[lubbockjoe]

As I understand it, anarchists are opposed to humans having too much power and authority. In this world, money equals power. More money equals more power. Capitalism is not opposed to the accumulation of obscene amounts of wealth into the hands of the few. This seems like an anarcho-capitalist conundrum to me. Why is this not a problem for anarcho-capitalists?

Would justice be limited to those who can afford it in an anarcho-capitalist society? Would justice be administered on a sliding scale according to the victim’s ability to pay? Would the poor receive justice assuming they had no money?

Since anarchists are opposed to authority, how would the enforcement of justice be carried out? Would prisons exist?

[SecretSquirrel]

money equals power

Wrong.

Since your entire "problem reconciling anarchism and capitalism" hinges on this assumption, the problem as you state it dissolves when it is negated.

All that money is is a voluntary means of exchange. Money doesn't rape or murder or steal nor does it hold a gun to your head in the polling station and force you to vote a certain way.

All anti-free-market posturing to the contrary remains just that: posturing.

Since anarchists are opposed to authority, how would the enforcement of justice be carried out? Would prisons exist?

I abhor the very notion of prisons. I do not think that cages for men can in any way or under any circumstance be reconciled with fundamental human rights.

The polity reserves the right to exclude individuals from its area and from its legal protection, so I think that exile/outlawry (temporary or for life) would serve just fine.

You should read about the traditional Somali Xeer system.

[lubbockjoe]

money equals power

Wrong.
Since your entire "problem reconciling anarchism and capitalism" hinges on this assumption, the problem as you state it dissolves when it is negated.
All that money is is a voluntary means of exchange.

OK then the ability to make a superabundance of exchanges equal power. Someone with no money has no means of exchange and therefore no power.

The difference between our views could be that you are speaking from a textbook perspective. When I say ‘money equals power’ I’m talking about in real life.

Do all anarchists believe there is no relationship between money and power or is that just your personal view?

I abhor the very notion of prisons. I do not think that cages for men can in any way or under any circumstance be reconciled with fundamental human rights.

Are all anarchists opposed to prisons?

The polity reserves the right to exclude individuals from its area and from its legal protection, so I think that exile/outlawry (temporary or for life) would serve just fine.

What if the exile unlawfully kept going back into the society and committing more crime? What then would be the penalty?

You should read about the traditional Somali Xeer system.

Thank you. I will.

[Melodramatic]

The difference between our views could be that you are speaking from a textbook perspective.

Not quite, I believe the existence of money is quite "text book". The majority of market based societies develop a mean of exchange. The understanding that money is power is also "text book", as it is part of the definition of money. While the people can theoretically prevent nullify this power by dissociation (which I suspect is SS's argument), the existence of private property (private capital) prevents that from being a possibility. Private property assures that the working class will forever be subjected to the elite, with starvation or some-such the alternative.

All that money is is a voluntary means of exchange. Money doesn't rape or murder or steal nor does it hold a gun to your head in the polling station and force you to vote a certain way.

It quite does, in fact. Economic coercion is an existent force. As said it is possible to nullify it, but capitalism prevents that. So in effect private property does all those things, in the exact manner the state does them. Which is not coincidental, private property is the state.

Are all anarchists opposed to prisons?

If you were referring to anarcho-capitalists it is best you state such. That grouping is quite insulating (and incorrect)

[Eran]

As SS suggested, a key to resolving your concern with ancap is the notion of power.

The power associated with private property is very different in nature from the one associated with political authority. Basically, the power of private property is only a power to do good, whereas political power can and routinely is used to harm people.

When a person owns property, he can only use that property by giving some of it away, or by trading some of it for other people's property. Since the trade is voluntary, it is only entered into if both parties feel it will improve their situation.

Where Melodramatic and others get confused is that they think that people's property somehow comes at the expense of other people. If Bill Gates is getting wealthier, it must be at somebody else's expense. Rich Capitalists are getting rich by impoverishing poor workers.

While obtaining wealth at other people's expense is a routine part of the political system, it is NOT part of the free market. In the free market, wealth is created or discovered, but never taken away from others.

So-called "Economic Coercion" is nothing of the kind. Rather than being worse-off due to the existence of the Capitalist, the worker is actually better-off (usually MUCH better off) due to the mutually-profitable opportunities presented by the Capitalist. Sweatshop workers might appear worthy of pity, but they are actually much better off than they would have been had the sweatshop factory not been around. Sure, some low-skilled workers have to work hard for low pay. But that is not the Capitalist's fault. Hard work for low pay is actually the normal state of human existence. Capitalism freed most of humanity from that lot. It isn't capitalism's fault that some people are slower to enjoy its fruits than others.


