BradSpangler.com

It’s not clear why, but user Devon’s comments on my last post disappeared without apparent cause. I’ll look into that. Meanwhile, since what Devon had to say was critical, I want to take pains to not silence him — so I’m reposting his comments based on the email notifications of them I received, as well as copying my replies.

Devon: It appears to me that “Agorism” is simply a marketing gimmick to sell Konkin’s books. “Agorism” clearly is simply one person’s interpretation of anarcho-capitalism. Konkin has pretended that he’s come up with something unique but it’s not at all. Anarcho-capitalism can cover a wide range of interpetations and attitudes. I take offense that he makes up views that he attributes to all anarcho-capitalists. I’m an anarcho-capitalist and I do not equate enterpreneurship with investing, as he claims anarcho-capitalists “conflate.” Does that make me an “agorist”? No, I’m still an anarcho-capitalist. And who is he to call investors “drones”? Sounds like a personal attack to me. Investors are crucial to entrepreneurship. Venture capitalists must exercise a lot of intelligence to determine which startups to fund. And who is he to say that anarcho-capitalists “generally believe in involvement with existing political parties”? How does he know this? I don’t see any reason to think anything other than that some anarcho-capitalists do and some don’t. There is nothing special at all about “Agorism.” Konkin’s philosophy really does not deserve having it’s own name if he’s going to attribute beliefs to anarcho-capitalists that not all anarcho-capitalists, and for all he knows, possibly not even most anarcho-capitalists have.

The “notes” from Brad Spangler don’t make any sense either. What does this mean: “Very important is the recognition that, when speaking of the purported property of the capitalists (holders of capital) among the political class, “Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title” as Karl Hess put it. Anarcho-capitalism never rose to Hess’s challenge, despite the ability of Rothbardian property theory to address it.” For Spangler’s information, Karl Hess WAS an anarcho-capitalist. He said so himself. It’s not as if Rothbard is the only anarcho-capitalist. Spangler also engages in the same tactics as Konkin by attributing ideas and positions to anarcho-capitalists that not all of them have and differentiating “Agorists” as not being anarcho-capitalists. It’s absurd. Agorists ARE anarcho-capitalists. Don’t let Konkin’s marketing gimmicks fool you.

Anarcho-capitalism is simply any philosophy that supports a free market in goods and services including defense services and doesn’t have a labor theory of value. That leaves a lot of room for varying interpretations and applications. Rothbard does not have a monopoly on the term “anarcho-capitalism.” It is now much bigger than him. One doesn’t have to have a philosophy identical to Rothbard’s to be an anarcho-capitalist. For example, David Friedman is an anarcho-capitalist too, you know? His anarcho-capitalism is quite different from Rothbard’s but it’s still anarcho-capitalism. If someone wants to call their own version by another name, that’s fine. But, don’t attribute positions to anarcho-capitalists “in general” that they may not have not have to sell books.

Devon: Another note. This statement form Spangler is totally false: “While they rightfully denounce loudly the state as banditry, their eyes glaze over once the wealth the state steals has been transferred to some state allied plutocrat not literally on a civil service payroll (e.g Haliburton). They typically contradict their own (Rothbardian) property theory by defending the possessors of stolen loot as if they were legitimate property owners.” Read “Confiscation and the Homstead Principle” by Rothabard http://mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_06_15.pdf in the Libertarian Forum, which is right under Hess’s essay that he praises. He explicitly advocates the seizure of “property built on funds stolen from taxpayers.” Rothbard says “What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to “private” property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation
and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their “private” property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by t h e horsethief and t h e murdered must be “respected”. He even goes on to suggest how this may be accomplished, even utilizing the state for redistribution, which contradicts Spangler’s statement that “Rothbard failed to completely understand the full implications of his ideas on class and never himself developed a theory of revolution. Not trusting the state to redistribute property, that being the problem in the first place, an-caps with no theory of revolution have no idea how to address the issue of state stolen property.”

Don’t make claims about anarcho-capitalists unless you have read all material from all anarcho-capitalists.

