File: sectionF.txt

package info (click to toggle)
anarchism 9.5-1
  • links: PTS
  • area: main
  • in suites: woody
  • size: 12,192 kB
  • ctags: 493
  • sloc: makefile: 40; sh: 8
file content (8860 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 547,045 bytes parent folder | download
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
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
7030
7031
7032
7033
7034
7035
7036
7037
7038
7039
7040
7041
7042
7043
7044
7045
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7051
7052
7053
7054
7055
7056
7057
7058
7059
7060
7061
7062
7063
7064
7065
7066
7067
7068
7069
7070
7071
7072
7073
7074
7075
7076
7077
7078
7079
7080
7081
7082
7083
7084
7085
7086
7087
7088
7089
7090
7091
7092
7093
7094
7095
7096
7097
7098
7099
7100
7101
7102
7103
7104
7105
7106
7107
7108
7109
7110
7111
7112
7113
7114
7115
7116
7117
7118
7119
7120
7121
7122
7123
7124
7125
7126
7127
7128
7129
7130
7131
7132
7133
7134
7135
7136
7137
7138
7139
7140
7141
7142
7143
7144
7145
7146
7147
7148
7149
7150
7151
7152
7153
7154
7155
7156
7157
7158
7159
7160
7161
7162
7163
7164
7165
7166
7167
7168
7169
7170
7171
7172
7173
7174
7175
7176
7177
7178
7179
7180
7181
7182
7183
7184
7185
7186
7187
7188
7189
7190
7191
7192
7193
7194
7195
7196
7197
7198
7199
7200
7201
7202
7203
7204
7205
7206
7207
7208
7209
7210
7211
7212
7213
7214
7215
7216
7217
7218
7219
7220
7221
7222
7223
7224
7225
7226
7227
7228
7229
7230
7231
7232
7233
7234
7235
7236
7237
7238
7239
7240
7241
7242
7243
7244
7245
7246
7247
7248
7249
7250
7251
7252
7253
7254
7255
7256
7257
7258
7259
7260
7261
7262
7263
7264
7265
7266
7267
7268
7269
7270
7271
7272
7273
7274
7275
7276
7277
7278
7279
7280
7281
7282
7283
7284
7285
7286
7287
7288
7289
7290
7291
7292
7293
7294
7295
7296
7297
7298
7299
7300
7301
7302
7303
7304
7305
7306
7307
7308
7309
7310
7311
7312
7313
7314
7315
7316
7317
7318
7319
7320
7321
7322
7323
7324
7325
7326
7327
7328
7329
7330
7331
7332
7333
7334
7335
7336
7337
7338
7339
7340
7341
7342
7343
7344
7345
7346
7347
7348
7349
7350
7351
7352
7353
7354
7355
7356
7357
7358
7359
7360
7361
7362
7363
7364
7365
7366
7367
7368
7369
7370
7371
7372
7373
7374
7375
7376
7377
7378
7379
7380
7381
7382
7383
7384
7385
7386
7387
7388
7389
7390
7391
7392
7393
7394
7395
7396
7397
7398
7399
7400
7401
7402
7403
7404
7405
7406
7407
7408
7409
7410
7411
7412
7413
7414
7415
7416
7417
7418
7419
7420
7421
7422
7423
7424
7425
7426
7427
7428
7429
7430
7431
7432
7433
7434
7435
7436
7437
7438
7439
7440
7441
7442
7443
7444
7445
7446
7447
7448
7449
7450
7451
7452
7453
7454
7455
7456
7457
7458
7459
7460
7461
7462
7463
7464
7465
7466
7467
7468
7469
7470
7471
7472
7473
7474
7475
7476
7477
7478
7479
7480
7481
7482
7483
7484
7485
7486
7487
7488
7489
7490
7491
7492
7493
7494
7495
7496
7497
7498
7499
7500
7501
7502
7503
7504
7505
7506
7507
7508
7509
7510
7511
7512
7513
7514
7515
7516
7517
7518
7519
7520
7521
7522
7523
7524
7525
7526
7527
7528
7529
7530
7531
7532
7533
7534
7535
7536
7537
7538
7539
7540
7541
7542
7543
7544
7545
7546
7547
7548
7549
7550
7551
7552
7553
7554
7555
7556
7557
7558
7559
7560
7561
7562
7563
7564
7565
7566
7567
7568
7569
7570
7571
7572
7573
7574
7575
7576
7577
7578
7579
7580
7581
7582
7583
7584
7585
7586
7587
7588
7589
7590
7591
7592
7593
7594
7595
7596
7597
7598
7599
7600
7601
7602
7603
7604
7605
7606
7607
7608
7609
7610
7611
7612
7613
7614
7615
7616
7617
7618
7619
7620
7621
7622
7623
7624
7625
7626
7627
7628
7629
7630
7631
7632
7633
7634
7635
7636
7637
7638
7639
7640
7641
7642
7643
7644
7645
7646
7647
7648
7649
7650
7651
7652
7653
7654
7655
7656
7657
7658
7659
7660
7661
7662
7663
7664
7665
7666
7667
7668
7669
7670
7671
7672
7673
7674
7675
7676
7677
7678
7679
7680
7681
7682
7683
7684
7685
7686
7687
7688
7689
7690
7691
7692
7693
7694
7695
7696
7697
7698
7699
7700
7701
7702
7703
7704
7705
7706
7707
7708
7709
7710
7711
7712
7713
7714
7715
7716
7717
7718
7719
7720
7721
7722
7723
7724
7725
7726
7727
7728
7729
7730
7731
7732
7733
7734
7735
7736
7737
7738
7739
7740
7741
7742
7743
7744
7745
7746
7747
7748
7749
7750
7751
7752
7753
7754
7755
7756
7757
7758
7759
7760
7761
7762
7763
7764
7765
7766
7767
7768
7769
7770
7771
7772
7773
7774
7775
7776
7777
7778
7779
7780
7781
7782
7783
7784
7785
7786
7787
7788
7789
7790
7791
7792
7793
7794
7795
7796
7797
7798
7799
7800
7801
7802
7803
7804
7805
7806
7807
7808
7809
7810
7811
7812
7813
7814
7815
7816
7817
7818
7819
7820
7821
7822
7823
7824
7825
7826
7827
7828
7829
7830
7831
7832
7833
7834
7835
7836
7837
7838
7839
7840
7841
7842
7843
7844
7845
7846
7847
7848
7849
7850
7851
7852
7853
7854
7855
7856
7857
7858
7859
7860
7861
7862
7863
7864
7865
7866
7867
7868
7869
7870
7871
7872
7873
7874
7875
7876
7877
7878
7879
7880
7881
7882
7883
7884
7885
7886
7887
7888
7889
7890
7891
7892
7893
7894
7895
7896
7897
7898
7899
7900
7901
7902
7903
7904
7905
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7911
7912
7913
7914
7915
7916
7917
7918
7919
7920
7921
7922
7923
7924
7925
7926
7927
7928
7929
7930
7931
7932
7933
7934
7935
7936
7937
7938
7939
7940
7941
7942
7943
7944
7945
7946
7947
7948
7949
7950
7951
7952
7953
7954
7955
7956
7957
7958
7959
7960
7961
7962
7963
7964
7965
7966
7967
7968
7969
7970
7971
7972
7973
7974
7975
7976
7977
7978
7979
7980
7981
7982
7983
7984
7985
7986
7987
7988
7989
7990
7991
7992
7993
7994
7995
7996
7997
7998
7999
8000
8001
8002
8003
8004
8005
8006
8007
8008
8009
8010
8011
8012
8013
8014
8015
8016
8017
8018
8019
8020
8021
8022
8023
8024
8025
8026
8027
8028
8029
8030
8031
8032
8033
8034
8035
8036
8037
8038
8039
8040
8041
8042
8043
8044
8045
8046
8047
8048
8049
8050
8051
8052
8053
8054
8055
8056
8057
8058
8059
8060
8061
8062
8063
8064
8065
8066
8067
8068
8069
8070
8071
8072
8073
8074
8075
8076
8077
8078
8079
8080
8081
8082
8083
8084
8085
8086
8087
8088
8089
8090
8091
8092
8093
8094
8095
8096
8097
8098
8099
8100
8101
8102
8103
8104
8105
8106
8107
8108
8109
8110
8111
8112
8113
8114
8115
8116
8117
8118
8119
8120
8121
8122
8123
8124
8125
8126
8127
8128
8129
8130
8131
8132
8133
8134
8135
8136
8137
8138
8139
8140
8141
8142
8143
8144
8145
8146
8147
8148
8149
8150
8151
8152
8153
8154
8155
8156
8157
8158
8159
8160
8161
8162
8163
8164
8165
8166
8167
8168
8169
8170
8171
8172
8173
8174
8175
8176
8177
8178
8179
8180
8181
8182
8183
8184
8185
8186
8187
8188
8189
8190
8191
8192
8193
8194
8195
8196
8197
8198
8199
8200
8201
8202
8203
8204
8205
8206
8207
8208
8209
8210
8211
8212
8213
8214
8215
8216
8217
8218
8219
8220
8221
8222
8223
8224
8225
8226
8227
8228
8229
8230
8231
8232
8233
8234
8235
8236
8237
8238
8239
8240
8241
8242
8243
8244
8245
8246
8247
8248
8249
8250
8251
8252
8253
8254
8255
8256
8257
8258
8259
8260
8261
8262
8263
8264
8265
8266
8267
8268
8269
8270
8271
8272
8273
8274
8275
8276
8277
8278
8279
8280
8281
8282
8283
8284
8285
8286
8287
8288
8289
8290
8291
8292
8293
8294
8295
8296
8297
8298
8299
8300
8301
8302
8303
8304
8305
8306
8307
8308
8309
8310
8311
8312
8313
8314
8315
8316
8317
8318
8319
8320
8321
8322
8323
8324
8325
8326
8327
8328
8329
8330
8331
8332
8333
8334
8335
8336
8337
8338
8339
8340
8341
8342
8343
8344
8345
8346
8347
8348
8349
8350
8351
8352
8353
8354
8355
8356
8357
8358
8359
8360
8361
8362
8363
8364
8365
8366
8367
8368
8369
8370
8371
8372
8373
8374
8375
8376
8377
8378
8379
8380
8381
8382
8383
8384
8385
8386
8387
8388
8389
8390
8391
8392
8393
8394
8395
8396
8397
8398
8399
8400
8401
8402
8403
8404
8405
8406
8407
8408
8409
8410
8411
8412
8413
8414
8415
8416
8417
8418
8419
8420
8421
8422
8423
8424
8425
8426
8427
8428
8429
8430
8431
8432
8433
8434
8435
8436
8437
8438
8439
8440
8441
8442
8443
8444
8445
8446
8447
8448
8449
8450
8451
8452
8453
8454
8455
8456
8457
8458
8459
8460
8461
8462
8463
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8480
8481
8482
8483
8484
8485
8486
8487
8488
8489
8490
8491
8492
8493
8494
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
8501
8502
8503
8504
8505
8506
8507
8508
8509
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
8519
8520
8521
8522
8523
8524
8525
8526
8527
8528
8529
8530
8531
8532
8533
8534
8535
8536
8537
8538
8539
8540
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
8550
8551
8552
8553
8554
8555
8556
8557
8558
8559
8560
8561
8562
8563
8564
8565
8566
8567
8568
8569
8570
8571
8572
8573
8574
8575
8576
8577
8578
8579
8580
8581
8582
8583
8584
8585
8586
8587
8588
8589
8590
8591
8592
8593
8594
8595
8596
8597
8598
8599
8600
8601
8602
8603
8604
8605
8606
8607
8608
8609
8610
8611
8612
8613
8614
8615
8616
8617
8618
8619
8620
8621
8622
8623
8624
8625
8626
8627
8628
8629
8630
8631
8632
8633
8634
8635
8636
8637
8638
8639
8640
8641
8642
8643
8644
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8650
8651
8652
8653
8654
8655
8656
8657
8658
8659
8660
8661
8662
8663
8664
8665
8666
8667
8668
8669
8670
8671
8672
8673
8674
8675
8676
8677
8678
8679
8680
8681
8682
8683
8684
8685
8686
8687
8688
8689
8690
8691
8692
8693
8694
8695
8696
8697
8698
8699
8700
8701
8702
8703
8704
8705
8706
8707
8708
8709
8710
8711
8712
8713
8714
8715
8716
8717
8718
8719
8720
8721
8722
8723
8724
8725
8726
8727
8728
8729
8730
8731
8732
8733
8734
8735
8736
8737
8738
8739
8740
8741
8742
8743
8744
8745
8746
8747
8748
8749
8750
8751
8752
8753
8754
8755
8756
8757
8758
8759
8760
8761
8762
8763
8764
8765
8766
8767
8768
8769
8770
8771
8772
8773
8774
8775
8776
8777
8778
8779
8780
8781
8782
8783
8784
8785
8786
8787
8788
8789
8790
8791
8792
8793
8794
8795
8796
8797
8798
8799
8800
8801
8802
8803
8804
8805
8806
8807
8808
8809
8810
8811
8812
8813
8814
8815
8816
8817
8818
8819
8820
8821
8822
8823
8824
8825
8826
8827
8828
8829
8830
8831
8832
8833
8834
8835
8836
8837
8838
8839
8840
8841
8842
8843
8844
8845
8846
8847
8848
8849
8850
8851
8852
8853
8854
8855
8856
8857
8858
8859
8860
Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?
	F.1.1 Why is the failure to renounce hierarchy the Achilles Heel 
 	      of right-wing libertarianism and "anarcho"-capitalism? 
	F.1.2 How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?
	F.1.3 Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in nature?

F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom?"
	F.2.1 What are the implications of defining liberty in  
	      terms of (property) rights?
	F.2.2 How does private property affect freedom?
	F.2.3 Can "anarcho"-capitalist theory justify the state?
	F.2.4 But surely transactions on the market are voluntary?
	F.2.5 But surely circumstances are the result of liberty  
	      and so cannot be objected to?
	F.2.6 Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery?
	F.2.7 But surely abolishing capitalism would restrict liberty?
	F.2.8 Why should we reject the "anarcho"-capitalist definitions 
	      of freedom and justice?

F.3 Why do "anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value 
    on "equality," and what do they mean by that term?
	F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?
	F.3.2 But what about "anarcho"-capitalist support for charity?

F.4 What is the right-libertarian position on private property?
	F.4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of property?
	F.4.2 Why is the "Lockean Proviso" important?
	F.4.3 How does private property affect individualism?
	F.4.4 How does private property affect relationships?
	F.4.5 Does private property co-ordinate without hierarchy?

F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?

F.6 Is "anarcho" capitalism against the state?
	F.6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?
 	F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?
 	F.6.3 But surely Market Forces will stop abuse by the rich?
 	F.6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?
 	F.6.5 What other effects would "free market" justice have?

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?
	F.7.1 Why "Natural Law" in the first place?
 	F.7.2 But "Natural Law" provides protection for individual 
 	      rights from violation by the State. Those against 
 	      Natural Law desire total rule by the state.
 	F.7.3 Why is "Natural Law" authoritarian?
	F.7.4 Does "Natural Law" actually provides protection for 
	      individual liberty?
 	F.7.5 But Natural Law was discovered, not invented!
	F.7.6 Why is the notion of "discovery" contradictory?

F.8 What role did the state take in the creation of capitalism?
	F.8.1 What social forces lay behind the rise of capitalism?
 	F.8.2 What was the social context of the statement "laissez-faire"?
 	F.8.3 What other forms did state intervention in creating 
 	      capitalism take?
	F.8.4 Aren't the enclosures a socialist myth?
	F.8.5 What about the lack of enclosures in the Americas?
 	F.8.6 How did working people view the rise of capitalism?
	F.8.7 Why is the history of capitalism important?

F.9 Is Medieval Iceland an example of "anarcho"-capitalism working in 
    practice?

F.10 Would laissez-faire capitalism be stable?
	F.10.1 Would privatising banking make capitalism stable?
	F.10.2 How does the labour market effect capitalism?
	F.10.3 Was laissez-faire capitalism stable?

Section F - Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

Anyone who has followed political discussion on the net has probably come
across people calling themselves libertarians but arguing from a right-wing,
pro-capitalist perspective. For most Europeans this is weird, as in Europe
the term "libertarian" is almost always used in conjunction with "socialist" 
or "communist." In the US, though, the Right has partially succeeded in
appropriating this term for itself. Even stranger, however, is that a few of 
these right-wingers have started calling themselves "anarchists" in what 
must be one of the finest examples of an oxymoron in the English language: 
'Anarcho-capitalist'!!

Arguing with fools is seldom rewarded, but to allow their foolishness to go
unchallenged risks allowing them to deceive those who are new to anarchism.
That's what this section of the anarchist FAQ is for, to show why the claims
of these "anarchist" capitalists are false. Anarchism has always been
anti-capitalist and any "anarchism" that claims otherwise cannot be part 
of the anarchist tradition. So this section of the FAQ does not reflect 
some kind of debate within anarchism, as many of these types like to pretend, 
but a debate between anarchism and its old enemy, capitalism. In many ways 
this debate mirrors the one between Peter Kropotkin and Herbert Spencer, an
English pro-capitalist, minimal statist, at the turn the 19th century
and, as such, it is hardly new.

The "anarcho"-capitalist argument hinges on using the dictionary definition 
of "anarchism" and/or "anarchy" - they try to define anarchism as being
"opposition to government," and nothing else. However, dictionaries are
hardly politically sophisticated and their definitions rarely reflect the
wide range of ideas associated with political theories and their history.
Thus the dictionary "definition" is anarchism will tend to ignore its 
consistent views on property, exploitation, property and capitalism (ideas
easily discovered if actual anarchist texts are read). And, of course, many 
dictionaries "define" anarchy as "chaos" or "disorder" but we never see 
"anarcho"-capitalists use that particular definition!

And for this strategy to work, a lot of "inconvenient" history and ideas 
from all branches of anarchism must be ignored. From individualists 
like Spooner and Tucker to communists like Kropotkin and Malatesta, 
anarchists have always been anti-capitalist (see section G for more on 
the anti-capitalist nature of individualist anarchism). Therefore 
"anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists in the same sense that 
rain is not dry.

Of course, we cannot stop the "anarcho"-capitalists using the words
"anarcho", "anarchism" and "anarchy" to describe their ideas. The
democracies of the west could not stop the Chinese Stalinist state calling 
itself the People's Republic of China. Nor could the social democrats
stop the fascists in Germany calling themselves "National Socialists".
Nor could the Italian anarcho-syndicalists stop the fascists using the
expression "National Syndicalism". This does not mean that any of these
movements actual name reflected their content -- China is a dictatorship,
not a democracy, the Nazi's were not socialists (capitalists made fortunes
in Nazi Germany because it crushed the labour movement), and the Italian 
fascist state had nothing in common with anarcho-syndicalists ideas of
decentralised, "from the bottom up" unions and the abolition of the
state and capitalism. 

Therefore, just because someone uses a label it does not mean that they
support the ideas associated with that label. And this is the case with 
"anarcho"-capitalism -- its ideas are at odds with the key ideas associated
with all forms of traditional anarchism (even individualist anarchism
which is often claimed as being a forefather of the ideology).

All we can do is indicate *why* "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of the
anarchist tradition and so has falsely appropriated the name. This section
of the FAQ aims to do just that -- present the case why "anarcho"-capitalists
are not anarchists. We do this, in part, by indicating where they differ
from genuine anarchists (on such essential issues as private property, 
equality, exploitation and opposition to hierarchy) In addition, we take 
the opportunity to present a general critique of right-libertarian claims 
from an anarchist perspective. In this way we show up why anarchists reject 
that theory as being opposed to liberty and anarchist ideals.

We are covering this topic in an anarchist FAQ for only one reason -- the
high number of "libertarian" and "anarcho"-capitalists on the net (likely 
a class-based phenomenon, based on ownership of computers!) As we
have extensively documented in earlier sections, anarchist theory has
always been anti-capitalist. There is no relationship between anarchism
and capitalism, in any form. Therefore, there is a need for this section
in order to indicate exactly why "anarcho"-capitalism is not anarchist.
We have, in earlier sections (see section B in particular), indicated why 
the idea of a "libertarian" capitalism is itself nonsense and will not 
repeat ourselves here.

So this section of the FAQ does not, as we noted above, represent some kind
of "debate" within anarchism. It reflects the attempt by anarchists to 
reclaim the history and meaning of anarchism from those who are attempting
to steal its name (just as right-wingers in America have attempted to
appropriate the name "libertarian" for their pro-capitalist views, and by
so doing ignore over 100 years of anti-capitalist usage). However, this
section also serves two other purposes. Firstly, critiquing right-libertarian
and "anarcho"-capitalist theories allows us to explain anarchist ones at
the same time and indicate why they are better. Secondly, and more 
importantly, the "ideas" and "ideals" that underlie "anarcho"-capitalism
are usually identical (or, at the very least, similar) to those of 
neo-liberalism (as Bob Black points outs, a "wing of the Reaganist Right 
has obviously appropriated, with suspect selectivity, such libertarian 
themes as deregulation and voluntarism. Ideologues indignant that Reagan 
has travestied their principles. Tough shit! I notice that it's their
principles, not mine, that he found suitable to travesty" [_The Libertarian
As Conservative_]). And as neo-liberalism is being used as the ideological
basis of the current attack on the working class, critiquing "anarcho"
capitalism and right-libertarianism also allows use to build theoretical
weapons to use to resist this attack and aid the class struggle.

A few more points before beginning. When debating with "libertarian" 
or "anarchist" capitalists it's necessary to remember that while they 
claim "real capitalism" does not exist (because all existing forms of 
capitalism are statist), they will claim that all the good things we 
have -- advanced medical technology, consumer choice of products, etc. 
-- are nevertheless due to "capitalism." Yet if you point out any problems 
in modern life, these will be blamed on "statism." Since there has never 
been and never will be a capitalist system without some sort of state, 
it's hard to argue against this "logic." Many actually use the example 
of the Internet as proof of the power of "capitalism," ignoring the 
fact that the state paid for its development before turning it over 
to companies to make a profit from it. Similar points can be made 
about numerous other products of "capitalism" and the world we live
in. To artificially separate one aspect of a complex evolution fails
to understand the nature and history of the capitalist system.

In addition to this ability to be selective about the history and 
results of capitalism, their theory has a great "escape clause." If 
wealthy employers abuse their power or the rights of the working class
(as they have always done), then they have (according to "libertarian"
ideology) ceased to be capitalists! This is based upon the misperception 
that an economic system that relies on force *cannot* be capitalistic. 
This is *very* handy as it can absolve the ideology from blame for any 
(excessive) oppression which results from its practice. Thus individuals
are always to blame, *not* the system that generated the opportunities for
abuse they freely used.

Anarchism has always been aware of the existence of "free market"
capitalism, particularly its extreme (minimal statist) wing, and has
always rejected it. For example, Proudhon noted that "the disciples of
Malthus and of Say, who oppose with all their might any intervention of
the State in matters commercial or industrial, do not fail to avail 
themselves of this seemingly liberal attitude, and to show themselves 
more revolutionary than the Revolution. More than one honest searcher
has been deceived thereby." However, this apparent "libertarian" attitude
of supporters of capitalism is false as pure free market capitalism 
cannot solve the social question, which arises because of capitalism
itself. Thus "this inaction of Power in economic matters [celebrated 
by the "free market" right] was the foundation of government. What 
need should we have of a political organisation, if Power once 
permitted us to enjoy economic order?" [_The General Idea of the 
Revolution_, p. 226] Instead of capitalism, Proudhon advocated the 
"constitution of Value," the "organisation of credit," the elimination 
of interest, the "establishment of workingmen's associations" and 
"the use of a just price." [Ibid., p. 233]

Thus anarchists have evaluated "free market" capitalism and rejected it
as non-anarchist over 150 years ago. Attempts by "anarcho"-capitalism to
say that their system is "anarchist" flies in the face of this long 
history of anarchist analysis.

More generally, we must stress that most (if not all) anarchists do not 
want to live in a society *just like this one* but without state coercion 
and (the initiation of) force. Anarchists do not confuse "freedom" with 
the "right" to govern and exploit others nor with being able to change 
masters. It is not enough to say we can start our own (co-operative) 
business in such a society. We want the abolition of the capitalist 
system of authoritarian relationships, not just a change of bosses 
or the possibility of little islands of liberty within a sea of 
capitalism (islands which are always in danger of being flooded 
and our activity destroyed). Thus, in this section of the FAQ, 
we analysis many "anarcho"-capitalist claims on their own terms 
(for example, the importance of equality in the market or why
capitalism cannot be reformed away by exchanges on the capitalist 
market) but that does not mean we desire a society nearly identical 
to the current one. Far from it, we want to transform this society 
into one more suited for developing and enriching individuality and
freedom. But before we can achieve that we must critically evaluate
the current society and point out its basic limitations.

Finally, we dedicate this section of the FAQ to those who have seen the 
real face of "free market" capitalism at work: the working men and women 
(anarchist or not) murdered in the jails and concentration camps or on the 
streets by the hired assassins of capitalism. 

F.1 Are "anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists?

In a word, no. While "anarcho"-capitalists obviously try to associate
themselves with the anarchist tradition by using the word "anarcho",
their ideas are distinctly at odds with those associated with anarchism.
Because of this any claims that their ideas are anarchist or that they
are part of the anarchist tradition or movement are false.

"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they 
oppose government. As such, as noted in the last section, they use 
a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate
that anarchism is a *political theory*, not a dictionary definition. 
As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means 
that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to
government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation
and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary
but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need 
to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As 
"anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e.
capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights,
they are not anarchists.

So in what ways do "anarcho"-capitalists differ from anarchists? There 
are three main ones:

Firstly, unlike both Individualist and Social anarchists,
"anarcho"-capitalists support capitalism (a "pure" free market type 
of capitalism). This means that they reject totally the ideas of anarchists 
with regards to property and economic analysis. For example, like all
supporters of capitalists they consider rent, profit and interest as
valid incomes. In contrast, all Anarchists consider these as exploitation
and agree with the Individualist Anarchist Tucker when argued that
"*[w]hoever* contributes to production is alone entitled. *What* has no
rights that *who* is bound to respect. *What* is a thing. *Who* is a person.
Things have no claims; they exist only to be claimed. The possession of
a right cannot be predicted of dead material, but only a living person."
[quoted by Wm. Gary Kline, _The Individualist Anarchists_, p. 73] (And this,
we must note, is the fundamental critique of the capitalist theory that 
capital is productive. In and of themselves, fixed costs do not create
value. Rather value is creation depends on how investments are developed
and used once in place. Because of this the Individualist Anarchists 
considered non-labour derived income as usury, unlike "anarcho"-capitalists).

Similarly, anarchists reject the notion of capitalist property rights in
favour of possession (including the full fruits of one's labour). For 
example, anarchists reject private ownership of land in favour of a 
"occupancy and use" regime. In this we follow Proudhon's _What is 
Property?_ and argue that "property is theft".

As these ideas are an *essential* part of anarchist politics, they cannot
be removed without seriously damaging the rest of the theory. This can
be seen from Tucker's comments that "*Liberty* insists. . . [on] the abolition 
of the State and the abolition of usury; on no more government of man by 
man, and no more exploitation of man by man." [cited by Eunice Schuster in 
_Native American Anarchism_, p. 140]. He indicates that anarchism has 
specific economic *and* political ideas, that it opposes capitalism along
with the state. Therefore anarchism was never purely a "political" concept, 
but always combined an opposition to oppression with an opposition to 
exploitation. The social anarchists made exactly the same point.  Which 
means that when Tucker argued that "*Liberty* insists on Socialism. . . - 
true Socialism, Anarchistic Socialism: the prevalence on earth of Liberty, 
Equality, and Solidarity" [_Instead of a Book_, p. 363] he knew exactly 
what he was saying and meant it whole heartedly.

This combination of the political and economic is essential as they mutually
reinforce each other. Without the economic ideas, the political ideas 
would be meaningless as inequality would make a mockery of them. As Kline
notes, the Individualist Anarchists' "proposals were designed to establish
true equality of opportunity . . . and they expected this would result in
a society without great wealth or poverty. In the absence of monopolistic
factors which would distort competition, they expected a society largely
of self-employed workmen with no significant disparity of wealth between
any of them since all would be required to live at their own expense and 
not at the expense of exploited fellow human beings." [Op. Cit., pp. 103-4]

By removing the underlying commitment to abolish non-labour income, any
"anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth
and so power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money
and so on, the economic power flowing from private property and capital 
would ensure that the majority remained in (to use Spooner's words) "the 
condition of servants" (see sections F.2 and F.3.1 for more on this). 
The Individualist Anarchists were aware of this danger and so supported
economic ideas that opposed usury (i.e. rent, profit and interest) and
ensured the worker the full value of her labour. While not all of them
called these ideas "socialist" it is clear that these ideas *are* socialist
in nature and in aim (similarly, not all the Individualist Anarchists
called themselves anarchists but their ideas are clearly anarchist in
nature and in aim).

Because "anarcho"-capitalists embrace capitalism and reject socialism, 
they cannot be considered anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition.

Which brings us nicely to the second point, namely a lack of concern for
equality. In stark contrast to anarchists of all schools, inequality
is not seen to be a problem with "anarcho"-capitalists (see section F.3). 
However, it is a truism that not all "traders" are equally subject to the 
market (i.e. have the same market power). In many cases, a few have 
sufficient control of resources to influence or determine price and in 
such cases, all others must submit to those terms or not buy the commodity. 
When the commodity is labour power, even this option is lacking -- workers 
have to accept a job in order to live. As we argue in section F.10.2, 
workers are usually at a disadvantage on the labour market when compared 
to capitalists, and this forces them to sell their liberty in return for 
making profits for others. These profits increase inequality in society
as the property owners receive the surplus value their workers produce. 
This increases inequality further, consolidating market power and so weakens
the bargaining position of workers further, ensuring that even the freest
competition possible could not eliminate class power and society (something 
B. Tucker recognised as occurring with the development of trusts within 
capitalism -- see section G.4). Little wonder Proudhon argued that the
law of supply and demand was a "deceitful law . . . suitable only for
assuring the victory of the strong over the weak, of those who own 
property over those who own nothing." [quoted by Alan Ritter, _The 
Political Thought of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 121]

Wage labour is a key way of creating, maintaining and increasing 
inequality (as well as being a source of domination and subordination, 
i.e. unfreedom). Needless to say, inequalities of power and wealth do 
not restrict themselves solely to workplaces nor is the damage of hierarchy 
upon individuals and their liberty limited to working hours. Both have a 
deep impact on the rest of society, expanding into *all* areas of life 
and restricting liberty everywhere (see section F.3 for a further 
discussion on this). You cannot isolate one aspect of life (i.e. work)
and believe that it will somehow not affect all others. However, the 
"anarcho"-capitalist seems to believe you can. 

Therefore anarchists recognise that "free exchange" in unequal circumstances 
will increase inequality between individuals and classes, *not* reduce it 
(and that inequality will produce social relationships which are based on 
hierarchy and domination, *not* freedom). As Noam Chomsky put it:

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of 'free
contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else." [_Noam Chomsky on 
Anarchism_, interview with Tom Lane, December 23, 1996]

Because of the evil effects of inequality on freedom, both the social 
and individualist anarchists desired to create an environment in which 
circumstances would not drive people to sell their liberty to others 
in return for wages. In other words, they desired an equalisation of 
market power by opposing interest, rent and profit and capitalist 
definitions of private property. Kline summarises this by saying "the 
American [individualist] anarchists exposed the tension existing in 
liberal thought between private property and the ideal of equal access. 
The Individual Anarchists were, at least, aware that existing conditions 
were far from ideal, that the system itself working against the majority 
of individuals in their efforts to attain its promises. Lack of capital, 
the means to creation and accumulation of wealth, usually doomed a 
labourer to a life of exploitation. This the anarchists knew and they 
abhorred such a system." [Op. Cit., p. 102]

And this desire for bargaining equality is reflected in their economic 
ideas and by removing these underlying economic ideas of the individualist
anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalism makes a mockery of any ideas they 
do appropriate. Essentially, the Individualist Anarchists agreed with
Rousseau that in order to prevent extreme inequality of fortunes you 
deprive people of the means to accumulate in the first place and 
*not* take away wealth from the rich. An important point which 
"anarcho"-capitalism fails to understand or appreciate.

In addition, we must note that such inequalities in power and wealth 
will need  "defending" from those subject to them ("anarcho"-capitalists 
recognise the need for private police and courts to defend property 
from theft -- and, anarchists add, to defend the theft and despotism 
associated with property!). Due to its support of private property (and 
thus authority), "anarcho"-capitalism ends up retaining a state in its 
"anarchy"; namely a *private* state whose existence its proponents 
attempt to deny simply by refusing to call it a state, like an 
ostrich hiding its head in the sand (see section F.6 for more 
on this and why "anarcho"-capitalism is better described as 
"private state" capitalism). 

For anarchists, this need of capitalism for some kind of state is 
unsurprising because:

"Anarchy without socialism seems equally as impossible to us [as socialism 
without anarchy], for in such a case it could not be other than the 
domination of the strongest, and would therefore set in motion right 
away the organisation and consolidation of this domination; that is 
to the constitution of government." [Errico Malatesta, _Life and Ideas_, 
p. 148]

Because of this, the "anarcho"-capitalist rejection of anarchist ideas on 
capitalist property economics and the need for equality, they cannot be 
considered anarchists or part of the anarchist tradition.

Thirdly, unlike anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists consider a society 
of generalised wage labour as a free and non-exploitative one -- but 
such a society is opposed by anarchists. Like all socialists, anarchists 
desire to see workers reunited with the means of production they use and 
so end the exploitation of workers by capitalists and landlords. In other 
words, when the Individual anarchists called themselves "socialists" they 
meant it (see section G for more details on this)! 

If we look at the work of Individualist Anarchist Lysander Spooner, we 
find that he considered capitalism to result in labourers becoming "mere 
tools and machines in the hands of their employers" and labour "only 
for the benefit of their employers." [_A Letter to Grover Cleveland_, 
p. 50] He considered the Money Monopoly (a combination of specie commodity
money and a 10% tax on non-registered banks) as "the one great obstacle
to the liberation of the labouring classes all over the world", a monopoly
created by "the employers of wage labour" to ensure necessity "compel[led]
them [the great body of wealth producers] . . . - by the alternative of
starvation - to sell their labour to the money monopolists." [Op. Cit., 
p. 49, p. 48, p. 20]

Such an analysis is essentially socialist in nature, recognising that 
apparently "free" markets create conditions which drive working class
people to sell their liberty on the market. Similarly, his vision of a
free society is also socialist, with wage labour no more. With the end 
of the money (and land) monopolies, he considered that "with few or no 
exceptions" working people would stop being wage slaves and become 
self-employed workers. In stark contrast to wage labour, he considered 
that free labour involved the worker "appl[ying] both his . . . head and 
his hands" [Op. Cit., p. 48, p. 50]. Thus Spooner recognised that under 
wage labour, there is a division of labour, with a few using their heads
(giving orders) and the many using their hands (following orders). 

"Committed as they were to equality in the pursuit of property," argues
Kline, "the objective for the anarchist became the construction of a
society providing equal access to those things necessary for creating
wealth. The goal of the anarchists who extolled mutualism and the
abolition of all monopolies was, then, a society where everyone willing
to work would have the tools and raw materials necessary for production
in a non-exploitative system . . .the dominant vision of the future 
society . . . [was] underpinned by individual, self-employed workers."
[Op. Cit., p. 95]

"Anarcho"-capitalists assume that generalised wage labour would remain
under their system (while paying lip-service to the possibilities of 
co-operatives -- and if an "anarcho"-capitalist thinks that co-operative
will become the dominant form of workplace organisation, then they are
some kind of market socialist, *not* a capitalist). It is clear that their 
end point (a pure capitalism, i.e. generalised wage labour) is directly 
the opposite of that desired by anarchists. This was the case of the 
Individualist Anarchists who embraced the ideal of (non-capitalist) 
laissez faire competition -- they did so, as noted, to *end* wage 
labour and usury, *not* to maintain them (indeed, their analysis of the 
change in American society from one of mainly independent producers into 
one based mainly upon wage labour has many parallels with, of all people, 
Karl Marx's presented in chapter 33 of _Capital_).

"Anarcho"-capitalists, in contrast, believe that it is likely that 
workplaces will remain hierarchical (i.e. capitalistic) even if the 
public state has been dissolved and that this is of no concern. This 
belief reveals the priority of their values: "efficiency" (the bottom 
line) is considered more important than eliminating the domination, 
coercion, and exploitation of workers. Similarly, they consider that
profits, interest and rent as valid sources of income while anarchists
oppose these as usury and exploitative.

Moreover, in practice, wage labour is a major source of oppression 
and authoritarianism within society -- there is little or no freedom 
within capitalist production (as Bakunin noted, "the worker sells his
person and his liberty for a given time"). So, in stark contrast to 
anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with factory fascism 
(i.e. wage labour), a position which seems highly illogical for a theory
calling itself libertarian. If it were truly libertarian, it would 
oppose all forms of domination, not just statism. This position flows 
from the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of freedom as the absence of 
coercion and will be discussed in section F.2 in more detail.

This whole-hearted support for wage labour and capitalist
property rights indicates that "anarcho"-capitalists are 
not anarchists because they do not reject all forms of 
*archy.* They obviously support the hierarchy between 
boss and worker (wage labour) and landlord and tenant. 
Anarchism, by definition, is against all forms of archy, 
including the hierarchy generated by capitalist property. 
To ignore the obvious archy associated with capitalist 
property is highly illogical.

