(1926–1995), who is credited with coining the words
anarcho-capitalist Oliver states that anarcho-capitalism is a political theory that follows Objectivism, a philosophical system developed by
Ayn Rand. However, he acknowledged that his advocacy of anarcho-capitalism is "quite at odds with Rand's ardent defense of 'limited government". According to
Patrik Schumacher, the political ideology and program of anarcho-capitalism envisages the radicalization of the
neoliberal "rollback of the state." It also calls for the extension of "entrepreneurial freedom" and "competitive market rationality" to the point where the scope for private enterprise is all-encompassing and "leaves no space for state action whatsoever." Rothbard argues that all government services, including defense, are inefficient because they lack a market-based
pricing mechanism regulated by "the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill their highest-priority needs" and by investors seeking the most profitable enterprises to invest in. Maverick Edwards of
Liberty University describes anarcho-capitalism as a political, social, and economic theory that places markets as the central "governing body" and where government no longer "grants" rights to its citizenry. Anarchist critics such as Peter Sabatini and
Bob Black argue that private defense agencies would act as private states, leading to coercion. In
Anarchy, State, and Utopia, libertarian philosopher and proponent of minarchism
Robert Nozick argues that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own
non-aggression principles. A single locally dominant
private defense and
judicial agency would eventually emerge with other agencies unable to effectively compete against its advantages. Therefore, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency that is itself a de facto "state". Thus, anarcho-capitalism may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges. To Rothbard and his student
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, such a "de facto state", if based on contracts and private property, would not be a true state:Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.Rothbard In
The Ethics of Liberty defines coercion as “the invasive use of physical violence or the threat thereof against someone else’s person or (just) property.” Hoppe in
Democracy: The God That Failed defined a state as "an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of protection and the power to tax". Other variations of anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism's solutions to the state as non-anarchist due to retaining hierarchical structures. While the
Friedmanian formulation of anarcho-capitalism considers the presence of violence and assumes some degree of violence will occur, anarcho-capitalism as formulated by thinkers such as Rothbard holds strongly to the central
libertarian nonaggression
axiom. In general, Rothbard describes the non-aggression axiom as a prohibition against initiating force, or the threat of force, against persons (including direct violence, assault, and murder) or property (including fraud, burglary, theft, and taxation). The initiation of force is usually referred to as
aggression or
coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom.
Minarchist libertarians, such as
libertarian political parties would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at the very least public police, courts, and military. However, others might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast, Rothbard rejects any level of "
state intervention", defining the state as a
coercive monopoly and as the only entity in human society, excluding acknowledged criminals, that derives its income entirely from coercion, in the form of taxation, which Rothbard describes as "compulsory seizure of the property of the state's inhabitants, or subjects." In an interview published in the
American libertarian journal
The New Banner, Rothbard stated that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."
Property Private property Anarcho-capitalists support the
privatization of everything, including cities with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets, and urban management systems. Central to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of
self-ownership and
original appropriation that combine
personal and
private property.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote: Rothbard, however, rejects the
Lockean proviso and follows the rule of "first come, first served", without any consideration of what resources are left for other individuals. Anarcho-capitalists advocate private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labor created by workers within the context of
wage labor and the free market – that is, through decisions made by property and capital owners, regardless of what an individual needs or does not need. In the case of slavery, Rothbard claims that in many cases "the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed." Rothbard believes slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work on under the homestead principle. If property is held by the state, Rothbard advocates its confiscation and "return to the private sector", writing that "any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves and should be liberated as quickly as possible." Rothbard proposed that
state universities be seized by the students and faculty under the homestead principle. Rothbard also supported the expropriation of nominally "private property" if it is the result of state-initiated force such as businesses that receive grants and subsidies. Rothbard further proposed that businesses that receive at least 50% of their funding from the state be confiscated by the workers, writing: "What we libertarians object to, then, is not government
per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property
per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property."
