When I read that my friend and former co-blogger Bryan Caplan would be debating Yaron Brook on anarcho-capitalism (Bryan is an anarchist; Yaron is not), I wanted Bryan to win. It’s not because I’m an anarchist; I’m not. But Bryan has brought me way closer to his position on many big issues, including open borders. So I hoped that he would make a good argument that would bring me closer to his position on anarchism.
Then, when I read the actual proposition being debated, I was sure Bryan would win. The proposition is:
Anarcho-capitalism would definitely be a complete disaster for humanity.
With both “definitely” and “complete” in there, that’s a particularly strong statement. Before the debate, I said on Facebook that with that formulation, Bryan was almost sure to win. What if you could show that anarcho-capitalism would be only a 50% disaster? Bryan would win.
Bryan explained that it was Yaron who chose the wording. I said that I wasn’t surprised because Yaron likes to state things boldly; I think that reflects the influence of Ayn Rand, although maybe Yaron was that way before he had ever heard of Ayn Rand.
Bryan’s opening argument is very good and he did bring me closer to anarchism.
But then Bryan said this:
If you claim that anarcho-capitalism would be a complete disaster for humanity if were tried today, I agree.
My friend and co-author Charley Hooper and I were talking about this yesterday and we both agreed that this one statement cinches the win for–Yaron Brook. If even the person debating the issue admits the other side’s point, it’s game over. And Bryan admitted Yaron’s point.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read Bryan’s opening statement and/or watch the whole debate. You can lose a debate but still bring people closer to your viewpoint. And that’s what Bryan did with me.
By the way, the traditional way of judging who won is to say who moved more people to his side. By that measure, for example, I won big-time in my debate on lockdowns with Justin Wolfers in April 2020. But I don’t know how the numbers went on Caplan/Brook.
READER COMMENTS
Echarles
Sep 27 2023 at 9:06am
Can someone explain how Randian minarchy is different from anarcho-capitalism in practice? Her conception of government features the following:
Voluntary consent including voluntary taxation
100% private property
Most importantly, the “right” to secede even in mixed economies
#3 is the threshold question. Randians will say secession can be suppressed when their ideal government is in place and those seceding are planning to violate rights but this seems to depend on the unrealistic situation of the ideal government staying ideal. Nor do I think anarcho-capitalists would object to preventing secession if those seceding want to secede to violate rights.
Rue
Sep 27 2023 at 1:17pm
E Charles,
The main difference is that in one clearly defined geographic area there is one and only one set of laws and one and only one final arbiter that decides disputes. The can be no real due process if one has the option to select among a buffet of options. Without an objective due process there is no way for any 3rd party observer to determine if a criminal was justly punished or if an innocent was unjustly punished.
There are other requirements as well, such as that the laws be objectively defined in a way that protects individual rights, as Ayn Rand defined them and as the Founding Fathers originally conceived of them.
This issue of objectivity and rights was an issue brought up in the debate that Caplan dismissed as “handwaiving” yet without such a concept there can be no restraint on which actions are criminal and which are not.
Echarles
Sep 27 2023 at 7:06pm
The logical implication regarding a final arbiter is one of a world government to settle disputes among conflicting national jurisdictions…not something I’ve heard minarchists support before.
Also, a clearly defined area is too vague to be meaningful especially in the context of allowing one person or small groups of people the right to peacefully opt out.
You just need a minimal level of government coercion for Randian minarchy to make sense.
Mactoul
Sep 27 2023 at 9:02pm
Minarchy stops at national level, there being no necessary reason to have a final arbiter at super-national level.
The nations continue to exist in a mutual state of nature as now, brute force being the final arbiter between them.
Arnold Kling has recently discussed Caplan’s AC and arrived at the similar conclusion that public services have a territory-based natural monopoly character that renders AC implausible.
Echarles
Sep 28 2023 at 8:14am
Minarchy at a national level is unstainable if the right to peacefully opt out exists. You need a coercive monopoly to prevent collapse.
Also, an international final arbiter could prevent brute force from occurring between nations so a world government is still the implication if preventing jurisdictional conflicts is a justification.
robc
Sep 27 2023 at 9:21am
Your last sentence makes zero sense, as there is nothing to seceed from in anarcho-capitalism.
David Henderson
Sep 27 2023 at 1:43pm
You’re responding to Echarles, not me, right?
echarles
Sep 27 2023 at 2:17pm
“Your last sentence makes zero sense, as there is nothing to seceed from in anarcho-capitalism.”
Secede definition: to withdraw from an organization.
Under AC, secession would involve patronizing different legal firms via contract. Some would be geographically based, others not.
Why should this be any different under Randian minarchism if one can “secede” even in mixed economics as Rand said? Since she considers this a “right”, how would this right be codified into law as are other rights that exist?
There’s no important difference as far as I can tell. It just seems to be the case that Randians don’t want to be specific about how withdrawing peacefully from governments would occur.
Roger McKinney
Sep 27 2023 at 9:46am
Israel under the judges in the Bible was anarcho-capitalist. It had no human executive or legislature and no taxes. It had only courts with judges elected by the people. It had just 613 laws, most if which were moral or religious. Many Christians think the courts adjudicated the moral and religious laws, giving the government complete control over all aspects of life. But there us good evidence that the courts only handled the civil law and left the moral and religious laws to God to enforce. See this: http://rdmckinney.blogspot.com/2023/09/jesus-is-anarcho-capitalist.html?m=1
Henri Hein
Sep 27 2023 at 1:50pm
The results are available on the Soho Forum Past Events page. Brook picked up 10.7% and Bryan 8.04%. So by the Soho Forum standards, Brook won.
David Henderson
Sep 27 2023 at 2:21pm
Thanks.
Philo
Sep 27 2023 at 4:52pm
Bryan’s admission included the word ‘today’; the proposition being debated, lacking a temporal specification, should probably be understood as meaning “at any time”; at least, this is how Bryan was interpreting it.
Garrett
Sep 27 2023 at 5:03pm
If an alcoholic quits cold turkey, they might die from the withdrawal symptoms. This would definitely be a complete disaster. If someone arguing that alcoholics should stop drinking admitted this, would they lose a debate?
Andrew_FL
Sep 27 2023 at 6:49pm
Depends on the wording of the debate proposition.
Mactoul
Sep 27 2023 at 10:40pm
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron since anarchism excludes capitalism.
All existing capitalisms arose in countries that had more developed and organized state compared with countries that didn’t develop capitalism.
Anarchic Africa and Australia didn’t had capitalism, not even India which had lower state development than Western Europe.
Logically too, security of private property requires an overarching politico-legal order which is absent in anarchism by definition.
Richard W Fulmer
Sep 29 2023 at 12:29pm
I have mixed feelings about debates like this. On the one hand, knowing where you want to go is useful. On the other hand, choosing an impossible destination is not. We’re never going to get to Murray Rothbard’s, Ayn Rand’s, or Bryan Caplan’s vision of libertarian utopia and defenestrating people – as Rand did – for deviating from the perfect vision du jour is self-defeating.
I don’t feel particularly oppressed by not being able to legally drive 120 miles per hour through a residential zone, and that sentiment is enough to render me “dead” to many libertarians. Yet I’m on board with returning the federal government to its Constitutional cage. While that’s probably not achievable, at least in the short term, we can hope to peel back a few layers of the regulatory onion. Let us, together with the allies we have at hand, concentrate on what we can achieve rather than on what we cannot.
Comments are closed.