Blog Comments

  1. Wesker1982's Avatar
    What about criminal courts?

    I don’t think it could be summed up any better than by Rothbard, from For a New Liberty:

    What of the court which favors its own wealthy client in trouble? In the first place, any such favoritism will be highly unlikely, given the rewards and sanctions of the free market economy. The very life of the court, the very livelihood of a judge, will depend on his reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, objectivity, and the quest for truth in every case. This is his “brand name.” Should word of any venality leak out, he will immediately lose clients and the courts will no longer have customers; for even those clients who may be criminally inclined will scarcely sponsor a court whose decisions are no longer taken seriously by the rest of society, or who themselves may well be in jail for dishonest and fraudulent dealings. If, for example, Joe Zilch is accused of a crime or breach of contract, and he goes to a “court” headed by his brother-in-law, no one, least of all other, honest courts will take this “court’s” decision seriously. It will no longer be considered a “court” in the eyes of anyone but Joe Zilch and his family.

    Contrast this built-in corrective mechanism to the present day government courts. Judges are appointed or elected for long terms, up to life, and they are accorded a monopoly of decision-making in their particular area. It is almost impossible, except in cases of gross corruption, to do anything about venal decisions of judges. Their power to make and to enforce their decisions continues unchecked year after year. Their salaries continue to be paid, furnished under coercion by the hapless taxpayer. But in the totally free society, any suspicion of a judge or court will cause their customers to melt away and their “decisions” to be ignored. This is a far more efficient system of keeping judges honest than the mechanism of government.

    Furthermore, the temptation for venality and bias would be far less for another reason: business firms in the free market earn their keep, not from wealthy customers, but from a mass market by consumers. Macy’s earns its income from the mass of the population, not from a few wealthy customers. The same is true of Metropolitan Life Insurance today, and the same would be true of any “Metropolitan” court system tomorrow. It would be folly indeed for the courts to risk the loss of favor by the bulk of its customers for the favors of a few wealthy clients. But contrast the present system, where judges, like all other politicians, may be beholden to wealthy contributors who finance the campaigns of their political parties.
    Why advocate this system? If you oppose theft, you should oppose a system reliant on taxes. Taxation is theft, purely and simply. Not only should you oppose it because of it relies on theft, but also because everything provided by taxation can be provided more efficiently by voluntary organization.

    Keep in mind that this is a very basic introduction. It was designed to give you a basic idea of how a society could function without taxation. It is by no means comprehensive. I take no responsibility for coming up with any of the ideas here. I tried to take important points from great works and put it into something digestible for a wide audience.

    [1] Taxation is Theft: A Response to Criticisms

    [2] Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now by Robert Higgs

    [3] The Cost Of Public Income Distribution and Private Charity by James Rolph Edwards

    For a great introduction video, see The Market For Security by Robert P. Murphy:

    For more on common objections see:

    What About Criminal Courts? Won’t The Rich Take Over?

    Won’t Gangs Battle Or The Rich Rule?

    Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?

    What About Warring Defense Providers?
  2. Wesker1982's Avatar
    How would people be protected from the violent criminals?

    Just because defense services are not paid through taxation does not mean they will not exist. Voluntarily funded police services will be provided for the purpose of defense. They will be provided by insurance agencies, road producers, neighborhood associations, malls, etc. It is almost like asking how Disney Land would protect people without taxation. Well, they already do! They have defense provided for all of their customers. Why? Because a safe business is a profitable business. Of course not everywhere is like Disney Land, but you can see that these services are provided. Any road or business absent of any protection will lose business to the safer alternatives.

    Individuals might also want personal protection, which will be provided if there is a market for it. What I think is more likely is that neighborhoods and communities will collectively provide or pay for protection since it would be more economically feasible for most people.

    Not only would defense services exist, they would also be more efficient.

    Would there be prisons?

    This would probably differ from community to community, or area to area. It would depend on the values and norms of the consumers. People who felt strongly one way or the other about this would choose to live in communities where their beliefs are commonly shared. If we implemented this system without anyone moving from physical location, most communities would probably have prisons. It is deeply ingrained in our culture. I don’t see them going anywhere anytime soon. Given that, I think if this society formed the way I explained earlier, then there is a strong chance that ostracism would completely replace prison.

    With that said, any prisons that did exist in our tax-free society would be much better and more humane than what we currently have. “Private” prisons that you are likely thinking of now are not market phenomenon. They are funded through taxation which means they don’t face market pressure. Because they are paid through taxation, they have no incentive to please the consumer. They get paid regardless of how good of a product they produce. Prisons would be radically different if funded through voluntary means (insurance agencies, courts, etc.). Any prison that mistreats inmates would lose prisoners to the better alternatives.

    What about the poor?

    Would the poor be able to afford defense? It is important to understand that the current tax based system is especially bad for the poor. To start, because the police are paid regardless of whether or not they are serving the consumer, it is common for them to avoid especially poor neighborhoods due to the high crime rates. The poor are paying a high price for police protection, yet this does not mean they actually get any protection provided.

    The police have little incentive to patrol dangerous and poor neighborhoods. They still get paid, even if a neighborhood stays particularly crime ridden. Not only do they not suffer from not preventing crimes, they actually have incentives to allow crime! What could these incentives be? The more crime there is, the bigger budget the police department gets. Contrast this to the incentives facing people who have to receive their income voluntarily. The incentives are the complete opposite. Non-tax funded police would be much more concerned with prevention. It would be their top priority. For if they fail to protect an area, they lose money. Instead of giving a failing service more money, the money will go to a more efficient provider.

    The competition will also lower the price. Think of all of the things the poor can currently afford. Computers, cars, high-definition television, cell phones, etc. They are affordable because there is a mass market and competition. The police are currently monopolized, which means they face no competition, which means they can keep prices high. Where the market is allowed to function, prices continually fall. The prices of government provided police continue to rise, even though the quality of service does not, or even declines.

    For many poor people, the protection will be provided by apartment complexes or street providers. Because it would follow that if someone is that poor, they probably don’t own their own house. If they own their own house, it is probably in a neighborhood which provides defense.

    Because of zoning laws, in many places it is illegal to have a business in apartment complexes. This means poor people have to pay more for travel expenses to reach goods. But what is interesting to point out here is that if people were allowed to cater to poor people, say in the basement of a low-income apartment complex, it is likely that security would be provided for free by a business owner. Instead of herding poor people into tax funded and crime ridden apartment complexes, there would be more people competing for their business. One of the goods offered to entice poor people into your apartment complex might be security. This is just an idea worth considering.

    It is worth mentioning that society as whole would be much more productive and wealthy without taxes. Around 60% of every dollar that is taxed[3] goes to pay bureaucrats and overhead. So when a poor person is taxed $1, they are not receiving anywhere close to $1 in services. Without taxes, they paychecks would be bigger, and they would receive more services per dollar.

    Any people who happen to still be poor in the extremely wealthy economy will either be provided defense for free from defense providers or from charity. People right now give a huge amount of money to charity, even though a lot of their earnings are stolen through taxation. People would be even more generous with charity if taxation were abolished.

    It is important to remember that everyone who owns a business, road, apartment, etc. will be providing security. So it is very unlikely that poor people will go without defense. One thing for certain is that they will definitely get more defense than they do now.

    The same basic analysis can apply to the court system. Tax funded courts are clogged and expensive. If there were a mass market for arbitrators and courts, the increased supply would greatly reduce prices.

    What about corrupt defense services or courts?

    First it is important to understand defense providers and courts would have no special protection when it comes to them committing criminal acts. If a crooked judge or cop is found to be guilty of a crime, they will have no special immunities. This alone is a very strong incentive to refrain from criminal activity.

    What if a defense agency tries to extort people? What if they turn into criminals? They would be dealt the same as any other criminal gang. The non-criminal defense providers would put a stop to their attack. Wouldn’t this mean constant battles? As explained earlier, there are many incentives for resolving disputes peacefully.

    It is also worth nothing that aggression is very expensive. When governments wage wars, they are not paying for the costs. They force the costs onto the taxpayers. What would happen if a voluntarily funded provider tried to raise money to become aggressive? Without taxation to fund conflicts, there is less incentive to engage in one. Customers would not pay for the enormous price increases when there would be cheaper and more civil alternatives. The costs will be immediately and very apparent (unlike the hidden costs masked by inflation and debt funding etc. of current wars), and it would require the bulk of the population of a given area to agree with such aggression in order for the agency to voluntarily receive sufficient funds. If the bulk of a population in a given area is willing to fund such non-defensive violence, then the bulk of the population in this given area are aggressive maniacs and no social ‘system’ could possibly manage to prevent violence.

    People would refuse to do business with any defense agency who refused transparency. Since we can foresee possible problems, we could include in the contract mandatory weapon and arms audits, inspections, inventory checks, etc. If an agency violates the terms in the contract, they would quickly lose reputation and go out of business.

    We also have to ask, how does a business grow in the first place? How does a defense provider become successful? In a voluntary market we can assume that a defense provider would become successful by satisfying consumer demands. We can also assume that the owners of the company are probably good businessmen and entrepreneurs. Is it likely for a person to be a successful businessman but also be out of their mind?

  3. Wesker1982's Avatar
    What if people refuse to agree to any contracts or dispute resolution processes?

    There would be many incentives for people to make contractual agreements. People would want some sort of reassurance that you are trustworthy before they are willing to hire you or make serious exchanges. People will be more hesitant to interact with someone who refuses to decrease the chance of any possible future conflict. Anyone who refuses to provide any reassurance would only be interacted with on minor, if any, exchanges.

    Of course people would be free to interact with risky individuals if they wished, but since no one else is involuntarily involved, there is no problem.

    What about people who disagree on “the law” ?

    This problem can be anticipated by consumers. People don’t want confusing and unpredictable laws. Why are ATM machines standardized even though different people produce them, and different banks issue debit cards? Why are DVD players standardized to accept the same size disc, even though the movies are from different studios and the DVD players are made by different manufacturer? The reason why is because people prefer standardization. Any ATM or DVD player that accepted different sized cards or discs than the standard would quickly go out of business.

    From the Enterprise of Law, Justice Without the State by Bruce L. Benson:

    Laws for members of a community may be relatively restrictive, but the laws that apply to outsiders will have to be moderated if the community is to survive. Sheed concluded that while laws will not be uniform, there is a strong tendency for them to standardize in the treatment of violence and commerce “due to considerations of transactions costs and the costs of maintaining a stock of knowledge of other laws. Differences would exist only in those areas where the demand for non-standard enforcement over-rides the economies of standardization. These areas would consist largely of enforcement demands based on moral and religious conviction.”
    The vast majority of people agree on laws in regards to violence and theft, so naturally laws will standardize around these widely held agreements. In short, people who think rape and murder should be lawful will find themselves in isolated communities (which will probably self-destruct).

    Precisely because some people have different ideas of law and justice is a great reason to oppose the territorial monopolies on law, which imposes the same views on everyone. Instead of people self-governing in their own communities, you have everyone trying to gain control of the State in attempt to either impose their view or defend it. This struggle to gain control of the single producer of law is what creates a true war of all against all.

    What happens to convicted criminals?

    For minor crimes, convicted criminals would be sentenced by the courts to pay restitution. The exact amount of restitution is impossible to predict, but I think we can assume it would be enough to discourage crime. If someone stole $10, and all they had to do was pay back $10, there is little incentive to not steal if the most you will have to do is give back the property you took. So I think in general, the successful courts would be the ones who had punishments that consumers felt were fitting. The criminal might have to pay the $10 back to the victim plus more for the inconvenience, pay court fees, etc. Insurance would also play an important role in a society without taxation, so it is also likely that the criminals insurance rates would go up since he has shown to be aggressive, thus more risky to insure. What if the criminal refuses to pay restitution? First, their insurance company would pay the victim. Then the criminal would owe his insurance company the restitution that was paid to the victim, and the insurance rates would go up. How much money the criminal owed and how long he refused to pay would determine the course of action from here. For a small owed sum, his rates would slowly continue to rise and interest could be added to the debt. At any point the criminal could pay off his restitution, fees, etc. and be back in good standing.

    If the debt got bad enough, then eventually the insurance company would drop him, and he would become the type of untrustworthy person described earlier. He would in effect become an outlaw. The first thing this would do is make him virtually unemployable. People might scoff at this, but consider for a moment how hard it is in our current society to get a job with a criminal record. Without dispute resolution provided through taxation, people would put even more importance on things like reputation and criminal records. So what about the really dangerous and aggressive people? First of all, they would obviously face the same consequences as our petty criminals described earlier. But surely if someone is violent and aggressive, they might try to impose their will on you. So refusing to interact with them will not suffice. What would happen is they would be physically prevented from entering virtually everyone’s homes, streets, businesses, etc. In effect, they would be ostracized to the point of banishment. With no job, they would not be able to pay their heat, electricity, and water bills. They would have no money for food or water. Even if they had money under their mattress, they would be prohibited from going into a store for food. They would have no means to obtain the necessary goods to sustain their life.

