One of the things I love about my job is the opportunity to talk to people who represent a wide range of disciplinary and ideological perspectives about ideas, even when it is only for a couple of minutes. Anarchy was a topic that came up today, and it is a subject that economists are exploring in fascinating detail. I’ve been revising my paper with Chris Coyne on the Memphis Riot of 1866, and it is convincing me that even the standard “externalities and public goods” rationales for the state are pretty weak.
Here are a couple of reading suggestions for anyone interested in learning more. I know I’m missing a lot, so feel free to leave your own suggestions in the comments.
1. The working paper version of Benjamin W. Powell and Edward P. Stringham, “Public Choice and the Economic Analysis of Anarchy,” a survey article that appeared in Public Choice.
2. The Google Books entry for Edward Stringham’s edited volume Anarchy and the Law.
3. John Hasnas, “The Obviousness of Anarchy.”
4. Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (with Power and Market).
5. Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty.
6. Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty.
7. Peter J. Boettke, “Anarchism as a Progressive Research Program in Political Economy.”
8. Ed Stringham and Todd Zywicki, “Hayekian Anarchism.”
9. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.
10. The syllabus for Peter Leeson’s graduate course “Political Economy and Public Policy II,” which does pretty much all of the work I was about to do.
Anarchism is a dynamic and serious research program in political economy. Yesterday, William Easterly lampooned what he calls the “guy named Bob” theory of economic development; more generally, a lot of economic research could be criticized as contributing to a “guy named Bob” theory of public policy: somewhere, there is someone named Bob who will flawlessly and perfectly implement our schemes. The research program in the political economy of anarchy is teaching us that Bob probably isn’t there. Happy reading, and again, if you have any suggestions, please leave them in the comments below.
{ 23 comments }
See: n the LRC bibliographies — see especially Hans-Hermann Hoppe on LewRockwell.com bibliographies including Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Anarcho-Capitalism, David Gordon on Liberty, and Lew Rockwell on Reading for Libertyand my article, The Greatest Libertarian Books
The Market for Liberty – Linda and Morris Tannehill
Democracy: The God that Failed – Hans-Hermann Hoppe (has some good theory presented on “natural order”; i.e., anarchy)
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism – Hans-Hermann Hoppe (also includes good theory on “natural order”/”pure” capitalism)
Defending the Undefendable – Walter Block (while not purely about anarchy, really helps refine the reader’s concept of the legitimate use of force in society)
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/people-and-works
I’m glad you linked this video on your website: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
P.S. – While not necessarily relating to economics or anarchism, I have a feeling that you might also like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vmHjJ7LYE
Kinsella did a good job describing the legal aspects of anarcho-capitalism. LEGISLATION AND THE DISCOVERY OF LAW IN A FREE SOCIETY by Stephan Kinsella http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf
Introduction to a Stateless Society
Excellent. It was a somewhat lengthy journey to become a full-blood anarchist, but I just couldn’t (and don’t) find a moral or ethical justification for the State. The works listed here should help any honest thinker take that journey. I started with Ethics of Liberty eons ago (when dinosaurs walked the earth, as my kids might say), but I think Powell/Stringham’s working paper is a good place for the average egghead looking for somewhere to start. To go from that to Ethics of Liberty, Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and then beyond should be fun for anyone who cares. (To celebrate your arrival, buy some fetching Mises.org Tshirts.)
Agreed.
It’s as if you must make your own grueling (yet somehow enjoyable) educational journey in which you can find no legitimate reason to side with the state on anything.
I came to accept anarchism as the only valid option through studying Jesus’ Sermon On the Mount in Matthew 5 & 6. Also Leo Tolstoy, Petr Chelčický and Adin Ballou in their theological writings have been instrumental in helping me to see how the state really is an abomination.
Leo Tolstoy:
http://www.nonresistance.org/tolstoy.html – The books that I’ve read are:
What I Believe, The Kingdom of God is Within You, The Slavery of Our Times, Letter to Liberals
Petr Chelčický:
The Net of Faith – http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/Net_of_Faith.pdf
Adin Ballou:
Christian Non-Resistance in relation to Human Governments – http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/Human_Governments.pdf
Petr Chelčický once said “You cannot improve society without first destroying the foundations of the existing social order.” and “He who obeys God needs no other authority.”
