Anarcho-Capitalism: Libertarianism on Steroids!
It was said by famous libertarian Murray Rothbard that “Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism”.
The term ‘anarchism’ is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as:
“A political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups”.
With the principles of anarcho-capitalism being that government is to be abolished and freedom re-established within its fullest form, through both social and economic means, it is theoretically correct in the usage of the term ‘anarchism’. The definition still holds true, as opposed to something like feminism in which through practical means, any dictionary definition is invalid due to the reality of the movement. As such, anyone who dismisses anarcho-capitalism on the basis of it not being ‘anarchism’ is fundamentally and irrefutably wrong.
Every libertarian ideal espoused by freedom-fighters is exaggerated for a completely free society: Free of taxation, free of government, free of laws and societal restrictions on oneself (besides the NAP). For a completely laissez faire economy, one first needs a system of meritocracy and democracy, which furthermore is established through voting with one’s money: Choosing the option from a free market which you deem best (be it a cruelty-free product, gluten-free, or whatever your ethical quandary). As for law and criminality, it is proposed by David Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom that free trade is built upon interaction and an interaction which is untrustworthy cannot thrive. As personal police forces, healthcare and fire-protection industries will be booming due to immense privatisation – these businesses will be in constant interaction with each other (sort of like insurance companies) and as such, will need to remain consistent. This will allow them to best decide on a private court and instruct these forces (through coercion of trade) to do what is in the best interests of their clients.
A personal reign over the way in which you are defended, protected and kept alive is down to an elimination of government and furthermore, of taxation.
This elimination of taxation frees people of the expectation that just for being born into civilisation, they should be forced to pay money to the establishment every time they walk down to the shop to buy Doritos.
“B-b-but what about s-social freedom, sempai? How will that be freed as an extension of libertarian philosophies?”
I can hear you saying to yourself. Fret not, child, for the disestablishment of a government will create social freedom the likes of which we’ve never seen before. This will allow anyone to marry anything, companies to hire whoever they want, refuse entry/service to whoever they want and the legalisation of every drug… just to name a few things.
“So you’re going to legalise all drugs, eh? What stops someone from using something like methamphetamine and the users of that product from abusing it more?”
Well, of what concern to you is that? Max Stirner advocated egoism, which is essentially taking care of yourself and yourself only, which would also extend to those around you (because you like having them around). Now, for other people to hypothetically go and smoke meth because it’s now legal, would that impact you in any way? If methamphetamine became legal, would you go out and do it, just because it’s legal? I mean, suicide is legal, but the very fact that you’re reading this now would suggest that you haven’t gone out to do that yet.
“What about firearms?”
What about them?
“Wouldn’t that lead to more gun violence?”
Considering that 61% of all gun related deaths in the United States are due to suicide, the statistics would suggest not. Given police brutality, the right for minority groups to defend themselves against police forces would be a positive thing (*cough* *cough* Wounded Knee Massacre *cough* *cough*).
“O-okay, but what about if we take guns away from everyone?”
Guns are one of the biggest illegal imports, with places like Australia displaying case studies of large scale gun distribution through corrupt postal operating centres. The constant stream of firearm importation would suggest that banning firearms from everyone would simply put illegal firearms into the hands of criminals… probably not a good move.
So, with the disestablishment of the government and the construction of a non-aggression policy which is regulated and implemented by private courts and paid juries for a systematic and democratic trial for breaking the NAP, why not give anarcho-capitalism a shot?
As we ease towards a gradually more libertarian world, it’s important that we don’t take half-measures with freedom and to separate social-etiquette from the legal process.
Truly, as Wiz Khalifa put it:
‘Uh-huh, you know what it is. Black and Yellow’.