The State Debate: Some or None?
Libertarians of course believe in the free market; if you find someone who favors the government provision of medical care or education, e.g., you know immediately that he is not a full-fledged libertarian. But how far can one take the free market? Can it handle absolutely all the essential services of society, including defense and justice? Here libertarians split. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (59)
Billy Beck
"But how far can one take the free market? Can it handle absolutely all the essential services of society, including defense and justice?"
Excuse me, but I am at least one libertarian not remotely concerned with the utilitarian aspects of these questions. My principal stand is on the *morality* of the thing: I don't care what the problem is, there is no right to solve it by taking was doesn't belong to you.
Find a way to make freedom work.
Full stop.
Published: October 29, 2008 8:56 AM
Michael A. Clem
I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so obviously, I think you can take it all the way. But I understand people having reservations. The principled moral argument is enough for me--I became AC by simply following the logic of the NAP--but the most persuasive arguments will incorporate both principles and pragmatism, because the principled and the pragmatic complement each other.
Published: October 29, 2008 9:29 AM
ajax
I personally have no problem with limited government as put forth by Bastiat in The Law - namely good law is simply an extention of our individual right to protect of our life, liberty and property. Anything beyond this is a perversion of the law or legal plunder. I can live with that.
Published: October 29, 2008 9:56 AM
Nick
Any government is a protection racket.
They give you an illusion of something you need to fear and then demand that you pay them to protect you from it.
Which one will hurt you if you don't pay - the illusion or the government?
Published: October 29, 2008 10:31 AM
Curt Howland
People are afraid. They're used to having a "Big Mommy", and any threat to that illusion frightens them. They fall back on "government should" as a justification for having government, but never address the vacuity of that argument, because it's not _logical_.
Logically, since theft and slavery are wrong, taxation is wrong. Without the ability to compel support, government by definition ceases to exist.
But that logic conflicts with the emotion of fear, so a large number of people simply will not be convinced. Period.
That's why the emotional appeals of politicians keep getting them elected and reelected. That's why the outpourings of emotion at the party conventions were so strong, and really the whole purpose of the conventions.
If it were just voting, there would be no convention if someone already had a majority.
But here we are, presenting logic and reason in the face of emotional rhetoric.
Published: October 29, 2008 10:38 AM
John R.
The reason I think minarchism is a better idea is this: force is a fact of life. Maybe an unpleasant one, but there it is. Left entirely to natural tendencies, greater force prevails over lesser force. In other words, the "free market" in force must necessarily result in might making right. Since this is unnacceptable, at least as far as I am concerned, the given fact of the presence force in human affairs justifies a minimal government as a check upon the natural tendency. Furthermore, the anarchist has some difficulty, I think, accounting for the fact that governments of one kind or another always seem to accompany community living, and a market is scarcely possible without community living. One does not violate the free market (natural social behavior) by having a government any more than one violates nature by building shelter to shield oneself from the elements. I would like to see an anarchist wrestle with the question of whether government is an innate practice of social man - just like the free market.
Published: October 29, 2008 10:41 AM
toolkien
I find it odd that we have two consecutive articles one asking is libertarianism dead and the other debating anarchanism versus minarchism. If we believe the former isn't the latter ultimate sophistry? I might as well ask would I rather have $900,000,000 or $1,000,000,000? Neither has a snowball's chance of ever happening, so why ask me when I'm mulling over the proverbial foreclosure notice laid out in the first article?
There will always be a State whether I want one or not. I think Jefferson put forth the most incisive statement on the matter - that revolution is necessary every so often - 70 years or so. I think he simply noted that a State was going to exist no matter what, and even if it is set out with freedom and proper basic principles to begin with, staffed by people of Virtue, it would become corrupted, and have to be reset. One can hope for a bloodless revolution, but often they are not. Either way, no matter what the rationale for the placing of Force with some sort of Guardians, the idea should be to give as little Power as possible to begin with, fully prepared to fight when the bounds are overstepped.