Justice is distinctly NOT going to be limited. In fact, by simply allowing tort claims to be transferable, people will be able to enjoy justice regardless of their economic status. Here is how. If you have been harmed by an illegal action (i.e. a violation of your property rights), you are justly and legally entitled to restitution. While you could try and pursue your offender personally, that is unlikely to be the wise course of action. Much more effective would be to sell your restitution rights in a competitive market to the highest bidder.

Since restitution rights include the right to cover legal enforcement costs, provided you have a reasonable case (i.e. a reasonable chance of proving your case), there will be ample specialized firms ready to purchase your claim from you. We see a similar process today, where personal injury lawyers working on a contingency basis can provide "justice" to any person regardless of economic status.

The enforcement of justice will be done by private firms obeying legal rulings issued by respectable adjudication firms.

In a nutshell, punishment will be focused on restitution.

I anticipate a nearly-universal form of liability/crime insurance whereby the insurance company is committed to pay for any damages caused by the insured, whether intentional or accidental. In the case of intentional damage, the terms of contract with the insurance company will stipulate the legal process used to determine guilt. That way most criminals will have already agreed to the form of legal proceedings (including the identity of the adjudication firm, standards of proof, etc.) to be used.

People not carrying proper insurance will be excluded from civilized society (just as people with poor credit record find it hard to rent an apartment, and people with no auto insurance are not allowed to drive).

Repeat offenders will find it virtually impossible to obtain insurance, except perhaps limited cover which would exclude them from schools, residential areas and office blocks, while allowing them to work on farms or remote factories. For the worst offenders, the only working out of a secure location - a prison of sorts. The difference from current prisons would be great. The "prisoner" would be expected and encouraged to work (idle prisoners will die of starvation).

[SecretSquirrel]

Aside from the prison bit, everything Eran wrote could be straight out of Somali Xeer

[Eran]

That's very cool. I have to thank you SS for pointing us to the Xeer system.

[ralfy]

Anarcho-capitalists are actually free market capitalists.

[lubbockjoe]

You should read about the traditional Somali Xeer system.

Thank you. You answered my question.
And raised another one: Is the anarchistic model inherently weak militarily, as exists today in Somalia with Al-Shabaab?

While the people can theoretically prevent nullify this power by dissociation (which I suspect is SS's argument), the existence of private property (private capital) prevents that from being a possibility.

How does the existence of private property (private capital) prevent the people from nullifying power by dissociation?

Economic coercion is an existent force.

Could you give some examples of economic coercion methods or tactics?

As SS suggested, a key to resolving your concern with ancap is the notion of power.
The power associated with private property is very different in nature from the one associated with political authority. Basically, the power of private property is only a power to do good, whereas political power can and routinely is used to harm people.

When a person owns property, he can only use that property by giving some of it away, or by trading some of it for other people's property. Since the trade is voluntary, it is only entered into if both parties feel it will improve their situation.

Where Melodramatic and others get confused is that they think that people's property somehow comes at the expense of other people. If Bill Gates is getting wealthier, it must be at somebody else's expense. Rich Capitalists are getting rich by impoverishing poor workers.

While obtaining wealth at other people's expense is a routine part of the political system, it is NOT part of the free market. In the free market, wealth is created or discovered, but never taken away from others.

So-called "Economic Coercion" is nothing of the kind. Rather than being worse-off due to the existence of the Capitalist, the worker is actually better-off (usually MUCH better off) due to the mutually-profitable opportunities presented by the Capitalist. Sweatshop workers might appear worthy of pity, but they are actually much better off than they would have been had the sweatshop factory not been around. Sure, some low-skilled workers have to work hard for low pay. But that is not the Capitalist's fault. Hard work for low pay is actually the normal state of human existence. Capitalism freed most of humanity from that lot. It isn't capitalism's fault that some people are slower to enjoy its fruits than others.

Who has more power in your ancap example, the capitalist or the sweatshop worker worthy of pity?

The enforcement of justice will be done by private firms obeying legal rulings issued by respectable adjudication firms.

Would they be incorruptible?

Justice is distinctly NOT going to be limited. In fact, by simply allowing tort claims to be transferable, people will be able to enjoy justice regardless of their economic status. Here is how. If you have been harmed by an illegal action (i.e. a violation of your property rights), you are justly and legally entitled to restitution. While you could try and pursue your offender personally, that is unlikely to be the wise course of action. Much more effective would be to sell your restitution rights in a competitive market to the highest bidder.

