Confessions of an Ex-Anarcho-Libertarian

It was the year 2012, I lived on University Avenue and I was an anarchocapitalist. It was something I was very proud of at the time because I thought it was the most logical conclusion of the libertarian non-coercion principle. For those whom do not know what anarchocapitalism is it is a wing of the libertarian movement which thinks the ultimate end goal of libertarianism is a stateless society. The reason for needing to get rid of the state is because all states by being monopolies backed by coercion are morally illegitimate. Thus statelessness is the end goal to an AnCap and not just a limited government.

However, before you think I was in favor of something I was not let me explain what I had considered a stateless society or Anarchic-Capitalism to look like. It was not what some people whom use the terminology anarcho-capitalism might use it to mean. My vision of what this world looked like will also explain why I was so easily persuaded by what would be considered the traditional Auberon Herbert "Volumtaryist Creed." The original Voluntaryism was not anarchistic, but, instead was a term for a radical advocate for limited government against all forms of initiating coercion. Limited Government Libertarians and Objectivism in politics are the modern incarnations closest to the original Voluntaryism.

Amarchocapitalism to me did not mean as some use it now a market in law creation based on peoples whims. It did not mean a subjectivist wet dream or chaos creators dream environment. Anarchocapitalism meant to me a world where no state existed, but, in its place was an objective agreed to libertarian legal code. This code would be objective and mandatory to follow with laws that if broken were punishable using retaliatory force. I was essentially for a completely private and stateless world, but, not for a lawless one. What I was for was for was the privatization of everything that moves and everything that does not move (as it was worded by Walter Block). However, it being done under the coordination of a libertarian legal code. It would have laws all private entities would need to follow, but, not enforced by a state enforced by private police, courts and so forth.

However, said private entities would not be able to do whatever they wanted. It would be reigned in by said libertarian legal code. Which would include things like making pollution based externalizations being considered infringements on the individual rights of other people that would be affected by it. Pollution would be treated as an invasion of all of your neighbors property rights and dealt with accordingly. Once again though there would be no state no one entity with a monopoly backed by the use of initiatory coercion. Instead all of the laws would be enforced and agreed upon by all private entities involved. If you did not want to agree or if you broke them you would be dealt with accordingly. However, you would be enforced to act accordingly by all the other entities that did agree with the law code and it would be these other entities that you would need to deal with.

It was this always supporting a Mono-Centric and agreed upon legal code that helped lead me out of anarcho-libertarianism and back into minarchism. It led me to rethink if a world without a government to enforce the legal code on others would be able to make people fall into line with not harming others or their property. After all in a world without such an entity could you really expect the numerous private cops, courts and such to police other same entities on the market? What if not enough entities agreed to the legal code? What if some agreed and others did not at such high amounts it caused civil wars in the streets between policing companies?

Then I discovered Objectivism and that helped me discover minarchism could be completely consistent with the defense of individual rights. In fact, in between that and doing further reading I realized it was the only way to consistently enforce the non-harm of people or property on a large scale. Governments are required for enforcing the very libertarian legal code Murray Rothbard said would need to exist to have a libertarian world. However, I still have an ideal of a free society that has not changed at all. I just have a different vision of what that entails. My views are along the lines of the traditional "Voluntaryists Creed." In fact, all Objectivists in their politics would fall into the creed of that classic document of human liberty. Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on egoism and selfishness on politics her ideal end state is very similar to Auberon Herbert.

In the end I never changed having a political and economical moral code based on non-initiation of harm or coercion. I simply discovered my methods to getting there would not really defend the individual human rights I was an AnCap to spread to the world. The reason I changed my mind is because I am serious about peaceful and voluntary life. Anarchism I found could not create and maintain a free, peaceful and prosperous society for all. However, my current form of radical minarchism if you will is a more realistic and possible path to that end goal of freedom for all peaceful people.