Quick Thought – Anarcho-Capitalism and Somalia

A number of natural rights anarcho-capitalists argue that states are coercive because one cannot opt out of statism in general, only move to another state. Thus if one had the right to opt out of a statism, irrespective of one’s means to do so, then no state in which one had the right to opt out would be coercive because by staying in a state one would be tacitly consenting to the state and therefore not be coerced. Luckily for anarcho-capitalists everywhere, Somalia was defended as an instance of statelessness by Yumi Kim in 2006 and Robert Murphy in 2011. Therefore, as long as Somalia is stateless, no state in which people have the right to leave the state and live in Somalia is coercive, because one has the right to opt out of it. Thus any anarcho-capitalist who argues that states are coercive because one cannot opt out of statism tacitly consents to their state if they have the right to leave their state and live in Somalia. Given the fact that the majority of anarcho-capitalists live in the United States of America, e.g 69% of r/anarchocapitalism live in the U.S.A, and that in the United States one has the right to leave the state for Somalia, it follows that all American anarcho-capitalists tacitly consent to their state and therefore can no longer argue that taxation is theft, as they consent to be taxed by staying in the United States.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Quick Thought – Anarcho-Capitalism and Somalia

  1. I don’t really consider Somalia to be stateless, given all the foreign and UN intervention there, and I don’t think many ancaps do. I have realized this point before – that if New Hampshire became stateless, then suddenly it appears like all states are justified.

    But I’m sure ancaps will then magically concoct the principle that it’s not truly voluntary if you have to consider practical concerns such as those of moving there and eventual overpopulation.

  2. I wrote a post about this very subject. Formally Somalia existing is irrelevant, IMO, if you look at ancap theories. There is nothing in anarcho-capital principals that forbids or condemns all of any resource being privately owned. They would argue that companies aren’t like states because you can leave your job, but they don’t take into account whether doing so is financially possible or whether there are other jobs or even other companies to work for. The difference between moving job and country is magnitude not principal. And, further, in an anarcho-capitalist world, although borders would be ‘open’ they would also be open to free market economics… therefor moving would incur arbitrary costs. And the company you want to leave might also own the borders.

  3. Funny how anarcho-capitalists use this argument. If they can claim that statism isn’t voluntary because you can’t choose to live in a non-state, only another state, then how can something like waged employment be voluntary when you can’t choose to do non wage work, only other wage work somewhere else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s