On Nomenclature

I call myself an anarcho-capitalist. But that term is off putting to people on both ends of the political spectrum.

People on the right hear “anarcho” and assume that I support a society that devolves into barbarism. They assume that I have no understanding of or concern for the rule of law. They assume that I have given no thought to protocol for the would be victims of violent crime. They hear “anarcho” and they immediately assert that, “Freedom isn't free”, as if I disagreed, as if I expected to immediately trust every other human being in the world so completely that I would need to invest no time or money into protecting myself, my assets or the people I love, as if I expected to wilt the vestigial remnants of criminality with a care bear stare.

People on the left hear “capitalist” and assume that I support a society that produces wealth for the few at the expense of the many. They assume that I have no understanding of or no concern for vulnerable populations. They assume that I support frivolous consumerism. They hear “capitalist” and they immediately assert that “people are more important than money”, as if I disagreed, as if I were secretly a miserly sociopath fantasizing about all the poor people I might someday enslave.

Of course, when I say “anarcho”, all I mean is the non-aggression principle. And when I say “capitalist” all I mean is homesteading. When I call myself an anarcho-capitalist, I'm only asserting two principles:

1. It's not OK to initiate force or to threaten to initiate force against persons or property, and
2. Property is legitimately owned originally through an act of homesteading.

There's nothing particularly controversial about the first principle. Almost everybody adheres to it in their private lives. Most people don't steal or vandalize, and almost nobody rapes or kills.  People already agree on the non-aggression principle even if they don't call it by it's name.  Differentiating my group from other groups by claiming that only we support the non-aggression principle isn't just inaccurate, it's insulting and alienating.  But at the same time, most people don't believe that government actions necessarily violate the non-aggression principle.  What we disagree on isn't the ban on initiating force, but on what constitutes force.

It's the second principle that's controversial.  We disagree on what constitutes force, because we disagree on the origin of property rights. People on both ends of the political spectrum want to argue that property rights are not based on homesteading but instead derive from the consent of society. They both believe that society has the authority to declare by fiat what property rights are for that time and place.

So,

Dear Anarcho-Capitalists,

By toting the non-aggression principle as our maxim, we insult the people we are trying to reach. We hear “liberal” or “conservative” and we immediately assert, “It's not OK to threaten people with murder to pay for your hobbies!”, as if they disagreed, as if they were all gleefully pondering whether continuing to watch us cringe in terror still outweighs the satisfaction of watching our brains splatter against the wall.

What really separates us from all other ethical positions is our insistence that property rights can not be declared by regulatory fiat, but are a natural extension of our biology and must be discovered through the market process. The name of our position ought to reflect our real rather than our imagined differences.  The difference between us and all other ethical positions is the same as the difference between atheism and religion.  It's the same as the difference between science and magic. Fundamentally, it's the difference between methodology and ideology.

May I suggest that we call ourselves, “market methodologists”?  I invite your suggestions.

Final thoughts:

1. I DO support the rule of law. I recognize that it is a natural byproduct of the market process. I recognize that expectations about the enforceability of property rights claims evolve with social and technological change, and that these expectations are discovered through a decentralized and competitive arbitration system. I further recognize that a state can never produce the rule of law because it must always make exceptions for itself. It must grant to itself lethally enforceable monopoly privileges that no individual citizen can claim. Therefor, states are violations of the rule of law by definition. I support the rule of law; You support the arbitrary whims of popular psychopaths.
   
   
2. I DO support vulnerable populations. I recognize that equality under the law is all any vulnerable population requires to protect itself. I recognize that affirmative action, minimum wage laws, welfare programs and all other manner of social justice tinkering brands vulnerable populations as permanently disabled and benevolently relegates them to an official second class status. I support vulnerable populations; You support the inflation of your own ego at the expense of underprivileged children.
   
   
3. Jump in the line, Bastille! Only Harry Belafonte is allowed to say “Day O”.