A/C = economic totalitarianism, Pt II
 

In AC = economic totalitarianism, I posed the following question:

Suppose - to take a hypothetical - that a king notices unrest among his peasants. He has, of course, a mercenary army at his disposal, but for whatever reasons he'd prefer not to use it.

He issues a decree, in which he abdicates, disbands his government, and sets up an auction. He then buys up the land the peasants live on.

The peasants are now free of taxes. Instead, they must pay rent. He stops calling his men "mercenaries," and starts calling them a "Private Defense Association," instead.

What, if anything, has changed?

Does the king have any less authority over the peasants as their private landlord, than he did when he was their monarch?


Only nietzreznor answered, and his answer was:

[ QUOTE ]
In your example, I would say there is very little difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is very little difference. If, as anarchocapitalists say, an owner has absolute control over his property, the landlord has at least as much control over his land, and over its people, as a king has over his realm, and over his subjects.

Murray Rothbard wrote, ” So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

If the state “acts as… any other owner,” can we not also say “any other owner…” acts as a state?

In other words, if ACists recognize that A=B, why can’t they see that B=A?

To put it simply: is it not fair to say anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism without government; it’s government by capitalists?

edit: The original thread is still on the front page. This thread is locked as I see no reason why this shouldn't go in the original thread. I will go take a look now, if that thread has been hopelessly hijacked I will unlock this. -RR