The anti-anarchist nature of "anarcho"-capitalism can best
be seen by quoting a leading "anarcho"-capitalist, Murray
Rothbard. He argues, that the state "arrogates to itself a 
monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a 
given area territorial area." [Rothbard, _The Ethics of Liberty_, 
p. 170] In and of itself, this definition is unremarkable. 
Unfortunately for him (and "anarcho"-capitalist claims of
being anarchist), he also notes that capitalist property owners 
have similar powers. As he states, "[o]bviously, in a free 
society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over 
his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [Op. Cit., p. 173] 
and, equally obviously, this ultimate-decision making power 
extends to those who *use,* but do not own, such property
(i.e. tenants and workers). The statist nature of property
property is clearly indicated by Rothbard's words -- the
property owner in an "anarcho"-capitalist society possesses
the "ultimate decision-making power" over a given area, which
is also what the state has currently. 

As we argue in more depth in section F.2, "anarcho"-capitalism
cannot be considered as anarchist simply because they replace
the authority of the state with that of the property owner. Both
has "ultimate decision making power" over a given area and so over 
those who live in (or use) that area. The similarities between 
capitalism and statism are clear -- and so why "anarcho"-capitalism
cannot be anarchist. To reject the authority (the "ultimate 
decision-making power") of the state and embrace that of the 
property owner indicates not only a highly illogical stance but 
one at odds with the basic principles of anarchism.

Thus anarchism is far more than the common dictionary definition
of "no government" -- it also entails being against all forms of
*archy*, including those generated by capitalist property. This 
is clear from the roots of the word "anarchy." As we noted 
in section A.1, the word anarchy means "no rulers" or "contrary 
to authority." As Rothbard himself acknowledges, the property 
owner is the ruler of their property and, therefore, those who 
use it (hence Bakunin's above quoted comment that "the 
worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time").
For this reason "anarcho"-capitalism cannot be considered as
a form of anarchism -- a real anarchist must logically oppose 
the authority of the property owner along with that of the state.

Because "anarcho"-capitalism does not explicitly (or implicitly, for 
that matter) call for economic arrangements that will end wage labour 
and usury they cannot be considered anarchists or part of the anarchist 
tradition.

To conclude. 

Political theories should be identified by their actual features and 
history rather than labels. Once we recognise that, we soon find out that 
"anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchists and "anarcho"-capitalists 
are not part of the same movement or tradition. Their ideas and aims 
are in direct opposition to those of all kinds of anarchists. 

While anarchists have always opposed capitalism, "anarcho"-capitalists 
have embraced it. And due to this embrace their "anarchy" will be marked 
by extensive differences in wealth and power, differences that will show 
themselves up in relationships based upon subordination and hierarchy 
(such as wage labour), *not* freedom (little wonder that Proudhon 
argued that "property is despotism" -- it creates authoritarian and
hierarchical relationships between people in a similar way to statism).

Their support for "free market" capitalism ignores the impact of wealth 
and power on the nature and outcome of individual decisions within the 
market (see sections F.2 and F.3 for further discussion). For example, 
as we indicate in sections J.5.10, J.5.11 and J.5.12, wage labour is less 
efficient than self-management in production but due to the structure and 
dynamics of the capitalist market, "market forces" will actively discourage 
self-management due to its empowering nature for workers. In other words,
a developed capitalist market will promote hierarchy and unfreedom in 
production in spite of its effects on individual workers and their 
wants (see also section F.10.2). Thus "free market" capitalism tends 
to re-enforce inequalities of wealth and power, *not* eliminate them.

Furthermore, any such system of (economic and social) power will require 
extensive force to maintain it and the "anarcho"-capitalist system of 
competing "defence firms" will simply be a new state, enforcing 
capitalist power, property rights and law.

Overall, the lack of concern for meaningful freedom within production and 
the effects of vast differences in power and wealth within society as a 
whole makes "anarcho"-capitalism little better than "anarchism for the rich." 
Emma Goldman recognised this when she argued that "'Rugged individualism' 
has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters . . . in whose name
political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as 
virtues while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom . . . 
is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same individualism." 
[ _Red Emma Speaks_, p. 112] And, as such, is no anarchism at all.

So, unlike anarchists, "anarcho"-capitalists do not seek the "abolition
of the proletariat" (to use Proudhon's expression) via changing capitalist 
property rights and institutions. Thus the "anarcho"-capitalist and the 
anarchist have different starting positions and opposite ends in mind 
and so they cannot be considered part of the same (anarchist) tradition.

As we discuss further in later sections, the "anarcho"-capitalist
claims to being anarchists are bogus simply because they reject so much
of the anarchist tradition as to make what they do accept non-anarchist
in theory and practice. Little wonder Peter Marshall said that "few
anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist
camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and
social justice." [_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 565]

F.1.1 Why is the failure to renounce hierarchy the Achilles Heel of 
      right-wing libertarianism and "anarcho"-capitalism? 

Any capitalist system will produce vast differences in economic (and social)
wealth and power. As we argue in section F.3.1, such differences will
reflect themselves in the market and any "free" contracts agreed there 
will create hierarchical relationships. Thus capitalism is marked by
hierarchy (see section B.1.2) and, unsurprisingly, right-libertarians
and "anarcho"-capitalists fail to oppose such "free market" generated
hierarchy.

Both groups approve of it in the capitalist workplace or rented accommodation 
and the right-Libertarians also approve of it in a 'minimal' state to protect 
private property ("anarcho"-capitalists, in contrast, approve of the use
of private defence firms to protect property). But the failure of these 
two movements to renounce hierarchy is their weakest point. For 
anti-authoritarianism has sunk deep roots into the modern psyche, 
as a legacy of the sixties.

Many people who do not even know what anarchism is have been profoundly
affected by the personal liberation and counterculture movements of the
past thirty years, epitomised by the popular bumper sticker, "Question
Authority." As a result, society now tolerates much more choice than ever
before in matters of religion, sexuality, art, music, clothing, and other
components of lifestyle. We need only recall the conservatism that reigned
in such areas during the fifties to see that the idea of liberty has made
tremendous advances in just a few decades.

Although this liberatory impulse has so far been confined almost entirely
to the personal and cultural realms, it may yet be capable of spilling
over and affecting economic and political institutions, provided it
continues to grow. The Right is well aware of this, as seen in its ongoing
campaigns for "family values," school prayer, suppression of women's
rights, fundamentalist Christianity, sexual abstinence before marriage,
and other attempts to revive the Ozzie-and-Harriet mindset of the Good Old
Days. This is where the efforts of "cultural anarchists" -- artists,
musicians, poets, and others -- are important in keeping alive the ideal
of personal freedom and resistance to authority as a necessary foundation
for economic and political restructuring.

Indeed, the libertarian right (as a whole) support restrictions on freedom
*as long as its not the state that is doing it*! Their support for
capitalism means that they have no problem with bosses dictating what
workers do during working hours (nor outside working hours, if the job
requires employees to take drug tests or not be gay in order to keep it).
If a private landlord or company decrees a mandatory rule or mode of 
living, workers/tenets must "love it or leave it!" Of course, that the
same argument also applies to state laws is one hotly denied by 
right-Libertarians -- a definite case of not seeing the wood for the
trees (see section F.2.3).

Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will argue, workers and tenants can
find a more liberal boss or landlord. This, however, ignores two key facts.
Firstly, being able to move to a more liberal state hardly makes state
laws less offensive (as they themselves will be the first to point out).
Secondly, looking for a new job or home is not that easy. Just a moving
to a new state can involve drastic upheavals, so change changing jobs
and homes. Moreover, the job market is usually a buyers market (it has
to be in capitalism, otherwise profits are squeezed -- see sections C.7
and F.10.2) and this means that workers are not usually in a position 
(unless they organise) to demand increased liberties at work. 

It seems somewhat ironic, to say the least, that right-libertarians 
place rights of property over the rights of self-ownership, even though 
(according to their ideology) self-ownership is the foundational right 
from which property rights are derived. Thus in right-libertarianism the 
rights of property owners to discriminate and govern the property-less 
are more important than the freedom from discrimination (i.e. to be 
yourself) or the freedom to govern oneself at all times.

So, when it boils down to it, right-libertarians are not really bothered 
about restrictions on liberty and, indeed, they will defend private 
restrictions on liberty with all their might. This may seem a strange 
position for self-proclaimed "libertarians" to take, but it flows 
naturally from their definition of freedom (see section F.2 for a 
full discussion of this). but by not attacking hierarchy beyond certain 
forms of statism, the 'libertarian' right fundamentally undermines its 
claim to be libertarian. Freedom cannot be compartmentalised, but is 
holistic. The denial of liberty in, say, the workplace, quickly results 
in its being denied elsewhere in society (due to the impact of the
inequalities it would produce) , just as the degrading effects of wage 
labour and the hierarchies with which is it bound up are felt by the worker 
outside work. 

Neither the Libertarian Party nor so-called "anarcho"-capitalism is
*genuinely* anti-authoritarian, as those who are truly dedicated to 
liberty must be. 

F.1.2 How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?

The short answer is, not very. Liberty not only implies but also requires 
independent, critical thought (indeed, anarchists would argue that critical 
thought requires free development and evolution and that it is precisely
*this* which capitalist hierarchy crushes). For anarchists a libertarian 
theory, if it is to be worthy of the name, must be based upon critical 
thought and reflect the key aspect that characterises life - change and the 
ability to evolve. To hold up dogma and base "theory" upon assumptions (as 
opposed to facts) is the opposite of a libertarian frame of mind. A 
libertarian theory must be based upon reality and recognise the need 
for change and the existence of change. Unfortunately, right-Libertarianism 
is marked more by ideology than critical analysis.

Right-Libertarianism is characterised by a strong tendency of creating
theories based upon assumptions and deductions from these axioms (for a
discussion on the pre-scientific nature of this methodology and of its
dangers, see the next section). Robert Nozick, for example, in _Anarchy, 
State, and Utopia_ makes no attempt to provide a justification of the 
property rights his whole theory is based upon. His main assumption is 
that "[i]ndividuals have rights, and there are certain things no person 
or group may do to them (without violating their rights)." [_Anarchy, 
State and Utopia_, p. ix] While this does have its intuitive appeal, 
it is not much to base a political ideology upon. After all, what rights 
people consider as valid can be pretty subjective and have constantly 
evolved during history. To say that "individuals have rights" is to open up 
the question "what rights?" Indeed, as we argue in greater length in section
F.2, such a rights based system as Nozick desires can and does lead to 
situations developing in which people "consent" to be exploited and 
oppressed and that, intuitively, many people consider supporting the 
"violation" of these "certain rights" (by creating other ones) simply 
because of their evil consequences. 

In other words, starting from the assumption "people have [certain] rights" 
Nozick constructs a theory which, when faced with the reality of unfreedom 
and domination it would create for the many, justifies this unfreedom 
as an expression of liberty. In other words, regardless of the outcome,
the initial assumptions are what matter. Nozick's intuitive rights system 
can lead to some very non-intuitive outcomes.

And does Nozick prove the theory of property rights he assumes? He states 
that "we shall not formulate [it] here." [Op. Cit., p. 150] Moreover, it 
is not formulated anywhere else in his book. And if it is not formulated,
what is there to defend? Surely this means that his Libertarianism is 
without foundations? As Jonathan Wolff notes, Nozick's "Libertarian property 
rights remain substantially undefended." [_Robert Nozick: Property, Justice 
and the Minimal State_, p. 117] Given that the right to acquire property 
is critical to his whole theory you would think it important enough to go 
into in some detail (or at least document). After all, unless he provides us 
with a firm basis for property rights then his entitlement theory is nonsense 
as no one has the right to (private) property.

It could be argued that Nozick *does* present enough information to allow 
us to piece together a possible argument in favour of property rights 
based on his modification of the "Lockean Proviso" (although he does
not point us to these arguments). However, assuming this is the case, 
such a defence actually fails (see section B.3.4 for more on this). If individuals 
*do* have rights, these rights do not include property rights 
in the form Nozick assumes (but does not prove). Nozick appears initially 
convincing because what he assumes with regards to property is a normal 
feature of the society we are in (we would be forgiven when we note here 
that feeble arguments pass for convincing when they are on the same side 
as the prevailing sentiment). 

Similarly, both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand (who is infamous for repeating 
"A is A" ad infinitum) do the same - base their ideologies on assumptions 
(see section F.7 for more on this). 

Therefore, we see that most of the leading right-Libertarian ideologues 
base themselves on assumptions about what "Man" is or the rights they 
should have (usually in the form that people have (certain) rights because 
they are people). From these theorems and assumptions they build their 
respective ideologies, using logic to deduce the conclusions that their 
assumptions imply. Such a methodology is unscientific and, indeed, a relic 
of religious (pre-scientific) society (see next section) but, more 
importantly, can have negative effects on maximising liberty. This is
because this "methodology" has distinct problems. Murray Bookchin 
argues:

"Conventional reason rests on identity, not change; its fundamental 
principle is that *A equals A,* the famous 'principle of identity,' which 
means that any given phenomenon can be only itself and cannot be other than
what we immediately perceive it to be at a given moment in time. It does not
address the problem of change. A human being is an infant at one time, a
child at another, an adolescent at still another, and finally a youth and
an adult. When we analyse an infant by means of conventional reason, we
are not exploring what it is *becoming* in the process of developing into
a child." ["A Philosophical Naturalism", _Society and Nature_, No.2, p. 64]

In other words, right-Libertarian theory is based upon ignoring the
fundamental aspect of life - namely *change* and *evolution.* Perhaps
it will be argued that identity also accounts for change by including
potentiality -- which means, that we have the strange situation that 
A can *potentially* be A! If A is not actually A, but only has the 
potential to be A, then A is not A. Thus to include change is to 
acknowledge that A does not equal A -- that individuals and humanity 
evolves and so what constitutes A also changes. To maintain identity
and then to deny it seems strange.

That change is far from the "A is A" mentality can be seen from Murray 
Rothbard who goes so far as to state that "one of the notable attributes 
of natural law" is "its applicability to all men [sic!], regardless of 
time or place. Thus ethical law takes its place alongside physical or 
'scientific' natural laws." [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 42] Apparently 
the "nature of man" is the only living thing in nature that does not evolve 
or change! Of course, it could be argued that by "natural law" Rothbard is 
only referring to his method of deducing his (and, we stress, they are
just his -- not natural) "ethical laws" -- but his methodology starts
by assuming certain things about "man." Whether these assumptions seem
far or not is besides the point, by using the term "natural law" Rothbard
is arguing that any actions that violate *his* ethical laws are somehow
"against nature" (but if they were against nature, they could not occur 
-- see section F.7 for more on this). Deductions from assumptions is a
Procrustean bed for humanity (as Rothbard's ideology shows).

So, as can be seen, many leading right-Libertarians place great store
by the axiom "A is A" or that "man" has certain rights simply because 
"he" is a "man". And as Bookchin points out, such conventional reason 
"doubtless plays an indispensable role in mathematical thinking and 
mathematical sciences . . . and in the nuts-and-bolts of dealing with 
everyday life" and so is essential to "understand or design mechanical 
entities." [Ibid., p.67] But the question arises, is such reason 
useful when considering people and other forms of life?

Mechanical entities are but one (small) aspect of human life. Unfortunately 
for right-Libertarians (and fortunately for the rest of humanity), human 
beings are *not* mechanical entities but instead are living, breathing, 
feeling, hoping, dreaming, *changing* living organisms. They are not
mechanical entities and any theory that uses reason based on such 
(non-living) entities will flounder when faced with living ones. In 
other words, right-Libertarian theory treats people as the capitalist 
system tries to -- namely as commodities, as things. Instead of human 
beings, whose ideas, ideals and ethics change, develop and grow, capitalism 
and capitalist ideologues try to reduce human life to the level of corn or 
iron (by emphasising the unchanging "nature" of man and their starting
assumptions/rights). 

This can be seen from their support for wage labour, the reduction of
human activity to a commodity on the market. While paying lip service 
to liberty and life, right-libertarianism justifies the commodification 
of labour and life, which within a system of capitalist property rights
can result in the treating of people as means to an end as opposed 
to an end in themselves (see sections F.2 and F.3.1). 

And as Bookchin points out, "in an age of sharply conflicting values and
emotionally charges ideals, such a way of reasoning is often repellent. 
Dogmatism, authoritarianism, and fear seem all-pervasive." [Ibid., p. 68]
Right-Libertarianism provides more than enough evidence for Bookchin's 
summary with its support for authoritarian social relationships, hierarchy
and even slavery (see section F.2).

This mechanical viewpoint is also reflected in their lack of appreciation 
that social institutions and relationships evolve over time and, sometimes,
fundamentally change. This can best be seen from property. Right-libertarians
fail to see that over time (in the words of Proudhon) property "changed
its nature." Originally, "the word *property* was synonymous with . . .
*individual possession*" but it became more "complex" and turned into 
*private property* -- "the right to use it by his neighbour's labour." 
The changing of use-rights to (capitalist) property rights created relations
of domination and exploitation between people absent before. For the
right-Libertarian, both the tools of the self-employed artisan and the 
capital of a transnational corporation are both forms of "property" and 
(so) basically identical. In practice, of course, the social relations 
they create and the impact they have on society are totally different. 
Thus the mechanical mind-set of right-Libertarianism fails to understand
how institutions, like property, evolve and come to replace whatever 
freedom enhancing features they had with oppression (indeed, von Mises
argued that "[t]here may possibly be a difference of opinion about
whether a particular institution is socially beneficial or harmful. But
once it has been judged [by whom, we ask] beneficial, one can no longer
contend that, for some inexplicable reason, it must be condemned as 
immoral." [_Liberalism_, p. 34] So much for evolution and change!).

Anarchism, in contrast, is based upon the importance of critical thought 
informed by an awareness that life is in a constant process of change. This 
means that our ideas on human society must be informed by the facts, not by 
what we wish was true. For Bookchin, an evaluation of conventional wisdom 
(as expressed in "the law of identity") is essential and its conclusions 
have "enormous importance for how we behave as ethical beings, the nature 
of nature, and our place in the natural world. Moreover. . . these issues 
directly affect the kind of society, sensibility, and lifeways we wish to 
foster." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 69-70]

Bookchin is correct. While anarchists oppose hierarchy in the name of 
liberty, right-libertarians support authority and hierarchy, all of which 
deny freedom and restrict individual development. This is unsurprising 
because the right-libertarian ideology rejects change and critical thought 
based upon the scientific method and so is fundamentally *anti-life* in 
its assumptions and *anti-human* in its method. Far from being a libertarian 
set of ideas, right-Libertarianism is a mechanical set of dogmas that deny 
the fundamental nature of life (namely change) and of individuality (namely 
critical thought and freedom). Moreover, in practice their system of 
(capitalist) rights would soon result in extensive restrictions on liberty 
and authoritarian social relationships (see sections F.2 and F.3) -- a 
strange result of a theory proclaiming itself "libertarian" but one 
consistent with its methodology.

From a wider viewpoint, such a rejection of liberty by right-libertarians 
is unsurprising. They do, after all, support capitalism. Capitalism 
produces an inverted set of ethics, one in which capital (dead labour) is
more important that people (living labour). After all, workers are usually 
easier to replace than investments in capital and the person who owns
capital commands the person who "only" owns his life and productive 
abilities. And as Oscar Wilde once noted, crimes against property "are 
the crimes that the English law, valuing what a man has more than what 
a man is, punishes with the harshest and most horrible severity." [_The 
Soul of Man Under Socialism_, p. 1182] 

This mentality is reflected in right-libertarianism when it claims that 
stealing food is a crime while starving to death (due to the action of 
market forces/power and property rights) is no infringement of your rights 
(see section F.4.2 for a similar argument with regards to water). It can 
also be seen when right-libertarian's claim that the taxation "of earnings 
from labour" (e.g. of one dollar from a millionaire) is "*on a par with* 
forced labour" [Nozick, Op. Cit., p. 169] while working in a sweatshop 
for 14 hours a day (enriching said millionaire) does not affect your 
liberty as you "consent" to it due to market forces (although, of course, 
many rich people have earned their money *without* labouring themselves -- 
their earnings derive from the wage labour of others so would taxing
those, non-labour, earnings be "forced labour"?) Interestingly, the
Individualist Anarchist Ben Tucker argued that an income tax was "a 
recognition of the fact that industrial freedom and equality of
opportunity no longer exist here [in the USA in the 1890s] even in
the imperfect state in which they once did exist" [quoted by James
Martin, _Men Against the State_, p. 263] which suggests a somewhat
different viewpoint on this matter than Nozick or Rothbard.

That capitalism produces an inverted set of ethics can be seen when the
Ford produced the Pinto. The Pinto had a flaw in it which meant that if
it was hit in a certain way in a crash the fuel tank exploded. The Ford
company decided it was more "economically viable" to produce that car and
pay damages to those who were injured or the relatives of those who died 
than pay to change the invested capital. The needs for the owners of 
capital to make a profit came before the needs of the living. Similarly, 
bosses often hire people to perform unsafe work in dangerous conditions
and fire them if they protest. Right-libertarian ideology is the 
philosophical equivalent. Its dogma is "capital" and it comes before 
life (i.e. "labour").

As Bakunin once put it, "you will always find the idealists in the very
act of practical materialism, while you will see the materialists pursuing
and realising the most grandly ideal aspirations and thoughts." [_God
and the State_, p. 49] Hence we see right "libertarians" supporting
sweat shops and opposing taxation -- for, in the end, money (and the
power that goes with it) counts far more in that ideology than ideals 
such as liberty, individual dignity, empowering, creative and productive 
work and so forth for all. The central flaw of right-libertarianism is
that it does not recognise that the workings of the capitalist market can 
easily ensure that the majority end up becoming a resource for others in 
ways far worse than that associated with taxation. The legal rights 
of self-ownership supported by right-libertarians does not mean that 
people have the ability to avoid what is in effect enslavement to 
another (see sections F.2 and F.3).

Right-Libertarian theory is not based upon a libertarian methodology or
perspective and so it is hardly surprising it results in support for
authoritarian social relationships and, indeed, slavery (see section 
F.2.6).

F.1.3 Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in nature?

Usually, no. The scientific approach is *inductive,* much of the 
right-libertarian approach is *deductive.* The first draws generalisations 
from the data, the second applies preconceived generalisations to the data. 
A completely deductive approach is pre-scientific, however, which is why 
many right-Libertarians cannot legitimately claim to use a scientific 
method. Deduction does occur in science, but the generalisations are 
primarily based on other data, not *a priori* assumptions, and are checked 
against data to see if they are accurate. Anarchists tend to fall into the 
inductive camp, as Kropotkin put it:

"Precisely this natural-scientific method applied to economic facts,
enables us to prove that the so-called 'laws' of middle-class sociology,
including also their political economy, are not laws at all, but 
simply guesses, or mere assertions which have never been verified
at all." [_Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets_, p. 153]

The idea that natural-scientific methods can be applied to economic and
social life is one that many right-libertarians reject. Instead they 
favour the deductive (pre-scientific) approach (this we must note is
not limited purely to Austrian economists, many more mainstream 
capitalist economists also embrace deduction over induction).

The tendency for right-Libertarianism to fall into dogmatism (or *a priori* 
theorems, as they call it) and its implications can best be seen from the 
work of Ludwig von Mises and other economists from the right-Libertarian
"Austrian school." Of course, not all right-libertarians necessarily 
subscribe to this approach (Murray Rothbard for one did) but its use by
so many leading lights of both schools of thought is significant and 
worthy of comment. And as we are concentrating on *methodology* it is
not essential to discuss the starting assumptions. The assumptions (such 
as, to use Rothbard's words, the Austrian's "fundamental axiom that 
individual human beings act") may be correct, incorrect or incomplete -- 
but the method of using them advocated by von Mises ensures that such 
considerations are irrelevant.

Von Mises (a leading member of the Austrian school of economics) begins by 
noting that social and economic theory "is not derived from experience; it 
is prior to experience..." Which is back to front. It is obvious that 
experience of capitalism is necessary in order to develop a viable theory 
about how it works. Without the experience, any theory is just a flight of 
fantasy. The actual specific theory we develop is therefore derived from 
experience, informed by it and will have to get checked against reality 
to see if it is viable. This is the scientific method - any theory must 
be checked against the facts.

However, von Mises goes on to argue at length that "no kind of experience 
can ever force us to discard or modify *a priori* theorems; they are 
logically prior to it and cannot be either proved by corroborative 
experience or disproved by experience to the contrary . . ."

Von Mises makes a similar claim in his work _Human Action_, namely 
that experience "can never . . . prove or disprove any particular 
theorem . . . The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's 
correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience." 
[p. 858]

And if this does not do justice to a full exposition of the phantasmagoria 
of von Mises' *a priorism*, the reader may take some joy (or horror) from 
the following statement:

"If a contradiction appears between a theory and experience, *we must 
always assume* that a condition pre-supposed by the theory was not 
present, or else there is some error in our observation. The disagreement 
between the theory and the facts of experience frequently forces us to think
through the problems of the theory again. *But so long as a rethinking of 
the theory uncovers no errors in our thinking, we are not entitled to doubt 
its truth*" [emphasis added -- the quotes presented here are cited 
in _Ideology and Method in Economics_ by Homa Katouzian, pp. 39-40]

In other words, if reality is in conflict with your ideas, do not adjust 
your views because reality must be at fault! The scientific method would 
be to revise the theory in light of the facts. It is not scientific to
reject the facts in light of the theory! 

Von Mises rejects the scientific approach as do all Austrian Economists.
Murray Rothbard states approvingly that "Mises indeed held not only that 
economic theory does not need to be 'tested' by historical fact but also 
that it *cannot* be so tested." ["Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian 
Economics" in _The Foundation of Modern Austrian Economics_, p. 32]
Similarly, von Hayek wrote that economic theories can "never be verified 
or falsified by reference to facts. All that we can and must verify is the 
presence of our assumptions in the particular case." [_Individualism and 
Economic Order_, p. 73] 

This may seen somewhat strange to non-Austrians. How can we ignore reality
when deciding whether a theory is a good one or not? If we cannot evaluate
our ideas, how can we consider them anything bar dogma? The Austrian's
maintain that we cannot use historical evidence because every historical
situation is unique. Thus we cannot use "complex heterogeneous historical
facts as if they were repeatable homogeneous facts" like those in a
scientist's experiment [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 33]. While such a position
*does* have an element of truth about it, the extreme *a priorism* that
is drawn from this element is radically false (just as extreme empiricism 
is also false, but for different reasons).

Those who hold such a position ensure that their ideas cannot be evaluated 
beyond logical analysis. As Rothbard makes clear, "since praxeology begins 
with a true axiom, A, all that can be deduced from this axiom must also 
be true. For if A implies be, and A is true, then B must also be true." 
[Op. Cit., pp. 19-20] But such an approach makes the search for truth a
game without rules. The Austrian economists (and other right-libertarians) 
who use this method are free to theorise anything they want, without such 
irritating constrictions as facts, statistics, data, history or experimental 
confirmation. Their only guide is logic. But this is no different from what 
religions do when they assert the logical existence of God. Theories 
ungrounded in facts and data are easily spun into any belief a person 
wants. Starting assumptions and trains of logic may contain inaccuracies 
so small as to be undetectable, yet will yield entirely false conclusions.

In addition, trains of logic may miss things which are only brought 
to light by actual experiences (after all, the human mind is not all 
knowing or all seeing). To ignore actual experience is to loose that
input when evaluating a theory. Hence our comments on the irrelevance 
of the assumptions used -- the methodology is such that incomplete or 
incorrect assumptions or steps cannot be identified in light of experience. 
This is because one way of discovering if a given chain of logic requires 
checking is to test its conclusions against available evidence (although 
von Mises did argue that the "ultimate yardstick" was "solely reason unaided 
by experience"). If we *do* take experience into account and rethink a 
given theory in the light of contradictory evidence, the problem 
remains that a given logical chain may be correct, but incomplete 
or concentrate on or stress inappropriate factors. In other words, our 
logical deductions may be correct but our starting place or steps wrong 
and as the facts are to be rejected in the light of the deductive method, 
we cannot revise our ideas.

Indeed, this approach could result in discarding (certain forms of) human 
behaviour as irrelevant (which the Austrian system claims using empirical 
evidence does). For there are too many variables that can have an influence 
upon individual acts to yield conclusive results explaining human behaviour. 
Indeed, the deductive approach may ignore as irrelevant certain human 
motivations which have a decisive impact on an outcome. There could be 
a strong tendency to project "right-libertarian person" onto the rest of 
society and history, for example, and draw inappropriate insights into the
way human society works or has worked. This can be seen, for example, 
in attempts to claim pre-capitalist societies as examples of
"anarcho"-capitalism in action.

Moreover, deductive reasoning cannot indicate the relative significance 
of assumptions or theoretical factors. That requires empirical study. It 
could be that a factor considered important in the theory actually turns 
out to have little effect in practice and so the derived axioms are so 
weak as to be seriously misleading.

In such a purely ideal realm, observation and experience are distrusted
(when not ignored) and instead theory is the lodestone. Given the bias
of most theorists in this tradition, it is unsurprising that this style
of economics can always be trusted to produce results proving free markets
to be the finest principle of social organisation. And, as an added
bonus, reality can be ignored as it is *never* "pure" enough according
to the assumptions required by the theory. It could be argued, because
of this, that many right-libertarians insulate their theories from 
criticism by refusing to test them or acknowledge the results of such
testing (indeed, it could also be argued that much of right-libertarianism 
is more a religion than a political theory as it is set-up in such a 
way that it is either true or false, with this being determined not 
by evaluating facts but by whether you accept the assumptions and 
logical chains presented with them).

Strangely enough, while dismissing the "testability" of theories many
right-Libertarians (including Murray Rothbard) *do* investigate historical 
situations and claim them as examples of how well their ideas work in 
practice. But why does historical fact suddenly become useful when it 
can be used to bolster the right-Libertarian argument? Any such example 
is just as "complex" as any other and the good results indicated may 
not be accountable to the assumptions and steps of the theory but to other
factors totally ignored by it. If economic (or other) theory is untestable 
then *no* conclusions can be drawn from history, including claims for the
superiority of laissez-faire capitalism. You cannot have it both ways 
-- although we doubt that right-libertarians will stop using history
as evidence that their ideas work.

Perhaps the Austrian desire to investigate history is not so strange 
after all. Clashes with reality make a-priori deductive systems implode 
as the falsifications run back up the deductive changes to shatter the 
structure built upon the original axioms. Thus the desire to find *some*
example which proves their ideology must be tremendous. However, the 
deductive a-priori methodology makes them unwilling to admit to being 
mistaken -- hence their attempts to downplay examples which refute their 
dogmas. Thus we have the desire for historical examples while at the same 
time they have extensive ideological justifications that ensure reality 
only enters their world-view when it agrees with them. In practice,
the latter wins as real-life refuses to be boxed into their dogmas
and deductions.

Of course it is sometimes argued that it is *complex* data that is
the problem. Let use assume that this is the case. It is argued that
when dealing with complex information it is impossible to use aggregate 
data without first having more simple assumptions (i.e. that "humans
act"). Due to the complexity of the situation, it is argued, it is 
impossible to aggregate data because this hides the individual activities 
that creates it. Thus "complex" data cannot be used to invalidate 
assumptions or theories. Hence, according to Austrians, the axioms 
derived from the "simple fact" that "humans act" are the only basis 
for thinking about the economy.

Such a position is false in two ways.

Firstly, the aggregation of data *does* allow us to understand complex 
systems. If we look at a chair, we cannot find out whether it is 
comfortable, its colour, whether it is soft or hard by looking at 
the atoms that make it up. To suggest that you can is to imply the 
existence of green, soft, comfortable atoms. Similarly with gases. 
They are composed to countless individual atoms but scientists do 
not study them by looking at those atoms and their actions. Within
limits, this is also valid for human action. For example, it would
be crazy to maintain from historical data that interest rates will
be a certain percentage a week but it is valid to maintain that 
interest rates are known to be related to certain variables in certain
ways. Or that certain experiences will tend to result in certain forms
of psychological damage. General tendencies and "rules of thumb" can
be evolved from such study and these can be used to *guide* current 
practice and theory. By aggregating data you can produce valid 
information, rules of thumb, theories and evidence which would be 
lost if you concentrated on "simple data" (such as "humans act").
Therefore, empirical study produces facts which vary across time 
and place, and yet underlying and important patterns can be
generated (patterns which can be evaluated against *new* data
and improved upon).

Secondly, the simple actions themselves influence and are influenced 
in turn by overall (complex) facts. People act in different ways in 
different circumstances (something we can agree with Austrians about, 
although  we refuse to take it to their extreme position of rejecting 
empirical evidence as such). To use simple acts to understand
complex systems means to miss the fact that these acts are not 
independent of their circumstances. For example, to claim that the
capitalist market is "just" the resultant of bilateral exchanges
ignores the fact that the market activity shapes the nature and
form of these bilateral exchanges. The "simple" data is dependent
on the "complex" system -- and so the complex system *cannot* be
understood by looking at the simple actions in isolation. To do so
would be to draw incomplete and misleading conclusions (and it is
due to these interrelations that we argue that aggregate data should
be used critically). This is particularly important when looking at
capitalism, where the "simple" acts of exchange in the labour market
are dependent upon and shaped by circumstances outside these acts.

So to claim that (complex) data cannot be used to evaluate a theory 
is false. Data can be useful when seeing whether a theory is confirmed by 
reality. This is the nature of the scientific method -- you compare the 
results expected by your theory to the facts and if they do not match you 
check your facts *and* check your theory. This may involve revising the
assumptions, methodology and theories you use if the evidence is such as 
to bring them into question. For example, if you claim that capitalism is 
based on freedom but that the net result of capitalism is to produce 
relations of domination between people then it would be valid to revise, 
for example, your definition of freedom rather than deny that domination 
restricts freedom (see section F.2 on this). But if actual experience is 
to be distrusted when evaluating theory, we effectively place ideology 
above people -- after all, how the ideology affects people in *practice* 
is irrelevant as experiences cannot be used to evaluate the (logically
sound but actually deeply flawed) theory.

As we indicated above (in section F.1.2) and will discuss in more depth
later (in section F.7) most of the leading right-Libertarian theorists
base themselves on such deductive methodologies, starting from assumptions
and "logically" drawing conclusions from them. The religious undertones
of such methodology can best be seen from the roots of right-Libertarian
"Natural law" theory.

Carole Pateman, in her analysis of Liberal contract theory, indicates
the religious nature of the "Natural Law" argument so loved by the
theorists of the "Radical Right." She notes that for Locke (the main source
of the Libertarian Right's Natural Law cult) "natural law" was equivalent
of "God's Law" and that "God's law exists externally to and independently
of individuals." [_The Problem of Political Obligation_, p. 154] No role
for critical thought there, only obedience. Most modern day "Natural Law"
supporters forget to mention this religious undercurrent and instead
talk of about "Nature" (or "the market") as the deity that creates Law, 
not God, in order to appear "rational." So much for science.

Such a basis in dogma and religion can hardly be a firm foundation for
liberty and indeed "Natural Law" is marked by a deep authoritarianism:

"Locke's traditional view of natural law provided individual's with an 
external standard which they could recognise, but which they did not 
voluntarily choose to order their political life." [Op. Cit., p. 79]

In Section F.7 we discuss the authoritarian nature of "Natural Law" 
and will not do so here. However, here we must point out the political 
conclusions Locke draws from his ideas. Pateman summary is worth 
repeating at length:

Locke believed that "obedience lasts only as long as protection. His 
individuals are able to take action themselves to remedy their political
lot. . . but this does not mean, as is often assumed, that Locke's theory
gives direct support to present-day arguments for a right of civil
disobedience. . . His theory allows for two alternatives only: either
people go peacefully about their daily affairs under the protection of
a liberal, constitutional government, or they are in revolt against a
government which has ceased to be 'liberal' and has become arbitrary and
tyrannical, so forfeiting its right to obedience." [Op. Cit., p. 77]

Locke's "rebellion" exists purely to reform a *new* 'liberal' government, 
not to change the existing socio-economic structure which the 'liberal' 
government exists to protect. His theory, therefore, indicates the results 
of a priorism, namely a denial of any form of social dissent which may change 
the "natural law" as defined by Locke. 

So, von Mises, von Hayek and most right-libertarians reject the scientific 
method in favour of ideological correctness -- if the facts contradict your
theory then they can be dismissed as too "complex" or "unique". Facts, 
however, should inform theory and any theory's methodology should take 
this into account. To dismiss facts out of hand is to promote dogma.
This is not to suggest that a theory should be modified very time new
data comes along -- that would be crazy as unique situations *do* exist,
data can be wrong and so forth -- but it does suggest that if your theory
*continually* comes into conflict with reality, it is time to rethink the
theory and not assume that facts cannot invalidate it. A true libertarian 
would approach a contradiction between reality and theory by evaluating
the facts available and changing the theory is this is required, not by 
ignoring reality or dismissing it as "complex". 

Thus, much of right-Libertarian theory is neither libertarian nor scientific.
Much of right-libertarian thought is highly axiomatic, being logically
deduced from such starting axioms as "self-ownership" or "no one should
initiate force against another". Hence the importance of our discussion
of von Mises as this indicates the dangers of this approach, namely the
tendency to ignore/dismiss the consequences of these logical chains and, 
indeed, to justify them in terms of these axioms rather than from the
facts. In addition, the methodology used is such as that it would be 
fair to argue that right-libertarians get to critique reality but reality 
can never be used to critique right-libertarianism -- for any empirical 
data presented as evidence as be dismissed as "too complex" or "unique" 
and so irrelevant (unless it can be used to support their claims, of 
course). 

Hence W. Duncan Reekie's argument (quoting leading Austrian economist 
Israel Kirzner) that "empirical work 'has the function of establishing 
the *applicability* of particular theorems, and thus *illustrating* their 
operation' . . . Confirmation of theory is not possible because there is no 
constants in human action, nor is it necessary because theorems themselves 
describe relationships logically developed from hypothesised conditions. 
Failure of a logically derived axiom to fit the facts does not render 
it invalid, rather it 'might merely indicate inapplicability' to the 
circumstances of the case.'" [_Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty_, p. 31]

So, if facts confirm your theory, your theory is right. If facts do not 
confirm your theory, it is still right but just not applicable in this case! 
Which has the handy side effect of ensuring that facts can *only* be used 
to support the ideology, *never* to refute it (which is, according to this
perspective, impossible anyway). As Karl Popper argued, a "theory 
which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific."
[_Conjectures and Refutations_, p. 36] In other words (as we noted 
above), if reality contradicts your theory, ignore reality! 

Kropotkin hoped "that those who believe in [current economic doctrines]
will themselves become convinced of their error as soon as they come 
to see the necessity of verifying their quantitative deductions by 
quantitative investigation." [Op. Cit., p. 178] However, the Austrian
approach builds so many barriers to this that it is doubtful that
this will occur. Indeed, right-libertarianism, with its focus on exchange
rather than its consequences, seems to be based upon justifying domination
in terms of their deductions than analysing what freedom actually means 
in terms of human existence (see section F.2 for a fuller discussion).

The real question is why are such theories taken seriously and arouse 
such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of hand, given their
methodology and the authoritarian conclusions they produce? The answer is, 
in part, that feeble arguments can easily pass for convincing when they
are on the same side as the prevailing sentiment and social system. And, of
course, there is the utility of such theories for ruling elites - "[a]n 
ideological defence of privileges, exploitation, and private power will be 
welcomed, regardless of its merits." [Noam Chomsky, _The Chomsky Reader_,
p. 188]

F.2 What do "anarcho"-capitalists mean by "freedom"?

For "anarcho"-capitalists, the concept of freedom is limited to the idea
of "freedom from."  For them, freedom means simply freedom from the
"initiation of force," or the "non-aggression against anyone's person and
property." [Murray Rothbard, _For a New Liberty_, p. 23] The notion that
real freedom must combine both freedom "to" *and* freedom "from" is
missing in their ideology, as is the social context of the so-called
freedom they defend.

Before starting, it is useful to quote Alan Haworth when he notes that
"[i]n fact, it is surprising how *little* close attention the concept 
of freedom receives from libertarian writers. Once again _Anarchy, 
State, and Utopia_ is a case in point. The word 'freedom' doesn't 
even appear in the index. The word 'liberty' appears, but only to 
refer the reader to the 'Wilt Chamberlain' passage. In a supposedly 
'libertarian' work, this is more than surprising. It is truly 
remarkable." [_Anti-Libertarianism_, p. 95] 

Why this is the case can be seen from how the "anarcho"-capitalist 
defines freedom.

In a right-libertarian or "anarcho"-capitalist society, freedom is
considered to be a product of property. As Murray Rothbard puts it, "the
libertarian defines the concept of 'freedom' or 'liberty'. . .[as a]
condition in which a person's ownership rights in his body and his
legitimate material property rights are not invaded, are not aggressed
against. . . . Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand."
[Op. Cit., p.41]

This definition has some problems, however. In such a society, one cannot
(legitimately) do anything with or on another's property if the owner
prohibits it.  This means that an individual's only *guaranteed* freedom
is determined by the amount of property that he or she owns. This has the
consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom at
all (beyond, of course, the freedom not to be murdered or otherwise 
harmed by the deliberate acts of others). In other words, a distribution 
of property is a distribution of freedom, as the right-libertarians 
themselves define it. It strikes anarchists as strange that an ideology 
that claims to be committed to promoting freedom entails the conclusion 
that some people should be more free than others. However, this is the 
logical implication of their view, which raises a serious doubt as to 
whether "anarcho"-capitalists are actually interested in freedom. 

Looking at Rothbard's definition of "liberty" quoted above, we can 
see that freedom is actually no longer considered to be a fundamental,
independent concept.  Instead, freedom is a derivative of something 
more fundamental, namely the "legitimate rights" of an individual, 
which are identified as property rights.  In other words, given that 
"anarcho"-capitalists and right libertarians in general consider the 
right to property as "absolute," it follows that freedom and property 
become one and the same.  This suggests an alternative name for the right
Libertarian, namely "Propertarian." And, needless to say, if we do not 
accept the right-libertarians' view of what constitutes "legitimate" 
"rights," then their claim to be defenders of liberty is weak.

Another important implication of this "liberty as property" concept is
that it produces a strangely alienated concept of freedom. Liberty, as 
we noted, is no longer considered absolute, but a derivative of property 
-- which has the important consequence that you can "sell" your liberty 
and still be considered free by the ideology. This concept of liberty
(namely "liberty as property") is usually termed "self-ownership." But, 
to state the obvious, I do not "own" myself, as if were an object somehow 
separable from my subjectivity -- I *am* myself. However, the concept of 
"self-ownership" is handy for justifying various forms of domination and 
oppression -- for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, 
we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can "sell" (or rent out) 
themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to 
capitalists on the "free market"). In effect, "self-ownership" becomes the 
means of justifying treating people as objects -- ironically, the very thing 
the concept was created to stop! As L. Susan Brown notes, "[a]t the moment 
an individual 'sells' labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination
and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of 
another's will." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 4]

Given that workers are paid to obey, you really have to wonder which planet
Murray Rothbard is on when he argues that a person's "labour service is
alienable, but his *will* is not" and that he [sic!] "cannot alienate his 
*will*, more particularly his control over his own mind and body." [_The 
Ethics of Liberty_, p. 40, p. 135] He contrasts private property and
self-ownership by arguing that "[a]ll physical property owned by a person 
is alienable . . . I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my 
house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in 
natural fact and in the nature of man, are *in*alienable . . . [his] will 
and control over his own person are inalienable." [Op. Cit., pp. 134-5] 

But "labour services" are unlike the private possessions Rothbard lists
as being alienable. As we argued in section B.1 ("Why do anarchists oppose 
hierarchy") a person's "labour services" and "will" cannot be divided -- if 
you sell your labour services, you also have to give control of your body 
and mind to another person! If a worker does not obey the commands of her 
employer, she is fired. That Rothbard denies this indicates a total lack 
of common-sense. Perhaps Rothbard will argue that as the worker can quit at 
any time she does not alienate their will (this seems to be his case against 
slave contracts -- see section F.2.6). But this ignores the fact that between 
the signing and breaking of the contract and during work hours (and perhaps 
outside work hours, if the boss has mandatory drug testing or will fire 
workers who attend union or anarchist meetings or those who have an 
"unnatural" sexuality and so on) the worker *does* alienate his will 
and body. In the words of Rudolf Rocker, "under the realities of the 
capitalist economic form . . . there can be no talk of a 'right over one's
own person,' for that ends when one is compelled to submit to the economic
dictation of another if he does not want to starve." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_,
p. 17]

Ironically, the rights of property (which are said to flow from an 
individual's self-ownership of themselves) becomes the means, under
capitalism, by which self-ownership of non-property owners is denied. The 
foundational right (self-ownership) becomes denied by the derivative right 
(ownership of things). Under capitalism, a lack of property can be just
as oppressive as a lack of legal rights because of the relationships of
domination and subjection this situation creates.

So Rothbard's argument (as well as being contradictory) misses the point 
(and the reality of capitalism). Yes, *if* we define freedom as "the absence 
of coercion" then the idea that wage labour does not restrict liberty is 
unavoidable, but such a definition is useless. This is because it hides 
structures of power and relations of domination and subordination. As Carole 
Pateman argues, "the contract in which the worker allegedly sells his labour 
power is a contract in which, since he cannot be separated from his 
capacities, he sells command over the use of his body and himself. . . 
To sell command over the use of oneself for a specified period . . . 
is to be an unfree labourer." [_The Sexual Contract_, p. 151]

In other words, contracts about property in the person inevitably create
subordination. "Anarcho"-capitalism defines this source of unfreedom away,
but it still exists and has a major impact on people's liberty. Therefore 
freedom is better described as "self-government" or "self-management" -- 
to be able to govern ones own actions (if alone) or to participate in the 
determination of join activity (if part of a group). Freedom, to put it
another way, is not an abstract legal concept, but the vital concrete 
possibility for every human being to bring to full development all their 
powers, capacities, and talents which nature has endowed them. A key
aspect of this is to govern one own actions when within associations
(self-management). If we look at freedom this way, we see that coercion 
is condemned but so is hierarchy (and so is capitalism for during working 
hours, people are not free to make their own plans and have a say in what 
affects them. They are order takers, *not* free individuals). 

It is because anarchists have recognised the authoritarian nature of 
capitalist firms that they have opposed wage labour and capitalist
property rights along with the state. They have desired to replace 
institutions structured by subordination with institutions constituted 
by free relationships (based, in other words, on self-management) in
*all* areas of life, including economic organisations. Hence Proudhon's 
argument that the "workmen's associations . . . are full of hope both as a
protest against the wage system, and as an affirmation of *reciprocity*"
and that their importance lies "in their denial of the rule of capitalists,
money lenders and governments." [_The General Idea of the Revolution_, 
pp. 98-99]

Unlike anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist account of freedom allows an 
individual's freedom to be rented out to another while maintaining that the 
person is still free. It may seem strange that an ideology proclaiming its 
support for liberty sees nothing wrong with the alienation and denial of 
liberty but, in actual fact, it is unsurprising. After all, contract theory 
is a "theoretical strategy that justifies subjection by presenting it as
freedom" and nothing more. Little wonder, then, that contract "creates
a relation of subordination" and not of freedom [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit.,
p. 39, p. 59] 

Any attempt to build an ethical framework starting from the abstract 
individual (as Rothbard does with his "legitimate rights" method) will 
result in domination and oppression between people, *not* freedom. 
Indeed, Rothbard provides an example of the dangers of idealist 
philosophy that Bakunin warned about when he argued that while
"[m]aterialism denies free will and ends in the establishment of 
liberty; idealism, in the name of human dignity, proclaims free 
will, and on the ruins of every liberty founds authority." [_God 
and the State_, p. 48] This is the case with "anarcho"-capitalism 
can be seen from Rothbard's wholehearted support for wage labour 
and the rules imposed by property owners on those who use, but do 
not own, their property. Rothbard, basing himself on abstract
individualism, cannot help but justify authority over liberty.

Overall, we can see that the logic of the right-libertarian definition of 
"freedom" ends up negating itself, because it results in the creation 
and encouragement of *authority,* which is an *opposite* of freedom. For
example, as Ayn Rand points out, "man has to sustain his life by his own
effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means
to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his
product, is a slave." [_The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z_, 
pp. 388-9] But, as was shown in section C, capitalism is based on, as 
Proudhon put it, workers working "for an entrepreneur who pays them and 
keeps their products," and so is a form of *theft.* Thus, by "libertarian"
capitalism's *own* logic, capitalism is based not on freedom, but on
(wage) slavery; for interest, profit and rent are derived from a worker's
*unpaid* labour, i.e. "others dispose of his [sic] product."

And if a society *is* run on the wage- and profit-based system suggested
by the "anarcho" and "libertarian" capitalists, freedom becomes a
commodity. The more money you have, the more freedom you get. Then, since
money is only available to those who earn it, Libertarianism is based on
that classic saying "work makes one free!" (_Arbeit macht frei!_), which
the Nazis placed on the gates of their concentration camps. Of course,
since it is capitalism, this motto is somewhat different for those at the
top. In this case it is "other people's work makes one free!" -- a truism
in any society based on private property and the authority that stems from
it.

Thus it is debatable that a libertarian or "anarcho" capitalist society 
would have less unfreedom or coercion in it than "actually existing 
capitalism." In contrast to anarchism, "anarcho"-capitalism, with its 
narrow definitions, restricts freedom to only a few aspects of social life 
and ignores domination and authority beyond those aspects. As Peter Marshall 
points out, the right-libertarian's "definition of freedom is entirely 
negative.  It calls for the absence of coercion but cannot guarantee the 
positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence." [_Demanding 
the Impossible_, p. 564] By confining freedom to such a narrow range of 
human action, "anarcho"-capitalism is clearly *not* a form of anarchism. 
Real anarchists support freedom in every aspect of an individual's life.

F.2.1 What are the implications of defining liberty in terms of (property) 
      rights?

The change from defending liberty to defending (property) rights has 
important implications. For one thing, it allows right libertarians to 
imply that private property is similar to a "fact of nature," and so to 
conclude that the restrictions on freedom produced by it can be ignored. 
This can be seen in Robert Nozick's argument that decisions are voluntary 
if the limitations on one's actions are not caused by human action which 
infringe the rights of others. Thus, in a "pure" capitalist society the 
restrictions on freedom caused by wage slavery are not really restrictions 
because the worker voluntarily consents to the contract. The circumstances 
that drive a worker to make the contract are irrelevant because they are 
created by people exercising their rights and not violating other peoples' 
ones (see the section on "Voluntary Exchange" in _Anarchy, State, and 
Utopia_, pp. 262-265).

This means that within a society "[w]hether a person's actions are voluntary 
depends on what limits his alternatives. If facts of nature do so, the 
actions are voluntary. (I may voluntarily walk to someplace I would prefer 
to fly to unaided)." [_Anarchy, State, and Utopia_, p. 262] Similarly,
the results of voluntary actions and the transference of property can
be considered alongside the "facts of nature" (they are, after all, the 
resultants of "natural rights"). This means that the circumstances created 
by the existence and use of property can be considered, in essence, as
a "natural" fact and so the actions we take in response to these circumstances 
are therefore "voluntary" and we are "free" (Nozick presents the example 
[p. 263] of someone who marries the only available person -- all the more 
attractive people having already chosen others -- as a case of an action 
that is voluntary despite removal of all but the least attractive alternative 
through the legitimate actions of others. Needless to say, the example can 
be -- and is -- extended to workers on the labour market -- although, of
course, you do not starve to death if you decide not to marry).

However, such an argument fails to notice that property is different from
gravity or biology. Of course not being able to fly does not restrict 
freedom. Neither does not being able to jump 10 feet into the air.  But 
unlike gravity (for example), private property has to be protected by laws 
and the police. No one stops you from flying, but laws and police forces 
must exist to ensure that capitalist property (and the owners' authority 
over it) is respected. The claim, therefore, that private property in 
general, and capitalism in particular, can be considered as "facts of 
nature," like gravity, ignores an important fact:  namely that the 
people involved in an economy must accept the rules of its operation -- 
rules that, for example, allow contracts to be enforced; forbid using 
another's property without his or her consent ("theft," trespass, copyright 
infringement, etc.); prohibit "conspiracy," unlawful assembly, rioting, 
and so on; and create monopolies through regulation, licensing, charters, 
patents, etc.  This means that capitalism has to include the mechanisms 
for deterring property crimes as well as mechanisms for compensation and 
punishment should such crimes be committed. In other words, capitalism 
is in fact far more than "voluntary bilateral exchange," because it *must* 
include the policing, arbitration, and legislating mechanisms required 
to ensure its operation. Hence, like the state, the capitalist market 
is a social institution, and the distributions of goods that result 
from its operation are therefore the distributions sanctioned by a 
capitalist society. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, "Private property
. . . is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that 
Society."

Thus, to claim with Sir Isaiah Berlin (the main, modern, source of the 
concepts of "negative" and "positive" freedom -- although we must add that 
Berlin was not a right-Libertarian), that "[i]f my poverty were a kind of
disease, which prevented me from buying bread . . . as lameness prevents 
me from running, this inability would not naturally be described as a 
lack of freedom" totally misses the point ["Two Concepts of Liberty", 
in _Four Essays on Liberty_, p. 123]. If you are lame, police officers 
do not come round to stop you running. They do not have to. However, they 
*are* required to protect property against the dispossessed and those who 
reject capitalist property rights. 

This means that by using such concepts as "negative" liberty and ignoring 
the social nature of private property, right-libertarians are trying to 
turn the discussion away from liberty toward "biology" and other facts
of nature.  And conveniently, by placing property rights alongside gravity
and other natural laws, they also succeed in reducing debate even about
rights. 

Of course, coercion and restriction of liberty *can* be resisted, unlike
"natural forces" like gravity.  So if, as Berlin argues, "negative"
freedom means that you "lack political freedom only if you are prevented
from attaining a goal by human beings," then capitalism is indeed based on
such a lack, since property rights need to be enforced by human beings ("I
am prevented by others from doing what I could otherwise do"). After all,
as Proudhon long ago noted, the market is manmade, hence any constraint 
it imposes is the coercion of man by man and so economic laws are not as
inevitable as natural ones [see Alan Ritter's _The Political Thought of 
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon_, p. 122]. Or, to put it slightly differently, 
capitalism requires coercion in order to work, and hence, is *not* 
similar to a "fact of nature," regardless of Nozick's claims (i.e. 
property rights have to be defined and enforced by human beings, although 
the nature of the labour market resulting from capitalist property 
definitions is such that direct coercion is usually not needed). This 
implication is actually recognised by right-libertarians, because they 
argue that the rights-framework of society should be set up in one way 
rather than another. In other words, they recognise that society is not 
independent of human interaction, and so can be changed. 

Perhaps, as seems the case, the "anarcho"-capitalist or right-Libertarian
will claim that it is only *deliberate* acts which violate your (libertarian
defined) rights by other humans beings that cause unfreedom ("we define 
freedom . . . as the *absence of invasion* by another man of an man's 
person or property" [Rothbard, _The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 41]) and so
if no-one deliberately coerces you then you are free. In this way the 
workings of the capitalist market can be placed alongside the "facts of 
nature" and ignored as a source of unfreedom. However, a moments thought 
shows that this is not the case. Both deliberate and non-deliberate acts 
can leave individuals lacking freedom. 

Let us assume (in an example paraphrased from Alan Haworth's excellent 
book _Anti-Libertarianism_, p. 49) that someone kidnaps you and places you 
down a deep (naturally formed) pit, miles from anyway, which is impossible 
to climb up. No one would deny that you are unfree. Let us further assume
that another person walks by and accidentally falls into the pit with you. 

According to right-libertarianism, while you are unfree (i.e. subject to 
deliberate coercion) your fellow pit-dweller is perfectly free for they 
have subject to the "facts of nature" and not human action (deliberate or 
otherwise). Or, perhaps, they "voluntarily choose" to stay in the pit, 
after all, it is "only" the "facts of nature" limiting their actions. But, 
obviously, both of you are in *exactly the same position,* have *exactly 
the same choices* and so are *equally* unfree! Thus a definition of 
"liberty" that maintains that only deliberate acts of others -- for 
example, coercion -- reduces freedom misses the point totally.

Why is this example important? Let us consider Murray Rothbard's analysis
of the situation after the abolition of serfdom in Russia and slavery in
America. He writes:

"The *bodies* of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they
had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their
former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the
former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what
were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted
freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits." [_The Ethics of
Liberty_, p. 74]

However, contrast this with Rothbard's claims that if market forces 
("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of free tenants or labourers
then these labourers and tenants are free (see, for example, _The Ethics of
Liberty_, pp. 221-2 on why "economic power" within capitalism does not
exist). But the labourers dispossessed by market forces are in *exactly* 
the same situation as the former serfs and slaves. Rothbard sees the 
obvious "economic power" in the later case, but denies it in the former. 
But the *conditions* of the people in question are identical and it 
is these conditions that horrify us. It is only his ideology that stops 
Rothbard drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical conditions produce 
identical social relationships and so if the formally "free" ex-serfs are
subject to "economic power" and "masters" then so are the formally "free" 
labourers within capitalism! Both sets of workers may be formally free,
but their circumstances are such that they are "free" to "consent" to
sell their freedom to others (i.e. economic power produces relationships
of domination and unfreedom between formally free individuals).

Thus Rothbard's definition of liberty in terms of rights fails to provide
us with a realistic and viable understanding of freedom. Someone can be
a virtual slave while still having her rights non-violated (conversely,
someone can have their property rights violated and still be free; for
example, the child who enters your backyard without your permission to
get her ball hardly violates your liberty -- indeed, you would never know
that she has entered your property unless you happened to see her do it).
So the idea that freedom means non-aggression against person and their 
legitimate material property justifies extensive *non-freedom* for the 
working class. The non-violation of property rights does *not* imply freedom, 
as Rothbard's discussion of the former slaves shows. Anyone who, along with 
Rothbard, defines freedom "as the *absence of invasion* by another man of 
any man's person or property" in a deeply inequality society is supporting,
and justifying, capitalist and landlord domination. As anarchists have
long realised, in an unequal society, a contractarian starting point 
implies an absolutist conclusion.

Why is this? Simply because freedom is a result of *social* interaction,
not the product of some isolated, abstract individual (Rothbard uses the
model of Robinson Crusoe to construct his ideology). But as Bakunin 
argued, "the freedom of the individual is a function of men in society,
a necessary consequence of the collective development of mankind." He
goes on to argue that "man in isolation can have no awareness of his 
liberty . . .  Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of
interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection." [_Selected
Writings_, p. 146, p. 147] Right Libertarians, by building their
definition of freedom from the isolated person, end up by supporting
restrictions of liberty due to a neglect of an adequate recognition 
of the actual interdependence of human beings, of the fact what each
person does is effected by and affects others. People become aware of
their humanity (liberty) in society, not outside it. It is the *social 
relationships* we take part in which determine how free we are and
any definition of freedom which builds upon an individual without 
social ties is doomed to create relations of domination, not freedom,
between individuals -- as Rothbard's theory does (to put it another
way, voluntary association is a necessary, but not sufficient,
condition for freedom. Which is why anarchists have always stressed
the importance of equality -- see section F.3 for details).

So while facts of nature can restrict your options and freedom, it is the 
circumstances within which they act and the options they limit that are 
important (a person trapped at the bottom of a pit is unfree as the options 
available are so few; the lame person is free because their available options 
are extensive). In the same manner, the facts of society can and do restrict 
your freedom because they are the products of human action and are defined 
and protected by human institutions, it is the circumstances within which 
individuals make their decisions and the social relationships these decisions 
produce that are important (the worker driven by poverty to accept a slave 
contract in a sweat shop is unfree because the circumstances he faces have 
limited his options and the relations he accepts are based upon hierarchy; 
the person who decides to join an anarchist commune is free because the 
commune is non-hierarchical and she has the option of joining another
commune, working alone and so forth).

All in all, the right-Libertarian concept of freedom is lacking. For an 
ideology that takes the name "Libertarianism" it is seems happy to ignore 
actual liberty and instead concentrate on an abstract form of liberty which 
ignores so many sources of unfreedom as to narrow the concept until it 
becomes little more than a justification for authoritarianism. This can be 
seen from right-Libertarian attitudes about private property and its effects
on liberty (as discussed in the next section).

F.2.2 How does private property affect freedom?

The right-libertarian does not address or even acknowledge that the 
(absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by 
property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as
workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a 
very selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." 
For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably 
conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their 
managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their 
company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide 
how their labouring capacities will be utilised. In other words, under 
capitalism, the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and 
restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism 
allows the right of self-management only to the few, not to all. Or, 
alternatively, capitalism does not recognise certain human rights as 
*universal* which anarchism does.

This can be seen from Austrian Economist W. Duncan Reekie's defence of
wage labour. While referring to "intra-firm labour markets" as "hierarchies",
Reekie (in his best *ex cathedra* tone) states that "[t]here is nothing 
authoritarian, dictatorial or exploitative in the relationship. Employees 
order employers to pay them amounts specified in the hiring contract just 
as much as employers order employees to abide by the terms of the contract." 
[_Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty_, p. 136, p. 137] Given that "the 
terms of contract" involve the worker agreeing to obey the employers 
orders and that they will be fired if they do not, its pretty clear that the 
ordering that goes on in the "intra-firm labour market" is decidedly *one 
way*. Bosses have the power, workers are paid to obey. And this begs the 
question, *if* the employment contract creates a free worker, why must 
she abandon her liberty during work hours?

Reekie actually recognises this lack of freedom in a "round about" way 
when he notes that "employees in a firm at any level in the hierarchy can 
exercise an entrepreneurial role. The area within which that role can be 
carried out increases the more authority the employee has." [Op. Cit., 
p. 142] Which means workers *are* subject to control from above which 
restricts the activities they are allowed to do and so they are *not* 
free to act, make decisions, participate in the plans of the organisation, 
to create the future and so forth within working hours. And it is strange 
that while recognising the firm as a hierarchy, Reekie tries to deny that 
it is authoritarian or dictatorial -- as if you could have a hierarchy 
without authoritarian structures or an unelected person in authority 
who is not a dictator. His confusion is shared by Austrian guru Ludwig
von Mises, who asserts that the "entrepreneur and capitalist are not
irresponsible autocrats" because they are "unconditionally subject to
the sovereignty of the consumer" while, *on the next page*, admitting
there is a "managerial hierarchy" which contains "the average subordinate
employee." [_Human Action_, p. 809 and p. 810] It does not enter his
mind that the capitalist may be subject to some consumer control while
being an autocrat to their subordinated employees. Again, we find the
right-"libertarian" acknowledging that the capitalist managerial 
structure is a hierarchy and workers are subordinated while denying 
it is autocratic to the workers! Thus we have "free" workers within 
a relationship distinctly *lacking* freedom (in the sense of 
self-government) -- a strange paradox. Indeed, if your personal 
life were as closely monitored and regulated as the work life of 
millions of people across the world, you would rightly consider it 
oppression.

Perhaps Reekie (like most right-libertarians) will maintain that workers
voluntarily agree ("consent") to be subject to the bosses dictatorship 
(he writes that "each will only enter into the contractual agreement 
known as a firm if each believes he will be better off thereby. The 
firm is simply another example of mutually beneficial exchange" 
[Op. Cit., p. 137]). However, this does not stop the relationship 
being authoritarian or dictatorial (and so exploitative as it is 
*highly* unlikely that those at the top will not abuse their power). 
And as we argue further in the next section (and also see sections B.4, 
F.3.1 and F.10.2), in a capitalist society workers have the option of 
finding a job or facing abject poverty and/or starvation.
 
Little wonder, then, that people "voluntarily" sell their labour and
"consent" to authoritarian structures! They have little option to do 
otherwise. So, *within* the labour market, workers *can* and *do* seek 
out the best working conditions possible, but that does not mean that 
the final contract agreed is "freely" accepted and not due to the 
force of circumstances, that both parties have equal bargaining power 
when drawing up the contract or that the freedom of both parties is 
ensured. Which means to argue (as many right-libertarians do) that 
freedom cannot be restricted by wage labour because people enter 
into relationships they consider will lead to improvements over their 
initial situation totally misses the points. As the initial situation 
is not considered relevant, their argument fails. After all, agreeing
to work in a sweatshop 14 hours a day *is* an improvement over starving
to death -- but it does not mean that those who so agree are free 
when working there or actually *want* to be there. They are not and
it is the circumstances, created and enforced by the law, that have 
ensured that they "consent" to such a regime (given the chance, they 
would desire to *change* that regime but cannot as this would violate 
their bosses property rights and they would be repressed for trying).

So the right-wing "libertarian" right is interested only in a narrow 
concept of freedom (rather than in "freedom" or "liberty" as such).
This can be seen in the argument of Ayn Rand (a leading ideologue of
"libertarian" capitalism) that "*Freedom*, in a political context, means
freedom from government coercion. It does *not* mean freedom from the
landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature
which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from
the coercive power of the state -- and nothing else!" [_Capitalism: The
Unknown Ideal_, p. 192] By arguing in this way, right libertarians ignore
the vast number of authoritarian social relationships that exist in
capitalist society and, as Rand does here, imply that these social
relationships are like "the laws of nature." However, if one looks at the
world without prejudice but with an eye to maximising freedom, the major
coercive institution is seen to be not the state  but capitalist social
relationships (as indicated in section B.4). 

The right "libertarian," then, far from being a defender of freedom, is 
in fact a keen defender of certain forms of authority and domination. As
Peter Kropotkin noted, the "modern Individualism initiated by Herbert
Spencer is, like the critical theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment
against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution
of the social problem is miserable -- so miserable as to lead us to
inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting
landlord and capitalist domination." [_Act For Yourselves_, p. 98]

To defend the "freedom" of property owners is to defend authority and 
privilege -- in other words, statism. So, in considering the concept of 
liberty as "freedom from," it is clear that by defending private property 
(as opposed to possession) the "anarcho"-capitalist is defending the power 
and authority of property owners to govern those who use "their" property. 
And also, we must note, defending all the petty tyrannies that make the 
work lives of so many people frustrating, stressful and unrewarding.

However, anarchism, by definition, is in favour of organisations and social 
relationships which are non-hierarchical and non-authoritarian. Otherwise, 
some people are more free than others. Failing to attack hierarchy leads 
to massive contradiction. For example, since the British Army is a 
volunteer one, it is an "anarchist" organisation! (see next section 
for a discussion on why the "anarcho"-capitalism concept of freedom 
also allows the state to appear "libertarian"). 

In other words, "full capitalist property rights" do not protect freedom,
in fact they actively deny it. But this lack of freedom is only inevitable
if we accept capitalist private property rights. If we reject them, we
can try and create a world based on freedom in all aspects of life, 
rather than just in a few.

F.2.3 Can "anarcho"-capitalist theory justify the state?

Ironically enough, "anarcho"-capitalist ideology actually allows the state
to be justified along with capitalist hierarchy. This is because the reason
why capitalist authority is acceptable to the "anarcho"-capitalist is 
because it is "voluntary" -- no one forces the worker to join or remain
within a specific company (force of circumstances are irrelevant in this 
viewpoint). Thus capitalist domination is not really domination at all. But
the same can be said of all democratic states as well. Few such states bar 
exit for its citizens -- they are free to leave at any time and join any 
other state that will have them (exactly as employees can with companies). 
Of course there *are* differences between the two kinds of authority -- 
anarchists do not deny that -- but the similarities are all too clear.

The "anarcho"-capitalist could argue that changing jobs is easier than 
changing states and, sometimes, this is correct -- but not always. Yes, 
changing states does require the moving of home and possessions over 
great distances but so can changing job (indeed, if a worker has 
to move half-way across a country or even the world to get a job 
"anarcho"-capitalists would celebrate this as an example of the 
benefits of a "flexible" labour market). Yes, states often conscript
citizens and send them into dangerous situations but bosses often force
their employees to accept dangerous working environments on pain of 
firing. Yes, many states do restrict freedom of association and speech,
but so do bosses. Yes, states tax their citizens but landlords and 
companies only let others use their property if they get money in
return (i.e. rent or profits). Indeed, if the employee or tenant does not
provide the employer or landlord with enough profits, they will quickly
be shown the door. Of course employees can start their own companies 
but citizens can start their own state if they convince an existing state 
(the owner of a set of resources) to sell/give land to them. Setting up 
a company also requires existing owners to sell/give resources to those 
who need them. Of course, in a democratic state citizens can influence 
the nature of laws and orders they obey. In a capitalist company, this 
is not the case.

This means that, logically, "anarcho"-capitalism must consider a series
of freely exitable states as "anarchist" and not a source of domination. 
If consent (not leaving) is what is required to make capitalist domination 
not domination then the same can be said of statist domination. Stephen
L. Newman makes the same point:

"When the price of exercising one's freedom is terribly high, what practical
difference is there between the commands of the state and those issued
by one's employer? . . . Though admittedly the circumstances are not
identical, telling disgruntled empowers that they are always free to leave
their jobs seems no different in principle from telling political dissidents
that they are free to emigrate." [_Liberalism at Wit's End_, pp. 45-46]

Murray Rothbard, in his own way, agrees:

"*If* the State may be said too properly *own* its territory, then it is
proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that
area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there
*is* no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire 
land surface. *So long* as the State permits its subjects to leave its 
territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who
sets down rules for people living on his property." [_The Ethics of
Liberty_, p. 170]

Rothbard's argues that this is *not* the case simply because the state
did not acquire its property in a "just" manner and that it claims 
rights over virgin land (both of which violates Rothbard's "homesteading"
theory of property -- see section F.4.1 for details and a critique).
Rothbard argues that this defence of statism (the state as property owner)
is unrealistic and ahistoric, but his account of the origins of property 
is equally unrealistic and ahistoric and that does not stop him supporting 
capitalism. People in glass houses should not throw stones!

Thus he claims that the state is evil and its claims to authority/power 
false simply because it acquired the resources it claims to own "unjustly" 
-- for example, by violence and coercion (see _The Ethics of Liberty_, 
pp. 170-1, for Rothbard's attempt to explain why the state should not be 
considered as the owner of land). And even *if* the state *was* the 
owner of its territory, it cannot appropriate virgin land (although, 
as he notes elsewhere, the "vast" US frontier no longer exists "and 
there is no point crying over the fact" [Op. Cit., p. 240]). 

So what makes hierarchy legitimate for Rothbard is whether the property
it derives from was acquired justly or unjustly. Which leads us to a 
few *very* important points. 

Firstly, Rothbard is explicitly acknowledging the similarities between 
statism and capitalism. He is arguing that *if* the state had developed 
in a "just" way, then it is perfectly justifiable in governing ("set[ting] 
down rules") those who "consent" to live on its territory in *exactly* 
the same why a property owner does. In other words, private property 
can be considered as a "justly" created state! These similarities between
property and statism have long been recognised by anarchists and that
is why we reject private property along with the state (Proudhon did,
after all, note that "property is despotism" and well as "theft"). But, 
according to Rothbard, something can look like a state (i.e. be a 
monopoly of decision making over an area) and act like a state (i.e.
set down rules for people, govern them, impose a monopoly of force)
but not be a state. But if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, 
it is a duck. Claiming that the origins of the thing are what counts is
irrelevant --  for example, a cloned duck is just as much a duck as 
a naturally born one. A statist organisation is authoritarian whether 
it comes from "just" or "unjust" origins. Does transforming the 
ownership of the land from states to capitalists *really* make the
relations of domination created by the dispossession of the many 
less authoritarian and unfree? Of course not.

Secondly, much property in "actually existing" capitalism is the product 
(directly or indirectly) of state laws and violence ("the emergence of
both agrarian and industrial capitalism in Britain [and elsewhere, we
must add] . . . could not have got off the ground without resources
to state violence -- legal or otherwise" [Brian Morris, _Ecology &
Anarchism_, p. 190]). If state claims of ownership are invalid due to 
their history, then so are many others (particularly those which claim 
to own land). As the initial creation was illegitimate, so are the 
transactions which have sprung from it. Thus if state claims of property 
rights are invalid, so are most (if not all) capitalist claims. If the 
laws of the state are illegitimate, so are the rules of the capitalist. 
If taxation is illegitimate, then so are rent, interest and profit. 
Rothbard's "historical" argument against the state can also be applied 
to private property and if the one is unjustified, then so is the other.

Thirdly, *if* the state had evolved "justly" then Rothbard would actually 
have nothing against it! A strange position for an anarchist to take. 
Logically this means that if a system of corporate states evolved 
from the workings of the capitalist market then the "anarcho"-capitalist 
would have nothing against it. This can be seen from "anarcho"-capitalist
support for company towns even though they have correctly been described
as "industrial feudalism" (see section F.6 for more on this).

Fourthly, Rothbard's argument implies that similar circumstances producing 
similar relationships of domination and unfreedom are somehow different 
if they are created by "just" and "unjust" means. Rothbard claims that
because the property is "justly" acquired it means the authority a 
capitalist over his employees is totally different from that of a state 
over its subject. But such a claim is false -- both the subject/citizen 
and the employee are in a similar relationship of domination and 
authoritarianism. As we argued in section F.2.2, how a person got 
into a situation is irrelevant when considering how free they are. 
Thus, the person who "consents" to be governed by another because all 
available resources are privately owned is in exactly the same situation
as a person who has to join a state because all available resources are 
owned by one state or another. Both are unfree and are part of authoritarian 
relationships based upon domination.

And, lastly, while "anarcho"-capitalism may be a "just" society, it is
definitely *not* a free one. It will be marked by extensive hierarchy, 
unfreedom and government, but these restrictions of freedom will be of a 
private nature. As Rothbard indicates, the property owner and the state 
create/share the same authoritarian relationships. If statism is unfree, 
then so is capitalism. And, we must add, how "just" is a system which 
undermines liberty. Can "justice" ever be met in a society in which 
one class has more power and freedom than another. If one party is in 
an inferior position, then they have little choice but to agree to the 
disadvantageous terms offered by the superior party (see section F.3.1). 
In such a situation, a "just" outcome will be unlikely as any contract 
agreed will be skewed to favour one side over the other.

The implications of these points are important. We can easily imagine 
a situation within "anarcho"-capitalism where a few companies/people 
start to buy up land and form company regions and towns. After all, 
this *has* happened continually throughout capitalism. Thus a "natural" 
process may develop where a few owners start to accumulate larger and 
larger tracks of land "justly". Such a process does not need to result
in *one* company owning the world. It is likely that a few hundred,
perhaps a few thousand, could do so. But this is not a cause for 
rejoicing -- after all the current "market" in "unjust" states also
has a few hundred competitors in it. And even if there is a large
multitude of property owners, the situation for the working class is
exactly the same as the citizen under current statism! Does the fact 
that it is "justly" acquired property that faces the worker really
change the fact she must submit to the government and rules of another 
to gain access to the means of life?

When faced with anarchist criticisms that *circumstances* force workers
to accept wage slavery the "anarcho"-capitalist claims that these are to
be considered as objective facts of nature and so wage labour is not 
domination. However, the same can be said of states -- we are born into 
a world where states claim to own all the available land. If states are 
replaced by individuals or groups of individuals does this change the 
essential nature of our dispossession? Of course not. 

Rothbard argues that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has 
the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones 
over his, etc." [Op. Cit., p. 173] and, equally obviously, this 
ultimate-decision making power extends to those who *use,* but do 
not own, such property. But how "free" is a free society where the 
majority have to sell their liberty to another in order to live? 
Rothbard (correctly) argues that the State "uses its monopoly of 
force . . . to control, regulate, and coerce its hapless subjects. 
Often it pushes its way into controlling the morality and the very
lives of its subjects." [Op. Cit., p. 171] However he fails to note 
that employers do exactly the same thing to their employees. This, 
from an anarchist perspective, is unsurprising, for (after all) the 
employer *is* "the ultimate decision-making power over his just 
property" just as the state is over its "unjust" property. That
similar forms of control and regulation develop is not a surprise
given the similar hierarchical relations in both structures.

That there is a choice in available states does not make statism 
any less unjust and unfree. Similarly, just because we have a choice
between employers does not make wage labour any less unjust or unfree.
But trying to dismiss one form of domination as flowing from "just"
property while attacking the other because it flows from "unjust"
property is not seeing the wood for the trees. If one reduces liberty, 
so does the other. Whether the situation we are in resulted from "just" 
or "unjust" steps is irrelevant to the restrictions of freedom we face 
because of them (and as we argue in section F.2.5, "unjust" situations
can easily flow from "just" steps).

The "anarcho"-capitalist insistence that the voluntary nature of an 
association determines whether it is anarchistic is deeply flawed -- so 
flawed in fact that states and state-like structures (such as capitalist
firms) can be considered anarchistic! In contrast, anarchists think that 
the hierarchical nature of the associations we join is equally as 
important as its voluntary nature when determining whether it is 
anarchistic or statist. However this option is not available to the 
"anarcho"-capitalist as it logically entails that capitalist companies 
are to be opposed along with the state as sources of domination, 
oppression and exploitation.

F.2.4 But surely transactions on the market are voluntary?

Of course, it is usually maintained by "anarcho"-capitalists that no-one 
puts a gun to a worker's head to join a specific company. Yes, indeed,
this is true -- workers can apply for any job they like. But the point
is that the vast majority cannot avoid having to sell their liberty to 
others (self-employment and co-operatives *are* an option, but they
account for less than 10% of the working population and are unlikely
to spread due to the nature of capitalist market forces -- see section 
J.5.11 and J.5.12 for details). And as Bob Black pointed out, right
libertarians argue that "'one can at least change jobs.' but you can't
avoid having a job -- just as under statism one can at least change
nationalities but you can't avoid subjection to one nation-state
or another. But freedom means more than the right to change masters."
[_The Libertarian as Conservative_]
 
So why do workers agree to join a company? Because circumstances force 
them to do so - circumstances created, we must note, by *human* actions
and institutions and not some abstract "fact of nature." And if the world 
that humans create by their activity is detrimental to what we should 
value most (individual liberty and individuality) then we should consider 
how to *change that world for the better.* Thus "circumstances" (current 
"objective reality") is a valid source of unfreedom and for human 
investigation and creative activity -- regardless of the claims of 
right-Libertarians.

Let us look at the circumstances created by capitalism. Capitalism is 
marked by a class of dispossessed labourers who have nothing to sell by 
their labour. They are legally barred from access to the means of life 
and so have little option but to take part in the labour market. As 
Alexander Berkman put it:

"The law says your employer does not sell anything from you, because it
is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for 
certain pay, he to have all that you produce . . .

"But did you really consent?

"When the highway man holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables
over to him. You 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot
help yourself, because you are *compelled* by his gun.

"Are you not *compelled* to work for an employer? Your need compels you
just as the highwayman's gun. You must live. . . You can't work for
yourself . . .The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the 
employing class, so you *must* hire yourself out to that class in order
to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it
is always comes to the same: you must work *for him*. You can't help
yourself. You are *compelled*." [_What is Communist Anarchism?_, p. 9]

Due to this class monopoly over the means of life, workers (usually) are 
at a disadvantage in terms of bargaining power -- there are more workers
than jobs (see section B.4.3 and F.10.2 for a discussion why this is
the normal situation on the labour market).

As was indicated in section B.4 (How does capitalism affect liberty?), 
within capitalism there is no equality between owners and the dispossessed, 
and so property is a source of *power.* To claim that this power should be 
"left alone" or is "fair" is "to the anarchists. . . preposterous. Once a 
State has been established, and most of the country's capital privatised, 
the threat of physical force is no longer necessary to coerce workers 
into accepting jobs, even with low pay and poor conditions. To use Ayn 
Rand's term, 'initial force' has *already taken place,* by those who now 
have capital against those who do not. . . . In other words, if a thief 
died and willed his 'ill-gotten gain' to his children, would the children 
have a right to the stolen property? Not legally. So if 'property is theft,' 
to borrow Proudhon's quip, and the fruit of exploited labour is simply legal 
theft, then the only factor giving the children of a deceased capitalist a 
right to inherit the 'booty' is the law, the State. As Bakunin wrote, 
'Ghosts should not rule and oppress this world, which belongs only to 
the living'" [Jeff Draughn, _Between Anarchism and Libertarianism_]. 

Or, in other words, right-Libertarianism fails to "meet the charge that 
normal operations of the market systematically places an entire class of 
persons (wage earners) in circumstances that compel them to accept the 
terms and conditions of labour dictated by those who offer work. While 
it is true that individuals are formally free to seek better jobs or 
withhold their labour in the hope of receiving higher wages, in the end 
their position in the market works against them; they cannot live if they 
do not find employment. When circumstances regularly bestow a relative 
disadvantage on one class of persons in their dealings with another class, 
members of the advantaged class have little need of coercive measures to 
get what they want." [Stephen L. Newman, _Liberalism at Wit's End_, 
p. 130]

To ignore the circumstances which drive people to seek out the most 
"beneficial exchange" is to blind yourself to the power relationships
inherent within capitalism -- power relationships created by the
unequal bargaining power of the parties involved (also see section
F.3.1). And to argue that "consent" ensures freedom is false; if you 
are "consenting" to be join a dictatorial organisation, you "consent" 
*not* to be free (and to paraphrase Rousseau, a person who renounces 
freedom renounces being human). 

Which is why circumstances are important -- if someone truly wants to
join an authoritarian organisation, then so be it. It is their life. But 
if circumstances ensure their "consent" then they are not free. The
danger is, of course, that people become *accustomed* to authoritarian 
relationships and end up viewing them as forms of freedom. This can be 
seen from the state, which the vast majority support and "consent" to.
And this also applies to wage labour, which many workers today accept 
as a "necessary evil" (like the state) but, as we indicate in section 
F.8.6, the first wave of workers viewed with horror as a form of (wage) 
slavery and did all that they could to avoid. In such situations all
we can do is argue with them and convince them that certain forms of
organisations (such as the state and capitalist firms) are an evil 
and urge them to change society to ensure their extinction.

So due to this lack of appreciation of circumstances (and the fact that 
people become accustomed to certain ways of life) "anarcho"-capitalism 
actively supports structures that restrict freedom for the many. And how 
is "anarcho"-capitalism *anarchist* if it generates extensive amounts of 
archy? It is for this reason that all anarchists support self-management 
within free association -- that way we maximise freedom both inside *and* 
outside organisations. But only stressing freedom outside organisations,
"anarcho"-capitalism ends up denying freedom as such (after all, we 
spend most of our waking hours at work). If "anarcho"-capitalists 
*really* desired freedom, they would reject capitalism and become 
anarchists -- only in a libertarian socialist society would agreements 
to become a wage worker be truly voluntary as they would not be driven 
by circumstances to sell their liberty.

This means that while right-Libertarianism appears to make "choice" an ideal 
(which sounds good, liberating and positive) in practice it has become a 
"dismal politics," a politics of choice where most of the choices are bad. 
And, to state the obvious, the choices we are "free" to make are shaped by
the differences in wealth and power in society (see section F.3.1) as 
well as such things as "isolation paradoxes" (see section B.6) and the 
laws and other human institutions that exist. If we ignore the context 
within which people make their choices then we glorify abstract processes 
at the expense of real people. And, as importantly, we must add that many 
of the choices we make under capitalism (shaped as they are by the 
circumstances within which they are made), such as employment contracts, 
result in our "choice" being narrowed to "love it or leave it" in the 
organisations we create/join as a result of these "free" choices. 

This ideological blind spot flows from the "anarcho"-capitalist definition
of "freedom" as "absence of coercion" -- as workers "freely consent" to
joining a specific workplace, their freedom is unrestricted. But to 
defend *only* "freedom from" in a capitalist society means to defend 
the power and authority of the few against the attempts of the many to 
claim their freedom and rights. To requote Emma Goldman, "'Rugged 
individualism' has meant all the 'individualism' for the masters . . . , 
in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and 
held up as virtues' while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain 
freedom . . . is denounced as . . . evil in the name of that same 
individualism." [_Red Emma Speaks_, p. 112]

In other words, its all fine and well saying (as right-libertarians do) 
that you aim to abolish force from human relationships but if you support 
an economic system which creates hierarchy (and so domination and oppression) 
by its very workings, "defensive" force will always be required to maintain
and enforce that domination. Moreover, if one class has extensive power 
over another due to the systematic (and normal) workings of the market,  
any force used to defend that power is *automatically* "defensive". Thus 
to argue against the use of force and ignore the power relationships that 
exist within and shape a society (and so also shape the individuals within 
it) is to defend and justify capitalist and landlord domination and 
denounce any attempts to resist that domination as "initiation of
force." 

Anarchists, in contrast, oppose *hierarchy* (and so domination
within relationships -- bar S&M personal relationships, which are a 
totally different thing altogether; they are truly voluntary and they
also do not attempt to hide the power relationships involved by using 
economic jargon). This opposition, while also including opposition to 
the use of force against equals (for example, anarchists are opposed
to forcing workers and peasants to join a self-managed commune or 
syndicate), also includes support for the attempts of those subject 
to domination to end it (for example, workers striking for union 
recognition are not "initiating force", they are fighting for their 
freedom). 

In other words, apparently "voluntary" agreements can and do limit 
freedom and so the circumstances that drive people into them *must* be 
considered when deciding whether any such limitation is valid. By 
ignoring circumstances, "anarcho"-capitalism ends up by failing to 
deliver what it promises -- a society of free individuals -- and
instead presents us with a society of masters and servants. The question
is, what do we feel moved to insist that people enjoy? Formal, abstract
(bourgeois) self-ownership ("freedom") or a more substantive control
over one's life (i.e. autonomy)?

F.2.5 But surely circumstances are the result of liberty and so cannot
      be objected to?

It is often argued by right-libertarians that the circumstances we face 
within capitalism are the result of individual decisions (i.e. individual 
liberty) and so we must accept them as the expressions of these acts (the 
most famous example of this argument is in Nozick's _Anarchy, State, and 
Utopia_ pp. 161-163 where he maintains that "liberty upsets patterns"). 
This is because whatever situation evolves from a just situation by just 
(i.e. non-coercive steps) is also (by definition) just. 

However, it is not apparent that adding just steps to a just situation 
will result in a just society. We will illustrate with a couple of 
banal examples. If you add chemicals which are non-combustible together
you can create a new, combustible, chemical (i.e. X becomes not-X by 
adding new X to it). Similarly, if you have an odd number and add another 
odd number to it, it becomes even (again, X becomes not-X by adding a new
X to it). So it *is* very possible to go from an just state to an unjust
state by just step (and it is possible to remain in an unjust state by
just acts; for example if we tried to implement "anarcho"-capitalism
on the existing -- unjustly created -- situation of "actually existing"
capitalism it would be like having an odd number and adding even numbers 
to it). In other words, the outcome of "just" steps can increase inequality 
within society and so ensure that some acquire an unacceptable amount of 
power over others, via their control over resources. Such an inequality of
power would create an "unjust" situation where the major are free to
sell their liberty to others due to inequality in power and resources 
on the "free" market.

Ignoring this objection, we could argue (as many "anarcho"-capitalists
and right-libertarians do) that the unforeseen results of human action 
are fine unless we assume that these human actions are in themselves bad 
(i.e. that individual choice is evil). 

Such an argument is false for three reasons. 

First, when we make our choices the aggregate impact of these choices are 
unknown to us -- and not on offer when we make our choices. Thus we cannot 
be said to "choose" these outcomes, outcomes which we may consider deeply 
undesirable, and so the fact that these outcomes are the result of 
individual choices is besides the point (if we knew the outcome
we could refrain from doing them). The choices themselves, therefore, 
do not validate the outcome as the outcome was not part of the choices 
when they where made (i.e. the means do not justify the ends). In other
words, private acts often have important public consequences (and 
"bilateral exchanges" often involve externalities for third parties). 
Secondly, if the outcome of individual choices is to deny or restrict 
individual choice on a wider scale at a later stage, then we are hardly 
arguing that individual choice is a bad thing. We want to arrange it so 
that the decisions we make now do not result in them restricting our 
ability to make choices in important areas of life at a latter stage. 
Which means we are in favour of individual choices and so liberty, not
against them. Thirdly, the unforeseen or unplanned results of individual 
actions are not necessarily a good thing. If the aggregate outcome of 
individual choices harms individuals then we have a right to modify the 
circumstances within which choices are made and/or the aggregate results 
of these choices. 

An example will show what we mean (again drawn from Haworth's excellent
_Anti-Libertarianism_, p. 35). Millions of people across the world bought 
deodorants which caused a hole to occur in the ozone layer surrounding
the Earth. The resultant of these acts created a situation in which 
individuals and the eco-system they inhabited were in great danger. 
The actual acts themselves were by no means wrong, but the aggregate
impact was. A similar argument can apply to any form of pollution.
Now, unless the right-Libertarian argues that skin cancer or other
forms of pollution related illness are fine, its clear that the 
resultant of individual acts can be harmful to individuals. 

The right-Libertarian could argue that pollution is an "initiation of
force" against an individual's property-rights in their person and so
individuals can sue the polluters. But hierarchy also harms the individual
(see section B.1) -- and so can be considered as an infringement of 
their "property-rights" (i.e. liberty, to get away from the insane 
property fetish of right-Libertarianism). The loss of autonomy can be
just as harmful to an individual as lung cancer although very different
in form. And the differences in wealth resulting from hierarchy is
well known to have serious impacts on life-span and health. 

As noted in section F.2.1, the market is just as man-made as pollution. This 
means that the "circumstances" we face are due to aggregate of millions of 
individual acts and these acts occur within a specific framework of rights, 
institutions and ethics. Anarchists think that a transformation of our 
society and its rights and ideals is required so that the resultant of 
individual choices does not have the ironic effect of limiting individual 
choice (freedom) in many important ways (such as in work, for example). 

In other words, the *circumstances* created by capitalist rights and 
institutions requires a *transformation* of these rights and institutions 
in such a way as to maximise individual choice for all -- namely, to abolish 
these rights and replace them with new ones (for example, replace property 
rights with use rights). Thus Nozick's claims that "Z does choose voluntarily 
if the other individuals A through Y each acted voluntarily and within their
rights" [Op. Cit., p. 263] misses the point -- it is these rights that are 
in question (given that Nozick *assumes* these rights then his whole thesis 
is begging the question).

And we must add (before anyone points it out) that, yes, we are aware that 
many decisions will unavoidably limit current and future choices. For 
example, the decision to build a factory on a green-belt area will make 
it impossible for people to walk through the woods that are no longer 
there. But such "limitations" (if they can be called that) of choice are 
different from the limitations we are highlighting here, namely the lose 
of freedom that accompanies the circumstances created via exchange in the 
market. The human actions which build the factory modify reality but 
do not generate social relationships of domination between people in 
so doing. The human actions of market exchange, in contrast, modify the 
relative strengths of everyone in society and so has a distinct impact 
on the social relationships we "voluntarily" agree to create. Or, to put 
it another way, the decision to build on the green-belt site does "limit" 
choice in the abstract but it does *not* limit choice in the kind of 
relationships we form with other people nor create authoritarian 
relationships between people due to inequality influencing the content
of the associations we form. However, the profits produced from using the 
factory increases inequality (and so market/economic power) and so weakens 
the position of the working class in respect to the capitalist class within
society. This increased inequality will be reflected in the "free" 
contracts and working regimes that are created, with the weaker "trader"
having to compromise far more than before. 

So, to try and defend wage slavery and other forms of hierarchy by arguing 
that "circumstances" are created by individual liberty runs aground on its 
own logic. If the circumstances created by individual liberty results in 
pollution then the right-Libertarian will be the first to seek to change 
those circumstances. They recognise that the right to pollute while producing
is secondary to our right to be healthy. Similarly, if the circumstances 
created by individual liberty results in hierarchy (pollution of the mind 
and our relationships with others as opposed to the body, although it 
affects that to) then we are entitled to change these circumstances too 
and the means by which we get there (namely the institutional and rights 
framework of society). Our right to liberty is more important than the 
rights of property -- sadly, the right-Libertarian refuses to recognise 
this.

F.2.6 Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery? 

Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-Libertarianism is 
one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert 
Nozick asks whether "a free system would allow [the individual] to sell 
himself into slavery" and he answers "I believe that it would." [_Anarchy,
State and Utopia_, p. 371] While some right-Libertarians do not agree with 
Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

The logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell 
it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist 
ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself. 

(For Murray Rothbard's claims of the "unenforceability, in libertarian 
theory, of voluntary slave contracts" see _The Ethics of Liberty_, pp. 
134-135 -- of course, *other* libertarian theorists claim the exact 
opposite so "libertarian theory" makes no such claims, but nevermind! 
Essentially, his point revolves around the assertion that a person 
"cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced 
- for this would mean that his future will over his own body was being 
surrendered in advance" and that if a "labourer remains totally subservient 
to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission 
is voluntary." [p. 40] However, as we noted in section F.2, Rothbard 
emphasis on quitting fails to recognise that actual denial of will and 
control over ones own body that is explicit in wage labour. It is this 
failure that pro-slave contract "libertarians" stress -- as we will 
see, they consider the slave contract as an extended wage contract. 
Moreover, a modern slave contract would likely take the form of a
"performance bond" [Op. Cit., p. 136] in which the slave agrees to 
perform X years labour or pay their master substantial damages. The
threat of damages that enforces the contract and such a "contract" 
Rothbard does agree is enforceable -- along with "conditional exchange"
[p. 141] which could be another way of creating slave contracts.)

The right-Libertarian J. Philmore argues there is a "fundamental contradiction" 
in a modern liberal society for the state to prohibit slave contracts. Lets, 
however, not do these arguers for slavery an injustice. They are arguing for
a "*civilised* form of contractual slavery" (our emphasis). [J. Philmore, 
"The Libertarian Case for Slavery", _The Philosophical Forum_, xiv, 1982, 
p. 55, p. 58] Such a "civilised" form of slavery could occur when an 
individual would "agree" to sell themselves to themselves to another (as 
when a starving worker would "agree" to become a slave in return for food).
In addition, the contract would be able to be broken under certain conditions
(perhaps in return for breaking the contract, the former slave would have
pay damages to his or her master for the labour their master would lose - 
a sizeable amount no doubt and such a payment could result in debt slavery,
which is the most common form of "civilised" slavery. Such damages
may be agreed in the contract as a "performance bond" or "conditional
exchange"). 

So, right-Libertarians are talking about "civilised" slavery (or, in 
other words, civil slavery) and not forced slavery.

We must stress that this is no academic debate. "Voluntary" slavery has 
been a problem in many societies and still exists in many countries today
(particularly third world ones where bonded labour -- i.e. where debt is
used to enslave people -- is the most common form). With the rise of sweat 
shops and child labour in many "developed" countries such as the USA, 
"voluntary" slavery (perhaps via debt and bonded labour) may become 
common in all parts of the world -- an ironic (if not surprising) result
of "freeing" the market and being indifferent to the actual freedom of 
those within it. 

And it is interesting to note that even Murray Rothbard is not against
the selling of humans. He argued that children are the property of their 
parents. They can (bar actually murdering them by violence) do whatever 
they please with them, even sell them on a "flourishing free child market." 
[_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 102] Combined with a whole hearted support 
for child labour (after all, the child can leave its parents if it objects 
to working for them) such a "free child market" could easily become a 
"child slave market" -- with entrepreneurs making a healthy profit selling 
infants to other entrepreneurs who could make profits from the toil of 
"their" children (and such a process did occur in 19th century Britain). 
Unsurprisingly, Rothbard ignores the possible nasty aspects of such a 
market in human flesh (such as children being sold to work in factories, 
homes and brothels). And, of course, such a market could see women 
"specialising" in producing children for it (the use of child labour 
during the Industrial Revolution actually made it economically sensible 
for families to have more children) and, perhaps, gluts and scarcities 
of babies due to changing market conditions. But this is besides the 
point.

Of course, this theoretical justification for slavery at the heart of an 
ideology calling itself "libertarianism" is hard for many right-Libertarians
to accept. Some of the "anarcho"-capitalist type argue that such contracts 
would be very hard to enforce in their system of capitalism. This attempt 
to get out of the contradiction fails simply because it ignores the nature
of the capitalist market. If there is a demand for slave contracts to be 
enforced, then companies will develop to provide that "service" (and it would 
be interesting to see how two "protection" firms, one defending slave contracts 
and another not, could compromise and reach a peaceful agreement over whether 
slave contracts were valid). Thus we could see a so-called "anarchist" or 
"free" society producing companies whose specific purpose was to hunt down 
escaped slaves (i.e. individuals in slave contracts who have not paid 
damages to their owners for freedom). Of course, perhaps Rothbard would
claim that such slave contracts would be "outlawed" under his "general
libertarian law code" but this is a denial of market "freedom". If slave 
contracts *are* "banned" then surely this is paternalism, stopping 
individuals from contracting out their "labour services" to whom and 
however long they "desire". You cannot have it both ways.

So, ironically, an ideology proclaiming itself to support "liberty" ends 
up justifying and defending slavery. Indeed, for the right-libertarian the
slave contract is an exemplification, not the denial, of the individual's 
liberty! How is this possible? How can slavery be supported as an expression 
of liberty? Simple, right-Libertarian support for slavery is a symptom of
a *deeper* authoritarianism, namely their uncritical acceptance of contract
theory. The central claim of contract theory is that contract is the means 
to secure and enhance individual freedom. Slavery is the antithesis to freedom
and so, in theory, contract and slavery must be mutually exclusive. However,
as indicated above, some contract theorists (past and present) have included 
slave contracts among legitimate contracts. This suggests that contract 
theory cannot provide the theoretical support needed to secure and enhance 
individual freedom. Why is this?

As Carole Pateman argues, "contract theory is primarily about a way of 
creating social relations constituted by subordination, not about exchange." 
[_The Sexual Contract_, p. 40] Rather than undermining subordination, contract 
theorists justify modern subjection - "contract doctrine has proclaimed that
subjection to a master - a boss, a husband - is freedom." [Op. Cit., p. 146] 
The question central to contract theory (and so right-Libertarianism) is
not "are people free" (as one would expect) but "are people free to 
subordinate themselves in any manner they please." A radically different 
question and one only fitting to someone who does not know what liberty
means.

Anarchists argue that not all contracts are legitimate and no free individual 
can make a contract that denies his or her own freedom. If an individual 
is able to express themselves by making free agreements then those free 
agreements must also be based upon freedom internally as well. Any agreement 
that creates domination or hierarchy negates the assumptions underlying the 
agreement and makes itself null and void.

This is most easily seen in the extreme case of the slave contract. John 
Stuart Mill stated that such a contract would be "null and void." He argued
that an individual may voluntarily choose to enter such a contract but
in so doing "he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it
beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the
very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of
himself. . .The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be
free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his
freedom." He adds that "these reasons, the force of which is so 
conspicuous in this particular case, are evidently of far wider 
application." [cited by Pateman, Op. Cit., pp. 171-2]

And it is such an application that defenders of capitalism fear (Mill did
in fact apply these reasons wider and unsurprisingly became a supporter of 
a market syndicalist form of socialism). If we reject slave contracts as 
illegitimate then, logically, we must also reject *all* contracts that 
express qualities similar to slavery (i.e. deny freedom) including wage 
slavery.

The right Libertarian J. Philmore sees what is at stake and argues that 
"contractual slavery [is] . . . [an] extension of the employer-employee 
contract." He asserts (correctly) that "any thorough and decisive critique 
of voluntary slavery. . . would carry over to the employment contract. . . 
Such a critique would thus be a *reductio ad absurdum.*" [Philmore, Op. Cit., 
p. 55] In other words, the difference between wage labour and slavery is 
the time scale, a slave contract is "merely" an extended employment contract. 
It is rare to find a supporter of capitalism being so honest! (And as 
Carole Pateman notes, "[t]here is a nice historical irony here. In the
American South, slaves were emancipated and turned into wage labourers, 
and now American contractarians argue that all workers should have the
opportunity to turn themselves into civil slaves." [Ibid., p. 63]).

All this does not mean that we must reject free agreement. Far from it! Free
agreement is *essential* for a society based upon individual dignity and
liberty. There are a variety of forms of free agreement and anarchists
support those based upon co-operation and self-management (i.e. individuals
working together as equals). Anarchists desire to create relationships
which reflect (and so express) the liberty that is the basis of free 
agreement. Capitalism creates relationships that deny liberty. The opposition 
between autonomy and subjection can only be maintained by modifying or
rejecting contract theory, something that capitalism cannot do and so the 
right-wing Libertarian rejects autonomy in favour of subjection (and so 
rejects socialism in favour of capitalism).
 
The real contrast between anarchism and right-Libertarianism is best 
expressed in their respective opinions on slavery. Anarchism is based 
upon the individual whose individuality depends upon the maintenance of 
free relationships with other individuals. If individuals deny their
capacities for self-government from themselves through a contract 
the individuals bring about a qualitative change in their relationship 
to others - freedom is turned into mastery and subordination. For the 
anarchist, slavery is thus the paradigm of what freedom is *not*, instead
of an exemplification of what it is (as right-Libertarians state).

As Proudhon argued "[i]f I were asked to answer the following question: What 
is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would 
be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that 
the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a 
power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him." [_What
is Property?_, p. 37]

In contrast, the right-Libertarian effectively argues that "I support slavery 
because I believe in liberty." It is a sad reflection of the ethical and 
intellectual bankruptcy of our society that such an "argument" is actually 
taken seriously by (some) people. The concept of "slavery as freedom" is
far too Orwellian to warrant a critique - we will leave it up to right
Libertarians to corrupt our language and ethical standards with an attempt
to prove it.

From the basic insight that slavery is the opposite of freedom, the anarchist 
rejection of authoritarian social relations quickly follows (the rejection 
that Philmore and other right-Libertarians fear):

"Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every
contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the alienation or
suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants his foot upon the
soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man. . . Liberty is the original 
condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the nature of man: after 
that, how could we perform the acts of man?" [P.J. Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 67]

The employment contract (i.e. wage slavery) abrogates liberty. It is based
upon inequality of power and "exploitation is a consequence of the fact 
that the sale of labour power entails the worker's subordination." [Carole
Pateman, Op. Cit., P. 149] Hence Proudhon's (and Mill's) support of 
self-management and opposition to capitalism - any relationship that 
resembles slavery is illegitimate and no contract that creates a 
relationship of subordination is valid. Thus in a truly anarchistic 
society, slave contracts would be unenforceable -- people in a truly 
free (i.e. non-capitalist) society would *never* tolerate such a 
horrible institution or consider it a valid agreement. If someone was
silly enough to sign such a contract, they would simply have to 
say they now rejected it in order to be free -- such contracts are
made to be broken and without the force of a law system (and private
defence firms) to back it up, such contracts will stay broken.

The right-Libertarian support for slave contracts (and wage slavery) 
indicates that their ideology has little to do with liberty and far more 
to do with justifying property and the oppression and exploitation it 
produces. Their support and theoretical support for slavery indicates 
a deeper authoritarianism which negates their claims to be libertarians.

F.2.7 But surely abolishing capitalism would restrict liberty?

Many "anarcho"-capitalists and other supporters of capitalism argue that 
it would be "authoritarian" to restrict the number of alternatives that 
people can choose between by abolishing capitalism. If workers become wage 
labourers, so it is argued, it is because they "value" other things more -- 
otherwise they would not agree to the exchange. But such an argument
ignores that reality of capitalism.

By *maintaining* capitalist private property, the options available 
to people *are* restricted. In a fully developed capitalist economy the 
vast majority have the "option" of selling their labour or starving/living
in poverty -- self-employed workers account for less than 10% of the working 
population. Usually, workers are at a disadvantage on the labour market 
due to the existence of unemployment and so accept wage labour because 
otherwise they would starve (see section F.10.2 for a discussion on why
this is the case). And as we argue in sections J.5.11 and J.5.12, 
even *if* the majority of the working population desired co-operative 
workplaces, a capitalist market will not provide them with that outcome 
due to the nature of the capitalist workplace (also see Juliet C. Schor's 
excellent book _The Overworked American_ for a discussion of why workers 
desire for more free time is not reflected in the labour market). In other 
words, it is a myth to claim that wage labour exists or that workplaces are 
hierarchical because workers value other things -- they are hierarchical 
because bosses have more clout on the market than workers and, to use
Schor's expression, workers end up wanting what they get rather than 
getting what they want. 

Looking at the reality of capitalism we find that because of inequality 
in resources (protected by the full might of the legal system, we should 
note) those with property get to govern those without it during working 
hours (and beyond in many cases). If the supporters of capitalism were 
actually concerned about liberty (as opposed to property) that situation 
would be abhorrent to them -- after all, individuals can no longer exercise 
their ability to make decisions, choices, and are reduced to being order 
takers. If choice and liberty are the things we value, then the ability 
to make choices in all aspects of life automatically follows (including 
during work hours). However, the authoritarian relationships and the
continual violation of autonomy wage labour implies are irrelevant to 
"anarcho"-capitalists (indeed, attempts to change this situation are 
denounced as violations of the autonomy of the property owner!). By
purely concentrating on the moment that a contract is signed they
blind themselves to the restricts of liberty that wage contracts create.

Of course, anarchists have no desire to *ban* wage labour -- we aim to 
create a society within which people are not forced by circumstances 
to sell their liberty to others. In order to do this, anarchists propose 
a modification of property and property rights to ensure true freedom of
choice (a freedom of choice denied to us by capitalism). As we have
noted many times, "bilateral exchanges" can and do adversely effect the
position of third parties if they result in the build-up of power/money 
in the hands of a few. And one of these adverse effects can be the 
restriction of workers options due to economic power. Therefore it is 
the supporter of capitalist who restricts options by supporting an economic 
system and rights framework that by their very workings reduce the options 
available to the majority, who then are "free to choose" between those 
that remain (see also section B.4). Anarchists, in contrast, desire 
to expand the available options by abolishing capitalist private property 
rights and removing inequalities in wealth and power that help restrict 
our options and liberties artificially.

So does an anarchist society have much to fear from the spread of
wage labour within it? Probably not. If we look at societies such as 
the early United States or the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution 
in Britain, for example, we find that, given the choice, most people
preferred to work for themselves. Capitalists found it hard to find 
enough workers to employ and the amount of wages that had to be offered
to hire workers were so high as to destroy any profit margins. Moreover,
the mobility of workers and their "laziness" was frequently commented
upon, with employers despairing at the fact workers would just work 
enough to make end meet and then disappear. Thus, left to the actions
of the "free market," it is doubtful that wage labour would have spread.
But it was not left to the "free market".

In response to these "problems", the capitalists turned to the state
and enforced various restrictions on society (the most important being 
the land, tariff and money monopolies -- see section B.3 and F.8). In
free competition between artisan and wage labour, wage labour only 
succeeded due to the use of state action to create the required 
circumstances to discipline the labour force and to accumulate 
enough capital to  give capitalists an edge over artisan production 
(see section F.8 for more details). 

Thus an anarchist society would not have to fear the spreading of
wage labour within it. This is simply because would-be capitalists 
(like those in the early United States) would have to offer such 
excellent conditions, workers' control and high wages as to make 
the possibility of extensive profits from workers' labour nearly 
impossible. Without the state to support them, they will not be
able to accumulate enough capital to give them an advantage within
a free society. Moreover, it is somewhat ironic to hear capitalists 
talking about anarchism denying choice when we oppose wage labour 
considering the fact workers were not given any choice when the 
capitalists used the state to develop wage labour in the first place!

F.2.8 Why should we reject the "anarcho"-capitalist definitions of freedom
      and justice?

Simply because they lead to the creation of authoritarian social relationships
and so to restrictions on liberty. A political theory which, when consistently
followed, has evil or iniquitous consequences, is a bad theory.

For example, any theory that can justify slavery is obviously a bad theory
- slavery does not cease to stink the moment it is seen to follow your
theory. As right-Libertarians can justify slave contracts as a type of wage 
labour (see section F.2.6) as well as numerous other authoritarian social 
relationships, it is obviously a bad theory.

It is worth quoting Noam Chomsky at length on this subject:

"Consider, for example, the 'entitlement theory of justice'. . . [a]ccording
to this theory, a person has a right to whatever he has acquired by means
that are just. If, by luck or labour or ingenuity, a person acquires
such and such, then he is entitled to keep it and dispose of it as he
wills, and a just society will not infringe on this right.

"One can easily determine where such a principle might lead. It is entirely
possible that by legitimate means - say, luck supplemented by contractual
arrangements 'freely undertaken' under pressure of need - one person
might gain control of the necessities of life. Others are then free to
sell themselves to this person as slaves, if he is willing to accept
them. Otherwise, they are free to perish. Without extra question-begging
conditions, the society is just.

"The argument has all the merits of a proof that 2 + 2 = 5 . . . Suppose
that some concept of a 'just society' is advanced that fails to characterise
the situation just described as unjust. . . Then one of two conclusions
is in order. We may conclude that the concept is simply unimportant and
of no interest as a guide to thought or action, since it fails to
apply properly even in such an elementary case as this. Or we may conclude
that the concept advanced is to be dismissed in that it fails to correspond 
to the pretheorectical notion that it intends to capture in clear cases.
If our intuitive concept of justice is clear enough to rule social
arrangements of the sort described as grossly unjust, then the sole interest
of a demonstration that this outcome might be 'just' under a given 'theory
of justice' lies in the inference by *reductio ad absurdum* to the
conclusion that the theory is hopelessly inadequate. While it may capture
some partial intuition regarding justice, it evidently neglects others.

"The real question to be raised about theories that fail so completely
to capture the concept of justice in its significant and intuitive
sense is why they arouse such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed
out of hand on the grounds of this failure, which is striking in
clear cases? Perhaps the answer is, in part, the one given by Edward 
Greenberg in a discussion of some recent work on the entitlement theory
of justice. After reviewing empirical and conceptual shortcomings, he
observes that such work 'plays an important function in the process of
. . . 'blaming the victim,' and of protecting property against egalitarian
onslaughts by various non-propertied groups.' An ideological defence of
privileges, exploitation, and private power will be welcomed, regardless
of its merits.

"These matters are of no small importance to poor and oppressed people
here and elsewhere." [_The Chomsky Reader_, pp. 187-188]

It may be argued that the reductions in liberty associated with capitalism 
is not really an iniquitous outcome, but such an argument is hardly fitting 
for a theory proclaiming itself "libertarian." And the results of these 
authoritarian social relationships? To quote Adam Smith, under the capitalist 
division of labour the worker "has no occasion to exert his understanding, or 
exercise his invention" and "he naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such 
exercise and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for
a human creature to become." The worker's mind falls "into that drowsy
stupidity, which, in a civilised society, seems to benumb the understanding 
of almost all of the inferior [sic!] ranks of people." [cited by Chomsky,
Op. Cit., p. 186]

Of course, it may be argued that these evil effects of capitalist authority 
relations on individuals are also not iniquitous (or that the very real
domination of workers by bosses is not really domination) but that suggests 
a desire to sacrifice real individuals, their hopes and dreams and lives to 
an abstract concept of liberty, the accumulative effect of which would be 
to impoverish all our lives. The kind of relationships we create *within*
the organisations we join are of as great an importance as their 
voluntary nature. Social relations *shape* the individual in many 
ways, restricting their freedom, their perceptions of what freedom 
is and what their interests actually are. This means that, in order not
to be farcical, any relationships we create must reflect in their internal
workings the critical evaluation and self-government that created them
in the first place. Sadly capitalist individualism masks structures of
power and relations of domination and subordination within seemingly
"voluntary" associations -- it fails to note the relations of domination
resulting from private property and so "what has been called 'individualism'
up to now has been only a foolish egoism which belittles the individual. 
Foolish because it was not individualism at all. It did not lead to what
was established as a goal; that is the complete, broad, and most perfectly
attainable development of individuality." [Peter Kropotkin, _Selected
Writings_, p. 297]

This right-Libertarian lack of concern for concrete individual freedom 
and individuality is a reflection of their support for "free markets" (or 
"economic liberty" as they sometimes phrase it). However, as Max Stirner 
noted, this fails to understand that "[p]olitical liberty means that the 
*polis,* the State, is free; . . . not, therefore, that I am free of the 
State. . . It does not mean *my* liberty, but the liberty of a power that 
rules and subjugates me; it means that one of my *despots* . . . is free." 
[_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 107] Thus the desire for "free markets" results 
in a blindness that while the market may be "free" the individuals within 
it may not be (as Stirner was well aware, "[u]nder the *regime* of the
commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the possessors 
. . . of the capitalists, therefore." [Op. Cit., p. 115])

In other words, right-libertarians give the greatest importance to an 
abstract concept of freedom and fail to take into account the fact that 
real, concrete freedom is the outcome of self-managed activity, solidarity 
and voluntary co-operation. For liberty to be real it must exist in all 
aspects of our daily life and cannot be contracted away without seriously 
effecting our minds, bodies and lives. Thus, the right-Libertarian's 
"defence of freedom is undermined by their insistence on the concept of
negative liberty, which all too easily translates in experience as the
negation of liberty." [Stephan L. Newman, _Liberalism as Wit's End_, 
p. 161]

Thus right-Libertarian's fundamental fallacy is that "contract" does not
result in the end of power or domination (particularly when the bargaining 
power or wealth of the would-be contractors is not equal). As Carole 
Pateman notes, "[i]ronically, the contractarian ideal cannot encompass
capitalist employment. Employment is not a continual series of discrete
contracts between employer and worker, but . . . one contract in which a
worker binds himself to enter an enterprise and follow the directions
of the employer for the duration of the contract. As Huw Benyon has
bluntly stated, 'workers are paid to obey.'" [_The Sexual Contract_, 
p. 148] This means that "the employment contract (like the marriage
contract) is not an exchange; both contracts create social relations
that endure over time - social relations of subordination." [Ibid.]

