Story? – Max Kagi

Anarcho-Capitalism: A Wonder/land Story?

by mAx KAgi

It’s a strange thing, the economy. Since the dawn of time, humans have fought one another for possession of the world’s limited resources. As we have progress and growth, the arena has shifted to debate and the development of diverse theories on how we are to justly resolve the perennial problem of scarcity. Like all good uni students interested in economics and politics, I began my fresher year thinking about how the economy and government should be organised, and how the status quo could be challenged. It was in that year that I devoted myself to a study of Karl Marx and his famous work

The Communist Manifesto, perhaps the most famous - or infamous - economic treatise of all time. I was taken by his proposition of the total abolition of private property and the consequent sharing of all the world’s resources by the community as a whole. I was cautious, however, of the proposition that a government could be trusted with the process of redistribution. Marx’s theories have been studied in exceptional depth for more than 150 years, and continue to provoke vociferous debate today. While Communism remains a well-known economic theory, far less considered is the ideology known as ‘AnarchoCapitalism’, a more modern concept and the arch-rival of Communism on just about every point of theory and practice.

For those of you who have accumulated your fair share of late night binges on Reddit, you may already be familiar with the basic propositions of this theory - advocated by economists such as Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. While Communism is, in essence, predicated on the abolition of private property, Anarcho-Capitalism supports the abolition of public property. That is, all property would be privately owned and government as a whole would cease to exist. Goods and services would be allocated on the basis of supply and demand, down to the most basic and essential level, including civil protection, the armed forces, and even the law. Contracts would be drawn up between organisations to ensure cooperation where necessary and fair play, though no higher power would possess the power to intervene. Taxation would be totally absent, and thus redistribution of wealth, and welfare itself, would cease to exist.

This is a very far-reaching theory, one that even the staunchest Libertarians would struggle to imagine, let alone consider a feasible method of social and economic organisation. Proponents of the idea have emphasised the lack of motivation in government to provide goods and services at a high level of quality, given that they are not motivated by a profit proportional to their success, and that placing all government services on the market would allow for competition and the pursuit of higher standards. It is a fact that we, as a society, express endless frustration with the incompetence of our politicians and the bureaucracy of government services. It may thus be tempting to dream of doing away with it all, adopting a system of unadulterated economic and personal freedom. However, there are a multitude of holes in the theory, preventing any realistic belief that it could, or should, ever be implemented.

The total rule of the economy on a supply and demand basis, as expressed by anarchocapitalist theorists, presupposes that all human beings are motivated solely by the desire to accumulate wealth. While this is true for many members of society, the desire for power and safety – the driving force of

politics – constitutes a significant influence in society, ensuring that a government of some sort would form under any conditions. Furthermore, basic altruism has its place as well, with certain members of society wishing merely to ‘do what is right’; these people are not highly incentivised by profit. While capitalists play an important role in society, theirs is not the only role, and their values cannot be generalised to everyone. The issue of stability is also critical, as it is impossible to imagine that an Anarcho-Capitalist society could truly remain functional. Defenders of the ideology believe that the market is totally self-regulating, and that government intervention of any kind is merely detrimental. However, there would be no free market at all if government did not intervene to prevent monopolies and unethical business activities, as society would risk falling under the power of a mafia-style kleptocracy.

Unlike Communism, which has been implemented nominally, Anarcho-Capitalism has not even been attempted at any point in history. This is indicative either of its lack of ideological appeal to the masses, or its impracticality. The notion of a stateless society may give rise to the belief in a kind of absolute freedom; however, tyranny would be waiting right around the corner in this hypothetical society. History has shown that almost any kind of attempt at implementing an anarchical form of social and political organisation will inevitably result in a power vacuum, with the vacant role of government inevitably being filled by some new power, generally worse than what came before. Anarcho-Capitalism would likely be no exception.

Nonetheless, it is a fascinating thought experiment. More than likely, it was thought up by a community of free-market dreamers, who themselves were probably playing devil’s advocate. From my own reading into the subject, it has forced me to reconsider the roles and responsibilities of government within society, as well as the degree to which it should intervene in the market, and indeed people’s private lives as a whole. Between the two extremes of the Communist and Anarcho-Capitalist society, there is much discussion left to be had on where exactly our country should stand.

For those interested in reading further into Anarcho-Capitalism, I recommend Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1985) and David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom (2014).

WE SATISFY YOUR TRAVEL URGES BY EXPLORING POLITICAL ISSUES FROM AROUND THE GLOBE!

Phoebe levin is too complex to be summed up in a one-word bio

Nearly 300 kilometres up the river from Asunción (the capital of Paraguay), behind an entrance reminiscent (in placement only) of the Brandenburg gate, lies Nueva Germania – what was supposed to be the manifestation of a white supremacist utopia in South America. Settled in 1887 by Bernard Förster, his wife Elisabeth FörsterNietzsche (sister of Friedrich), and 14 families who passed racial purity screenings, the German settlement was free of Jews, but full of mosquitoes – which, unbeknownst to Förster and many anti-Semites it seems, are much more lethal).

The settlers’ faith in their own ‘Aryan supremacy’ seemed misplaced, as upon arrival most of them died of starvation, disease, and malaria. Those who survived for the most part left Nueva Germania, leaving a small – mostly blood-related – group behind. Obviously, to preserve their racial integrity this led the constituents to procreate among themselves; yes, this means the residents were sleeping with their immediate family — a sure sign of racial superiority!

The people who had stayed to follow Förster soon became disillusioned with the utopia he promised them, leading to his suicide in 1889 after abandoning the settlers, and his wife’s return to Germany. The following century led to an assimilated and culturally diverse community; despite being the antithesis of what the Aryan settlers initially imagined it to be, it was, amazingly, what they had aimed at achieving all along – a true wonder/land.

As time passed following Förster’s death, settlers realised that it was only through the generosity of the Paraguayan people (who were certainly not Aryan), and the information they bestowed on them, that they could survive. This included teaching them where to find fresh water and what crops to grow (manioc instead of German potatoes). This led to the assimilation of cultures with most inhabitants today speaking a combination of German and Guarani – an Indigenous South American language.

While some Nazi sentiment has remained in the area – with rumours suggesting that the infamous Auschwitz scientist Josef Mengele escaped there following WW2 – for the most part, the community is a melting pot of cultures. The wonder/land Nueva Germania is today, as an integrated and multicultural community, is very different to the wonderland sought out by Förster and his disciples 134 years ago, but it is certainly much more palatable.