Individualist/Market Anarchism

[Cryozombie]

Could it work as a system?

Some people have claimed that Market Anarchism is the "Purest Form" of Libratarianism, and while most of the so-called Individualist Anarchists, at least the ones I have met and/or seen on the net tend towords Social Anarchy (which as a system I DON'T believe could work) there are camps in the Individualist groups that are closer to Market Anarchists, so I am including them in the discussion... I prefer to leave the ideas of Social Anarchism and "Anarchy" in general for another subject.

Joshua Holmes wrote in his paper "What isMarket Anarchism? an introduction"

Market anarchism is, in brief, private property without the state. It is the purest form of libertarian political thought (although some disagree), the central tenet of which is the Non-Aggression Principle, which L. Neil Smith has defined as such:
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
A similar sentiment was echoed in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

He also further wrote:

Most markets anarchists are descendents of the natural law theory of Western civilization, which was best explained by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. In brief, he explained that men are free by right, and that free meant not only the right to exist, but also the right to govern both oneself and things in the physical world so long as they are not used to harm another. We call the right to exist the right to life. The right to govern oneself is the right to liberty. The right to govern things in the physical world is the right to property.

And as a wrap up he summerizes:

Market anarchists reject the state. Instead, we seek a society where those who govern property are the just owners of that property, and, if governments are formed among men, they are done so by literal, actual consent of each one of the governed instead of the arbitrary borders of the state. We seek that each man be allowed to live and act as he chooses so long as he does not harm anyone else, and that the way to achieve this is to abolish the state.

These are only brief excerpts from his paper, and while there are numerous, and perhaps even better papers on the ideas of Market Anarchism, I think his presentation is simple, direct, and expains the basic ideas of Market Anarchism on an easy to understand level. I'm providing them as background so that there is some clarification between "Anarchy" and the idea of "Market Anarchism"

As a system, could this work, or would it be doomed to fail because of a lack of basic structures?

 

[Big Don]

In market anarchy one could sell things they either didn't own, or weren't going to deliver. Bait and switch tactics and insider trading would be rampant. It would be great, for those with no moral compass.

 

[Cryozombie]

In market anarchy one could sell things they either didn't own, or weren't going to deliver. Bait and switch tactics and insider trading would be rampant. It would be great, for those with no moral compass.

I disagree, I think by doing so you would be violating the tenets of "not harming someone else" in the sense that you would be harming them economically... Its also possible, under Market Anarchism, to have government, but its a government that applies only to those who agree to the system... so if you feared that you would be ripped off, bait and switched, or insider traded, you could in theory join a group of likeminded indiviuals who were self governing, and only do buisness with them, right?

 

[Big Don]

I disagree, I think by doing so you would be violating the tenets of "not harming someone else" in the sense that you would be harming them economically... Its also possible, under Market Anarchism, to have government, but its a government that applies only to those who agree to the system... so if you feared that you would be ripped off, bait and switched, or insider traded, you could in theory join a group of likeminded indiviuals who were self governing, and only do buisness with them, right?

Then, like communism, this is an idea that can NEVER work in the real world. Like communism, "market anarchism" would be great in a utopia where everyone is altruistic and honest. That, however, is not even close to the real world. Discussing idealism is fine, as a kind of mostly pointless mental masturbation. Trying to implement societies that depend, not on the rule of law and threat of sanction, but, rather on the supposedly innate goodness of men is foolish in the extreme. One of the few tenets that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all share is the belief that man is born into sin, that, no person is perfect. Despite it's religious roots that is probably very, very correct. Mores the pity.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Actually, you could do it. I would suggest for anyone seriously interested in a workable idea of this type that you follow the links on this website:

http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/philosophy.html


I would go into it, but he is pretty exhaustive in his writings. It will take some time, but I believe it would be the ideal form of government.

 

[CoryKS]

I disagree, I think by doing so you would be violating the tenets of "not harming someone else" in the sense that you would be harming them economically... Its also possible, under Market Anarchism, to have government, but its a government that applies only to those who agree to the system... so if you feared that you would be ripped off, bait and switched, or insider traded, you could in theory join a group of likeminded indiviuals who were self governing, and only do buisness with them, right?

But you could never be sure that this group of "likeminded individuals" would never betray you in ways Big Don described. I don't think that a system could be said to "work" if it depends on the players to not act in their own self-interest. There would have to be something in place to provide incentives to play nice, but of course that goes against this:

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation.

Actually, we already have an example of a system that believes that things would be great as long as everyone followed the rules but also believes that no one has a right to enforce them. It's called the United Nations. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum, villainy and failure.

 

[newGuy12]

Actually, we already have an example of a system that believes that things would be great as long as everyone followed the rules but also believes that no one has a right to enforce them. It's called the United Nations. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum, villainy and failure.

Hear, hear!

 

[Ray]

Anarchy?

This summer my son's band was invited to play the "Cornstock" festival.

While I stood at the outskirts of the crowd, some self described anarchists began to play a around with a small ball. After a short time I began to hear "out of bounds" and other phrases that suggested the anarchists had put order to their activities. And so it goes in all of human society including "the market"; the invisible hand of adam smith has a shepherd's staff (complete with hook) in it.

 

[Cruentus]

While I am not an advocate for pure "socialism," even in the freest of markets there is always a social contract between players that guide any marketplace. Denying this is either dillusional, or a means to try to shirk blame or responsibilities.


Even if I go to the most free and individualistic idea, like a barter contract with another individual, one can quickly see where ethics and social contract begin to play a role. If, for example, I agree to mow my neighbors lawn and he agrees to feed my animals while I am at work, a very "free market" sort of agreement, what happens if he decides to poison my animals? Sure, at that point I could stop mowing his lawn, but I now have dead animals. So, where does justice come in? We may have had a free market agreement, but we also had a social contract based on basic ethics that if you damage something of someone elses, you are responsible for it. But, what if he is not willing to replace the animals (not to mention, you can never fully replace another living thing)? Well, we now get the court system involved because he violated that social contract; but by the very act of having laws and a court system to go to, there could never be a true market anarchism. If there was, then I would not be able to take this person to any court, and it would be up to me to take justice into my own hands. So, maybe I decide to put a bullet in his head for poisoning my animals? Then of course his family and friends would come after me and my family and friends, and we now have a small war.

If you want to see true market anarchism at work, just look at the black market. Because the black market does not obey any laws by nature. And we can see what happens there; disputes are handled through violence and deception.

Now, I am not saying that a highly libertarian system cannot work, because I think that it definitely could. I will read some of the links on this thread in greater detail to get different points of view on this. But, Anarchy cannot. As Ray's analogy so wittingly demonstrated, there will always be a social contract and a set of ethics of some sort in any marketplace or system, even deciding to not have a "social contract" is a social contract in itself. By putting "rules" in place based on ethics, we negate a system that would be ruled by power, violence, and deception.

 

[Cryozombie]

Well, Some of the arguments above really start to blur the line between Social Anarchism (which relies heavily on socialism) and Market Anarchism. Ray's post, for example, ignores my inital post requesting we save discussion of "Anarchy" for another thread... remember the idea of Market Anarchism does not preclude rules, a ruleset or even a government, it only leaves things up to the individual property owners to make the rules to govern themselves. "Anarchism" is a system of "Government," "Anarchy" is an absense of one.

Paul's example is good, but on too small a scale. With only 2 people in the "pact" what he explains is quite possible. But if you look at a larger scale envrionment, say... a neighborhood community who decide to "self govern"...

Bob owns a lawn care service, Tony a Feed Service. Jenna has a grocery store, Larry the gunsmith makes guns and ammo. Bill is a carpenter, and Gina a veteranarian.

Tony decides to posion Bob's animals. So Bob says "Well, ok, I wont cut his lawn anymore, but now I have dead animals". Tony broke from the social contract "governance" setup by the local ordanance. Depending how they set up their local contracts that Tony agreeded to, his punishment could be as simple as "Tony can no longer get groceries from Jenna, Bill wont fix his house, Gina wont look after his dogs and cats, and forget about getting guns or ammo, Tony is a criminal" to incarceration based on the local agreements.

I'd liken this "system" more to a "Homeowners Association" where you agree to join, pay your dues for being their, follow the rules you agreed to by moving there, and paying the price if you choose not to, rather than "OMFG ITS ANARCHY! EVERYONE FOR THEMSELVES!"

Personally... I'm not an advocate of Market Anarchism as it's written. I present this, and my arguments, for the sake of discussion on somthing other than "OMFG, LIBS SUCK!" "NO WAY YOU BABYKILLILG BUSH LOVERS YOU SUCK!"
​

 

[Steel Tiger]

Now, I am not saying that a highly libertarian system cannot work, because I think that it definitely could. I will read some of the links on this thread in greater detail to get different points of view on this. But, Anarchy cannot. As Ray's analogy so wittingly demonstrated, there will always be a social contract and a set of ethics of some sort in any marketplace or system, even deciding to not have a "social contract" is a social contract in itself. By putting "rules" in place based on ethics, we negate a system that would be ruled by power, violence, and deception.

This is the essential reason why intellectual social constructs like market anarchism and communism cannot work. The world as we know it has grown through stages whereby the will of one was imposed upon others and then the will of many being imposed upon the many so that individuals could not abuse social systems. This hasn't entirely worked, of course.

The very nature of modern society is the strongest evidence that concepts like market anarchism cannot work. Modern society is an attempted bulwark against abuse. The only thing I can ever see happening is a market anarchic situation is someone deciding to ignore the 'do no harm' stricture and annex the property of his neighbours. Afterall, your belief in something does not mean others will believe or even adhere to that belief.