Do we owe anything to the society that made our individual freedom possible? As a William F. Buckley-inspired conservative who found libertarianism later in life, I believe we do, and that the late Mr. Buckley would agree. On the other hand, many of my libertarian friends assert that we do not, and they proudly proclaim themselves anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalism is a political and economic philosophy that advocates abolishing the state in favor of a society governed entirely by the free market and private property. American economist Murray Rothbard is the person most associated with this ideology, which combines the anti-state stance of anarchism with the laissez-faire economic theories of the Austrian School of Economics. In my personal life, I have interacted with ancaps and Marxists. I am usually impressed by their intellect and learn a lot, but I leave my encounters with them feeling that if either group’s ideas became mainstream, they would destroy all I hold sacred and end the United States as we know it. Although it seems counterintuitive, I have always argued that both Marxists and ancaps have much in common. Marxists and anarcho-capitalists share a deep hostility toward the state. Yet, they radically disagree about who the state serves: Marxists see it as an instrument of capitalist class domination.

In contrast, anarcho-capitalists see it as an institution that violates individual property rights and free markets. Both traditions can also inspire a near-messianic devotion to their intellectual prophets—Marx for the revolutionary left and Murray Rothbard for the radical libertarian right. In a curious ideological symmetry, they agree that the state is the problem, but disagree profoundly over whether the villains are capitalists who control it or the state itself, which they believe enables coercion against capitalists and individuals. Libertarianism also varies and can be separated into five categories: anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, constitutionalism, classical liberalism, and thick libertarianism. Beginning with anarcho-capitalism, which seeks to abolish the centralized state in favor of a stateless society in which private institutions would provide services normally performed by government, each category permits progressively greater government authority, culminating in thick libertarianism. What unites these diverse forms is their commitment to the non-aggression principle (NAP), individual liberty, the rule of law, and free enterprise, but their differences are substantial. Anarcho-capitalism, in my view, is impractical in a world of sovereign states, national borders, armies, courts, and other institutions that require some form of centralized authority, while thick libertarianism risks moving in the opposite direction by expanding libertarianism beyond individual liberty and limited government into issues such as racism and LGBTQIA concerns. At that point, libertarianism can begin to resemble the progressive politics I oppose, in which society is increasingly understood through competing categories of oppressed and oppressor groups. As a moderate conservative, I’m more attracted to the traditions in the middle—particularly constitutionalism and classical liberalism—which recognize the necessity of government while insisting that its power remain firmly constrained by individual rights, the rule of law, private property, and human freedom. For this blog,  in these times of nascent democratic socialism, I will focus on anarcho-capitalism and its prospects for becoming a viable political ideology in the United States, why I believe it will not, and why I hope it does not.

Capitalists and American corporations don’t want a more libertarian government.   

Capitalism arises from decentralized voluntary exchange, whereas socialism—especially when it seeks to replace private ownership with collective or state ownership—generally requires a political........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)