| Libertarianism |
| This series is linked to the Politics series |
| Factions Minarchism Anarcho-capitalism Paleolibertarianism Neolibertarianism Geolibertarianism Republitarianism Influences Austrian School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Objectivism Practices Capitalism Non-aggression Key issues Parties Economic views Views of rights Theories of law Criticism |
Anarcho-capitalism is a Philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory Coercion and Fraud. It sees the only just basis for Law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of Contract between sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the State as an unjustified monopolist and aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist Laissez-faire Capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private, competing businesses.
The philosophy embraces stateless capitalism as one of its foundational principles. The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism to identify itself thus was developed by economists of the Austrian School and libertarians Murray Rothbard and Walter Block in the mid-20th century, as an attempted synthesis of Austrian School Economics, Classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchism. While Rothbard bases his philosophy on Natural law, others, such as David Friedman, take a pragmatic consequentialist approach by arguing that anarcho-capitalism should be implemented because such a system would have consequences superior to alternatives.
Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and other anarchists, who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that much of the source of dispute is a definitional problem, with the classical anarchists using the term "capitalism" in reference to State capitalism, where government grants businesses monopoly rights and special privileges over individuals — something anarcho-capitalists oppose. In contrast, most anarchists believe the dispute over more than a definition, as they hold that Profit is exploitative for a number of reasons. Despite this tension, some anarcho-capitalists see their philosophy as evolving from the American individualist anarchism tradition that includes classical liberal thinkers such as Lysander Spooner.
Anarcho-capitalism can be considered a radical development of Classical liberalism. Its grounding in liberalism stems from Gustave de Molinari. Many proponents of anarcho-capitalism argue that Molinari was the first anarcho-capitalist, though traditional anarchists often hold that Molinari is more properly understood as a laissez-faire liberal. Even Rothbard admitted that, "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name" anarcho-capitalist. Nonetheless, Molinari did argue for a free market and against a state monopoly on force, and his thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries.
The term anarcho-capitalism was most likely coined in the mid-1950s by the economist Murray Rothbard.[:Anarcho-capitalism}}#endnote_Rothbard-1988] Other terms used for this philosophy include:
In general, the non-aggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e., direct violence, Assault, Murder) or property (i.e., fraud, Burglary, theft, taxation). The initiation of force is usually referred to as Aggression or Coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchist libertarians, such as most people involved in Libertarian political parties, would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining public Police, courts and Military. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject even that level of state intervention, defining any state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism. Some, such as Rothbard, accept the non-aggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or Natural law basis. Others, such as Friedman, take a consequentialist or Egoist approach; rather than maintaining that aggression is intrinsically immoral, they maintain that a law against aggression can only come about by contract between self-interested parties who agree to refrain from initiating coercion against each other.
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements::
|
This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchism. Original appropriation allows an individual to claim any "unused" property, including land, and by improving or otherwise using it, own it with the same absolute right as his own body. According to Rothbard, original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by using land — by mixing one's labor with it — that original appropriation is legitimized: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be." As a practical matter, in terms of the ownership of land, anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few (if any) parcels of land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time transferred as the result of coercion, usually through seizure by some form of state. However, most do not believe that this history de-legitimizes current ownerships which are based on consensual transactions, even if they were founded in non-consensual transfers. They believe it is wrong to attempt to remedy past coercion by the use of present coercion (i.e., seizure or eviction), unless records and titles exist to confirm the theft and the rightful individual owner. It is for this reason that they generally reject the return of land or resources to indigenous peoples whose cultures did not participate in private property distributions before they were dispossessed.
By accepting an axiomatic definition of private property and property rights, anarcho-capitalists deny the legitimacy of a state on principle:
One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services must be voluntary on the part of both parties. No external entities can force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. An employer might offer Insurance and death benefits to same-sex couples; another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith. Individuals would be free to enter into contractual agreements as they saw fit, allowing discrimination or favoritism based on language, Race, Gender, Sexual orientation, or any other categorization. Anarcho-capitalists maintain that the social structure would be self-regulating, since any disenfranchised group can avail themselves of Boycott or Protest, and other entrepreneurs will see their own interests (i.e., profit) in servicing the group.
Another important ramification is the fact that any social structure is permissible under anarcho-capitalism as long as it is formed by a contract between individuals. Therefore, radically different "governments" and sub-economies can form, creating a panarchic society. Individuals could live in a privately-owned Democracy, a Republic, or even a Monarchy, if they so choose.
