Is Anarcho-Capitalism Actually Anarchism? A Critical Look
By Gavi Chavez 8/14/2025
Embedded Files
Are anarcho-capitalists anarchists? The answer depends on which definition is used to define anarchism. Historically and socially, anarchists would respond negatively based on the inconsistencies between the beliefs of private property and the nonexistence of state power. A close analytical scrutiny shows that the core principles of anarcho-capitalism contradict the fundamental doctrines of anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalism may be defined as a political philosophy promoting the elimination of state power, espousing instead a voluntary-based society of unregulated trade, voluntary interaction, and Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). However, this theory supports the idea of private property regarding the means of production as well as with regard to land. The nomenclature originated in the late 1960s, primarily thanks to Murray Rothbard, who viewed it as a counter-movement to the social anarchist movement. He eloquently espoused, "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of Capitalism." Rothbard theorized that an actually free society would fundamentally be based on a market economy, viewing all voluntary exchanges—like mutual aid, worker cooperatives, and voluntary communities—exemplifications of the market. This broad definition of "capitalism" differs with the implication usually invoked by the general public, especially with social anarchists, who equate it to a system marked by private property, wage labor, and profit motive.
Anarcho-capitalists promote ideas of private property and vertically-organized hierarchy, often claiming that individuals should exercise control over what they own, including companies and real estate. Anarcho-capitalists say that such exchanges are rational and just, as long as they can be classified as "voluntary." However, such a definition of "voluntarism" proves to be flawed in a world of large gaps in political and economic power. According to critics, one forced to accept a proposal for low-wage job opportunity or remain impoverished does not truly exercise a free or voluntary choice. Anarcho-capitalist claims that market forces would naturally moderate themselves are inherently flawed. The concept of private property allows individuals to own and hold resources and lands without the necessity of active use or habitation, thus potentially creating false scarcity. When landlords or distant property owners control large expanses of lands, they can make establishing dwelling places or stable living arrangements extremely difficult, if not impossible, for other persons.
The underlying problem in this case relates to the need for state intervention for the legitimation of private property, especially when viewed at a larger scale. A powerful agency with enforcement capabilities is needed to protect the legitimacy of property against possible intruders or persons illegally occupying the property. In the case where an absentee property owner exists, trust falls on an authority—either a security company or a "dispute resolution body"—to enforce their right of property. The trust in a powerful institution to coordinate property standards among other persons basically represents a manifestation of private governance, similar to roles traditionally attributed to the state. It has been noted that when a landlord uses force to evict a person from an empty property, the landlord is not acting independently of state involvement; rather, they are applying a legalistic conception of possession utilizing coercive methods, a role traditionally associated with state power.
Even prominent theorists in the anarcho-capitalist tradition have acknowledged the need for centralized enforcement apparatuses. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for example, posited the idea of "covenant communities," where the terms of private property rights enforcement would be determined within a hierarchically structured organization. Even though Hoppe saw this method as one of preventing the formation of a state, critics argue that a community that enforces laws and rejects non-conforming members constitutes a type of private governing structure, or state power. There arises then an inherent contradiction: in practice, anarcho-capitalism often requires some type of centralized enforcement in order to maintain its fundamental premises regarding private property. The genuine expression of anarchism is one that fully advocates individual freedom without the creation of new mechanisms of control. Capitalism, with its inherent power relations and the potential for the concentration of wealth, works against this principle in its core. The idea of a few people exercising dominance over the means of production and monopolizing land isn't
freedom; rather, it's a new form of control over the opportunities, resources, and compensation set before the working class. Thus, anarcho-capitalism is ultimately a misnomer, as it replaces state power with private power, thus not achieving the stateless, non-hierarchical society that is at the heart of the definition of anarchism.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse