Are Libertarians "Anarchists"?
Murray Rothbard, writing in the 1950s under the name "Aubrey Herbert," offers a profound reflection on a core dilemma of libertarianism: whether the state can be justified at all.
The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?"FULL ARTICLE
The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.
Comments (34)
What does Rothbard mean by “the necessity for a body of constitutional libertarian law which the private courts would have to uphold”?
Is this “constitution” outside of any particular private court, and if so, where would it reside and by what authority?
If not, then assuming that these private courts exist by contract, does that mean that a private court’s “constitution” only applies to its customers? Is this constitution a combination of principles, procedures, standards and decision history not unlike common law?
Published: January 4, 2008 10:19 AM
Well it could become an industry standard for libertarian societies (would have to be, in fact, for them to be labeled so), but I agree, this is an odd stipulation. The entire article is odd to me, especially his conclusion. My readings of Rothbard are scant though, so it is possible he changed his mind on things later on.
Published: January 4, 2008 11:07 AM
Well this article was obviously written before Rothbard had officially developed his notions of "anarcho-capitalism".
Published: January 4, 2008 11:16 AM
In this context what Murry Rothbard meant by "Constitutional law" was the nonaggression principle (the libertarian principle of justice as not aggressing against the body or goods of another) and its implications in specific circumstances of time and place.
Juries or arbitrators are all very well but they need a basic philosophy to work with - and Rothbard was never totally convinced that such a basic set of starting assumptions could just be relied upon to evolve (or whatever).
For example, to Rothbard a court case over which of two people own a slave (neither of the two people being the slave themselves) is not acceptable - because people are not rightful property of other people.
It is the similar sort of thing to what one finds in the thinking of Bastiat (see his "The Law") and, in practice, in a lot of the reasoning of Salmon P. (later Chief Justice) Chase - the "slave's lawyer".
Rothbard was a Aristotelian (of a specific sort) and held that both human reason and basic morality were univeral, not tied to a particular nation or historical period.
So when ever Aristotle himself stated that slavery was wrong (or that taxation for welfare purposes was fine) Rothbard was committed to saying "no you are wrong", not just for our own time - but even in 5th century B.C. Athens.
In short Murry Rothbard was not a vague user of the term "Natural Law" (the sort of person who collapses into saying it is a "method" or some other such dodge) - he actually believed there were a set of basic principles (based on the non aggression principle) that could and should be applied.
Whatever flaws Rothbard may have had, vagueness was not one of them.
Published: January 4, 2008 12:12 PM
I like to point out that the absence of the State does not entail the absence of government, but in fact means that each person must govern themselves.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:35 PM
I have to wonder if Rothbard was just testing this out to see the response. Is that why he wrote this under a pen name? It does seem to hold a few contraditions to his other writing.
Published: January 4, 2008 1:41 PM
Paul Marks,
Does the following match your comments?
Here, contrast. David Friedman, i.e., would be concerned with procedure and outcome- “Does the particular private law structure tend to reflect market procedure and libertarian findings?”
Rothbard, on the other hand, posits natural law universalism of an Aristotelian type. There could only be one logical Law and Code, the Non-Aggression Axiom. Procedure and outcome in private courts will be libertarian if this universal truth/law is followed.
Another issue. Rothbard uses the term “have to” concerning private courts following the libertarian constitutional law. Yet, as Inquisitor suggested, private courts accepting Industry Standards based on the non-aggression axiom would simultaneously evidence a free market, like flip sides of the same coin.
Would that leave only a practical matter of how to get there? A private court system, self-ruled by the non-aggression axiom, does not just appear all of a sudden. Could it start off more consequentialist, a la Friedman (if that is indeed the case), and transition towards Rothbard’s constitutional structure? And vice-versa?
Published: January 4, 2008 2:00 PM
"“the necessity for a body of constitutional libertarian law which the private courts would have to uphold”
And they would be upheld by the ability of the private courts to coerce the losing party's compliance, because any private court that can simply be outbid for a contrary result has nothing of value to offer. So Rothbard is back where he started: a community governed by a monopoly provider backed by force to assure the uniformity of laws that people and businesses require for future planning.
Published: January 4, 2008 5:17 PM
Bizzare, naive nonsense...why do libertarians run from their ideals? It's like Peter denying Christ 3 times. You know what you are. Why are libertarians ashamed of it?
Published: January 4, 2008 7:29 PM
Hate to post spelling corrections, but Paul Marks consistent misspelling of "Murray" as "Murry" is really starting to bother me now...please try to remember to add the "a" in future, Paul!