One social structure that is not permissible under anarcho-capitalism is one that attempts to claim greater Sovereignty than the individuals that form it. The state is a prime example, but another is the modern Corporation — defined as a legal entity that exists under a different legal code than individuals as a means to shelter the individuals who own and run the corporation from possible legal consequences of acts by the corporation. It is worth noting that Rothbard allows a narrower definition of a corporation: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation [...]". However, this is a very narrow definition that only shelters owners from debt by creditors that specifically agree to the arrangement; it also does not shelter other Liability, such as from malfeasance or other wrongdoing.
There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself asserts that the right to contract is based in inalienable human rights and therefore any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself into Slavery. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.
The defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on coercive taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of individuals.
Retributive justice, meaning retaliatory force, is often a component of the contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. Some believe prisons or indentured servitude would be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-capitalist property relations, while others believe Exile or forced Restitution are sufficient.
However, the permissible extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point among anarcho-capitalists. Some argue that the initiator of any aggressive act should be subject to a retributive counter-attack beyond what is solely necessary to repel the aggression. The counter-argument is that such a counterattack is only legitimate insofar as it was defined in an agreement between the parties.
Another controversial application of "defensive" aggression is the act of revolutionary violence against tyrannical regimes. Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution as the legitimate act of individuals working together to fight against tyrannical restrictions of their liberties. In fact, according to Murray Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the United States that could be justified. But, illustrating their general ambivalence toward war, these same people also sharply criticize the revolutionaries for the means used — taxes, Conscription, inflationary money — and the inadequacy of the result: a state.
While some anarcho-capitalists believe forceful resistance and revolutionary violence against the state is legitimate, most believe the use of force is a dangerous tool at best, and that violent insurrection should be a last resort.
Friedman describes an economic approach to anarcho-capitalism. His description differs with Rothbard's because it doesn't use moral arguments — i.e., it does not appeal to a theory of Natural rights to justify itself. In Friedman's work, the economic argument is sufficient to derive the principles of anarcho-capitalism. Private defense or protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individuals' utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. Also unlike other anarcho-capitalists, most notably Rothbard, Friedman has never tried to deny the theoretical cogency of the neoclassical literature on "market failure," nor has he been inclined to attack economic efficiency as a normative benchmark.
Many anarchists strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. Some contemporary individualist anarchists such as Joe Peacott regard "capitalist anarchists" as individualists , but not necessarily as anarchist individualists. Peacott has explicitly stated that individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist, and contrasts it to anarcho-capitalism. Individualist anarchist Daniel Burton says that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism, but that most individualists are class war anti-capitalists ( Individualist anarchists vs. Anarcho-capitalism). However, many individualists do not see their philosophy as a "class war" but a war against government repression of individual liberty. Josiah Warren opposed any talk of class war and refered to the wealthy, politely, as "the successful in the general scramble" (Letter to Heywood). Whether anarcho-capitalism is a true form of anarchism may hinge on the ambiguous meaning of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism".
The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism sometimes use the term "anarchism" to refer to political movements that oppose both the state and capitalism as coercive institutions. Conversely, many, including capitalist libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, most commonly use the term "anarchism" with a definition that simply refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of government, without specifications regarding economic systems or coercion in general.
Also, there is some terminological confusion regarding "capitalism" as explained by individualist anarchist Larry Gambone, who says that when the classical anarchists use the term "capitalism", they are referring to those who have "gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government." Likewise, Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists referred to "capitalism" they "meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business." This is something that anarcho-capitalists also oppose. However, modern individualist anarchists like Gambone believe that capitalism, as they define it, requires the presence of the state in order to function. As a consequence, for the individualist the concept of rejecting "state capitalism" would be redundant to rejection of capitalism itself. Hence, anarcho-capitalists depart from individualist anarchists on what constitutes concepts such as the "state", "capitalism", and a "free market". Jamal Hannah says that most anarchists and capitalists agree with the individualists in believing that capitalist economics require a state to defend private wealth. Despite disagreeing on whether or not anti-state capitalism is a coherent concept, individualist anarchists as well as anarcho-capitalists oppose a state and support private defense of wealth.