    Why would they be prohibited from going into grocery stores? Because any store catering to aggressive, violent, and dangerous individuals would lose business very quickly. They would also find it hard to insure their store if they knowingly subject themselves to unnecessary risk. The same principles would to apply for roads, etc.

  4. Wesker1982's Avatar
  5. Wesker1982's Avatar
    The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State’s existence, for its monopoly of force depends on its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. - Murray Rothbard
  6. Wesker1982's Avatar
  7. Wesker1982's Avatar
    Updated List Continued

    Social Contract Debate: + + + added 8/14/11

    Historical Examples

    Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
    The Mild, Mild West by John Tierney
    An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill
    Ireland's Success with the Free Market and Anarchism from For a New Liberty, I think.
    Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law by Joseph R. Peden
    Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690 by Murray Rothbard added 6/16/11


    Living in a State-Run World by Murray Rothbard
    May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government? by Walter Block
    Is there a Human Right to Medical Insurance by Walter Block
    Hobbes, Minarchism, and Anarchy by Stephen Krogh (short audio, 12 mins)
    Anarchy and Democracy by Stefan Molyneux (video)
    Taking Care of the Poor in a Free Society by Stefan Molyneux (video)
    Mises Panel Discussion Live FAQ with Roderick Long, Walter Block, Jacob Huebert, Yuri Maltsev and Doug French (video)
    Wage Slavery by Stargazer5781 (video)
    The Immaculate Conception of the State by Murray Rothbard (The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.-Rothbard)
    Somalia by Pete Leeson (short video.)
    The Unconstitutionality of Slavery by Lysander Spooner added 6/10/11
    Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau added 6/10/11
    Vices Are Not Crimes by Lysander Spooner added 6/15/11
    Anarchy in Somalia by Bob P. Murphy added 6/30/11
    Understanding Somalia and Anarchy (1:10:00 to 1:32:00) by Peter Leeson (The whole presentation is great, highly recommended.) added 6/30/11
    The Tale of the Slave by Robert Nozick added 7/05/11
    The Inner Contradictions of the State by Murray Rothbard (video) added 8/10/11

    Various Informative Forum Discussions and Posts

    How might child abuse be handled in a stateless society?
    Minarchists or Anarchists?
    Some problematic scenarios (for anarchy)
    Two reputable courts producing different decisions
    Short FAQ (funding,children,roads)
    Dispute Resolution System in a Libertarian Society
    Somalia, Criminal Courts, Anarchic Ireland
    Help me understand anarcho-capitalism... (basically a FAQ thread)
    Voluntary Law Society Questions Answered and and added 8/06/11
    Law Without Government and added 8/06/11
  8. Wesker1982's Avatar
    Updated List media page. FREE BOOKS! added 7/27/11

    General/Introductions to Anarcho-Capitalism

    Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique by Murray Rothbard (Rothbard destroys many common criticisms against the market, absolutely a must read, for minarchists too.)
    The State is Not Great by Jacob Spinney (best video intro in existence. VERY GOOD.)
    Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ by Hogeye Bill
    The Obviousness of Anarchy by John Hasnas
    Evil Monopolies Are Fairy Tales In Free Markets by Jacob Spinney (great video)
    Fear of Monopoly by Brad Edmonds
    Monopolies by D.T. Armentano (In an economy free of governmental regulation, wouldn't a firm or group of firms obtain a monopoly over some vital resource or product?)
    The Myth of Natural Monopoly by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    Taxes are the price we pay to... by Mike P (taxation, self ownership, democracy)
    What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer
    What Libertarianism Is by Stephan Kinsella
    Disproving the State by Stefan Molyneux
    The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block
    The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists by Murray Rothbard
    The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives by Stefan Molyneux
    Introduction to a Stateless Society Introduction list with multiple articles and authors
    The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard
    Society Without a State by Murray Rothbard (Rothbard defines the State and Anarchy here)
    Forget The Argument From Efficiency by Stefan Molyneux
    War, Peace, and the State by Murray Rothbard (philosophy on nukes here)
    Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now by Robert Higgs
    Anarchy and the 'Problem of the Commons' by Stefan Molyneux
    Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control:a Spatial and Geographical Analysis by Walter Block (theory on nukes included)
    Arguments Against Anarchy by Jarret B. Wollstein (warring defense agencies)
    Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections by Roderick T. Long
    Objectivism and The State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy A. Childs, Jr.
    Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapproachment Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan by Walter Block
    Anarchy by Pete Leeson (very good video.)
    Introduction: The Six Questions, and FAQ by Stefan Molyneux, added 6/04/11
    Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? by Murray Rothbard added 6/15/11
    What Are You Calling 'Anarchy'? by Robert P. Murphy added 6/15/11
    What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist by Stephan Kinsella added 6/16/11
    Market Anarchism: Are You Guys Crazy, or Just Nuts? by Stefan Molyneux added 6/16/11
    Anarchy, Government, and the State by Sentient Void added 6/28/11
    Privatize the Highways — and All Roads for That Matter by by Zachary Slayback added 8/03/11

