Does anarchy, or more precisely anarcho-capitalism, trade the corrupt rulers of the state for the corporations that corrupt it? Would we simply be worse off without the state standing there corrupt but perhaps limiting the extend to which the greed of the corporations can be forced on the people?
The claim that anarchy replaces the corrupt with the corruptors appears to be based on three assumptions. 1. The state is by its nature good. Though I have assumed this previously for the purpose of argumentation, it is not obviously true. 2. The source of state corruption is corporations. 3. That without the state's legitimate claim to the initiation of force, corporations would some how convince people that they have the right to initiate force.
It is not obvious that government is naturally good. While even good politicians are corrupted, it is not obvious that there is even a large minority of politicians that are good.
Government has the power to initiate force. It is taken for granted by most that this power is legitimate. Since government has the power to control people through threats of violence, people who want to control others will be drawn in. We can see how despite the political rhetoric, politicians rarely keep promises that benefit the people. The government at the Federal level has been engaged in endless warfare, using whatever justification they can find to kill people. If politicians have no ethical qualms about murdering innocent people overseas, they cannot be anything less than evil.
It is not obvious that all the evil is due to corruption. Maybe warfare is to benefit the military industrial complex, but what about the large number of people, black and white, killed by police? Is this to benefit the funeral industry? What about the speed limits set too low or stop lights that turn red too fast designed to extract money? What about civil asset forfeiture? There are too many instances where there is clearly benefits to government at the expense of people that are not based on benefiting a special interest.
Do special interests corrupt politicians? What would happen if politicians did not have the power to control how individual firms are run? If politicians could not use violence or the threat of violence to control people, there would be no corruption.
It is the supposed legitimate use of violence against innocent people that is corrupting. If the state can use threats of violence and these threats are considered acceptable, people will want the government to use these threats to benefit themselves.
It is the power that corrupts, not special interests. Special interests plead to the government for special protection and privilege because if they do not their competitors will. Lobbying is simply self defense.
Without a government, corporations and other special interests have to appeal to the people. There is no authority with the right to initiate force. Attempts by these groups to use violence as a means to an end will be thwarted in a way that people currently do not try to thwart state violence because state violence is seen as legitimate. Just as I cannot convince you that I have the legitimate right to bash you in the head for no obeying me, no corporation could easily convince large numbers of people that it does have such right.
Much of what government does is impose regulations that benefit certain firms with in an industry or tax people and transfer that money to firms in the form of guaranteed loans. Without a central authority to impose regulations, firms will have to compete on the free market. Failing firms cannot rely on government bailouts to get them out of trouble and without the moral hazard created by the bailouts, firms will not be able to act rashly.
It is clear that anarchy does not replace the corrupt state with the corruptors. Anarchy removes the power that causes the corruption and ensures a more even playing field all people.