Authority impoverishes us all and must, therefore, be combated wherever 
it appears. That is why anarchists oppose capitalism, so that there shall 
be "no more government of man by man, by means of accumulation of capital." 
[P-J Proudhon, cited by Woodcock in _Anarchism_, p. 110] If, as Murray
Bookchin point it, "the object of anarchism is to increase choice" [_The
Ecology of Freedom_, p. 70] then this applies both to when we are creating
associations/relationships with others and when we are *within* these 
associations/relationships -- i.e. that they are consistent with the
liberty of all, and that implies participation and self-management *not*
hierarchy. "Anarcho"-capitalism fails to understand this essential point 
and by concentrating purely on the first condition for liberty ensures a 
society based upon domination, oppression and hierarchy and not freedom.

It is unsurprising, therefore, to find that the basic unit of analysis
of the "anarcho"-capitalist/right-libertarian is the transaction (the
"trade," the "contract"). The freedom of the individual is seen as
revolving around an act, the contract, and *not* in our relations with
others. All the social facts and mechanisms that precede, surround and 
result from the transaction are omitted. In particular, the social 
relations that result from the transaction are ignored (those, and 
the circumstances that make people contract, are the two unmentionables 
of right-libertarianism). 

For anarchists it seems strange to concentrate on the moment that a
contract is signed and ignore the far longer time the contract is
active for (as we noted in section A.2.14, if the worker is free when
they sign a contract, slavery soon overtakes them). Yes, the voluntary
nature of a decision is important, but so are the social relationships 
we experience due to those decisions.

For the anarchist, freedom is based upon the insight that other people, 
apart from (indeed, *because* of) having their own intrinsic value, also 
are "means to my end", that it is through their freedom that I gain my 
own -- so enriching my life. As Bakunin put it: 

"I who want to be free cannot be because all the men around me do not yet 
want to be free, and consequently they become tools of oppression against 
me." [quoted by Errico Malatesta in _Anarchy_, p. 27]

Therefore anarchists argue that we must reject the right-Libertarian
theories of freedom and justice because they end up supporting the
denial of liberty as the expression of liberty. What this fails to 
recognise is that freedom is a product of social life and that (in
Bakunin's words) "[n]o man can achieve his own emancipation without 
at the same time working for the emancipation of all men around him. 
My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought 
and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and 
approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals." 
[Ibid.]

Other people give us the possibilities to develop our full human potentiality 
and thereby our freedom, so when we destroy the freedom of others we limit 
our own. "To treat others and oneself as property," argues anarchist L. Susan 
Brown, "objectifies the human individual, denies the unity of subject and 
object and is a negation of individual will . . . even the freedom gained
by the other is compromised by this relationship, for to negate the will
of another to achieve one's own freedom destroys the very freedom one
sought in the first place." [_The Politics of Individualism_, p. 3]

Fundamentally, it is for this reason that anarchists reject the 
right-Libertarian theories of freedom and justice -- it just does 
not ensure individual freedom or individuality.

F.3 Why do anarcho"-capitalists generally place little or no value 
    on "equality," and what do they mean by that term?

Murray Rothbard argues that "the 'rightist' libertarian is not opposed 
to inequality." [_For a New Liberty_, p. 47]In contrast, "leftist" 
libertarians oppose inequality because it has harmful effects on 
individual liberty.

Part of the reason "anarcho"-capitalism places little or no value on 
"equality" derives from their definition of that term. Murray Rothbard 
defines equality as:

"A and B are 'equal' if they are identical to each other with respect to a
given attribute... There is one and only one way, then, in which any two
people can really be 'equal' in the fullest sense: they must be identical
in *all* their attributes." He then points out the obvious fact that "men 
are not uniform,. . . . the species, mankind, is uniquely characterised by a 
high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation: in short, inequality." 
[_Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays_, p. 4, p.5] 

In others words, every individual is unique. Something no egalitarian 
has ever denied. On the basis of this amazing insight, he concludes that 
equality is impossible (except "equality of rights") and that the attempt 
to achieve "equality" is a "revolt against nature" -- as if any anarchist 
had ever advocated such a notion of equality as being identical! 

And so, because we are all unique, the outcome of our actions will not 
be identical and so social inequality flows from natural differences 
and not due to the economic system we live under. Inequality of 
endowment implies inequality of outcome and so social inequality.
As individual differences are a fact of nature, attempts to create
a society based on "equality" (i.e. making everyone identical in terms
of possessions and so forth) is impossible and "unnatural."

Before continuing, we must note that Rothbard is destroying language to 
make his point and that he is not the first to abuse language in this
particular way. In George Orwell's _1984_, the expression "all men are
created equal" could be translated into Newspeak, but it would make as
much sense as saying "all men have red hair," an obvious falsehood
(see "The Principles of Newspeak" Appendix). It's nice to know that 
"Mr. Libertarian" is stealing ideas from Big Brother, and for the same 
reason: to make critical thought impossible by restricting the meaning 
of words.

"Equality," in the context of political discussion, does not mean 
"identical," it usually means equality of rights, respect, worth, power
and so forth. It does not imply treating everyone identically (for example,
expecting an eighty year old man to do identical work to an eighteen 
violates treating both with respect as unique individuals). For anarchists,
as Alexander Berkman writes, "equality does not mean an equal amount but 
equal *opportunity*. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality 
in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist 
equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one 
must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in 
the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs 
and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is *equal* opportunity to satisfy
them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens 
the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For 
human character is diverse, and only the repression of this free diversity 
results in levelling, in uniformity and sameness. Free opportunity and 
acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities 
and variations. . . . Life in freedom, in anarchy will do more than liberate 
man merely from his present political and economic bondage. That will be 
only the first step, the preliminary to a truly human existence."
[_The ABC of Anarchism_, p. 25]

Thus anarchists reject the Rothbardian-Newspeak definition of equality
as meaningless within political discussion. No two people are identical
and so imposing "identical" equality between them would mean treating
them as *unequals*, i.e. not having equal worth or giving them equal
respect as befits them as human beings and fellow unique individuals.

So what should we make of Rothbard's claim? It is tempting just to quote 
Rousseau when he argued "it is . . . useless to inquire whether there is any
essential connection between the two inequalities [social and natural];
for this would be only asking, in other words, whether those who command
are necessarily better than those who obey, and if strength of body or
of mind, wisdom, or virtue are always found in particular individuals, 
in proportion to their power or wealth: a question fit perhaps to be
discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming
to reasonable and free men in search of the truth." [_The Social Contract
and Discourses_, p. 49] But a few more points should be raised.

The uniqueness of individuals has always existed but for the vast majority 
of human history we have lived in very egalitarian societies. If social 
inequality did, indeed, flow from natural inequalities then *all*
societies would be marked by it. This is not the case. Indeed, taking
a relatively recent example, many visitors to the early United States 
noted its egalitarian nature, something that soon changed with the rise
of wage labour and industrial capitalism (a rise dependent upon state
action, we must add, -- see section F.8). This implies that the society 
we live in (its rights framework, the social relationships it generates 
and so forth) has a far more of a decisive impact on inequality than
individual differences. Thus certain rights frameworks will tend to 
magnify "natural" inequalities (assuming that is the source of the 
initial inequality, rather than, say, violence and force). As Noam 
Chomsky argues:

"Presumably it is the case that in our 'real world' some combination of
attributes is conducive to success in responding to 'the demands of the
economic system' . . . One might suppose that some mixture of avarice,
selfishness, lack of concern for others, aggressiveness, and similar
characteristics play a part in getting ahead [in capitalism]. . . Whatever
the correct collection of attributes may be, we may ask what follows
from the fact, if it is a fact, that some partially inherited combination
of attributes tends to material success? All that follows . . . is a 
comment on our particular social and economic arrangements . . . The
egalitarian might responds, in all such cases, that the social order
should be changes so that the collection of attributes that tends to
bring success no longer do so . . . " [_The Chomsky Reader_, p. 190]

So, perhaps, if we change society then the social inequalities we see today
would disappear. It is more than probable that natural difference has been 
long ago been replaced with *social* inequalities, especially inequalities 
of property (which will tend to increase, rather than decrease, inequality).
And as we argue in section F.8 these inequalities of property were initially 
the result of force, *not* differences in ability. Thus to claim that social 
inequality flows from natural differences is false as most social inequality 
has flown from violence and force. This initial inequality has been magnified 
by the framework of capitalist property rights and so the inequality within 
capitalism is far more dependent upon, say, the existence of wage labour, 
rather than "natural" differences between individuals. 

If we look at capitalism, we see that in workplaces and across industries
many, if not most, unique individuals receive identical wages for identical 
work (although this often is not the case for women and blacks, who receive
less wages than male, white workers). Similarly, capitalists have 
deliberately introduced wage inequalities and hierarchies for no other
reason that to divide (and so rule) the workforce (see section D.10).
Thus, if we assume egalitarianism *is* a revolt against nature, then 
much of capitalist economic life is in such a revolt (and when it is 
not, the "natural" inequalities have been imposed artificially by those 
in power).

Thus "natural" differences do not necessarily result in inequality as such.
Given a different social system, "natural" differences would be encouraged
and celebrated far wider than they are under capitalism (where, as we
argued in section B.1, hierarchy ensures the crushing of individuality
rather than its encouragement) without any change in social equality.
The claim that "natural" differences generates social inequalities is
question begging in the extreme -- it takes the rights framework of
society as a given and ignores the initial source of inequality in
property and power. Indeed, inequality of outcome or reward is more
likely to be influenced by social conditions rather than individual
differences (as would be the case in a society based on wage labour
or other forms of exploitation).

Another reason for "anarcho"-capitalist lack of concern for equality is 
that they think that "liberty upsets patterns" (see section F.2.5, 
for example). It is argued that equality can only be maintained by 
restricting individual freedom to make exchanges or by taxation of
income. However, what this argument fails to acknowledge is that 
inequality also restricts individual freedom (see next section, for 
example) and that the capitalist property rights framework is not
the only one possible. After all, money is power and inequalities
in terms of power easily result in restrictions of liberty and the
transformation of the majority into order takers rather than free
producers. In other words, once a certain level of inequality is
reached, property does not promote, but actually conflicts with,
the ends which render private property legitimate. Moreover, Nozick 
(in his "liberty upsets patterns" argument) "has produced . . . an 
argument for unrestricted private property using unrestricted private 
property, and thus he begs the question he tries to answer." [Andrew 
Kerhohan, "Capitalism and Self-Ownership", from _Capitalism_, p. 71] 
For example, a worker employed by a capitalist cannot freely exchange 
the machines or raw materials they have been provided with to use but 
Nozick does not class this distribution of "restricted" property rights 
as infringing liberty (nor does he argue that wage slavery itself 
restricts freedom, of course). 

So in response to the claim that equality could only be maintained by 
continuously interfering with people's lives, anarchists would say that
the inequalities produced by capitalist property rights also involve 
extensive and continuous interference with people's lives. After all, as 
Bob Black notes "[y]our foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else 
orders in a week than the police do in a decade" nevermind the other 
effects of inequality such as stress, ill health and so on [_Libertarian 
as Conservative_]. Thus claims that equality involves infringing liberty
ignores the fact that inequality also infringes liberty. A reorganisation 
of society could effectively minimise inequalities by eliminating the 
major source of such inequalities (wage labour) by self-management (see 
section  I.5.11 for a discussion of "capitalistic acts" within an anarchist
society). We have no desire to restrict free exchanges (after all, most
anarchists desire to see the "gift economy" become a reality sooner or
later) but we argue that free exchanges need not involve the unrestricted
property rights Nozick assumes. As we argue in sections F.2 and F.3.1, 
inequality can easily led to the situation where self-ownership is used 
to justify its own negation and so unrestricted property rights may 
undermine the meaningful self-determination (what anarchists would 
usually call "freedom" rather than self-ownership) which many people 
intuitively understand by the term "self-ownership".

Thus, for anarchists, the "anarcho"-capitalist opposition to equality
misses the point and is extremely question begging. Anarchists do not 
desire to make humanity "identical" (which would be impossible and a 
total denial of liberty *and* equality) but to make the social 
relationships between individuals equal in *power.* In other words, 
they desire a situation where people interact together without
institutionalised power or hierarchy and are influenced by each other
"naturally," in proportion to how the (individual) *differences* 
between (social) *equals* are applicable in a given context. To quote 
Michael Bakunin, "[t]he greatest intelligence would not be equal to a
comprehension of the whole. Thence results. . . the necessity of the
division and association of labour. I receive and I give -- such is human
life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no
fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual,
temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination." 
[_God and the State_, p. 33]

Such an environment can only exist within self-managed associations, 
for capitalism (i.e. wage labour) creates very specific relations 
and institutions of authority. It is for this reason anarchists are 
socialists (i.e. opposed to wage labour, the existence of a proletariat
or working class). In other words, anarchists support equality precisely
*because* we recognise that everyone is unique. If we are serious about
"equality of rights" or "equal freedom" then conditions must be such
that people can enjoy these rights and liberties. If we assume the right
to develop one's capacities to the fullest, for example, then inequality
of resources and so power within society destroys that right simply because
people do not have the means to freely exercise their capacities (they 
are subject to the authority of the boss, for example, during work hours).

So, in direct contrast to anarchism, right-Libertarianism is unconcerned 
about any form of equality except "equality of rights". This blinds
them to the realities of life; in particular, the impact of economic and 
social power on individuals within society and the social relationships 
of domination they create. Individuals may be "equal" before the law and
in rights, but they may not be free due to the influence of social 
inequality, the relationships it creates and how it affects the law and
the ability of the oppressed to use it. Because of this, all anarchists 
insist that equality is essential for freedom, including those in the 
Individualist Anarchist tradition the "anarcho"-capitalist tries to 
co-opt -- "Spooner and Godwin insist that inequality corrupts freedom. 
Their anarchism is directed as much against inequality as against tyranny" 
and "[w]hile sympathetic to Spooner's individualist anarchism, they 
[Rothbard and David Friedman] fail to notice or conveniently overlook 
its egalitarian implications." [Stephen L. Newman, _Liberalism at Wit's 
End_, p. 74, p. 76] 

Why equality is important is discussed more fully in the next section.
Here we just stress that without social equality, individual freedom is 
so restricted that it becomes a mockery (essentially limiting freedom
of the majority to choosing *which* employer will govern them rather
than being free within and outside work).

Of course, by defining "equality" in such a restrictive manner, Rothbard's 
own ideology is proved to be nonsense. As L.A. Rollins notes, "Libertarianism, 
the advocacy of 'free society' in which people enjoy 'equal freedom' and 
'equal rights,' is actually a specific form of egalitarianism. As such, 
Libertarianism itself is a revolt against nature. If people, by their very 
biological nature, are unequal in all the attributes necessary to achieving, 
and preserving 'freedom' and 'rights'. . . then there is no way that people 
can enjoy 'equal freedom' or 'equal rights'. If a free society is conceived 
as a society of 'equal freedom,' then there ain't no such thing as 'a 
free society'." [_The Myth of Natural Law_, p. 36]

Under capitalism, freedom is a commodity like everything else. The more 
money you have, the greater your freedom. "Equal" freedom, in the 
Newspeak-Rothbardian sense, *cannot* exist! As for "equality before the 
law", its clear that such a hope is always dashed against the rocks of 
wealth and market power (see next section for more on this). As far as 
rights go, of course, both the rich and the poor have an "equal right" to 
sleep under a bridge (assuming the bridge's owner agrees of course!); but 
the owner of the bridge and the homeless have *different* rights, and so 
they cannot be said to have "equal rights" in the Newspeak-Rothbardian 
sense either. Needless to say, poor and rich will not "equally" use the 
"right" to sleep under a bridge, either.
 
Bob Black observes in _The Libertarian as Conservative_ that "[t]he 
time of your life is the one commodity you can sell but never buy 
back. Murray Rothbard thinks egalitarianism is a revolt against 
nature, but his day is 24 hours long, just like everybody else's."

By twisting the language of political debate, the vast differences
in power in capitalist society can be "blamed" not on an unjust
and authoritarian system but on "biology" (we are all unique
individuals, after all). Unlike genes (although biotechnology 
corporations are working on this, too!), human society *can* be 
changed, by the individuals who comprise it, to reflect the basic
features we all share in common -- our humanity, our ability to 
think and feel, and our need for freedom.

F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?

Simply because a disregard for equality soon ends with liberty for the 
majority being negated in many important ways. Most "anarcho"-capitalists 
and right-Libertarians deny (or at best ignore) market power. Rothbard, 
for example, claims that economic power does not exist; what people 
call "economic power" is "simply the right under freedom to refuse to 
make an exchange" [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 222] and so the concept 
is meaningless.

However, the fact is that there are substantial power centres in
society (and so are the source of hierarchical power and authoritarian 
social relations) which are *not the state.* The central fallacy of 
"anarcho"-capitalism is the (unstated) assumption that the various 
actors within an economy have relatively equal power. This assumption
has been noted by many readers of their works. For example, Peter Marshall 
notes that "'anarcho-capitalists' like Murray Rothbard assume individuals 
would have equal bargaining power in a [capitalist] market-based society" 
[_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 46] George Walford also makes this clear 
in his comments on David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_:

"The private ownership envisages by the anarcho-capitalists would be very
different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far to say that
while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In anarcho-capitalism there
would be no National Insurance, no Social Security, no National Health
Service and not even anything corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be
no public safety-nets at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society:
work, beg or die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would
have to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food,
clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice,
police, all forms of security and insurance, even permission to use the
streets (for these also would be privately owned), as one reads about all
this a curious feature emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy 
all these things.

"There are no public casual wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is
there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system
but no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to
buy the services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody
unable to buy the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody
able to buy much more than anybody else; no person or group possesses
economic power over others.

"No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for
granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery
for restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over
the competitors and it is an *anarcho*- capitalist society) competition
would not be carried to the point where anybody actually suffered from it.
While proclaiming their system to be a competitive one, in which private
interest rules unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, 
in which no person or group profits at the cost of another." [_On the 
Capitalist Anarchists_]

This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray
Rothbard's "Homesteading" concept of property (discussed in section
F.4.1). "Homesteading" paints a picture of individuals and families
doing into the wilderness to make a home for themselves, fighting
against the elements and so forth. It does *not* invoke the idea
of transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people
or a population without land, resources and selling their labour to
others. Indeed, Rothbard argues that economic power does not exist 
(at least under capitalism; as we saw in section F.2.1 he does make
-- highly illogical -- exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman's example 
of a pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty "defence" firm coming 
to an agreement (see section F.6.3) assumes that the firms have equal 
bargaining powers and resources -- if not, then the bargaining process 
would be very one-sided and the smaller company would think twice before 
taking on the larger one in battle (the likely outcome if they cannot 
come to an agreement on this issue) and so compromise.

However, the right-libertarian denial of market power is unsurprising. The 
necessity, not the redundancy, of equality is required if the inherent 
problems of contract are not to become too obvious. If some individuals 
*are* assumed to have significantly more power than others, and if they 
are always self-interested, then a contract that creates equal partners 
is impossible -- the pact will establish an association of masters and 
servants. Needless to say, the strong will present the contract as being 
to the advantage of both: the strong no longer have to labour (and become 
rich, i.e. even stronger) and the weak receive an income and so do not 
starve.

If freedom is considered as a function of ownership then it is very
clear that individuals lacking property (outside their own body, of 
course) loses effective control over their own person and labour (which 
was, lets not forget, the basis of their equal natural rights). When 
ones bargaining power is weak (which is typically the case in the 
labour market) exchanges tend to magnify inequalities of wealth 
and power over time rather than working towards an equalisation. 

In other words, "contract" need not replace power if the bargaining 
position and wealth of the would-be contractors are not equal (for, if
the bargainers had equal power it is doubtful they would agree to sell
control of their liberty/time to another). This means that "power" and 
"market" are not antithetical terms. While, in an abstract sense, all 
market relations are voluntary in practice this is not the case within 
a capitalist market. For example, a large company has a comparative 
advantage over small ones and communities which will definitely shape 
the outcome of any contract. For example, a large company or rich person 
will have access to more funds and so stretch out litigations and strikes 
until their opponents resources are exhausted. Or, if a local company is 
polluting the environment, the local community may put up with the damage 
caused out of fear that the industry (which it depends upon) would relocate 
to another area. If members of the community *did* sue, then the company 
would be merely exercising its property rights when it threatened to move
to another location. In such circumstances, the community would "freely" 
consent to its conditions or face massive economic and social disruption. 
And, similarly, "the landlords' agents who threaten to discharge agricultural 
workers and tenants who failed to vote the reactionary ticket" in the 1936 
Spanish election were just exercising their legitimate property rights
when they threatened working people and their families with economic 
uncertainty and distress. [Murray Bookchin, _The Spanish Anarchists_, 
p. 260]

If we take the labour market, it is clear that the "buyers" and "sellers"
of labour power are rarely on an equal footing (if they were, then 
capitalism would soon go into crisis -- see section F.10.2). In fact, 
competition "in labour markets is typically skewed in favour of 
employers: it is a buyer's market. And in a buyer's market, it is the 
sellers who compromise." [Juliet B. Schor, _The Overworked American_, 
p. 129] Thus the ability to refuse an exchange weights most heavily on
one class than another and so ensures that "free exchange" works to
ensure the domination (and so exploitation) of one party by the other.

Inequality in the market ensures that the decisions of the majority
of within it are shaped in accordance with that needs of the powerful,
not the needs of all. It was for this reason that the Individual Anarchist 
J.K. Ingalls opposed Henry George's proposal of nationalising the land. 
Ingalls was well aware that the rich could outbid the poor for leases
on land and so the dispossession of the working classes would continue.

The market, therefore, does not end power or unfreedom -- they are still 
there, but in different forms. And for an exchange to be truly voluntary, 
both parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its 
terms. Unfortunately, these conditions are rarely meet on the labour market 
or within the capitalist market in general. Thus Rothbard's argument that 
economic power does not exist fails to acknowledge that the rich can 
out-bid the poor for resources and that a corporation generally has 
greater ability to refuse a contract (with an individual, union or 
community) than vice versa (and that the impact of such a refusal is 
such that it will encourage the others involved to "compromise" far 
sooner). And in such circumstances, formally free individuals will 
have to "consent" to be unfree in order to survive. 

As Max Stirner pointed out in the 1840s, free competition "is not 'free,'
because I lack the *things* for competition." [_The Ego and Its Own_, 
p. 262] Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of "things") we find
that "[u]nder the *regime* of the commonality the labourers always fall
into the hands of the possessors . . . of the capitalists, therefore. The
labourer cannot *realise* on his labour to the extent of the value that
it has for the customer." [Op. Cit., p. 115] Its interesting to note that
even Stirner recognises that capitalism results in exploitation. And we 
may add that value the labourer does not "realise" goes into the hands of 
the capitalists, who invest it in more "things" and which consolidates and
increases their advantage in "free" competition.

To quote Stephan L. Newman:

"Another disquieting aspect of the libertarians' refusal to acknowledge 
power in the market is their failure to confront the tension between freedom 
and autonomy. . . Wage labour under capitalism is, of course, formally free 
labour. No one is forced to work at gun point. Economic circumstance, however, 
often has the effect of force; it compels the relatively poor to accept work 
under conditions dictated by owners and managers. The individual worker 
retains freedom [i.e. negative liberty] but loses autonomy [positive 
liberty]." [_Liberalism at Wit's End_, pp. 122-123]

(As an aside, we should point out that the full Stirner quote cited above
is "[u]nder the *regime* of the commonality the labourers always fall
into the hands of the possessors, of those who have at their disposal some
bit of the state domains (and everything possessible in State domain belongs
to the State and is only a fief of the individual), especially money and
land; of the capitalists, therefore. The labourer cannot *realise* on his 
labour to the extent of the value that it has for the customer."

It could be argued that we misrepresenting Stirner by truncating the quote,
but we feel that such a claim this is incorrect. Its clear from his book that 
Stirner is considering the "minimal" state ("The State is a - commoners' 
State . . . It protects man . . .according to whether the rights entrusted 
to him by the State are enjoyed and managed in accordance with the will, 
that is, laws, of the State." The State "looks on indifferently as one grows 
poor and the other rich, unruffled by this alternation. As *individuals* 
they are really equal before its face." [Op. Cit., p. 115, p. 252]). As 
"anarcho"-capitalists consider their system to be one of rights and 
laws (particularly property rights), we feel that its fair to generalise 
Stirner's comments into capitalism *as such* as opposed to "minimum state"
capitalism. If we replace "State" by "libertarian law code" you will see
what we mean. We have included this aside before any right-libertarians
claim that we are misrepresenting Stirner' argument.)

If we consider "equality before the law" it is obvious that this also
has limitations in an (materially) unequal society. Brian Morris notes
that for Ayn Rand, "[u]nder capitalism . . .  politics (state) and economics
(capitalism) are separated . . . This, of course, is pure ideology, for
Rand's justification of the state is that it 'protects' private property,
that is, it supports and upholds the economic power of capitalists by
coercive means." [_Ecology & Anarchism_, p. 189] The same can be said
of "anarcho"-capitalism and its "protection agencies" and "general
libertarian law code." If within a society a few own all the resources
and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code which protects 
private property *automatically* empowers the owning class. Workers 
will *always* be initiating force if act against the code and so 
"equality before the law" reinforces inequality of power and wealth.

This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties of
some people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power 
over others. And this cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights
in question, we have to assess the relative importance of various kinds
of liberty and other values we how dear.

Therefore right-libertarian disregard for equality is important because 
it allows "anarcho"-capitalism to ignore many important restrictions of 
freedom in society. In addition, it allows them to brush over the negative 
effects of their system by painting an unreal picture of a capitalist 
society without vast extremes of wealth and power (indeed, they often 
construe capitalist society in terms of an ideal -- namely artisan 
production -- that is really *pre*-capitalist and whose social 
basis has been eroded by capitalist development). Inequality shapes 
the decisions we have available and what ones we make -- "An 'incentive' 
is always available in conditions of substantial social inequality that 
ensure that the 'weak' enter into a contract. When social inequality 
prevails, questions arises about what counts as voluntary entry into 
a contract . . . Men and women . . . are now juridically free and equal
citizens, but, in unequal social conditions, the possibility cannot be
ruled out that some or many contracts create relationships that bear
uncomfortable resemblances to a slave contract." [Carole Pateman, 
_The Sexual Contract_, p. 62]

This ideological confusion of right-libertarianism can also be seen from 
their opposition to taxation. On the one hand, they argue that taxation 
is wrong because it takes money from those who "earn" it and gives it to 
the poor. On the other hand, "free market" capitalism is assumed to be 
a more equal society! If taxation takes from the rich and gives to the 
poor, how will "anarcho"-capitalism be more egalitarian? That equalisation
mechanism would be gone (of course, it could be claimed that all great
riches are purely the result of state intervention skewing the "free
market" but that places all their "rags to riches" stories in a strange
position). Thus we have a problem, either we have relative equality or
we do not. Either we have riches, and so market power, or we do not.
And its clear from the likes of Rothbard, "anarcho"-capitalism will
not be without its millionaires (there is, after all, apparently nothing
un-libertarian about "organisation, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of
funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party"). And so
we are left with market power and so extensive unfreedom.

Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a "revolt against
nature" it is pretty funny that they paint a picture of "anarcho"-capitalism
as a society of (relative) equals. In other words, their propaganda is 
based on something that has never existed, and never will, namely an 
egalitarian capitalist society.

F.3.2 But what about "anarcho"-capitalist support for charity?

Yes, while being blind to impact of inequality in terms of economic and 
social power and influence, most right-libertarians *do* argue that the 
very poor could depend on charity in their system. But such a recognition
of poverty does not reflect an awareness of the need for equality or the
impact of inequality on the agreements we make. Quite the reverse in 
fact, as the existence of extensive inequality is assumed -- after all,
in a society of relative equals, poverty would not exist, nor would 
charity be needed.

Ignoring the fact that their ideology hardly promotes a charitable 
perspective, we will raise four points. Firstly, charity will not 
be enough to countermand the existence and impact of vast inequalities 
of wealth (and so power). Secondly, it will be likely that charities 
will be concerned with "improving" the moral quality of the poor and 
so will divide them into the "deserving" (i.e. obedient) and "undeserving" 
(i.e. rebellious) poor. Charity will be forthcoming to the former, those
who agree to busy-bodies sticking their noses into their lives. In this
way charity could become another tool of economic and social power (see
Oscar Wilde's _The Soul of Man Under Socialism_ for more on charity). 
Thirdly, it is unlikely that charity will be able to replace all the
social spending conducted by the state -- to do so would require a
ten-fold increase in charitable donations (and given that most 
right-libertarians denounce the government for making them pay taxes
to help the poor, it seems unlikely that they will turn round and
*increase* the amount they give). And, lastly, charity is an implicate
recognition that, under capitalism, no one has the right of life -- its 
a privilege you have to pay for. That in itself is enough to reject the
charity option. And, of course, in a system designed to secure the life 
and liberty of each person, how can it be deemed acceptable to leave the
life and protection of even one individual to the charitable whims of
others? (Perhaps it will be argued that individual's have the right to
life, but not a right to be a parasite. This ignores the fact some people
*cannot* work -- babies and some handicapped people -- and that, in a
functioning capitalist economy, many people cannot find work all the
time. Is it this recognition of that babies cannot work that prompts many 
right-libertarians to turn them into property? Of course, rich folk
who have never done a days work in their lives are never classed as
parasites, even if they inherited all their money). All things 
considered, little wonder that Proudhon argued that:

"Even charitable institutions serve the ends of those in authority
marvellously well.

"Charity is the strongest chain by which privilege and the Government, 
bound to protect them, holds down the lower classes. With charity, 
sweeter to the heart of men, more intelligible to the poor man than 
the abstruse laws of Political Economy, one may dispense with justice."
[_The General Idea of the Revolution_, pp. 69-70]

As noted, the right-libertarian (passing) acknowledgement of poverty does 
not mean that they recognise the existence of market power. They never
ask themselves how can someone be free if their social situation is such 
that they are drowning in a see of usury and have to sell their labour
(and so liberty) to survive.

F.4 What is the right-libertarian position on private property?

Right libertarians are not interested in eliminating capitalist
private property and thus the authority, oppression and exploitation
which goes with it. It is true that they call for an end to the state, 
but this is not because they are concerned about workers being exploited 
or oppressed but because they don't want the state to impede capitalists' 
"freedom" to exploit and oppress workers even more than is the case now!

They make an idol of private property and claim to defend absolute,
"unrestricted" property rights (i.e. that property owners can do anything
they like with their property, as long as it does not damage the property
of others. In particular, taxation and theft are among the greatest evils 
possible as they involve coercion against "justly held" property). They 
agree with John Adams that "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into 
society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that 
there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy 
and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." 

But in their celebration of property as the source of liberty they 
ignore the fact that private property is a source of "tyranny" in itself 
(see sections B.1 and B.4, for example -- and please note that anarchists 
only object to private property, *not* individual possession, see section 
B.3.1). However, as much anarchists may disagree about other matters, 
they are united in condemning private property. Thus Proudhon argued 
that property was "theft" and "despotism" while Stirner indicated the 
religious and statist nature of private property and its impact on 
individual liberty when he wrote :

"Property in the civic sense means *sacred* property, such that I must 
*respect* your property... Be it ever so little, if one only has somewhat 
of his own - to wit, a *respected* property: The more such owners... the 
more 'free people and good patriots' has the State.

"Political liberalism, like everything religious, counts on *respect,* 
humaneness, the virtues of love. . . . For in practice people respect 
nothing, and everyday the small possessions are bought up again by greater 
proprietors, and the 'free people' change into day labourers." [_The Ego
and Its Own_, p. 248]

Thus "anarcho"-capitalists reject totally one of the common (and so
defining) features of all anarchist traditions -- the opposition to
capitalist property. From Individualist Anarchists like Tucker to
Communist-Anarchists like Bookchin, anarchists have been opposed to
what Godwin termed "accumulated property." This was because it was in 
"direct contradiction" to property in the form of "the produce of his 
[the worker's] own industry" and so it allows "one man. . . [to] dispos[e] 
of the produce of another man's industry." [_The Anarchist Reader_, 
pp. 129-131] Thus, for anarchists, capitalist property is a source 
exploitation and domination, *not* freedom (it undermines the freedom 
associated with possession by created relations of domination between 
owner and employee).

Hardly surprising then the fact that, according to Murray Bookchin, Murray 
Rothbard "attacked me [Bookchin] as an anarchist with vigour because, as 
he put it, I am opposed to private property." [_The Raven_, no. 29, p. 343]
 
We will discuss Rothbard's "homesteading" justification of property in 
the next section. However, we will note here one aspect of right-libertarian
defence of "unrestricted" property rights, namely that it easily generates 
evil side effects such as hierarchy and starvation. As famine expert Amartya 
Sen notes:

"Take a theory of entitlements based on a set of rights of 'ownership, 
transfer and rectification.' In this system a set of holdings of 
different people are judged to be just (or unjust) by looking at past
history, and not by checking the consequences of that set of holdings.
But what if the consequences are recognisably terrible? . . .[R]efer[ing]
to some empirical findings in a work on famines . . . evidence [is
presented] to indicate that in many large famines in the recent past,
in which millions of people have died, there was no over-all decline
in food availability at all, and the famines occurred precisely because
of shifts in entitlement resulting from exercises of rights that are
perfectly legitimate. . . . [Can] famines . . . occur with a system of
rights of the kind morally defended in various ethical theories, including
Nozick's. I believe the answer is straightforwardly yes, since for many
people the only resource that they legitimately possess, viz. their
labour-power, may well turn out to be unsaleable in the market, giving
the person no command over food . . . [i]f results such as starvations
and famines were to occur, would the distribution of holdings still
be morally acceptable despite their disastrous consequences? There is
something deeply implausible in the affirmative answer." [_Resources,
Values and Development_, pp. 311-2]

Thus "unrestricted" property rights can have seriously bad consequences
and so the existence of "justly held" property need not imply a just
or free society -- far from it. The inequalities property can generate 
can have a serious on individual freedom (see section F.3.1). Indeed, 
Murray Rothbard argued that the state was evil not because it restricted 
individual freedom but because the resources it claimed to own were 
not "justly" acquired. Thus right-libertarian theory judges property 
*not* on its impact on current freedom but by looking at past history. 
This has the interesting side effect of allowing its supporters to 
look at capitalist and statist hierarchies, acknowledge their similar 
negative effects on the liberty of those subjected to them but argue 
that one is legitimate and the other is not simply because of their 
history! As if this changed the domination and unfreedom that both 
inflict on people living today (see section F.2.3 for further 
discussion and sections F.2.8 and F.4.2 for other examples of 
"justly acquired" property producing terrible consequences).

The defence of capitalist property does have one interesting side 
effect, namely the need arises to defend inequality and the authoritarian 
relationships inequality creates. In order to protect the private property 
needed by capitalists in order to continue exploiting the working class, 
"anarcho"-capitalists propose private security forces rather than state 
security forces (police and military) -- a proposal that is equivalent 
to bringing back the state under another name. 

Due to (capitalist) private property, wage labour would still exist under 
"anarcho"-capitalism (it is capitalism after all). This means that "defensive" 
force, a state, is required to "defend" exploitation, oppression, hierarchy 
and authority from those who suffer them. Inequality makes a mockery of
free agreement and "consent" (see section F.3.1). As Peter Kropotkin 
pointed out long ago:

"When a workman sells his labour to an employer . . . it is a mockery to 
call that a free contract. Modern economists may call it free, but the 
father of political economy -- Adam Smith -- was never guilty of such 
a misrepresentation. As long as three-quarters of humanity are compelled 
to enter into agreements of that description, force is, of course, 
necessary, both to enforce the supposed agreements and to maintain such 
a state of things. Force -- and a good deal of force -- is necessary to 
prevent the labourers from taking possession of what they consider unjustly 
appropriated by the few. . . . The Spencerian party [proto-right-libertarians] 
perfectly well understand that; and while they advocate no force for changing 
the existing conditions, they advocate still more force than is now used 
for maintaining them. As to Anarchy, it is obviously as incompatible with 
plutocracy as with any other kind of -cracy." [_Anarchism and Anarchist 
Communism_, pp. 52-53]

Because of this need to defend privilege and power, "anarcho"-capitalism 
is best called "private-state" capitalism. This will be discussed in more 
detail in section F.6.

By advocating private property, right libertarians contradict many of 
their other claims. For example, they say that they support the right of 
individuals to travel where they like. They make this claim because they
assume that only the state limits free travel. But this is a false
assumption. Owners must agree to let you on their land or property 
("people only have the right to move to those properties and lands where
the owners desire to rent or sell to them." [Murray Rothbard, _The Ethics
of Liberty_, p. 119]. There is no "freedom of travel" onto private property
(including private roads). Therefore immigration may be just as hard under 
"anarcho"-capitalism as it is under statism (after all, the state, like
the property owner, only lets people in whom it wants to let in). People 
will still have to get another property owner to agree to let them in 
before they can travel -- exactly as now (and, of course, they also have
to get the owners of the road to let them in as well). Private property, 
as can be seen from this simple example, is the state writ small.

One last point, this ignoring of ("politically incorrect") economic and 
other views of dead political thinkers and activists while claiming them 
as "libertarians" seems to be commonplace in right-Libertarian circles. For 
example, Aristotle (beloved by Ayn Rand) "thought that only living things
could bear fruit. Money, not a living thing, was by its nature barren, and
any attempt to make it bear fruit (*tokos*, in Greek, the same word used
for interest) was a crime against nature." [Marcello de Cecco, quoted
by Doug Henwood, _Wall Street_, p. 41] Such opposition to interest hardly
fits well into capitalism, and so either goes unmentioned or gets classed 
as an "error" (although we could ask why Aristotle is in error while Rand is 
not). Similarly, individualist anarchist opposition to capitalist property
and rent, interest and profits is ignored or dismissed as "bad economics"
without realising that these ideas played a key role in their politics 
and in ensuring that an anarchy would not see freedom corrupted by 
inequality. To ignore such an important concept in a person's ideas is
to distort the remainder into something it is not.

F.4.1 What is wrong with a "homesteading" theory of property?

So how do "anarcho"-capitalists justify property? Looking at Murray 
Rothbard, we find that he proposes a "homesteading theory of property". 
In this theory it is argued that property comes from occupancy and mixing 
labour with natural resources (which are assumed to be unowned). Thus the 
world is transformed into private property, for "title to an unowned 
resource (such as land) comes properly only from the expenditure of 
labour to transform that resource into use." [_The Ethics of Liberty_, 
p. 63] 

Rothbard paints a conceptual history of individuals and families
forging a home in the wilderness by the sweat of their labour (its 
tempting to rename his theory the "immaculate conception of property" 
as his conceptual theory is somewhat at odds with actual historical 
fact).

Sadly for Murray Rothbard, his "homesteading" theory was refuted 
by Proudhon in _What is Property?_ in 1840 (along with many other 
justifications of property). Proudhon rightly argues that "if the 
liberty of man is sacred, it is equally sacred in all individuals; 
that, if it needs property for its objective action, that is, for its 
life, the appropriation of material is equally necessary for all . . . 
Does it not follow that if one individual cannot prevent another . . . 
from appropriating an amount of material equal to his own, no more can 
he prevent individuals to come." And if all the available resources
are appropriated, and the owner "draws boundaries, fences himself in
. . . Here, then, is a piece of land upon which, henceforth, no one
has a right to step, save the proprietor and his friends . . . Let
[this]. . . multiply, and soon the people . . . will have nowhere
to rest, no place to shelter, no ground to till. They will die at
the proprietor's door, on the edge of that property which was their
birthright." [_What is Property?_, pp. 84-85, p. 118]

As Rothbard himself noted in respect to the aftermath of slavery
(see section F.2.2), not having access to the means of life places
one the position of unjust dependency on those who do. Rothbard's 
theory fails because for "[w]e who belong to the proletaire class, 
property excommunicates us!" [P-J Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 105] and so 
the vast majority of the population experience property as theft and 
despotism rather than as a source of liberty and empowerment (which 
possession gives). Thus, Rothbard's account fails to take into account 
the Lockean Proviso (see section B.3.4) and so, for all its intuitive 
appeal, ends up justifying capitalist and landlord domination (see 
next section on why the Lockean Proviso is important).

It also seems strange that while (correctly) attacking social contract
theories of the state as invalid (because "no past generation can bind
later generations" [Op. Cit., p. 145]) he fails to see he is doing
*exactly that* with his support of private property (similarly, Ayn
Rand argued that "[a]ny alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates
the violation of the right of another, is not and cannot be a right"
[_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 325] but obviously appropriating
land does violate the rights of others to walk, use or appropriate that
land). Due to his support for appropriation and inheritance, he is 
clearly ensuring that future generations are *not* born as free as 
the first settlers were (after all, they cannot appropriate any land, 
it is all taken!). If future generations cannot be bound by past ones, 
this applies equally to resources and property rights. Something 
anarchists have long realised -- there is no defensible reason why 
those who first acquired property should control its use by future 
generations.

However, if we take Rothbard's theory at face value we find numerous
problems with it. If title to unowned resources comes via the "expenditure
of labour" on it, how can rivers, lakes and the oceans be appropriated? 
The banks of the rivers can be transformed, but can the river itself? How
can you mix your labour with water? "Anarcho"-capitalists usually blame
pollution on the fact that rivers, oceans, and so forth are unowned, but
how can an individual "transform" water by their labour? Also, does fencing 
in land mean you have "mixed labour" with it? If so then transnational 
corporations can pay workers to fence in vast tracks of virgin land
(such as rainforest) and so come to "own" it. Rothbard argues that this
is not the case (he expresses opposition to "arbitrary claims"). He notes
that it is *not* the case that "the first discoverer . . . could properly
lay claim to [a piece of land] . . . [by] laying out a boundary for the
area." He thinks that "their claim would still be no more than the boundary
*itself*, and not to any of the land within, for only the boundary will
have been transformed and used by men" [Op. Cit., p. 50f] 

However, if the boundary *is* private property and the owner refuses others 
permission to cross it, then the enclosed land is inaccessible to others! If 
an "enterprising" right-libertarian builds a fence around the only oasis in
a desert and refuses permission to cross it to travellers unless they pay
his price (which is everything they own) then the person *has* appropriated
the oasis without "transforming" it by his labour. The travellers have the
choice of paying the price or dying (and the oasis owner is well within his
rights letting them die). Given Rothbard's comments, it is probable that
he will claim that such a boundary is null and void as it allows "arbitrary"
claims -- although this position is not at all clear. After all, the fence
builder *has* transformed the boundary and "unrestricted" property rights
is what right-libertarianism is all about. 

And, of course, Rothbard ignores the fact of economic power -- a transnational 
corporation can "transform" far more virgin resources in a day than a family 
could in a year. Transnational's "mixing their labour" with the land does
not spring into mind reading Rothbard's account of property growth, but in 
the real world that is what will happen.

If we take the question of wilderness (a topic close to many eco-anarchists'
and deep ecologists' hearts) we run into similar problems. Rothbard states
clearly that "libertarian theory must invalidate [any] claim to ownership"
of land that has "never been transformed from its natural state" (he
presents an example of an owner who has left a piece of his "legally owned"
land untouched). If another person appears who *does* transform the land, 
it becomes "justly owned by another" and the original owner cannot stop her 
(and should the original owner "use violence to prevent another settler from 
entering this never-used land and transforming it into use" they also become 
a "criminal aggressor"). Rothbard also stresses that he is *not* saying that 
land must continually be in use to be valid property [Op. Cit., pp. 63-64] 
(after all, that would justify landless workers seizing the land from 
landowners during a depression and working it themselves). 

Now, where does that leave wilderness? In response to ecologists who oppose
the destruction of the rainforest, "anarcho"-capitalists suggest that they
put their money where their mouth is and *buy* rainforest land. In this way,
it is claimed, rainforest will be protected (see section B.5 for why such
arguments are nonsense). As ecologists desire the rainforest *because it 
is wilderness* they are unlikely to "transform" it by human labour (its
precisely that they want to stop). From Rothbard's arguments it is fair
to ask whether logging companies have a right to "transform" the virgin
wilderness owned by ecologists, after all it meets Rothbard's criteria 
(it is still wilderness). Perhaps it will be claimed that fencing off 
land "transforms" it (hardly what you imagine "mixing labour" with to 
mean, but nevermind) -- but that allows large companies and rich 
individuals to hire workers to fence in vast tracks of land (and 
recreate the land monopoly by a "libertarian" route). But as we noted 
above, fencing off land does not seem to imply that it becomes property
in Rothbard's theory. And, of course, fencing in areas of rainforest 
disrupts the local eco-system -- animals cannot freely travel, for example -- 
which, again, is what ecologists desire to stop. Would Rothbard accept a 
piece of paper as "transforming" land? We doubt it (after all, in his 
example the wilderness owner *did* legally own it) -- and so most 
ecologists will have a hard time in "anarcho"-capitalism (wilderness 
is just not an option). 

As an aside, we must note that Rothbard fails to realise -- and this comes 
from his worship of the market and his "Austrian economics" -- is that people 
value many things which do not appear on the market. He claims that wilderness
is "valueless unused natural objects" (for it people valued them, they would
use -- i.e. appropriate -- them). But unused things may be of *considerable*
value to people, wilderness being a classic example. And if something *cannot*
be transformed into private property, does that mean people do not value it?
For example, people value community, stress free working environments, 
meaningful work -- if the market cannot provide these, does that mean they
do not value them? Of course not (see Juliet Schor's _The Overworked American_
on how working people's desire for shorter working hours was not transformed
into options on the market).

Moreover, Rothbard's "homesteading" theory actually violates his support
for unrestricted property rights. What if a property owner *wants* part
of her land to remain wilderness? Their desires are violated by the
"homesteading" theory (unless, of course, fencing things off equals
"transforming" them, which it apparently does not). How can companies 
provide wilderness holidays to people if they have no right to stop 
settlers (including large companies) "homesteading" that wilderness? 
And, of course, where does Rothbard's theory leave hunter-gather or 
nomad societies. They *use* the resources of the wilderness, but they 
do not "transform" them (in this case you cannot easily tell if virgin 
land is empty or being used as a resource). If a troop of nomads find 
its traditionally used, but natural, oasis appropriated by a homesteader 
what are they to do? If they ignore the homesteaders claims he can call 
upon his "defence" firm to stop them -- and then, in true Rothbardian 
fashion, the homesteader can refuse to supply water to them unless they 
hand over all their possessions (see section F.4.2 on this). And if 
the history of the United States (which is obviously the model for 
Rothbard's theory) is anything to go by, such people will become 
"criminal aggressors" and removed from the picture.

Which is another problem with Rothbard's account. It is completely
ahistoric (and so, as we noted above, is more like an "immaculate 
conception of property"). He has transported "capitalist man" into 
the dawn of time and constructed a history of property based upon
what he is trying to justify (not surprising, as he does this with
his "Natural Law" theory too -- see section F.7). What *is* interesting
to note, though, is that the *actual* experience of life on the US
frontier (the historic example Rothbard seems to want to claim) was
far from the individualistic framework he builds upon it and (ironically
enough) it was destroyed by the development of capitalism.

As Murray Bookchin notes, "the independence that the New England yeomanry
enjoyed was itself a function of the co-operative social base from which
it emerged. To barter home-grown goods and objects, to share tools and
implements, to engage in common labour during harvesting time in a
system of mutual aid, indeed, to help new-comers in barn-raising, 
corn-husking, log-rolling, and the like, was the indispensable cement
that bound scattered farmsteads into a united community." [_The Third
Revolution_, vol. 1, p. 233] Bookchin quotes David P. Szatmary (author
of a book on Shay' Rebellion) stating that it was a society based
upon "co-operative, community orientated interchanges" and not a
"basically competitive society." [Ibid.]

Into this non-capitalist society came capitalist elements. Market forces 
and economic power soon resulted in the transformation of this society.
Merchants asked for payment in specie which (and along with taxes) 
soon resulted in indebtedness and the dispossession of the homesteaders 
from their land and goods. In response Shay's rebellion started, 
a rebellion which was an important factor in the centralisation of
state power in America to ensure that popular input and control over 
government were marginalised and that the wealthy elite and their
property rights were protected against the many (see Bookchin, Op. 
Cit., for details). Thus the homestead system was undermined, 
essentially, by the need to pay for services in specie (as demanded
by merchants).

So while Rothbard's theory as a certain appeal (reinforced by watching
too many Westerns, we imagine) it fails to justify the "unrestricted"
property rights theory (and the theory of freedom Rothbard derives
from it). All it does is to end up justifying capitalist and landlord 
domination (which is probably what it was intended to do).

F.4.2 Why is the "Lockean Proviso" important?

Robert Nozick, in his work _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_ presented a
case for private property rights that was based on what he termed
the "Lockean Proviso" -- namely that common (or unowned) land and
resources could be appropriated by individuals as long as the position
of others is not worsen by so doing. However, if we *do* take this
Proviso seriously private property rights cannot be defined (see 
section B.3.4 for details). Thus Nozick's arguments in favour of
property rights fail.

Some right-libertarians, particularly those associated with the
Austrian school of economics argue that we must reject the Lockean
Proviso (probably due to the fact it can be used to undermine the
case for absolute property rights). Their argument goes as follows:
if an individual appropriates and uses a previously unused resource, 
it is because it has value to him/her, as an individual, to engage in 
such action. The individual has stolen nothing because it was previously
unowned and we cannot know if other people are better or worse off, all 
we know is that, for whatever reason, they did not appropriate the 
resource ("If latecomers are worse off, well then that is their proper
assumption of risk in this free and uncertain world. There is no longer
a vast frontier in the United States, and there is no point crying
over the fact." [Murray Rothbard, _The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 240]).

Hence the appropriation of resources is an essentially individualistic,
asocial act -- the requirements of others are either irrelevant or
unknown. However, such an argument fails to take into account *why*
the Lockean Proviso has such an appeal. When we do this we see that
rejecting it leads to massive injustice, even slavery.

However, let us start with a defence of rejecting the Proviso from a
leading Austrian economist:

"Consider . . . the case . . . of the unheld sole water hole in the
desert (which *everyone* in a group of travellers knows about), which
one of the travellers, by racing ahead of the others, succeeds in
appropriating . . . [This] clearly and unjustly violates the Lockean
proviso. . . For us, however, this view is by no means the only one
possible. We notice that the energetic traveller who appropriated
all the water was not doing anything which (always ignoring, of course,
prohibitions resting on the Lockean proviso itself) the other travellers
were not equally free to do. The other travellers, too, could have
raced ahead . . . [they] did *not* bother to race for the water . . .
It does not seem obvious that these other travellers can claim that
they were *hurt* by an action which they could themselves have easily
taken." [Israel M. Kirzner, "Entrepreneurship, Entitlement, and Economic
Justice", pp. 385-413, in _Reading Nozick_, p. 406]

Murray Rothbard, we should note, takes a similar position in a similar
example, arguing that "the owner [of the sole oasis] is scarcely being 
'coercive'; in fact he is supplying a vital service, and should have 
the right to refuse a sale or charge whatever the customers will pay. 
The situation may be unfortunate for the customers, as are many situations 
in life." [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 221] (Rothbard, we should note, 
is relying to the right-libertarian von Hayek who -- to his credit -- 
does maintain that this is a coercive situation; but as others, including 
other right-libertarians, point out, he has to change his definition 
of coercion/freedom to do so -- see Stephan L. Newman's _Liberalism at 
Wit's End_, pp. 130-134 for an excellent summary of this debate). 

Now, we could be tempted just to rant about the evils of the right
libertarian mind-frame but we will try to present a clam analysis
of this position. Now, what Kirzner (and Rothbard et al) fails to note is 
that without the water the other travellers will die in a matter of days. 
The monopolist has the power of life and death over his fellow travellers.
Perhaps he hates one of them and so raced ahead to ensure their death. 
Perhaps he just recognised the vast power that his appropriation would 
give him and so, correctly, sees that the other travellers would give 
up all their possessions and property to him in return for enough water 
to survive. 

Either way, its clear that perhaps the other travellers did not "race
ahead" because they were ethical people -- they would not desire to
inflict such tyranny on others because they would not like it inflicted
upon them. 

Thus we can answer Kirzner's question -- "What . . . is so obviously 
acceptable about the Lockean proviso. . . ?" [Ibid.] 

It is the means by which human actions are held accountable to social
standards and ethics. It is the means by which the greediest, most
evil and debased humans are stopped from dragging the rest of humanity
down to their level (via a "race to the bottom") and inflicting untold
tyranny and domination on their fellow humans. An ideology that could 
consider the oppression which could result from such an appropriation 
as "supplying a vital service" and any act to remove this tyranny as 
"coercion" is obviously a very sick ideology. And we may note that 
the right-libertarian position on this example is a good illustration
of the dangers of deductive logic from assumptions (see section F.1.3 
for more on this right-libertarian methodology) -- after all W. Duncan 
Reekie, in his introduction to Austrian Economics, states that "[t]o be 
intellectually consistent one must concede his absolute right to the 
oasis." [_Markets, Entrepreneurs and Liberty_, p. 181] To place ideology
before people is to ensure humanity is placed on a Procrustean bed.

Which brings us to another point. Often right-libertarians say that
anarchists and other socialists are "lazy" or "do not want to work".
You could interpret Kirzner's example as saying that the other
travellers are "lazy" for not rushing ahead and appropriating the
oasis. But this is false. For under capitalism you can only get rich
by exploiting the labour of others via wage slavery or, within a 
company, get better pay by taking "positions of responsibility" 
(i.e. management positions). If you have an ethical objection to
treating others as objects ("means to an end") then these options 
are unavailable to you. Thus anarchists and other socialists are
not "lazy" because they are not rich -- they just have no desire to
get rich off the labour and liberty of others (as expressed in their
opposition to private property and the relations of domination it
creates). In other words, Anarchism is not the "politics of envy";  
it is the politics of liberty and the desire to treat others as 
"ends in themselves".

Rothbard is aware of what is involved in accepting the Lockean Proviso
-- namely the existence of private property ("Locke's proviso may lead 
to the outlawry of *all* private property of land, since one can always
say that the reduction of available land leaves everyone else . . . 
worse off", _The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 240 -- see section B.3.4 for 
a discussion on why the Proviso *does* imply the end of capitalist 
property rights). Which is why he, and other right-libertarians, reject 
it. Its simple. Either you reject the Proviso and embrace capitalist 
property rights (and so allow one class of people to be dispossessed 
and another empowered at their expense) or you reject private property 
in favour of possession and liberty. Anarchists, obviously, favour 
the latter option.

As an aside, we should point out that (following Stirner) the would-be
monopolist is doing nothing wrong (as such) in attempting to monopolise
the oasis. He is, after all, following his self-interest. However, what
is objectionable is the right-libertarian attempt to turn thus act into
a "right" which must be respected by the other travellers. Simply put,
if the other travellers gang up and dispose of this would be tyrant
then they are right to do so -- to argue that this is a violation of
the monopolists "rights" is insane and an indication of a slave
mentality (or, following Rousseau, that the others are "simple"). 
Of course, if the would-be monopolist has the necessary *force* to 
withstand the other travellers then his property then the matter is
closed -- might makes right. But to worship rights, even when they
obviously result in despotism, is definitely a case of "spooks in
the head" and "man is created for the Sabbath" not "the Sabbath
is created for man."

F.4.3 How does private property effect individualism?

Private property is usually associated by "anarcho"-capitalism with 
individualism. Usually private property is seen as the key way of
ensuring individualism and individual freedom (and that private 
property is the expression of individualism). Therefore it is useful
to indicate how private property can have a serious impact on 
individualism.

Usually right-libertarians contrast the joys of "individualism" with
the evils of "collectivism" in which the individual is sub-merged into
the group or collective and is made to work for the benefit of the 
group (see any Ayn Rand book or essay on the evils of collectivism). 

But what is ironic is that right-libertarian ideology creates a view
of industry which would (perhaps) shame even the most die-hard fan of
Stalin. What do we mean? Simply that right-libertarians stress the
abilities of the people at the top of the company, the owner, the 
entrepreneur, and tend to ignore the very real subordination of those
lower down the hierarchy (see, again, any Ayn Rand book on the worship
of business leaders). In the Austrian school of economics, for example, 
the entrepreneur is considered the driving force of the market process 
and tend to abstract away from the organisations they govern. This 
approach is usually followed by right-libertarians. Often you get the
impression that the accomplishments of a firm are the personal triumphs
of the capitalists, as though their subordinates are merely tools not
unlike the machines on which they labour.

We should not, of course, interpret this to mean that right-libertarians 
believe that entrepreneurs run their companies single-handedly (although
you do get that impression sometimes!). But these abstractions help hide
the fact that the economy is overwhelmingly interdependent and organised
hierarchically within industry. Even in their primary role as organisers, 
entrepreneurs depend on the group. A company president can only issue 
general guidelines to his managers, who must inevitably organise and
direct much of their departments on their own. The larger a company gets,
the less personal and direct control an entrepreneur has over it. They must
delegate out an increasing share of authority and responsibility, and is
more dependent than ever on others to help him run things, investigate
conditions, inform policy, and make recommendations. Moreover, the 
authority structures are from the "top-down" -- indeed the firm is 
essentially a command economy, with all members part of a collective 
working on a common plan to achieve a common goal (i.e. it is essentially 
collectivist in nature -- which means it is not too unsurprising that Lenin 
argued that state socialism could be considered as one big firm or office 
and why the system he built on that model was so horrific).

So the firm (the key component of the capitalist economy) is marked 
by a distinct *lack* of individualism, a lack usually ignored by right
libertarians (or, at best, considered as "unavoidable"). As these firms 
are hierarchical structures and workers are paid to obey, it does make 
*some* sense -- in a capitalist environment -- to assume that the 
entrepreneur is the main actor, but as an individualistic model of 
activity it fails totally. Perhaps it would not be unfair to say that
capitalist individualism celebrates the entrepreneur because this
reflects a hierarchical system in which for the one to flourish, the
many must obey? (Also see section F.1.1).

Capitalist individualism does not recognise the power structures that
exist within capitalism and how they affect individuals. In Brian
Morris' words, what they fail "to recognise is that most productive
relations under capitalism allow little scope for creativity and
self-expression on the part of workers; that such relationships
are not equitable; nor are they freely engaged in for the mutual
benefit of both parties, for workers have no control over the 
production process or over the product of their labour. Rand [like
other right-libertarians] misleadingly equates trade, artistic
production and wage-slavery. . . [but] wage-slavery . . . is quite
different from the trade principle" as it is a form of "exploitation"
[_Ecology & Anarchism_, p. 190]

He further notes that "[s]o called trade relations involving human
labour are contrary to the egoist values Rand [and other capitalist
individualists] espouses - they involve little in the way of
independence, freedom, integrity or justice." [Ibid., p. 191]

Moreover, capitalist individualism actually *supports* authority and
hierarchy. As Joshua Chen and Joel Rogers point out, the "achievement
of short-run material satisfaction often makes it irrational [from
an individualist perspective] to engage in more radical struggle, since
that struggle is by definition against those institutions which 
provide one's current gain." In other words, to rise up the company
structure, to "better oneself," (or even get a good reference) you 
cannot be a pain in the side of management -- obedient workers do 
well, rebel workers do not.

Thus the hierarchical structures help develop an "individualistic"
perspective which actually reinforces those authority structures.
This, as Cohn and Rogers notes, means that "the structure in which
[workers] find themselves yields less than optimal social results
from their isolated but economically rational decisions." [quoted
by Alfie Kohn, _No Contest_, p. 67, p. 260f] 

Steve Biko, a black activist murdered by the South African police 
in the 1970s, argued that "the most potent weapon of the oppressor 
is the mind of the oppressed." And this is something capitalists 
have long recognised. Their investment in "Public Relations" and
"education" programmes for their employees shows this clearly,
as does the hierarchical nature of the firm. By having a ladder 
to climb, the firm rewards obedience and penalises rebellion. This 
aims at creating a mind-set which views hierarchy as good and so 
helps produce servile people.

This is why anarchists would agree with Alfie Kohn when he argues that 
"the individualist worldview is a profoundly conservative doctrine: it 
inherently stifles change." [Ibid., p. 67] So, what is the best way 
for a boss to maintain his or her power? Create a hierarchical workplace
and encourage capitalist individualism (as capitalist individualism 
actually works *against* attempts to increase freedom from hierarchy).
Needless to say, such a technique cannot work forever -- hierarchy 
also encourages revolt -- but such divide and conquer can be *very*
effective.

And as anarchist author Michael Moorcock put it, "Rugged individualism 
also goes hand in hand with a strong faith in paternalism -- albeit a 
tolerant and somewhat distant paternalism -- and many otherwise 
sharp-witted libertarians seem to see nothing in the morality of a 
John Wayne Western to conflict with their views. Heinlein's paternalism 
is at heart the same as Wayne's. . . To be an anarchist, surely, is 
to reject authority but to accept self-discipline and community 
responsibility. To be a rugged individualist a la Heinlein and 
others is to be forever a child who must obey, charm and cajole 
to be tolerated by some benign, omniscient father: Rooster Coburn 
shuffling his feet in front of a judge he respects for his office 
(but not necessarily himself) in True Grit." [_Starship Stormtroopers_]

One last thing, don't be fooled into thinking that individualism or concern 
about individuality -- not *quite* the same thing -- is restricted to the 
right, they are not. For example, the "individualist theory of society . . .
might be advanced in a capitalist or in an anti-capitalist form . . . the
theory as developed by critics of capitalism such as Hodgskin and the
anarchist Tucker saw ownership of capital by a few as an obstacle to
genuine individualism, and the individualist ideal was realisable only
through the free association of labourers (Hodgskin) or independent 
proprietorship (Tucker)." [David Miller, _Social Justice_, pp. 290-1]

And the reason why social anarchists oppose capitalism is that it creates
a *false* individualism, an abstract one which crushes the individuality
of the many and  justifies (and supports) hierarchical and authoritarian 
social relations. In Kropotkin's words, "what has been called 'individualism'
up to now has been only a foolish egoism which belittles the individual.
It did not led to what it was established as a goal: that is the complete,
broad, and most perfectly attainable development of individuality." The
new individualism desired by Kropotkin "will not consist . . . in the
oppression of one's neighbour . . . [as this] reduced the [individualist]
. . . to the level of an animal in a herd." [_Selected Writings_, p, 295,
p. 296]

F.4.4 How does private property affect relationships?

Obviously, capitalist private property affects relationships between people
by creating structures of power. Property, as we have argued all through
this FAQ, creates relationships based upon domination -- and this cannot
help but produce servile tendencies within those subject to them (it also
produces rebellious tendencies as well, the actual ratio between the two
tendencies dependent on the individual in question and the community they
are in). As anarchists have long recognised, power corrupts -- both those
subjected to it and those who exercise it.

While few, if any, anarchists would fail to recognise the importance of
possession -- which creates the necessary space all individuals need to
be themselves -- they all agree that private property corrupts this 
liberatory aspect of "property" by allowing relationships of domination 
and oppression to be built up on top of it. Because of this recognition,
all anarchists have tried to equalise property and turn it back into
possession.

Also, capitalist individualism actively builds barriers between people.
Under capitalism, money rules and individuality is expressed via 
consumption choices (i.e. money). But money does not encourage an
empathy with others. As Frank Stronach (chair of Magna International, 
a Canadian auto-parts maker that shifted its production to Mexico) 
put it, "[t]o be in business your first mandate is to make money, and
money has no heart, no soul, conscience, homeland." [cited by Doug
Henwood, _Wall Street_, p. 113] And for those who study economics,
it seems that this dehumanising effect also strikes them as well:

"Studying economics also seems to make you a nastier person. Psychological
studies have shown that economics graduate students are more likely to
'free ride' -- shirk contributions to an experimental 'public goods'
account in the pursuit of higher private returns -- than the general
public. Economists also are less generous that other academics in
charitable giving. Undergraduate economics majors are more likely to
defect in the classic prisoner's dilemma game that are other majors.
And on other tests, students grow less honest -- expressing less of
a tendency, for example, to return found money -- after studying 
economics, but not studying a control subject like astronomy.

"This is no surprise, really. Mainstream economics is built entirely
on a notion of self-interested individuals, rational self-maximisers
who can order their wants and spend accordingly. There's little room
for sentiment, uncertainty, selflessness, and social institutions.
Whether this is an accurate picture of the average human is open to
question, but there's no question that capitalism as a system and
economics as a discipline both reward people who conform to the
model." [Doug Henwood, Op. Cit., p, 143]

Which, of course, highlights the problems within the "trader" model
advocated by Ayn Rand. According to her, the trader is *the* example
of moral behaviour -- you have something I want, I have something you
want, we trade and we both benefit and so our activity is self-interested
and no-one sacrifices themselves for another. While this has *some* 
intuitive appeal it fails to note that in the real world it is a pure 
fantasy. The trader wants to get the best deal possible for themselves 
and if the bargaining positions are unequal then one person will gain 
at the expense of the other (if the "commodity" being traded is labour, 
the seller may not even have the option of not trading at all). The 
trader is only involved in economic exchange, and has no concern for 
the welfare of the person they are trading with. They are a bearer of 
things, *not* an individual with a wide range of interests, concerns, 
hopes and dreams. These are irrelevant, unless you can make money out 
of them of course! Thus the trader is often a manipulator and outside 
novels it most definitely is a case of "buyer beware!"

If the trader model is taken as the basis of interpersonal relationships,
economic gain replaces respect and empathy for others. It replaces human
relationships with relationships based on things -- and such a mentality
does not encompass how interpersonal relationships affect both you 
and the society you life in. In the end, it impoverishes society and 
individuality. Yes, any relationship must be based upon self-interest
(mutual aid is, after all, something we do because we benefit from it
in some way) but the trader model presents such a *narrow* self-interest
that it is useless and actively impoverishes the very things it should be
protecting -- individuality and interpersonal relationships (see section
I.7.4 on how capitalism does not protect individuality).

F.4.5 Does private property co-ordinate without hierarchy?

It is usually to find right-libertarians maintain that private property
(i.e. capitalism) allows economic activity to be co-ordinated by 
non-hierarchical means. In other words, they maintain that capitalism 
is a system of large scale co-ordination without hierarchy. These 
claims follow the argument of noted right-wing, "free market" 
economist Milton Friedman who contrasts "central planning involving 
the use of coercion - the technique of the army or the modern
totalitarian state" with  "voluntary co-operation between 
individuals - the technique of the marketplace" as two distinct
ways of co-ordinating the economic activity of large groups 
("millions") of people. [_Capitalism and Freedom_, p. 13]

However, this is just playing with words. As they themselves point 
out the internal structure of a corporation or capitalist company 
is *not* a "market" (i.e. non-hierarchical) structure, it is a 
"non-market" (hierarchical) structure of a market participant
(see section F.2.2). However "market participants" are part of 
the market. In other words, capitalism is *not* a system of 
co-ordination without hierarchy because it does contain hierarchical 
organisations which *are an essential part of the system*!

Indeed, the capitalist company *is* a form of central planning and 
shares the same "technique" as the army. As the pro-capitalist writer
Peter Drucker noted in his history of General Motors, "[t]here is a
remarkably close parallel between General Motors' scheme of organisation
and those of the two institutions most renowned for administrative
efficiency: that of the Catholic Church and that of the modern army . . ."
[quoted by David Enger, _Apostles of Greed_, p. 66] And so capitalism
is marked by a series of totalitarian organisations -- and since when
was totalitarianism liberty enhancing? Indeed, many "anarcho"-capitalists 
actually celebrate the command economy of the capitalist firm as being 
more "efficient" than self-managed firms (usually because democracy 
stops action with debate). The same argument is applied by the Fascists 
to the political sphere. It does not change much -- nor does it become 
less fascistic -- when applied to economic structures. To state the 
obvious, such glorification of workplace dictatorship seems somewhat 
at odds with an ideology calling itself "libertarian" or "anarchist". 
Is dictatorship more liberty enhancing to those subject to it than 
democracy? Anarchists doubt it (see section A.2.11 for details).

In order to claim that capitalism co-ordinates individual activity 
without hierarchy right-libertarians have to abstract from individuals 
and how they interact *within* companies and concentrate purely on 
relationships *between* companies. This is pure sophistry. Like markets, 
companies require at least two or more people to work - both are forms 
of social co-operation. If co-ordination within companies is hierarchical, 
then the system they work within is based upon hierarchy. To claim that 
capitalism co-ordinates without hierarchy is simply false - its based 
on hierarchy and authoritarianism. Capitalist companies are based upon 
denying workers self-government (i.e. freedom) during work hours. The 
boss tells workers what to do, when to do, how to do and for how long. 
This denial of freedom is discussed in greater depth in sections B.1 
and B.4.

Because of the relations of power it creates, opposition to capitalist
private property (and so wage labour) and the desire to see it ended 
is an essential aspect of anarchist theory. Due to its ideological 
blind spot with regards to apparently "voluntary" relations of 
domination and oppression created by the force of circumstances
(see section F.2 for details), "anarcho"-capitalism considers 
wage labour as a form of freedom and ignore its fascistic aspects
(when not celebrating those aspects). Thus "anarcho"-capitalism is not
anarchist. By concentrating on the moment the contract is signed, they 
ignore that freedom is restricted during the contract itself. While
denouncing (correctly) the totalitarianism of the army, they ignore
it in the workplace. But factory fascism is just as freedom destroying
as the army or political fascism. 

Due to this basic lack of concern for freedom, "anarcho"-capitalists 
cannot be considered as anarchists.  Their total lack of concern 
about factory fascism (i.e. wage labour) places them totally outside 
the anarchist tradition. Real anarchists have always been aware of that
private property and wage labour restriction freedom and desired to 
create a society in which people would be able to avoid it. In other 
words, where *all* relations are non-hierarchical and truly co-operative.

To conclude, to claim that private property eliminates hierarchy is false.
Nor does capitalism co-ordinate economic activities without hierarchical
structures. For this reason anarchists support co-operative forms of
production rather than capitalistic forms.

F.5 Will privatising "the commons" increase liberty?

"Anarcho"-capitalists aim for a situation in which "no land areas, 
no square footage in the world shall remain 'public,'" in other words
*everything* will be "privatised." [Murray Rothbard, _Nations by
Consent_, 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? We have shown before why the claim that privatisation can
protect the environment is highly implausible (see section E.2). Here we
will concern ourselves with private ownership of commonly used "property" 
which we all take for granted and pay for with taxes.

Its clear from even a brief consideration of a hypothetical society based
on "privatised" roads (as suggested by Murray Rothbard in _For a New 
Liberty_, pp. 202-203 and David Friedman in _The Machinery of Freedom_, 
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 *has* 
been introduced).

If we extrapolate from this example to a system of *fully* 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 *every* 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 if implemented at worse.

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.

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]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." ["Society Without A State", in _Nomos XIX_,
Pennock and Chapman (eds.), p. 199] So, perhaps, with the total
privatisation of society we would also see the rise of private
Big Brothers, collecting information about individuals for use by
property owners. The example of the _Economic League_ (a British 
company who provided the "service" of tracking the political 
affiliations and activities of workers for employers) springs 
to mind.

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.

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 *anywhere.* As Rothbard *himself* makes clear,
"anarcho"-capitalism means the end of the right to roam or even
travel. He states that "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." [_Nations
by Consent_, p. 84] What happens to those who cannot *afford* to
pay for access 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 *increases* freedom.
For Rothbard, a "totally privatised country would be as closed as
the particular inhabitants and property owners [*not* the same 
thing, we must point out] desire. It seems clear, then, that the 
regime of open borders that exists *de facto* in the US really 
amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state. . . and does 
not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors." [Op. Cit., 
p. 85] Of course, the wishes of *non*-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 *increase*
freedom for anyone bar the capitalist class.

Rothbard acknowledges that "in a fully privatised world, access 
rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership." 
[_Nations by Consent_, 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 sections E.2 and E.3). 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 *very* 
restricted and limited to those whom the owner considered "desirable." 
Indeed, Murray Rothbard supports such a regime ("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" [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 119]). The threat to 
liberty in such a system is obvious -- to all but Rothbard and 
other right-libertarians, of course.

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 reduced (if not 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 other activists picketing or 
handing out leaflets in shopping centre's 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, 
for example (as Rothbard himself argues, Op. Cit., p. 132) and if the owner 
of the pavement also happens to be the boss being picketed, 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).

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. Repression was inflicted upon wobblies who 
joined the struggle by "private citizens," but in the end the I.W.W. won. 
Consider the case under "anarcho"-capitalism. The wobblies would have 
been "criminal aggressors" as the owners of the streets have refused 
to allow "undesirables" 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 *really* stop restrictions on free 
speech being a bad thing?

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 
right-libertarians such restrictions are of no consequence. As 
Rothbard argues, any "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." [_Nations by Consent_, 
p. 85] Thus we yet again see the blindness of right-libertarians 
to the commonality between private property and the state. The
state also maintains that submitting to its authority is the
requirement for taking up residence in its territory (see
also section F.2.3 for more on this). As Benjamin Tucker noted, 
the state can be defined as (in part) "the assumption of sole 
authority over a given area and all within it." [_The Individualist 
Anarchists_, p. 24] If the property owners can determine 
"prohibitions" (i.e. laws and rules) for those who use the 
property then they are the "sole authority over a given area 
and all within it," 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. 

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 *increasing* 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
*reduce* freedom for everyone else. As Peter Marshall notes, "[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." 
[_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 564]

Little wonder Proudhon argued that "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?" [_System of Economic Contradictions_, p. 371]

F.6 Is "anarcho"-capitalism against the state?

No. Due to its basis in private property, "anarcho"-capitalism implies a
class division of society into bosses and workers. Any such division
will require a state to maintain it. However, it need not be the same
state as exists now. Regarding this point, "anarcho"-capitalism plainly
advocates "defence associations" to protect property. For the
"anarcho"-capitalist, however, these private companies are not 
states. For anarchists, they most definitely are.

According to Murray Rothbard ["Society Without A State", in _Nomos XIX_,
Pennock and Chapman, eds., p. 192], a state must have one or both of the
following characteristics:

	1) The ability to tax those who live within it.
	2) It asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the
	   provision of defence over a given area.

He makes the same point in _The Ethics of Liberty_ [p. 171].

Instead of this, the "anarcho"-capitalist thinks that people should be
able to select their own "defence companies" (which would provide the
needed police) and courts from the free market in "defence" which would
spring up after the state monopoly has been eliminated. These companies 
"all. . . would have to abide by the basic law code" ["Society Without 
A State", p. 206]. Thus a "general libertarian law code" would govern the 
actions of these companies. This "law code" would prohibit coercive 
aggression at the very least, although to do so it would have to specify 
what counted as legitimate property, how said can be owned and what 
actually constitutes aggression. Thus the law code would be quite 
extensive.

How is this law code to be actually specified? Would these laws be 
democratically decided? Would they reflect common usage (i.e. custom)?
"supply and demand"? "Natural law"? Given the strong dislike of
democracy shown by "anarcho"-capitalists, we think we can safely say
that some combination of the last two options would be used. Murray
Rothbard argued that judges would "not [be] making the law but
finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either 
from custom or reason" [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 206] while David
Friedman argues in _The Machinery of Freedom_ that different defence
firms would sell their own laws [p. 116]. It is sometimes acknowledged
that non-libertarian laws may be demanded (and supplied) in such a 
market.

Around this system of "defence companies" is a free market in "arbitrators"
and "appeal judges" to administer justice and the "basic law code." Rothbard
believes that such a system would see "arbitrators with the best reputation
for efficiency and probity. . .[being] chosen by the various parties in the
market. . .[and] will come to be given an increasing amount of business."
[Rothbard, Op. Cit., p.199] Judges "will prosper on the market in proportion 
to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality." [Op. Cit., p. 204]

Therefore, like any other company, arbitrators would strive for profits and 
wealth, with the most successful ones becoming "prosperous." Of course, such 
wealth would have no impact on the decisions of the judges, and if it did, 
the population (in theory) are free to select any other judge (although, of 
course, they would also "strive for profits and wealth" -- which means the 
choice of character may be somewhat limited! -- and the laws which they
were using to guide their judgements would be enforcing capitalist rights). 

Whether or not this system would work as desired is discussed in the 
following sections. We think that it will not. Moreover, we will argue that 
"anarcho"-capitalist "defence companies" meet not only the criteria of 
statehood we outlined in section B.2, but also Rothbard's own criteria 
for the state, quoted above. 

As regards the anarchist criterion, it is clear that "defence companies" 
exist to defend private property; that they are hierarchical (in that 
they are capitalist companies which defend the power of those who employ 
them); that they are professional coercive bodies; and that they exercise 
a monopoly of force over a given area (the area, initially, being the 
property of the person or company who is employing the "association"). 
If, as Ayn Rand noted (using a Weberian definition of the state) a government
is an institution "that holds the exclusive power to *enforce* certain rules
of conduct in a given geographical area" [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, 
p. 239] then these "defence companies" are the means by which the property 
owner (who exercises a monopoly to determine the rules governing their 
property) enforce their rules.

For this (and other reasons), we should call the "anarcho"-capitalist
defence firms "private states" -- that is what they are -- and
"anarcho"-capitalism "private state" capitalism.

Before discussing these points further, it is necessary to point out a
relatively common fallacy of "anarcho"-capitalists. This is the idea that
"defence" under the system they advocate means defending people, not
territorial areas. This, for some, means that defence companies are not
"states." However, as people and their property and possessions do not
exist merely in thought but on the Earth, it is obvious that these
companies will be administering "justice" over a given area of the
planet. It is also obvious, therefore, that these "defence associations" 
will operate over a (property-owner defined) area of land and enforce
the property-owner's laws, rules and regulations. The deeply
anti-libertarian, indeed fascistic, aspects of this "arrangement" 
will be examined in the following sections.

F.6.1 What's wrong with this "free market" justice?

It does not take much imagination to figure out whose interests "prosperous" 
arbitrators, judges and defence companies would defend: their own, as well 
as those who pay their wages -- which is to say, other members of the rich 
elite. As the law exists to defend property, then it (by definition) exists
to defend the power of capitalists against their workers.

Rothbard argues that the "judges" would "not [be] making the law but
finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from
custom or reason" [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 206]. However, this begs the
question: *whose* reason? *whose* customs? Do individuals in different
classes share the same customs? The same ideas of right and wrong? Would
rich and poor desire the same from a "basic law code"? Obviously not. The
rich would only support a code which defended their power over the poor.

Although only "finding" the law, the arbitrators and judges still exert
an influence in the "justice" process, an influence not impartial or
neutral. As the arbitrators themselves would be part of a profession, with
specific companies developing within the market, it does not take a
genius to realise that when "interpreting" the "basic law code," such
companies would hardly act against their own interests as companies. In
addition, if the "justice" system was based on "one dollar, one vote," the
"law" would best defend those with the most "votes" (the question of
market forces will be discussed in section F.6.3). Moreover, even if 
"market forces" would ensure that "impartial" judges were dominant, all 
judges would be enforcing a *very* partial law code (namely one that 
defended *capitalist* property rights). Impartiality when enforcing 
partial laws hardly makes judgements less unfair.

Thus, due to these three pressures -- the interests of arbitrators/judges, 
the influence of money and the nature of the law -- the terms of "free 
agreements" under such a law system would be tilted in favour of lenders 
over debtors, landlords over tenants, employers over employees, and in 
general, the rich over the poor, just as we have today. This is what one 
would expect in a system based on "unrestricted" property rights and a 
(capitalist) free market. A similar tendency towards the standardisation 
of output in an industry in response to influences of wealth can be seen 
from the current media system (see section D.3 -- How does wealth 
influence the mass media?)

Some "anarcho"-capitalists, however, claim that just as cheaper cars were
developed to meet demand, so cheaper defence associations and "people's
arbitrators" would develop on the market for the working class. In this
way impartiality will be ensured. This argument overlooks a few key points:

Firstly, the general "libertarian" law code would be applicable to *all*
associations, so they would have to operate within a system determined
by the power of money and of capital. The law code would reflect, 
therefore, property *not* labour and so "socialistic" law codes would
be classed as "outlaw" ones. The options then facing working people
is to select a firm which best enforced the *capitalist* law in their
favour. And as noted above, the impartial enforcement of a biased law
code will hardly ensure freedom or justice for all.

Secondly, in a race between a Jaguar and a Volkswagen Beetle, who is more
likely to win? The rich would have "the best justice money can buy," as
they do now. Members of the capitalist class would be able to select the
firms with the best lawyers, best private cops and most resources. Those
without the financial clout to purchase quality "justice" would simply be
out of luck - such is the "magic" of the marketplace.

Thirdly, because of the tendency toward concentration, centralisation,
and oligopoly under capitalism (due to increasing capital costs for new
firms entering the market, as discussed in section C.4), a few companies
would soon dominate the market -- with obvious implications for "justice."

Different firms will have different resources. In other words, in a
conflict between a small firm and a larger one, the smaller one is at a
disadvantage in terms of resources. They may not be in a position to fight 
the larger company if it rejects arbitration and so may give in simply
because, as the "anarcho"-capitalists so rightly point out, conflict and
violence will push up a company's costs and so they would have to be avoided 
by smaller companies. It is ironic that the "anarcho"-capitalist implicitly 
assumes that every "defence company" is approximately of the same size, with 
the same resources behind it. In real life, this is clearly *not* the case.

Fourthly, it is *very* likely that many companies would make subscription to 
a specific "defence" firm or court a requirement of employment. Just as today 
many (most?) workers have to sign no-union contracts (and face being fired 
if they change their minds), it does not take much imagination to see that 
the same could apply to "defence" firms and courts. This was/is the case 
in company towns (indeed, you can consider unions as a form of "defence"
firm and these companies refused to recognise them). As the labour market
is almost always a buyer's market, it is not enough to argue that workers
can find a new job without this condition. They may not and so have to put 
up with this situation. And if (as seems likely) the laws and rules of the 
property-owner will take precedence in any conflict, then workers and tenants 
will be at a disadvantage no matter how "impartial" the judges.

Ironically, some "anarcho"-capitalists point to current day company/union
negotiations as an example of how different defence firms would work
out their differences peacefully. Sadly for this argument, union rights
under "actually existing capitalism" were created and enforced by the
state in direct opposition to capitalist "freedom of contract." Before
the law was changed, unions were often crushed by force -- the companies
were better armed, had more resources and had the law on their side.
Today, with the "downsizing" of companies we can see what happens to
"peaceful negotiation" and "co-operation" between unions and companies
when it is no longer required (i.e. when the resources of both sides
are unequal). The market power of companies far exceeds those of the 
unions and the law, by definition, favours the companies. As an example 
of how competing "protection agencies" will work in an "anarcho"-capitalist 
society, it is far more insightful than originally intended!

Now let us consider the "basic law code" itself. How the laws in the
"general libertarian law code" would actually be selected is anyone's
guess, although many "anarcho"-capitalists support the myth of "natural
law," and this would suggest an unchangeable law code selected by those
considered as "the voice of nature" (see section F.7. for a discussion of
its authoritarian implications). David Friedman argues that as well as a 
market in defence companies, there will also be a market in laws and rights.
However, there will be extensive market pressure to unify these differing
law codes into one standard one (imagine what would happen if ever CD
manufacturer created a unique CD player, or every computer manufacturer
different sized floppy-disk drivers -- little wonder, then, that over 
time companies standardise their products). Friedman himself acknowledges
that this process is likely (and uses the example of standard paper sizes
to indicate such a process).

In any event, the laws would not be decided on the basis of "one person, one
vote"; hence, as market forces worked their magic, the "general" law code 
would reflect vested interests and so be very hard to change. As rights and 
laws would be a commodity like everything else in capitalism, they would soon 
reflect the interests of the rich -- particularly if those interpreting the 
law are wealthy professionals and companies with vested interests of their 
own. Little wonder that the individualist anarchists proposed "trial by jury" 
as the only basis for real justice in a free society. For, unlike professional
"arbitrators," juries are ad hoc, made up of ordinary people and do not
reflect power, authority, or the influence of wealth. And by being able 
to judge the law as well as a conflict, they can ensure a populist revision
of laws as society progresses.

Thus a system of "defence" on the market will continue to reflect the 
influence and power of property owners and wealth and not be subject to 
popular control beyond choosing between companies to enforce the capitalist 
laws.

F.6.2 What are the social consequences of such a system?

The "anarcho" capitalist imagines that there will be police agencies,
"defence associations," courts, and appeals courts all organised on a
free-market basis and available for hire. As David Weick points out,
however, the major problem with such a system would not be the corruption
of "private" courts and police forces (although, as suggested above, this
could indeed be a problem): 

"There is something more serious than the 'Mafia danger', and this other 
problem concerns the role of such 'defence' institutions in a given social 
and economic context.

"[The] context. . . is one of a free-market economy with no restraints
upon accumulation of property. Now, we had an American experience,
roughly from the end of the Civil War to the 1930's, in what were in
effect private courts, private police, indeed private governments. We 
had the experience of the (private) Pinkerton police which, by its spies, 
by its *agents provocateurs,* and by methods that included violence and
kidnapping, was one of the most powerful tools of large corporations 
and an instrument of oppression of working people. We had the experience 
as well of the police forces established to the same end, within
corporations, by numerous companies. . . . (The automobile companies 
drew upon additional covert instruments of a private nature, usually 
termed vigilante, such as the Black Legion). These were, in effect,
private armies, and were sometimes described as such. The territories 
owned by coal companies, which frequently included entire towns and their
environs, the stores the miners were obliged by economic coercion to
patronise, the houses they lived in, were commonly policed by the private
police of the United States Steel Corporation or whatever company owned
the properties. The chief practical function of these police was, of
course, to prevent labour organisation and preserve a certain balance of
'bargaining.'

"These complexes were a law unto themselves, powerful enough to ignore,
when they did not purchase, the governments of various jurisdictions of
the American federal system. This industrial system was, at the time,
often characterised as feudalism. . . ." ["Anarchist Justice", Op. Cit., 
pp. 223-224]

For a description of the weaponry and activities of these private armies,
the economic historian Maurice Dobbs presents an excellent summary in
_Studies in Capitalist Development_ [pp. 353-357]. According to a report on 
"Private Police Systems" cited by Dobbs, in a town dominated by Republican 
Steel, the "civil liberties and the rights of labour were suppressed by 
company police. Union organisers were driven out of town." Company towns 
had their own (company-run) money, stores, houses and jails and many 
corporations had machine-guns and tear-gas along with the usual shot-guns, 
rifles and revolvers. The "usurpation of police powers by privately paid 
'guards and 'deputies', often hired from detective agencies, many with 
criminal records" was "a general practice in many parts of the country."

The local (state-run) law enforcement agencies turned a blind-eye to what
was going on (after all, the workers *had* broken their contracts and
so were "criminal aggressors" against the companies) even when union
members and strikers were beaten and killed. The workers own defence 
organisations were the only ones willing to help them, and if the workers
seemed to be winning then troops were called in to "restore the peace"
(as happened in the Ludlow strike, when strikers originally cheered
the troops as they thought they would defend their civil rights; needless
to say, they were wrong).

Here we have a society which is claimed by many "anarcho"-capitalists
as one of the closest examples to their "ideal," with limited state
intervention, free reign for property owners, etc. What happened? The
rich reduced the working class to a serf-like existence, capitalist
production undermined independent producers (much to the annoyance of
individualist anarchists at the time), and the result was the emergence
of the corporate America that "anarcho"-capitalists say they oppose.

Are we to expect that "anarcho"-capitalism will be different? That, unlike
before, "defence" firms will intervene on behalf of strikers? Given that
the "general libertarian law code" will be enforcing capitalist property
rights, workers will be in exactly the same situation as they were then.
Support of strikers violating property rights would be a violation of
the "general libertarian law code" and be costly for profit making firms
to do (if not dangerous as they could be "outlawed" by the rest). Thus
"anarcho"-capitalism will extend extensive rights and powers to bosses,
but few if any rights to rebellious workers. And this difference in power
is enshrined within the fundamental institutions of the system. 

In evaluating "anarcho"-capitalism's claim to be a form of anarchism,
Peter Marshall notes that "private protection agencies would merely serve
the interests of their paymasters." [_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 653]
With the increase of private "defence associations" under "really existing
capitalism" today (associations that many "anarcho"-capitalists point to
as examples of their ideas), we see a vindication of Marshall's claim.
There have been many documented experiences of protesters being badly
beaten by private security guards. As far as market theory goes, the
companies are only supplying what the buyer is demanding. The rights of
others are *not a factor* (yet more "externalities," obviously). Even
if the victims successfully sue the company, the message is clear -- 
social activism can seriously damage your health. With a reversion 
to "a general libertarian law code" enforced by private companies, 
this form of "defence" of "absolute" property rights can only increase, 
perhaps to the levels previously attained in the heyday of US capitalism, 
as described above by Weick.

F.6.3 But surely market forces will stop abuses by the rich?

Unlikely. The rise of corporations within America indicates exactly how a
"general libertarian law code" would reflect the interests of the rich and
powerful. The laws recognising corporations as "legal persons" were *not*
primarily a product of "the state" but of private lawyers hired by the
rich -- a result with which Rothbard would have no problem. As Howard 
Zinn notes:

"the American Bar Association, organised by lawyers accustomed to
serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse 
the [Supreme] Court decision [that companies could not be considered as
a person]. . . . By 1886. . . the Supreme Court had accepted the argument
that corporations were 'persons' and their money was property protected by
the process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . The justices of the
Supreme Court were not simply interpreters of the Constitution. They were
men of certain backgrounds, of certain [class] interests." [_A People's
History of the United States_, p. 255]

Of course it will be argued that the Supreme Court is a monopoly and so
our analysis is flawed. In "anarcho"-capitalism there is no monopoly.
But the corporate laws came about because there was a demand for them.
That demand would still have existed in "anarcho"-capitalism. Now, while
there may be no Supreme Court, Rothbard does maintain that "the basic
Law Code . . .would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies"
but he maintains that this "would imply no unified legal system"! Even
though "[a]ny agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian law
code would be open outlaws" and soon crushed this is *not*, apparently, 
a monopoly. [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 234] So, you either agree to 
the law code or you go out of business. And that is *not* a monopoly! 
Therefore, we think, our comments on the Supreme Court decision are 
valid.

If all the available defence firms enforce the same laws, then it can
hardly be called "competitive"! And if this is the case (and it is)
"when private wealth is uncontrolled, then a police-judicial complex
enjoying a clientele of wealthy corporations whose motto is self-interest
is hardly an innocuous social force controllable by the possibility of 
forming or affiliating with competing 'companies.'" [Weick, Op. Cit., 
p. 225] 

This is particularly true if these companies are themselves Big Business 
and so have a large impact on the laws they are enforcing. If the law 
code recognises and protects capitalist power, property and wealth as 
fundamental *any* attempt to change this is "initiation of force" and 
so the power of the rich is written into the system from the start!

(And, we must add, if there is a general libertarian law code to which 
all must subscribe, where does that put customer demand? If people demand 
a non-libertarian law code, will defence firms refuse to supply it? If so, 
will not new firms, looking for profit, spring up that will supply what 
is being demanded? And will that not put them in direct conflict with the
existing, pro-general law code ones? And will a market in law codes not
just reflect economic power and wealth? David Friedman, who is for a market 
in law codes, argues that "[i]f almost everyone believes strongly that 
heroin addiction is so horrible that it should not be permitted anywhere 
under any circumstances anarcho-capitalist institutions will produce laws 
against heroin. Laws are being produced on the market, and that is what the 
market wants." And he adds that "market demands are in dollars, not votes. 
The legality of heroin will be determined, not by how many are for or against 
but how high a cost each side is willing to bear in order to get its way." 
[_The Machinery of Freedom_, p. 127] And, as the market is less than equal 
in terms of income and wealth, such a position will mean that the capitalist 
class will have a higher effective demand than the working class, and more 
resources to pay for any conflicts that arise. Thus any law codes that 
develop will tend to reflect the interests of the wealthy.)

Which brings us nicely on to the next problem regarding market forces.

As well as the obvious influence of economic interests and differences
in wealth, another problem faces the "free market" justice of 
"anarcho"-capitalism. This is the "general libertarian law code" itself. 
Even if we assume that the system actually works like it should in theory, 
the simple fact remains that these "defence companies" are enforcing laws 
which explicitly defend capitalist property (and so social relations). 
Capitalists own the means of production upon which they hire wage-labourers 
to work and this is an inequality established *prior* to any specific 
transaction in the labour market. This inequality reflects itself in 
terms of differences in power within (and outside) the company and 
in the "law code" of "anarcho"-capitalism which protects that power 
against the dispossessed.

In other words, the law code within which the defence companies work
assumes that capitalist property is legitimate and that force can 
legitimately be used to defend it. This means that, in effect, 
"anarcho"-capitalism is based on a monopoly of law, a monopoly which
explicitly exists to defend the power and capital of the wealthy. 
The major difference is that the agencies used to protect that
wealth will be in a weaker position to act independently of their
pay-masters. Unlike the state, the "defence" firm is not remotely
accountable to the general population and cannot be used to equalise
even slightly the power relationships between worker and capitalist.

And, needless to say, it is very likely that the private police forces 
*will* give preferential treatment to their wealthier customers (what 
business does not?) and that the law code will reflect the interests of the 
wealthier sectors of society (particularly if "prosperous" judges administer 
that code) in reality, even if not in theory. Since, in capitalist practice, 
"the customer is always right," the best-paying customers will get their 
way in "anarcho"-capitalist society.

For example, in chapter 29 of _The Machinery of Freedom_, David Friedman 
presents an example of how a clash of different law codes could be resolved 
by a bargaining process (the law in question is the death penalty). This 
process would involve one defence firm giving a sum of money to the other
for them accepting the appropriate (anti/pro capital punishment) court.
Friedman claims that "[a]s in any good trade, everyone gains" but this
is obviously not true. Assuming the anti-capital punishment defence firm
pays the pro one to accept an anti-capital punishment court, then, yes,
both defence firms have made money and so are happy, so are the anti-capital
punishment consumers but the pro-death penalty customers have only (perhaps)
received a cut in their bills. Their desire to see criminals hanged (for
whatever reason) has been ignored (if they were not in favour of the
death penalty, they would not have subscribed to that company). Friedman
claims that the deal, by allowing the anti-death penalty firm to cut its
costs, will ensure that it "keep its customers and even get more" but
this is just an assumption. It is just as likely to loose customers to a 
defence firm that refuses to compromise (and has the resources to back it 
up). Friedman's assumption that lower costs will automatically win over
people's passions is unfounded. As is the assumption that both firms have 
equal resources and bargaining power. If the pro-capital punishment firm
demands more than the anti can provide and has larger weaponry and troops,
then the anti defence firm may have to agree to let the pro one have its
way. 

So, all in all, it is *not* clear that "everyone gains" -- there may be a 
sizeable percentage of those involved who do not "gain" as their desire for 
capital punishment is traded away by those who claimed they would enforce 
it.

In other words, a system of competing law codes and privatised rights 
does not ensure that *all* consumers interests are meet. Given unequal
resources within society, it is also clear that the "effective demand"
of the parties involved to see their law codes enforced is drastically
different. The wealthy head of a transnational corporation will have far 
more resources available to him to pay for *his* laws to be enforced than 
one of his employees on the assembly line. Moreover, as we argue in sections
F.3.1 and F.10.2, the labour market is usually skewed in favour of capitalists. 
This means that workers have to compromise to get work and such compromises
may involve agreeing to join a specific "defence" firm or not join one
at all (just as workers are often forced to sign non-union contracts 
today in order to get work). In other words, a privatised law system 
is very likely to skew the enforcement of laws in line with the skewing 
of income and wealth in society. At the very least, unlike every other 
market, the customer is *not* guaranteed to get exactly what they demand 
simply because the product they "consume" is dependent on other within
the same market to ensure its supply. The unique workings of the 
law/defence market are such as to deny customer choice (we will 
discuss other aspects of this unique market shortly).

Weick sums up by saying "any judicial system is going to exist in the
context of economic institutions. If there are gross inequalities of
power in the economic and social domains, one has to imagine society as
strangely compartmentalised in order to believe that those inequalities
will fail to reflect themselves in the judicial and legal domain, and that
the economically powerful will be unable to manipulate the legal and
judicial system to their advantage. To abstract from such influences of
context, and then consider the merits of an abstract judicial system. . .
is to follow a method that is not likely to take us far. This, by the
way, is a criticism that applies. . .to any theory that relies on a rule
of law to override the tendencies inherent in a given social and economic
system" [Weick, Op. Cit., p. 225] (For a discussion of this problem 
as it would surface in attempts to protect the environment under
"anarcho"-capitalism, see sections E.2 and E.3.)

There is another reason why "market forces" will not stop abuse by the rich,
or indeed stop the system from turning from private to public statism. This
is due to the nature of the "defence" market (for a similar analysis of
the "defence" market see Tyler Cowen's "Law as a Public Good: The Economics
of Anarchy" in _Economics and Philosophy_, no. 8 (1992), pp. 249-267 and
"Rejoinder to David Friedman on the Economics of Anarchy" in _Economics
and Philosophy_, no. 10 (1994), pp. 329-332). In "anarcho"-capitalist theory
it is assumed that the competing "defence companies" have a vested interest
in peacefully settling differences between themselves by means of arbitration.
In order to be competitive on the market, companies will have to co-operate
via contractual relations otherwise the higher price associated with conflict
will make the company uncompetitive and it will go under. Those companies
that ignore decisions made in arbitration would  be outlawed by others, 
ostracised and their rulings ignored. By this process, it is argued, a 
system of competing "defence" companies will be stable and not turn into 
a civil war between agencies with each enforcing the interests of their 
clients against others by force.

However, there is a catch. Unlike every other business in competition,
the private state *must* co-operate with its fellows in order to provide its
services for its customers. They need to be able to agree to courts and
judges, agree to abide by decisions and law codes and so forth. This means 
that collusion (where companies in a market agree to work together to
restrict competition and reap the benefits of monopoly) is built into the
system. In other words, the necessary contractual relations between agencies 
in the "protection" market require that firms co-operate and, by so doing,
to behave (effectively) as one large firm.

For example, it does not matter to me if Safeway has good relations with
Tesco if I shop there. The goods I buy are independent of the relationships 
that exist between competing companies. However, in the case of private
states, this is *not* the case. If a specific "defence" company has bad 
relationships with other companies in the market then it's against my 
self-interest to subscribe to it. Why join a private state if its judgements 
are ignored by the others and it has to resort to violence to be heard? 
This, as well as being potentially dangerous, will also push up the prices
I have to pay. Arbitration is one of the most important services a defence 
firm can offer its customers and its market share is based upon being able 
to settle interagency disputes without risk of war or uncertainty that the 
final outcome will not be accepted by all parties.

Therefore, the market set-up within the "anarcho"-capitalist "defence" market
is such that private states *have to co-operate* with the others (or go out 
of business fast) and this means collusion can take place. In other words, 
a system of private states will have to agree to work together in order to
provide the service of "law enforcement" to their customers and the result 
of such co-operation is to create a cartel. However, unlike cartels in other
industries, the "defence" cartel will be a stable body simply because its
members *have* to work with their competitors in order to survive.

Let us look at what would happen after such a cartel is formed in a specific
area and a new "defence company" desired to enter the market. This new
company will have to work with the members of the cartel in order to provide 
its services to its customers (note that "anarcho"-capitalists already 
assume that they "will have to" subscribe to the same law code). If the 
new defence firm tries to under-cut the cartel's monopoly prices, the other
companies would refuse to work with it. Having to face constant conflict or
the possibility of conflict, seeing its decisions being ignored by other 
agencies and being uncertain what the results of a dispute would be, few 
would patronise the new "defence company." The new company's prices would 
go up and so face either folding or joining the cartel. Unlike every other 
market, if a "defence company" does not have friendly, co-operative relations 
with other firms in the same industry then it will go out of business. 

This means that the firms that are co-operating have but to agree not to
deal with new firms which are attempting to undermine the cartel in order
for them to fail. A "cartel busting" firm goes out of business in the same 
way an outlaw one does - the higher costs associated with having to solve 
all its conflicts by force, not arbitration, increases its production 
costs much higher than the competitors and the firm faces insurmountable
difficulties selling its products at a profit (ignoring any drop of
demand due to fears of conflict by actual and potential customers). 
Even if we assume that many people will happily join the new firm in spite
of the dangers to protect themselves against the cartel and its taxation
(i.e. monopoly profits), enough will remain members of the cartel (perhaps
they will be fired if they change, perhaps they dislike change and think
the extra money is worth peace, perhaps they fear that by joining the
new company their peace will be disrupted or the outcomes of their problems
with others too unsure to be worth it, perhaps they are shareholders and 
want to maintain their income) so that co-operation will still be needed 
and conflict unprofitable and dangerous (and as the cartel will have more 
resources than the new firm, it could usually hold out longer than the new 
firm could). In effect, breaking the cartel may take the form of an 
armed revolution -- as it would with any state.

The forces that break up cartels and monopolies in other industries (such as 
free entry -- although, of course the "defence" market will be subject to 
oligopolistic tendencies as any other and this will create barriers to entry,
see section C.4) do not work here and so new firms have to co-operate or loose 
market share and/or profits. This means that "defence companies" will reap
monopoly profits and, more importantly, have a monopoly of force over a given 
area.

Hence a monopoly of private states will develop in addition to the existing 
monopoly of law and this is a de facto monopoly of force over a given
area (i.e. some kind of public state run by share holders). New companies
attempting to enter the "defence" industry will have to work with the
existing cartel in order to provide the services it offers to its customers. 
The cartel is in a dominant position and new entries into the market either 
become part of it or fail. This is exactly the position with the state,
with "private agencies" free to operate as long as they work to the state's
guidelines. As with the monopolist "general libertarian law code", if
you do not toe the line, you go out of business fast.

It is also likely that a multitude of cartels would develop, with a given
cartel operating in a given locality. This is because law enforcement
would be localised in given areas as most crime occurs where the criminal
lives. Few criminals would live in New York and commit crimes in Portland.
However, as defence companies have to co-operate to provide their services,
so would the cartels. Few people live all their lives in one area and so
firms from different cartels would come into contact, so forming a
cartel of cartels.

A cartel of cartels may (perhaps) be less powerful than a local cartel, but 
it would still be required and for exactly the same reasons a local one
is. Therefore "anarcho"-capitalism would, like "actually existing capitalism,"
be marked by a series of public states covering given areas, co-ordinated by 
larger states at higher levels. Such a set up would parallel the United States
in many ways except it would be run directly by wealthy shareholders without 
the sham of "democratic" elections. Moreover, as in the USA and other states
there will still be a monopoly of rules and laws (the "general libertarian
law code").

Some "anarcho"-capitalists claim that this will not occur, but that the
co-operation needed to provide the service of law enforcement will somehow
*not* turn into collusion between companies. However, they are quick to
argue that renegade "agencies" (for example, the so-called "Mafia
problem" or those who reject judgements) will go out of business because
of the higher costs associated with conflict and not arbitration. However,
these higher costs are ensured because the firms in question do not
co-operate with others. If other agencies boycott a firm but co-operate with 
all the others, then the boycotted firm will be at the same disadvantage
-- regardless of whether it is a cartel buster or a renegade.

The "anarcho"-capitalist is trying to have it both ways. If the punishment 
of non-conforming firms cannot occur, then "anarcho"-capitalism will turn
into a war of all against all or, at the very least, the service of social 
peace and law enforcement cannot be provided. If firms cannot deter others
from disrupting the social peace (one service the firm provides) then
"anarcho"-capitalism is not stable and will not remain orderly as agencies 
develop which favour the interests of their own customers and enforce their 
own law codes at the expense of others. If collusion cannot occur (or is
too costly) then neither can the punishment of non-conforming firms and
"anarcho"-capitalism will prove to be unstable.

So, to sum up, the "defence" market of private states has powerful forces
within it to turn it into a monopoly of force over a given area. From a 
privately chosen monopoly of force over a specific (privately owned) area, 
the market of private states will turn into a monopoly of force over a 
general area. This is due to the need for peaceful relations between 
companies, relations which are required for a firm to secure market 
share. The unique market forces that exist within this market ensure
collusion and monopoly.

In other words, the system of private states will become a cartel and so a 
public state - unaccountable to all but its shareholders, a state of the
wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. In other words, fascism.

F.6.4 Why are these "defence associations" states?

It is clear that "anarcho"-capitalist defence associations meet the
criteria of statehood outlined in section B.2 ("Why are anarchists 
against the state"). They defend property and preserve authority 
relationships, they practice coercion, and are hierarchical 
institutions which govern those under them on behalf of a 
"ruling elite," i.e. those who employ both the governing forces 
and those they govern. Thus, from an anarchist perspective, these
"defence associations" as most definitely states.

What is interesting, however, is that by their own definitions a very
good case can be made that these "defence associations" as states
in the "anarcho"-capitalist sense too. Capitalist apologists usually
define a "government" (or state) as those who have a monopoly of force 
and coercion within a given area. Relative to the rest of the society,
these defence associations would have a monopoly of force and coercion 
of a given piece of property; thus, by the "anarcho"-capitalists' 
*own definition* of statehood, these associations would qualify! 

If we look at Rothbard's definition of statehood, which requires (a) the 
power to tax and/or (b) a "coerced monopoly of the provision of defence 
over a given area", "anarcho"-capitalism runs into trouble. 

In the first place, the costs of hiring defence associations will be 
deducted from the wealth created by those who use, but do not own, the 
property of capitalists and landlords. Let not forget that a capitalist 
will only employ a worker or rent out land and housing if they make a 
profit from so doing. Without the labour of the worker, there would be 
nothing to sell and no wages to pay for rent. Thus a company's or 
landlord's "defence" firm will be paid from the revenue gathered from 
the capitalists power to extract a tribute from those who use, but do 
not own, a property.  In other words, workers would pay for the agencies 
that enforce their employers' authority over them via the wage system 
and rent -- taxation in a more insidious form.

In the second, under capitalism most people spend a large part of their 
day on other people's property -- that is, they work for capitalists 
and/or live in rented accommodation. Hence if property owners select a 
"defence association" to protect their factories, farms, rental housing, 
etc., their employees and tenants will view it as a "coerced monopoly of 
the provision of defence over a given area." For certainly the employees 
and tenants will not be able to hire their own defence companies to
expropriate the capitalists and landlords. So, from the standpoint of 
the employees and tenants, the owners do have a monopoly of "defence"
over the areas in question. Of course, the "anarcho"-capitalist will
argue that the tenants and workers "consent" to *all* the rules and
conditions of a contract when they sign it and so the property owner's
monopoly is not "coerced." However, the "consent" argument is so weak
in conditions of inequality as to be useless (see sections F.2.4 and 
F.3.1, for example) and, moreover, it can and has been used to justify 
the state. In other words, "consent" in and of itself does not ensure 
that a given regime is not statist (see section F.2.3 for more on this). 
So an argument along these lines is deeply flawed and can be used to 
justify regimes which are little better than "industrial feudalism"
(such as company towns, for example -- an institution which 
"anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with). Even the "general 
libertarian law code," could be considered a "monopoly of government 
over a particular area," particularly if ordinary people have no 
real means of affecting the law code, either because it is 
market-driven and so is money-determined, or because it will 
be "natural" law and so unchangeable by mere mortals.

In other words, *if* the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force,
of ultimate decision-making power, over a given area territorial area" 
[Rothbard, _The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 170] then its pretty clear that the 
property owner shares this power. The owner is, after all, the "ultimate
decision-making power" in their workplace or on their land. If the boss takes
a dislike to you (for example, you do not follow their orders) then you 
get fired. If you cannot get a job or rent the land without agreeing
to certain conditions (such as not joining a union or subscribing
to the "defence firm" approved by your employer) then you either
sign the contract or look for something else. Of course Rothbard fails
to note that bosses have this monopoly of power and is instead referring
to "prohibiting the voluntary purchase and sale of defence and judicial 
services." [Op. Cit., p. 171] But just as surely as the law of contract
allows the banning of unions from a property, it can just as surely
ban the sale and purchase of defence and judicial services (it could
be argued that market forces will stop this happening, but this is
unlikely as bosses usually have the advantage on the labour market 
and workers have to compromise to get a job -- see section F.10.2 on
why this is the case). After all, in the company towns, only company 
money was legal tender and company police the only law enforcers. 

Therefore, it is obvious that the "anarcho"-capitalist system meets
the Weberian criteria of a monopoly to enforce certain rules in a
given area of land. The "general libertarian law code" is a monopoly
and property owners determine the rules that apply to their property.
Moreover, if the rules that property owners enforce are subject to 
rules contained in the monopolistic "general libertarian law code" (for
example, that they cannot ban the sale and purchase of certain products
-- such as defence -- on their own territory) then "anarcho"-capitalism 
*definitely* meets the Weberian definition of the state (as described by 
Ayn Rand as an institution "that holds the exclusive power to *enforce* 
certain rules of conduct in a given geographical area" [_Capitalism: The 
Unknown Ideal_, p. 239]) as its "law code" overrides the desires of 
property owners to do what they like on their own property. 

Therefore, no matter how you look at it, "anarcho"-capitalism and its 
"defence" market promotes a "monopoly of ultimate decision making power" 
over a "given territorial area". It is obvious that for anarchists, the 
"anarcho"-capitalist system is a state system. As, as we note, a reasonable 
case can be made for it also being a state in "anarcho"-capitalist theory 
as well.

So, in effect, "anarcho"-capitalism has a *different* sort of state, one 
in which bosses hire and fire the policeman. As Peter Sabatini notes [in
_Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy_], "[w]ithin Libertarianism, Rothbard
represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total
elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is
quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public
state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person
supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these
services from capitalist vendors. . . Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong 
with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will 
inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as
they do now."

Far from wanting to abolish the state, then, "anarcho"-capitalists only
desire to privatise it - to make it solely accountable to capitalist wealth. 
Their "companies" perform the same services as the state, for the same
people, in the same manner. However, there is one slight difference.
Property owners would be able to select between competing companies
for their "services." Because such "companies" are employed by the boss,
they would be used to reinforce the totalitarian nature of capitalist firms 
by ensuring that the police and the law they enforce are not even slightly 
accountable to ordinary people.

Looking beyond the "defence association" to the defence market itself (as
we argued in the last section), this will become a cartel and so become 
some kind of public state. The very nature of the private state, its need
to co-operate with others in the same industry, push it towards a
monopoly network of firms and so a monopoly of force over a given
area. Given the assumptions used to defend "anarcho"-capitalism, its
system of private statism will develop into public statism - a state
run by managers accountable only to the share-holding elite.

To quote Peter Marshall again, the "anarcho"-capitalists "claim that 
all would benefit from a free exchange on the market, it is by no means
certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a
reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating
exploitation and privilege." [_Demanding the Impossible_, p. 565]
History, and current practice, prove this point.

