http://www.anti-state.com/kennedy/kennedy4.html
The Revolution Will Be All Business
by John T Kennedy
Many market anarchists continue to embrace the paradigm of the political
movement. They believe that the society they favor can only come about
when enough people have been persuaded of the benefits or moral correctness
of such a society. Thus they seek to build a movement.
I have good news and bad news.
The bad news is that there is no market anarchist movement and there is
never going to be a market anarchist movement. Better mass marketing of
market anarchist principles will not advance market anarchism. Rational
evangelism will not convert the masses, or even a critical mass of
individuals, to market anarchism.
The entire project of building a movement is misguided and of no use to
market anarchists. The impulse to build a movement is collectivist in
nature; it is rooted in an egalitarian and even democratic view of society.
The idea is that when enough people come to see what is truly in their
common interest, they will voluntarily cooperate to secure that common
interest. It's not terribly surprising that many would have difficulty
escaping this mindset, it's not far from the democratic ideals set forth by
the Founding Fathers, ideals that we are taught to revere from an early
age. But these democratic ideals are not appropriate to market anarchism
and they will not advance it.
Did I say there was good news? The good news is that a movement is unnecessary.
It's difficult to get this idea across to those still stuck with the
paradigm of the political movement. They tend to not even hear it. In A
Porcupine's Worth Is His Price I wrote:
"Some advocates of anarcho-capitalism think that to achieve liberty from
government we need to convince a majority or some critical number of people
that anarcho-capitalist society will be better for them than governed
society.
The porcupine teaches a different lesson - that men will be free from
government whenever they become too expensive to govern."
Bob Murphy saw in this passage only a "compulsive need", on my part, "to
engage in product differentiation". He asks "How are these two statements
different? You're claiming that there isn't some critical number of people
necessary to become free?"
I was trying to say plainly that it is not necessary to persuade a critical
number of people of the merits of market anarchism in order for people to
become too expensive to govern. The question, along with other evidence,
persuades me that the message is not being heard. I'm accused of being a
fatalist because I say there will be no movement. I'm accused of being a
cynic because I say that rational evangelism won't work. But I'm neither a
fatalist nor a cynic. I'm an optimist.
How can market anarchism come about without a movement? This is the
essential question that is asked again and again. But the question is
almost always asked rhetorically, the person asking is not looking for an
answer because he's already decided that none is possible. So when an
answer is offered that answer tends not to be heard, or else it is quickly
forgotten.
I asked the same question, looking for answers. And there are answers.
That's the good news.
There is a model of voluntary collective action appropriate to market
anarchism. It is business.
A business is not held together by a rational argument persuading
individuals to pursue a common goal; a business must primarily appeal
directly to the self-interest of employees and customers. A successful
business must deliver value to both employees and customers on an ongoing
basis.
A business does not require a critical number of participants; in some
cases very small groups of individuals can produce dramatic results within
the framework of a business.
Consider Assassination Politics. I do not advocate AP because I do not
think it would operate as its creator intends; I offer it only as an
example of an approach to advancing market anarchism. If AP worked as
intended people would become too expensive to govern, since those who
sought to govern could expect to pay with their lives. There would be no
need to persuade people to use AP; they would use it out of self-interest.
In theory, a small team, perhaps even an individual, could implement the
guts of AP. The full implementation of it would require a business, but
certainly not a huge business. The project would be quite lucrative, which
is why certain individuals would be willing to attempt it. And this
business would change the world, assuming that AP worked as advertised.
Look Ma: No movement.
AP is not the answer, but it is the right kind of answer. It's a business.
What kind of businesses can advance market anarchism? Businesses which
make people more expensive to govern. Businesses which offer their
customers the means to protect their property and their persons from
government. One of the highest leverage possibilities is a business that
offers its customers the means to shield their income from taxation. Taxes
become voluntary to the extent that individuals can avoid them, and when
taxes become sufficiently voluntary governments must fail. What is the
incentive for businesses to offer such services? Such businesses would be
going after a piece of the same massive revenue stream that governments now
control, the financial rewards would be immense.
I don't expect one business to step forward with a turnkey solution for
individual freedom. Rather I expect lots of businesses to attempt to carve
out their own share of that revenue stream, each of them making people a
little bit more expensive to govern. The cumulative effect will be the same.
If you can provide people with the means to protect their property and
their persons from government you won't need to waste any breath persuading
them to do so. They will overwhelmingly do so out of self-interest,
regardless of their political views.
Government can be seen as an attempt to solve public goods problems by
punishing those who defect from cooperating with the collective. The
problem with this solution is that we become prisoners of government. Our
Prisoner's Dilemma is that we'd all be better off if we collectively
defected from government, but individually we can incur severe penalties
for defection.
The solution to the dilemma is to introduce agencies which can reap
tremendous rewards for protecting individuals from the penalties government
can inflict, businesses, which can reap tremendous rewards for enabling
their clients to defect from government without penalty.
Worry about marketing market anarchy when you have a viable business plan.
Forget movements. The business of market anarchy is business.
June 19, 2002
discuss this article in the forum!
Can you help us out? Click here to see why you should support anti-state.com.
with PayPal
John T. Kennedy is a software engineer living in Connecticut. He is the
editor of No Treason and has written for Strike the Root. John is
overbooked and thoroughly spoken for.
back to anti-state.com
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga