Anarchism and Anarcho-capitalism - Capitalist Structures - Property

Property

Both social and individualist anarchists note that current distributions of property have not been created by legitimate means and that the current system of property rights is the result of state intervention.

Likewise, anarcho-capitalists do not defend all private property, but only that which has become private property by "homesteading." They do not see the creation of private property by mere claim as legitimate, nor do they defend private property that has been transferred from one person or business to another by force, whether by the state or private individuals. Rothbard says: "What we libertarians object to, then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or criminal property titles; what we are for is not "private" property per se but just, innocent, non-criminal private property." Anarcho-capitalists do not defend the current distribution of property.

Many anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, and say that the anarcho-capitalist definition of private property is uncomfortably similar to its definition of the state. For example, leading anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force . . . over a given area territorial area.", yet he also argued: "Obviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." However, the key word is "arrogates," as anarcho-capitalists only support property created by homesteading which they do not see as arrogation but as earning through one's labor. To arrogate a monopoly of force would be to exercise control over an area that one has not homesteaded, or to exercise control over an area by one who has not received the homesteaded property through voluntary means.

To anarcho-capitalists, any geographical holding as large as most current incarnations of the state would be impossible to achieve by any one proprietor without the tools of the state. Standard private holdings tend to be not only much smaller, but antithetical to coercive relationships - as any visitor, lessee, or employee, would be free to move elsewhere at will. Further, the state, being an artificial entity without a head of its own, has an entirely different set of motives regarding care of a property, resulting in proportionate carelessness for that property (i.e. pollution).

Anarchists also note that once land and capital are monopolised by a minority, attempts by those subject to this economic and social power to end it automatically become "aggression." As Kropotkin noted, "modern Individualism... a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem... lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."

Many nineteenth-century individualist anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker, rejected the anarcho-capitalist Lockean position in favour of the anarchist position of "occupancy and use" (or "possession", to use Proudhon's term), particularly in land. One notable exception is Lysander Spooner, who did not require that land use be "continual" to retain ownership. Similarly, anarcho-capitalist Rothbard argued that one must "use the land, to cultivate it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it." and did not require continual use to retain ownership. Many individualist anarchists of the nineteenth century accepted Proudhon's position on land: "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." If there was a shortage of land, he "accept equal division. Anything else... is an abuse." Anarchist critics of anarcho-capitalism also note that Proudhon's "What is Property?" explicitly attacks the position on land ownership supported by Spooner and anarcho-capitalists. Benjamin Tucker, however, changed his mind on land and said in 1862: "In times past...it was my habit to talk glibly of the right of man to land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still." Anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray Rothbard, disagree that might and theft grants a right over land.

Because of his belief in the labor theory of value, when the nineteenth century individualist Benjamin Tucker said that an employee should receive his "full produce," he took it to mean that the full produce was an amount of money fully commensurate with the amount of a labor performed. He believed individuals were receiving less than their "full produce" because of state intervention interfering with competitive market forces and thereby artificially lowering the price of labor—a view shared by anarcho-capitalists today. Tucker did not advocate interfering with individuals contracting as employee and employer if they desire, but believed that the price of labor would increase in a true laissez-faire economy. He thought that legal restrictions on banking caused the price of capital to be unnaturally expensive and that if these restrictions were removed that capital would become available "at cost." This, he believed, would cause new businesses to proliferate and raise the demand for labor and therefore the price as well. Individualist Lysander Spooner advocated that workers maximize their incomes through universal self-employment.