Libertarians are opposed to aggression, and thus ought to also oppose the state, which is inherently and necessarily aggressive. That is, consistent libertarianism is anarcho-libertarianism. Libertarians who support (even a minimal) state thus often engage in contortions as a result of their holding inconsistent views–anti-aggression, yet pro-state. As I noted in What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, if you support the state, you must maintain either: maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (at least minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression. The libertarian opposes aggression, so usually eschews position (a); so the minarchist libertarian is put in the uncomfortable position of arguing that a peaceful, non-aggressive state is possible–despite the fact that there has never been a minimal state in history.
The libertarians who support taxes are in a particularly difficult position, since taxation is so obviously theft–aggression. Sure, some engage in contortions, adopting mainstream balderdash to argue that taxation is really “voluntary,” but most admit it is theft. Ayn Rand supported a minimal state but at least recognized that taxation was illegitimate (in her famous “Playboy” interview):
I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for — as they pay for insurance.
I was reminded of Rand’s idea this morning–on vacation here in Rosemary Beach, I went down to get my morning Starbucks, but unfortunately, it was closed recently due to Great Depression II. So I went down to another little coffee/breakfast shack to get a latte, and saw the pictured sign on the cash register–an optional 1% “town center contribution” fee “to promote and support a wide array of cultural, educational, and entertainment activities.” Imagine if all taxes were abolished, and localities had a little 1% voluntary fee to support the local Randian judges and sheriffs. Hmm.
{ 133 comments }
← Previous Comments
Mashuri- what do you think of my time-share minimalist state? Any major holes?
As for Anarcho-capitalist judges, the theory I came across said that people would have insurance companies to adjudicate these occasions, and both would pick a third company to judge if they disagreed. If both posted bond in a bank of the judge’s choice, then the outcome is out of the hands of the parties directly concerned. The companies would adjust your premiums to reflect your risk rating for the future.
Whilst there would be conflict, I don’t see any paradox.
Libertarianist- I think you have a novel idea and, to be honest, I tend to gravitate toward the minarchist state myself. I’d be wary of your proposed system creating a “citizen” and “non-citizen” class so growth of the state would have to be seriously put in check. I think our founders were on to the right idea, however, with a Constitution defining society but didn’t put enough checks against the state. Given the natural propensity for laws to multiply, perhaps an amendment that required any laws, mandates, taxes, etc, to be repealed by a less-than-majority popular vote (perhaps 20%+ vote to repeal) held at any time the populace saw fit?
Why not an automatic sunset clause? All laws only last for four years, unless renewed or replaced by a new law? Pollies come up with new laws because they have time on their hands. Keep them fully occupied, and you’ll have healthy reps, and a healthy constitution!
fundamentalist: “Under your definition of libertarian, Locke, Mises and Hayek wouldn’t be included. Nor would most libertarians before Rothbard. So if you’re going to kick out Mises, I’m in pretty good company and I’ll leave the libertarian label to the followers of the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic.”
I heartily agree with fundamentalist. If being an advocate of outright anarchy is a requirement for being a “true libertarian,” then you can count me out. This viewpoint that anyone who is not an absolute anarchist is a rabid fascist/socialist who personally endorses every evil ever committed by governing bodies is a false dichotomy (i.e., a logical fallacy) if I have ever seen one. Minarchists just do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater like the anarchists do, the “baby” being the proper roles of governments (ex., punishing violent criminals).
A highly moral (although not perfect) society could easily have an honest and respectable (although not perfect) government, one which would never have reason to or the desire to harass those who respected the lives, liberties, and properties of their neighbors. The problem is that we do not have a highly moral society (anymore, at least), and every institution in our society, not just the governing ones, clearly reflect that sad state of affairs. Restore the character of the underlying society, and the government will then be restored to its proper roles.
Richard Garner: “All the anarchist does is say, ‘I want everybody, individually or in groups, to be able to do what the state does.’ The onus falls on you to explain why an activity can be OK for one group of people to do, but not OK for others.”
This challenge assumes that every individual in society is equally authorized to perform all actions in a society which is clearly not the case. For example, fathers have a different level of rightful authority in households than their children do. Married people are rightfully authorized to do things with each other that others are not. Professors have a different level of rightful authority in college classrooms than students do, even if a student is actually biologically older than the professor in question. Employees at a place of business are rightfully authorized to do things and go places a customer is not. Every single person living in society has their possible actions delimited by varying levels and spheres of authority around them, a naturally occurring phenomenon in every human society.
Furthermore, at some earlier point, the society in which you currently live decided (implicitly or explicitly) to delegate the particular authority they had over protecting their own lives, liberty, and properties to some governing body which they instituted. In other words, the governing institutions which claim authority over you today were delegated that authority at some earlier point by founders, settlers, or representatives hundreds of years ago and would claim that delegation as still being in effect until explicitly revoked; that is where the difference between what we are authorized to do and what the government is authorized to do comes into play. The fact that there are so few recalls or impeachments of government officials in our modern society leads one to believe that most people are relatively content with that arrangement (or are not discontent enough to actually do something about it).
Now, you may respond that you never delegated your personal authority to any governing bodies, that you were born into a system to which you never explicitly consented. Well, the fact of the matter is that as long as you choose to physically reside in the territorial bounds claimed by that existing governing authority, you are implicitly consenting to that authority and are expected to live your life accordingly or face penalties of some kind.
The anarchist’s only options at this point other than to willfully submit to the existing governing authorities are to work to change them (ex., political activism), to revolt against them (ex., secession or civil disobedience), or to leave their spheres of influence altogether by physically relocating elsewhere (ex., the Pilgrims). The strongest argument anarchists could ever make in favor of their position would be to set up a colony somewhere and to demonstrate how well anarchy would work in practice (or that it even could work in practice), something like the Free State Project but along anarchist lines. As long as anarcho-capitalism exists purely in the realm of the theoretical, I doubt it will ever advance much as a movement.
@liberationist
Words don’t stop anyone.
The only safeguard, that would be a clearly visible red line, whose crossing would legally allow every individual cititzen to use any kind of force against the governemnt he himself thinks to be adequate to force the government.
Something like:
“The state is only allowed to issue paper money redeemable in gold. In case state is unwilling to redeem the amount of gold for the paper money in the amount declared upon the issuing of the paper money any owner of paper money is allowed to use any kind of force against property or employees of the state he himself thinks to be justified to force the state to either redeem the correct amount of gold or to take from the states property the just amount compensating him for his losses. In case the state is unable to redeem the president is guilty of treason and any citizen is allowed to treat him as if the president is on the brink of overthrowing the republic turning it into a totalitarian kingship.”
I do not know whether such a rule would be sensible, but only such rules will provide a real safeguard(especially in connection with the second amendment).
i liked it better when you were I Hate Taxes.
Richard: “But, if people have a right to form a government, then wouldn’t the exercising of this right by group of people A violate the same right of group of people B, if they try to form a government in the same geographic area?”
That would be a problem. Natural law isn’t without problems when it comes to implementation, just as anarchy isn’t. I’m not familiar with all of the discussion on government; it’s extensive and mostly about limits. Clearly natural law didn’t solve all of society’s problems. Just as there is a problem with anarchy if people don’t follow the rules, the same problem exists with natural law. If people can’t peacefully agree on what government to form and where, then problems will exist.
But we need to distinguish between the logic of the system and its implementation. Both natural law and anarchy have problems with implementation, not because they’re illogical, but because human nature is what it is. My argument is that anarchy, which is based on the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic, is not the only logical system of ethics and that natural law is more reasonable and better fits human nature. That’s because anarchy starts with the right to property; natural law starts with the right to life. Anarchy makes property an absolute. Natural law doesn’t make anything an absolute, but places the right to life at the pinnacle. It makes property a very close second with very few reasons allowed for its violation. The right to government issues from the rights to life and property and the right to protect both and create order.
