>What percentage of the Ron Paul movement do you think is radicalizable?
I really don’t know. I haven’t been involved in the Ron Paul campaign. I guess it depends on how you approach them.
I’ll tell you what I do know:

The “radical free market” label was good for getting attention in Minneapolis.

Many people in the Minneapolis Ron Paul crowd described themselves as anarchists, and I did see a guy with a circle-a on his sleeve waving a Ron Paul sign at traffic (we made sure he got literature).

There are serious activists in the Ron Paul movement. I’ve ran into them previously at PorcFest and was impressed at their dedication to fighting for liberty.

I saw a Ron Paul sign in the corner of the Welcoming Committee Convergence Center. I have no idea how it got there.

There were Ron Paul signs in the march on Thursday and I’m pretty sure in the march on Monday.

My impression of the Paul movement is that most of them are sick of the war and sick of being told what to do and believe Paul and other electoral campaigns are the solution. Of course there are also those who approve of militarizing the borders.

>I’m working with the local Campaign for Liberty to promote cooperation with more lefty groups like Food Not Bombs and Anarchist Black Cross. Is this possible, do you think?

I’m not sure what Campaign for Liberty is, but if it is a Paul group, expect to hear a lot of questions (and rightfully so) from the lefties on Paul’s newsletters, racist connections, and pro-state positions. I do think it is an avenue worth pursuing.

What percentage of the Ron Paul movement do you think is radicalizable? I’m working with the local Campaign for Liberty to promote cooperation with more lefty groups like Food Not Bombs and Anarchist Black Cross. Is this possible, do you think?

I used to consider myself in favor of free-market capitalism. However, when looking at history it is clear that what is called capitalism does not ever entail a free market. The fact that people supporting capitalism use free market rhetoric to argue for a state-controlled market confuses this distinction. The “golden age” of capitalism (let’s say 19th century Britain and America) came about the closest to free markets on the continental scale in modern history, but it was marked by state intervention. Individualist anarchists in 19th century America had plenty to complain about. I would say that the economic system in the US today is a capitalist system controlled so heavily by the state that it borders on fascism.

I am not opposed to money as I see it as a means of exchange and not of exploitation, so long as there is not a monopoly on its issuance. Free market money (privately minted coins or certificates) are certainly part of my vision for the future and I expect it would be difficult for a large population to thrive without some kind of money. However, I do not think that monetary exchange is the only desirable exchange. Likewise I am not opposed to the concept of profit but do not believe profit has to be monetary (good feelings and better community ties count as profit to me). I would say that this is something that distinguishes what I would call free market values from what I would call capitalist values. I am also not opposed to the idea of banking, but I expect it would take a radically different form under a true free market.

Regarding property destruction, market anarchists make pains to distinguish legitimately acquired property from illegitimately acquired property. In fact the first installment of the Market Anarchy Zine Series is a reprint of Murray Rothbard addressing this problem in his more radical days. Since the state functions through stealing, all property claimed by the state is held illegitimately. Therefore I have no moral opposition to destroying state property.

Regarding property not held by the state, let me first say that I follow agorist class theory, which essentially divides people into the political class or productive class based on how their property was acquired, and lays out a gradual range of behaviors that serve the state or the private economy. Wealth is not inherently a mark of an exploiter, but in a system with so much coercion in it, those rich today are often beneficiaries of state policies.

To answer your question on Macy’s and banks, I’m personally against destroying or stealing property held by large corporations and banks unless said firms can be directly linked to obvious attacks on persons and property. But I can’t say I’m offended that it happened and I’m certainly not going to call those who did it bad anarchists. After all, what is one window compared to the advantages Macy’s receives from the state-driven capitalist system? Local banks is where it gets fuzzy. I will say that anarchists shouldn’t attack small businesses, as their owners are generally fellow workers who are robbed daily by taxes and regulations. Whether local banks fit into that category I don’t know. I am strongly against damaging personal possessions merely because they are symbols of wealth. The creation and accumulation of wealth is not inherently destructive or exploitive.

What I’m not clear on is how much property destruction actually occurred in St Paul. Some news reports from Monday would have you believe that it was rampant and indiscriminate, but all I’ve seen proof of were a few police cars, one bank, and the Macy’s. I’ve also heard that at least one of the Macy’s windows was broken by someone who was otherwise cornered by the cops.

I agree that anti-authoritarians should learn to work together. However, we should also discuss what constitutes authority. For some, opening a bank in a post-state world would be authoritarian, but for others burning it would be authoritarian. We need to continue the dialogue that is beginning between different types of anarchists, and read each other’s literature. Let’s not forget about dissidents who aren’t yet ready to embrace anarchism either. I do not believe that the revolution will follow anyone’s party lines exactly. Anarchists have to either live with each other or live with the state.

Some market anarchist reject the term “capitalism” because it has come to describe (in the minds of most people) the current current economic system in the U.S.–a partnership between big government and big corporations (as well as banks). This system cannot exist in the absence of government, and it is obviously not a free market.

So when a market anarchist says that he is against capitalism, he is referring to the current system, in which the government, through regulation, taxation, the Federal Reserve, corporate bailouts, etc., introduces severe distortions in the market.

Market anarchists are not against capital. You are right in stating that capital is a requisite part of the market economy. But what is capital? A capital good anything (raw material, machines, land, etc.) that is used in the production of consumer goods, and capital, as Gene Callahan puts it, “is an accounting convention for summing up those goods on a firm’s balance sheet” (Economics for Real People, pp.121-122,
http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf). Thus, a farmer who grows tomatoes and trades his tomatoes for bread and clothing in a barter economy owns capital (e.g., the land on which his tomato plants are grown, the tractor or plow he uses to till the soil).

I think most market anarchists would agree that money is an indispensable part of a complex economy. It is essential for two main reasons: 1-it allows for indirect trading and 2-it allows for economic calculation. Imagine that you are a piano teacher in a barter economy and that you wanted to buy a birthday cake for your friend’s birthday. What would you do if the baker did not want to take piano lessons and therefore would not trade his cake for piano lessons? You would probably have to find someone who produces something/provides a service that the baker wants and who also wants to take piano lessons. If you’re not able to find such a person, you would have to go through a more roundabout route to get your cake–trade piano lessons for eggs with A, trade eggs for a piece of clothing with B, then trade the piece of clothing for the cake with the baker. See how inconvenient and inefficient this process is? How much time and effort would people have to spend just trying to trade that they could have spent doing something else?

Now the second reason: economic calculation is the only way a complex economy can figure out how to allocate resources in such a way that satisfies the needs and wants of the largest number of people. Economic calculation cannot be done without a system of prices. (After all, you can’t add five nails, a hammer, two pieces of plywood, and a piece of glass to get a number that tells you how much it would cost to put in a window.) Economic calculation is essential for a complex economy, and it is also the reason why a pure socialist economy can never exist. Without prices, people would not be able to figure out how many rolls of toilet paper, pairs of jeans, bottles of canola oil–anything–to produce! This concept is a bit complicated, and I am probably doing a poor job explaining it. But if you are interested in learning about this kind of thing, I highly recommend Economics for Real People, which I linked to above. Alternatively, you can listen to this lecture given by Prof. Joe Salerno on Economic Calculation and Socialism.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2008/12_Salerno.mp3

Banks are another thing. The current banking system is a complete fraud. But I have to get back to work now. A great introduction to the theory of money and banking is Murray Rothbard’s “What Has Government Done to Our Money.” It is available in pdf format here:
http://mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf