Consistency. "Big tent" lbertarianism tends to include minarchists. The establishment or legitimization of any organization funded by force basically guaratees the growth of a parasite class.
Discussion
Can you recommend some further reading on this?
This is an overview of the basic argument. Having trouble thinking of any writing on the subject specifically, it just seems obvious after studying libertarian principles & political incentives.
People in govt do better the more they steal. People in other sectors do better the more value they produce. But the more the govt steals the more resources they have to infect everything else. The more wealth created by a free market, the more theft people can afford to tolerate if they can be convinced it's legitimate in some form or fashion.
I will see what other relevant content I can find. Something like "The Use of Knowledge in Society" might be helpful, or the chapter(s) on prices & the broken window fallacy in Economics in One Lesson might be helpful when trying to grasp how market coordination works outside of govt direction.
The Bootleggers & Baptists theory of regulation is also probably relevant. And understanding that a law which steals $1 from each person but rewards some special interest to the tune of hundreds of millions will pass every time, because each individual only has $1 worth of incentive to fight the law, while lobbyists have millions in monetary incentives to promote it.
Below is a quote from Peter Marshall who said it well:
"Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. ... They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. ... As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the state, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists."
You should start calling what you believe Capitalism and our status-quo State Capitalism. You shouldn't try to change the fundamentals of anarchism because it's been around hundreds of years. You can read volumes upon volumes of the literature anarchists have made over the years.
Finally, I don't care to get into the merits of Capitalism and Anarchism with you. I'm saying it's disingenuous for you to call yourself Anarchist because stealing away it's name is an attempt to nullify it in a dishonest way.
I think voluntary cooperation & mutual aid are natural hallmarks of free market capitalism.
A cultural respect for property rights is quite literally the only thing that ensures weak people are able to own anything at all. Everything else is some version of might makes right.
I DO think that people who contribute little to society should not be able to command resources out of all proportion to the value they create for others, but that's just rooted in a basic sense of what is fair or sane IMO.
I have no desire to see people suffer or struggle unnecessarily, but I know that systems which tear down the capable & productive to prevent the discomfort of the unproductive have historically imposed more senseless suffering on human kind than any other sort of arrangement.
I believe that allowing productive people to create as much value for others as they can without anyone stealing from them produces the best sort of society & benefits the poor & unskilled more than any amount of structural theft possibly could.
I don't believe that allowing others to create good & services that I want (but cannot be forced to buy) gives anyone power over me. I don't believe another person having a lot of money can force me to sell anything I own.
There are individualist anarchists like Tucker & Spooner, although they were as radically pro-market as Rothbard
Anarchist just means "without rulers", which entails no one is entitled to disrupt the voluntary market action of others
Very interesting criticism of left anarchists but its a little dated since it was written in the 1950s. The success of Rojava might prove Rothbards assertions in this essay wrong. Time will tell.
Most important to our topic, however, is the fact that Rothbard concluded this article asserting his political movement should be named nonarchist, not anarchist.
Also Rothbard:
"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"
Well he contracted himself. Every human does it.
My point in posting the article that modern anarcho-capitalism traces back not only to classical liberals but also to individualist anarchists. While Rothbard ultimately rejects the label, it is not because it's completely inappropriate, but because it has a negative connotation.
The rejection is an issue of practicality rather than accuracy.
Moreover, the conclusion that full capitalism requires anarchism is not new with Rothbard, but dates back at least to 1849.
I love this thread. Thanks Jeff for your insight
Would it be correct if I put it basically as Milton Friedman vs Ayn Rand? Or is it more like FA Hayek vs Ayn Rand? In terms of libertarian vs anarchist in your mind.
Would you think Bitcoin will put the stop monarchist ability to grow in hyperbitcoinization society? Or does Bitcoin not solve that issue, hence it have to be pure AnCap?
I think in the long run Bitcoin will make it impossible for govts to print money, very difficult for govts to collect taxes, & very easy for people to move with all of their wealth. Exit taxes will be (is already for the knowledgeable) almost completely unenforceable. The lack of money printing means that govts like the US gov & China cannot exist in anything like their current forms. I think a breakup is likely & competition between smaller states will provide a pretty effective check on govt abuse as adoption spreads. It's possible that it may actually increase the number of competitive monarchies in the world & reduce the number of democracies. Lichtenstein is one of the most libertarian nations in the world today & it is a principality. But maybe private ownership or management will trump them both, idk.
The libertarian continuum in my mind is something like Milton Friedman > Hayek > Ayn Rand > Murray Rothbard
David & Patri Friedman (son & grandson of Milton) are definitely on the Rothbard end of things, as are Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Karl Hess, Larken Rose, and my brother & I
Great. Then Bitcoin may allow future generations to witness what would be the ideal structure. Whether it is something like what Milton Friedman have in mind, or more like what Rothbard has in mind
Too bad it is very likely to not be within my lifetime. But at least my child may witness it. That's enough for me