I don’t understand the anarchists’ need to attack anyone and everyone who isn’t as ideologically pure as they think themselves to be. Minarchists are a tiny, insignficant minority in this country and anarchists are even less significant. So why are minarchists attacking friends? Shouldn’t the objective be to win converts on the major issues, not to chase away friends over minor ones?
fundamentalist: “fundamentalist
I don’t understand the anarchists’ need to attack anyone and everyone who isn’t as ideologically pure as they think themselves to be. Minarchists are a tiny, insignficant minority in this country and anarchists are even less significant. So why are minarchists attacking friends? Shouldn’t the objective be to win converts on the major issues, not to chase away friends over minor ones?”
“the objective” of what? Of seeking, discussing, and stating the truth? Of accurately identifying flaws in others’ conclusions and reasons? We are libertarians because we oppose aggression; of course we tend to identify and oppose it, or proposals for it, when we see it.
As for alliances, we are happy to ally with the minarchist-statists for now. If we ever reached minarchy, probably by this point most minarchists would have seen the light. If not, then at that point they would be the enemy and would be dealt with.
Chad Rushing,
No it doesn’t. Firstly, it assume that there are at least somethings that everybody is entitled to do, but it doesn’t assume that everything one person is entitled to do, somebody else is. Secondly, the term “authorised” presuposes some original set of rights that people hold without the exercise of which an action is not authorised. But I don’t think we need permission from our targets in order to use retaliatory or defensive force, do you? All this challenge does is say, since it is admitted that doing X is a legitimate activity, the onus falls on statists to say why some people should be prohibited from Xing, whilst others shouldn’t.
First of all, historically, this is baloney. No such thing was ever done.
Secondly, it just begs the question “so what?” The fact that somebody else decided to “delegate the particular authority they had over protecting their own lives, liberty, and properties to some governing body which they instituted” in no one implies that I have thereby also so delegated my rights, or that I ought to. Moreover, if the government is authorised to do these things only if I delegate to it my own right to do them, then surely if I “delegate the particular authority” I have “over protecting” my “own life, liberty, and properties to some” other institution, within the same geographic area as the “government” everybody else delegated their rights to, my institution would be just as authorised as theirs to protect my life, liberty and property. So why would theirs have a right to shut my institution down?
It is very quaint to see this type of argument made, since philsopher nowadays are pretty unanimous that it was been utterly debunked. The first proof that it has been debunked is that even you don’t believe it: If I were to move into your neighbourhood and declare myself the government of that neighbourhood, protecting the life liberty and property of everybody in it, and demanding everybody in it pays me for doing so, you wouldn’t think that you should either have to pay me or leave your home and life and move out. Nor would anybody be mad enough to presume that the fact that you stayed there indicated consent to recieve my protection for the fee’s I charge.
The argument from tacit consent is question begging. It attempts to argue that the existence of the state is legitimate by appealing to the legitimacy of the state’s rule over everybody within a given geographic area to do so.
Fundamentalist,
Well, it seems to be a problem that is easily sovable by, rather than saying that people having a right to form a government, you say that people have a right to form or patronise institutions to protect their person and property, to enforce their rights and punish violations, and to resolve disputes as to when or whether this has occurred. But anarchists are happy to admit this. Saying “I have a right to form a government” is different: It is saying “I have a right to do X, and stop everybody else from doing X.” Hence your next problem:
Right, but this is an issue about logic, not implementation. If my claim that “I have a right to do X, and to stop everybody else doing X” is true, it has to be the case that nobody else either has “a right to do X” or a “right to do X and stop others doing X.” My possession of such a right would be incompossible with other people’s possession of the same right, and incompossible with other people’s possession of a right to do X. But, since a “right to form a government,” assuming governments to be monopolistic (which you have accepted), is a particular example of a “right to do X and stop everybody else doing X,” it logically follows that it is impossible for everybody to have a right to form a government. But that would contradict your claim that people in general have such a right.
Well, I am sure that Rothbard and Hoppe would say that their theory of justice is a natural law theory, appealing to natural rights. Regardless, it is not necessary to be a Rothbardian or a Hoppean in order to be an anarchist. On Hoppe, unlike Stephan, I would agree with Rod Long’s assessment of his argument for rights, and also those in the Liberty magazine that Stephan linked to; though I am slightly more sympathetic to Rothbard’s own argument.