Published: January 5, 2008 12:33 AM
Rothbard's discomfort with the ambiguity and negative connotations of the word "anarchy" remains relevant today. Here, he proposes the term "nonarchy," which has a certain appeal. "Anarcho-capitalism" is perhaps more clear, but bulky in comparison.
However, Rothbard's conception would perhaps better be served by the term "lexarchy" -- literally the law as ruler. It is consistent with his conception of a Libertarian Law Code, and is self-explanatory to the semi-educated and easily explained to the rest ("a society in which the law is the only ruler").
Per google, there appears to be only one prior published use of the term, in the title of a book by an author I've never heard of before. http://www.amazon.com/lexarchy-political-system-personal-wealth/dp/B000723IJ6/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199569572&sr=1-6.
Is anyone familiar with this book or its author? Unless its use has been spoiled by this book, I think the term "lexarchy" deserves serious consideration.
Published: January 5, 2008 4:01 PM
Lexarchy sounds good actually. The other ideal term is catallaxy, in spite of the meaning Hayek gave it. The term conveys a spontaneous order arising through voluntary exchange.
Published: January 5, 2008 5:25 PM
The entire article is simply trying to define the absence of a coercive state as some word other than "an-archy" (being literally no rulers) because the word anarchy came to mean chaosist by usage.
That's all.
It's not like he is trying to redefine libertarianism, or being wishy-washy about abhorring coercive government.
Perception. So long as the knee-jerk reaction by people to the lack of a coercive state is "That means ANARCHY!", we need to know what that word really means and how to make it not so scary.
Published: January 5, 2008 7:05 PM
"lexarchy" isn't properly formed, being a mixture of Latin and Greek. "nomoarchy" or "kuriarchy"; or perhaps "hosiarchy" (to distinguish natural rather than legislative law)
Published: January 6, 2008 1:21 AM
whatever the merits/demerits of anarchism, i don't think i'd be the only one to be thoroughly sick of the graffiti "a" sprayed across private and public property. talk about tarred by association...
Published: January 6, 2008 1:29 AM
In later years, Rothbard did become more comfortable with the term "anarchist".
From an interview taken with him in 1972: "That is, how do we finally establish a libertarian society? Obviously ideas are a key thing. First off you have to persuade a lot of people to be anarchists – anarcho-capitalists."
Published: January 6, 2008 7:17 AM
The late, great Prof Rothbard brings up some fascinating points and asks crucial questions. It is a question every libertarian inevitably gets asked:"OK, you are anti-government. Then just what would a truly libertarian society look like?" It is a fair question and one which, I believe, is difficult to answer. I think libertarian theory has some difficulty dealing with the problem of human evil. What happens when people do not want to play by the rules of non-coercion and non-aggression?
What do freedom and liberty ultimately mean in human society and how do we encourage these?
Ultimately, I believe these are what E.F. Schumacher would term "divergent" problems which do not conform easily to simple "linear" answers.
Ironically, it may lie where Hans Herman Hoppe has gone or Erik von Kuehnnelt-Leddihn: human liberty, historically, may flourish only in a monarchical setting. I am, of course, revealing my Catholic pettiskirts but I have not read better expositions of the libertarian "archical" problem than these two men.
Perhaps, that is why Ludwig von Mises himself thought seriously of restoration of the Habsburgs.
Published: January 6, 2008 7:50 AM
Nomoarchy is indeed more correct. Just sounds a lot worse than lexarchy. :/
Published: January 6, 2008 7:58 AM
"Lexarchy"? Sounds like rule by Lex Luthor. ;-)
Published: January 7, 2008 5:40 AM
I came up with a new term once, which I think is applicable here- "Co-Monarchy". We should all have rights just like a monarch over what we buy and own- since others also have the same right, we have the prefix 'Co-'. A bit like a Co-Dominion.
Or we could call ourselves 'Agorophilists', market-lovers.
Published: January 7, 2008 9:49 PM
I have nothing against limited government, private property, capitalism, individual liberty, or gun ownership, but whenever I hear "we should get rid of government", it inevitably involves
1) Allowing victims of crimes to unceremoniously punish criminals themselves (known as "lynching")
2) Permitting absolutely anybody to own, use, and sell firearms (known as "illicit arms dealing")
3) Permitting people to hire unlicensed, unqualified armed security (read: "hit men")
4) Private-sector court systems available, like any commodity, to the highest bidder (called, "political corruption")
5) Permitting people to hire entire battalions of security forces for protection of property rights and retribution against offenses by rivals (or, as the FBI calls it, "gang warfare")
6) Allowing these "security forces" to purchase tanks, rockets, and heavy artillery, and make use of them at their own discretion (kind of like terrorists)
7) Unlicensed doctors, untested medicines, and no recourse in a court of law against malpractice
8) Turning education into a commodity for the wealthy, instead of a birthright funded by taxpayers
9) No regulations whatsoever on cleanliness or the environment. "I'll have the mad-cow hamburger, moldy fries, and arsenic-flavored lemonade. Mmm, delicious!"
