Center for a Stateless Society

The market anarchist view with respect to abortion is that abortion is none of the state's rightful business, as there's no such thing as "the state's rightful business". Beyond that observation, views can and do vary. Such variance could perhaps best be understood by seeing market anarchism as an open-ended social methodology rather than a social goal. Either promotion or discouragement of abortion ought only proceed within the sort of voluntary, polycentric and contractual legal systems market anarchists espouse.

In order to attempt to effectively assert that national defense, a government monopoly in which competition is violently suppressed, is a "market failure" one would first have to accept our premise that government itself is a threat to be defended against. If the question was meant as an inquiry into how regional defense might be accomplished in a stateless society, there are a number of factors to consider. Some economists have identified insurance companies as likely financial prime movers in the field (see Robert Murphy's "Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy"). Other aspects might include volunteer militias, widespread firearms ownership generally, betting pools or charitable funds for placing assassination bounties on leaders of invading states and so forth. Conquest of a market anarchist society would likely be extremely difficult for an outside state to accomplish in the absence of an existing defeated state to "take over". They could invade, but they likely could not effectively rule under such circumstances.

This question is a more specific version of the more general question of how clients of different arbitration enterprises would settle disputes. In a general sense, voluntary adherence to a puritanical or culturally illiberal code is itself a personal choice. The context necessary to answer this rationally is provided by the answer to the most important question -- whether or not the legal structures in question recognize an individual right to opt out of them. If so, then market competition will direct incentives toward peaceful cooperation and compromise in disputes that cross between such voluntary legal systems. If they don't recognize an individual right to opt out, then they would actually be a variety of state and would suffer from the same lack of market discipline guiding them toward peace and rational compromise we see today (a lack that characterizes all states to one degree or another, by definition).

Market anarchists typically assert that the only legitimate polities are those which are wholly voluntary. Thus, any particular anarcho-syndicalist or anarchist communist vision is perfectly valid as a freely chosen organizational scheme for individuals to choose to be a part of. On the other hand, any vision of democratic federation that fails to explicitly recognize an individual right to opt out (i.e. secede) and form alternative federations or seek other means of providing or acquiring law and security services would be a State in "anarchist" clothing. As such, the answer to the question hinges on each persons conception of "anarcho-syndicalism" or "anarchist communism". Notable also here is that some Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists frequently agree with anarcho-syndicalists that the rightful owners of a given firm may be the rank and file workers of that particular firm (under Rothbard's radically anti-state version of Lockean property rights theory and radical libertarian class theory). This follows from the observation that large concentrations of capital in nominally "private" hands are frequently the result of statist redistribution of wealth to politically favored plutocrats (famously described by Marx as "primitive accumulation"), rather than genuinely voluntary market activity. The anarcho-capitalists insist, though, that such evaluation would have to be conducted on a case by case basis that looked at the history of active collusion with the State by the purported owners of the firm.

The Online Freedom Academy (www.tolfa.us) is one such course. If starting their course, please look into their mentoring program first. We also advise that someone with this level of curiousity on the topic of Market Anarchism should become broadly familiar with the full range of market anarchist thought. After completing the Online Freedom Academy, we advise following up with your own independent study from the online resources recommended by the Molinari Institute as well. The Molinari Institute and TOLFA are not affiliated and this informational recommendation should not be regarded as a blanket endorsement of TOLFA.

Like the provision of any other good or service, basic education is to be financed in any wholly voluntary way people choose to go about doing so. It is expected that, given the freedom to do so, people will try a diversity of approaches. The food market, for example, includes: expensive restaurants, farmer's markets, run of the mill grocery stores, community and private gardens, hot dog stands, buyers wholesale co-ops, convenience stores and community soup kitchens. We can't predict all possible facets of an ever-changing education market in a free society.

If libertarianism is understood as the embrace of the Jeffersonian maxim that "the best government is that which governs least", anarchism is the extension of that principle to its logical conclusion -- that the government which governs least is no government at all.

Yes and no. Market anarchists generally regard the "market" part to be an important clarification of anarchism. Among other reasons, the known workability of "free enterprise" as a system for providing goods and services enhances the case for anarchism as a practical and viable alternative to the present system of Statist domination. We absolutely know we can have a more peaceful and prosperous society with enterprise, rather than governmental, provision of law and security for precisely the same reasons enterprise, rather than governmental, provision of any good or service is superior.

By the substitution of multiple, competing arbitration enterprises for "courts", security enterprises for "police" and common law legal scholars for "legislators". Competition among such service providers will be rewarded in the market according to the usual manner in which customer satisfaction rewards successful enterprises. The crux of what we ask is that such competition not be violently suppressed by existing government in order to continue its monopolization of such service provision.

This depends on what your definition of "politics" is. If politics is understood to be a struggle for power -- control of the means of violating the rights of others with impunity, i.e. "government" as presently understood -- then we seek, in the words of Karl Hess, "the death of politics". It is generally expected, though, that lively public debate over the day to day controversies of life will continue to be a part of life. Indeed, abolishing the State may lead to a new blossoming of activism for continued progressive social change, using non-violent tools such as boycotts and networks based on voluntarily agreed to contractual law.

This is a misconception. Anarchy means "no rulers", but not "no rules". People can and do mutually agree to rules all of the time, without having them forcibly imposed upon them without consent by "rulers". Games involve rules, but we don't want any part of an "anarchy" where children wouldn't be free to play.

The relationship between market anarchism and those goals is not exclusive, but market anarchism is substantially connected to realizing them. Theoretically, the pursuit of all those concepts is possible in a statist society (and anarchists certainly do not suggest we wait for the State to collapse to help one another and promote liberty and justice). Market anarchism sees all of the above phenomena as products resulting from the essential nature of civil society - the network of free individuals who promote their mutual self-interests by contract, community, and respect. Indeed, these forces exist in our present society - otherwise market anarchists would not have anything to advocate! However, these phenomena are currently undermined by a State that too often interferes in the peaceful resolution of problems. This occurs not only when the State imposes top-down, draconian solutions, but also when its laws and institutions crowd out or prohibit viable alternatives. Essentially, anarchists envision a society much as we have now - but where people are unrestrained from building institutions, communities, and relationships from the bottom-up that will realize the above goals.

Some schools of market anarchism feel they simply are not feasible, arguing that they rather exist substantially as a form of corporate welfare for centralized big business. Keep in mind that whatever long range transportation solutions a market anarchist society chooses, a major factor is that the consumers of the system would have to pay the full, up front cost for it. Indeed, society already does this via coercive taxes, but much of that expense is hidden, wasted, and fundamentally disconnected from the use of the transportation infrastructure, creating the illusion that road systems are somehow "free". As such, roads will be built and maintained in any way people choose to go about doing so -- as long as it doesn't involve confiscatory taxes or other violations of individual rights.

Pierre Joseph Proudhon was the first self-described anarchist. He also considered himself a "socialist", which points out the shortcomings of "state ownership of the means of production" as a definition of socialism. Anyone familiar with his works is aware that consensual markets play a role in Proudhon's thought on a stateless social order. As such, we consider Proudhon's mutualism a form of market anarchism. His remark that "Property is Theft" is often misunderstood as a blanket condemnation of property in principle. Rather, he was commenting on the unjust distribution of property as a result of statism, and it should also be noted that he said "Property is Liberty".

Market anarchist views on intellectual property vary, with some viewing it as morally legitimate property and others asserting it to be merely another form of illegitimate state-granted monopoly. Those who defend IP generally envision its defense in a stateless society occurring through contractual law and multiple, competing open registries for creators. Those who condemn IP generally see it as an usurpation of the liberty of information consumers and postulate the rise of business models for IP creators that don't depend on such unjust impositions. Notable is the point that in a completely free market, the competitive aspects of the business environment are likely to result in creators (of what we call IP today) producing and distributing their works for free as a marketing strategy for their more expensive custom services. As an example, a musician might offer free MP3s of their songs for download as a way to help sell tickets to their live concerts.

Market anarchism can be viewed as a loose umbrella term for any form of strictly voluntary social organization. Anarchy "per se" can never have a blueprint for an order violently imposed upon all from above. Anarchism generally postulates the abolition of such imposition and asserts the moral superiority of order arising naturally from the freely chosen actions of all. As such, market anarchism includes all strains of anarchist thought that postulate a voluntary social order in which market transactions would not be violently suppressed. It is expected that a stateless society would have diverse aspects that could be characterized as both "socialistic" and "capitalistic" (depending on how one defines those terms) within a framework of strict voluntarism .

First of all, anarchy is not a utopia. It is simply an understanding that the State adds no value to society. An anarchist world would still have suffering, loss, greed, etc. - the difference would be that these negatives would not be promoted at public expense in our names. We seek a better world, but by no means a perfect one.With regard to nuclear weapons, anarchists see weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as express signs of a bloated power structure, grown beyond all semblance of sanity and balance. Simply put: nuclear weapons would hardly exist or be cost effective without the State. One must grasp that the State promotes the centralization and consolidation of many societal forces - finance, industry, military, etc. It is only under the legal and political aegis of the State that concentrations of power can result in any capacity (or desire) for the kind of warfare for which nuclear weapons are required. Without a State seizing wealth from citizens to fund a bloated "defense" budget, without a State providing subsidies to industry to engage in capital intensive, unproductive WMD production, and without a belligerent State intervening in conflicts around the world and making enemies, nuclear weapons aren't necessary to retain, let alone launch.

Market anarchists generally view the State as an unproductive parasite attached to productive civil society; one which creates most existing poverty. Therefore, we seek to abolish it -- particularly for the sake of the poor. Most also advocate some form of voluntary mutual aid, both pending and after abolition of the State.