So a State will exist, freedoms will be chipped away, and people will have to revolt. If it can be done by simply not complying with Social Control measures en masse and the State adjusts accordingly, fine. If not, then it's pitchforks and torches. It's the State's call ultimately.
Published: October 29, 2008 10:50 AM
Jeffrey Tucker
I'm not sure that it means much to announce that the "state will always exist," since it is probably also true that theft, murder, kidnapping, and other crimes will also probably always exist. The point is to find ways to minimize crime whether official or unofficial.
Published: October 29, 2008 11:45 AM
Maturin
I think what some of these esoteric arguments fail to account for is our essential primate survival social instincts.
Studies of primate societies in the wild demonstrate that a pecking order will always arise to organize the troop, or tribe, as a way of more efficiently defending the group against predators and other tribes who seek to encroach on their turf.
The pecking order establishes who is the local "strongman" (or strongwoman in the matriarchal species, such as macaques), or ape chief, to whom the others turn to settle disputes. This is how a "state" or government will always arise in a tribal group of primates, to create a power structure that allows peaceful coexistence as a group. Machiavelli had something to say about this 5 centuries ago.
In the case of A stealing from B and selling unwittingly to C, B and C always end up turning to the strongman to settle the dispute, if they do not feel strong enough to take it out of A's hide by themselves. The idea that they could settle it peacefully through negotiation is a relative latecomer in the millions of years of human evolution, and is what makes up the thin veneer of "civilization" over our primate instincts. This veneer of civilization has always relied on some form of central authority to enforce it, whether it be the chieftain, the church, the king, or an elected group of leaders and their appointed henchmen.
There will always be The Prince, or his equivalent in terms of oligarchic power structures, that takes advantage of the natural squabbles between individuals to gain power over them. That humans could peacefully coexist without such a force-based power structure, or "state," is in my view a fantasy that ignores our fundamental primate nature.
What we need to consider, as our founding fathers did two centuries ago, is how to limit the ability of these power seekers to dominate our lives and liberty with coercion. I do not believe a true anarchist utopia without a central power structure relying on force to maintain the social cohesion, whatever you choose to call it, is possible. It has never existed yet in human evolution.
Published: October 29, 2008 12:00 PM
Michael
Mr. Tucker, I agree with your sentiments on the prevalence of crime. So long as humans walk the Earth, crime will exist.
Ajax had some good thoughts. In my own words, a truly limited government should endeavor to protect
individual liberty and prosecute violators. Ostensibly, this would include some limitations, such as refraining from any impingement on due process, cruel and unusual punishment, right to legal counsel, no excessive bail, no double jeopardy, self-incrimination, etc.
Published: October 29, 2008 12:09 PM
David Spellman
Although it is endlessly amusing to discuss our ivory tower theories of liberty and the right to unlimited secession, the history of humanity is willful servitude. Ordinary people are uncomfortable with freedom and invariably cry out "Nay, but give us a king!"
When faced with the predictable predations of increasingly despotic tyrants, the common man rebels--but only to the extent of finding a more friendly master. The path to peasantry is so thoroughly ingrained in human nature that dreaming of a different world is cause for commitment to an institution, either mental or higher learning.
The reality is that theft and rent-seeking are more enticing than free market industriousness, and demagogues will always to able to rally the masses to take from the rich and make everyone poor. Envy and prejudice blinds the minds and binds the rabble to perpetual bondage under the State.
Yes, 'tis noble to strive for an ideal of liberty. Just don't be disappointed by reality.
Published: October 29, 2008 12:10 PM
Michael
Mr. Spellman,
In the words of Mr. George Bernard Shaw , "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
Published: October 29, 2008 12:16 PM
Keith
My problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it presupposes that everybody accepts it as the "right" thing and conforms to it. What happens when the community next door "adopts" socialism and decides it needs to save my community from it's lack of equality. If my anarcho-capitalist community, along with my anarcho-capitalist neighboring communities, hold true to the belief in non-aggression, odds are that the socialist collective can defeat our individualist non-aggressive defenses.