The commoditization of justice kind of cheapens it for me. Where would the bidding start for the homicide of a banker? Where would the bidding start for the homicide of a sweatshop worker? That sounds like sliding scale justice to me.

Would the poor receive justice assuming they had no money?

People not carrying proper insurance will be excluded from civilized society...

OK. No poor people allowed...
Where then would you get that sweatshop labor?

Also, would the charging of interest be allowed in your ancap society? Would one of those incorruptible private firms handle that too?

[Melodramatic]

How does the existence of private property (private capital) prevent the people from nullifying power by dissociation?

The answer to that is economic coercion, I guess. The peasants might have profited from the kings rule, but the real reason they did not revolt was that he controlled (owned) the lands. The same goes for the owner of capital and the workers in the industrial (modern) world.

The owners of capital have an unmistakable advantage over the workers, and without any government intervention (well, even with government intervention) the economical inequality steadily expands. A society based on private property will simply enable this trend to grow, and it will grow even if the starting situation is as "equal" as imaginable. That's just the nature of private capital. In fact I'd say that merely the private land ownership will create a situation indistinguishable from monarchy, as the property owner will become ruler of his land and eventually bigger owners will but out smaller ones.

So the freedom of association is, given property, simply the freedom to starve. Even if 90% of the citizens want to, say, implement socialism the other 10% will be able to maintain rule by coercing them using all the parts of their lives the state sold out for privatization. That being said it is possible for the workers to economically "buy out" capitalism, but that's plainly impossible due to social and economical factors that capitalism creates. Also there is no real reason to do so when you can, you know, just implement it normally. As an anarchist I deem the state a mainly negative factor, but a state established and ruled by capitalist wealth is an abomination, and I see no reason for society to respect its claims of property.

Where Melodramatic and others get confused is that they think that people's property somehow comes at the expense of other people. If Bill Gates is getting wealthier, it must be at somebody else's expense. Rich Capitalists are getting rich by impoverishing poor workers.

Do you deny the fact that property enables an owner to give a worker a smaller portion of the product than he would have gotten if the product was divided based on the contribution to production? and yes I know he "brought the capital", but I am referring to actual contribution, not property titles.

[grassroots1]

money equals power



Wrong.

How can you deny that money gives a person influence in all sorts of ways? In politics, in courts, in manipulating the market to fit your needs... Money absolutely does equal power, and this is where the libertarian fantasy of equality of opportunity and freedom of choice breaks down entirely. Capitalism leads to the concentration of wealth and power. Without an effective democratic system, we can't hope to check that power. We're seeing this concentration in the United States because our government has been hijacked by private corporate interests. Legislation is not passed because the American people desire it, but because industry has wormed its way into government, de-fanging regulators, passing favorable legislation, and generally influencing the democratic process.

The very society you live in is proof of the influence of money.

Basically, the power of private property is only a power to do good, whereas political power can and routinely is used to harm people.

This is utterly false. We can rehash the same examples I've provided a million times. Company towns, employers wielding control over the lives of workers. The union movement existed because of the harmful influence of private property without proper social services and regulations to check their power. This is a simple fact of history that libertarians continue to deny. We will all be better off the day that they come to understand it.

[SecretSquirrel]

i guess influencing people is a moral crime now by your assertion. That makes you a criminal

[lubbockjoe]

i guess influencing people is a moral crime now by your assertion. That makes you a criminal

You are confusing the issue.

There are degrees of influence. A mere suggestion would be at the lower end of the influence scale while economic coercion would be at the other end.

This is what you were responding to:

How can you deny that money gives a person influence in all sorts of ways? In politics, in courts, in manipulating the market to fit your needs... Money absolutely does equal power, and this is where the libertarian fantasy of equality of opportunity and freedom of choice breaks down entirely. Capitalism leads to the concentration of wealth and power. Without an effective democratic system, we can't hope to check that power. We're seeing this concentration in the United States because our government has been hijacked by private corporate interests. Legislation is not passed because the American people desire it, but because industry has wormed its way into government, de-fanging regulators, passing favorable legislation, and generally influencing the democratic process.

The very society you live in is proof of the influence of money.

[SecretSquirrel]

Money doesn't do shit to anyone if they don't want it to.

Money is a medium for voluntary exchange.

[lubbockjoe]

Ooch! I got shot and yelled at... (this is more like the kind I was talking about Eran)

How many voluntary exchanges can someone with no money make?

