“A man shouldn’t believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself.” -Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
Ever since I first saw Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which I admit was far too late in my young life, and I heard Ferris say that line in the beginning, I was amazed. I wrote it down, thinking to myself, how can such a cliche pop-comedy movie possibly espouse such a profoundly philosophical idea? Regardless, I took the idea to heart.
Labeling is always a hassle. Words have generally agreed upon definitions through intersubjective consensus, but in the realm of politics and philosophy, words are almost meaningless. Ask a so-called “conservative” whether he believes in global interventionism: If he says yes, he might now be a “neoconservative,” if no, he might now be a “paleoconservative.” Ask a “liberal” if she favors wealth redistribution: If she says yes, she’s likely a “socialist,” if no, she’s might be a “libertarian.” But of course, all of these people still label themselves “conservatives” and “liberals,” and only a select few will identify with such narrow and nuanced terms as “civil libertarian,” “communitarian,” or “anarchosyndicalist,” even if their views seem to “objectively” (whatever that means) line up with common definitions of them.
For a while now I have styled myself as an “anarchocapitalist,” or ancap for short. I have come here to repudiate that word, it is a terrible word and I have fallen out of favor with it. Much of this diatribe will be against the word itself, not necessarily the ideas behind it, which I tend to maintain, though I have broadened the horizons of my beliefs as well as expanded my outlook on things.
The Word
Anarchocapitalism is a compound word of two of the most hated and prejudiced words in the political lexicon. Mentioning “anarchism” instantly upsets the entire establishment, be they “liberal,” “conservative,” “centrist,” “fascist,” “socialist,” or “minarchist” – anyone who would sanctify the State as the solution to social problems, to whatever degree or form. ”Capitalism” instantly upsets the leftists, both those who favor a State and those who are anti-statists in a socialist or communist sense. The problem is, many of these explicit anti-capitalists identify themselves as “anarchists.” If I were somehow able to sneak in the word “atheism” into the mix, I would have successfully offended just about the entire world. But that is not my goal…entirely.
In truth, anarchocapitalism is a contradiction in terms. For, to be an anarchist historically means that one is not only opposed to the State but more fundamentally hierarchy of any form – the apex of which is capitalism. To define Ancapism as an anarchist movement not only isolates potential allies in the struggle to smash the State, but destroys the historical meaning attached to certain words. Ancaps redefine these two words to mean very different things than their colloquial meanings, and even more different from other anarchists. To an Ancap, “anarchism” simply means “no State,” and “capitalism” means “a free market.”
Neither “anarchism” or “capitalism” by their traditional understandings mean such things. I have already said how anarchism is a (typically Marxist) view that all private property ought to be abolished, and capitalism must be overthrow in addition to the State. But “capitalism” also is a misnomer. The word “capitalism” is a term coined solely by Karl Marx to denounce the horrible system he witnessed. Capitalism historically and factually has referred to State-capitalism, monopoly corporatism, a world only one step up from economic and political feudalism. Ancaps are quick to redefine “capitalism” as a free market without such distortions, and will typically respond “well we have never experienced true capitalism!” Then why call it capitalism!?
I will certainly debate the merits of Marxist/anarchist/socialist ideas – many of which I believe to be utterly wrong or innocently misguided (and anticipate a future piece(s) on them), but that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to clarify the terms such groups use, and their relative merits.
I called myself an ancap after reading Murray Rothbard, the intellectual father of ancapism, who converted me to his belief system. I noticed early on that the word seemed rather flawed, and I wonder why Rothbard picked that term. In retrospect, I now believe that it was an absolutely terrible decision on Rothbard’s part, and has done more harm than good. Regardless, since Rothbard is probably the most influential Ancap and I admire his work greatly, I kept the name and prepared the common talking points in anticipation of the day I would have to debate its meaning once I encountered a “true” anarchist. The main reason that I labeled myself as such and the only reason that I hesitate to give up the term is the fact that I want to identify myself with those great thinkers who have identified themselves (perhaps hypocritically or misguidedly) as Ancaps – Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe, Walter Block, David Friedman, Roderick Long, and alleged “proto-ancaps” as Ludwig von Mises, Gustav de Molinari, and Lysander Spooner for example.
Why must we use this term? Why must we piss off entire groups of people who have historically identified with these words? Even if we have the “objectively correct” (and who is to decide that?) definition of the terms, it automatically sets us up to struggle against the entire mass of people who believe the terms mean other things. ”Taking back” words always involves a costly struggle, and I think we have more important things to tend to.
Labels Schmables
Even if I were to keep the word “anarchocapitalism,” it would change very little. Going back to the quote at the top, I believe that labels, on the whole, mean relatively little.
Albert Jay Nock once said that words are mere abstractions, and that “anything can be made to mean anything.”
How many outcomes in landmark Supreme Court cases have hinged on definitions of a single word? Think “General Welfare,” “Interstate Commerce,” “Free Speech”, “Separate but equal”…alright, well those are more than one word, but you get the idea. If a justice wanted a large federal government, he could define “general welfare” as anything from providing health care, public utilities, and national parks (none of which are stated in the Constitution). If another wanted a small federal government, she could define “general welfare” to mean only that which follows the powers explicitly enumerated in Article I.
What matters to me, and what should in my opinion, matter to everyone, is the beliefs behind the labels. The relevant debate between “anarchocommunists” and “anarchocapitalists” is NOT “what does anarchism mean?” or “are you really an anarchist?” but “is wage labor exploitative?” and “is money necessary?” for example. I don’t care what you call my beliefs; I only care that the ideas are getting out there, exchanged, tested, and sent through a logical bullshit filter: a free market of ideas, with the survival of the fittest idea. You could call my beliefs “aoiewjhf209f3j” and it wouldn’t make a difference to me…though it might be hard to pronounce.
Against the Ancap Orthodoxy
While I largely still associate with just about all ancap ideas, I am concerned with several positions taken by hardline anarchocapitalists. Most of them have to do with private property rights (which of course, I support):
First, should (must?) property rights be absolute? If I own a piece of land and a house, can I do anything I want on the property? Can I kill someone with a shotgun the second they step on my grass? Or kidnap them and hold them hostage in my basement? Now, these might seem like extreme cases, and a standard answer that you are further initiating unjust aggression against them might suffice as a reply. However there are some ancaps who will justify any action partaken on one’s private property as just per se.
Second, must (can?) they be defined by an objective method? For example, does it necessarily follow that they are defined by a straight deduction from the nonaggression axiom or from the utilitarian calculus? Where are the property boundaries? Does property expand in three dimension – the air and sky above and the soil below? How far? Is it not defined by an intersubjective consensus in each community/country? Certainly different countries have different conceptions of property boundaries?
Third, many ancaps tend to have a knee-jerk response to any socialist inclinations, instantly denouncing them. While many socialist ideas, particularly concerning economics are misguided or utopian, certainly that does not qualify an instant write-off of their ideas or strategies. Should they not have the right to experiment with social organizations, provided that they not employ aggression and provided that they allow free entry and exit?
Finally, many ancaps are seen, and not unjustly so, as mere apologetics for the status quo, the so called “vulgar libertarians.” Justifying any move that corporations make as legitimate capitalist actions does not float with me, and devolves back into my first objection. The current system has a mixed dosage of free markets and state-socialism, the combination is correctly called capitalism. Anarchocapitalists must repudiate capitalism to the degree that it contains state socialism, and only praise the free market elements.
Anyone that knows me personally will know that I am undergoing a re-evaluation of my approach to ethics. Coming out of a Rothbardian binge of natural-rights, I have come to realize that “natural rights” per se are devoid of meaning. What “natural right to life” does a drowning man have? The ocean will not dry up so that he may live. And so on…but that’s another story for another time.
To my fellow ancaps, have I sold out? I do not think so. I have not abandoned the principles that lead to universal liberty, I have not given preference to any group of humans over others, and I have not advocated violence.
Branching Out
I find it the hallmark of intellectual honesty and maturity to be able to alter your beliefs rather quickly. Flip-flopping constantly of course is no virtue, but enabling yourself to see the flaws in your own opinion and to correct them without an instinctual fallback to dogmatic talking points and ex post facto justification is.
I have opened up my toleration to consider elements of anti-state socialism and left-libertarianism. While I personally believe that firms and individuals acting as entrepreneurs under the profit-motive can efficiently and justly solve any social problem that there is a demand for, I do not discount other viable means – nonprofits, charities, mutual aid societies, workers councils, and other voluntary associations. I only have a single “freedom test” to see if a solution is appropriate – “Can I freely leave if I do not like your proposal?” If one does not allow my individual secession, and will prevent it by violence, it has lost my support.
I envision a society that follows the operation of the market in every way – the free market for goods extends to ideas, and even societies. In the market for societies, those forms of social organization that were most efficient and made all their constituents the most happy would prevail, and those forms of society that squander resources and do not make their people happy would be avoided. It is the profit-and-loss test, so vital for the economization of resources and industries, applied to society. And who am I to say that ONLY one method would win out over all others? I cannot predict the future with apodictic certainty. And neither do I believe my personal aesthetics trump the spontaneous voluntary interactions between billions of individuals.
On that final point, I would like to unveil my new, broader outlook. I will soon complete my piece on “The Emergent Order,” which I consider to be my masterpiece, the blueprint to my opinion on all subjects. I expect it to replace my current “About” page, so that it will serve as an excellent introduction to all of my work.
Thus, while certain individual debates with people who identify with such terms as “anarchist,” “socialist,” and other left-variants have prompted me to make this consideration, many new beliefs I have discovered on my own have prompted me to make this nominal switch.
A Replacement Term
This is the hard part. I must encompass all that I am trying to say, which the average man can get the jist of simply by grappling with the connotations, and it mustn’t piss off other groups by stealing their words, all in only one or two words. If possible, it must also connect to prominent anarchocapitalist/libertarian theorists.
Simply saying “libertarian” is far too broad. Not only can it be confused with capitalized “Libertarian,” a political party (and I do NOT want to associate with a political party by definition), but it also has become an umbrella term for minarchists, constitutionalists, socially liberal conservatives, fiscally conservative liberals, classical liberals, and anarchocapitalists. While if I were to introduce myself to someone unable to abstract beyond left-and-right, I would use “libertarian” as an introduction, I seek a term to convey to my more enlightened friends and acquaintances.
The typical alternative to “anarchocapitalism” is “(free) market anarchism,” which is a quantum leap better, but only corrects half of the problem: “Capitalism” is in fact replaced with the correct reference to unhampered markets. However, “anarchism” remains, and most anarchists are not aiming at a free market.
“Voluntarism” is much better, neither making reference to capitalism nor anarchism – which has both strengths and weaknesses.
What I think I have settled on is “market emergentism.” It stresses two important aspects – that it is a free market, and that it is a spontaneous, emergent order.
Any residual use of the term “anarchocapitalism” on my website is either due to the fact that I have written my pieces prior to this date (and I don’t care to go back and fix them), or I wish to make references to the ideology that chooses to label itself as such. Henceforth, I shall cease and desist using the terms “anarchism,” “capitalism,” or any combination thereof to the best of my ability.
