Comments (60)

• Manuel Lora

  I fully agree. Barnett is a huge Spooner fan but ends up betraying him.

  Published: November 29, 2005 7:53 AM

• Phillip Conti

  Has anyone got any thoughts on the work of Michael van Notten http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/X/Som/index.html or Real Limon?
  http://www.limonreal.com/

  Published: November 29, 2005 8:49 AM

• tz

  But will you use force if I don't consent to your ideas on property rights? Or your ideas on symmetrical application (one person used the term estoppel)?

  If we contend that murder and theft are evil, wrong, or use whatever term, not by individual personal choice, whim, or whatever, but reason itself, that "do no harm" is true in the same way as "2+2=4" (i.e. how would you argue an invoice for several times the amount you thought you would pay with someone who doesn't believe in your quaint ideas about arithmetic), then there is something which is beyond consent. 2+2=4 is true whether I wish it to be or not, whether I consent to it or not. How can I not give my consent?

  I've not seen any demonstration that the proposed private thuggery organizations will enforce the natural law more accurately than the current public thuggery organizations. It is just assumed. Just like it is assumed that they will not create nor enforce nonsense laws. Worse, one recent article suggested a private surveillence state was the price of eliminating violent crime.

  Truth is not something subject to market or democratic forces. Murder is not wrong or right depending on the price or the vote. Big government types think that electing agreeable bureaucrats (legislators or judges would be included) will allow Nirvana by enforcing laws. But no-government types think that leaving the matter of good and evil to the market will create nirvana because people will naturally purchase good over evil. But the record is that whether votes or money are used, it is in the majority used - eventually - for evil. Consentual evil? Perhaps that is better than imposed evil, but eventually evil no longer asks for consent.

  Or like many, they give consent to the result or product, but want to withold consent to the price or payment.

  If he has a point, it might be that old quote: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but everyone wants liberty, but no one wants to be vigilant.
  

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:00 AM

• Jim Bradley

  Right on target tz. Man's corrupt nature is the primary issue, libertarianism cannot solve it, therefore there's no guarantee that anarcho-libertarianism is "better" -- nor can any system be (ultimately) enforced except by violence, irrespective of it's "truth". I see no evidence that a libertarian society increasingly dominated by economic powers, won't turn ugly, and perhaps faster than our nation has or will.

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:14 AM

• Adam

  tz makes good points. I love this antithetical to history view that libs have of the nature of man. More than an institutionalization of freedom, democracy is a process that effects itself in many ways as minority rule, not majority. Or, if you like, a localized majority, divided into classes between those who hold the power to act and those who support them, our representation and our polity, over small geographic areas. What this means is democratic process will hold ineluctible sway over any market-driven anarchocapitalism as well. Eliminate as you prefer in your head or on some paper the power to tax, redistribute, and annex, but from anarchy to minarchy to omniarchy (this is a poor term) those who want, the have-nots, will always "vote" (metaphor for 'effect') for whatever portion they can of the havers property or right to earn thereof. If you don't ASSUME there is already prosperity eliminating this malevolence, what gives you the right to ASSUME that people will patiently wait their turn in the capitalist merry-go-round of material satisfaction? So you see major violations of the American Constitution by actually very few rogues and thieves. As if this only happens because of the demon state, the dread monopoly. If you believe that you need psychological help or a vacation from your mind. I'm as opposed to statist collectivism as anyone else but the moral indignation most libertarians carry around is frankly embarrassing sometimes. Privatization isn't good simply because you believe it to be so (or, as you prefer, that you argue poignantly that the moral component of liberty wins your argument every time; it doesn't) and market forces aren't either. These become imbued by our human all too human natures, and we're not all good people seeking peace, liberty, and prosperity (or, insert your own bloody trilogy). If YOUR species and ilk aren't ALREADY the majority, then what does it matter? This is pragmatism. Stop living in your head.

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:24 AM

• David J. Heinrich

  Jim,

  The point is, no matter what you assume about man's nature, libertartianism is the best political system.

  If we assume that men are corrupt and sinful, it is all the worse that there is a State -- especially a Democracy -- for this means that the very worst will rise to the top.

  As for the prospects of a Stateless society working, it worked in Ancient Iceland for 300 years, and in Ancient Ireland for 1000. It existed in the not so Wild West for a few decades, until the Fed crushed it.

  Also, nothing about anarcho-capitalism would prohibit the use of violence: only the initiation of aggression. I could use force to defend myself against the initiation of aggression, and so could others who I hired to do such for myself. But it isn't even clear that one requires such force to have a Stateless society: Bob Murphy has made a very good argument for why pacifism is practical for defense against crooks.

  I find it quite amusing that you attempt to justify Statism, or degrade libertarianism, using Biblical references. The Bible is extremely strong in support of property rights, and anyone not previously brainwashed by neocons would have to admit that Jesus was a pacifist, and mandated that his followers be pacifists as well.

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:28 AM

• iceberg

  I don't subscribe to the humantropy school of human nature, which I believe places me in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's camp. It's the mere existence of authority (democratic, oligarchic, etc.) which bestows an imaginary moral right to kleptocracy and murder, so no suprise that that human nature has historically been perverted in the name of God, State, Environment, et al.

  If just to channel some Robert Anton Wilson, humantropy is the condition onset by disciples of the Aneristic Principle, whom suffering this illusion cannot appreciate the erisian lessons of discordianism, and will therefore be fearful from any activity not strictly regulated in the illusory cosmos enforced under government fiat.

  Or as Mises would put it- state organized chaos.

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:59 AM

• Paul Marks

  As is well known, the resistance of the Supreme Court to the F.D.R. Administration's unconsitutional programs collapsed in 1937. The majority of the court starting to accept that the government could spend taxpayers' money on any program it believed was for the "general welfare" (thus treating the PURPOSE of the powers of Congress, as mentioned in the preable to the Constituion and in the first paragraph of Article One Section 8 of the Constitution, as if it were a POWER in its own right).

  There is a lot of complex talk about why one judge switched his vote (leaving the "four horsemen of the apocalypse" to go down to defeat in their stand for the Constitution of the United States). But surely the Presidential election of 1936 is a key factor.

  The people of the United States were faced with a choice between a moderate Republican (Governor Landon) and a person who clearly rejected the notion of limited government and had used the Constitution of the United States for toilet paper (Franklin Roosevelt). And the voters opted for Roosevelt by 60% to 40% - all but two States (Maine and Vermont) voted to reelect F.D.R.

  Of course we can whine about biased medea coverage (especally in the government licenced radio stations), but there were quite a lot of conservative newspapers and magazines (far more than now)and the people knew the choice they were making.

  Sure (in theory) a court can stand against the will of the majority, but (in reality) how is it to be done? I would support a jury rather than a group of government appointed judges - but we would still have to convice a jury of the case for freedom. Although they might not be so clever in twisting the words of the Constitution in order to get the, statist, conclusion they want.

  What is the point about talking about anarchy or anarcho-capitalism when most people do not even believe in limiting government? If the government vanished today, the people would just recreate a government (or there would be lots of statist groups engaged in armed conflict).

  Most of the people of the United States (like the people of Britain and every other nation I know anything about) do not believe in freedom. Perhaps they did once upon a time, but (in the case of the United States) they certainly have not believed in limiting the functions of government since the 1930's.

  This is the central truth that libertarians must face - most people are not just not on our side, they are actively against us.

  It is not a conspiracy of "progressive education" (although government education was dominant in the 1930's the people who voted in 1936 were certainly not the product of John Dewey style leftist schools and F.D.R. went to a private school)or the "establishment media" (I repeat, there were many Conservative newspapers in the 1930's). The people rejected freedom - even mild Alf Landon style freedom (let alone libertarianism).

  Until most people (somewhere) actually want government to be limited (let alone abolished) we will get nowhere.

  Published: November 29, 2005 11:15 AM

• scott

  So if the Fed crushed the anarchistic Wild West, isn't that an argument against anarchy? It couldn't defend itself from the state.

  I'm a market anarchist but I realize what I wish for will never even come close to happening. I try to secure liberty for myself as much as I can though.

  Published: November 29, 2005 3:02 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  While I can see the temptation to simply have the federal courts or the SCOTUS "lay down libertarian law", it does seem that such a tactic is simply forcing people to accept something, whether they want it or not. It's taken me a while to accept, but I now realize that a policy of decentralization is taking steps towards libertarianism, however small they may be, or however many times they have to be repeated in fifty states and numerous localities.
  
  
  All I can say to Paul is this: how are people ever going to want limited government until they know and understand what limited government is? Is it futile for scientists to pursue scientific truth, though a majority of people may know or care little for it? The point of discussing and debating economics and politics is, like the scientists, to pursue the truth.
  
  Admittedly, this in itself is insufficient for changing the political system, but it still seems a necessary condition if we want to make changes in the right direction. Thus, if Randy Barnett is pointing people in the wrong direction, then it's important for other libertarians to understand and explain why it's wrong.

  Published: November 29, 2005 3:07 PM

• David J. Heinrich

  Scott,

  That the Fed crushed anarcho-capitalism in the "Wild West" is not an argument against anarcho-capitalism, anymore than that Hitler crushed freer nations than Nazi Germany is an argument against having more free nations.

  If anything, such is an argument against strong centralized States, as they are more capable of, and more likely to, destroy freedom.

