackstone’s previous convincing arguments, I am a pure pacifist — I won’t use force against anyone, even in self-defense. But my neighbor might believe that it is wise to arm himself and his family and use defense against even a minor trespass. Since this is a risk that burglars/trespassers would have, I believe people would be much more cognizant of people’s property rights and avoid the risk of death. Today, people are taught that their property is not theirs (you pay taxes or you get evicted), and are also taught that the State can trespass on their land however they please — even without a warrant. In an anarcho-capitalist zone, you would have to be aware that if you are not on your land, there is a risk of death or pain. Is this the way we want to live? It depends — if you’re like me, you’d gladly accept that risk rather than pay 50%+ of your income to a State that uses force each and every second it operates.

What happens if a State decides to attack the anarcho-capitalist zone? There will be those who will fight to the death, and those who will just give up and hope to return to freedom quickly. There is no way to know what would happen without knowing how large of a force the Stateless zone is — not just in weaponry. The Internet today gives us many more opportunities to unite on some subjects — we’ve seen more pro-libertarian supporters in the last 2 years online than in all of history. Right now, though, there are absolutely no opportunities for anyone to secede their land out of the State’s zone, so we are unable to truly try to fulfill our trials.

As a sidenote, many anti-Stateless zone advocates will show Somalia and other parts of Africa as anarchy zones. This is untrue — they may be without a State, but they are not without State supporters. Since Somalia’s State crumbled, the U.S. and Ethiopia and many other countries have provided black-market weapons and support for a variety of pro-State leaders and warlords. The State fell because too many people wanted to create a new State their way. In my view of a Stateless zone, the people who would secede would not be looking to create a new State for others but freedom for themselves. The State surrounding the Stateless zone would be free to erect walls and barriers to entry (and likely would), but it would not be difficult to travel to lands via boat or plane. Remember: I’m not asking for all of the U.S. or the world or even the State of Illinois to all of a sudden crumble. I’m asking for the chance to extricate myself from your mess that you voted for, along with many 100 or so of my fellow colleagues, so that we can try (and fail or succeed). The chance of feudalism occurring with just 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people is unlikely — and the chance that the whole world will take notice of our successes and get rid of the State is completely non-existent. The average person LOVES the State, and we’re happy for them. We just want to help our own situation first before we can decide how we will help others.

By the way, this version of anarcho-capitalism is what I would call a Unanimocracy.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.