Brad: Actually, I’m quite familiar with Rothbard’s essay “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle” from back during Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left phase. It was instrumental in development of my current views. I was refering to a *tendency* of the modern anarcho-capitalist movement as it exists in dumbed down form today. Similarly, with regard to your initial comment, pause and consider the phrase “tends to” and words like “typically” as acknowledgement that I’m putting forward some generalizations — valid generalizations, but ones I freely admit are generalizations.

Brad: And, BTW, you’re kind of missing the point — that while State seizure of the property of state allied monopolist enterprises as a supposed prelude to authentic privatization may be justifiable under Rothbardian property theory, it’s severely problematic for political libertarians to advocate state seizure of nominally private enterprises. That’s why while Rothbard considered the notion, he dropped it like a hot potato. The only way Rothbardian property theory can realistically be acted on without contradicting libertarian principle in such cases is by revolutionary homesteading and/or restitution seizures. Rothbardian property theory can not accomplish that all on its own. You need a theory of revolution.

Furthermore, let’s not get into all of the contradictions involved in theoretical politically carried out de-statizing by “libertarian” politicians. Since libertarianism questions the very legitimacy of the state, just how can the government legitimately privatize anything, in terms of selecting a particular person or people to transfer title to formerly state-owned assets to? It can’t.

Devon: I disagree that you are making “valid generalizations.” What you are doing is defining anarcho-capitalism as you personally want to define it, by coming up with these “generalizations” that are unfounded. Have you done a study on what anarcho-capitalists “generally” think other than wanting to have market provided defense?

And, I reiterate my point that agorism is anarcho-capitalism too. Agorism is not a separate philosophy. It’s simply one of many applications of “anarcho-capitalism,” which again, is simply any philosophy that supports a free market in goods and services including defense services and doesn’t have a labor theory of value. That alone is a sufficient condition for a philosophy being a form of anarcho-capitalism.

And, you’re attributing positions to the “modern anarcho-capitalist movement” does not make sense. There is no anarcho-capitalism “movement.” There are simply various anarcho-capitalists each with their own ideas. And again, I don’t know how you can make generalizations when Friedman’s version of anarcho-capitalism is nearly as popular as Rothbard’s version but so much different.

I suggest that you not generalize about “anarcho-capitalists” and not make generalizations about them as if agorists are not anarcho-capitalists too. There is no “anarcho-capitalist” movement of which positions can be generalized.

Brad: Among other things, I disagree with your definition of anarcho-capitalism. Although it covers the basics, it ignores important points I have already explicitly raised.

Anarcho-capitalism a philosophy which supports a free market in goods and services including defense and arbitration services, doesn’t have a labor theory of value, lacks a theory of revolution and as a consequence remains mired in political reformism and doesn’t fully develop and apply its class theory or property theory.

There are subtler points of information that could be raised, such as lack of a labor theory of value being a largely artificial distinction at this point because the most up to date and sophisticated take on the labor theory of value (Carson’s) is so heavily subjectivized as to make the debate between subjective value theory and LTV advocates largely a moot point of little more than academic interest.

Brad: And, BTW, with regard to this:

“Have you done a study on what anarcho-capitalists ‘generally’ think other than wanting to have market provided defense?”

I was apolitical until I read Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty” 17 years ago and I’ve been active in the libertarian movement ever since. If that’s not good enough (in your view) to have an opinion on the character and composition of that movement and elements of it, to include defending that opinion as at least somewhat accurate based on that experience, then I’m going to have to say I disagree with you on that as well.

Brad: And as for Friedman, while he has made some valuable contributions to anarcho-capitalist thought, it’s my perception that Rothbard is widely acknowledged as the most advanced and influential anarcho-capitalist thinker. For that matter, the Tannehills managed to be much more rigorous in a far more succinct volume if you want to compare the “The Market for Liberty” to Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom”. The best critique of Friedman’s version of things can be found in Rothbard’s “Do You Hate the State?”.

Tags: Politics //