Exploiting the State

 The state is not an effect of capitalism, but because the state exists capitalists will exploit it because the state is the only institution that can pass regulations. Were this not the case, Starbucks would lobby McDonalds, and McDonalds would lobby Coca Cola who were lobbying Microsoft. None of these companies are allowed the use of force, but because of this unique trait - the ability to regulate - it would be the end of any capitalist who had the capacity not to make use of this privilege so long as they had competitors who were willing to do so. These conflicts of interest are foundational to the system in place.

Supposing I am the CEO of a rich corporation and I have $1,000,000 to spend developing my business,

One of my options is to spend that money doing R&D, improving the product, employing highly trained staff, bringing our a better version, or something related which amounts to offering a better service to the consumer. I could also try to advertise it to people I hope will be willing to buy it.

Supposing as a consequence of whatever one of these things I choose to do, then my revenues rise by $1,200,000 then, ok, great! My customers are happier and I have made $200,000

But...

Supposing I can use the $1,000,000 to lobby the state, and they will pass preferential regulations to favour my company, or they will give me other kickbacks or benefits worth - lets say- $1,500,000, then this poisons the whole economy because now I have MORE incentive to engage in bribery and corruption than on pleasing my customers.

I would do this, not because I was evil, but because I was rational. In fact, if I failed to do it I might well be competed out of the market by an actor who did not. Poorer or less established companies cannot do what I just did and so they are a disadvantage against the giants in industry so long as there is a state and the state can be lobbied.

By this process of "unnatural selection" the most successful firms become, not those who are able to best serve their customers, but those who are best able to play the system to get privileges from the government.  And it's not necessarily for the evil of all would-be congressmen or parliamentarians either! Even a somewhat integerous politician, who wants to hold office to push through the "least-bad" legislations can only get away with so much before industries begin to back a more complicit candidate to replace them. They really will go to any lengths to retain their special privileges, however unjust, because their livelihoods depend on them.

Perhaps the only solution is making it impossible for politicians to dish out public funds to special interest groups from the public purse, but for this to even be achievable people must be aware of this problem of incentives.

According to The Sunlight Foundation $5.8 billion were spent on federal lobbying and campaign contributions by America’s 200 most politically active corporations between 2007 and 2012.  For every dollar they spent buying politicians they got $741 in return.



If someone in a business commits a crime they don't get arrested for it because they have this thing called a corporation which takes the blame.

The corporation gets sued, which  means the customers pay more and potentially the employees get paid less.

Making the corporation culpable instead of the individuals responsible for making the decisions
removes the moral hazard from the individuals  implicated in the unlawful or anti-social behaviour. That's why we see corporation getting away with doing all these horrible things: oil spills, bad bank loans, environmental hazards,

If the individuals personally responsible were at risk of losing their own assets, including their houses - the way an individual who gets sued or fined is - we would ind them far less likely to take these risks.

What is the Difference between Left and Right Anarchism?

 Left anarchism, which was the common usage of the term up until recently, is a political philosophy very closely related to communism, with the central socialist principle that workers should own the means of production. Having bosses run businesses or capitalists own the means of production is considered to be exploitative and hierarchical, whereas right anarchists see these relationships as acceptable so long as they are voluntary: if employees can agree to contractual terms, quit any time they like, unionise except where prohibited by voluntary agreements, etc. it is considered that the bosses are providing value by organising the work force, and capitalists are providing value by anticipating the market, organising production in terms of demand, and risking their investment (and also their property where uninsured, as the state would not exist to give them limited liability in the form of a Ltd. corporation  or Plc.) Right anarchists are not opposed to workers owning their own workplaces as long as this is organised by mutual agreements and voluntary interactions rather than imposed by violations of property rights (eg. workers getting a loan from the bank to buy out bosses and owners.)

Right anarchism is a more recent development but it can also be traced back to Baukunin who is seen as influential to both schools as an anarchist. It's more of an extension of American libertarianism, with the central principle being the NAP - ie. Thou shalt not initiate the use of force - no violence or theft, including taxation, as a rule, although levies for public goods could be extracted through a system of social pressure, ostracism, and refusal to engage in collective buying for people who did not pay their share (eg. If you don't pay your share for street lights you can expect to have to make your own arrangements for garbage collection as well.) Government regulation would similarly be be replaced by a system of insurance companies or cooperatives (often referred to as DROs - dispute resolution organisations) who were financially incentivized to solve problems before they occurred instead of being called upon to respond after the fact (like police, government fines, universal sick care, fire fighters, climate taxes etc. and all government services which are called upon only when a problem has all ready arisen.) These companies would lose money through payouts when they failed to protect their clients from harm or loss of property, which would encourage them to develop preventative measures and disincentives to criminals which would be constantly optimised through competition on the free market - whichever organisation was most effective as preventing harm or loss would gain the greatest market share, if someone advanced on their developments they would become lucrative, and if any such company got "too big for its boots," or abused its authority, its clients would have the option to pick another service provider, rather than remain at the behest of a state monopoly for provision of this service.

Left anarchism tends to focus more on problems of capital and capitalism, much like state socialists do. Right anarchists tend to talk primarily about the problems of statism, those which are created or exacerbated by governemnt, and they therefor tend to have the most convincing arguments for the abolition of states.


Despite coming from different angles, both agree that the state is based on force or the threat of force for its existence, that the state is a tool wielded by the ruling class for unfair advantage over everyone else, and that corporations and corporatism are products of statism which allow the rich to privilege from privatizing gains and socialising losses, which is immoral.

All forms of anarchists acknowledge that where there are rulers there can be no rules, as rulers by their very nature, make themselves the exception to the rule. Anarchists are egalitarians, no special privileges for law-makers or corporations. If you kill, harm, steal, or damage someone else's property, you are to be held personally liable for it - not the state (tax payer) or corporation (consumer/share-holder) - you personally. There is to be no hiding behind institutions which are mere abstractions of the mind in anarchy. This implementation of this moral hazard for the privileged is meant to do away with much of the corruption, cronyism, and war crimes which are part and parcel of statist societies.

So some common ground between the two despite philosophical difference on very key points.

For example, left wing ideals such as workers running their workplaces are thought by some to be more likely under right anarchism that statism, since the public education system trains children for individualism and competition, but the evidence on how individuals learn best is in favour of a cooperative learning environment. Without the kind of schooling which is prevalent and imposed by the state (which right anarchists are strongly opposed to) children would be raised with lots of experience of cooperation and mutualism, and so would more likely to create workplaces that capitalised on those skills than top-down hierarchies which follow the prevalent pattern of schooling and parenting.