(A) $

A Conservative Response to Anarcho-Capitalism October 5, 2011

Anarcho-capitalism is the only freedom-based form of capitalist thought currently in existence. It is the economic system that provides maximum freedom to earn maximum profit solely through voluntary means. But isnt anarcho-capitalism just a system that allows the rich to get even richer? And doesnt it cause stock market collapses and depressions, abuse workers, an d destroy the environment, and discriminate against everybody thats not white? Ha, balderdash! Under strict circumstances, these reservations could not be farther from the truth. But first, lets take a look at what anarcho-capitalism actually is: Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity (Hess). For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarchocapitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade rather than through aggression or fraud (Avrich). In this sense, it is a very Christian philosophy in that it shuns violence, theft, and fraud. So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms (Weick). (I pulled all of this off the Wikipedia page for anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchocapitalism, but I list the original sources at the bottom of the article). So I hope you get the gist of what it is now. But if youre anything like me, you may be wondering how anarcho-capitalism would work in the real world. In fact, I would sure hope youre wondering. Here are some major elements of anarcho-capitalism that I will subsequently analyze: 1. Free Trade (no tariffs, embargos, or any other restrictions on trade) 2. Free Markets (sell anything, anywhere, at any time, under any conditions) 3. Free Labor (neither the government nor labor unions have power over businesses labor practices) 4. Free Reign (no regulations of any kind) 5. Free Exchange (no government monopoly on currency, i.e. consumers can barter with anything mutually acceptable) * Free Law (laws and law enforcement are privatized; minarchist capitalism requires the existence of a government. The minarchist capitalist school of thought is embraced by some libertarians) * Anti-Nationalization (no service would be provided by the government (for example, water and sewage services would be privatized). This tenet has an asterisk because minarchist capitalism requires the existence of the state and thus utility services provided by governments are not intrinsically excluded)

(A) $

(A) $

So being a paleolibertarian (hardcore social conservative, economic libertarian, civil libertarian) and a constitutionalist (obviously), how do I differ from or relate to these arguments? Lets begin with the Free Trade argument. I am idealistically 100% in favor of free trade. The only trouble comes when I return to the real world where idealist fantasies are rarely pragmatic. Under our current global economic order, production and labor are globally redistributed from the rich, developed, expensive countries to poorer, less developed, less expensive countries (for example, manufacturing leaves expensive America and moves to less expensive China, India, and the like). If a period of underproduction in a developed country were to be sustained for too long, unemployment would eventually rise (because of the usual initial trend of the populations growth rate surpassing the death rate) and economic and industrial progress would falter. Simply put, if all products and services that did not necessarily require domestic activity vanished from a national economy (namely through off-shoring), the economy would collapse and thus the country would lack economic and industrial security in times of trouble (this was shown when America faced the Great Depression while simultaneously at war with the fascist Axis in WWII. So heres a thought: could a patriotic free trade policy be viable (selective free trade that yielded a net increase in business and citizens profit, GNP, and GDP? 1 I have not thoroughly thought this through, so just because I propose it it doesnt mean I support it. Think about this patriotic free trade policy. Tell me what you think about it in the comment section. Being one myself, I also imagine how a constitutionalist might think of free trade? Constitutionalists sometimes support free trade by arguing that most trading powers are delegated to the states (citing the 10th Amendment). However, the Constitution also says that the federal government is the only one that can regulate interstate trade (which in effect controls states trade with foreign entities (for example the State of Michigan trading with the Province of Ontario)). Ultimately, since foreign trade is in varying degrees controlled by the central government, all of the risk and adverse effects associated with free trade are directed nationally. However, the Constitution requires representatives and other office holders to uphold and defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. If total free trade can be damaging to the country, how can we both participate in it while at the same time upholding and defending the Constitution and our country? There is a contradiction here and thus we cannot support both we must choose between absolute free trade or the Constitution. If the Constitution option was chosen, limited free trade (patriotic free trade?) would be possible, however.2 Secondly is the matter of Free Markets. First off, a truly free market would not allow the existence of professional licensing (namely for doctors and lawyers). Obviously some licensing is required but I will not currently delve into the matter. In addition to this, vices such as gambling and prostitution would be legal and allowed to operate any place the market would bear (schools, daycares, churches, etc. would not be out of the question in terms of having these businesses nearby). Whats else is that a completely free market would not mandate welfare for poor and disadvantaged people like the handicapped and elderly.