According to The Anarchist International, capitalism is an economic Plutocracy that includes its own Hierarchy. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the classical liberal tradition: "Plutarchy without statism = liberalism." Some, while accepting that anarcho-capitalism is a radical form of liberalism, question the coherence of such a statement, holding that if Socialism and Communism can have anarchist forms, then liberalism can as well.American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism" However, most often anarchist individualism is regarded as a form of socialism, for example by individualist anarchists such as E. Armand, though it is in contrast to some modern definitions of socialism where the means of production are owned in collective . Also, as anarchists by definition favor voluntary interaction, what anarcho-capitalists perceive as being voluntary often does not accord with what the opposition believes to be voluntary (see sidebar for definitions).
Finally, most anarchists espouse a modified Labor theory of value which they put forth as one reason for claiming that Profit, rent, and wage labor are exploitive. While classical capitalists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, maintain that value is subjective and hence adhere to Marginalism.
Anarcho-capitalist philosophy has been influenced by many sources. The primary influence with the longest history is classical liberalism. Classical liberals have had two main themes since John Locke first expounded the philosophy: the liberty of man, and limitations of state power. The liberty of man was expressed in terms of Natural rights, while limiting the State was based (for Locke) on a consent theory. While Locke saw the state as evolving from society via a Social contract, later, more radical, liberals saw a fundamental schism between society, the "natural" voluntary interactions of men, and state, the institution of brute force.
In the 18th century, liberal revolutionaries in Britain and America had opposed Statism without grounding it in theory, while some French economists had theorized it without endorsing it. In the 19th century, classical liberals led the attack against statism. One notable was Frederic Bastiat (The Law), who wrote, "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." Henry David Thoreau's liberalism might be considered evolutionary anarchism, as he wrote, "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing protection of individual liberty and property was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later, in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security, argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity." Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian Ralph Raico asserts what that these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism." Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people — society — and the institutions of force — the State. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs. artificial society, liberty vs. authority, society of contract vs. society of authority, and industrial society vs. militant society, just to name a few. The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer, as well as in thinkers such as Paul Émile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert.
Later, in the early 20th century, the mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the "Old Right". These were minarchist, anti-war, anti-imperialist, and (later) anti-New Dealers. Some of the most notable members of the Old Right were Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and H. L. Mencken. In the 1950s, the new "fusion conservatism", also called "Cold War conservatism", took hold of the right wing in the US, stressing anti-communism. This induced the libertarian Old Right to split off from the right, and seek alliances with the (now left-wing) anti-war movement, and to start specifically libertarian organizations such as the (US) Libertarian Party.
Anarcho-capitalism is influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists. Rothbard sought to meld the 19th century individualist theory with the principles of Austrian economics: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung." However, the 19th century individualist anarchists espoused a labor theory of value, while the anarcho-capitalists adhere to a subjective theory, leading to differences over the legitimacy of Profit. Anarchist historian Peter Marshall believes that anarcho-capitalists selectively interpret individualist anarchists texts, overlooking egalitarian implications. However, Marshall may have overlooked that the most noted individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker explicity supports the right to inequality in wealth and upholds it as the natural result of liberty ( Economic Rent). Tucker did, although, oppose vast concentrations of wealth which he believed were made possible by government intervention which protected monopoly. He believed the most dangerous intervention was the protection of a "banking monopoly" which concentrated capital in the hands of the privileged elite. Though, he also argued that harmful monopolies that were created by government intervention could be maintained in the absence of government protection due to the accumulation of great wealth (see Predatory pricing). Anarcho-capitalists also oppose governmental restrictions on banking. They, like all Austrian economists, believe that monopoly can only come about through government intervention. Most modern individualists, following in the footsteps of historical counterparts, reject capitalism in the sense of government backed privilege for capital. Individualists anarchists have long argued that monopoly on credit and land interferes with the functioning of a free market economy. Although anarcho-capitalists disagree on the critical topic of Profit, both schools of thought agree on other issues. Of particular importance to anarcho-capitalists and the individualists are the ideas of private property, "sovereignty of the individual", a market economy, and the opposition to Collectivism. In addition, like the individualists, anarcho-capitalists believe that land may be originally appropriated by, and only by, occupation or use; however, traditional individualists believe it must continually be in use to retain title. Notable 19th century American individualist anarchists include Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.
