Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism,
where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs.
Under capitalism wouldn't "corporate organizations" be able to
provide all of the physical protection necessary for their customers and or employees,
making government unnecessary?
Whatever you are proposing it is not capitalism. The proper name for what you purpose is
not 'corporations', but street gangs, who fund their business through extortion of their
victims (which you would call 'customers'). Government is an agency with a monopoly on the power to legally use force in a specific
geographic area. What you purpose are multiple agencies (what you incorrectly accuse to be private
corporations) in the same geographic area, that have the power to use force subject to no
rule of law: anarchism.
Why can't corporations exist without government?
Under capitalism, corporations are the result of a specific contractual legal framework
(provided by government), based on the principle of individual rights. Without government,
the distinction between public (state owned) and private no longer exists. Corporations
cannot exist without individual rights, and governments to protect those individual
rights. [However, keep in mind that corporations are not creatures of the state, no more
then individuals are.]
Why is "anarcho-capitalism" a contradiction in terms?
Those who attempt to combine anarchism with capitalism, make the error of confusing the
peaceful form of competition of capitalism -- trade, ideas, and dollars -- with the brutal
"jungle" form of competition of anarchism -- brutality, whims, and bombs.
Have you ever thought what happens when one 'corporate protection agency' disagrees with
another? By what method do they solve their dispute? They do it by competition not with
dollars, but with guns. They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to force against
each other, i.e., a perpetual state of civil war. Under such a system, which gang wins?
The one that is the most brutal.
Anarchism is not a form of capitalism; anarchism is a form of collectivism,
where individual rights are subject to the rule of competing gangs. Under such a system,
any individual would beg to be placed in the relative safety of a dictatorship.
What is the solution to anarchism?
The only peaceful solution to such disputes is to have one agency with the power to settle
those disagreements, according to one set of objectively defined laws -- a government. This is what
corporations do under capitalism, when they have a dispute with each other -- they go to
court (government).
What about the "competing-governments" concept of
"anarcho-capitalists"?
Those who advocate anarchism seek to replace a rule of law, with a rule of the jungle. The
kind of 'corporations' they envision are not corporations like those under capitalism
(which have no power to resort to force), but outlaw 'competing governments', i.e., gangs.
What are some modern day examples of anarchism?
For those who want an illustration of what happens when two 'competing-governments' are
arguing with each other in the same geographical area, I give you the libertarian ideal:
Bosnia. This is the result of the anarcho-capitalist's ill-thought out nightmare: a
species of collectivism, where one is subject to the whims of the tribe or gang in power.
On a micro-level one can observe anarchism in black markets, where drug dealers compete
with each other on the same "turf" to "protect" their interests. It is
to subject "might" to "right", that one requires rights, and that one
requires a government to protect those rights.
Suggested Reading:
Excerpt on Anarchism from Objectivism: The
Philosophy of Ayn Rand
"The Nature of Government", published in Capitalism
: The Unknown Ideal.
I highly
recommend Dr. Peikoff's book Objectivism,
particularly the chapter on Government, which provides an excellent discussion on this
issue.
|