Richard
Richard: ” If my claim that “I have a right to do X, and to stop everybody else doing X” is true, it has to be the case that nobody else either has “a right to do X” or a “right to do X and stop others doing X.”
The right to form a government in natural law is not an individual right. The individual right would be the right of association. If individuals can agree to associate, then they have the right to form a government, but no individual has the right to form a government on his own.
Richard: “Well, I am sure that Rothbard and Hoppe would say that their theory of justice is a natural law theory, appealing to natural rights.”
You’re working with two definitions of natural law. One definition refers to the law that had been discovered through reason from Thomas Aquinas through Adam Smith. The other refers to the process of discovering natural law by reason. Rothbard claimed to be following the process, but he seriously deviated from the law itself, which only means that he held different assumptions than all of the natural law theorists before him.
Fundamentalist,
Fine, but, regardless, it would still mean that group of people A and group of people B still possess incompossible rights.
Stephan,
minarchists would beat anarchists, if it ever came to a fight because organised fighters (like armies) beat disorganised ones.
But it shouldn’t come to that.
There is a missing argument in anarcho-capitalist theory. Does anyone own the roads? If not, could anyone stop armed squatters from taking over roads as their own property? And setting themselves up as the equivalent of a government?
There is another argument which favours minarchies. We have evolved to live in small groups, and to interact with our neighbours- not to live isolated lives as rugged individuals. States are usually too large. Local communities, like villages, would be the right type for our genes. Minarchies fit this genetic need. So why not design societies with this in mind? Would we have alienated people if local communities had more power over their own affairs, and citizens did things (like practice fire drills, or militia training) together? Everyone should have absolute autonomy over their own possessions, and, if they choose, equal autonomy in public affairs to all other citizens. This Co-Autonomy is a workable minarchy, because we already have counties and shires, and just need to strengthen their powers whilst reducing the center’s powers. Not easy, but doable.
“liberationist”–In all your jabber, I didn’t see a defense of aggression as justified. Could you kindly point me to it?
Chad Rushing:
I don’t see how petulance changes the fact that it’s not possible to justify aggression, and that the state inherently, necessarily engages in aggression.
Stephan,
I would say that initiating aggression is not justified, but responding to it is justified. As regards my talk of battles, that was in response to you classifying minarchists as enemies. If you did try to fight us, we would aggressively defend ourselves.
liberationist
“I would say that initiating aggression is not justified”
Well, aggression means initiating force. So you mean “aggression.”
“, but responding to it is justified.”
Yes, this is not aggression.
In fact this elementary reasoning shows why you are wrong to support any state action as legitimate: states necessarily initiate force against innocent people, which means that their use of force against the state would be legitimate, or rightful.
” As regards my talk of battles, that was in response to you classifying minarchists as enemies.”
They support the state, while pretending to be allies. What do you call this?
” If you did try to fight us, we would aggressively defend ourselves.”
Yes, sure, this is exactly what your kind believes in–getting your way with force. We know. we’ve seen this before. Are you proud of yourself? You’ve won. You’ve gotten your force-dominated, statist world. Congratulations. You can kill us. But you can’t make us wrong.
Who says my version of a state would initiate force? The only options I’ve left it are to collect fees from people who choose to use its’ services, and to enforce its’ own laws on its’ own land, the same as any other owner of property. How would this be different in an anarchic society? (And I was serious when I said that anarchy would have a problem with road ownership- if you start off with no-one owning pre-existing roads, how do you keep them ‘free’? Who decides these issues?)
And my dictionary distinguishes between ‘aggression’ and aggressive- I could retaliate aggressively. As for being in the right, I said that minarchists would DEFEND themselves. This means that someone else started it. That means that I would be in the right when I defend myself.
“All the anarchist does is say, ‘I want everybody, individually or in groups, to be able to do what the state does.’ The onus falls on you to explain why an activity can be OK for one group of people to do, but not OK for others.” – R. Garner
C. Rushing pretty much said it well – at what point would people be of ‘equal rank and standing’ that everyone will have equal access to everything? In anarchotopia a property owner can forcibly exclude a visitor who doesn’t own property so by the same logic: a property owner is exercising a power that the non-propertied person doesn’t have. One reply could be “well the non-propertied person could get himself some property and then he too will get that power”. But then ex-slaves could become slave owners therefore the slave owners weren’t exercising any power that slaves couldn’t attain for themselves.
It’s rather funny that you, R. Garner, declare that you don’t believe you don’t have to abide by the state because you don’t agree with so why can’t a squatter ‘homestead’ someone else’s private land and decide since he didn’t sign any contract with the previous landowner he doesn’t recognise any prior ownership and his ‘homesteading’ is valid in his eyes and he’s going to dig in his heels and be a pain to remove?
And, of course, S. Kinsella, you’re setting up yourself in an infallible bubble and declare the state to exist whenever anyone uses ‘initiated force’ so you’re not particular interested in debate but you prefer to defend your bubble from all manners of ideological onslaught.
Gil-
Everyone is a property-owner, according to libertarians, because we all own ourselves, which means we own our bodies, and a free mind to set our own goals. We can also acquire other types of property, such as lands and possessions. We should all have the individual right to do what we want with any of our properties.
There is no paradox, or non-right. Some people will have more things to use than others, but property doesn’t only mean ‘land’.
Gil,
True. However, both the property owner and the squatter can simultaneously have a right “the right to exclude uninvited people from their property.” It is because the property owner has that right, a right the squatter also has, that the property owner has authority in this situation that the squatter doesn’t.
You are misunderstanding the nature of the need for consent if the state is to be legitimate, in, for instance, the philosophy of Locke: The problem is that the state does things that nobody is entitled to do, whether they have agreed to such restrictions or not, and the only way to legitimately do those things is if it is granted permission, or authorised, which is what the process of consent is does. So the fact that I have property rights, in myself and my homesteaded land, and their product, whether anybody else likes that fact or not, or has consented to my having such rights or not, is what means that the state requires my consent if it is to be able to legitimately do certain things to me or mine, or on my behalf.
For this reason, the lack of consent to the state is not analogous to the lack of consent for property rights: the fact I have property rights whether you like it or not is what generates the requirement that you get my consent, my permission, to do various things to or with me.
What restrictions, pray tell, does the ‘state’ exercise that a private landowner doesn’t? Apparently you and many Libertarians believe private landowners will be individuals with a small plot of land. It wouldn’t occur to you there may in fact be large private landowners who will lease out their land to those without land and thereby will mimic the ‘state’ (except they’re private of course). Once again the notion the ‘state’ is ‘illegitimate’ comes to fact that the fact that some don’t see it having ‘homesteaded’ the land properly. But private landowner may well find themselves forcibly ousting squatters who argue the same thing in kind.
Gil,
It plainly hasn’t. The state was not here first and the people after. Moreover, no state even pretends that its right to rule over the people rests on any prior appropriation of all land that it made. (Even here in the UK, where the queen supposedly owns all land, in reality this is merely formal just as asking her permission to form a parliament is, and secondly, the royalty never legitimately acquired the land). States claim to rule over a given area, and if you live in that area, that means they rule you. But only socialist states claim to own all the land (and even then, they pretend the people really do, and the state really just manages it for them).
Richard
Were your family living the U.S. prior to 1776? Or your family migrate to the U.S. when the government was already established? If the second then you’d be akin to a squatter in the private scene.
Gil, you are wrong, because the USA itself has no standing in the matter; it stole the land in the first place (see my earlier comparison between the state and people like William Penn who really did have standing from being there first or having made purchases).
The revolting colonists had the ethical right to do what the Boers or the Mormons did later,separate themselves off from those they wished to separate from by leaving themselves. They would have had the ethical right to separate themselves off in place if they had had no realistic alternative, i.e. if they had been fenced in, as they would have had the right to any reasonable requirements for effective separation. But this was not the case; since they could have left but chose not to, and even expelled those who weren’t revolting without even the compensation agreed in the peace treaty, the USA was founded on theft of land and doesn’t have that sort of sound prior claim. The Jackson Purchase is about the only area of the USA that might be legitimate that way (everything else was either similarly stolen or was purchased under duress and/or from people like Napoleon who similarly lacked standing). Even that’s only true if the sellers had it properly, something I don’t know one way or the other.
