World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Market anarchism

Article Id: WHEBN0018383997
Reproduction Date:

Title: Market anarchism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Agorism, The Weapon Shops of Isher, State monopoly capitalism, Propertarianism
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Market anarchism

Free-market anarchism or market anarchism includes several branches of anarchism that advocate an economic system based on voluntary market interactions without the involvement of the state. While market anarchists generally wish to eliminate the state and propose various formulations of a stateless society, their views on property and labor relations may differ significantly. While some anarchists, such as mutualists or anarcho-syndicalists, consider themselves anti-capitalists and oppose private ownership of the means of production, instead insisting on their cooperative or collective ownership and management, anarcho-capitalists stress the legitimacy and priority of private property, describing it as an integral component of individual rights and a free market economy.

The term may be used to refer to diverse economic and political concepts, such as those proposed by anarchist libertarian socialists like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker, and Lysander Spooner,[1][2][3][4] or alternatively anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard[5] and David D. Friedman.[6] The ideology in favor of capitalism has ancestry in the laissez-faire ideas of Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari.[7][8]


One of the first individuals to propose the concept of market protection of individual liberty and property was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later, in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security, argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity."[7] Molinari argued that the monopoly on security causes high prices and low quality. He says in Les Soirées: "The monopoly of government is no better than any other. One does not govern well and, especially not cheaply, when one has no competition to fear, when the ruled are deprived of the right of freely choosing their rulers...The production of security inevitably becomes costly and bad when it is organized as a monopoly."[9] The brunt of Molinari's argument for free-market anarchism is based in economics rather than on moral opposition to the state.[8]

In the 19th century, Benjamin Tucker in the United States theorized free-market anarchism: "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand; that in a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production; that, competition prevailing, patronage would go to those who furnished the best article at the lowest price; that the production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State; and that the State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices."[10] He noted that the anarchism he proposed would include prisons and military.[11] Later, in the mid-20th century, free-market anarchism was resuscitated by Murray Rothbard and his followers. Later, David D. Friedman proposed a form of free-market anarchism where in addition to security being provided by the market, the law itself is produced by the market.[12]

Internal disputes

Aside from their agreement that security should be privately provided by market-based entities, proponents of free-market anarchism differ in other details and aspects of their philosophies, particularly justification, tactics and property rights.

Murray Rothbard and other natural rights theorists cite the so-called non-aggression axiom as the basis for their libertarian systems, while other free-market anarchists such as David D. Friedman favor free market anarchism based on consequentialist ethical theories.[13] voluntarists, paleolibertarians, and Agorists, are propertarian market anarchists who consider private property rights to be individual natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership.

Market anarchists state diverse views concerning the path to elimination of the state. Rothbard endorses the use of any tactic to bring about market anarchy so long as it does not contradict his libertarian moral principles.[14] Agorists – followers of the philosophy of Samuel Edward Konkin III[15] – propose to eliminate the state by practicing tax resistance and by the use of illegal black market strategies called counter-economics until the security functions of the state can be replaced by free market competitors.

Views on property


Benjamin Tucker originally subscribed to the idea of land ownership associated with Mutualism, which does not grant that this creates property in land, but holds that when people customarily use given land (and in some versions goods), other people should respect that use or possession. But, when that use stops, ownership is no longer recognized, unlike with property.[16] The mutualist theory holds that the stopping of use or occupying land reverts it to the commons or to an unowned condition, and makes it available for anyone that wishes to use it.[17] Therefore, there would be no market in land that is not in use. However, Tucker later abandoned natural rights theory and said that land ownership is legitimately transferred through force unless specified otherwise by contracts: "Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still."[18] He expected, however, that individuals would come to the realization that the "occupancy and use" was a "generally trustworthy guiding principle of action," and that individuals would likely contract to an occupancy and use policy.[19]


Classical liberal John Locke argues that, as people apply their labor to unowned resources, they make those resources their property. For Locke, there are only two legitimate ways people can acquire new property: by mixing their labor with unowned resources or by voluntary trade for created goods. In accordance with Locke's philosophy, Rothbardian free-market anarchists believe that property may only originate by being the product of labor and that its ownership may only legitimately change as a result of exchange or gift. They derive this so-called homestead principle from what they call the principle of self-ownership.[21][22] However, Locke had a "Proviso" which says that the appropriator of resources must leave "enough and as good in others." Rothbard's "market anarchist" followers do not agree with this Proviso, believing instead that the individual may originally appropriate as much as she wishes through the application of her labor, and that property thus acquired remains hers until she chooses otherwise.[21][22] They term this as "neo-Lockean".[22][23] Libertarians see this as consistent with their opposition to initiatory coercion, since only land which is not already owned can be taken without compensation. If something is unowned, there is no person against whom the original appropriator is initiating coercion. They do not think that a claim of and by itself can create ownership, but rather that the application of one's labor to the unowned object, as for example beginning to farm unowned land. Anarcho-capitalists accept voluntary forms of common ownership, which means property open to all individuals to access.[24] Samuel Edward Konkin III, the founder of agorism, was also a Rothbardian.[25]


A well-known critique of free-market anarchism is by Robert Nozick, who argued that a competitive legal system would evolve toward a monopoly government – even without violating individuals rights in the process.[26] John Jefferson, a free-market anarchist, advocates Robert Nozick's argument and states that such events would best operate in laissez faire. [27] Many free-market anarchists, including Roy A. Childs and Murray N. Rothbard, have rejected Nozick's arguments.[28]

See also


External links

  • Center for a Stateless Society – anarchist think-tank and media center focused on market anarchism
  • culturally conservative perspective
  • Market Anarchy – Market anarchism explained from an anarcho-capitalist perspective
  • voluntaryist website featuring essays, news, and a forum
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.