Anarcho capitalism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Anarcho Capitalism is an economic theory and political philosophy , which for a single from the free market , voluntary agreements and voluntary contractual commitments embossed social order occurs. In contrast to the minimal state , it strives for a purely private legal system (also zero state ) without public law. He advocates a right to self-determination and extensive power of disposal over private property , which should not be restricted by state regulations, but solely by the self-determination of others.

Anarcho-capitalists see the state as an illegitimate political system that restricts members of society in their freedom, uses unlawful violence against them, and robs them of taxation. In her opinion, those in the state who have the greatest influence over it benefit at the expense of those with less influence. The state is therefore an anti-social institution. In their criticism of the state, they make use of radical liberal , libertarian and sociological as well as ethical and economic arguments for themselves.

The term anarcho-capitalism was first used by Murray Rothbard . Central to Rothbard's theory are the sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression . Rothbard emphasized, however, that his term anarcho-capitalism had nothing in common with anarchism .

Basic ideas

Sovereignty of the individual

Murray Rothbard (1926–1995)

The US-American economist Murray Rothbard combined the libertarian thought traditions of North America with the ideas of the Austrian school into a theory of anarcho-capitalism. He saw the sovereignty of the individual and the non-aggression principle as its central principles. He wrote:

“ … The central axiom of libertarian theory means that every person is the owner of himself, with absolute rights over his own body. Essentially, this means that no one is authorized to touch or attack another person. "

For anarcho-capitalists, sovereignty of the individual or self-ownership means that every person has the right to self-determination , that he alone has the right to determine his body and his way of life. Rothbard justifies the sovereignty of the individual by falsifying all possible alternatives.

Non-aggression principle

For anarcho-capitalists it means a ban on initiating and threatening violence. Any aggression violates the freedom of others. The use of force and the threat of force are only permitted in self-defense situations. The non-aggression principle prohibits assault or murder as well as property crime. The latter include anarcho capitalists, fraud and theft, but also the compulsion to pay involuntary taxes and duties as well as expropriations by the state.

The difference between libertarian anarcho-capitalists and libertarian minimalist stateists is primarily how extensively they apply the principle of nonaggression. Minarchists such as B. found in libertarian parties, only want to downsize the state, but maintain state legislation, police, courts and military. In contrast to this, anarcho-capitalists reject the state in principle, since every state is by definition a territorial monopoly that acts aggressively internally through taxes and laws and externally because of external conflicts, thus violating the principle of non-aggression.

Some theorists, like Rothbard, affirm the principle of non-aggression as the essential basis of morality and natural rights. Others like David Friedman make the universal self-interest of all people, not wanting to become a victim of aggression, the starting point of their philosophical considerations. They condemn less of the state's interventions, which they regard as inherently aggressive and amoral and which, as a monopoly of power, allow it to bend the principle of non-aggression. Rather, they argue that the right to resist aggression arises from the mutual self-interest of the respective contracting parties, neither to initiate coercion and violence, nor to accept it against themselves.

According to the German anarcho-capitalist Stefan Blankertz , it is legitimate to defend yourself against someone who violates the principle of non-aggression and to demand compensation for damage caused by such an aggressor: “[A] thief must - logically speaking - agree that something is stolen from him Good or an equivalent thereof is accepted. Because either he recognizes the property (then he has to admit that he has committed an injustice) or he denies the right to property: then he cannot object to something being taken away from him. "

Private property

Most anarcho capitalists have a neo-Lockean understanding of property. From their point of view, property is created by "mixing nature with one's own work", in that someone appropriates an object that is not used by any other person or claimed as property and enhances it through their own work. Rothbard writes: “In a free society, any part of nature that has never been used before is ownerless. (...) If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to declare the new continent or area as his own as far as his eyes can see ? This would clearly not be the case in the free society we postulate. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land , cultivate it in some way , before he could claim to own it. (...) Unused land would have to remain ownerless until a first user arrives. Any attempt to lay claim to a resource that someone does not use would have to be seen as an attack on the property rights of a future first user. "

Rothbard derives the right to property from the right to self-ownership. He writes: "If every person has the right to his own body and if he has to use and transform objects of nature in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product he has created." After property is created through work , it can be given to a new owner through voluntary exchange or as a gift; a forced transfer of goods is seen as illegitimate.

