1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
|
<html>
<head>
<title>F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?
</title>
</head>
<h1>F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?</h1>
<p>
"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which <i>"no land areas,
no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'"</i> in other words
<b>everything</b> will be <i>"privatised."</i> [Murray Rothbard, <b>Nations by
Consent</b>, p. 84] They claim that privatising "the commons" (e.g. roads,
parks, etc.) which are now freely available to all will increase liberty.
Is this true? Here we will concern ourselves with private ownership of
commonly used "property" which we all take for granted (and often pay for
with taxes).
</p><p>
Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based
on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard [<b>For a New
Liberty</b>, pp. 202-203] and David Friedman [<b>The Machinery of Freedom</b>,
pp. 98-101]) that the only increase of liberty will be for the ruling elite.
As "anarcho"-capitalism is based on paying for what one uses, privatisation
of roads would require some method of tracking individuals to ensure that
they pay for the roads they use. In the UK, for example, during the 1980s
the British Tory government looked into the idea of toll-based motorways.
Obviously having toll-booths on motorways would hinder their use and restrict
"freedom," and so they came up with the idea of tracking cars by satellite.
Every vehicle would have a tracking device installed in it and a satellite
would record where people went and which roads they used. They would then
be sent a bill or have their bank balances debited based on this information
(in the fascist city-state/company town of Singapore such a scheme <b>has</b>
been introduced). In London, the local government has introduced a scheme
which allowed people to pay for public transport by electronic card. It also
allowed the government to keep a detailed record of where and when people
travelled, with obvious civil liberty implications.
</p><p>
If we extrapolate from these to a system of <b>fully</b> privatised
"commons," it would clearly require all individuals to have tracking
devices on them so they could be properly billed for use of roads,
pavements, etc. Obviously being tracked by private firms would be a
serious threat to individual liberty. Another, less costly, option would
be for private guards to randomly stop and question car-owners and
individuals to make sure they had paid for the use of the road or pavement
in question. "Parasites" would be arrested and fined or locked up. Again,
however, being stopped and questioned by uniformed individuals has more
in common with police states than liberty. Toll-boothing <b>every</b> street
would be highly unfeasible due to the costs involved and difficulties for
use that it implies. Thus the idea of privatising roads and charging
drivers to gain access seems impractical at best and distinctly freedom
endangering at worse. Would giving companies that information for all
travellers, including pedestrians, <b>really</b> eliminate all civil
liberty concerns?
</p><p>
Of course, the option of owners letting users have free access to the
roads and pavements they construct and run would be difficult for a
profit-based company. No one could make a profit in that case. If
companies paid to construct roads for their customers/employees to use,
they would be financially hindered in competition with other companies
that did not, and thus would be unlikely to do so. If they restricted
use purely to their own customers, the tracking problem appears again.
So the costs in creating a transport network and then running it explains
why capitalism has always turned to state aid to provide infrastructure
(the potential power of the owners of such investments in charging
monopoly prices to other capitalists explains why states have also
often regulated transport).
</p><p>
Some may object that this picture of extensive surveillance of
individuals would not occur or be impossible. However, Murray
Rothbard (in a slightly different context) argued that technology
would be available to collate information about individuals. He
argued that <i>"[i]t should be pointed out that modern technology
makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of
information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or
violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an
anarchist [sic!] society would see the expansion of this sort of
dissemination of data."</i> [<b>Society Without A State"</b>, p. 199]
So with the total privatisation of society we could also
see the rise of private Big Brothers, collecting information about
individuals for use by property owners. The example of the <b>Economic
League</b> (a British company which provided the "service" of tracking
the political affiliations and activities of workers for employers)
springs to mind.
</p><p>
And, of course, these privatisation suggestions ignore differences in
income and market power. If, for example, variable pricing is used to
discourage road use at times of peak demand (to eliminate traffic jams
at rush-hour) as is suggested both by Murray Rothbard and David Friedman,
then the rich will have far more "freedom" to travel than the rest of
the population. And we may even see people having to go into debt just
to get to work or move to look for work.