Do all ancaps believe there is no relationship between money and power or is that just your personal view?

[SecretSquirrel]

if you cannot differentiate between consensual and non consensual acts, you have no business thinking about anything more important than who should win Dancing with the Stars

[lubbockjoe]

Please elaborate on how ‘consensual and non consensual acts’ apply to the post to which you are responding:

How can you deny that money gives a person influence in all sorts of ways? In politics, in courts, in manipulating the market to fit your needs... Money absolutely does equal power, and this is where the libertarian fantasy of equality of opportunity and freedom of choice breaks down entirely. Capitalism leads to the concentration of wealth and power. Without an effective democratic system, we can't hope to check that power. We're seeing this concentration in the United States because our government has been hijacked by private corporate interests. Legislation is not passed because the American people desire it, but because industry has wormed its way into government, de-fanging regulators, passing favorable legislation, and generally influencing the democratic process.

The very society you live in is proof of the influence of money.

[SecretSquirrel]

You might be able to catch the Sunday show if you hurry, I don't know where you live or what channels you receive

[grassroots1]

Pathetic drunk bullshit edited out.

[Eran]

Let me give it another go.

I'll respond to statements in the order they were made:

Is the anarchistic model inherently weak militarily, as exists today in Somalia with Al-Shabaab?

It depends. The anarchistic model is inherently weak when it comes to offensive action. Any military action is expensive, and offensive action requires the coordinated sacrifice (both financial and in blood) of many people. Governments find such coordination a lot easier.

When it comes to defensive powers, however, the anarchist model is much stronger. For one thing, there is no single capital or head-of-government whose capture means the end of fighting.

The bottom line is that if the aggressors are highly-motivated and possess overwhelming force, they will succeed whether the defended territory is anarchic or state-run. There are no guarantees. But anarchists will have many tools at their disposal. High-valued commercial and industrial locations will probably be defended professionally, by private forces hired by insurance companies. In lower-valued residential and rural areas aggressors can expect a local militia made of well-armed citizens defending their own homes - never an easy target.

In fact, the resistance forces an aggressor into an ancap territory can expect are precisely the kind of forces which historically over thrown their own well entrenched and partially-locally-supported governments. Unlike colonial occupations, though, the defensive forces would likely come from a society at least as economically advanced as that of the aggressors.

Who has more power in your ancap example, the capitalist or the sweatshop worker worthy of pity?

This is not an appropriate question. I suggest you compare the relation between employee and employer to the relation between a consumer and a supermarket. The analogy works very well:
a. In both cases, there is a contractual relation between a larger corporation and an individual (though the size of the corporation can vary from a global corporation like Walmart to a local mom-and-pop grocery store)
b. In both cases, the individual has to contract with somebody in order to survive. In fact, the relation with food providers is much more urgent than the one with an employer.
c. In both cases, the individual has multiple options available to them, though in the employment case there are always going to be more choices available (every food provider is a potential employer, but not every potential employer is a food provider).

Now, let me turn the question back to you: who has more power, a Supermarket or a consumer? In a certain sense, the Supermarket obviously has more power - they can afford to purchased huge quantities of food, rent or buy large spaces, etc. They also determine the price of food on a "take it or leave it" basis.

But in our everyday life, we don't think of ourselves as subjugated to supermarkets. In fact, as consumers, we are routinely courted, offered sales and other deals. Supermarkets invest millions in creating a pleasant shopping experience, offer a wide range of products, etc.

Under normal conditions, this attitude also characterizes the employer-employee relationship. The employer courts employees, trying to offer pleasant working conditions and otherwise works hard to retain their services. Exceptional conditions occur when minimum wage laws or union restrictions force an wage level above market-clearing rate. Then we find an over-supply of labour, and the abuses that come with it.

This state of affairs is comparable to food stores in the Soviet Union, where prices were set politically below market-clearing rate. That creates shortages, and opens the door to rampant abuse and waste.

Would they be incorruptible?

Essentially, yes. Being even suspected of being corrupt would be the death sentence of an adjudication agency. Such agency would find it very difficult to attract any new business - who would submit himself voluntarily to the binding judgement of a corrupt agency? Contrast that with the political system. Corrupt politicians may be removed in the next election, through they often try and sometimes succeed to wiggle out of being thrown out of office. In the mean time, people are still subject to their decisions. Judicial corruption has to rise to an indictable level before the judge can be thrown out. In the private sector, a corrupt judge will be out of work in no time.