I understand the logic and brilliance of anarcho-capitalism, but when that socialist grissly bear is pounding down your door, you better have a big enough gun handy, or you're dinner.
So I guess you can categorize me as a minarchist. Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't know. Besides, revolution from within is profoundly anarcho-capitalist.
Published: October 29, 2008 12:44 PM
Maturin
"The path to peasantry is so thoroughly ingrained in human nature that dreaming of a different world is cause for commitment to an institution, either mental or higher learning."
PLEASE! Mr. Spellman, give me a third choice!
Published: October 29, 2008 12:52 PM
darjen
Contrary to some of the sentiments expressed here, I see no reason to believe that the state will always exist forever and ever. I am an anarcho-capitalist, but minarchy would still be way better than what we have now. We can and should all work together at least till we get to that point.
Published: October 29, 2008 12:57 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Is it utopian and worthy of institutionalization to desire not to be enslaved by one's neighbor? Is it irrational to desire to be free in one's person and property? The state by its definition can not truly allow nor provide liberty and justice despite loud exclaimations to the contrary. If it did, it would not be a state, but merely a club or protection agency, free for any individual to leave at any time. No the very nature of the state is to enslave those within its arbitrarily defined boundaries and to expand, spreading slavery and destruction. Hoppe and history have shown that the worst states are democracies. The ability to popularly plunder the minority and the hope of running the very machine that does the plundering is a great disincentive to the dismantling of the democracy. The fact is that the people who participate in the plunder of the state will decry and disclaim private plunder. They will disavow having stolen from their neighbor. Putting in the layer of the state allows for this cognitive dissonance. If you ask these same people if they would take ill gotten goods from a local criminal syndicate, they would say no, but their actions with respect to that criminal syndicate of the state belie their true nature. If anarchy or even true minarchism are to have any hope, this hypocritical double standard must be pointed out. People must become aware of the lie that they live in participating in theft, yet demanding the state punish other property criminals.
Published: October 29, 2008 1:03 PM
parsimonia
I agree with commenters who are concerned that without some centralized authority smaller, weaker communities or individuals will simply be dominated by more aggressive neighbors. I fear a return to feudalism or the lawlessness of the old West where much of a person's activity dealt with basic survival. I really don't want to live in such a chaotic environment that I must carry a gun or remain in the company of someone who does.
I think the some of the articles wouldn't go so far afield into what amounts to nihilism if the writers tried to provide specific examples. What would life be like if we didn't use taxes to pay for roads and interstate highways, police or public schools or national defense? Would the private alternative necessarily be an improvement? Also, there would certainly be a wide variety of outcomes if individuals and communities were allowed more self-determination. Demographically, it's too late to expect much in the way of a common culture.
Published: October 29, 2008 1:10 PM
Michael A. Clem
Well, there's always "anarchism through government" programs. For example, the more government tries to police us, the more we seem to need private security measures. The more cases that get clogged in our courts, the more we need private arbitration and mediation services. and etc.
Published: October 29, 2008 1:51 PM
Ohhh Henry
"The sum and substance of Thomas's contention is that protection is too important a matter to be left to the free market. His argument resembles one advanced by socialists who say that medicine ought not to be left in the hands of private providers. Can profit-seeking doctors be entrusted with life and death decisions? If quack doctors rely on life-threatening procedures, might it not take years before the market weeds them out? Surely we need a public-spirited government agency to suppress them. No doubt Thomas would reject this argument for medicine; but one wonders how he would distinguish this argument from his own."
This is a very important point. The same arguments which a minarchist makes in favor of certain functions being assigned to a government can also be made in favor of any function. If there is a rational argument for one thing being controlled by the state then there is an argument for all things being controlled by the state.
To concede that certain functions properly belong to government is to start down the path to 100% statism. Therefore there is no such thing as minarchism, except as an irrational compromise between the only real alternatives, total anarchism and total archism.