10) A lot less scientific innovation. Without universal education, state universities, government scientific research, cloak-and-dagger defense systems, and NASA, (all paid for with “stolen” money, I might add) it is unlikely that the Information Age would be at its current state of progress and blogs like these would exist; then again, that would be the least of your troubles.
11) Legalized prostitution, drug use, child labor, and practically anything else that could help turn the most prosperous, powerful nation in the world into a third-world hellhole
12) Absolutely no national defense structure to protect against foreign invasion. It would actually not be needed. No nation in the world would possibly want to invade, and if they did, we would be better off.
Okay, you might think that is completely far-fetched, but in the absence of formal government and legal structure, what would stop those things from taking place?
That is what I wrote at http://blog.mises.org/archives/007551.asp on the subject of anarchy. If anyone cares to revive an old debate, just go to that page.
Published: January 8, 2008 2:33 AM
Answers?
1 - No guvmint means greater emphasis on family and community values, not to mention victims' families tend to deliver harsher punishments thereby helping to prevent future crimes via risk maximisation.
2 - Freedom of choice for defence.
3 - Speicalization of skills, why risk your life when you can hire someone to take someone else more efficiently? (providing it's being done for redritubtion)
4 - Such courts are merely competing for business and revenue like private businesses would. Then again why necessarily need a third party when the two main parties can resolve it themselves?
5 - Of course those who have large estates and wealth to protect need a greater security outfit than the humble individual.
6 - Of course you need greatest amount of leverage to defend yourself. A tank is a greater to deterrent than a person with a gun.
7 - Freedom of movement and assocation.
8 - Goods are only available to those who can pay for them. Only those who are willing to pay for something are actually going to use it. Besides even in the modern era few people need more than basic literacy and numeracy. And don't forget the capacity to waste that which is given free.
9 - Restriction to free trade.
10 - There's no right to technological innovation if the free market doesn't engage in large-scale R&D then it's not worth it.
11 - Further restrictions to free trade.
12 - Those with large estates will already have large defence forces, those who don't have much aren't worth attacking.
13 - Beggars can't be choosers. Those who can't directly pay can try to associate with those who would defend them for a fee.
14 - Freedom of assocation includes the ability to not associate if desired, similarly for those who choose not to trade with others.
15 - Large estates with private defence forces would have the same weaponry as government and therefore the same deterrent cacapity.
Published: January 8, 2008 5:37 AM
Anonymous, you're not a libertarian - not even a minarchist, so you might as well quit pretending. You've raised these questions before, and had them answered for you by George Gaskell, amongst others.
Published: January 8, 2008 8:03 AM
TWLP, you're learning! Sort of...
Cute caricature though.
Published: January 8, 2008 8:06 AM
Inquisitor,
I am for a limited government that would protect basic rights. IMHO, making the protection of basic rights available only to those who can afford it is wrong. Individuals of a predatory nature will simply go after those who are least able to protect themselves.
There are those who would suggest that the individuals most likely to be preyed upon could seek the protection of those wealthy enough to provide security; however, that solution carries with it great potential for abuse.
Published: January 8, 2008 3:41 PM
So what do they think?
Are you an anarchist? No.
The response is pretty easy.
Why do you need the state to do X when people could get together to do X if they wanted to? I'm not stopping people acting collectively, and I'm in favour of it.
The problem with the left is that they want to force people to act collectively. If pushed they will come up with the excuse that its in the public good, and that invariably means that those that want X can't afford to pay for X. ie. It involves subsidy.
The obvious response, ask them how much they have in their wallet and get them to show you. Take what you want and say thanks, its for my kids education and walk away.
Nick
Published: January 8, 2008 5:01 PM
IMHO, why do you consistently favour the market in providing nearly any good, due to its superior (in fact, unique) ability to calculate and allocate resources, and expand production, yet stop short when it comes to defence? In fact, I fail to see how the poor are any better off under a State, a virtual legal monopoly. What easier way to oppress the weak than through a State? I have fairly little problem with minarchists, but I hope you will realize why I do not believe Anonymous to be one.
