So I decided to write a series answering common objections to anarcho-capitalism. On of the nightmare scenarios dreamed up by people objecting to the idea of companies not controlled by a government is the idea that without government oversight, companies will inevitably expand and merge until no competition exists. I intend to show that, not only is this not the case, but an absence of government actually makes it easier for us to deal with them.
Land monopolies
But how can we permit landowners to define the law? If one rich individual buys up all the land, then we'll be living in a dictatorship. In an ancap society their property is unviolable so the community will be powerless to stop them, socialist revolution and the abolition of private property are necessary to prevent such monopolies from forming.
Turns out that, not only is this not true in theory, there are actual real world examples of ordinary workers using peaceful means to force terms on monopolies.
Set yourself back to 18th century Ireland. Through a combination of historical factors (feudalism, colonialism and cronyism), the majority of arable land was owned by a cartel of wealthy absentee landlords who contributed no real value to their operation and spent most of their time in london gambling, drinking and dancing. In other words, they were exactly the kind of capitalist hated and feared by socialists. These landlords typically appointed agents to manage their estates in their absence, it was a fairly prestigious job, well paid and it had the potential to turn a nobody into a small king. One such individual, Captain Charles Boycott, was hired to manage the estates of Lord Erne on the shores of Lough Mask. Now I'm sure you noticed his name, that's not a coincidence, the example of what happened to him was so groundbreaking that it coined a new word in the English language.
Suffice to say, he wasn't very good at his job. He was extremely authoritarian and introduced fines for a number of petty offences such as leaving gates open, having one's hens trespass on his property and a number of other issues. His tenants were also denied a number of traditional rights, such as collecting firewood on Erne's land and his temperment was generally ascerbit and entitled.
Things came to a head when there was a poor crop and he refused to permit more than a 10% rent decrease. The farmers demanded 25%, refusing to pay and he obtained eviction notices against them. When the local police attempted to serve the notices however they were driven away with thrown manure and stones. It should be noted at this point that this was actually the use of force, so the resistance wasn't entirely peaceful, but it was a fairly minor act of violence and Boycott enjoyed the support of both the police and the army, so direct action wasn't the lynchpin of their resistance, nor would it have succeeded if they had depended on it.
Enter the land league. The land league was a tenant farmer's union which sought, among other things, to ensure catholic emancipation and famer's rights. The league was headed by a wealthy protestant, Charles Stuart Parnell, and a catholic from a working background, Michael Davitt. They were funded voluntarily by the workers themselves, collecting one penny per house per annum and despite the lack of any government protection, and some opposition, were more successful from many modern unions with mandatory membership and statutory recognition. The land league's strength was in it's numbers and it's weapon was ostracism.
At a speech made by Parnell in Ennis where he asked the audiance how they should deal with someone who agreed to rent a farm after an individual had been unfairly evicted, they proposed violence, he had another suggestion:
I wish to point out to you a very much better way – a more Christian and charitable way, which will give the lost man an opportunity of repenting. When a man takes a farm from which another has been evicted, you must shun him on the roadside when you meet him – you must shun him in the streets of the town – you must shun him in the shop – you must shun him on the fair green and in the market place, and even in the place of worship, by leaving him alone, by putting him in moral Coventry, by isolating him from the rest of the country, as if he were the leper of old – you must show him your detestation of the crime he committed.
When Boycott attempted to serve his eviction notices, the land league moved fast. His servants left his employment (he made unsubstantiated claims that they were threatened), local shopkeepers refused to serve him, the blacksmith wouldn't work for him and the laundrette wouldn't accept his laundry. Eventually an armed expedition of volunteers, protected by the army, marched from Ulster. They met with no resistance and were able to salvage the harvest that the local farmers refused to reap. This made little difference to the situation however as it was only a stopgap measure and wasn't a sustainable solution for every year, costing the government 10,000 pounds to cover the harvest. Boycott was forced to leave the estate in an army abulance (as no driver could be found for his carriage). He reached Dublin where he had intended to stay for a week, however his hotel urged him to depart sooner after they too were threatened with ostracism.
The government attempted to try Davitt and Parnell on charges of conspiracy, but the jury was hung (10-2 in favour of aquittal) and eventually dismissed by the judge. The term "Boycott" was coined by the local land league leader, John O'Malley as he felt ostracism was too highfalutin and unfamiliar for a peasant farmer.
So what does this show? Property isn't power and armed takeover isn't necessary. You can own all the land in the world and people still have the power to force reasonable terms without resorting to violence or armed takeover. In an anarcho-capitalist TAZ, which recognises private property as a right, an individual cannot accumulate capital to an antisocial degree without the community bringing them to heal by refusing to interact with them.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Broc_Lia [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Ghandi springs to mind.
It works in any circumstances where, for the most part, the other party isn't willing to use outright violence to enforce their will. It wouldn't work with slaves on a plantation for example, because the slavemaster wouldn't respect their right not to work and would just torture them until they did.