Rothbard also writes: “Problems and difficulties always arise when the first-user-first-owner principle is not observed. In almost all countries, governments have claimed new, unused land. (...) Let us assume that the government gets rid of its unused land by selling it to the highest bidder in an auction. Since the government does not have valid ownership, neither does the buyer. If the buyer “owns” the land, as often happens, but does not use it or settles on it, he becomes a land speculator in a derogatory sense. The real user is (...) forced to lease or buy the land from the speculator, even though the speculator has no valid claim to ownership. "

According to Ludwig von Mises, extensive land ownership was always the result of land monopolies enforced by states and did not result from the accumulation of small parcels through market processes. “Nowhere and at no time did extensive land ownership arise through the action of the economic forces of the market. It is the result of military and political efforts. Justified by violence, it is only sustained by violence. "

Because the state appropriates parts of the land, withdraws it from the market and thus reduces the supply , landowners, according to Rothbard, make higher profits from leasing and selling land than would be possible in a free market. Bernie Jackson also points out that, for example, the United States government provides certain companies in the timber, oil, mining and farming industries with large parts of the country at politically determined prices that are below market prices. Pollution and the overexploitation of nature are made profitable for these companies because they do not have to pay market prices for the resources they use.

If property is owned by states, Rothbard advocates returning it to the private sector. "All property in the hands of the state is in the hands of thieves and should be freed as soon as possible." Rothbard continues to support the expropriation of "nominal private property" if it is the "result of state-initiated violence". He suggests that companies that are at least 50% funded by the state should be declared theirs by employees. He writes: “(...) what we complain about are unjustified claims of ownership. We are not in favor of private property per se, but for innocent, non-criminal private property. "Karl Hess writes:" [The] libertarianism (...) in no way wishes to defend any property that is now called private property. (...) Much property has been stolen. Many ownership claims are questionable. Everything is deeply intertwined with an immoral coercive state system. "

law and order

In an anarcho-capitalist society, the protection of life , freedom and property as well as finding solutions to disputes would be offered as private services . Molinari wrote: "Under a liberal order, the structure of the security industry would be no different from other industries." Proponents of anarcho-capitalism point out that mediators , arbitration tribunals and security companies are already successful in certain areas where they are tolerated by the respective state Offer services.

In such a company, contracting parties would determine when entering into a contract which service provider (Friedman uses the term "arbitration agency") is responsible for arbitration in the event of a dispute and which legal norm the contract is based on. Security service providers who offer customers the protection of life, freedom and property would also require customers to recognize certain legal norms. A contract between the service provider and the customer could, for example, stipulate how to proceed if the customer is accused of a crime such as theft.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that security service providers in an anarcho-capitalist society, in contrast to state organizations, have a great economic interest in preferring peaceful action and respecting individual rights. Violent disputes would cause high costs for the respective company and thus reduce the profitability of the company concerned. Companies that prefer peaceful solutions can also offer their services at lower prices and thus have a market advantage. Mafia organizations would have a hard time in an anarcho-capitalist society, also because the market niche they created and used by bans on drugs , prostitution , gambling and other “ victimless crimes ” no longer exists.

