In the world of Anarchism there still manages to be an ideological divide that bares depressing similarities to the left and right wing divide in standard political ideologies (otherwise known as Statism).
Just like the left and right wing approaches to statism, there is a divide among anarchists that seems to result from an irreconcilable divide in ideology, especially from a matter of economics.
The sad part about such a divide is that the primary tenant of anarchist philosophy, which is surely voluntarism, can get lost when people divide among their economic preferences.
Ultimately it would seem that if people are united on the basic principles of Voluntarism, specifically the Non Aggression Principle, then other differences would pale into irrelevance. That is what the Nations Of Sanity is based on.
So why is it that Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Capitalism are so incompatible with such seemingly irreconcilable differences if both groups support the same basic principles of voluntarism?
To investigate this divide we need to understand what Anarcho-Capitalism is, what Anarcho-Communism is, and what ultimately separates the two.
Both claim to be based on the premise of the Non Aggression Principle, claim to reject the notion that anyone has the right to rule over anyone else, and oppose the initiation of force.
The fundamental difference between AnCaps and AnComs revolves around property rights and rightful ownership. AnCaps (generally speaking) propose the privatisation of everything, while Ancom's simply do not recognise any form of private property as legitimate and only accept the principles of property rights when applied to personal possession.
Anarcho-Communism insists that private property is a violation of the Non Aggression Principle and that such ownership is essentially theft, as it deprives others of having use or access to such things.
While it is certainly true that claiming private ownership over certain resources and even land, essentially denying others use or access to it, can conflict with the Non Aggression Principle in certain circumstances, with outright violations of the Non Aggression Principle possible if everything is deemed fair game for private ownership, such examples do not invalidate all forms of private property.
*Anarcho-Communism will basically make the whole world homeless by denying property rights for anything beyond personal possessions.
*It has come to my attention that a potential straw man argument exists here with regards to Ancoms not recognising the right to own a home. Many Ancoms allow for private ownership of a home, though others do not, so in the interest of fair representation I have added this clarification. Where they are united is that private ownership over means of production is not allowed..
However, while I am happy to correct this error in my argument, I have not heard any principle or consistent logic that explains why this is the case.
The distinction between personal possessions and private property is ropey at best already but there are at least tangible differences between a toothbrush and a factory (for one thing the latter requires some form of land ownership to be involved) but what separates a house from a factory when dealing with legitimate ownership and private property vs personal possessions remains a mystery to me and I would encourage any Ancoms to openly challenge this article by explaining what logic applies to such distinctions.
While their objection to some claims of ownership may have merit that doesn't invalidate private property as a whole.
One of the valid objections is that private property can violate the NAP if it is applied to anything and everything without restriction. This is a point the Nations Of Sanity also makes.
Things like the air we breathe, certain natural resources and even some land should be deemed common land that is owned by nobody because it (in a way) belongs to everyone. No one can rightfully claim ownership over such things and attempts to do so would violate the NAP.
What I mean by this is the air we breathe, for example, belongs to us all and we all have a right to use/consume it but none of us have the right to make exclusive claim to such things (as would be the case if it was deemed private property). The property rights that allow us to deny use to others, to even destroy what is rightfully ours if we so choose, cannot be applied to everything without limit.
So there is an area here that is not properly addressed or dealt with by Anarcho-Capitalism and while property rights as a concept do go hand in hand with the ethos of voluntarism, it is possible for private property to violate the NAP if it is not restricted by it.
However, by applying this standard to all forms of private property by declaring all private property as theft, even to the point of denying people the right to acquire their own home or claim ownership over land or property that was acquired through voluntary exchange, Ancom's are essentially circumventing the prohibition of theft and would even be creating a default government by demanding that all ownership, outside of personal possessions, belongs to a collective.
Even when no harm to others can be established and when property was acquired through voluntary exchanges going back many generations, Ancom's still refuse to acknowledge such ownership as rightful. Why?
This is why the typical Ancom is ultimately betraying the NAP they claim allegiance to and are basically contradicting the very nature of anarchism and voluntarism. Though to be fair many do not claim such an allegience.
For this reason Anarcho Communists are presenting themselves as de facto communists with the only noticeable difference being their, all be it limited, respect for self ownership (limited because they will not allow self ownership to extend to property rights beyond what is deemed personal possessions).
This doesn't mean that their position is completely without logic and it doesn't mean that their objections to the unlimited application of private property that many Anarcho Capitalists advocate is without merit. But their insistence that all private property inherently qualifies as theft and a violation of the NAP does not hold water and their proposal to deny any and all form of private property is an even bigger and more direct violation of the Non Aggression Principle.
While their insistence that ALL private property is an act of aggression, a form of theft, and basically a NAP violation is incorrect, they are right to point out that private property can violate the NAP if applied without restriction.
But the solution to such a concern is quite simple and does not require the abolishment of private property across the board.
All we need to do is use the NAP to restrict and limit private property, just as it would everything in a free society.
