BradSpangler.com

There are those who choose to dispute whether modern market anarchism is the successor to the 19th century individualist anarchists. One of the things they often point to is the denunciations of monetary interest that were common among the individualist anarchists of the 19th century. It seems to me that criticism misunderstands market anarchism. Here’s how…

The role of many things can be good, bad or innocuous depending on context. For example, the role of a gun used in a holdup is not the same as the role of a gun carried in a ladies purse for defense. The object is the same, but role plays a huge part in how nervous one ought to be about it.

The way I see it, monetary interest takes on negative aspects within the context of a state monetary monopoly/oligopoly. The 19th century individualist anarchist critiques of monetary interest are then applicable. That’s not the same thing, though, as monetary interest per se. I think perhaps more ought to be said about this by market anarchists, both for sake of clarifying the matter to others and just in terms of refining the state of market anarchist thought. This view to me seems a self-evident aspect of market anarchism — it’s just not often talked about. In doing so, we could perhaps draw more from those 19th century individualists.

Clearly, if two people voluntarily agree to and carry out a transaction involving only what is rightfully theirs, they both benefit. This is simple, genuine free trade and hardly controversial.

If the milieu that transaction is carried out in, by reason of state intervention distorting the market, favors one party to the transaction (such as a state-privileged banking cartel) over the other party, then something other than free trade is going on. In other words, it’s not a completely voluntary transaction, unlike the above.

At that point, some criticism becomes valid — because what would otherwise be innocuous or beneficial within the context of a completely voluntary transaction (debt interest) becomes a symptom (oppressive debt interest) of a larger problem (a banking industry cartelized by state granted privilege).

To me, this distinction represents a refinement of 19th century individualist anarchism that yet ought to be an obvious point to anyone who has studied modern market anarchist thinkers like Rothbard.

Tags: Politics //