  Published: November 29, 2005 3:54 PM

• Jim Bradley

  There's no Biblical reference here David. The anarcho-libertarian ideology is flat-out unworkable in many incarnations posited on this website. There's more depth here than elsewhere, but still the arguments are unexamined (does anyone REALLY believe that it is defensible to allow the starvation of children and no legitimate "property usurping" action can be taken in cases of neglect?). The only solution that arises is a return to limited government that respects private property but adheres to a shared morality -- and by any and all means possible including that of armed defense in cases of aggression against peaceful citizens, hiding assets that are confiscated unjustly, promulgation of liberty soundbites, and continuous application of correct and well-thought-out practical legal theory.

  Published: November 29, 2005 5:26 PM

• Paul Antonik Wakfer

  > Though well-intentioned, the book is fatally
  > flawed. Mr. Barnett's arguments that a monopoly
  > government can be legitimate are unpersuasive;
  > his arguments that the federal government
  > should limit its own power are futile; and his
  > arguments that the federal government should
  > impose libertarianism on the states are
  > dangerous.

  Over a year ago I wrote two commentaries of strong arguments criticizing the foundations of some of Barnett's ideas in general and this book in particular.

  
  

  
  

  > He shows, for example, that voting rights do
  
  > not create consent. A vote for a candidate does
  
  > not necessarily indicate consent to anything
  
  > the candidate may do in office — it may merely
  
  > be (and almost always is) a vote in
  
  > self-defense against an even worse candidate.
  
  > Further, there is no way to choose not to
  
  > "consent" through voting because under this
  
  > theory, the nonvoter is assumed to have
  
  > consented, too, by forgoing his opportunity to
  
  > vote.

  Actually, there is a way to accomplish this. Simply place on the ballot an option to select "none of the above" with the clearly stated understanding that this is for the purpose of abolishing the office. That would certainly be an indication of non-consent.

  
  

  > Mr. Barnett also refutes arguments that one
  > consents to a nation's government simply by
  > living within its borders. To argue that
  > residency equals consent, one must assume "that
  > lawmakers have the initial authority to demand
  > your obedience or exit in the first place." The
  > residency argument cannot support this
  > assumption anymore than it could be said that a
  > rape victim consents "simply by being there."

  
  

  Excellent logical analogy! I will be using that one in the future.

  
  

  
  

  > Finally, he shows that acquiescence does not
  
  > equal consent. True, there must be general
  
  acquiescence for a government to exist at all,
  
  > but that cannot be the same thing as
  
  > consent.[3] Otherwise, even the most oppressive
  
  > regime would be legitimate.

  This confusion of meanings of "consent" is why I prefer to use the words "permit" and "permission" instead.

  
  

  
  

  > Thus, nothing short of a libertarian revolution
  
  > would be necessary for courts to begin doing
  
  > what Mr. Barnett wants them to. How could such
  
  > a revolution come about? Not by educating
  
  > people about the Constitution, but by educating
  
  > them about liberty. And any good libertarian
  
  > education reveals that "limited government" is
  
  > impossible.

  As is best possible adjudication of disputes by monopoly power courts, also impossible. So even having the courts do "what Mr. Barnett wants them to" would be far less than satisfactory.

  
  

  > Of course, if Mr. Barnett and like-minded > libertarians can persuade the federal > government that it lacks the power to do certain > things, that is to be applauded.

  
  

  Not really, since it would only lengthen the period of reduced liberty by delaying the termination of the state and the achievement of a market anarchist society.

  
  

  > But such efforts are not only futile in the
  > long run, they also perpetuate the myth that
  > "limited government" is possible if only we put
  > the right ideas in front of the right
  > government officials. This seems an unfortunate
  > waste of talent for a powerful mind such as
  > Randy Barnett's.

  It is not only a waste, but a disservice, since such efforts to sanction and legitimize the state are not merely futile, but are harmful to the cause of true liberty.

  
  

  > Further, a powerful federal court consisting of > libertarian judges may achieve short-term good,

  
  

  "Short-term good" is an oxymoron - a self-contradictory non-concept that has been perpetrated on an unsuspecting public by intellectuals who do not understand that impractical "ideals" are not valid and therefore cannot be ideals at all.

  
  

  > Conclusion
  >
  > Restoring the Lost Constitution has a laudable
  > goal,

  I disagree based on the title of the book appearing to be Barnett's "goal".

  
  

  
  

  > but advises inappropriate means for achieving
  
  > desirable ends.

  Again, I disagree. Barnett has not clearly enunciated any ends that are truly desirable for the cause of liberty and his means are worse than inappropriate but instead positively harmful.

  
  

  > Randy Barnett's obvious intelligence and
  > appreciation for liberty make it all the more
  > disappointing to see him squander his talents
  > trying to rescue a document that has shown
  > itself so incapable of protecting liberty, and
  > so capable of justifying offenses against it.

  That much is certainly true. I hope that your incisive and hard-hitting review will help get Randy Barnett back on track.

  
  

  
  

  --Paul Wakfer
  
  
  
  MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
  
  Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
  
  The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
  
  Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting

  Published: November 29, 2005 5:31 PM

• Paul Antonik Wakfer

  Please excuse the extra blank lines in my post. They were not there in the preview. This is a poor and difficult to use blog tool.

  Published: November 29, 2005 5:44 PM

• Alan Gifford

  Adam, you mention the struggle between have's and have-not's; those at the poorer end of the spectum, by hook or by crook, will do what they can to get a bigger share of the wealth. tz and Jim Bradley seem to be in agreement that it is man's imperfect/evil nature that breeds injustice; I would tend to agree. A couple of questions spring to mind about these (at least in my mind) related situations.

  As for the have's and have-not's, let me just say that I don't think this rift will ever really close. Some people will simply value their leisure time more than others, and choose to have less material satisfaction, while others will give up leisure in pursuit of more wealth. I don't see anything wrong with this, and in any event, don't see any way of doing away with it.

  In the libertarian ideal then, there would still be the problem (as per tz and Jim's comments) that due to this disparity in resources, man's imperfect nature rears its ugly head in any conceivable organizational model, whether it be socialism, free-market of your preference, or anything else. This is a valid point, and I have often used the reverse of this to show why it is a bad idea to give government the power for almost anything. It's silly to think that people, all just as fallible, when given monopoly power (as in government), will do the best thing. At least there's another choice when private individuals do it.

  But I did think of one trend that may hold back this primal desire to satisfy wants with the least amount of work. I think it's possible that the more intelligent people become, the easier it is for them to act morally, and the less they will act in violation of others' rights for satisfaction of their wants. The stronger the rational part of the brain becomes, it will take increasingly greater pain and desire to push a person to act on the urge to take what they want from others rather than creating their own prosperity. Additionally, higher intelligence leads to more efficient use of resources, ceterus paribus, which will also serve to lower the proportion of people in dire need.

  I suppose there will always be those people at the very bottom of the spectrum, who are clawing and fighting for life, and they will not be concerned with the rights of others, but again I think that the more we progress, the smaller will be the proportion of people living in the squander needed to push someone beyond this threshold.

  I think most people are intelligent enough to understand the benefits of working to create one's own prosperity, which is positive, instead of simply taking from others, which is zero sum at best. The problem is that the understanding for most people isn't strong enough, or obvious enough, to abate the envy and selfishness at the core of us all.

  Perhaps the libertarian ideal would work to end this. I've taken a much more roundabout way of getting to this point than I would like, but here it is: with no more welfare subsidizing ignorance and stupidity, with no heavy taxation to penalize those who succeed, the less intelligent people will die off. This is nothing more than letting nature do its thing. I'm just positing that if it's true that the more intelligent people are (in an absolute ratio of rational brain power to animalistic instincts), the less they'll infringe on others' rights, then a libertarian society may not show the evils of man's nature as much because it will increasingly make those evil impulses extinct.

  It's a lot to claim that a philosophy will literally change the nature of humankind for the better, but when considered in this context, I don't find it outlandish. All of this ignores the possibility of the core, selfish part of the brain becoming stronger in pace with the rational part. Not being highly educated in psychology, I wouldn't at all rule this out as a possibility. Maybe it is all relative, and all this conflict is just the keeping of things in a natural balance, and all our efforts in designing a system for greater peace is futile. Just something to think on.

  Published: November 29, 2005 5:50 PM

• averros

  tz and Jim -- if you think that men are inherently evil and corrupt, please do us a favor and shoot yourselves. Less evil is good, right? So taking yourselves out of circulation is only bound to reduce evil.

  Oh, you won't? Then in reality (not on words) you are *for* evil and corruption, and have no business claiming that you are for morality & such. Or you are lying about your beliefs (that's not exactly good, by the way). Or are not human at all, and so are exempt from your claims about human nature (may I suggest visiting a therapist?)

  Excuse me for being offensive, but I start to feel that anyone promoting that old canard about evil human nature deserves to be believed for few minutes and treated according to his own preaching - with a stake or a noosle.

  Published: November 29, 2005 9:50 PM

• David J. Heinrich

  averros,

  Not to scold and ally on this issue or anything, but I think that's a little bit harsh.

  I think what they're saying is not necessarily that there is no good in man, but that there is necessarily evil in all of us. We are all sinners, and are all fallible, even though there is goodness and beauty in us all (ok, that's debatable in certain cases, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao).

  Also, to preach that everyone is a sinner and is fallible is not necessarily to treat people with a stake and noose. Many Christians, including myself, believe this, but also believe in forgivness for the fact of man's sin and imperfection/fallibility.

  Published: November 29, 2005 10:40 PM

• MLS

  So if the Fed crushed the anarchistic Wild West, isn't that an argument against anarchy? It couldn't defend itself from the state.

  It is not as if the Fed literally came in and killed the unruly Wild Westerners. The bridge to statism was a slow process developing in people's mind. People don't really value freedom until they lose it.

  Published: November 29, 2005 11:26 PM

• averros

  David :) Of course, you are right.