    Anarchy,Law, and Security

    Chaos Theory (Private Law and Defense) by Bob Murphy added 6/09/11
    The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas
    Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution by Murray Rothbard
    Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion by Bruce L. Benson
    Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts, and the Police by David Osterfeld
    Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market by George H. Smith
    The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
    Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard
    How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse? by Walter Block
    But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? by Robert P. Murphy
    Criminal Private Courts by Murray Rothbard (awesome video, 10 mins)
    Justice Without the State by Bruce L. Benson (short 3 min intro to private order)
    How a Free Society Prevents the Re-emergence of a Government by Stefan Molyneux
    The Stateless Society and the Protection of Children by Stefan Molyneux
    Pollution by Murray Rothbard
    Outlaw Protectors by Murray Rothbard (text of Criminal Private Courts)
    Collective Defense by Stefan Molyneux
    Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella ( Audio Book ) added 6/15/11
    Polycentric Governance by Bruce L. Benson added 6/15/11
    Anarchy Unbound, Or: Why Self-Governance Works Better Than You Think by Pete Leeson added 6/15/11
    The Possibility of Private Law by Robert P. Murphy added 6/15/11
    Law and Appeals in a Free Society by Robert P. Murphy added 6/15/11
    Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime by Morris and Linda Tannehill added 6/15/11
    Private Defense Is No Laughing Matter By Robert P. Murphy added 6/15/11
    Legislation and Law in a Free Society by Stephan Kinsella added 6/21/11
    Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society by Stephan Kinsella added 6/21/11
    State or Private Law Society? by Hans-Hermann Hoppe added 6/21/11 (video)
    Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection by Murray Rothbard added 7/22/11
    Legislation and Objective Law by Morris and Linda Tannehill added 8/02/11
    The Market for Security by Robert Murphy (video) added 8/12/11
  9. Instead of Politics's Avatar
    You may also want to include my book "Instead of Politics: (Civilization 101)" in your list. This book, which is available through major distributors such as Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Books a Million, smashes every form of politics by simple logic and elementary economics (and is interspersed with hundreds of hilarious cartoons by the famous cartoonist Rex F. May - AKA Baloo).
    Updated 06-14-2011 at 10:10 PM by Instead of Politics (important addition to reference list)
  10. ProIndividual's Avatar
    I'll try to keep in the vein of free online I'll see what I can find for free, like articles and excerpts from books or interviews. These guys had debates too, of which I may be able to find free transcripts.

    This is what I found with the limited time I had this morning (mostly pulling from Wikipedia's "sources" sections):

    The Manifesto by Josiah Warren

    True Civilization by Josiah Warren

    Josiah Warren and the Sovereignty of the Individual by Ann Caldwell Butler

    Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist, by Jeff Riggenbach

    Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One by Benjamin Tucker

    Travelling in Liberty: a complete online archive of Tucker's journal Liberty (1881–1908)

    Henry David Thoreau’s “Re*sis*tance to Civil Gov*ern*ment” or, “Civil Dis*o*be*di*ence” (1849)

    Mutual Banking by William Batchelder Greene (an early End the Fed sentiment, albeit from the "Left")