Classical anarchists view capitalism and institutions of law enforcment and
wage system as an inherently authoritarian and hierarchical system and seek the
abolishment of private property. Anarcho-capitalists don't disagree, but consider property- and contract-based hierarchies to be acceptable or even desirable. For that reason there is disagreement between most anarchists and anarcho-capitalists as the former generally rejects anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism and considers
anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms, while the latter holds that the abolishment of private property and the wage system would require
expropriation and anti-market
state regulation, which is "counterproductive to order" and would require a state.
Common property As opposed to most anarchists, most anarcho-capitalists reject the
commons. However, some of them propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. Some left-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists like Roderick T. Long argue that there could be cases where
common property may develop in a
Lockean natural rights framework. Anarcho-capitalists make the example of many private businesses that may arise in an area, each owning the land and buildings that they use, but they argue that the paths between them become clear through customer and commercial movement. These paths may become valuable to the community, but according to them, ownership cannot be attributed to any single person and
original appropriation does not apply because many contributed the labor necessary to create them. To prevent it from falling to the "
tragedy of the commons", anarcho-capitalists suggest transitioning from common to private property, wherein an individual would make a homesteading claim based on disuse, acquire title by the assent of the community consensus, form a corporation with other involved parties, or other means. American economist
Randall G. Holcombe sees challenges stemming from the idea of common property under anarcho-capitalism, such as whether an individual might claim
fishing rights in the area of a major
shipping lane and thereby forbid passage through it. In contrast, Hoppe's work on anarcho-capitalist theory is based on the assumption that all property is privately held, including "all streets, rivers, airports, and harbors", which forms the foundation of
his views on immigration.
Stephan N. Kinsella argues that ownership only relates to tangible assets. Rothbard argued for allowing contractually arising infinite copyright terms and against the need for any government role in protecting intellectual property. Rothbard states that government's involvement in defining arbitrary limits on the duration and scope of intellectual property in order to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" is inherently problematic, saying: "By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are 'too much,' 'too little,' or just about enough?"" Thus, he argued that patent laws can actually hinder innovation since competitors can be indefinitely discouraged from further research expenditures in the general area covered by the
patent. The courts may hold their improvements as infringements on the previous patent, and the patent holder is discouraged from engaging in further research in this field because the privilege discourages improvement of their invention for the entire period of the patent, with the assurance that no competitor can trespass on their domain. The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well as private arbitration. Rothbard argues that
limited liability for corporations could also exist through contract, arguing that "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, those men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation." Other anarcho-capitalists have also suggested the legalization of organ markets, as in
Iran's renal market. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would, in itself, be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract. Some anarcho-capitalist philosophies understand control of private property as part of the self, and some permit
voluntary slavery. The vast majority of anarcho‑capitalists deny this, and critics of capitalism argue that this minority opinion is not unique to anarcho-capitalists, but is an essential consequence of the capitalist contract theory (
wage slavery). The right to contract includes "the right to contract oneself out for employment by others." While anarchists criticize wage labor, describing it as wage slavery, anarcho-capitalists view it as a consensual contract. Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over wage labor.
David D. Friedman has expressed a preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces."