This is yet another example of why the Nations Of Sanity's insistence that the NAP should be the overriding, defining, and only law of a free society is so important. It is what defines a free society and ultimately it should be what governs it.
The Nations Of Sanity can demonstrate that the perversion of anarchism, by AnComs, is unnecessary because a perfectly consistent and logical solution exists that does not require the denial of private property that Ancom's espouse nor does it require the privatisation of everything that many AnCaps support.
Anarchism, more precisely Voluntarism, requires only one thing to create, protect and define a free society and that is the law of the Non Aggression Principle. Without it we are not free, even in the absence of governments or a synonymous entity, unless we have the law of the Non Aggression Principle to define, restrict and protect our freedom.
It is the only law we need for a free society but we do need it for a free society. It is both a minimum and maximum requirement.
It is a shame because many who embrace voluntarism may not want to identify as capitalists, despite being mostly inline with Anarcho-Capitalist principles. On the surface many would assume that Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists are basically the same type of anarchist with the only difference being their economic preference. Sadly this is not the case and Anarcho-Communism has become a perversion of the anarchist principles they claim to represent.
There is a term that applies to anarchists who prefer collective economics (voluntary socialism for those who don't consider such a term as an oxymoron) but do still recognise private property, but just think it should be collectively owned.
That term is Anarcho-Collectivism, which is basically the same as Anarcho-Capitalism in the sense that is does recognise private property but differs in the sense that is prefers to organise collectively and own property collectively.
Unfortunately many proponents want to abolish private property owned by the individual and enforce collective ownership of private property.
If they didn't want to abolish individual ownership of private property and only proposed encouraging collective ownership then Anarcho-Collectivism would be perfectly compatible with Anarcho-Capitalism and both can be embraced by the Nations Of Sanity.
As it stands, out of Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Collectivism and Anarcho-Capitalism only Anarcho-Capitalism can work in a free society without conflict, and even then Anarcho-Capitalism needs to accept the Non Aggression Principle as the overriding law that governs and restricts everything else, including private property.
So the real left wing divide in Anarchism is not Anarcho-Capitalism vs Anarcho-Communism. It is in fact Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Collectivism and if it wasn't for the intent to abolish individual private ownership of private property there would be no conflict between the two, only a difference of preference.
Sadly it seems that once again the left leaning version of Anarchism wants to violate the basic principles of voluntarism and forcefully take private property from individuals in order to hand over ownership to collectives.
Collective ownership is not a crime, neither is individual ownership. Attempting to abolish either clearly is a crime.
Anarcho-Communism is Anarchist in name only. It does not fit with a free society or the principles of voluntarism and is ultimately just statism in disguise.
Anarcho-Collectivism could be the left wing version of Anarchism that AnComs fail to be, and their philosophy is so desperately close to being compatible with a free society. But their advocacy of theft to facilitate their economic preferences ruins such potential.
If they were able to change that one aspect, by pursuing their goals of collective ownership through voluntary means, then they would be equally compatible with a free society as Anarcho-Capitalism and would be no different in the sense of law but only different in the sense of preference.
A difference of preference is welcomed by the Nations Of Sanity, which looks to create a free society which would be perfectly compatible with Anarcho-Capitalism as well as any collective variant of voluntarism which prefers collective systems. As long as it abides by the basic principles of voluntarism then any way of life is welcomed.
Sadly Anarcho-Communism is not faithful to the ethos Voluntarism and Anarcho-Collectivism could be if it wasn't for the immoral means they wish to employ.
Anarcho-Capitalism would be deemed faithful to voluntarism providing AnCaps can accept that private property must be restricted by the NAP. Outside of that caveat Anarcho-Capitalism IS Voluntarism and IS exactly what the Nations Of Sanity is fighting for.
But that one condition that potentially separates the Nations Of Sanity from Anarcho-Capitalism is very important. It is not property rights that defines a free society (even though property rights would be an obvious consequence) it is actually the Non Aggression Principle that defines, and ultimately must govern, a free society.
That is the clarification the Nations Of Sanity wants to make when it comes to the anarchism we advocate and the free society we fight for.
Voluntarism is defined by the Non Aggression Principle, nothing more and nothing less.
Anarcho-Communism will violate the NAP with both the proposed society and how such a society would be achieved.
Anarcho-Collectivism doesn't violate the NAP with its collective preference but does violate it with the proposed abolishing of individually owned private property (you can't abolish such a thing without coercion and immoral uses of force)
Anarcho-Capitalism does not violate the NAP unless it chooses to allow private property to be applied beyond the restrictions that the NAP lays down.
The concern about Anarcho-Capitalism is that corporations or other private interests will fill the power vacuum left by government.
The Nations Of Sanity presents the solution to such a concern by removing the power all together and replacing any and all potential systems of rule or oppression with the objectively moral law of the Non Aggression Principle (which would be established by the Non Aggression Agreement).
Voluntarism is the key and the Non Aggression Principle is the defining characteristic of a free society and the overriding law that should govern it.