Free-market anarchism (sometimes called simply market anarchism,[1] and occasionally libertarian anarchism[2] or propertarian anarchism)[3] refers to an individualist anarchist philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of non-monopolistic organizations providing security, justice, and other defense services. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.[4] The belief, among free-market anarchists, is that this competition thus will tend to produce cheaper and higher-quality legal and police services including "a high-quality good of impartial, efficient umpiring of conflicting rights claims".[5]
The term describes the type of anarchy proposed by anarcho-capitalism and the philosophies that prefigurated it.[3] In this sense, notable proponents of free-market anarchism include Benjamin Tucker,[6] Lysander Spooner,[7] Murray Rothbard[8] and David D. Friedman.[1] Free-market anarchism has been traced as far back as the 1840s, as conceived by individuals such as Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari.[9][10]
Contents |
One of the first individuals to propose the concept of market protection of individual liberty and property, i.e. free-market anarchism, was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later, in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security, argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity."[9] Molinari argued that the monopoly on security causes high prices and low quality. He says in Les Soirées: "The monopoly of government is no better than any other. One does not govern well and, especially not cheaply, when one has no competition to fear, when the ruled are deprived of the right of freely choosing their rulers...The production of security inevitably becomes costly and bad when it is organized as a monopoly."[11] The brunt of Molinari's argument for free-market anarchism is based in economics rather than on moral opposition to the state.[10]
In the 19th century, Benjamin Tucker in the United States theorized free-market anarchism: "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices."[12] He noted that the anarchism he proposed would include prisons and military.[13] Later, in the mid 20th century, free-market anarchism was revived by Murray Rothbard. David D. Friedman proposes a form of free-market anarchism where in addition to security being provided by the market, the law itself is produced by the market.[14]
Beyond their agreeing that security should be privately provided by market-based entities, proponents of free-market anarchism differ in other details and aspects of their philosophies, particularly justification, tactics and property rights.
Murray Rothbard and other natural rights theorists hold strongly to the central libertarian non-aggression axiom, while other free-market anarchists such as David D. Friedman utilize consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism.[15] Some Agorists, anarcho-capitalists of the Rothbardian tradition, and voluntaryists are propertarian market anarchists who consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership.
Market anarchists have varying views on how to go about eliminating the state. Rothbard advocates the use of any non-immoral tactic available to bring about liberty.[16] Agorists – followers of the philosophy of Samuel Edward Konkin III[17] – propose to eliminate the state by practising tax resistance and by the use of illegal black market strategies called counter-economics until the security functions of the state can be replaced by free market competitors.
Benjamin Tucker originally subscribed to the idea of land ownership associated with Mutualism, which does not grant that this creates property in land, but holds that when people customarily use given land (and in some versions goods), other people should respect that use or possession. But, when that use stops, ownership is no longer recognized, unlike with property.[18] The mutualist theory holds that the stopping of use or occupying land reverts it to the commons or to an unowned condition, and makes it available for anyone that wishes to use it.[19] Therefore, there would be no market in land that is not in use. However, Tucker later abandoned natural rights theory and said that land ownership is legitimately transferred through force unless specified otherwise by contracts: "Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still."[20] He expected, however, that individuals would come to the realization that the "occupancy and use" was a "generally trustworthy guiding principle of action," and that individuals would likely contract to an occupancy and use policy.[21]
Classical liberal John Locke argues that, as people mix their own labor with unowned resources, they make those resources their property. People can acquire new property by labor on unowned resources or trade for created goods. In accordance with Lockean philosophy, Rothbardian free-market anarchists believe that property may only originate by being the product of labor, and may then only legitimately change hands by trade or gift. They derive this homestead principle from the principle of self-ownership.[23][24] However, Locke had a "Proviso" which says that the appropriator of resources must leave "enough and as good in common...to others." Rothbardian market anarchists do not agree with this proviso, holding that the individual may originally appropriate as much as he wishes through mixing his labor, and it remains his property until he chooses otherwise.[23][24] They term this as "neo-Lockean".[24][25] Libertarians see this as consistent with their opposition to initiatory coercion, since only land that is unowned can be taken. If something is unowned, there is no one the original appropriator is initiating coercion against. They do not think mere claim creates ownership, but rather the mixing of one's labor with the unowned, as for example setting up a farm. Anarcho-capitalists accept voluntary forms of common ownership, which means property open to all individuals to access.[26] Samuel Edward Konkin III, the founder of agorism is also a Rothbardian.[27]
A well-known critique of free market anarchism is by Robert Nozick, who argued that a competitive legal system would evolve toward a monopoly government - even without violating individuals rights in the process.[28] Many market anarchists, including Roy A. Childs and Murray N. Rothbard, have rejected Nozick's conclusion (though Childs himself subsequently rejected anarchism).[29]
|
||||||||||