David D. Friedman writes in The Machinery of Freedom :

“Perhaps the best way to see why anarcho-capitalism would be so much more peaceful than our current system is through an analogy. Suppose (...) the cost of moving from one country to another would be zero. Everyone lives in a mobile home and speaks the same language. One day the President of France announced that new taxes would be levied due to problems with neighboring countries and that conscription would be introduced shortly. The next morning the President declares that he is ruling a peaceful but deserted country and the population will be reduced to himself, three generals and twenty-four war reporters. "

Private help for the needy and voluntary provision

Anarcho-capitalists rely on voluntary neighborhood help and benevolent, private institutions or foundations to help people in need. They argue that such institutions are less bureaucratic and more efficient than state institutions because of the competition between different organizations for private donors. In addition, anarcho capitalists believe that people would donate more to charity if the burden of taxes on the state were removed. With increasing prosperity, the willingness to donate continues to increase. As an example, they cite the increase in donations during the economic boom of the 1980s, in which donations increased linearly with income growth.

Furthermore, they see the possibility of protecting themselves against unforeseen emergencies through voluntary, private insurance . They point out that the task of social insurance was originally carried out by voluntary self-help organizations. German unions have until the end of the 19th century against government resisted social, when they saw this self-governing as a means of breaking up workers' funds.

For Hans-Hermann Hoppe, compulsory state insurance represents a massive attack on the willingness to take on personal responsibility. By relieving individuals of the obligation to provide for their own income, health, security and pension, the scope and the time horizon of private provision would decrease. Irresponsibility, short-sightedness and negligence would be encouraged, responsibility, foresight and hard work punished.

Emergence

In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises took up the Marxist slogan of "anarchy of the market" in his criticism of Marxism and, with Hayek, not only had the word " capitalism " positive again, but also tried to no longer use " anarchy " as the terrible word of the 19th Century, but now to be understood as self-organization and as domination-free (self) coordination. Today the ideas of capitalist anarchism have developed from this. After that, the market ensures optimal cooperation regardless of decisive individual will. The top of a hierarchical organization, on the other hand, is unable to make needs-based decisions, among other things because they do not have the necessary information. The socialism was a task only able less complex things reasonably. The new economy of individual will and self-organization can not be reconciled with political will, which also requires a hierarchy , but only with the elimination of all privileges in the market. The actual idea of ​​an "anarchist capitalism" was later implemented mainly by Murray Rothbard as a basic thinker after Mises had emigrated to the USA, Human Action appeared in 1949 and Rothbard worked from 1952 to 1958 on a follow-up work in which Mises was initially his mentor. Mises himself, however, distanced himself from anarchism, because this misunderstood “the true nature of man; it would only be feasible in a world of angels and saints. ”According to the Mises biographer Hülsmann, Rothbard's remarks on this were not of this naive nature. Rothbard describes the problem with the capitalist term:

“We must first decide what the meaning of the term 'capitalism' really is. Unfortunately, the term 'capitalism' was coined by its greatest and most famous enemy, Karl Marx. We really can't rely upon him for correct and subtle usage. And, in fact, what Marx and later writers have done is to lump together two extremely different and even contradictory concepts and actions under the same portmanteau term. These two contradictory concepts are what I would call 'free-market capitalism' on the one hand, and 'state capitalism' on the other. The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation. "

“First of all we have to determine what the meaning of the term“ capitalism ”really is. Unfortunately, the term "capitalism" was coined by Karl Marx, his greatest and most famous enemy. We really cannot refer to it for the sake of correct and precise use. And indeed: what Marx and later authors did was to conceptually lump two extremely different and even contradicting ideas and modes of action into one pot. These two opposing ideas are what I would call "free market capitalism" on the one hand and "state capitalism" on the other. The difference between free market capitalism and state capitalism is exactly the difference between peaceful, self-chosen exchange here and violent expropriation there. "

Allen Porter Mendenhall explains in a Libertarian Alliance paper: “With this Rothbard makes it clear that state-based capitalism does not constitute 'capitalism' at all. Rothbard defines the difference between state-based and pure capitalism as the difference between on the one hand peaceful, voluntary exchange and violent exploitation on the other. Every state intervention - both prohibition and partial prevention of voluntary exchanges - destroys or shifts an exchange relationship from the realm of capitalism to the realm of the state. State-based capitalism is not capitalism. In short, capitalism is a system of voluntary economic exchange between parties without state interference. In a capitalist system, disputes that arise from such exchange relationships are entrusted to non-state institutions. "

In the same way, Rothbard breaks down the terms “market” and “state” into their components. Rothbard describes the state as:

“That organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. "

“That social organization that tries to establish a monopoly on the use of coercion and violence in a given territory. In particular, it is the only social organization that does not collect its income through voluntary contributions or payments for services rendered, but through coercion. "

This definition corresponds in many ways to that of Max Weber , but it does not legitimize the state, since the state treads a legally, systematically ordered path for robbery and is therefore necessarily parasitic. "Since production must always precede robbery, the free market precedes the state". By tapping into the productive capacity of the market, the state slowly erodes human forces through nature. It must inevitably create a trend towards crisis and social conflict. Rothbard provides a historical counter-argument to the usual Marxist assumption that a strong state is necessary for early capital investment and the development of the capitalist system as such. Accordingly, the view that the market is a paradigm of voluntary exchange and the state of centrally regulated organization of theft, if used as an effective model to understand the interpretation of history, must be theoretically defended . This allows human relationships to be broken down into their two types, that is, free or voluntary and forced or hegemonic. There are no other social relationships for Rothbard, not even with the so-called mixed third-way economy , which must be unstable and head towards one of their respective poles of “ freedom ” or “ totalitarianism ”.

In 1952, Rothbard first presented some new ideas in Mises' NYU seminar. For example, it occurred to him that there was a science of rational ethics based on human nature. He rejected Max Weber's position, which Mises also valued, that there is no science of ethics, but only subjective value judgments. Rothbard also thought it was philosophically pessimistic when Mises' founding of human action complained "that people act to get rid of dissatisfaction, which means that one would not act if one were happy". He thought such a view would be “contrary to the natural state of man, which is at its happiest precisely when it is engaged in productive activity”. In 1953 Rothbard rejected the neoclassical monopoly price theory, which Mises also adhered to, as monopoly prices could not be distinguished from competitive prices. It is also just a matter of action. Whether different people set up a cartel or whether they pool their capital in an ordinary company, the two cannot be distinguished from one another in the least. Rothbard got 1955-1956 difficulties in making his positions founded in anarchism plausible to the Volker Fund, which paid him. In a letter to one of those responsible, Mises supported him that he was completely convinced that Rothbard would one day be among the leading economists.

In the 1960s to 1970s, the Austro-libertarian flame with Hans Sennholz , Murray Rothbard and later with Israel M. Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann was small. The most important difference traditionally came up via the anarchy question: Is a minimal state necessary to maintain a free society? The attitude of the Rothbardians cost them the support of the classical liberal groups around Leonard Read and Hans Sennholz. However, the coherence and radicalism of anarcho-capitalism in the 1980s and 1990s attracted a larger younger intellectual following through the Ludwig von Mises Institute . Hülsmann writes about the minarchist position, if one advocates secessionist aspirations like Mises and self-determination is only relevant in the case of disagreements between individuals and groups on ideological issues, how are secessionist movements to be handled if no great all-encompassing ideology existed? Classical liberals could only refer to the principle of self-determination.

Self-classification

In today's political and economic context of social theory and science from the perspective of Jesús Huerta de Soto of classical liberalism , failed to limit the power of the state. The anarcho-capitalist step away from classical liberalism leads to the dynamic theory of entrepreneurial processes, social cooperation and the spontaneous order of markets in a system that is compatible with human nature.

The classical liberals did not understand that their ideal of the state was already impossible in theory to put it into practice, since it already had the inherent nature of its own destruction, which consisted in the fact that they were banking on an institution, who have the sole power to use coercion. But this state, however minimal it may be, is not in the hands of liberals or even consistent liberals who are constantly limiting or reducing the state, but is driven by many other groups through a political process that forces the classical liberals to do so to expose oneself to the violence of any other political will.

symbolism

Black and yellow flag

The black and yellow or black and gold diagonally split flag is sometimes used by individuals who identify with anarcho-capitalism. The golden color here represents the precious metal used in markets without government intervention and production of currency, black refers to the anarchist symbolism . This is to be distinguished from the black and red flags used by anarchists, with which they want to emphasize the roots in the socialist labor movement. The flag was first presented to the public at an event organized by Robert LeFevre in Colorado in 1963. There are also various, less common symbols.

criticism

Criticism of anarcho-capitalist ideas is made by lawyers and economists, philosophers and politicians, both from liberalism, which is more remote from the state, and from representatives of the idea of ​​the strong state and anti-capitalist anarchism . The unsuitability of anarcho-capitalism in practice is seen as a central point of criticism from the liberal side, since a capitalist economic system also needs a state order to function, for example in order to be able to guarantee and protect property and self-determination rights at all. Utilitarian critics are of the opinion that even an anarcho-capitalist society will not create the “greatest possible level of utility”.

Jurisprudence

The legal scholar Uwe Wesel points out that the libertarian idea that there can be complete freedom of contract between economic actors has its roots in the pre-industrial era. However, the developments as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of the freedom of trade around 1800 weakened the position of the individual worker in relation to the entrepreneur so much that in the course of the 19th century the development of labor law as an independent branch of jurisprudence proved necessary. Labor law, however, is nothing more than a necessary restriction of absolute freedom of contract.

Wesel quotes Otto von Gierke , law professor and expert in private law. In 1889 he wrote in a statement on the first draft of the BGB :

"Unrestricted freedom of contract destroys itself. A terrible weapon in the hand of the strong, a blunt tool in the hand of the weak, it becomes a means of the oppression of one by the other, the relentless exploitation of intellectual and economic superiority."

Critical Rationalism and Objectivism

Sir Karl Popper

From a philosophical point of view, the liberal thinker Sir Karl Popper came to a similar, fundamental criticism of anarcho-capitalist ideas. The founder of critical rationalism regards them on the one hand and totalitarianism on the other as the two ideological extremes that run counter to the " open society " he propagated and institutionalized democracy:

“There are ideological worshipers of the so-called“ free market, ”to which we owe a great deal, of course, who believe that such legislation restricting free market freedom is a dangerous step on the road to servitude. But that is again ideological nonsense. In my book The Open Society and Its Enemies , which I finished 49 years ago in English, I showed that a free market can only exist within a legal system created and guaranteed by the state. This includes, for example, that armed private armies are prohibited, which includes a restriction on the free trade in arms - that is, apparently a restriction on the free market and personal freedom. But it is clear that this restriction by the state is preferable to the restrictions imposed by gang leaders, which can certainly be expected where the state restriction is absent. "

Representatives of objectivism in the tradition of Ayn Rand put forward similar arguments: you think, an anarcho-capitalist society would end "all against all war" (Hobbes) and the chaos in one. Disputes between customers of different security service providers would ultimately lead to war between them.

Other currents of anarchism

Anarchists critical of capitalism argue that a free market without the collectivization of factories runs counter to the egalitarian idea that is constitutive for anarchism. Because wage labor , an important aspect of capitalism, is always dependent on authoritarian structures. A society can therefore be either capitalist or anarchist but not both at the same time. It is further argued that the state and capitalism cannot be separated. Abolishing one is impossible without abolishing the other, since both are based on power imbalances and domination. The self-designation of the anarcho-capitalists with which they refer to anarchism is also criticized. Anarchism has traditionally always been closely linked to socialist positions, while the roots of anarcho-capitalism lie in classical liberalism. The term libertarianism , which is often used as an alternative , was originally understood in a socialist way.

communism

Communists and other opponents of a free market economy argue that workers are exploited in any private market economy, including a stateless one.

