Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

power s 0 f go ver nme n t can be rna de as Iongas soc i e t y i s
divided into two hostile camps and the laborer is, econom
i cally s peaking, a s 1a vet0 his emp loye r. • •Butin
a society where the distinction between capitalist and
laborer has disappeared, there is no need of such a
go v ernmen t • • The no - capitalis t s Ystem imp 1 iesthe
no-government system."(4) And Berkman says that "when
government is abol ished, wage slavery and capitalism
must also go with it, because they cannot exist without
the support and protection of government."(5) Thus the
collectivist anarchist believes that private property
i$ a form of coercion and can exist only when supported
by t he power of the sta tee The abol it ion of government
is therefore the means to the abolition of private
property.
The individualist anarchist,on the other hand,
argues that while the premise is correct the conclusion
doe S not n e c e s s a r i I Y f 0 I 1ow • From the cognit ion t hat
government uses its force to protect the interests of
the property-owning class, it does not follow that property
rights, themselves, are coercive.(6) Rather, he
not only contends that [1] in the absence of property
rights there can be no rights at all, but also that [2]
far from"upholding property rights, a$ contended by the
collect ivist anarchist, the state. by its very nature,
is the single greatest violator of these rights.
The i n d i v i d uali s tanarchis t reas ons as follows.
That individual (or group) who is able to determine how
a good will be utilized is the actual owner. regardless
of the legal fictions to the contrary. Sociologically.
own e r s hip i s the a b iIi t y to rna ke the determ i n i ng dec i ­
sions regarding the disposition of property.(7) It is
clear that it is impossible to eliminate ownership in
the sociological sense of the term, for decisions conc
ern i n g the use 0 f properties havet0 be rna de i n ever y
society. Whoever makes these decisions is the owner.
From th i s cogn it i on the individual ist anarchist concludes
that if an individual is not permitted to retain
what he has earned, i.e., either produced himself or
obtained by means of voluntary exchange, his life is
dependent upon whoever determines the disposition of
pro per t y • Reg a r die s s 0 f wh e the r s uc h de t e r mina t ion s
are made by a single individual--a tyrant, a group of
individuals--an oligarchy, or a majority--a democaracy,
such "human rights" 8S those of freedom of speech, assembly,
religion, etc., are. if not meaningless, at
least perpetually precarious, for the individual cannot
a f for d t 0 inc u r the dis pIeas ureof thos e wh 0 hoI d his
52