Peter Marshall's whiny tirade against anarcho-capitalism is a real hoot. Typical of most drivel that comes from the left, he does little else than allow his emotions and imagination to run wild.
In the utopias of the anarcho-capitalists, there is little reason to believe that the rich and powerful will not continue to exploit and oppress the powerless and poor as they do at present.
Indeed, the anarcho-capitalists deny the very existence of collective interests and responsibilities.
Oh, my! Someone had better set up a dictatorship to stop these wild-eyed egoists!
In their drive for self-interest, they have no conception of the general good or public interest.
Those monsters! Have they no shame?
The rest is just hilarious. One can almost picture the teary-eyed milquetoast banging on his computer with childish rage, perhaps looking at the Che poster on his wall for guidance.
Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights toand of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor areversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom anymore than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.
"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?"
As such, anarcho-capitalism overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists like Spooner and Tucker. In fact, few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice. Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.
Evil, evil, eeevil! Every last one of them.
Chomsky said so.