Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution

Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution are the disparate views held by anarcho-capitalists on the desirability of seeking to achieve a freer society through the violent overthrow or dissolution of the current state. Anarcho-capitalists often draw on the views of a variety of libertarians. Radicals for Capitalism notes, "Libertarians have always been more likely to head to a bookstore than an armory, which some think is half the problem."

Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution and state that it was not really a revolution per se, but simply an effort of the colonists to preserve the freedom they had enjoyed during the preceding 150 years, which in some cases, even included anarchy in the United States.

Arguments for and against

Civil disorder and repression

David D. Friedman argues in The Machinery of Freedom that "ivil disorder leads to more government, not less. It may topple one government, but it creates a situation in which people desire another and stronger. Hitler's regime followed the chaos of the Weimar years. Russian communism is a second example, a lesson for which the anarchists of Kronstadt paid dear. Napoleon is a third."

Linda and Morris Tannehill likewise argue in The Market for Liberty, "ot only is violent revolutionary action destructive, it actually strengthens the government by giving it a 'common enemy' to unite the people against. Violence against the government by a minority always gives the politicians an excuse to increase repressive measures in the name of 'protecting the people.' In fact, the general populace usually join the politicians' cry for 'law and order.'"

Samuel Edward Konkin III, LPRadicals founder, made this prediction about revolutionary times:

Bryan Caplan likewise argues that "when terrorism succeeds in destroying an existing government, it merely creates a power vacuum without fundamentally changing anyone's mind about the nature of power. The predictable result is that a new state, worse than its predecessor, will swiftly appear to fill the void." This seems to contradict his earlier assertion that once anarchy is achieved, a state will not re-emerge because of "the degree of competition likely to prevail in the defense industry" and the facts "that war is likely to be very unprofitable and dangerous, and is more likely to be provoked by ideology than sober profit-maximization; and that economic theory and economic history show that collusion is quite difficult to maintain."

===Anarcho-capitalist revolution as a "just war"===
Lew Rockwell raises the example of the American Revolution, asking, "ho writing about politics today might have joined the founding fathers in their conspiracy to overthrow imperial rule? The question is an important one because this event, more than any other in our history, embodies the core of the American political idea, that men are entitled to liberty from despots. This idea, the founders believed, ought to be acted upon by real people against really existing governments."

Murray Rothbard opines, "A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them...A group of people may have rights, but it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, to defend or safeguard such rights."

Inevitability of revolution
Another argument for anarcho-capitalist revolution is that revolution is inevitable; thus, it is better that it be an anarcho-capitalist revolution rather than one that will institute a tyrannical regime. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that, in the absence of revolution, the parasitic state is destined to continue growing until it destroys the economy on which it feeds; at which point, the state will perish as well, either from rebellion or outside attack. In such cases, the organized force that was strong enough to deliver the coup de grace to the state would presumably supplant it as the new ruler. Thus, the only way to break the cycle of statist aggression and attain a purely free society would be to launch anarcho-capitalist revolution prior to the economy's destruction.

Wendy McElroy believes that even if libertarians do succeed in attaining power, they will then turn on anarchists:

Methods
Non-cooperation with the state
It is argued by Rothbard and others that if enough people stop cooperating with the state through tax resistance and other civil disobedience, the state could collapse. A counter-argument is that illegal forms of non-cooperation expose one to prosecution just as violent revolution does; thus, unless one wants to continually be imprisoned, one will have to eventually abide by the laws. Moreover, government countermeasures against tax evasion, such as payroll withholding of taxes, make it difficult for many people to avoid supporting the system. Given the impracticality of sustained disobedience, one may as well opt for extremely disruptive tactics designed not just to slightly hinder the government's efforts but to actually intimidate the oppressors, to the point where they will let libertarians secede and live undisturbed by statist aggression.
Methods for anarcho-capitalist revolution often rely, logically enough, on entrepreneurial ideas. For instance, Jim Bell tried to create an assassination market, but was ultimately prosecuted. Thomas Wales, a prosecutor in the case, was subsequently assassinated.
Bruce L. Benson writes:

The choice of people, organizations and methods used to destroy government could prove quite influential upon the structure of society in its aftermath. In history, the seizure of enemy capitals has often led to the occupying power using the state apparatus to become the new ruler. The Tannehills feared the tendency of revolutionary leaders to seize power:

Konkin was one of the foremost supporters of libertarian economic secession, advocating that the revolutionaries use counter-economics.

Carol Moore states that secession should take place in a nonviolent manner, echoing the sentiments of others that violence will only make libertarians look bad and incite more government repressions against "extremists."

Violence
Rothbard warns against harming innocents; however, left unstated is whether killings of government officials involved in the use of deadly force for extortion of tax dollars counts as murder:

In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard notes:

One argument against violence is that government oppression has not yet reached a level of grievousness that would justify such a response. Rothbard notes that the principle of proportionality would not justify, for instance, a shopkeeper killing someone for stealing a piece of bubble gum; in that instance, the shopkeeper would be the worse criminal. He notes, "Defensive violence...must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else’s." He cites the example of a mugger demanding a wallet at the point of a gun: "He might not have molested you physically during this encounter, but he has extracted money from you on the basis of a direct, overt threat that he would shoot you if you disobeyed his commands. He has used the threat of invasion to obtain your obedience to his commands, and this is equivalent to the invasion itself."

Fred Woodworth argues that violence is an ineffective method of effecting revolution, compared to writing:

Timing
The U.S. Declaration of Independence notes that "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Some libertarians argue that the time is not right for revolution; that it would be better to wait until the state becomes more oppressive, so that the people will more readily seek radical change. Pierre Lemieux counters this by noting that, in comparison to the French Revolution, the American Revolution did not need to be devastating and totalitarian, because the tyrant fought by the American revolutionaries was a very weak one. Thus, it had better outcomes for liberty:

Related topics
* Anarchism and violence
* Anarcho-capitalist literature
* Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism
* Controversies within libertarianism

External link
*Frequently asked questions about anarcho-capitalist revolution

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu