Panarchism versus Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is not really an accurate description of the social system advocated by Rothbard. I suggest the more accurate term "natural rights capitalism," or even "Rothbardian natural rights capitalism."

The "anarcho" in anarcho-capitalism suggests that the social system advocated is stateless. The Rothbardian conception is not stateless; it is just a system in which the state is not explicitly referred to by name. All the defense agencies are bound by a central constitution, and by threat of force, they must all adhere to this same central constitution.

Essentially, this is a plan for a centralized government, except that the defense agencies are conceived to be "privatized." This means only that a businessman can open a defense agency, become a judge, etc., as long as he conforms strictly to the central constitution.

It's the same system we have now, except with a different constitution (Rothbard's) and with defense agencies allowed to be bought, sold, opened, closed, etc.

This is what Rothbard has in mind in writing:

"Specifically, the concrete form of anarchist legal institutions---judges, arbitrators, procedural methods for resolving disputes, ect.---would grow by a market invisible-hand process, while the basic Law Code (requiring that no one invade any one else's person and property) would have to be agreed upon by all the judicial agencies...."

"Any agencies that transgressed the basic libertarian code would be open outlaws and aggressors."

(The Ethics of Liberty, p.236-7)

Thus, by threat of force, all agencies must uphold the central constitution. It really doesn't matter that they are called "private" defense agencies. They must, as all businesses now must, strictly adhere to the central government's mandates under threat of force. The people who run these defense agencies, and the customers who patronize them, are not allowed to choose from among various legal codes, but are only allowed to choose from among various providers administering the one, Rothbardian legal code.

In Rothbard's conception of government, "anarchism" refers to the freedom to open a new defense agency, buy one, sell one, etc. It is the same freedom we have now to open, buy, or sell a business, except in Rothbard's conception, now we will be adding police protection to the list and substituting Rothbard's natural-law constitution for currently existing constitutions.

Right now, if the US government "privatized" all defense agencies in the US, but mandated that all of them follow to the letter the exact procedures of the existing defense agencies, this, in principle, is what Rothbard is proposing. This is "privatization" with no decision-making power over the essential operations of the business.

Then Rothbard plans to substitute his own constitution for the current constitution.

That is the vision.

This really isn't anarchism. This is a concrete vision of capitalism legally enforced by a central government. It is a legal monopoly. Since Rothbard envisions arriving at his central constitution by his own interpretation of natural-law, then a more accurate description of the system he advocates is "natural rights capitalism," or even more accurately "Rothbardian natural rights capitalism."

One problem with this monopolistic vision is that there is no "objective" definition of "aggression" or "rightful property." What constitutes aggression depends on who is defining it. For example, regarding IP, this definition will change if we talk to Ayn Rand, Rothbard, Kinsella, or left-libertarians. "Unjust" aggression and "rightful" property depends on which property theory we are referring to.

Rothbard says, of course, we should refer to his.

So far Adam Knott (except for the title which is mine...) who just published these lines as a comment at Gene Callahan's fascinating, in his own words "(mostly) solo, non-serious" blog Crash Landing. See The Libertarian Running Track. You get directly to Adam's comment with this link. But you preferably read the whole post and the other comments first before reading Adam's lines above a second and more times...

I know a bunch of very bright and also otherwise great guys (the rare girl can be found among them too) who have had a glance at panarchism and now think that the ancap thing they believe in since such a long time and are actively promoting is panarchy and thus consider themselves members of a common crowd with us panarchists. Unfortunately, in spite of much kinship and common ground, truth and reality are not that simple! There are differences. And there is a main one, namely that libertarianism (in the widest sense) should not become a monopoly in its own right, bringing us back to where we started from... Thus, in spite of recent expansion, the true panarchist crowd is not yet really a crowd. Changing that would require that those ancap friends I am referring to really read the rather extensive literature (they haven't) and stay with the whole idea, which beyond some simple concepts comprises a rather complex, diverse and far reaching philosophy, much longer, to really grasp it to the core in all its various implications and shining possibilities. It would show them that panarchists, at least in theory, if not always in practice, are actually the most radical "anarchists" and true overarching and surpassing pursuers of freedom and sovereignty for all.