(A) $

(A) $

These things all sound pretty horrible right? Whats the one thing they all have in common? Anything?... Anything at all?... All of these things have sin in common. Gambling, prostitution, treachery, bribery, and selfishness are all generally frowned upon in the West namely because the West was legally and morally founded on the Bible. Any hints to a solution that might solve the problems of a libertine (amoral) free market?... A society must first be righteous and it will eventually become responsible. If a society chooses to be responsible, it can afford to be free! Ultimately, Christian righteousness would deter our nation from all sinful economic transfers and would ensure moral, social, and national integrity.3 This means that even though prostitution, homosexuality, idolatry, etc. would be allowed, it would never be practiced. We see examples of this kind of thing already going on today. In many states now, marijuana is now legal. One might expect that with this legalization, millions of people would flock to their nearest Walgreens and pick up a pack of doobies. This is obviously not the case. This goes to show that libertarianism (freedom) does not always result in libertinism (sin), though without Christian righteousness it necessarily will. Without a moral compass to guide freedom, freedom becomes sin and according to the Bible sin is slavery. Kind of ironic, dont you think? What we must thirdly consider is the concept of Free Labor. Like with free markets, we would not need labor or industrial unions if we were a completely righteous Christian nation. Employers would treat their employees just as they would treat themselves or their own families and, in addition to this, employees would know that what they are being paid is fair. Employers and employees alike would reflect the principles of turning the other cheek and being gracious to each other (two aspects of the same concept). For instance, lets say an employer is accidentally working his employees too hard (it would be accidental because no good Christian would purposefully overwork his employees). A good employee would turn the other cheek and tough it out. What if the employees began asking for higher wages even though what the employer is paying them is genuinely fair (not in relation to the previous example)? The employer would be gracious and pay them, assuming there is enough money to spare so that he would not go into debt (because debt leads to bankruptcy which then leads to everyones unemployment). What about Free Reign then? A righteous Christian nation has no need of a central government telling it what it can or cannot do. No regulations would be necessary though the government would be allowed to set standards, for example, of how much a pound would weigh or how tall an inch would be. The Bible even praises those nations which have standard weights and measures and commands that those standards be consistent. I must admit too (referring to a prior statement) that this standardization could justify the governments current legal and medical licensing policies. Then we have to talk about Free Exchange. Whats so bad about money? This point deals with the governments monopoly on currency (and by currency I do not mean money or dollar bills). By currency I refer to the medium of exchange in which people conduct trade. The typical medium of exchange in America is the dollar, but the dollar itself is not money. The dollar is actually a Federal Reserve note (an I. O. U. from the Fed, our nations central bank. Just look on your dollar bills if you dont believe me). Americans used to be able to use gold and silver

(A) $

(A) $

coins to buy goods and pay for services. However, thanks to presidents like the Democratic Franklin Roosevelt and Republican Richard Nixon (both progressives), people were banned from even owning gold currency. In recent years, however, people have been allowed to own them (which is why you see so many commercials for companies that buy and sell gold, because the gold coin market is relatively new). In a free society, individuals could pay with whatever currency the free market would tolerate. Would you want to pay with Euros for that flashy new iPod? If the seller agrees, go ahead. Wanna pay for your restaurant bill by providing the owner with your plumbing expertise? If the owner consents, then yes. Have you ever gone to the movie theater and just wanted to pay for your ticket with some of your extra chickens, electronics, oil, timber, or medical advice? Probably not but in a society that allows free exchange all of these would be possible for those who wanted to do so. In addition to this, the more society begins to use these alternative currencies, the more everyone would eventually start using them. This has been proven so many times, especially with the proliferation of various technologies (televisions, telephones, PCs, etc.) that I do not feel compelled to justify this further. And if you are a small business owner who doesnt want to accept a chicken as payment for your service or product, then you wouldnt be forced to accept it! Thats the elegant beauty of the system! People would be able to pay with whatever both parties mutually agreed to. And again, in a Christian society, this system would do just fine and ever prosper. Heres where it might get scary for some of you: what about Free Law? James Madison, one of my favorite presidents, said If men were angels, no government would be necessary. I suppose in this sense James Madison could be considered to have idealistically been an anarchotheocrat (the theocratic part comes from him being a very zealous Christian. He even went to seminary). However, he too lived in the real world and acknowledged that men in fact would never become angels. But WAIT! We cant actually have a nation without a set of standard laws can we? As Arnold Schwarzenegger himself would say, Stop your stupid whining, girly man! Of course there would be a set of standard laws! WHAT ELSE IS THE BIBLE? Now of course, practically speaking, there would have to be general agreement on theological matters for this to be implemented (for example, do we only follow New Testament law or the whole Bible?), but the U.S. is so far away from this stage of social development that we shouldnt even worry about solving this question now. In fact, I believe King Jesus will solve this for us. So then there is the Anti-Nationalization part. Wouldnt big corporations barge into my neighborhood, dig some sewage pipes and string some electric lines through my yard and then charge me exorbitantly? Wouldnt big business take advantage of people, especially the poor? Wouldnt millions of grannies get rolled off cliffs in their wheelchairs? In a Christian nation, monopolies would provide adequate (or even graciously excellent) services for fair and just prices. Being Christian, they would also have sympathy and grace on those individuals who cannot pay. Lost your job and cant pay for the heat this winter? You wont be able to get a new job for a few months? No problem, says the Christian monopolist, well pick up the tab. This is a more just system of welfare because people would be giving to the poor willingly, not by government coercion through theft (forced taxation). Thus, a monopoly could provide a service (water, sewage, electricity, gas, etc) with ease and justice.

(A) $

(A) $

David Weick, Anarchist Justice, pp. 223-224; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Kropotkin, Anarchism; Karl Hess. The Death of Politics. Interview in Playboy Magazine, March 1969 Paul Avrich. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282. 1. GNP is the gross national product. This means all of the output generated by a countrys enterprises, even companies that are not located with a countrys borders (for example, a Ford plant in China American company in a foreign country).GDP is the gross domestic product. This means that it is the total output produced with a nations borders. This would include both output by domestic and foreign companies (for example, a Toyota plant in America). 2. Free trade is OK if both countries involved benefit equally. This is difficult to measure, however, and it is very controversial. It is also OK if there was to be a genuine labor shortage supplemented by foreign workers (0% unemployment of all able-bodied nationals (domestic workers) but additional workers still needed). In this scenario, bringing in foreign workers to fill unfillable jobs would be awesome (and by unfillable jobs I dont mean jobs that no one will take. I mean that there are literally no more nationals to fill domestic jobs). 3. When I say Christian or righteous Christian I mean someone who completely and fully dedicates their life to serving God and abiding by His ways. No exceptions. I do not include people who have only been baptized or someone who grew up in the church. One must totally attempt to follow God to qualify as a Christian or righteous Christian in my view.

(A) $