Natural Order in a Stateless Society

Within his essay 'Nations by Consent', the late Austrian School economist and philosopher Murray N. Rothbard mentions the structure of an Anarcho-Capitalist society as either a privatized or micro-decentralized collection of properties owned by either private individuals, groups, or corporations, with parts of these properties being leased off to other individuals, groups, and corporations at the leisure of the landowner(s). Such a society would also remain a 'nation' in the classical sense - sharing a collective ethnic, civic, and/or cultural identity instead of a shared government - with different "alliances" between different properties being arranged through a series of contracts. Though these takeaways are easily shared by most libertarians - including even some of the worst and most subversive individuals within Liberty Twitter - the more hoppean takeaway put forth by Hoppean.org's article 'Anarcho-Authoritarianism' is far less mainstream. Such a conclusion - one I myself share - thus postulates that Anarcho-Capitalism can and will become a form of authoritarian society, though this is not a disadvantage of the system. It is also important to make the distinction that Hoppeans such as myself are decidedly against dictatorships - the opposite of this fact being an accusation put forth against Hoppe and his followers by many a "libertarian" on social media - which unfortunately was not adequately shown in previous articles. As such, a definition of the word is needed. Not every definition of the word 'Authoritarian' is particularly trustworthy, however, thus necessitating the definition of 'Authoritarian' to be put forth before any further comment on the matter takes place.

When someone usually thinks about the term 'Authoritarian', one usually defaults to the definition being the "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially at the government, at the expense of personal freedom", while many more leftward individuals in the libertarian movement instead define the word to mean an "existence of authority put forth upon other individuals or groups". However, many people fail to understand that Authoritarian systems do not necessarily require either a government or a state to be empowered or even exist outright. When one takes the first part of the dictionary definition - "the favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority" - or even the entirety of the left-libertarian definition into account, it is quite easy to arrive at the conclusion that in a world of individual landowners being the sole and heavily-empowered sovereign of their property or properties, wherein they are not held accountable to any other individual except if they choose such a burden through a contract, is by definition a highly authoritarian system with a strong resemblance to the feudalism of the medieval world. In such a manner, it is easily surmised that those who agree to sign a contract with a landowner to lease part of their property must follow all rules, stipulations, and regulations put forth by their new landlord or risk immediate expulsion, with such rules being able to even affect the speech, legal status, and arms ownership of the tenant - who themselves had agreed to all such stipulations when they have signed the leasing contract.

Within such a society, the existence of documents such as a Bill of Rights or even a Constitution - both of which would require a significant degree of force to enforce and would greatly impact the sovereignty of landowners as a whole - would simply not be able to exist due to there being a total lack of a state apparatus within such a society. This would, in turn, mean that two different assumptions on its legal framework should be made: that the forces of law & order and justice are privatized to a massive extent and that the concept of "individual freedoms" is at most a cultural question or wholly absent on a national level in such a society. Whilst the first of these points is such a large discussion in itself that it shall be reserved for a different post - though many writings on such a topic may be found at Mises.org - the second point is paramount to discuss in further detail. Can a truly Anarcho-Capitalist society be formed without having an enforced belief in concepts such as Natural Rights and Individual Liberty? Would such a society be able to still safeguard its citizens from being unwillingly enslaved by corrupt individuals, groups, or corporations? I, for one, believe that both questions may be answered with a resounding 'yes'. Before continuing onwards to addressing both of these concerns, however, it is imperative to introduce one concept brought forth by the great philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his book 'Democracy: the God that Failed', as well as a legal concept from European Feudalism - these being the Natural Order and Eternal Law. 

Within his famous work 'Democracy: the God that Failed', Hans-Hermann Hoppe - himself one of Murray N. Rothbard's most well-known students and his main protege - puts forth a concept known as the Natural Order. Explained within the book chapter 'On Monarchy, Democracy, and the Idea of Natural Order', Hoppe from pages 71 to 72 describes the concept as the "sociological presupposition (of) the existence of natural elites" and the "natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners". It is also important, however, to take away from this concept that Hoppe puts forth the argument that this highly decentralized yet extremely hierarchical system is the natural state of governance - not either Monarchy or Democracy. Through this lens, it becomes clear to those who have read his writings that he supports the return to a natural aristocracy instead of an artificially-centralized monarchical apparatus - the latter being an often-used but highly disingenuous criticism of Hoppe by those on the left and even by many libertarians - which is precisely what Anarcho-Capitalism would bring about through the natural tendency of Man to form a system of order. This aristocratic system is, however, also augmented with a strong sense of respect for Natural Rights - these being defined in law as the Right to Bear Arms, Right to Own Property, Right to Life, and Right to a Fair Trial - thus ensuring that the nation's culture - the word 'nation' being used in a similar sense to those of Medieval Germany and Medieval Italy, instead of how it is disingenuously used nowadays as a synonym to the State - is readily compatible with the values held by most Anarcho-Capitalists. Combined with Eternal Law, the Natural Order of such a society would most assuredly remain intact for many generations, thus allowing for the society to not just survive but thrive in the short and long term.

During the Middle Ages in Europe, the highly-privatized and libertarian legal system of the free merchants and city-states throughout the continent utilized two different forms of laws: Eternal Law and Common Law. Whilst the concept of Common Law - which itself is utilized in the United States, albeit in a bastardized form, by the State - hardly needs to be explained upon by those familiar with its workings, the concept of Eternal Law is far less well-known due to no legal system currently utilizing it. Defined by the Catholic philosopher Saint Thomas Aquinas as "the ideal type and order of the universe (kosmos) pre-existing in the mind of God (Logos)", this would be used in an Anarcho-Capitalist society as a means of enshrining the Natural Order as explained by Hans-Hermann Hoppe into law, thus ensuring that whatever the case may be in a privatized court of law - presided over by a judge appointed to oversee it with the consent of both parties - the Common Law shall always be constrained from violating the hierarchical-yet-decentralized nature of the libertarian system. This would, in turn, also give the society a clear-cut and inviolable defense against the goal of anti-anarchist forces - be it minarchism, statism, socialism, or nationalism - in their attempts to centralize authority by any means, with such a system being further defended by the various Private Military Contractors, Militia Associations, and individual gun owners against an invasion by a foreign power, be it state-owned or privately-owned, intent on subjugating the society through either direct rule or the appointment of a friendly government. The presence of Eternal Law also ensures that no single landowner can use their influence to crown themselves the monarch or 'High King' of the society, which means that the presence of even an Anarcho-Monarchy - a concept looked upon fondly by a growing number of libertarians in the past several decades - would be unneeded in such a society. With these concepts now explained in-full, the answering of the two main questions of this article may finally proceed apace.

When it comes to cultural identity, many individuals within the libertarian movement - both online and in the political sphere - have developed an aversion to such a concept, stating that such a shared identity would result in "collectivism", their favorite boogeyman, becoming rampant and eventually resulting in the rise of a State. This assumption, however, is utterly absurd. If an Anarcho-Capitalist society were to exist without a sense of cultural identity keeping the excesses of a small minority in check, then the rise of Statism would be all-but-guaranteed - an irony lost on many a lolbertarian. It is also because of such a shared identity that the use of a privatized legal system to heavily enforce the concept of Natural Rights upon the population is made unnecessary, as a different form of coercion - that of simple cultural pressure - would mean that only the best landowners would see much success in reaching profitable agreements towards renting out their lands to tenants. Thanks to such a safeguard being present - protecting both the landowner and tenant from the excesses of one another - the fully-privatized legal system of such a society can instead channel itself towards the enforcement of contracts signed between these individuals, with only the most trusted and efficient legal and contract enforcement groups being able to themselves thrive in this new market - one impossible within a statist society like the one we live in today. It is this very point that many libertarians, concerned with their precious "human rights", fail to understand: one does not need to enforce cultural values at gunpoint for them to exist, and those that do so will regularly fail just as harshly as those who seek to abolish such values. Even the concept of Natural Rights does not need to be codified in such a society, either, as such rights - particularly the rights to bear arms, have a fair trial, and practice one's own religion - would be held as sacrosanct by a vast majority of landowners whilst prospecting tenants may easily find landlords or covenant communities which grant other such rights. 

Much like how cultural identity would enforce through social pressure the existence of Natural Rights, the very same social pressure - alongside the existence of Eternal Laws and the Natural Order - would also ensure that the existence of Slavery and Serfdom would simply not be tolerated within an Anarcho-Capitalist society. This is due to the simple fact that part of Natural Rights is the right to own property - including one's own body - which itself precludes any attempt of owning an individual without their express consent. Though this is a clear-cut answer towards why Slavery would be abolished within such an Anarcho-Capitalist society, how this would abolish Serfdom - which is defined as the "bounding by law of an agricultural laborer under the feudal system to their lord's estate" - is less easy to see in why such systems explained earlier would abolish it without question. This is easily answered when one looks toward another portion of the Eternal Law of this Anarcho-Capitalist society, wherein it may be written that no individual may be born into servitude and all servants in bondage to their master must consent through a written contract signed under the witness of one or multiple judges. In this sense, the concept of Serfdom - which is reliant on a perpetual underclass serving under bondage for generations - can simply not exist, instead being replaced with a far more consent-driven system of indentured servitude, with all contracts made between the master and servant being under heavy cultural and legal enforcement through both the Natural Order - wherein no individual may serve against their will - and the Eternal Law, further augmented by the Common Law of the courts. 

When taking into account everything stated within this article, the simple truth that Anarcho-Capitalist societies will be heavily aristocratic and hierarchical - thus making them authoritarian in the classical pre-17th century sense - is easy to come to. This is, however, far from a downside to the philosophy and should instead be seen as an upside. Such systems would ensure that society is run by a system of clear-cut and mutually-agreed upon contracts as opposed to how it is today through the coercion of the State's monopoly on violence; such a society would ensure that property rights are treated with the utmost care, allowing for landowners to have the highest degree of freedom possible. In what sort of world would such a society be anything less than the greatest to live under?