Hence, P.M.Lawrence, a squatter could endlessly dicker over a private landowner’s rights too. It may as well be argued that the War of American Independence was pointless as a section of a ‘state’ seceded to become a ‘state’ in kind – nothing much was achieved. It might as well have been a ‘buy local’ campaign. Or even a ‘caught’ intruder trying to engage in ‘self-defence’ in a Mafia member’s home.
No, Gil, you’re missing the point. You were using the USA as an example, but that example doesn’t qualify under the criteria you were applying of being there first as a rightful owner. That’s even without looking into whether it is the sort of entity that ever could qualify.
Your or your opponents’ ability to keep quibbling doesn’t have anything to do with this, only whether the example you gave is a sound one. Even if people can argue about it, that is what is called “arguable” – which means you can’t put any weight on it.
Gil,
Well, I am British, so the first option is ruled out. As to the second, well, what is it that you are trying to prove? In order to say that the government is entitled to a monopoly of force, to create rules, and tax, as a private owner is on their land, you are supposed to be proving that the relationship between the government or state and the people is like that of a landlord to tennants. Now, could you tell me what action in 1776 made the government the owner of all the land in the then United States, nevertheless land that has been annexed to it? Nothing, so far as I can tell. The government did not buy the land (some land it has bought, but using tax revenues which need to be justified in the first place), it didn’t homestead it, because there were others there, using it first.
Maybe you will say that the people of the USA came together and formed a club, transfering land ownership to that club, but since most of the people of the USA were not involved in forming the government, that is implausible, and since even those that were involved did nothing to indicate they were transfering their land to the US Government, or the states, again such a claim would fail.
Plainly the state cannot claim the rights that a homesteader has, and so those cannot be used to justify its power.
Then why not take Australia as an example? The Aborigines wouldn’t qualify as ‘homesteading’ any part of Australia. Hence talks of ‘native title’ and ‘land rights’ wouldn’t stem from Libertarian arguments. An Aussie couldn’t use “the Guvmint ‘stole’ the land therefore I can see them as invalid and I can secede” because the current Federal Government evolved from the people who arrived since First Fleet in 1788.
Gil,
Well, I don’t see why we shouldn’t treat Aborigines as homesteaders just because [i]they[/i] didn’t see themselves that way. However, suppose there is a land race to undiscovered land to appropriate it, but one of the competitors robs a bunch of people so he can buy a better ship, or horse, or whatever gives him an edge. Naturally, he wins the land race, but arguably only because he has the advantage gained by his act of robbery. Does that mean he should have been able to claim that land as his own? I think not – he cheated.
Further, what process is necessary in order to appropriate whole continents? Columbus apparently claimed South America for the monarch of Spain. Is that correct? Just getting to a continent first makes you the owner of the whole of it?
Gil and Richard Garner, I gave an analysis that also fits the Australian aboriginal case in an earlier thread (here), answering Newson’s “how can nomadic herder/grazers [in what later became Zimbabwe] establish valid title to land via homesteading in the first place?”:
“There are two answers. That more or less describes the Matabele; the Mashona were more agriculturist (unless I’ve got the two muddled up). Even so, the former lifestyle does establish property rights of a different sort to outright land holding. That group would be entitled to exercise their former lifestyle, unless – as they probably would – they agreed to accept a quitrent for not doing so. That would leave the land owners with title, but encumbered and not free and clear. (There is a parallel here for most of Australian aboriginal land title claims.)”
The famous Mabo case relied on tribal customs in one area, which did use land fairly specifically. Unfortunately, that is being used as a precedent to establish land rights for all sorts of other groups that used land in the other ways covered by the analysis above. Ironically, that is also a sort of cultural imperialism, forcing non-customary practices on the others, and it could well turn out to be a poisoned chalice for them just as the Allotment Movement was for natives in the USA.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.