Newhard's Analysis of Anarcho-Capitalism Flawed

Dear Editor,

Thanks for Joseph Newhard's earnest and well reasoned attempt to refute anarcho-capitalism as a theory.

Though he writes very well, and obviously knows a good deal about the theory and the major figures (Rothbard, Hoppe, others), his argument fails.

Private security agencies are expected to emerge despite the presence of gang warfare and the systematic aggression of tyrants and criminals alike. I believe that this notion is false, and is demonstrably so on empirical grounds.

Private security agencies exist now. Private judges (called arbitrators) exists now. Period. Newhard implies that "well, they don't really prove much". Hogwash - you want empirical evidence, there you have it.

Monopolist governments currently permit citizens some leeway to provide for their own self-defense. Whether consumers and producers of private security engage in free exchange on the market now depends on 1) how far the governments allow them to go, and 2) how badly governments fail in providing their own security services. In a free society security production is expected to multiply not _despite_ rogue aggressors, but on _account_ of them.

Also, anarchists don't naively believe in man's good nature, and that aggressors must first be banished to establish a free society. This is a common smear - that anarchism is utopian. Read Rothbard's 'For a New Liberty' for exhaustive refutation of this criticism. Yes, the monopoly state must be banished for a free society to emerge, but not the odd antisocial gang. Its irrelevant whether this happens through armed revolt or long-term ideological warfare.

I insist that the prerequisites for the emergence of anarcho-capitalism already exist within the American society, and that the fact that it has not yet manifested itself represents a serious flaw in anarcho-capitalist theory.

So, Newhard's first two contentions - that current private security production "doesn't count", and that anarchists are naive - are wrong.

That renders his follow-up assertions wrong, too. I must say I'm surprised to hear a good Randian spin a syllogism like this:

1. Anarchist theory says private security will arise amidst aggression *false/confused*
2. There is rampant aggression in the US today *true*
3. Anarchism is not here now *true*
4. Anarchist theory is flawed *false*

Anyway, I thought Randians were supposed to look down their noses at such facile appeals to 'empirical reality'. It's bad enough to attack the libertarian right using such bad logic. I sure hope Newhard doesn't use the same argument against our common enemies on the left:

1. Socialism hasn't worked yet
2. Socialism is flawed.

Best,

Ben Sommer
http://www.bensommer.com/