by Wayne Simmons
A friend of mine, Wayne Simmons, wrote an article about Anarcho-capitlaists fairly recently. “There is a new convert to Anarchism who seems to be very popular among Anarcho-Capitalists,” Wayne writes.
Wayne wrote: “Stefan is an old friend of mine. We lost touch with each-other about 10 years ago. I remember the days when Stefan and I would discuss Anarcho-Capitalism. He would say that Anarcho-Capitalists should stick to writing science fiction because their theories aren't grounded in the real world. Stefan also stressed the need for philosophical change prior to politics. At the time, Stefan was a consistent advocate of Objectivism. How times have changed. Within the last 2 years he has divorced his political theories from reality and converted to Anarchism. Yet, it appears from his podcasts that Stefan still clings to his Objectivist roots.” Stefan, Wayne complains, “has a tendency towards rationalism - as do all anarchists.”
And: Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux claim that Anarchy is the logical outcome of Objectivism face the following impossible dilemma:
“If they're loyal to Objectivism they must accept that facts about man's nature have normative consequences. If the distinguishing characteristic of man is his rational faculty then the social consequences are that man should be left free to exercise his rational judgment in the pursuit of his own happiness. Rights are a moral concept derived from our nature. They're social requirements for our existence. The individual's (natural) right to life, liberty and property needs Constitutional protection. As a result, Government and society are subordinated to moral (objective) law.”
To sum up Wayne’s article: “Now, if these so-called Objectivists are loyal to Anarchy they'd have to evade the knowledge they've already sworn allegiance to…Anarchists, on the other hand, believe that there should be a market in the use of force without a final arbiter (Government) to rectify disputes. Justice would be impossible when you can opt out of any judicial decision. How are natural rights - and the rule of law - to be protected when there's no constitutional protection of natural rights? And, whose version of rights has the final authority when the decision is left up to the market place? One way around this is that Anarcho-Capitalists (supposing they actually believe in natural rights) could have their protection agencies force other non-liberty friendly protection agencies out of business. This is, of course, a contradiction because they would then be acting like a de facto Government.”
"Since this is not desired, a consistent Anarchist would have to accept the arbitrary subjective decisions of the market place and strive for shared common opinion to implement their version of anarchy. Enter social chaos and civil war. Left anarchists. Right anarchists(Friedman vs Rothbard). Environmentalists. Islamic extremists. Christian extremists. Welfare/Corporate statists, et al, would all be fighting among themselves for "shared common opinion."
Wayne concludes: “So it's either-or. Objectivist Anarchists cannot exist! Either they remain loyal to their Objectivist premises, or they don't. The claim you can support both is a contradiction.”
Feed-back on Wayne’s point most welcome!
Stefan Molyneux is the host of Freedomain Radio and a regular contributor to LewRockwell.com.
Edited by Victor Pross, 10 August 2006 - 11:49 AM.