The real world will never be completely archist, since the state could never control every thought and every muscle spasm of each individual. And as demonstrated by von Mises, even in the spheres in which state control of individuals is feasible, to do so for the greater benefit of each individual or for the overall benefit of the collective is impossible.
The real world will also never be completely anarchist, since there will always be people who act on the impulse to steal, assault and enslave.
Given that we must live in a world with a little of column 'A' and a little of column 'B', I still advocate that every impulse toward archism must be resisted, and every impulse away from archism must be encouraged. However unreachable, one pole is obviously superior to the other pole, and every movement in that direction will be rewarded.
Published: October 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Cyber Libertarianism
We are in the 21st century.
We don't we replace government by an artificial intelligent entity which represents judicial equality and bond among men and which would not have conflicts of interest.
Instead of paying expensive lawyers and judges, all would be equal before the image and justice would be free of charge.
Instead of paying expensive doctors and teachers, all would have access to unlimited and cheap consultations.
Cyber-libertarianism is the only way I can imagine things to work.
Published: October 29, 2008 2:45 PM
Maturin
Cyber Libertarian?
"Who watches the watchers?"
This is a lovely idea that has been explored in some excellent science fiction books over the years. Create an omniscient (relative to humans) and benign cyberlord to rule wisely over all of us squabbling children.
Leaving aside the technological feasibility, which does not yet exist, the problem is, who gets to program and control the machine which does this? How do the rest of us know that those controllers have not secretly altered the programming in their favor?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Machines cannot eliminate human nature. Look at the horrific problems with voter fraud being found in such a simple machine system as the electronic voting systems that so many politicians have been so eager to embrace.
Published: October 29, 2008 3:03 PM
Alvin Lowi
Hayek's observation of spontaneous order in a society of autonomous human individuals suggests "anarchy" is a natural phenomenon that goes on quite nicely by itself. The opportunistic and brutal protection rackets that characterize political government are also natural phenomena among humans as well as other animals. As such they are not stricly human as are the volitional ones. Since both are naturally occurring, the question arises as to which is the more lasting. Political gangs and dynasties come and go but the law of the market continues to elaborate and spread. Check out de Molinari, Heath, and Galambos.
Published: October 29, 2008 3:10 PM
gkrom
In my opinion, government was G-d's idea. He gave good laws to Moses. Governments of other nations are to learn from these laws, yet not confuse themselves in thinking they are to mimic Israel in every respect, thus blurring the distinction between Israel and the rest of the nations.
As for the claim that G-d didn't want Israel to have a king (1 Samuel), one should consider what God said earlier- i.e. when Israel enters the promised land they should choose for themselves a king. When they did this, though, their motivation was wrong. This is why G-d was upset, not because the office of the king or the legitimacy of government was intrinsically wrong.
Government was G-d's idea. For guidance, governments must look to the constitution and the people that He calls His own, viz. the Torah and Israel.
Published: October 29, 2008 4:21 PM
Hank Reardon
I wholeheartedly agree with Ajax! "The Law" should be required reading for our "leaders" and policy makers.
Published: October 29, 2008 4:22 PM
Hank Reardon
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/Bastiat_Triangle_Alliance.pdf
Published: October 29, 2008 4:23 PM
Jacob Steelman
I have been in the libertarian movement for over 40 years. The late Leonard Read of FEE preferred calling himself a student of libertarianism since he was constantly learning. Likewise I have moved from being a minarchist to being an anarchist. Why? One is pragmatic. There is nothing free individuals cannot do better than any government. The other is moral - power at the point of a gun is wrong whether it be limited or unlimited. Virtually all the world's social and economic problems have been created by government. Now we have a classs of government workers - professional politicians (power brokers) and their staff (office staff and agency bureaucrats) who are committed to continuing their employment by expanding their power. They do this by offering their services to clients (interests who desire to utilize the state to obtain an advantage of power and/or financial gain). It has always been this way. Governments once created expand their power - witness the United States which at its creation was one of the most limited and classical liberal governments the world had ever experienced. It was a compromise between the Jeffersonians (limited government) and Hamiltonians (more government) and thus the seeds of destruction were sown for today's nationalization of the financial system in this contest for the assertion of power. When we reach a state of existence where we have a rational debate for realistically selecting a minarchist state or anarchist society humans will have so evolved morally, intellectually, socially and emotionally that I suspect they will elect to reject government (and government's historical destruction of human life, property and wealth) and opt for no government.