</p><p>
Which raises another problem with notion of total privatisation, the
problem that it implies the end of freedom of travel. Unless you get
permission or (and this seems more likely) pay for access, you will
not be able to travel <b>anywhere.</b> As Rothbard <b>himself</b> makes clear,
"anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam. He states that
<i>"it became clear to me that a totally privatised country would not
have open borders at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned
. . . no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed
to rent, or purchase, property."</i> What happens to those who cannot
<b>afford</b> to pay for access or travel (i.e., exit) is not addressed
(perhaps, being unable to exit a given capitalist's land they will become
bonded labourers? Or be imprisoned and used to undercut workers' wages
via prison labour? Perhaps they will just be shot as trespassers? Who can
tell?). Nor is it addressed how this situation actually <b>increases</b>
freedom. For Rothbard, a <i>"totally
privatised country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and
property owners [<b>not</b> the same thing, we must point out] desire.
It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists
<b>de facto</b> in the US really amounts to a compulsory opening by
the central state. . . and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of
the proprietors."</i> [<b>Nations by Consent</b>, p. 84 and p. 85]
Of course, the wishes of <b>non</b>-proprietors (the vast majority)
do not matter in the slightest. Thus, it is clear, that with the
privatisation of "the commons" the right to roam, to travel, would
become a privilege, subject to the laws and rules of the property
owners. This can hardly be said to <b>increase</b> freedom for anyone
bar the capitalist class.
</p><p>
Rothbard acknowledges that <i>"in a fully privatised world, access
rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership."</i>
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 86] Given that there is no free lunch, we can
imagine we would have to pay for such "rights." The implications
of this are obviously unappealing and an obvious danger to individual
freedom. The problem of access associated with the idea of privatising
the roads can only be avoided by having a "right of passage" encoded
into the "general libertarian law code." This would mean that road
owners would be required, by law, to let anyone use them. But where
are "absolute" property rights in this case? Are the owners of roads
not to have the same rights as other owners? And if "right of passage"
is enforced, what would this mean for road owners when people sue
them for car-pollution related illnesses? (The right of those injured by pollution
to sue polluters is the main way "anarcho"-capitalists propose to protect
the environment -- see <a href="secE4.html">section E.4</a>). It is unlikely that those
wishing to bring suit could find, never mind sue, the millions of individual
car owners who could have potentially caused their illness. Hence the
road-owners would be sued for letting polluting (or unsafe) cars onto "their"
roads. The road-owners would therefore desire to restrict pollution levels
by restricting the right to use their property, and so would resist the
"right of passage" as an "attack" on their "absolute" property rights. If
the road-owners got their way (which would be highly likely given the
need for "absolute" property rights and is suggested by the variable
pricing way to avoid traffic jams mentioned above) and were able to control
who used their property, freedom to travel would be <b>very</b> restricted and
limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." Indeed, Murray
Rothbard supports such a regime (<i>"In the free [sic!] society, they
[travellers] would, in the first instance, have the right to travel
only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there."</i> [<b>The
Ethics of Liberty</b>, p. 119]). The threat to liberty in such a system
is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and other right-"libertarians", of
course.
</p><p>
To take another example, let us consider the privatisation of parks,
streets and other public areas. Currently, individuals can use these areas
to hold political demonstrations, hand out leaflets, picket and so on.
However, under "anarcho"-capitalism the owners of such property can
restrict such liberties if they desire, calling such activities "initiation
of force" (although they cannot explain how speaking your mind is an
example of "force"). Therefore, freedom of speech, assembly and a host
of other liberties we take for granted would be eliminated under a
right-"libertarian" regime. Or, taking the case of pickets and other
forms of social struggle, its clear that privatising "the commons"
would only benefit the bosses. Strikers or political activists picketing or
handing out leaflets in shopping centres are quickly ejected by private
security even today. Think about how much worse it would become under
"anarcho"-capitalism when the whole world becomes a series of malls -- it
would be impossible to hold a picket when the owner of the pavement objects
(as Rothbard himself gleefully argued. [<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 132]). If the
owner of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, which
Rothbard himself considered most likely, then workers' rights would be
zero. Perhaps we could also see capitalists suing working class
organisations for littering their property if they do hand
out leaflets (so placing even greater stress on limited resources).
</p><p>
The I.W.W. went down in history for its rigorous defence of freedom of
speech because of its rightly famous "free speech" fights in numerous
American cities and towns. The city bosses worried by the wobblies'
open air public meetings simply made them illegal. The I.W.W. used
direct action and carried on holding them. Violence was inflicted
upon wobblies who joined the struggle by "private citizens," but
in the end the I.W.W. won (for Emma Goldman's account of the San Diego
struggle and the terrible repression inflicted on the libertarians by
the "patriotic" vigilantes see <b>Living My Life</b> [vol. 1, pp. 494-503]).
Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have been
"criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused to allow
"subversives" to use them to argue their case. If they refused to
acknowledge the decree of the property owners, private cops would have
taken them away. Given that those who controlled city government in
the historical example were the wealthiest citizens in town, its likely
that the same people would have been involved in the fictional
("anarcho"-capitalist) account. Is it a good thing that in the real
account the wobblies are hailed as heroes of freedom but in the fictional
one they are "criminal aggressors"? Does converting public spaces into
private property <b>really</b> stop restrictions on free speech being a
bad thing?
</p><p>
Of course, Rothbard (and other right-"libertarians") are aware that
privatisation will not remove restrictions on freedom of speech,
association and so on (while, at the same time, trying to portray
themselves as supporters of such liberties!). However, for them such
restrictions are of no consequence. As Rothbard argues, any <i>"prohibitions
would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence
or for use of some person's or community's land area."</i> [<b>Nations
by Consent</b>, p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-"libertarians"
to the commonality between private property and the state we first
noted in <a href="secF1.html">section F.1</a>. The
state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the
requirement for taking up residence in its territory. As Tucker noted,
the state can be defined as (in part) <i>"the assumption of sole
authority over a given area and all within it."</i> [<b>The Individualist
Anarchists</b>, p. 24] If the property owners can determine
"prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the
property then they are the <i>"sole authority over a given area
and all within it,"</i> i.e. a state. Thus privatising "the commons"
means subjecting the non-property owners to the rules and laws
of the property owners -- in effect, privatising the state and
turning the world into a series of monarchies and oligarchies
without the pretence of democracy and democratic rights.
</p><p>
These examples can hardly be said to be increasing liberty for society as
a whole, although "anarcho"-capitalists seem to think they would. So far
from <b>increasing</b> liberty for all, then, privatising the commons would
only increase it for the ruling elite, by giving them yet another monopoly
from which to collect income and exercise their power over. It would
<b>reduce</b> freedom for everyone else. Ironically, therefore, Rothbard
ideology provides more than enough evidence to confirm the anarchist argument
that private property and liberty are fundamentally in conflict. <i>"It goes
without saying that th[e] absolute freedom of thought, speech, and action"</i>
anarchists support <i>"is incompatible with the maintenance of institutions
that restrict free thought, rigidify speech in the form of a final and
irrevocable vow, and even dictate that the worker fold his arms and die
of hunger at the owners' command."</i> [Elisee Reclus, quoted by John P. Clark
and Camille Martin (eds.), <b>Anarchy, Geography, Modernity</b>, p. 159]
As Peter Marshall notes, <i>"[i]n the name of freedom, the anarcho-capitalists
would like to turn public spaces into private property, but freedom does not
flourish behind high fences protected by private companies but expands in the
open air when it is enjoyed by all."</i> [<b>Demanding the Impossible</b>, p. 564]
</p><p>
Little wonder Proudhon argued that <i>"if the public highway is nothing but
an accessory of private property; if the communal lands are converted into
private property; if the public domain, in short, is guarded, exploited,
leased, and sold like private property -- what remains for the proletaire?
Of what advantage is it to him that society has left the state of war to
enter the regime of police?"</i> [<b>System of Economic Contradictions</b>, p. 371]
</p>
</body>
</html>
|