  But as soon as one starts to say that men are good and evil and *different*, then the argument "from the evil nature" totally falls apart - because if everyone is capable of both good and evil, the question becomes, essentially, a question of fighting evil without becoming evil themselves. It stops being an absolute (i.e. men are evil, so they need an overlord or they'll kill each other) and becomes "maybe" and "it depends", a matter of opinion and futher discussion.

  I wouldn't argue that it is possible to have a libertarian society among beasts - they are not capable of having morals (well, it is somewhat more nuanced, but I'll not dwell on the details; let me just say that the moral behaviour has roots in instincts shared with animals).

  But people are capable of morality, and so it depends - there is no valid argument saying that a society of sufficiently moral people won't be able to maintain liberty among themselves. It also defines the present task of the libertarian movement - to make people to understand and accept the only moral system which comes with the logical proof of its validity.

  Published: November 29, 2005 11:34 PM

• Jim Bradley

  Averros -- Chill out. The argumentation against a pure-libertarian society doesn't detract from the overwhelming correctness of dispersion of power (and aggressive use of force to defend one's life, liberty, and property) as well as a practical system of limiting government. The assumptions from anarcho-libertarianism destroy the force of the argument, by dancing around many difficult points: the nature of corruptible man, the consolidation of power, necessary morality, etc. Again, instead of continuous rants about imaginary state of affairs Mises.org should be telling how, in practical terms, to limit the state (or to secede legally and successfully) from our present situation.

  "A Republic, if you can keep it".

  Published: November 30, 2005 10:11 AM

• tz

  I'll get around to shooting myself just after I've shot you (averros) and all the other evil people...

  There is a distinction between an evil nature and a fallen nature (which is redeemable) which I make and can go into in depth if need be.

  Part of that is that I need to be just as willing to show mercy as well as justice, since I will do (hopefully petty) acts of harm. These can be unintentional, or done out of emotion instead of reason, but if you assume everyone will act like a bugless computer program you will fail. Saints show heroic virtue, not better economic calculation.

  When you put property over liberty and life, you allow for economic power to destroy liberty. This simply follows and is a tautology. I don't. I place life first, then liberty, then property.

  There are some subtleties - Theft and robbery aren't crimes against property, they are crimes against liberty (my right to own something is being abriged by the criminal, and it is the right which is being taken more than the property).

  An anarchocapitalist is someone who would rather pay $500 per month in an "insurance premium" rather than $50 in a tax because the former is voluntary in some sense of that word.

  The problem with the "have nots" is that usually there is injustice going on, and that can come from too much or too little government. When the "have nots" can simply through work and savings become "haves", they won't use force, either directly or by proxy (voting socialism and redistribution).

  The "too much" is often pointed out on this site, like the state grants of monopoly or regulation that keeps people from entering trades. But the other side is also a problem. When the small people can't buy property, or save, or freely trade (think "company store" or union thuggery), so can't acquire anything no matter how hard they work, and there is no power that will allow free trade not to be suppressed, there isn't enough of whatever you want to call it - state, government, power - for there to be freedom.

  That is one reason I maintain you cannot contract to give up fundamental rights. I don't think a company can force you to eat at their restaraunts (at inflated prices) instead of vendors just outside as a condition of employment.

  Morality is not instinct. It derives from reason. Specifically using the will to override passions when reason says things are wrong.

  People are capable of morality, but only imperfectly. And the better that perfection the less they need, and the less they want external government.

  This is one of the splits in the libertarian wing - some want license for debauchery or worse. The other half recognizes virtue, including civic virtue, as a precondition for liberty.

  CS Lewis once talked about society being a convoy. Generally laws that make ships avoid ramming each other are easily accepted. The ultimate direction and destination of the convoy is something else, but the third category is insuring the ships are seaworthy. If a boat is going to be on the edge of sinking, or can't avoid running into others, it will be a problem.

  If someone is addicted, they are a slave to whatever they are addicted to in a way that the southern slave holders would have never been able to enforce. Yet slaves don't make good libertarians. The fix is more important than their own life, much less your property.

  Many can be quite functional, so I'm not talking about a general discrimination. But were I to employ someone like that I would have to be cautious. I don't have a right to interfere with what they do at home (though I would be horribly callous if I didn't want them to be the best human being they could be). That doesn't mean that what they do at home doesn't affect their character, and character does matter in the workplace and in the public square.

  I forgot who said "hypocracy is the compliment vice pays to virtue". That is far better than what we have now which asserts there is no such thing - either because of a PC moral relativism, or by putting vice and virtue up for auction as some here would do.

  The private side of people can affect their "seaworthyness". The pandemic of STDs isn't caused by anything public (I would note the pandemic never gets coverage - including here, maybe because public health is one of those "interesting" problems for libertarians).
  

  Published: November 30, 2005 10:15 AM

• Adam

  Speaking for others isn't my strength so when I spoke about havers and not-havers and human malevolence, I meant just that. You've gone too deep for relevance to what we see every day. Non-pertinence here obscures why people do what they do democratically. Special interests, lobbyists, the politicization of property and confiscatory fiscal policies are all microcosms. You can, as I do, if you must know, agree with Mises, Rothbard, et al. on libertarian architectonics and notice that the work there while incomplete is sufficient for nearly any practical political initiative and note with special attention that persuasion, rhetoric, and pragmatism are more important. If you like being "right" so much more than being in reality, then I personally have no use for you. Not that you don't have a purpose, preaching to the other preachers, who serve enthusiastically as choir, but that you've made yourself unimportant to that half of the culture that doesn't see cognitive back-patting as productive. People need to be persuaded. They've been 'persuaded' by the state and its concomitant machinery and threats that we have to be that much better since our suasion doesn't and should never involve criminality and physical force. Being right is for children; persuasion for the cause of liberty is a calling. Yes you have to be correct in what you persuade for but so what? Again with the childishness. Who doesn't already think they're correct? Those who are unread, verdant? So go persuade. The reason you don't is that you live in your head. This goes beyond repeating over and over that you are, despite reality, just. It's time for some maturation of many libertarians from the library to the public forum. As much as anything, that was my point. Grow.

  Published: November 30, 2005 10:31 AM

• scott

  David,

  Then what would count as evidence against private "national" defense? What would have to happen to convince us it's a bad idea?

  Published: November 30, 2005 10:54 AM

• Sherman Broder

  Mr. Huebert exposes his ideology when he writes: “And any good libertarian education reveals that ‘limited government’ is impossible.� To paraphrase Mr. Huebert, such rhetorical nonsense seems an unfortunate waste of talent for a powerful mind.

  The gap between anarchists and statists is as wide as the gap between Hoppe’s “governance� and “government.� In “The Rise and Fall of the City� Hoppe says that in the libertarian big city there “will be what one might call governance in the city, but there will be no government (state).� Illegitimate government, apparently, arises when a judge, adept in the art of legitimate “governance� succeeds “in establishing himself as a monopolist.�

  As an example of such legitimate governance ("unanimous consent of the governed"), Barnett offers “private condominium developments such as the one in which his parents live.� What Barnett forgets is that his parents belong to a condo ASSOCIATION, not a condo SOCIETY. While the owners in his parents’ condo development might unanimously consent to collective governance of their communal property, they are well aware that their condo association has no real governing authority at all. In reality, local monopolist judges and police officers settle intractable individual property disputes between condo owners, other condo associations and the general pubic. Even a member of a condo association dials 911 if a murderer or thief runs loose in the neighborhood.

  The hard truth is that there is no fine line between “governance� and “government.� In fact, there is no line at all. Any group of cooperating human beings – even a condo association – will be plagued by disputes, and some of these disputes will be intractable to voluntary settlement between the disputants or their representatives. Without a means of settling these intractable disputes quickly and decisively, cooperative action on a societal level will be impossible. As a result, larger societies will always and continuously crack up into smaller ones.

  Whether this inexorable tendency is “good� or “bad� is a proper question for discussion. However, the idea that human beings could form a large scale “libertarian society� or “anarcho-capitalist society� is a pipe dream. Pirate mentalities exist. People who choose to cooperate in society – any society, by definition – must protect themselves from those with pirate mentalities, not for reason of some objective morality or transcendental justice but for reason of the survival of their society-wide cooperative action. Cooperative action and, hence, cooperative action in society, cannot exist so long as piracy (murder and theft) is allowed to be practiced with impunity.

  This is not only an intuitive truth (even anarcho-capitalists recognize the need for “protection agencies�) but it is a praxeological truth. Murder and theft contradict cooperative action. The problem boils down to a simple one: Is cooperative action possible if all parties to the cooperative action retain their individual sovereignty? I think not.

  Mises recognized that to gain the benefits of cooperative action human beings must refrain from “anti-social� individual action. Human beings who cooperate in society establish societal moral and legal codes which identify and proscribe these anti-social individual actions. They regard these moral and legal codes as sovereign rules of conduct. They enforce them by authority of these sovereign rules. Thus, the idea of a “sovereign individual� contradicts the idea of sovereign rules of cooperative action in society.

  Libertarian anarchists attempt to skirt this contradiction by various means. They appeal of history, claiming that ancient Icelandic or Irish anarchists were somehow able to create a cooperative society which was at once composed of both sovereign laws and sovereign individuals. They resort to semantics, insisting that “protection agencies� are actually and substantially different than private legislatures and police departments, and that “governance� is actually and substantially different than “government.� They rely on false analogies, asserting that social cooperative action is the equivalent of market transactions, and that effective social relationships are the equivalent of efficient economic relationships.

  Ultimately, anarcho-capitalist social theory will collapse on itself, as contradictions always do. In the meantime, “moderate� libertarians in the United States will have to struggle to convince the voting public that the true libertarian agenda for the future of our great nation is reducing taxes and limiting the power and scope of government, not privatizing the local police force and common council.

  Yes, neighbor, these moderate libertarians will be forced to argue, one can indeed be well-educated and at the same time believe that limited government is possible.
  

  Published: November 30, 2005 12:24 PM

• Lisa Casanova

  Sherman,
  On its face, a fine idea. But how do you convince those who have power that less of it is a good idea?

  Published: November 30, 2005 1:09 PM

• Sherman Broder

  Lisa,

  You ask: "But how do you convince those who have power that less of it is a good idea?"

  Ultimate power in the U.S. is held by the American voter. Convince your neighbor to use that power and vote libertarian. Or, better yet, if you believe that less power for politicians is a good idea, run for office and convince your neighbor to vote for you.

  Published: November 30, 2005 1:56 PM

• Larry N. Martin

  Sherman, you forgot to answer the question: Can [statist] judges save us from statism?
  

  Published: November 30, 2005 1:58 PM

• Adam

  I don't see nearly the magnitude of self-contradiction that Sherman does since there is such a blatantly monumental difference between confiscatory stealing (lexicon: taxation) to provide for society's infrastructure --sans democratic support for and economic considerations to exactly what this will be -- democratic dreamfully not meaning stomping all over the dissenting minority's private property rights (ha freaking ha) -- and unhampered and voluntary establishment and provision thereof that it makes one question the entire point of the argument. The actual provision of such infrastructure on both assumptions is so larded with incentivization in the direction of depotism, autocracy, and corruption on the one hand or harmony, efficiency, and liberty on the other it's not clear to me why this part of the overall argument would be ignored other than to make cheap philosophical points against our stout men of straw. But they're miniature points in pidgin logic and only valid under controlled and trite myopic assumptions so it hardly matters. Other than that, fine. Basically: the methodology of government provision could not possibly be more important or less arbitrary. If you disagree I think the burden is yours to bear.

  Published: November 30, 2005 2:15 PM

• David White

  Sherman Broder,

  The Libertarian Party by definition seeks state power and in this respect is no different from its Democratic or Republican counterparts. Believing that they can reduce state power once they are elected may sound like a worthy endeavor, but as Nock famously said, "Sending in good people to reform the state is like sending in virgins to reform the whorehouse."

  Which is to say that the only way to reform the American state is to put it out of business once and for all, the great irony being that its handlers are doing this very thing of all by themselves!

  Published: November 30, 2005 2:48 PM

• Sherman Broder

  David White,

  Just curious, did Nock believe that burning down the whorehouse would eliminate prostitution?

  I don't agree that those in government are effectively putting the state out of business. This is a conclusion that could only be reached by one who believes all governments are exactly the same.

  Unfortunately, the "handlers" of our government (with the consent of those who voted them into power) are slowly but effectively rebuilding a free nation into a frightening and powerful state, transforming a liberal constitutional republic into an autocratic socialist democracy.

  Yes, Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats all seek state power. However, to believe they would all use state power in exactly the same way is to allow cynicism to blind you to reality.

  Published: November 30, 2005 3:54 PM

• David White

  Sherman Broder,

  "Just curious, did Nock believe that burning down the whorehouse would eliminate prostitution?"

  He meant THE whorehouse -- i.e., the institution of thereof -- not A whorehouse, his point being that you can't make respectable that which is inherently undeserving of respect; on the contrary, it will inevitably corrupt its would-be reformers.

  "I don't agree that those in government are effectively putting the state out of business. This is a conclusion that could only be reached by one who believes all governments are exactly the same."

  I'm referring to how the American welfare-warfare state is bankrupting itself, as two recent books -- "The Demise of the Dollar" and "Empire of Debt" -- make abundantly clear.

  "Unfortunately, the 'handlers' of our government (with the consent of those who voted them into power) are slowly but effectively rebuilding a free nation into a frightening and powerful state, transforming a liberal constitutional republic into an autocratic socialist democracy."

  What you call consent, a great many call acquiescence in the face of overwhelming force -- i.e., do what we say or go to jail, your censent be damned. Granting, however, that the US has degenerated into "a frightening and powerful state," I would add that it perpetuates itself via the fraud of central banking, which is what dooms it to collapse under its own weight (or rather, the increasing weightlessness of its Monopoly money).

  "Yes, Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats all seek state power. However, to believe they would all use state power in exactly the same way is to allow cynicism to blind you to reality."

  Jefferson believed that those who sought to aggrandize themselves via state power would be bound down by "the chains of the Constitution." Suffice it to say that he and his fellow framers were wrong to the point of being, in hindsight, laughably naive. Laughable, that is, if it weren't so tragic.

  Published: November 30, 2005 5:40 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Tz:

  “An anarchocapitalist is someone who would rather pay $500 per month in an "insurance premium" rather than $50 in a tax because the former is voluntary in some sense of that word.�

  And a statist is someone who believes that the state can provide for $50 what it takes the market $500 to provide.

  Even a small government advocate would not concede such an incredible point and most would assess the situation diametrically the opposite. In all cases, it takes at least $500 in taxes to provide poorer service than that obtained on the market for $50. Just because someone gets his product subsidized by theft (I meant to say taxes), does not make the end product any cheaper.

  Sherman:

  “Ultimate power in the U.S. is held by the American voter.�

  There was a time, actually, when the parties actually stood apart significantly. But that has not been the case for over 100 years. The republicrats since then have ensured an effective one party system. Any faith in the republican political process and constitutional government has long been shown to be unfounded.

  When FDR’s administration complained that the republicans had stolen their (kind of libertarian) platform, the republicans replied, what’s the problem, you weren’t using it anyways, and besides, it never has been used, it’s still in perfect condition. These days, people have given up on caring what “their� party does in practice; they pay attention only to the rhetoric.

  Where there is a state, state worshiping and ignorant sheep will be created via state run schools and its propaganda machinery. Ultimate power given to a comatose electorate is no protection of our liberties.

  Published: November 30, 2005 6:51 PM

• Sherman Broder

  David White,

  "He meant THE whorehouse -- i.e., the institution of thereof -- not A whorehouse, his point being that you can't make respectable that which is inherently undeserving of respect; on the contrary, it will inevitably corrupt its would-be reformers."

  Do you respect Ron Paul? How exactly will the state inevitably corrupt him? Is he helpless before the state's power? Are his intellect, character and conscience, for instance, controlled by some irresistable evil force of government? And, if he does by some miracle manage to resist, would he then be respectable? What about Washington or Jefferson and the nation they founded? No politician or state is or ever has been respectable?

  "I'm referring to how the American welfare-warfare state is bankrupting itself, as two recent books -- "The Demise of the Dollar" and "Empire of Debt" -- make abundantly clear."

  I guessed what you were referring to and agree that such a bankruptcy is looming. I just don't believe the government in Washington, D.C. will pack up its toys and go home as a result of such a financial calamity. On the contrary, I believe the government will use the opportunity to grow stronger and more intimidating.

  "Jefferson believed that those who sought to aggrandize themselves via state power would be bound down by "the chains of the Constitution." Suffice it to say that he and his fellow framers were wrong to the point of being, in hindsight, laughably naive. Laughable, that is, if it weren't so tragic."

  Believe it or not, I agree with you. But the Founders' naivete' hardly makes the case for anarchy. Nor does it refute the concept of consensual government.

  A "great many" may call consent "acquiescence in the face of overwhelming force," but by any reasonable measure this "great many" is now but a puny drop in the bucket, a small percentage of even disgruntled Americans. When the "Monopoly money" catastrophe hits, I'm sure a great many more Americans will rethink their position, but do you honestly believe they'll choose anarcho-capitalism rather than consent to a different form of government altogether, one perhaps substantially less free or a bit more brutal?

  "

  Published: November 30, 2005 7:20 PM

• Sherman Broder

  Paul,

  "Where there is a state, state worshiping and ignorant sheep will be created via state run schools and its propaganda machinery. Ultimate power given to a comatose electorate is no protection of our liberties."

  I'll post the same thing to you that I posted to David White. Your assertions do not make the case for anarcho-capitalism. Nor do they make the case against consensual government. And, by the way, they aren't the best means of recruiting allies to your cause.

  No one likes to think of himself as an ignorant, state-worshipping sheep or a brain-washed Manchurian Candidate or a comatose elector simply by virtue of the fact that he lives in the good ole' U.S. of A., attended public school or listens to a Presidential speech now and then.

  He who is the brunt of such rash accusations might wonder if he is being accused simply because he disagrees with his accuser. He might also wonder how his accuser, who lives in the U.S., attended public school and listens to the exact same Presidential speeches, didn't become a brainwashed sheep as well.

  Published: November 30, 2005 7:51 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Sherman:

  You may be right on all accounts relating to these observations being unpopular and painful to many. The truth is often this way.

  Any republican or democrat acquaintance i make usually has no understanding of the constitution or any awareness that it has been a dead letter since 1861. Most people lack even the interest to find out why i would think so, or how it came to be that way. i am not blunt to them about their ignorance and lack of interest. I don't offend them. However the people on this blog, i believe are interested enough to hear it as i see it without the sugar on top. But I'm still not trying to offend.

  As to how some manage to avoid the snare of state propaganda, i think it may be a combination of strong individual libertarian leanings, exposure to libertarian thought, and luck. I feel all three played a big roll in my case.

  Published: December 1, 2005 11:10 AM

• tz

  As to "can provide for $50" what the "market" provides for $500, I would point out Linux is not really the product of the market, is free - far less than what commercial vendors charge, and is generally of higher quality. Maybe I'm a statist because I prefer using something free that works and I don't have to read techy articles about the latest security band-aid (the suggestion the little pig ought to change from a straw house to a brick one is met with derision, and an assertion that a little more duct tape will keep the wolf at bay).

  I don't like the word "state", but any more accurate or specific word would just confuse things more. Most associate it with only the evils, usurpations, tyrannies, and abuses that states do. But then they complain when I talk about "man" and that he is capable of evil (perhaps thinking I am making a similar confusion of the evil that men do with human beings), but states are run by men.

  I also bring linux up because it is a community, not a state by the definition of most of those here, but if it provided services involving (physical) security and used force, it could be called "a state", even if it wasn't coercive outside enforcing a common and narrow set of laws.

  "The market" is not a god and should not be worshiped any more than "the state". It provides and distributes common material goods most efficiently. I see no evidence that it does either with trancendental things like equality, justice, truth, righteousness. This is my second argument. The "state" will return a poor person's few stolen goods just as it will a rich person's goods. The market would charge the same price, so the poor couldn't avoid being victims since they could not afford the recovery fees.

  If you consider everyone's life and liberty as mere commodities, I can see where you would think the market would work. If they are above mere commerce - they can be priceless - then the market cannot work as it is not a matter of balancing price and quantity. Liberty on a supply/demand curve? Is that what all the fuss is about here? "Speaking of Liberty" would be the same kind of thing as "Speaking of Sugar"?

  It is also not a question of not having limited government. Government cannot grow infinitely, so there will be limitations. Even the most abusive regimes of the 20th century could only micromanage only so finely, and impose only so much.

  The questions are what is govenrment to be limited to. The answer most here would be something equal or less than enforcing the natural law (thinking of the section of the Summa) - those things that destroy society itself, which are mainly force and fraud.

  I don't see that it follows that if there is a state, that it will run the schools, and that every pupil will be forced to become a statebot. Or that it will have a propaganda arm.

  I think the state as an evil, but a necessary one - I would be loathe to kill someone, even if they were attacking me and threatening my life. I would not consider killing in self-defense a good, but a double-effect evil (the intent was to preserve my life and/or liberty, the unintended evil was the necessity of killing the person attempting to destroy it). I look at the "state" in this vein. I also look at war in a similar vein - only when absolutely necessary, meaning a credible and immediate danger.

  The second question is how is it to be limited. Those who propose a market in insurance-security firms never seem to worry about limiting them, but it is a problem. Democracy tends not to work. Even if you try to restrict things to a culturally and socially narrow group to try to produce a uniform leadership, it still gets corrupt (I think of the Popes at the time of the reformation - they may have been given the charism of infallibility, but they are also likely in hell right now). The founding fathers came close with an attempt at several hostile branches that would fight and hold back each other from usurpations, but evil seems to be able to cooperate in corruption. Though I think that is a good prototype.
  

  Published: December 1, 2005 11:18 AM

• David White

  tz,

  The notion -- held, among others, by Thomas Paine and even Mises -- that the state is evil but necessary renders it immune to attack on moral grounds. For whatever is necessary is necessary, period, and can be justified accordingly.

  Moreover, any evil that is necessary is accordingly justified. And if one evil can be justified, then all evil can be justified, shattering the very foundation of human morality. That the state does this as a matter of course is not the point. Rather, the point is that if human freedom is to have any philosophical standing vis-a-vis the state, the state must be shown to be evil and therefore UNnecessary.

  Indeed, I believe that libertarianism has no greater task than this, as it simply has no leg to stand on until it can put the state in its place, philosophically speaking, once and for all.

  Published: December 1, 2005 2:03 PM

• Lisa Casanova

  Perhaps the market does not provide equality, justice, truth, and righteousness. But I have never noticed that the state provides any of them.

  Published: December 1, 2005 2:50 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Tz:

  Perhaps our disagreement is to a large extent one based on conflicting terminology. Or perhaps I do not understand the nature of Linux. If my impressions regarding linux are incorrect, please correct me as I have not paid close attention to it.

  Assumptions:
  1. Linux is not subsidized by taxes (at least not anymore than your or I are).

  2. People who buy linux do so voluntarily, choosing it over its competition.

  3. linux has no state invoked monopoly in its market or restriction to entry into its market (I’m pretty sure of this)

  4. people who supply linux do so voluntarily

  If my assumptions are correct, then linux is indeed a product of the market. If you like linux because it is cheaper or easier to use than its competition, you have the market, not the state to thank for this. You can also sleep at night knowing that linux is not cheaper because of government subsidies, but because people provide it at that price on a voluntary basis. Even if they do this for motives other than pure profit, this is still a free market activity. Even charity is a free market activity, and definitely not a state activity.

  On this point: “Most associate it [the state] with only the evils, usurpations, tyrannies, and abuses that states do.� I believe you are very correct in respect to the people of this blog. Part of my own definition of the state includes that it uses violence or the threat of violence to coercively maintain a monopoly of certain services that the market could and would otherwise provide without that threat of violence. The state also reserves the exclusive right to use coercion to confiscate property in the form of taxes and other means. To me, that is what distinguishes a state (a government) from a free market. The former is coercive, the latter is voluntary. Thus, the state, by any libertarian perspective I can imagine constitutes an evil tyrannical usurpation. All criminal behavior is violence, theft or fraud. From this one can see the close proximity state activity has with criminal behavior.

  From my preceding paragraph you can see that I would modify your statement here

  “I also bring linux up because it is a community, not a state by the definition of most of those here, but if it provided services involving (physical) security and used force, it could be called "a state", even if it wasn't coercive outside enforcing a common and narrow set of laws.�

  to argue that linux could never live up to the definition of a state unless it coercively held a monopoly on the security services you mention. It is not the defensive force that the state uses to defend property that makes it a state, it is the coercive and violent force it uses to maintain its monopoly on defense that makes it a state. It is the very fundamental need and intent to infringe on property that makes a state a state.

  I agree with you emphatically that the market is not a god and should not be worshiped. The free market is very simply the absence of coercion and theft. It means individuals can cooperate freely or they can abstain from cooperating as their values dictate. It is an ethic and says nothing of certain aspects of personal morality and spirituality. It would be foolish to think that God cares only if we don’t encroach on others’ property and stick only to our contractual agreements (as well as not advocate that others encroach and break contracts on our behalf). On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that a hard-core libertarianism is a sound element to any spiritually oriented philosophy.

  The thing that I should emphasize is that the proposition to limit an inherently coercive and fraudulent entity, the state, to the purpose of protecting us from force and fraud, just strikes me as immensely ironic. I really wish I could emphasize that point further because it is something that I feel gets very little attention. Since when did we see wisdom in having the wolves look after the sheep ("Now remember, you wolves, why we hired you")?

  If you can imagine linux or any other entity at all providing services involving physical security, using force, and yet doing so without demanding that it possess a monopoly in providing such a service, then you can already imagine that the state is not at all necessary, but simply just evil. The practical issues you mention in limiting insurance and security firms in a free market have been addressed very well in many articles here on mises.org and on other sites. If you want to read some of them, let me know, I think I can dig up some good ones. For starters take a look at “For a New Liberty�. But there are many others that elaborate on this as well. Hans Hoppe and Roderick Long as well as many others study it in depth.

  Wow, how verbose. Sorry for that.

  Published: December 1, 2005 3:38 PM

• Curt Howland

  Mr. White, that was beautifully said.

  Published: December 1, 2005 3:44 PM

• David White

  Thanks, Curt. Someday, when I have the time, I hope to tackle the matter of "Evil and the State."

  In response to Sherman Broder:

  Granted, Ron Paul is not a political whore and is, on the contrary, much to be admired for his principled stance on the issues (e.g., http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst112805.htm). But neither is he a political virgin, since (1) he can only get elected as as a member of the GOP (God's Own Prostitutes), and (2) his principled stance on the issues has absolutely NO effect on the Whorehouse of Representatives as a whole.

  Paul is a better man than I, no doubt, but he would do the cause of freedom a far greater service by making a principled farewell speech, grabbing his clothes, and getting the hell out of that "cesspool of politics" (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7710.shtml). Jefferson, after all, had enough contempt for the political process to assure that his involvement in it received no mention in his epitaph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson). So while Paul isn't "controlled by some irresistible evil force of government," he remains a willing captive of "the political means" (http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/st/state1.htm) and is therefore complicit in its every act.

  As for any politician or state being respectable, both can be respected without being truly worthy of it. For if the state is inherently evil, as I firmly believe it to be, then being a "respectable" operative of the state simply means having won the allegiance of others who are caught in its wicked web. What philosopher Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil" in relation to the Holocaust did not end there, in other words; it merely became more banal in that the state goes about its evil business less overtly (except when, say, the occasional hurricane comes ashore or a minor despot is no longer deemed useful).

  As for the looming bankruptcy of the American welfare-warfare state, be assured that I agree with you that the government will "use the opportunity to grow stronger and more intimidating." Indeed, I expect martial law to be established in the not-to-distant future (the necessary groundwork having already been laid by the PATRIOT Act) but only as stopgap measure on the way to ultimate government collapse.

  As for the founders' naivete not making the case for "anarchy," I'm on record on this site, repeatedly, in opposing the identification of this term with stateless governance. The etymology of the term aside, the general public today overwhelmingly associates anarchy with chaos (e.g., "the anarchy in New Orleans"), which is obviously at odds with the spontaneous ORDER that is generated by the social cooperation that lies at the heart of consensual governance, the social enterprise as a whole, and thus of the libertarian ideal.