Lysander Spooner's articles, such as No Treason and the Letter to Thomas Bayard, were widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals, and his ideas — especially his individualist critique of the state and his defense of the right to ignore or withdraw from it — were often cited by anarcho-capitalists. Spooner was staunchly opposed to government interference in economic matters, and supported a "right to acquire property [...] as one of the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of men [...] one which government has no power to infringe [...]". Like all anarchists, he opposed government regulation: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor.". He was particularly vocal, however, in opposing any collusion between banks and government, and argued that the monopolistic privileges that the government granted to a few bankers were the source of many social and economic ills.
Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor, which he believed entailed a rejection of both collective and capitalist ownership. He was a staunch advocate of the mutualist form of recompensing labor, which holds to "Cost the limit of price". He also advocated a free Market economy, which he believed was prohibited by capitalist monopoly of credit and land backed by the state. He believed that anyone who wishes should be allowed to engage in the banking business and issue their private currency without needing special permission from government, and that unused land should not be restricted those who wished to use it. He believed that if these and other coercive actions were eliminated that profit in economic transactions would be rendered nearly impossible due to increased availabilty of capital to all individuals and resulting increased competition in business. Accepting the Labor theory of value and the resulting "cost principle" as a premise marks one of mutualism's main conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. Although his self-identification as a socialist and sympathy for the labor movement led to hostility from some early anarcho-capitalists such as Robert LeFevre, others, such as Murray Rothbard, embraced his critique of the state and claimed that he defined his "socialism" not in terms of opposition to a free market or private property, but in opposition to government privileges for business. However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state. For example, Kevin Carson argues, "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market mutualist Benjamin Tucker--from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow--regarded himself as a libertarian socialist." Tucker characterized the economic demands of Proudhon and Warren by saying, "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few...Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule."
Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes viewed by those sympathetic to it as a form of individualist anarchism, despite the fact that the original individualist anarchists universally rejected capitalism (i.e., they opposed profit, which is seen as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism). Organizations such as mutualist.org remain dedicated to "free market anti-capitalism," while individualists like Larry Gambone explicitly state that all capitalism is state capitalism. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy considers herself to be an individualist, while admitting that the original individualists were universally anti-capitalist. In addition, historian Guglielmo Piombini refers anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, though he offers no support for this statement. Collectivist anarchist author Iain McKay and historian Peter Sabatini both argue that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally opposed to individualist anarchism.
The similarity to anarcho-capitalism in regard to private defense of liberty and property is probably best seen in a quote by 19th century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros:
These are macro-level generalizations, or heuristics, which are true for the many, but not necessarily true for any particular person.
Even in the early days, Austrian economics was used as a theoretical weapon against socialism and statist socialist policy. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, a colleague of Menger, wrote one of the first critiques of socialism ever written in his treatise, The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism. Later, Friedrich Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, asserting that a command economy destroys the information function of prices, and that authority over the economy leads to Totalitarianism. Another very influential Austrian economist was Ludwig von Mises, author of the praxeological work Human Action.
Murray Rothbard, a student of Mises, is the man who attempted to meld Austrian economics with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism, and is credited with coining the term "anarcho-capitalism". He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (US) pro-capitalist sense. He was a trained economist, but also knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the US Republican party. When interventionist cold warriors of the National Review, such as William Buckley, gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and formed an alliance with left-wing Anti-war groups. Later, Rothbard was a founder of the US Libertarian Party. In the late 1950s|'50s, Rothbard was briefly involved with Ayn Rand's objectivism group, but later had a falling out. Rothbard's books, such as Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, The Ethics of Liberty, and For a New Liberty, are considered by some to be classics of natural law libertarian thought.
See also: Roberta Modugno Crocetta: The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its historical and intellectual context
One business sector that is said to be doing well is telecommunications. Abdullahi Mohammed Hussein, of Telecom Somalia says: "The government post and telecoms company used to have a monopoly but after the regime was toppled, we were free to set up our own business" according to a BBC report the education system is private and includes universities such as Mogadishu University. However, enrollment rates in Somalia are estimated to be 65% lower than in neighboring West African countries.
One World Bank study reports that "it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent." However, the overall outlook on the economy is grim, as another world bank report notes, "Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, a situation aggravated by the civil war and the absence of a functioning national government for more than a decade. The impact of state failure on human development in Somalia has been profound, resulting in the collapse of political institutions, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure, and massive internal and external migrations."