The article by Alfred Cuzan, Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?, is a great read
which really turns conventional thinking about anarchy and government on its head.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
He sees a continuum between a fully free society and what we call government. Anarchy still exists
within and around the state except that those who are allowed to participate in anarchic
relations are limited to state players. If you think about it, this is what “representation”
in a republic is meant to convey – some idea of delegated sovereignty, not the abolition of it!
A simple ready example of anarchy, of course, is that which undeniably exists between and among the
several hundred sovereign states in the world right now. But Cuzan shows that when the veil is lifted
there is *still* anarchy *within* each government, and that it could not be otherwise. A thoroughly fascinating insight!
His analysis reveals that players within the state do not have “Government” over
them. They act freely to negotiate (within a set of negotiated yet ever-changing rules which
they themselves originate and agree to) with other powerful actors to get what they want. They
are not encumbered by strict rules from “outside” and a single ruler above them. No. They make the
rules. They interpret the rules. They bend the rules. They abolish the rules. They, amongst themselves, have no ultimate arbiter between them. So the illusion of “Government” that we all have does not reflect the reality for the thing itself. Yes, we are ruled and only retain a lower order of anarchy (our family and social life, a certain range of choices which are yet to be interfered with), but state actors enjoy a higher order of anarchy for themselves and the interest groups they represent.
They may rule us but they don’t rule each other. There is no ultimate ruler. It’s basically just a smaller stage with fewer, more powerful players. The relationships are still anarchic, however, just not in relation to us. Cuzan shows this with illustrations describing the relationships. Once you grasp that anarchy is not abolished within the state structure itself, it helps you to see how a fuller anarchy – a market anarchy instead of a political one – might function. We would basically just be increasing the number and complexity of anarchic relationships.
Anarchy really isn’t something entirely new or unreal or odd at all. It really is always present is some form or another. Think of state actors as hoarding sovereignty and restricting anarchy through the imposition of force, but don’t think that they have abolished sovereignty or anarchy. They haven’t. They can’t. What they have given us is merely the worst form of anarchy because it has the fewest anarchic relationships.
Go read it. It’s fairly short and very enjoyable and stimulating.
Here’s the follow up article written 30 years later which is longer and fleshes it out more.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_1.pdf
Thanks you two. I hadn’t read this material. Will check it out now.
Sione
The Molinari Institute’s online library is second to none: http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
Besides Mises.org of course.
Wow, Leeson is really becoming a laughingstock. First it was his pirate justification for the state, then his paper on ordeals, and now his article on efficient plunder. Too foolish by half.
There’s this: http://www.amazon.com/Deleting-State-Argument-About-Government/dp/081269614X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1297959563&sr=8-3
I feel that “For a New Liberty”, “Democracy: The God that Failed” and “Ethics for Liberty” is THE trio in books.
http://analyticalanarchism.net/literature/
The Law by Frédéric Bastiat: http://fee.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/thelaw-2008.pdf
“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along
with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to
follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every
kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it
is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the
attention of my fellow-citizens to it.”
One of my favorites, but a bit of a heavy read, is Bruce Benson’s The Enterprise of Law.
…anything of benson that regards non-state legal frameworks is a must-read for would-be anarchists. his papers on customary law in the literature section are great. worth reading is also this:
http://is.gd/q6wYWd
leeson’s invisible hook is also good:
http://is.gd/cAZqVA
I think Butler Shaffer’s “Boundaries of Order” is far too unsung. Sure, the cover is boring and the title is generic, and I ignored it for a long time because of that, but underneath that is a goldmine of anarcho-capitalism.
http://mises.org/resources/4223/Boundaries-of-Order-Private-Property-as-a-Social-System
This has been another installment of bad reviews for great books.
The two living intellectual powerhouses in this topic I feel are Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Peter Leeson. I have wondered if these two have had any academic interaction with each other. If not why? The mixing of ideas between two logically potent (with pretty diverse backgrounds) purveyors of consequentialism, anarchism, and ethics is exciting to me.
Dear all,
I thought you may be interested in this BBC interview titled “Was Jesus an anarchist?”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2011/05/was_jesus_an_anarchist.html
All the best,
Adam
Comments on this entry are closed.