. . .

Q: “WHAT DOES THE RIGHT WING THINK OF ANARCHO CAPITALISM?”

The Anarcho Capitalist Research Program (Mises -> Rothbard -> Rothbardians -> Hoppe, and arguably, myself) was interesting in that we completed the Locke/Smith/Hume/Adams/Jefferson attempt to reduce all social science to a single language of property rights, and therefore to natural law (the natural law of reciprocity). This reduction of human behavior to a common, empirical language of perfect commensurability and decidability allowed us to produce a formal logic of cooperation (ethics and politics).

And in retrospect it’s fairly obvious that the only empirical social science has always been Tort (common law of property), and economics is merely an extension of Tort law to the measurement of externalities, and scale. So, the AC program completed the Anglo Enlightenment, The Roman-Stoic Research Program, and The Aristotelian Enlightenment. Or I would argue, it completed the western philosophical program of Sovereignty by Reciprocity, to which the only answer is rule of law under the natural law of reciprocity, which of necessity produces markets in everything – from association to rule.

However, the difference between Anarcho Capitalist and Western Upper class Sovereignty, Middle Class Liberty, and Working Class Freedom programs is expressible as the limit to reciprocity. In Anarcho capitalism that reciprocity was inherited from the needs of diasporic pastoralists (middle easterners), and not from landed agrarians (westerners). Pastoralists respect only private property and do not invest in the commons. Whereas landed people respect all investments of all kinds, regardless of their means of production, and compete by the production of commons (hence why old europe is a vast open air museum).

So while the western Sovereign model of total prohibition on any imposition of costs of any kind, against investments of any kind – at least those that would produce an incentive for retaliation and therefore ‘disharmony’ – can produce a prosperous high trust western civilization with multipliers using the production of commons of all kinds, the middle eastern (Semitic) model of limited prohibition on the imposition of costs against physical property and total avoidance of payment for commons, and maximization of parasitism upon those commons, cannot produce a polity that can survive competition for territory, population, and trade.

So in that sense, the anarcho capitalist program succeeded in producing a formal logic of cooperation (ethics, law, and politics) but it failed to define the minimum criteria for the production of a survivable polity.

It’s profoundly ironic that a philosophical system placing highest emphasis on the market, and that would create the formal logic of cooperation, would itself, not question whether a polity constructed under that system of thought, using a pastoralist scope of ethics, would survive in the market for polities, (none has, nor can). And worse, that one expressing the empirical findings of law over millennia would be argued in Rousseau’s vision of man (Roussea/ Kant/ Postmodernists), Kant’s Rationalism (Kant / Marx / Postmodernists), and Jewish diasporic Ethics (Mises/Rothbard/Popper) – instead of Anglo vision of man (Rational), Anglo empiricism(Scientific), Anglo ethics(Reciprocal).

Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy(insurance) are possible only under the total, incremental, suppression of parasitism – the total prohibition on imposition of costs upon the investments of others, of all kinds. And there is no other means of doing so than the common law of reciprocity, we know as tort, extended to the insurance of restitution and punishment for all impositions of costs upon all investments of others.

So, I have moved quite firmly ‘to the right’ in the sense that the “Right” refers to the group evolutionary strategy we call “Aristocracy”, and aristocracy to the production of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and Subsidy, through the organized use of violence to impose incremental suppression of all forms of parasitism (cost impositions), through the competition we call ‘debate’ in the form we call ‘jury’ using the means of decidability we call ‘reciprocity’ and the empirical measurement of the imposition of costs against any and all investment in converted opportunities: “property”.

And I have moved to the right because there is no logical or empirical means of doing otherwise, yet carrying the pretense of one’s ethics as ‘moral’.

Cheers