- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
After some reading today I feel the need to read further into Rothbards works on Anarcho-capitolism, since so far the only logical problem with what I have read so far is that it would leave the potential for an oppressive monopoly.
I see this as kind of a pointless arguement against it, since the alternative is to just go ahead and build the framework for an oppressive monopoly (government) right off the bat.
I think when discussing anything along these lines, all parties must be able to agree on self ownership (without getting into dualism arguements), the non-aggression principle and land-use occupancy as foundational and vital to freedom.
I am not too familiar with Rothbard directly, but I have read about him in second-hand accounts by other authors. I think the term anarcho-capitalism is unsavory and I prefer the more inclusive term market anarchism, a more accurate umbrella of where my beliefs fall.
Some things I am still wary about in Rothbard's thought include private defense forces. I think force might better serve a given community in a consumer cooperative structure. Should their be competing firms of force in any one community? I am not sure, as I haven't thought much about the topic.
Obviously it's important, as one of my statist liberal friends always asks me when we get into political discussions, "Who has the guns?"