Minarchism and Statism

Minarchists and statists continue to believe that the free rider problem will make anarcho-capitalism impossible in modern societies. In their opinion, there are vital services - such as security and defense - that could only be provided by a state with a territorial monopoly. An anarcho-capitalist society will therefore sooner or later lead to catastrophe - as in many cases of failed states  - or to the re-establishment of a new state.

See also

literature

  • Randy E. Barnett: The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press, 1998
  • Bruce L. Benson: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, San Francisco 1990
  • Stefan Blankertz : The Libertarian Manifesto. About the contradiction between the state and prosperity. Edition peculiarly free , Grevenbroich 2001, ISBN 3-8311-1869-8 ( PDF; 1.97 MB )
  • Kevin A. Carson: Studies in Mutualist Political Economy . BookSurge Publishing, 2007, ISBN 1-4196-5869-7
  • Gary W. Chartier: Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society. Cambridge University Press, New York 2013
  • David D. Friedman : The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism . Harper & Row, 1973, ISBN 0-06-091010-0 ( PDF )
    • The wheels of freedom. For radical capitalism. Lichtschlag Medien und Werbung, Grevenbroich 2003, ISBN 3-8330-0529-7
  • Michael Huemer : The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2013
  • Hans-Hermann Hoppe : Democracy: The God That Failed. 2001
    • Democracy. The God who is not. Monarchy, democracy and natural order. Manuscriptum, Waltrop / Leipzig 2003, ISBN 3-933497-86-8 .
  • otherwise: property, anarchy and the state. Studies on the theory of capitalism. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1987, ISBN 3-531-11811-0 ( PDF )
  • Anthony de Jasay: The State. Basil Blackwell, London 1985
  • Gustave de Molinari : De la production de la securité. In: Journal des Économistes. 8th vol., Vol. 22. Paris 1849, pp. 277-90
    • About the production of security. Translation by Jörg Guido Hülsmann and R. Stiebler. Website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
  • Robert P. Murphy: Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy. 2002 ( PDF )
  • Murray N. Rothbard : The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press, New York / London 1998, ISBN 0-8147-7506-3 ( PDF; 7.28 MB )
  • ders .: For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto. 1973; 2nd edition 1978 ( PDF; 6.46 MB )
  • Edward P. Stringham (Ed.): Anarchy and the Law. The Political Economy of Choice. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick 2007
  • Linda and Morris Tannehill: The Market for Liberty. Self-published, Lansing 1970 http://libertyactivism.info/uploads/6/65/The_Market_for_Liberty_-_Morris_and_Linda_Tannehill.pdf (link not available)
  • S. Freeman: Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View . In: Philosophy and Public Affairs. Volume 30, No. 2. Pages 105-151. 2001.

Web links

Commons : Anarcho-capitalism  - collection of images, videos and audio files

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ "Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism whose prime tenet is that the free market, unhampered by government intervention, can coordinate all the functions of society currently carried out by the state, including systems of justice and national defense. Anarcho-capitalists believe that a system of private property based on individual rights is the only moral system - a system that implies a free market, or total voluntarism, in all transactions. "Susan Love Brown: The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View . In: James G. Carrier (Ed.): Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture . Berg / Oxford, 1997, p. 99.
  2. ^ Hans-Hermann Hoppe State or private law company? , Manuscript of the speech at the 14th Philosophicum Lech, 24 Sept. 2010; also published in the competition of crooks , ISBN 9783926396587 , as well as in Oliver Janichs The United States of Europe , ISBN 9783898798204
  3. ↑ Roland Baader , Fauler Zauber , Resch, p. 68 (2nd edition 1998), ISBN 9783935197670
  4. ^ Murray N. Rothbard: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution (1982). In: The Logic of Action. Two. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham UK 1997, p. 127 ( PDF )
  5. ^ Murray N. Rothbard: For A New Liberty. The Libertarian Manifesto . 2nd Edition. 1978
  6. ^ Murray N. Rothbard: The Ethics of Liberty . 1982
  7. ↑ Stefan Blankertz: What is natural law about? In: peculiarly free . No. 6, February 1999
  8. ^ Murray Rothbard: Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles. P. 147
  9. ^ Murray Rothbard: Power and Market: Government and the Economy. Kansas City 1977, p. 132
  10. ^ Ludwig von Mises: Socialism. Yale University Press, New York 1951, p. 375
  11. ^ Murray Rothbard: Power and Market. , P. 68
  12. ^ Bernie Jackson: The Fine Art of Conservation. In: The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. October 1998
  13. ^ Karl Hess: Letter From Washington. In: The Libertarian Forum. Vol. I, No. VI, June 15, 1969, p. 2 ( PDF; 580 kB )
  14. ^ Gustave de Molinari: The Production of Security . 1849 (translation by J. Huston McCulloch)
  15. ^ A b David D. Friedman : The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism . Harper & Row, 1973, ISBN 0-06-091010-0
  16. ^ Bryan Caplan: Anarchist Theory FAQ Version 5.2: 10. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
  17. ^ Stefan Blankertz: Critical introduction to the economy of the welfare state. 2005, p. 130 ( PDF; 329 kB )
  18. ↑ Hans-Hermann Hoppe : About conservatism and libertarianism. In: Criticón . Spring 2004, p. 18 ( PDF; 935 kB )
  19. ^ Walter Reese-Schäfer , Political Theory of the Present in Fifteen Models . Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2005, ISBN 3-486-57930-4 , pages 35-36.
  20. ^ Jörg Guido Hülsmann: Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism . Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007, pp. 893-895.
  21. ^ Walter Reese-Schäfer: Political theory of the present in fifteen models . 2005, page 28.
  22. ↑ Hülsmann, p. 1024.
  23. ↑ a b See mises.org
  24. ↑ Allen Porter Mendenhall: Transnational Law: An Essay in Definition with a Polemic Addendum . Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes 52 (2011). Similarly, Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism . Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000, p. 306: "The great blend of our time has so intermixed business and government, that a practical, pecise separation of the two is no longer possible." (Robert H. Wiebe)
  25. ^ Chris Matthew Sciabarra: Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism . Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000. p. 236.
  26. ^ Sciabarra, p. 237.
  27. ↑ Hülsmann, p. 936.
  28. ↑ Hülsmann, p. 937.
  29. ↑ Hülsmann, pp. 937-939.
  30. ↑ Hülsmann, pp. 940-941.
  31. ↑ Hülsmann, p. 990.
  32. ^ Hülsmann, p. 1027. See also Austrians and the Private-Property Society . In: The Austrian Economics Newsletter , January 18, An Interview With Hans-Hermann Hoppe . Hoppe: “In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization. "
  33. ↑ Jesus Huerta de Soto: Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism in Hülsmann and Kinsella: Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe . Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009.
  34. ↑ black red? No idea where that comes from ... - www.anarchismus.at. Accessed April 11, 2018 (German).
  35. ^ Murray N. Rothbard : The Betrayal of the American Right , 2007, p. 188
  36. ↑ Uwe Wesel: History of the law in Europe. From the Greeks to the Lisbon Treaty . CH Beck, Munich 2010, p. 487 u. 497
  37. ↑ cit. after Uwe Wesel: History of the law in Europe. From the Greeks to the Lisbon Treaty . CH Beck, Munich 2010, p. 487
  38. ^ Karl R. Popper: All life is problem solving. About knowledge, history and politics . Munich / Zurich 1996, p. 259
  39. ↑ Ayn Rand : The Nature of Government . In: The Virtue of Selfishness. 1964
  40. ↑ David Weick: Anarchist Justice. Pp. 223-224
  41. ^ Peter Sabatini: Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy
  42. ↑ see lichtbringer.sociat.us ( Memento from May 29, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  43. ^ Murray N. Rothbard: Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? ( online ( memento of July 6, 2009 in the Internet Archive ))
  44. ^ Murray N. Rothbard: The Betrayal of the American Right. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama 2007, p. 83 ( online )