Published: January 8, 2008 6:19 PM
Inquisitor,
I wasn't commenting on anything Anonymous said. As a matter of fact, I only just now read his/her post, and it's my belief Anonymous is a liberal. I guess I mentioned your name as a way of saying hi. :)
Before I begin, when I talk about limited government, I am not talking about our current state of affairs.
Look, when it comes to libertarians, experience has taught me that for the most part they are frequently unpredictable, argumentative and at times unreliable (my apologies to the few I've met who don't fall into this category). For the purposes of everyday socializing, I'm okay with it. But when it comes to crises, they're just too erratic. I would rather throw in my lot with a limited government whose primary purpose is to serve the people.
Published: January 9, 2008 2:20 AM
To: TLWP Sam
1-- Yes, vigilante justice would impose greater penalties on offenders, which is an advantage; however, under vigilante justice, the defendant is not entitled to a fair trial, defense counsel, witnesses in his favor, habeas corpus, a jury of his peers, fourth amendment, fifth amendment, etc. He has no rights at all, because there are no laws to protect him, and nobody to uphold the laws if they did.
2 & 3-- with the state, police, private security guards, and individual gun owners must get a background check, drugs tests, ans psychological screening, and be fingerprinted, etc. Under anarchy, the sanity of the guy at the trigger is not guaranteed.
4-- modern courts are supplied with all the money they need to function by the taxpayers, keeping them (at least in theory) impartial and independent. Under anarchy, courts (if they exist at all) are not funded by taxpayers (who do not exist) and there are no rules to keep them impartial, because there are, if I am not mistaken, no rules at all (and if there are, nobody is entrusted to enforce them).
5 & 6-- if private security forces are allowed to become extremely large and powerful, they can become dangerous, because nothing stops them from bullying others. They would answer only to the $$$ guy who hired them, and not to the voters (who would not exist). Moreover, there would be no rules and, if there were, nobody entrusted to enforce them.
8-- lower class boys and girls need free education to allow them to become middle class men and women. Moreover, it is in the best interest of everybody in the economy to have an educated workforce. (I, personally, would favor phasing-out public schools in exchange for private-school vouchers, lowering the age of compulsory attendance, and withholding education from students who display negative behavior patterns. That should solve the problem of wasting.)
10-- yes, most of the time, privately-funded R&D is better; however government R&D helped create many of the things we take for granted--and helped the economy by increasing efficiency and production and creating jobs.
Do me a favor: if you want to reply, put it on http://blog.mises.org/archives/007551.asp. It makes it easier with one thread to track, instead of two. Thanks.
Published: January 9, 2008 2:50 AM
Unfortunately, the link above I posted does not work due to an HTML error. This one should work:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007551.asp
My apologies.
Published: January 9, 2008 3:09 AM
IMHO,
What is the likelihood of a harmonic convergence of ideology, structure and time resulting in a limited government in the way you desire? Very slim indeed. Fleeting if so reached.
Prof. Ralph Raico quoted Macaulay analyzing the fledgling U.S:
"Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor."
He was right. From the beginning it was out of control, ie Alien and Sedition Acts...
Government cannot possibly be part of liberty. In sum, let's borrow the phrase printed on a Mises Institute bookmark:
"Government is the negation of liberty."
Published: January 9, 2008 10:49 AM
Hi Parrotocracy,
Thanks for responding to my post.
If you want to eliminate the need for even a limited government, then libertarians must be willing to work with others in order to defend against outside entities who wish to cause harm. This is not about "hive mind." It is not about giving up one's individuality.
Man can pretend to be an island unto himself; but IMHO, unless we are willing to protect not only the property upon which we stand, but also those family and friends we claim to hold dear, then the island paradise upon which we hold court is nothing more than weeds and dirt heaped upon rock.
Published: January 11, 2008 12:39 AM
IMHO,
Given that man generally wants to keep his family and interests safe it then becomes a question of what kind of system is best able to provide for this defense. Is limited government better at organizing than a non-coercive spontaneous order? The latter seems to be more efficient, innovative, adaptable and most importantly- accountable. (In other words, the market for defense is just that.)
When an army is raised so does the likelihood of uniformed take-over. When it is a government army, half the job has already been done.
Published: January 11, 2008 1:09 AM
No product or service should be forced upon people. Only by allowing choice to dictate can we achieve an evolving system that gets better and better. Best of all we can defeat collectivism without bloodshed or waiting for converts to read or listen to reason. Teaching by example will do the job.
We can call ourselves by a name that focuses on the positive(what we are, instead of what we are not): Voluntaryist
Published: January 18, 2008 9:36 PM