  As for what people will choose vis-a-vis the collapse of the US government (and of the global banking cartel), because the default can only be to the individual states (as with the former Soviet Union), that will be the starting point. What happens from there is anyone's guess, but surely experiments in stateless society will be conducted (I refuse to use the utterly repugnant term "anarcho-capitalism"), any one of which could hardly be worse than what the world confronts amid the daily horror of statism.

  Published: December 3, 2005 9:09 AM

• Sherman Broder

  Paul,

  "I feel all three played a big roll in my case."

  Me too.

  "The thing that I should emphasize is that the proposition to limit an inherently coercive and fraudulent entity, the state..."

  I don't put much stock in assertions. I was wondering what exactly it is that makes you think the state is an "inherently" coercive and "fraudulent" entity?

  Published: December 3, 2005 8:25 PM

• Sherman Broder

  David White,

  "Granted, Ron Paul is not a political whore and is, on the contrary, much to be admired for his principled stance on the issues (e.g., http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst112805.htm). But neither is he a political virgin, since (1) he can only get elected as as a member of the GOP (God's Own Prostitutes), and (2) his principled stance on the issues has absolutely NO effect on the Whorehouse of Representatives as a whole."

  (1) I don't understand. What has party affiliation to do with Paul's respectability?

  (2) But if the people managed to elect a sufficient number of Ron Pauls to Congress, then these new Congressmen would have an effect. Would that make them and Congress a respectable institution?

  "As for what people will choose vis-a-vis the collapse of the US government (and of the global banking cartel), because the default can only be to the individual states (as with the former Soviet Union), that will be the starting point. What happens from there is anyone's guess, but surely experiments in stateless society will be conducted (I refuse to use the utterly repugnant term "anarcho-capitalism"), any one of which could hardly be worse than what the world confronts amid the daily horror of statism."

  A couple of comments...

  First, I don't see the federal government collapsing in the fashion of the USSR, especially if martial law is declared, as you think it will be.

  Second, if the federal government collapses, several layers of government will still remain (as they did after the USSR breakup, i.e., state, municipal, county, etc.). These governments wouldn't tolerate "stateless" experiments.

  Third, you've used the word "society" in connection with "stateless." You've also used the phrase "spontaneous ORDER that is generated by the social cooperation" in connection, I assume, with your preferred term, stateless society.

  Have you given any thought to the praxeological characteristics of social cooperation, i.e., cooperative action? It seems to me that social cooperative action is not "spontaneous." Neither is social order, by which I assume you mean society.

  As I see it, cooperative action is a purposeful certing of individual human action, i.e., a purposeful concerting of means in order to attain a mutually sought after goal. This coordinating of action implies that certain rules of action have to be followed in order for the cooperative action to be successful, when considererd from the cooperators' points of view. Rules imply the need for the cooperators to enforce them. I see society as simply an expansion of of this type of simple cooperative action. The rules of cooperative action become laws; enforcement of the rules becomes governance of the society. Coercive force is necessary for enforcement. So I see no real difference between governance and government.

  I notice you use the term "governance" ("stateless governance" and "consensual governance"). Do you see a real difference between governance and government? Do you make the same distinction Hoppe does?

  Published: December 3, 2005 9:11 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Sherman:

  You ask me "what exactly it is that makes you think the state is an "inherently" coercive and "fraudulent" entity?"

  Well: it is inherently coercive because it depends on and demands through the threat of violence, a payment (taxes) for services, (or no services at all), from people who do not ask for these services. In short, the state is a thief.

  It is inherently fraudulent because the state depends on selling the people on the idea that its entire basis is actually not coercion, but is in fact voluntary. Your question represents on more confirmation of the profound success of this fraud.

  Published: December 3, 2005 10:54 PM

• Randy Barnett

  I have a reply to Mr. Huebert's review forthcoming in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Watch for it.

  Published: December 3, 2005 11:33 PM

• J. H. Huebert

  And I have a reply to his reply. Both are in the next issue of the JLS.

  Published: December 3, 2005 11:50 PM

• David White

  Sherman Broder,

  1) My point about party affiliation is that while Ron Paul is a libertarian, he can't get elected as a Libertarian Party candidate. In order to get elected, he must affiliate himself with a party that is generally antithetical to his beliefs. (Yes, one could argue that it is the Republican Party that has abandoned its libertarian roots, but this would be so only if it were the party of Jefferson, not Lincoln.)

  2) As a practical matter, "a sufficient number of Ron Pauls" could never get elected to Congress. The Constitution having been nullified for all practical purposes, the only way for the overwhelming majority of candidates for national office to get elected is to promise the electorate unconstitutional goodies paid for by previously unconstitutional methods (the income tax and central banking). And in the event that "a sufficient number of Ron Pauls" were elected, they would essentially have to dismantle the American welfare-warfare state to be true to their beliefs and, moreover, would have had to run on these beliefs to be honest candidates, neither of which is remotely possible.

  As for government collapse, my point is that martial law can only be maintained for so long and that once the devolution of power begins, it won't stop with a return to state sovereignty. One can easily imagine, say, the breaking up of northern and southern california, which in turn leads to further break-ups. Could, say, the independent city-state of Los Angeles vote to sell off its "public" assets (systematically, over time) and reorganize under under libertarian principles? Yes. More likely, however, would be a rural, sparsely populated county voting to do so, since this would be a far simpler affair, the idea being to attract capital to this "offshore" tax haven and build a free and vibrant society accordingly, the success of which would serve as a model for others.

  As for social cooperation and spontaneous order, all I'm really referring to is Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- i.e., the unplanned order that arises out of the myriad, purposeful transactions of the free market. A perfect example of this is the Internet -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html -- the spontaneous order of which is there not only for everyone to see but for everyone to participate in. Or at least everyone WILL participate in it and, given its exponential growth, sooner rather than later. And as they do, the regimented order that is the state will ultimately be unable to withstand the onslaught and will "wither away" accordingly.

  Lastly, the reason I use the term "governance" rather than "government" is that the latter term is commonly associated with THE government -- i.e., the state. It's a subtle distinction, to be sure, but a distinction nonetheless. And in any case, while governance in a free society requires coercive force (and the threat thereof), it doesn't require a monopoly on it, as the Internet makes clear. Being well aware that I face legal action for committing fraud on eBay (and not wanting to ruin my reputation by doing so), I refrain from it, as do the vast majority of other people, such self-governance being the system's organizing principle.

  Published: December 4, 2005 9:15 AM

• Sherman Broder

  Paul,

  You write: “Your question represents on more confirmation of the profound success of this fraud.�

  Think about it, Paul. My question confirms nothing but your preconceived notion of what you believe motivated me to ask it. The question declares nothing. It is an interrogative. I could have asked it because I am brainwashed, but I could have just as well asked it because I am stupid, or native, or merely interested in learning via the Socratic method. You know nothing about me. You can’t read minds. Therefore, you cannot reasonably draw a conclusion about what my question confirms or does not confirm.

  Honestly, I asked the question because I was curious how you would explain your contention that the state is an “inherently� coercive and fraudulent entity. “Inherent� is defined by Dictionary.com as “Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.�

  Most of us are Austrian economists here and fans of Mises. We do not accept the idea that “class� or any other societal construct compels an individual to behave in a particular fashion. We think social institutions can influence or motivate, but ultimately it is individuals who act, not social institutions.

  Thus, it cannot be the state which coerces or perpetrates a fraud, but individuals who comprise the state. It follows that, if the state cannot compel individuals to act in a particular way, individuals who comprise a state may choose to coerce or not to coerce.

  You write that the state “is inherently coercive because it depends on and demands through the threat of violence, a payment (taxes) for services, (or no services at all), from people who do not ask for these services. In short, the state is a thief.� Yet, I can easily imagine a state in which the governed consent to be governed by select individuals. I can imagine that these governing individuals do not provide services that are unasked for, do not tax without the consent of the governed and do not threaten violence except to prosecute or deport murderers and thieves. Obviously, such a state would not be fraudulent, as you define it, because citizenship in this state would actually be voluntary.

  Admittedly, such a state does not yet exist in the real world, but then neither does David White’s “stateless society.� However, the state created in early America under the Articles of Confederation comes close to what I have in mind.

  As I pondered your contention that the state is “inherently� coercive, the thought occurred to me that you might have in mind a social institution like a “prison.� Obviously, individuals who operate a prison must coerce the inmates. Why? Because a prison, by the standard, accepted definition of the word, is an institution in which inmates are coerced. One cannot imagine a prison in which the inmates are not coerced.

  However, a state is not a prison. A state, by definition – at least by the standard, accepted definition of the term – is not an institution in which citizens must necessarily be coerced. Thus, as I mentioned, I can easily imagine a state in which the citizens are not coerced.

  Hence, I conclude that you contend the state is “inherently� coercive because you CHOOSE to reject the standard definition of the term “state� and substitute a different definition which is more suited to your purposes, i.e., you define the state as a social institution in which citizens must necessarily be coerced.

  Considered in this light, your contention is no more than a bald assertion.

  Now, your point might be that a state, as a social institution, has inherent characteristics that encourage those who operate the state to choose to betray their trust or to propagandize to their own personal benefit. This is a legitimate point, but it is another discussion altogether.

  You might also argue that your definition of “state� is the standard, accepted definition of the word, in which case my criticism of your position in my “prison� analogy above would be in error. But again, this is another discussion.
  

  Published: December 5, 2005 7:16 PM

• Sherman Broder

  David White,

  You write: “As a practical matter, ‘a sufficient number of Ron Pauls’ could never get elected to Congress.�

  Are we to settle questions of political philosophy on the basis of what is practical? I could argue that as a “practical matter� a “stateless society� could never be established. I would argue that it is at least POSSIBLE that a sufficient number of Ron Pauls could be elected to Congress. I would argue that a society without government (properly understood) is IMpossible.