    Uncivil Liberty: An Essay to Show the Injustice and Impolicy of Ruling Woman Without Her Consent (1873) by Ezra Heywood (an early free love and feminist work)

    Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty by Lysander Spooner




    Lysander Spooner, Address of the Free Constitutionalists to the People of the United States [1860]

    "Most early individualist anarchists, in the words of anarcho-communist writer L. Susan Brown, considered themselves "fervent anti-capitalists... [who saw] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism."'[36] These early individualist anarchists, however, defined "capitalism" as the state-maintained monopolization of capital.[37]" (in other words, End the Fed)

    I also recommend some newer authors and works that may clash with anarcho-capitalism in economics, but not necessarily in philosophy or ethics. Such works would be Konkin III's book(s) on Agorsim, which talks in detail about an alternative justice system based on anarchistic ethics and practical penalties designed to lessen harm, not seek retribution or revenge. He also describes a wonderful concept known as "counter economics", in which risk versus reward ratios are weighed logically to decide economically which laws are worth breaking. He is a left-libertarian, and I disagree with him in parts, but he is brilliant.

    In all these works, there will be economic conflicts, but the philosophical and ethical conflicts are few, if any.

    I'll attempt to find more free works, especially short excerpts or articles...but in the end, buying such great works as the Unconstitutionality of Slavery by Lysander Spooner may be necessary; BUT well worth it.
    Updated 06-11-2011 at 07:08 AM by ProIndividual
  11. Wesker1982's Avatar
    Thanks for the feedback. I am glad you liked the list, hopefully it will be useful to many people.

    I kept the list to things I have had a chance to read and works that are available for free online. Also there are tons of free books on but I wanted to keep the list composed of short essays and other short works. I'll probably add a book section eventually but I my main intention was to make a list of good intro and FAQ material for people to share, hoping the works would spark people's interest enough to read a whole book.

    I will add The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and Civil Disobedience. I planned to read Civil Disobedience but my reading list is huge, I guess I will read it today For some reason I thought it was longer.

    What particular works by Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker do you suggest? I would really like to add to the Social Contract section. It is one of the most important myths to debunk and I feel like the subject is lacking concise material. Spooner's No Treason is awesome of course, I just wish there were more similar works.

    Here is a thread with the same list as this blog:

    It is updated as much as possible, so if you have anything else you think that should be added just let me know. Thanks again for the feedback! Ⓐ
  12. ProIndividual's Avatar
    First let me say, that is great reading list.

    Secondly, I notice that you have only one 19th century individualist on your list. Now, I understand Spooner, Tucker, Warren, and Thoreau (among many others) were "socialists", and therefore might confuse the newcomer to the philosophy and economics of market anarchism (in this case anarcho-capitalism), but as advanced reading I'd highly recommend those authors. The legacy of individualism is something to be proud of in market anarchism, and shouldn't be disassociated because it happened to be under false socialist economic assumptions in that time period (not that I am accusing you of disassociation).

    I would say the pioneering works of Josiah Warren on individual sovereignty, Henry David Thoreau on individual nullification (aka civil disobedience), and Benjamin Tucker on voting, social contracts, and various philosophy (pre-egoism, unless you're an egoist or a utilitarian) would be essential advanced reading. I also don't see Spooner's treatise "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery", a seminole abolitionist work. The history of being correct for centuries is good to know, whether it was the faulire of democracy, or failure of republics, monopolized social contracts, social contracts in general, ballots, the rights of women, pornography, prostitution, abolition, central banking (even the socialists were against the monopoly on capital, hence they would support End The Fed), et cetera.

    Again, I understand not recommending this to someone new to the ideas, but surely must reads for those able to bridge the historical gap between 19th and early 20th century individualists and the market anarchist of today. Really the only difference was the past individualists' belief in the fallacious labor theory of value, and all the Marxist nonsense that came from it (dislike of property rights beyond possesion and use, belief that profit was theft and exploitative, etc.). Once later generations embraced the theory of marginal utility and subjective value, the issue resolved itself. So, I think for all the 99% points of agreement, they would be good reading.

    Lastly, let me just re-iterate...this list took a lot of time and is really good. I applaud you for it. Just thought I'd add a few classical works to the list

    Ps. Check out Thomas Paine's support for society without government as well. Some important works to be sure.
    Updated 06-10-2011 at 03:02 AM by ProIndividual