In short, "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists at all, they are just
capitalists who desire to see private states develop -- states which are
strictly accountable to their paymasters without even the sham of
democracy we have today. Hence a far better name for "anarcho"-capitalism
would be "private-state" capitalism. At least that way we get a fairer
idea of what they are trying to sell us. As Bob Black writes in _The
Libertarian as Conservative_, "To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a 
minarchist who'd abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it 
something else. . . . They don't denounce what the state does, they just 
object to who's doing it."

F.6.5 What other effects would "free market" justice have?

Such a system would be dangerous simply because of the power it places
in the hands of companies. As Michael Taylor notes, "whether the [protection]
market is competitive or not, it must be remembered that the product
is a peculiar one: when we buy cars or shoes or telephone services we
do not give the firm power based on force, but armed protection agencies,
like the state, make customers (their own and others') vulnerable, and
having given them power we cannot be sure that they will use it only for
our protection." [_Community, Anarchy and Liberty_, p. 65]

As we argued above, there are many reasons to believe that a "protection"
market will place most of society (bar the wealthy elite) in a "vulnerable"
position. One such reason is the assumptions of the "anarcho"-capitalists
themselves. As they note, capitalism is marked by an extreme division of
labour. Instead of everyone having all the skills they need, these skills
are distributed throughout society and all (so it is claimed) benefit.

This applies equally to the "defence" market. People subscribe to a
"defence firm" because they either cannot or do not want the labour of 
having to protect their own property and person. The skills of defence, 
therefore, are concentrated in these companies and so these firms will 
have an advantage in terms of experience and mental state (they are trained 
to fight) as well as, as seems likely, weaponry. This means that most normal 
people will be somewhat at a disadvantage if a cartel of defence firms
decides to act coercively. The division of labour society will discourage
the spread of skills required for sustained warfare throughout society
and so, perhaps, ensure that customers remain "vulnerable." The price
of liberty may be eternal vigilance, but are most people willing to
include eternal preparation of war as well? For modern society, the 
answer seems to be no, they prefer to let others do that (namely the
state and its armed forces). And, we should note, an armed society may be
a polite one, but its politeness comes from fear, *not* mutual respect
and so totally phoney and soul destroying.

If we look at inequality within society, this may produce a ghettoisation
effect within "anarcho"-capitalism. As David Friedman notes, conflict
between defence firms is bad for business. Conflict costs money both
in terms of weaponry used and increased ("danger money") wages. For this
reason he thinks that peaceful co-operation will exist between firms.
However, if we look at poor areas with high crime rates then its clear
that such an area will be a dangerous place. In other words, it is very
likely to be high in conflict. But conflict increases costs, and so
prices. Does this mean that those areas which need police most will
also have the highest prices for law enforcement? That is the case
with insurance now, so perhaps we will see whole areas turning into
Hobbesian anarchy simply because the high costs associated with 
dangerous areas will make the effective demand for their services
approach zero. 

In a system based on "private statism," police and justice would be
determined by "free market" forces. As indicated in section B.4.1, 
right-libertarians maintain that one would have few rights on other 
peoples' property, and so the owner's will would be the law (possibly 
restricted somewhat by a "general libertarian law code", perhaps not
-- see last section). In this situation, those who could not afford 
police protection would become victims of roving bandits and rampant 
crime, resulting in a society where the wealthy are securely protected 
in their bastions by their own armed forces, with a bunch of poor 
crowded around them for protection. This would be very similar to 
feudal Europe.

The competing police forces would also be attempting to execute the laws
of their sponsors in areas that may not be theirs to begin with, which
would lead to conflicts unless everyone agreed to follow a "general
libertarian law code" (as Rothbard, for one, wants). If there were
competing law codes, the problem of whose "laws" to select and enforce
would arise, with each of the wealthy security sponsors desiring that
their law control all of the land. And, as noted earlier, if there
were *one* "libertarian law code," this would be a "monopoly of
government" over a given area, and therefore statist.

In addition, it should be noted that the right-libertarian claim that
under their system anarchistic associations would be allowed as long as
they are formed voluntarily just reflects their usual vacuous concept of
freedom. This is because such associations would exist within and be
subject to the "general libertarian law code" of "anarcho"-capitalist
society. These laws would reflect and protect the interests and power of
those with capitalist property, meaning that unless these owners agree,
trying to live an anarchist life would be nearly impossible (its all
fine and well to say that those with property can do what they like, if
you do not have property then experimentation could prove difficult --
not to mention, of course, few areas are completely self-sufficient meaning
that anarchistic associations will be subject to market forces, market 
forces which stress and reward the opposite of the values these communes 
were set up to create). Thus we must *buy* the right to be free!

If, as anarchists desire, most people refuse to recognise or defend the 
rights of private property and freely associate accordingly to organise 
their own lives and ignore their bosses, this would still be classed as 
"initiation of force" under "anarcho"-capitalism, and thus repressed. 
In other words, like any authoritarian system, the "rules" within 
"anarcho"-capitalism do not evolve with society and its changing 
concepts (this can be seen from the popularity of "natural law" with 
right-libertarians, the authoritarian nature of which is discussed 
in section F.7). 

Therefore, in "anarcho"-capitalism you are free to follow the (capitalist)
laws and to act within the limits of these laws. It is only within this
context that you can experiment (if you can afford to). If you act outside
these laws, then you will be subject to coercion. The amount of coercion
required to prevent such actions depends on how willing people are to
respect the laws. Hence it is not the case that an "anarcho"-capitalist
society is particularly conducive to social experimentation and free
evolution, as its advocates like to claim. Indeed, the opposite may be the
case, as any capitalist system will have vast differences of wealth and
power within it, thus  ensuring that the ability to experiment is limited
to those who can afford it. As Jonathan Wolff points out, the "image of
people freely moving from one utopia to another until they find their
heaven, ignores the thought that certain choices may be irreversible. . .
This thought may lead to speculation about whether a law of evolution
would apply to the plural utopias. Perhaps, in the long run, we may find
the framework regulated by the law of survival of the economically most
fit, and so we would expect to see a development not of diversity but of
homogeneity. Those communities with great market power would eventually
soak up all but the most resistant of those communities around them."
[_Robert Nozick: Property, Justice and the Minimal State_, p. 135] 

And if the initial distribution of resources is similar to that already
existing then the "economically most fit" will be capitalistic (as argued
in section J.5.12, the capitalist market actively selects against 
co-operatives even though they are more productive). Given the head
start provided by statism, it seems likely that explicitly capitalist 
utopia's would remain the dominant type (particularly as the rights
framework is such as to protect capitalist property rights). Moreover, 
we doubt that most "anarcho"-capitalists would embrace the ideology if
it was more than likely that non-capitalist utopias would overcome
the capitalist ones (after all, they *are* self-proclaimed capitalists).

So, given that "anarcho"-capitalists who follow Murray Rothbard's ideas and 
minimal-statist right-libertarians agree that *all* must follow the basic 
"general libertarian law code" which defends capitalist property rights, 
we can safely say that the economically "most fit" would be capitalist ones. 
Hardly surprising if the law code reflects capitalist ideas of right and 
wrong. In addition, as George Reitzer has argued (see _The McDonaldization 
of Society_), capitalism is driven towards standardisation and conformity 
by its own logic. This suggests that plurality of communities would soon 
be replaced by a series of "communities" which share the same features 
of hierarchy and ruling elites. ("Anarcho"-capitalists who follow David 
Friedman's ideas consider it possible, perhaps likely, that a free market 
in laws will result in one standard law code and so this also applies to 
that school as well)

So, in the end, the "anarcho" capitalists argue that in their system you
are free to follow the (capitalist) law and work in the (capitalist)
economy, and if you are lucky, take part in a "commune" as a collective
capitalist.  How *very* generous of them!  Of course, any attempt to
change said rules or economy are illegal and would be stopped by private
states. 

As well as indicating the falsity of "anarcho"-capitalist claims to
support "experimentation," this discussion has also indicated that
coercion would not be absent from "anarcho"-capitalism. This would be the
case only if everyone voluntarily respected private property rights and
abided by the law (i.e. acted in a capitalist-approved way). As long as
you follow the law, you will be fine -- which is exactly the same as under
public statism.  Moreover, if the citizens of a society do not want a
capitalist order, it may require a lot of coercion to impose it. This 
can be seen from the experiences of the Italian factory occupations 
in 1920 (see section A.5.5), in which workers refused to accept capitalist
property or authority as valid and ignored it. In response to this 
change of thought within a large part of society, the capitalists 
backed fascism in order to stop the evolutionary process within society. 

The socialist economic historian Maurice Dobbs, after reviewing the private
armies in 1920s and 1930s America made much the same point: "When business
policy takes the step of financing and arming a mass political movement
to capture the machinery of government, to outlaw opposing forms of
organisation and suppress hostile opinions we have merely a further and
more logical stage beyond [private armies]" [Op, Cit., p. 357]

(Noted Austrian Economist Ludwig von Mises whose extreme free market
liberal political and economic ideas inspired right-libertarianism in 
many ways had this to say about fascism: "It cannot be denied that Fascism
and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full 
of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, 
saved European civilisation. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for 
itself will live eternally in history." [_Liberalism_, p. 51])

This example illustrates the fact that capitalism *per se* is essentially
authoritarian, because it is necessarily based on coercion and hierarchy,
which explains why capitalists have resorted to the most extreme forms of
authoritarianism -- including totalitarian dictatorship -- during crises
that threatened the fundamental rules of the system itself.  There is no
reason to think that "anarcho"-capitalism would be any different.  

Since "anarcho"-capitalism, with its private states, does not actually
want to get rid of hierarchical forms of authority, the need for one
government to unify the enforcement activities of the various defence
companies becomes apparent. In the end, that is what "anarcho"-capitalism
recognises with its "general libertarian law code" (based either on market
forces or "natural law"). Thus it appears that one government/hierarchy 
over a given territory is inevitable under any form of capitalism. That 
being the case, it is obvious that a democratic form of statism, with 
its checks and balances, is preferable to a dictatorship that imposes 
"absolute" property rights and so "absolute" power.

Of course, we do have another option than either private or public
statism. This is anarchism, the end of hierarchical authority and its
replacement by the "natural" authority of communal and workplace
self-management.

F.7 What is the myth of "Natural Law"?

Natural Law, and the related concept of Natural Rights, play an important
part in Libertarian and "anarcho"-capitalist ideology. Right-libertarians 
are not alone in claiming that their particular ideology is based on the 
"law of nature". Hitler, for one, claimed the same thing for Nazi ideology. 
So do numerous other demagogues, religious fanatics, and political 
philosophers. However, each likes to claim that only *their* "natural 
law" is the "real" one, all the others being subjective impositions. We 
will ignore these assertions (they are not arguments) and concentrate 
on explaining why natural law, in all its forms, is a myth. In addition, 
we will indicate its authoritarian implications.

Instead of such myths anarchists urge people to "work it out for themselves" 
and realise that any ethical code is subjective and not a law of nature. 
If its a good "code", then others will become convinced of it by your 
arguments and their intellect. There is no need to claim its a function 
of "man's nature"! 

The following books discuss the subject of "Natural Law" in greater depth
and are recommended for a fuller discussion of the issues raised in this
section:

Robert Anton Wilson, _Natural Law_ and L.A. Rollins, _The Myth of 
Natural Law_.

We should note that these books are written by people associated, to some 
degree, with right-libertarianism and, of course, we should point out that 
not all right-libertarians subscribe to "natural law" theories (David 
Friedman, for example, does not). However, such a position seems to be 
the minority in right-Libertarianism (Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Murray 
Rothbard, among others, did subscribe to it). We should also point out that
the Individualist Anarchist Lysander Spooner also subscribed to "natural 
laws" (which shows that, as we noted above, the concept is not limited to 
one particular theory or ideology). We present a short critique of Spooner's
ideas on this subject in section G.7.

Lastly, it could be maintained that it is a common "straw man" to maintain 
that supporters of Natural Law argue that their Laws are like the laws of
physics (and so are capable of stopping people's actions just as the law
of gravity automatically stops people flying from the Earth). But that is
the whole point -- using the term "Natural Law" implies that the moral
rights and laws that its supporters argue for are to be considered just
like the law of gravity (although they acknowledge, of course, that unlike
gravity, *their* "natural laws" *can be violated in nature*). Far from
saying that the rights they support are just that (i.e. rights *they* think
are good) they try to associate them with universal facts. For example,
Lysander Spooner (who, we must stress, used the concept of "Natural law"
to *oppose* the transformation of America into a capitalist society, unlike
Rand, Nozick and Rothbard who use it to defend capitalism) stated that:

"the true definition of law is, that it is a fixed, immutable, natural
principle; and not anything that man ever made, or can make, unmake, or
alter. Thus we speak of the laws of matter, and the laws of mind; of the
laws of gravitation, the laws of light, heat, and electricity. . .etc., 
etc. . . . The law of justice is just as supreme and universal in the moral
world, as these others are in the mental or physical world; and is as
unalterable as are these by any human power. And it is just as false 
and absurd to talk of anybody's having the power to abolish the law of
justice, and set up their own in its stead, as it would be to talk of
their having the power to abolish the law of gravitation, or any other
natural laws of the universe, and set up their own will in the place of
them." [_A Letter to Grover Cleveland_, p. 88]

Rothbard and other capitalist supporters of "Natural Law" make the same sort 
of claims (as we will see). Now, why, if they are aware of the fact that 
unlike gravity their "Natural Laws" can be violated, do they use the term 
at all? Benjamin Tucker said that "Natural Law" was a "religious" concept 
-- and this provides a clue. To say "Do not violate these rights, otherwise
I will get cross" does not have *quite* the same power as "Do not violate 
these rights, they are facts of natural and you are violating nature" 
(compare to "Do not violate these laws, or you will go to hell"). So to 
point out that "Natural Law" is *not* the same as the law of gravity 
(because it has to be enforced by humans) is not attacking some kind of 
"straw man" -- it is exposing the fact that these "Natural Laws" are just 
the personal prejudices of those who hold them. If they do not want then
to be exposed as such then they should call their laws what they are 
-- personal ethical laws -- rather than compare them to the facts 
of nature.

F.7.1 Why the term "Natural Law" in the first place?

Murray Rothbard claims that "Natural Law theory rests on the insight. . . 
that each entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct 'nature,' 
which can be investigated by man's reason" [_For a New Liberty_, p. 25] 
and that "man has rights because they are *natural* rights. They are 
grounded in the nature of man." [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 155] 

To put it bluntly, this form of "analysis" was originated by Aristotle 
and has not been used by science for centuries. Science investigates by 
proposing theories and hypotheses to explain empirical observations, 
testing and refining them by experiment. In stark contrast, Rothbard 
*invents* definitions ("distinct" "natures") and then draws conclusions 
from them. Such a method was last used by the medieval Church and is 
devoid of any scientific method. It is, of course, a fiction. It
attempts to deduce the nature of a "natural" society from a priori
considerations of the "innate" nature of human beings, which just means
that the assumptions necessary to reach the desired conclusions have been 
built into the definition of "human nature." In other words, Rothbard
defines humans as having the "distinct and specific properties" that,
given his assumptions, will allow his dogma (private state capitalism) 
to be inferred as the "natural" society for humans.

Rothbard claims that "if A, B, C, etc., have differing attributes, it 
follows that they have different *natures.*" [_The Ethics of Liberty_, 
p. 9] Does this means that as every individual is unique (have different
attributes), they have different natures? Skin and hair colour are
different attributes, does this mean that red haired people have 
different natures than blondes? That black people have different natures
than white (and such a "theory" of "natural law" was used to justify slavery 
-- yes, slaves *are* human but they have "different natures" than their 
masters and so slavery is okay). Of course Rothbard aggregates "attributes" 
to species level, but why not higher? Humans are primates, does that mean 
we have the same natures are monkeys or gorillas? We are also mammals as 
well, we share many of the same attributes as whales and dogs. Do we 
have similar natures? 

But this is by the way. To continue we find that after defining certain 
"natures," Rothbard attempts to derive "Natural Rights and Laws" from 
them. However, these "Natural Laws" are quite strange, as they can be 
violated in nature! Real natural laws (like the law of gravity) *cannot* 
be violated and therefore do not need to be enforced. The "Natural Laws" 
the "Libertarian" desires to foist upon us are not like this. They need 
to be enforced by humans and the institutions they create. Hence, Libertarian 
"Natural Laws" are more akin to moral prescriptions or juridical laws. 
However, this does not stop Rothbard explicitly "plac[ing]" his "Natural 
Laws" "alongside physical or 'scientific' natural laws." [_The Ethics of 
Liberty_, p. 42]

So why do so many Libertarians use the term "Natural Law?" Simply, it gives 
them the means by which to elevate their opinions, dogmas, and prejudices to 
a metaphysical level where nobody will dare to criticise or even think about
them. The term smacks of religion, where "Natural Law" has replaced
"God's Law." The latter fiction gave the priest power over believers. 
"Natural Law" is designed to give the Libertarian ideologist power over
the people that he or she wants to rule.

How can one be against a "Natural Law" or a "Natural Right"? It is
impossible. How can one argue against gravity? If private property, 
for example, is elevated to such a level, who would dare argue against 
it? Ayn Rand listed having landlords and employers along with "the laws 
of nature." They are *not* similar: the first two are social relationships 
which have to be imposed by the state; the "laws of nature" (like gravity, 
needing food, etc.) are *facts* which do not need to be imposed. Rothbard
claims that "the natural fact is that labour service *is* indeed a 
commodity." [Op. Cit., p. 40] However, this is complete nonsense -- 
labour service as a commodity is a *social* fact, dependent on the
distribution of property within society, its social customs and so
forth. It is only "natural" in the sense that it exists within a given
society (the state is also "natural" as it also exists within nature at
a given time). But neither wage slavery or the state is "natural" in
the sense that gravity is natural or a human having two arms is. Indeed, 
workers at the dawn of capitalism, faced with selling their labour services 
to another, considered it as decidedly "unnatural" and used the term 
"wage slavery" to describe it!

Thus, where and when a "fact" appears is essential. For example, Rothbard 
claims that "[a]n apple, let fall, will drop to the ground; this we all 
observe and acknowledge to be *in the nature* of the apple." [_The Ethics 
of Liberty_, p. 9] Actually, we do not "acknowledge" anything of the kind. 
We acknowledge that the apple was subject to the force of gravity and that is 
why it fell. The same apple, "let fall" in a space ship would *not* drop
to the floor. Has the "nature" of the apple changed? No, but the situation 
it is in has. Thus any attempt to generate abstract "natures" requires 
you to ignore reality in favour of ideals.

Because of the confusion its usage creates, we are tempted to think
that the use of "Natural Law" dogma is an attempt to *stop* thinking, 
to restrict analysis, to force certain aspects of society off the 
political agenda by giving them a divine, everlasting quality.

Moreover, such an "individualist" account of the origins of rights will
always turn on a muddled distinction between individual rationality and
some vague notion of rationality associated with membership of the
human species. How are we to determine what is rational for an individual
*as and individual* and what is rational for that same individual *as a
human being*? It is hard to see that we can make such a distinction for
"[i]f I violently interfere with Murray Rothbard's freedom, this may
violate the 'natural law' of Murray Rothbard's needs, but it doesn't 
violate the 'natural law' of *my* needs." [L.A. Rollins, _The Myth of
Natural Rights_, p. 28] Both parties, after all, are human and if such
interference is, as Rothbard claims, "antihuman" then why? "If it helps
me, a human, to advance my life, then how can it be unequivocally
'antihuman'?" [L. A. Rollins, Op. Cit., p. 27] Thus "natural law" is 
contradictory as it is well within the bounds of human nature to violate 
it. 

This means that in order to support the dogma of "Natural Law," the cultists
*must* ignore reality. Ayn Rand claims that "the source of man's rights
is. . .the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man." But Rand (like
Rothbard) *defines* "Man" as an "entity of a specific kind -- a rational
being" [_The Virtue of Selfishness_, pp. 94-95]. Therefore she cannot
account for *irrational* human behaviours (such as those that violate 
"Natural Laws"), which are also products of our "nature." To assert that
such behaviours are not human is to assert that A can be not-A, thus
contradicting the law of identity. Her ideology cannot even meet its 
own test.

F.7.2 But "Natural Law" provides protection for individual rights from 
      violation by the State. Those who are against Natural Law desire 
      total rule by the state.

The second statement represents a common "Libertarian" tactic. Instead of
addressing the issues, they accuse an opponent of being a "totalitarian"
(or the less sinister "statist"). In this way, they hope to distract
attention from, and so avoid discussing, the issue at hand (while at the
same time smearing their opponent). We can therefore ignore the second
statement. 

Regarding the first, "Natural Law" has *never* stopped the rights of
individuals from being violated by the state. Such "laws" are as much use
as a chocolate fire-guard. If "Natural Rights" could protect one from the
power of the state, the Nazis would not have been able to murder six
million Jews. The only thing that stops the state from attacking people's
rights is individual (and social) power -- the ability and desire to
protect oneself and what one considers to be right and fair. As the
anarchist Rudolf Rocker pointed out, "Political [or individual] rights 
do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, 
but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any 
attempt to impair them will be meet with the violent resistance of the 
populace. . . .One compels respect from others when he knows how to
defend his dignity as a human being. . . .The people owe all the
political rights and privileges which we enjoy today, in greater or
lesser measure, not to the good will of their governments, but to their
own strength." [_Anarcho-Syndicalism_, p. 64]

Of course, if is there are no "Natural Rights," then the state has no 
"right" to murder you or otherwise take away what are commonly regarded as
human rights. One can object to state power without believing in "Natural
Law."

F.7.3 Why is "Natural Law" authoritarian?

Rights, far from being fixed, are the product of social evolution and
human action, thought and emotions. What is acceptable now may become
unacceptable in the future. Slavery, for example, was long considered
"natural." In fact, John Locke, the "father" of "Natural Rights," was
heavily involved in the slave trade. He made a fortune in violating what
is today regarded as a basic human right: not to be enslaved. Many in
Locke's day claimed that slavery was a "Natural Law." Few would say so
now. 

Thomas Jefferson indicates exactly why "Natural Law" is authoritarian
when he wrote "[s]ome men look at constitutions with sanctimonious 
reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be 
touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more 
than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. . .laws and 
institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. . .
as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are 
made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times. . .
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him
when a boy as civilised society to remain forever under the regimen
of their barbarous ancestors."

The "Natural Law" cult desires to stop the evolutionary process by which
new rights are recognised. Instead they wish to fix social life into
what *they* think is good and right, using a form of argument that tries
to raise their ideology above critique or thought. Such a wish is opposed
to the fundamental feature of liberty: the ability to think for oneself. 
Michael Bakunin writes "the liberty of man consists solely in this: that
he obeys natural laws because he has *himself* recognised them as such,
and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any
extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual."
[_Bakunin on Anarchism_, p. 227]

Thus anarchism, in contrast to the "natural law" cult, recognises that
"natural laws" (like society) are the product of individual evaluation of 
reality and social life and are, therefore, subject to change in the light 
of new information and ideas (Society "progresses slowly through the moving 
power of individual initiative" [Bakunin, _The Political Philosophy of
Bakunin_, p. 166] and so, obviously, do social rights and customs). Ethical 
or moral "laws" (which is what the "Natural Law" cult is actually about) 
is not a product of "human nature" or abstract individuals. Rather, it is 
a *social* fact, a creation of society and human interaction. In Bakunin's 
words, "moral law is not an individual but a social fact, a creation of 
society" and any "natural laws" are "inherent in the social body" (and so,
we must add, not floating abstractions existing in "man's nature"). [Ibid.,
p. 125, p. 166] 
 
The case for liberty and a free society is based on the argument that,
since every individual is unique, everyone can contribute something that
no one else has noticed or thought about. It is the free interaction of
individuals which allows them, along with society and its customs and
rights, to evolve, change and develop. "Natural Law," like the state,
tries to arrest this evolution. It replaces creative inquiry with dogma,
making people subject to yet another god, destroying critical thought with
a new rule book. 

In addition, if these "Natural Laws" are really what they are claimed 
to be, they are necessarily applicable to *all* of humanity (Rothbard
explicitly acknowledges this when he wrote that "one of the notable 
attributes of natural law" is "its applicability to all men, regardless
of time or place" [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 42]). In other words, 
every other law code *must* (by definition) be "against nature" and 
there exists *one* way of life (the "natural" one). The authoritarian
implications of such arrogance is clear. That the Dogma of Natural Law was 
only invented a few hundred years ago, in one part of the planet, does not 
seem to bother its advocates. Nor does the fact that for the vast majority 
of human existence, people have lived in societies which violated almost 
*all* of their so-called "Natural Laws" To take one example, before the 
late Neolithic, most societies were based on usufruct, or free access 
to communally held land and other resources (see Murray Bookchin, _The 
Ecology of Freedom_). Thus for millennia, all human beings lived in 
violation of the supposed "Natural Law" of private property -- perhaps 
the chief "law" in the "Libertarian" universe. 

If "Natural Law" did exist, then all people would have discovered these 
"true" laws years ago. To the contrary, however, the debate is still
going on, with (for example) fascists and "Libertarians" each claiming
"the laws of nature" (and socio-biology) as their own.

F.7.4 Does "Natural Law" actually provides protection for individual liberty?

But, it seems fair to ask, does "natural law" actually respect individuals
and their rights (i.e. liberty)? We think not. Why?

According to Rothbard, "the natural law ethic states that for man, goodness
or badness can be determined by what fulfils or thwarts what is best for
man's nature." [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 10] But, of course, what may 
be "good" for "man" may be decidedly *bad* for men (and women). If we 
take the example of the sole oasis in a desert (see section F.4.2) then, 
according to Rothbard, the property owner having the power of life and 
death over others is "good" while, if the dispossessed revolt and refuse 
to recognise his "property", this is "bad"! In other words, Rothbard's
"natural law" is good for *some* people (namely property owners) while
it can be bad for others (namely the working class). In more general
terms, this means that a system which results in extensive hierarchy
(i.e. *archy*, power) is "good" (even though it restricts liberty for 
the many) while attempts to *remove* power (such as revolution and the
democratisation of property rights) is "bad". Somewhat strange logic,
we feel.

However such a position fails to understand *why* we consider coercion to
be wrong/unethical. Coercion is wrong because it subjects an individual 
to the will of another. It is clear that the victim of coercion is lacking 
the freedom that the philosopher Isaiah Berlin describes in the following 
terms: 

"I wish my life and decisions to depend on myself, not on external forces
of whatever kind. I wish to be an instrument of my own, not of other
men's, acts of will. I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved 
by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which
affect me, as it were, from outside. I wish to be somebody, not nobody; a
doer -- deciding, not being decided for, self-directed and not acted upon
by external nature or by other mean as if I were a thing, or an animal, or
a slave incapable of playing a human role, that is, of conceiving goals
and policies of my own and realising them." [_Four Essays on Liberty_, 
p. 131] 

Or, as Alan Haworth points out, "we have to view coercion as a violation
of what Berlin calls *positive* freedom." [_Anti-Libertarianism_, p. 48]

Thus, if a system results in the violation of (positive) liberty by its
very nature -- namely, subject a class of people to the will of another
class (the worker is subject to the will of their boss and is turned 
into an order-taker) -- then it is justified to end that system. Yes,
it is "coercion" is dispossess the property owner -- but "coercion" exists
only for as long as they desire to exercise power over others. In other
words, it is not domination to remove domination! And remember it is 
the domination that exists in coercion which fuels our hatred of it,
thus "coercion" to free ourselves from domination is a necessary evil
in order to stop far greater evils occurring (as, for example, in the
clear-cut case of the oasis monopoliser). 

Perhaps it will be argued that domination is only bad when it is involuntary,
which means that it is only the involuntary nature of coercion that makes
it bad, not the domination it involves. By this argument wage slavery is 
not domination as workers voluntarily agree to work for a capitalist (after
all, no one puts a gun to their heads) and any attempt to overthrow
capitalist domination is coercion and so wrong. However, this argument
ignores that fact that *circumstances* force workers to sell their liberty
and so violence on behalf of property owners is not (usually) required --
market forces ensure that physical force is purely "defensive" in nature.
And as we argued in section F.2.2, even Rothbard recognised that the
economic power associated with one class of people being dispossessed
and another empowered by this fact results in relations of domination
which cannot be considered "voluntary" by any stretch of the imagination
(although, of course, Rothbard refuses to see the economic power associated
with capitalism -- when its capitalism, he cannot see the wood for the trees
-- and we are ignoring the fact that capitalism was created by extensive
use of coercion and violence -- see section F.8).

Thus, "Natural law" and attempts to protect individuals rights/liberty and 
see a world in which people are free to shape their own lives are fatally 
flawed if they do not recognise that private property is incompatible with 
these goals. This is because the existence of capitalist property smuggles 
in power and so domination (the restriction of liberty, the conversion of
some into order-givers and the many into order-takers) and so Natural Law 
does not fulfil its promise that each person is free to pursue their own 
goals. The unqualified right of property will lead to the domination and 
degradation of large numbers of people (as the oasis monopoliser so
graphically illustrates).

And we stress that anarchists have no desire to harm individuals, only to 
change institutions. If a workplace is taken over by its workers, the owners 
are not harmed physically. If the oasis is taken from the monopoliser, the 
ex-monopoliser becomes like other users of the oasis (although probably 
*disliked* by others). Thus anarchists desire to treat people as fairly as 
possible and not replace one form of coercion and domination with another -- 
individuals must *never* be treated as abstractions (if they have
power over you, destroy what creates the relation of domination, *not*
the individual, in other words! And if this power can be removed without
resorting to force, so much the better -- a point which social and
individualist anarchists disagree on, namely whether capitalism can
be reformed away or not comes directly from this. As the Individualists
think it can, they oppose the use of force. Most social anarchists think
it cannot, and so support revolution).

This argument may be considered as "utilitarian" (the greatest good for
the greatest number) and so treats people not as "ends in themselves"
but as "means to an end". Thus, it could be argued, "natural law" is 
required to ensure that *all* (as opposed to some, or many, or the
majority of) individuals are free and have their rights protected. 

However, it is clear that "natural law" can easily result in a minority 
having their freedom and rights respected, while the majority are 
forced by circumstances (created by the rights/laws produced by applying
"natural law" we must note) to sell their liberty and rights in order 
to survive. If it is wrong to treat anyone as a "means to an end", 
then it is equally wrong to support a theory or economic system that 
results in people having to negate themselves in order to live. A respect 
for persons -- to treat them as ends and never as means -- is not compatible 
with private property.

The simple fact is that *there are no easy answers* -- we need to weight 
up our options and act on what we think is best. Yes, such subjectivism 
lacks the "elegance" and simplicity of "natural law" but it reflects 
real life and freedom far better. All in all, we must always remember
that what is "good" for man need not be good for people. "Natural law"
fails to do this and stands condemned.

F.7.5 But Natural Law was discovered, not invented!

This statement truly shows the religious nature of the Natural Law cult. 
To see why its notion of "discovery" is confused, let us consider the Law
of Gravity. Newton did not "discover" the law of gravity, he invented a
theory which explained certain observed phenomena in the physical world.
Later Einstein updated Newton's theories in ways that allowed for a better
explanation of physical reality. Thus, unlike "Natural Law," scientific
laws can be updated and changed as our knowledge changes and grows. As
we have already noted, however, "Natural Laws" cannot be updated because
they are derived from fixed definitions (Rothbard is pretty clear on this,
he states that it is "[v]ery true" that natural law is "universal, fixed and
immutable" and so are "'absolute' principles of justice" and that they are
"independent of time and place" [_The Ethics of Liberty_, p. 19]). However,
what he fails to understand is that what the "Natural Law" cultists are 
"discovering" are simply the implications of their own definitions, which 
in turn simply reflect their own prejudices and preferences. 

Since "Natural Laws" are thus "unchanging" and are said to have been
"discovered" centuries ago, it's no wonder that many of its followers look
for support in socio-biology, claiming that their "laws" are part of the
genetic structure of humanity. But socio-biology has dubious scientific
credentials for many of its claims. Also, it has authoritarian implications
*exactly* like Natural Law. Murray Bookchin rightly characterises
socio-biology as "suffocatingly rigid; it not only impedes action with the
autocracy of a genetic tyrant but it closes the door to any action that is
not biochemically defined by its own configuration. When freedom is
nothing more than the recognition of necessity. . .we discover the gene's
tyranny over the greater totality of life. . .when knowledge becomes
dogma (and few movements are more dogmatic than socio-biology) freedom is
ultimately denied." ["Socio-biology or Social Ecology", in _Which way for
the Ecology Movement?_ pp. 49 - 75, p. 60]

In conclusion the doctrine of Natural Law, far from supporting individual 
freedom, is one of its greatest enemies. By locating individual rights 
within "Man's Nature," it becomes an unchanging set of dogmas. Do we really
know enough about humanity to say what are "Natural" and universal Laws,
applicable forever? Is it not a rejection of critical thinking and thus
individual freedom to do so?

F.7.6 Why is the notion of "discovery" contradictory?

Ayn Rand indicates the illogical and contradictory nature of the concepts 
of "discovering" "natural law" and the "natural rights" this "discovery" 
argument creates when she stated that her theory was "objective." Her 
"Objectivist" political theory "holds that good is neither an attribute of 
'things in themselves' nor man's emotional state, but *an evaluation* of 
the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard 
of value. . . The objective theory holds that *the good is an aspect of 
reality in relation to man* - and that it must be discovered, not invented, 
by man." [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 22] 

However, this is playing with words. If something is "discovered" then it 
has always been there and so is an intrinsic part of it. If "good" *is* 
"discovered" by "man" then "good" exists independently of people -- it
is waiting to be "discovered." In other words, "good" is an attribute of 
"man as man," of "things in themselves" (in addition, such a theory also 
implies that there is just *one* possible interpretation of what is "good" 
for all humanity). This can be seen when Rand talks about her system of
"objective" values and rights.

When discussing the difference between "subjective," "intrinsic" and 
"objective" values Rand noted that "intrinsic" and "subjective" theories 
"make it possible for a man to believe what is good is independent of man's 
mind and can be achieved by physical force." [Op. Cit., p. 22] In other 
words, intrinsic and subjective values justify tyranny. However, her 
"objective" values are placed squarely in "Man's Nature" -- she states that 
"[i]ndividual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" 
and that "the source of man's rights is man's nature." [Op. Cit., p. 320, 
p. 322]

She argues that the "*intrinsic* theory holds that the good is inherent 
in certain things or actions, as such, regardless of their context and
consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the
actors and subjects involved." [Op. Cit., p. 21] According to the _Concise
Oxford Dictionary_, "intrinsic" is defined as "inherent," "essential," 
"belonging naturally" and defines "nature" as "a thing's, or person's, 
innate or essential qualities or character." In other words, if, as 
Rand maintains, man's rights *are* the product of "man's nature" then 
such rights are *intrinsic*! And if, as Rand maintains, such rights 
are the "extension of morality into the social system" then morality 
itself is also intrinsic.

Again, her ideology fails to meet its own tests -- and opens the way for
tyranny. This can be seen by her whole hearted support for wage slavery and
her total lack of concern how it, and concentrations of wealth and power, 
affect the individuals subjected to them. For, after all, what is "good" 
is "inherent" in capitalism, regardless of the context, consequences, 
benefits or injuries it may cause to the actors and subjects involved. 

The key to understanding her contradictory and illogical ideology lies in
her contradictory use of the word "man." Sometimes she uses it to describe 
individuals but usually it is used to describe the human race collectively 
("man's nature," "man's consciousness"). But "Man" does not have a 
consciousness, only individuals do. Man is an abstraction, it is individuals 
who live and think, not "Man." Such "Man worship" -- like Natural Law -- 
has all the markings of a religion.

As Max Stirner argues "liberalism is a religion because it separates my 
essence from me and sets it above me, because it exalts 'Man' to the same 
extent as any other religion does to God. . . it sets me beneath Man." 
[_The Ego and Its Own_, p. 176] Indeed, he "who is infatuated with *Man*
leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats
in an ideal, sacred interest. *Man*, you see, is not a person, but an ideal,
a spook." [Op. Cit., p.79]

Rand argues that we must evaluate "the facts of reality by man's consciousness 
according to a rational standard of value" but who determines that value? 
She states that "[v]alues are not determined by fiat nor by majority vote" 
[p. 24] but, however, neither can they be determined by "man" or "man's 
consciousness" because "man" does not exist. Individuals exist and have 
consciousness and because they are unique have different values (but as we 
argued in section A.2.19, being social creatures these values are generalised 
across individuals into social, i.e. objective, values). So, the abstraction
"man" does not exist and because of this we see the healthy sight of
different individuals convincing others of their ideas and theories
by discussion, presenting facts and rational debate. This can be best
seen in scientific debate.

The aim of the scientific method is to invent theories that explain facts, 
the theories are not part of the facts but created by the individual's mind 
in order to explain those facts. Such scientific "laws" can and do change 
in light of new information and new thought. In other words, the scientific 
method is the creation of subjective theories that explain the objective 
facts. Rand's method is the opposite - she assumes "man's nature," "discovers"
what is "good" from those assumptions and draws her theories by deduction 
from that. This is the *exact* opposite of the scientific method and, as we 
noted above, comes to us straight from the Roman Catholic church.

It is the subjective revolt by individuals against what is considered 
"objective" fact or "common sense" which creates progress and develops 
ethics (what is considered "good" and "right") and society. This, in
turn, becomes "accepted fact" until the next free thinker comes along and
changes how we view the world by presenting *new* evidence, re-evaluating
old ideas and facts or exposing the evil effects associated with certain
ideas (and the social relationships they reflect) by argument, fact and
passion. Attempts to impose "an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's 
consciousness" would be a death blow to this process of critical thought, 
development and evaluation of the facts of reality by individual's