Law and order and the use of violence Different anarcho-capitalists propose different forms of anarcho-capitalism and one area of disagreement is in the area of law. In
The Market for Liberty,
Morris and
Linda Tannehill object to any
statutory law whatsoever. They argue that all one has to do is ask if one is aggressing against another to decide if an act is right or wrong. However, while also supporting a
natural prohibition on force and fraud, Rothbard supports the establishment of a mutually agreed-upon centralized libertarian legal code which private courts would pledge to follow, as he presumes a high degree of convergence amongst individuals about what constitutes natural justice. Unlike both Rothbard and the Tannehill couple, who see an ideological commonality of ethics and morality as a requirement, David D. Friedman proposes that "the systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars." Friedman says whether this would lead to a libertarian society "remains to be proven." He says it is a possibility that very un-libertarian laws may result, such as laws against drugs, but he thinks this would be rare. He reasons that "if the value of a law to its supporters is less than its cost to its victims, that law...will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist society." Anarcho-capitalists only accept the collective defense of
individual liberty (i.e. courts, military, or police forces) insofar as such groups are formed and paid for on an explicitly voluntary basis. However, their complaint is not just that the state's defensive services are funded by taxation, but that the state assumes it is
the only legitimate practitioner of physical forcethat is, they believe it forcibly prevents the private sector from providing comprehensive security, such as a police, judicial and prison systems to protect individuals from aggressors. Anarcho-capitalists believe that there is nothing morally superior about the state which would grant it, but not private individuals, a right to use physical force to restrain aggressors. If competition in security provision were allowed to exist, prices would be lower and services would also be better according to anarcho-capitalists. According to
Molinari: "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries." Building on this, early theoretical formulations posit that the "production of security" should be treated as an "immaterial commodity" subject to the law of free competition. In this model, individuals would subscribe to security or insurance companies based on trust and contractual terms. Proponents argue that the absence of a de jure monopoly ensures that consumers can transfer their loyalty to a competitor if a provider fails to deliver justice or raises prices, thereby maintaining accountability through market pressure. These private courts and police are sometimes referred to generically as
private defense agencies. The defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of individuals. at the
Battle of Bunker Hill during the
American Revolutionary War, a war that anarcho-capitalists such as Murray Rothbard admired and believed was the only American war that could be justified Rothbard stated that the
American Revolutionary War and the
American Civil War were the only two just wars in American military history. Some anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard feel that violent revolution is counter-productive and prefer voluntary forms of economic secession to the extent possible.
Retributive justice is often a component of the contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. According to Matthew O'Keeffe, some anarcho-capitalists believe prisons or
indentured servitude would be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-capitalist property relations while others believe exile or forced
restitution are sufficient. Rothbard stressed the importance of restitution as the primary focus of a libertarian legal order and advocated for corporal punishment for petty vandals and the death penalty for murders. American economist
Bruce L. Benson argues that legal codes may impose punitive damages for intentional torts in the interest of deterring crime. Benson gives the example of a thief who breaks into a house by picking a lock. Even if caught before taking anything, Benson argues that the thief would still owe the victim for violating the sanctity of his property rights. Benson opines that despite the lack of objectively measurable losses in such cases, "standardized rules that are generally perceived to be fair by members of the community would, in all likelihood, be established through precedent, allowing judgments to specify payments that are reasonably appropriate for most criminal offenses." Morris and Linda Tannehill raise a similar example, saying that a bank robber who had an attack of conscience and returned the money would still owe reparations for endangering the employees' and customers' lives and safety, in addition to the costs of the defense agency answering the teller's call for help. However, they believe that the robber's loss of reputation would be even more damaging. They suggest that specialized companies would list aggressors so that anyone wishing to do business with a man could first check his record, provided they trust the veracity of the companies' records. They further theorise that the bank robber would find insurance companies listing him as a very poor risk and other firms would be reluctant to enter into contracts with him. Individualist market anarchist
Laurance Labadie, the son of
Benjamin Tucker's associate
Joseph Labadie, criticized anarcho-capitalist
Murray Rothbard for his support of free market private court system and opposition to
Lysander Spooner's Jury nullification.when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds
presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Fraud and breach of contract There is a debate among anarcho-capitalists about how to codify the concepts and standards for 'fraud' and 'breach of contract'. Mark D. Friedman notes that fraud does not easily fit under initiation of force or aggression, thereby not violating a literal interpretation of the non-aggression principle. He argues that libertarians cannot equate fraud to theft because property is not taken in the same way; he writes "Although the victim [hands over property] only because he has been duped, he nevertheless
elects to entrust his property to the perpetrator." However, fraud may still be rendered unjust since the fraudster "
intentionally prevents the agent from making a free choice". Benjamin Ferguson writes that virtually all libertarians have a standard of fraud, but while libertarians will typically invoke the power of a state to prohibit such acts, libertarians who are anarchists may deny that prohibition of such immoral acts is enforceable by a state. Alternatively, they may take the weaker position that state-like collectives may be formed to enforce prohibitions, but the collective must dissolve once its purpose is fulfilled. == Influences ==