  You write: “And in the event that ‘a sufficient number of Ron Pauls’ were elected, they would essentially have to dismantle the American welfare-warfare state to be true to their beliefs and, moreover, would have had to run on these beliefs to be honest candidates, neither of which is remotely possible.�

  Not possible? This is a bald assertion which you have not proved.

  You write: “Could, say, the independent city-state of Los Angeles vote to sell off its "public" assets (systematically, over time) and reorganize under under libertarian principles? Yes. More likely, however, would be a rural, sparsely populated county voting to do so, since this would be a far simpler affair, the idea being to attract capital to this "offshore" tax haven and build a free and vibrant society accordingly, the success of which would serve as a model for others.�

  I agree completely, except I believe the “free and vibrant society� formed would (and must) have a government (properly understood).

  You write: “Lastly, the reason I use the term "governance" rather than "government" is that the latter term is commonly associated with THE government -- i.e., the state. It's a subtle distinction, to be sure, but a distinction nonetheless. And in any case, while governance in a free society requires coercive force (and the threat thereof), it doesn't require a monopoly on it, as the Internet makes clear.�

  The problem with discussions such as this one is that the words used are not specifically and consistently defined and mutually agreeable to all. Hoppe, for instance, draws a huge distinction between governance and government, as he defines those terms.

  To “govern� means, “To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in [Dictionary.com].� I’m satisfied with that definition and I believe that every extensive cooperative action must be so governed.

  I believe this because, as I have posted previously, cooperative action requires that the rules of the cooperative action have sovereign authority over all cooperators. Thus, it would be contradictory for individual cooperators to be sovereign as well. Cooperating individuals must defer to the sovereignty of the cooperative rules of conduct. Of course, cooperating individuals do this voluntarily since cooperation is a voluntary action. If cooperating individuals refuse to defer to the sovereignty of the cooperative rules of conduct, they may, of course, voluntarily end the cooperative action – which is my point exactly.
  

  Published: December 5, 2005 8:24 PM

• David White

  Sherman Broder,

  I think we're talking in circles a bit, so let me see if I can straighten things out:

  Of course it is "at least POSSIBLE that a sufficient number of Ron Pauls could be elected to Congress," just as it is at least possible that George Bush could truly convert to Christianity by confessing that he lied the country into war, resigning in shame from office, and surrendering to the authorities. The odds of either are so remote, however, as not to be worth giving serious consideration.

  That said, I agree with your statement that "society without government (properly understood) is impossible." I do not agree, however, that society must have "a government" but merely agreement, implicit or explicit, on the principles by which it will be governed, allowing the market to provide for their administration. While the Internet is doing magnificently based on implicit agreement, I believe that society as a whole would need something explicit -- a true Social Contract, for instance, that each would-be (adult) member would have to sign in order to become a member -- around which a private legal system could then be built.

  In so doing, one would not forfeit one's sovereignty, however, but would simply agree to be governed in a certain way -- e.g., by not violating the duly acknowledged rights of others -- with the understanding that one could void the agreement at any time. To argue otherwise would be to say that by pledging to love, honor, and be true to my wife, I have forfeited my sovereignty, which is nonsense. Commitment is not surrender; rather, it is the means by which we conduct ourselves as responsible members of society.

  That to me is governance -- specifically, self-governance -- without which free (stateless) society is impossible. Will it work in full, i.e., not just in cyberspace but in physical space? I believe it will, but we won't know until the state has been sidelined enough to give it a try.

  Published: December 6, 2005 10:00 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Sherman:

  The state you imagine sounds good to me. No coercion, people only get the services they want to pay for, and are not forced to accept or pay for any services they don't want. I assume that means a person can secede from participation entirely if he chooses. Further, i presume there would be no coercive monopoly on state services. A person could be free to start his own "state" and offer people to freely choose to live under it if they were willing to accept the covenants he offered. There would essentially be free competition in "state" services. Now, this is something i would describe as anarchy. However, if i have described accurately your vision of a state, yours is the only form i could subscribe to and i concede it is neither coercive nor fraudulent. I do believe you are taking some extreme liberties with the term, but essentially, we have the same vision of acceptable government.
  

  Published: December 6, 2005 10:07 AM

• Paul Marks

  Mr Clem stated that the scientific search for truth (in the old sense of "science" i.e. a body of knowledge, rather than just the scientific method of the physical sciences)is valuable in for its own sake - regardless of political effects (although we hope to win people over to case for greater freedom.

  I agree - and I apologize if anything I wrote implied that I did not agree.

  Someone else (the name escapes me) brought up the old chestnut about "starving children" - of course government intervention does not reduce poverty over what it otherwise would have been (rather the reverse).

  Even leaving aside greater economic prosperity under more limited government (which means that poverty is less than it otherwise would have been). And the work of voluntary action (such as the fraternities and friendly societies that used to have such an influence on working class life - and at a time when economic devolopment [technology and so on] were far less developed than it is today) a few general points need to be made (or rather repeated).

  Of course, benevolence (what used to be called the virtue of charity) is a good thing. And (again of course) if one sees parents starving their children to death one may take those children away (save their lives) - children are not property who parents may starve to death (or, indeed, have for lunch).

  As for starvation that is not caused by sadism or neglect, but by poverty - there are many children in the world (mostly in very statist places) who are starving as I write this. I agree that it is act of virtue to help them. However, it can harldy be a crime not to help them (otherwise we are all criminals - apart from those of us who give all their money, above subsistance for ourselves, to the starving).

  Of course, none of the above has much to do with the case for or against "anarcho-capitalism".

  Under the Constitution of the United States (unless we play games like declaring that the purpose of the powers of Congress, "the general welfare", is a power in-its-self) the Feds have no power to tax people to save "starving children" at home or abroad.

  As Congressman David Crockett (spelling) was fond of pointing out, the Congress has no power to spend money on even looking after people after a fire or earthquake in the United States itself.

  Nothing to do with "anacho-capitalism", it is about having a limited government (at least at federal level).

  Published: December 6, 2005 11:19 AM

• tz

  If Linux is the product of the market, then socialism can work. Mises pointed out that the problem with socialism is the impossibility of calculating prices, supply, and demand. There are no prices and quantities (except at the margin and probably less than even the most socialist country) in Linux development.

  (Small clarification, I'm using "Linux" to abbreviate the opensource and free software movement which is larger and not monolithic, but both my fingers and my readers would be fatigued if I tried typing all that everywhere)

  If you are stating there can be markets where there is no real exchange (I don't exchange anything to get Linux, it is free as in beer as well as speech), no prices, and no quantities (Linux can be freely copied and distributed), then maybe we should convert the rest of the more traditional markets to the new model.

  Yet Linux has rules. You can't take Linux private and make a profit with a "better version". You can't claim ownership (again, a market where I don't own it?). It does allocate things like tasks, and it seems to be very efficient, but it is not using money. Or what functions as money is duty or honor or something which is not normally monitizable.

  Moving on to address the state machine:

  If you have cancer, chemotherapy and/or radiation are necessary evils. The alternative is death. The evil is not justified, but merely the double-effect. In order to remove the evils of robbers and murderers and other thugs - who have shown they will not respond to either niceness or reason - you need something with adequate power to overcome them. Force. This itself is damaging and a poison - like radiation or chemotherapy. So it ought only be used when necessary and in the minimal amount possible.

  I don't see how reasonable people somehow can think people would use cancer treatments on people with the sniffles. However that is the current state of the state power. But the corrective is moderation and appropriate use, not to let cancer kill people because some would use chemo on sniffles.

  If you can understand how cancer treatements ought to be limited to treating cancer (and I don't know how to make this statement any clearer), why can't you understand that governmental force ought to be limited to destroying those things that destroy the society and culture.

  Can it be limited? That is a deeper question. I would simply note that every increase in government power has been originally "to do good". "To save the union". To preserve public morals. To encourage education. At each point they portrayed the strong medicine that destroys (designed to destroy evil more than good, but with evil side-effects) as a nutrient and as being "good for you". I don't know how to prevent such foolishness. I think liberty could be preserved in a minarchy to the extent that any exercise of power - to destroy an evil - was considered also evil in itself and not good except to the extent of eliminating the greater evil.

  The alternative is to privatize it, and I don't see any way to distinguish which evil - robbery or robbery prevention - will be privatized. Even private thuggery organizations will fall into this category, yet the Ancaps talk of them as doing positive good. That frightens me more than the demon of minarchy where vigilant effort is made to keep it under containment.

  A public evil is more visible than a privatized one. Yet privatizing - letting the market handle it doesn't change its nature from evil to good.

  I would suggest looking further the voluntary organization (linux) as enforcer because I don't think it is a market in any recognizable form.
  

  Published: December 6, 2005 11:21 AM

• Curt Howland

  TZ, you said,
  
  
  If Linux is the product of the market, then socialism can work.
  
  
  First, that is an entirely false statement. We generally agree that socialism cannot work, for lots of reasons. Therefore, your statement can only mean that you believe "F/OSS" isn't the product of a free market.
  
  
  That is entirely incorrect, for a variety of reasons. Let's address a few of the "free as in libre" reasons.
  
  
  F/OSS (Free and Open Source software) has an exceedingly low barrier to entry. All that is required is to license the stuff you yourself produce in a "libre" manner as variously defined. That's it. No one can force you, no one can prevent you.
  
  
  Unlike socialism, F/OSS has an exceedingly low barrier to exit. As an author, simply change how you license the materials you yourself have produced.
  