The commoditization of justice kind of cheapens it for me.

Where is justice being more commoditized - when it is supplied through cookie-cutter bureaucratic process in which legislation enacted through a sausage-making-like process ends up applying uniformly to millions of subjects, or when justice is administered by the people that you personally trust?

As for the bidding for restitution value, at least crime victims have a prospect of being paid compensation. In our current system, the victim HAS NO RIGHTS. Put differently, imagine a system in which crime victims indeed own their right for compensation. But rather than being allowed to dispose of that property any way they see fit (after all, they don't have to sell to the highest bidder; they can, for example, transfer their rights to a mutual-legal-aid society), they are forced to forfeit those rights to a monopolistic organization (the state), for which they are offered no value whatsoever.

That sounds like sliding scale justice to me.

This is a routine aspect of today's jurisprudence. In showing damages, earning potential is routinely taken into account.

OK. No poor people allowed...
Where then would you get that sweatshop labor?

Who ever said poor people wouldn't be allowed? I said "people not carrying proper insurance...". Low-cost insurance would be highly affordable for people with no prior convictions. It will cost a small fraction of the amount they routinely pay for food.

But some entrepreneurs may well want to tap into the potential pool of labour which, for whatever reason, finds it difficult to obtain coverage. The requirement for insurance, after all, is not a national mandate. It varies from landlord to landlord. A sweatshop owner may well decide to forego the requirement, provided alternative security measures are in place. Landlord in low-income neighbourhood, for example, may well accept lower-cap insurance policies affordable to their residents. The market will adapt.

Also, would the charging of interest be allowed in your ancap society? Would one of those incorruptible private firms handle that too?

I am not sure what's special about charging interest. Charging interest is a routine component of commercial loans. As long as the terms are agreed in advance, I don't see the problem.

As for the tone of your last sentence, please consider applying it even-handedly to the political alternative to my private proposed solutions. One can just as easily (in fact, much MUCH more easily, as I demonstrated above) ask questions about incorruptibility about players in the political arena.

The peasants might have profited from the kings rule, but the real reason they did not revolt was that he controlled (owned) the lands. The same goes for the owner of capital and the workers in the industrial (modern) world.

The huge difference is that the king used force to take over vast areas to which he had no right. Private property owners in a free society (though not necessarily private property owners working under the wings of the state, hence many people's confusion) never, in practice, get to own vast areas of land. Peasants are much more likely to either own their own land, or have a choice amongst many landlords (in other words, landlords have to compete for peasant labour).

That's just the nature of private capital.

It is true that a free society will see inequalities emerging. However, there is no reason to believe that inequality will steadily expand. Economies of scale, for example, only work up to a certain size, above which dis-economies of scale start to overwhelm them. The size depends on industry and technology, but is always present. Free markets, while indeed improving the lot of the talented by a greater degree than they do that of the unskilled, provide huge benefit to the latter. Compare the lot of an unskilled worker in the US vs. that of one in India.

Do you deny the fact that property enables an owner to give a worker a smaller portion of the product than he would have gotten if the product was divided based on the contribution to production?

Of course I deny that. In fact, free association of employees and employers and competition amongst employers (actual and potential) creates a situation in which workers have to be paid their marginal contribution to production.

How else do you propose to measure "contribution to production"?

How can you deny that money gives a person influence in all sorts of ways?

There is a difference between influence and power. Demagogues have lots of influence on people, but I don't see anybody proposing to outlaw public speaking. In fact, all non-libertarians routinely advocate a system in which some people (politicians) have incredible powers, much greater than those enjoyed by the wealthiest member of a free society.

The power of money in a free society is only to do good, never evil. Where money gets a bad reputation is when it is coupled with the political system. Money can (and is routinely) used to influence elections or politicians directly. It is through those politicians that it becomes a coercive force.

Capitalism leads to the concentration of wealth and power. Without an effective democratic system, we can't hope to check that power.

So to combat that theoretical concentration of power (which never actually happened historically), the proposed solution is to create a coercive monopoly of power - the greatest concentration of power imaginable in society???

With political actors to influence, spending money to buy influence is a rational choice. Political actors (much more than private ones) are easily and routinely corrupted. How else do you explain sugar quotas and ethanol subsidies?

The very society you live in is proof of the influence of money.

It is only a proof of the corrupting power of the political system. Show me one example where money is corrupting, exploitative or is otherwise used to do evil rather than good, without the enthusiastic backing of the political system.

We can rehash the same examples I've provided a million times. Company towns, employers wielding control over the lives of workers.

