A great essay on it, here.
On another note..
One thing that is interesting is how many social anarchists label Spooner as "anti-capitalist" for some of his criticisms of wage labor (most of these criticisms were discussing wage labor in the context of *state* capitalism, but some were not).
Ancaps Sam Konkin and David Friedman (among others) both made similar criticisms of wage labor, yet neither of them are hailed as "anti-capitalists," like Spooner is. And Spooner's conception of natural rights is basically the same as Rothbard's, which is why I think it's politically accurate to call him an anarcho-capitalist--albeit a "left-leaning" one.
Why do the collectivists want to claim Spooner so badly? My guess that they can't stand the thought of not being able to "have" a famous abolitionist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
%20torture(1).jpg)
3 comments:
Spooner's economics were not anarcho-capitalist, but rooted in the Proudhon/Warren doctrine.
Natural rights are not ancap exclusive either.
What's "anarcho-capitalist economics"? Not all ancaps are Austrians.
I haven't read all of Spooners works but he didn't seem to be as opposed to rent, interest and profit as other individualist anarchists were.
Anonymous,
Rorshak beat me to it. Anarcho-capitalism isn't a set of "economic views." It's a political philosophy that opposes aggression against person and property.
Post a Comment