  
  You may think no money is changing hands, but I wouldn't tell IBM or RedHat that because they'll laugh in your face. People don't sell "air", they sell compressed air. Liquid air. Purified air. Fractions of air. Money is not made in buckets with commodity items, it is made by selling the service utilizing those commodity items.
  
  
  F/OSS lends itself to the selling of service because of its transparency. There's the source, fix it, change it, make it work for you.
  
  
  Your suggestion that the calculation problem would effect F/OSS is actually correct. There are lots of niche markets, specific applications where someone will write software because someone else will pay for it. As the pool of commodity software and known techniques increases, these niche markets are overwhelmed while new niche markets are created. The bleed edge is driven by paid-for software, while it is the infrastructure that becomes common. Gee, just like roads.
  
  
  You finish with,
  
  
  I would suggest looking further the voluntary organization (linux) as enforcer because I don't think it is a market in any recognizable form.
  
  
  Why must you bring in force? Why not go learn how the system has spontaneously organized itself because of what people want, what they wish to produce, and how they like to interact? Evil is less in an environment of voluntary interaction because evil cannot be forced. Have you completely missed how coercion is the tool of the state, not of the free market?
  
  
  I can suggest _The Cathedral And The Bazaar_ by Eric S. Raymond as a start of your enlightenment. http://www.catb.org/~esr/
  
  
  Please let me know what you think of it after you have read it.

  Published: December 6, 2005 12:43 PM

• Curt Howland

  TZ, I came across this article today which might aid you in your enlightenment. It's written from a very practical viewpoint, so don't worry about evangalizing: http://www.line56.com/articles/default.asp?articleID=7157&TopicID=4

  Published: December 6, 2005 1:28 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Tz:

  1. “Can it be limited? That is a deeper question.�

  This question is the basis of our disagreement.

  2. “I would simply note that every increase in government power has been originally "to do good".�

  Note this as often as possible, it is closely connected with why government cannot be limited.

  3. “"To save the union". To preserve public morals. To encourage education. At each point they portrayed the strong medicine that destroys (designed to destroy evil more than good, but with evil side-effects) as a nutrient and as being "good for you".�

  It also “protects� us from our own weak selves and from the amoral market. Not to mention to take from the rich to give to the poor, protect us from drugs and poverty etc.

  4. “I don't know how to prevent such foolishness.�

  Neither did the framers of the constitution. Nor does anyone else.

  5. “I think liberty could be preserved in a minarchy to the extent that any exercise of power - to destroy an evil - was considered also evil in itself and not good except to the extent of eliminating the greater evil.�

  Your points 2 and 4 suggest point 5 is on very tenuous ground. If we accept an evil to eliminate a greater evil, in practice, who decides which evil is which? The ruling elite do. But their track record is not good. Why? See points 2 and 4.

  If you are asking me “why can't you understand that governmental force ought to be limited to destroying those things that destroy the society and culture.�, then I have not made it clear where I stand. To emphasize it, I will replace the words “ought to� with “cannot� and redirect the point back to you:

  ... governmental force cannot be limited to destroying those things that destroy the society and culture; observe with your own eyes that it is constantly destroying society and culture, rather than protecting it.

  Give people permission to tax and maintain a coercive monopoly on police, courts and defense, and you CAN NOT limit them. That’s just the way people are. You know that’s a human weakness don’t you Tz?

  Published: December 6, 2005 1:49 PM

• NDLaw`

  I am sick and tired of misanthropic self-righteous libertarians and their caustic attacks on other views, no matter how similar. Insulting well-meaning men like Randy Barnett by saying his work is a "disservice" (yes, you Paul), with little else to add in the way of appropriate discourse, is the true disservice.

  Food for Thought: The world IS in anarchy. "Governments" are a social fiction. There are lots of them. All are de facto--and I assume de jure to be law of the divine, i.e. natural law. Of course, natural law itself can vary depending on who you talk to (John Finnis, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, Murray Rothbard, Hoppe...). So, to some extent, the true dispute here is not between anarchy and the state--this is too broad and not specific enough for rigorous philisophical discussion.

  Instead, the anarchists here envision coercion only to the extent that the natural law is enforced....please note that this does not substantively differ from Randy Barnett's theory. Barnett's theory, even if wrong, is so compelling because it finds a way to make governments "de jure" rather than de fact. The difference is that Barnett envisions the traditional geographical "state" rather than a collection of individuals who "consent" to their coercer 98% of the time. This is a significant difference no doubt, but at the fringes, the same philisophical problems arise---i.e. what does a "private" coercer do when he is an unwilling plaintiff.

  Yes, criticims can be lodged at Randy Barnett for his acceptance of government in "The Lost Constitution." But for anyone who actually read the book closely, you would find that Barnett does not necessarily think that government is a necessary evil. As he lays out in "Structure of Liberty," mass private coordination is possible without government--consensual organizations can perform the functions that "government" does now. He does not reject anarchy on a philisophical level (though he doesn't think it necessary either). How the reviewers missed this subtle but salient point betrays their short-sighted insecurity in dealing with marginally different paradigms.

  Both limited government and technical anarchy are paradigms of social/political theory. Philisophically rigorous and consistent theories of political economy or social theory are extremely hard to formulate, if at all. This subject concerns man's place in the universe, where property rights ultimately derive (if at all), and human nature. As you might imagine, two well-intentioned and well-developed theories could still be diametrically opposed. As such, anyone who insults and treats another person's good faith theories in the matter, especially when those theories are not facially absurd or illogical, is just being an insecure jerk.

  None of these theories is perfect, at least in my current understanding. Let me throw out some typical problems.

  1) Anarcho-capitalists frequently ignore what would happen if, say, I hit Bob in a car accident, on a road owned by John Co., which is on land owned by Mary, who gave an "easement" right to John co for such road. I drive off. What can Bob morally do? Can he strip me of my property? Can he take money from me by force? Who decides what his damages are, and what kind of assuranes do I have that these damages are true? Who do I argue to if they are not? What if he and I don't subscribe to the same "private arbitration" group, and the road that Bob and I were using had no such requirement?

  2) Some complications: Lets say we did agree to some arbitration--they judge against me, and then try to take my property by force. I resist, in bad faith, or even believing them to have decided wrongly. Can I morally do so? What if I have no money, and the arbitrators order me to be a slave, and work off the debt through labor? Is my freedom ever alienable, which can then be morally enforced by another, through the use of coercion?

  3) What if Mary or John Co. siezed both cars, as they were on "their" property, and coercively decided the case? Lets say they argue that using this road impliedly accepted their jurisdiction in the event of an accident. You say it didn't. Whose "implied" rules apply? What prevents this from coming down to a battle of force? Ideally, the road controllers make you agree to certain terms of dispute resolution in order to use the road. But that begs the question as well, because that assumes they have the private power to enforce a contract.

  Ok, you get the point I hope. These are extremely difficult questions. I have my own answers, at least some of the time, but even I know that none of them are necessarily perfect.

  In alot of the above situations, the old "common law" pledge idea can go a long way--i.e. people will only associate with you, allow you on their roads, property, etc, if you have joined a dispute resolution company to which you have made a pledge of some kind of property or money that will be forcibly alienated if you are ruled against. This helps alot but doesn't solve outlying problems, such as 1) when people get injured without being "protected" by such organizations, 2) when someone "sneaks" onto a road, without the organization, hurts another, and then is subject to damages...can you take from them...what can you take...you get the point.

  Whats funny is that I lean towards anarchy. I think in almost all cases, a norm would develop whereby the property on which something happens becomes the determinant of the dispute resolution agency, which you agree to by entering the property--though this would probably be very formal, requiring a pledge and such. (Otherwise, you run into the problem of them seizing property without any criteria as to what to take, how much, and so forth.) In this way individuals would have a highly sophisticated and personally responsible way of coordinating their actions with those of others. Outlying problems still exist however (insolvent debtors - what do you do with them? Thieves, what do you do to them? And lastly, even if solutions for these things wouldn't be perfect, is the State better?)

  I just am not so arrogant that I think that all of my arguments are so "clearly correct."

  One last point:

  I am astounded at how negative the treatment towards Randy Barnett has been from the Mises & Lew Rockwell communities; this man is single-handedly responsible for reintroducing libertarian philosophy into mainstream academia. And you know what else?--Mainstream Academia is afraid of him because his arguments are well-developed and compelling (I have seen this first-hand).

  Published: December 8, 2005 1:11 AM

• Peter

  tz:

  When you put property over liberty and life, you allow for economic power to destroy liberty. This simply follows and is a tautology. I don't. I place life first, then liberty, then property.

  That makes no sense. The three are inseparable; you simply cannot have one without the others.

  Published: December 8, 2005 4:34 AM

• David White

  NDLaw,

  How astoundingly negative do you find the following from this piece -- http://mises.org/daily/1788 -- by Lew?

  "Randy E. Barnett's The Structure of Liberty is an outstanding discussion of the requirements of a liberal-libertarian society from the viewpoint of a lawyer and legal theorist. Heavily influenced by F.A. Hayek, Barnett uses the term "polycentric constitutional order" for anarcho-capitalism."

  Published: December 8, 2005 8:40 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  An old thread, so sue me for going back and re-reading it.
  
  Linux is a product of the market much like charities and non-profits are businesses. They can exist in the market, but simply because they can handle a niche that others don't, it doesn't follow that they could sufficiently provide all or even most of the necessary services in an efficient manner.
  
  
  As for Randy Barnett, I don't see that most of us are being harsh with him, but it's hardly fair to hold him up as an example of perfection, either. Either his argument is being misunderstood, or his argument is mistaken. Either way, discussion can help bring clarity to the matter.

  Published: January 13, 2006 12:43 PM