Let me rehash my arguments for potentially new readership.

I never aim to protect historic actions taken by anybody, not even private enterprises. Private players are just as corruptible as any other person. What makes a private system better is the system as a whole, not the nature of the individual players within it.

When we examine historic records, we have to decide on one of two choices:
a. The private actors in the historic record violated people's (libertarian) property rights. If that is the case, their action has no bearing on the behaviour of private actors within the context of a system in which such rights are respected. Clearly, 19th century America was no such system. The historic failure to protect property rights falls squarely on the shoulders of that organization within society which was charged with (and claimed the monopoly for) protecting property rights - government.

b. The private actors in the historic records did some mischief without violating people's property rights. That is a more interesting case, and I would challenge anybody to show a single example.

To take the case of "company towns", grassroots1 needs to decide how to view them/
a. The operators of those company towns used violence to force employees to remain within the towns, reneged on their contractual obligations, or misled prospective employees. In other words, they were criminals, and government failed to stop them. A strong argument against government.

b. The operators didn't use violence. They merely "exploited" workers who had no choice (as they needed to earn a living) but to comply. But then the natural question becomes - what would have those workers done if the "company towns" didn't even exist? Clearly, they would have either died of starvation, or found a different, inferior way of making a living. The "company towns", regardless of how distasteful, improved the lives of the workers compared with their next-best alternative.

The same argument holds with respect to employers more generally.
Option 1: They were criminals (and some, I am sure, were), in which case their abuse is a clear case of government failure.
Option 2: They never used violence to force employees to accept their terms. In that case, the poor "exploited" employees must have felt that they were better off working for those employers than with any other alternative available to them. In other words, the employers improved the lot of the employees (even while being vilified by them).

This is but a special example of my more general rule about money only being usable for good in a free society. In a free society, a person's private property is sacrosanct. All the world's billionaires working together cannot take a dime off him against his will. What money can do is tempt people to do things. If I own a little house in a free society, a rich man who desires it to enlarge is estate (or to build a road, or whatever) can never force me to sell. He can, however, make me an offer I will choose not to reject.

The movie Indecent Proposal nicely illustrates both the power of money and its limitations. John Gage, the wealthy man played by Robert Redford, had zero power to force the couple to accept his offer. Had they chosen to do so, it was because they felt it would improve their lives. Government, in this fable, would be the equivalent of a rapist who uses violence to have their way, regardless of whether it benefits the other side or not.

There are degrees of influence. A mere suggestion would be at the lower end of the influence scale while economic coercion would be at the other end.

What is "economic coercion"? All a person with money can do is come to you and say - "I propose to make your life better by paying you money in exchange for X. If you agree, great. If not, I'll have to go way." Where is the coercion?

How many voluntary exchanges can someone with no money make?

Every person owns their own body. They can (and routinely do) exchange their services for money. There is also nothing stopping good people from gifting their property to the poor. Charity always existed and will continue to exist, in much greater force, in a free society. Here is how I know. The reason democratic governments provide services to the poor (misguided and destructive as they are) is because there is wide-spread sentiment in the public that helping the poor is a worthwhile goal, right? But if we accept that there is a wide-spread sentiment in the public that helping the poor is a worthwhile goal, there is absolutely nothing in a free society to stop people from doing just that - helping the poor.

Again, not being forced to do X is not the same as being prohibited from doing X, just like not being prohibited from doing Y is not the same as being forced to do Y.

We have a beautiful historical example in the separate of church and state in the USA. Unlike their European counterparts, Americans have not, since independence, been forced to contribute funds towards religious institutions and organizations. By the logic that without government action there is no private action, American religious organizations should have dwindled to a pale shadow of their European counterparts. Societal starting point was similar, with most American immigration coming from Europe.

What actually happened was precisely the opposite - American religious institutions (whether you like it or not) are much stronger than European ones.

The very same would happen with charitable organizations. Remove the state, and the voluntary sector will take over.


Let me make a final statement about the role of money and commercial interests. While for-profit corporations are obviously a very effective mechanism for achieving goals, one which will, in all likelihood play a very important role in a future free society, they are by no means exclusive.

Libertarians are not pro-business. They are anti-government. Libertarians accept all forms of voluntary human cooperation. Workers are welcome to establish mutual-aid societies, start mutually-owned corporations, contribute to charity, participate in consumer action, engage in education campaigns, etc, etc, etc.

The only thing they will not be able to do is use violence (either their own, or through government) to force others to accept their way.