While most of what was Somalia is a stateless area, two internationally unrecognised democratic states exist in its north. These are Somaliland and Puntland. These regions lack the armed competition in the more anarchic south, and the destruction this causes. Their people are correspondingly more prosperous on average.
Other anarcho-capitalists see the development of the Internet and Cryptography as a new possibility for achieving some aspects of an anarcho-capitalist economy. Pseudonymous communication allows services, especially information services such as consulting, translation, programming, etc., to be provided without revealing the physical identity of the person providing a service in exchange for anonymous Electronic money. There is also the option of paying for goods and services by E-gold (electronic gold) which is a world wide currency, independent of governments monetary policies and with zero forex costs. In a sense the internet and the World Wide Web can be regarded as a stateless territory.
Anarcho-capitalism is a radical development of liberalism. Therefore, the same general arguments for and against Liberalism, laissez-faire capitalism and Capitalism apply, excepting those points (such as the justice system) where anarcho-capitalism diverges from the classical liberal tradition.
The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun control), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all. Skeptics often feel that anarcho-capitalists rely on "market solutions" to the point of ridiculousness.
[image]
Minarchist and statist critics often argue that the Free rider problem makes anarcho-capitalism (and, by extension, any anti-statist political system) fundamentally unworkable in modern societies. They typically argue that there are some vital goods or services — such as civil or military defense, management of common environmental resources, or the provision of public goods such as roads or lighthouses — that cannot be effectively delivered without the backing of a government exercising effective territorial control, and so that abolishing the state as anarcho-capitalists demand will either lead to catastrophe or to the eventual re-establishment of monopoly governments as a necessary means to solving the coordination problems that the abolition of the state created. One counter-argument by free market economists, such as Alex Tabarrok, emphasizes the private use of dominant assurance contracts. Some anarcho-capitalists also contend that the "problem" of "public goods" is illusory and its invocation merely misunderstands the potential individual production of such goods.
Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State and Utopia that anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally-dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone's interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in an unstable system that would not endure in the real world.
Critics also point out that anarcho-capitalist ethics do not entail any positive moral obligation to help others in need (see Altruism, the ethical doctrine). Like other right libertarians, anarcho-capitalists may argue that no such moral obligation exists or argue that if a moral obligation to help others does exist that there is an overarching moral obligation to refrain from initiating coercion on individuals to enforce it. Anarcho-capitalists believe that helping others should be a matter of free personal choice, and do not recognise any form of social obligation arising from an individual's presence in a society. They, like all right libertarians, believe in a distinction between negative and positive rights in which negative rights should be recognized as being legitimate, and positive rights rejected. Critics often dismiss this stance as being unethical or selfish, or reject the legitimacy of the distinction between positive and negative rights.
Property ownership rights and their extent are a source of contention among different philosophies. Most see the rights as less absolute than anarcho-capitalists do. The main issues are what kinds of things are valid property, and what constitutes abandonment of property. The first is contentious even among anarcho-capitalists: there is disagreement over the validity of intellectual property — non-tangible goods that are not economically scarce. Some supporters of private property but critics of anarcho-capitalism may question whether unused land is valid property (Agorism, Georgism, Geolibertarianism, Individualist anarchism). The second issue is a common objection among socialists who do not believe in absentee ownership. Anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria — one maintains ownership (more or less) until one agrees to trade or gift it. The critics of this view tend to have weaker abandonment criteria; e.g., one loses ownership (more or less) when one stops personally using it. Also, the idea of original appropriation is anathema to most types of Socialism, as well as any philosophy that takes common ownership of land and natural resources as a premise. There are also philosophies that view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate, thus rejecting anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy that takes private ownership of land as a premise.
Utilitarian critics simply argue that anarcho-capitalism does not maximize utility, contending that it would fall far short of that goal. This kind of criticism comes from a variety of different political views and ideologies, and different critics have different views on which other system does or would do a better job of bringing the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. Anarcho-capitalists consider the non-aggression axiom to be a "side-constraint" on civilized human action, or a necessary condition for human society to be beneficial (Herbert Spencer, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard), and thus should not be used as a trade-off for vague utilitarian values. Another response, implied by Austrian economics, is to note that personal utility is not an Additive quantity, therefore establishing that all utilitarian arguments, which invariably rely on aggregation of personal utilities, are logically and mathematically invalid.