Published: October 29, 2008 4:37 PM
John R.
As many posters here seem to appreciate, minarchism is simply a concession to the reality of force or violence as a factor in human affairs. That is what saves it from being an illiogical compromise away from anarchy, and at the same time shows the weakness of the pure anarchist's position. The anarchist rightly points out that government is force and that force is evil; yet force, like crime, is a fact of life. It cannot be done away with by abolishing all government, even if that were possible. In fact, government is the only alternative to the natural social result of unrestrained force, which is that the willingness and ability to use greater force will always ensure the success of one's endeavors.
Force has its place, in other words. We cannot eliminate it; the best we can do is to confine it and limit it. We should not conclude from the almost incredible abuse of government in the US over the last century that government must be dispensed with altogether. At least, this is my opinion today.
Published: October 29, 2008 5:27 PM
Stanley Pinchak
John R. and the rest of the minarchists,
how do you propose that we limit the extent of state power? How can we constrain an entity to which we grant the monopolistic power to judge its own conflicts? It is clear that constitutions are incapable of this feat. You posit that the state is necessary to prevent a world consisting of might makes right and survival of the strongest as the forms of social interaction. Yet what is the state but might makes right and survival of the strongest? I can not quite wrap my mind around how one can contend that the state can prevent the very actions that state itself must partake in to be a state. The contention that we must submit to an evil master to avoid the actions of evildoers is doublethink of the highest order. It is the curtain hiding the wizard, the one which the state always and eveywhere says not to examine too closely, and certainly not to look behind. What could be the worst situation with trying anarchy? A new state? So be it. It is better to have attempted anarchy and been subjugated then to submit willingly to subjugation, not having thrown off the chains of the state at all. I call on all minarchists to examine the foundations of their beliefs in minarchy as opposed to socialism, and then to reexamine their beliefs in minarchy taking the values and truths which have led you this far. I do doubt that your belief in minarchy is wholly compatible with these values and truths. More likely than not it is fear of the unknown which prevents you from removing the mental and physical yoke from your neck. Better the safety of the bit and harness than the unfamiliar rush of liberty's wind on a free back.
Published: October 29, 2008 8:10 PM
Nelson
What does it take to form a government other than a group of people coming together and agreeing on a set of rules (or at least agreeing on who makes the rules)? It is clearly a logical means to create a collective power to fight against other powers that would do the members harm. These powers can be anything from bandits to other governments to natural causes.
For example, consider the spontaneous temporary government formed with the following edict to protect a small town about to be flooded out by a rising river: "We need to build a wall of sandbags to protect the town, come join us and protect your belongings! And anyone who doesn't help voluntarily will have their possessions commandeered to help the cause!"
It may not be "justice" but the likely hood that this "statist" town will survive is slightly higher than the pure anarchist town where half the population refuses to help on principle ("They shouldn't have built so close to the water in the first place!") and the other half is composed of bickering inhabitants that couldn't agree with each other upon a fair price for each individual's labor in time to stop the rising water.
The point is pragmatism does have a part to play in solving problems and should be part of the debate of which government (or non-government) system is best.
Published: October 29, 2008 9:57 PM
David
I guess I don't understand. Even minarchists appear to agree that the so-called "limited" government is a monopoly. Since stasis is tantamount to death, we must assume that life means progress (in the sense of movement along a continuum). Where does this leave a "limited" government whose managers are the ultimate arbiters of the limits of their power? For Pete's sake, folks, does anyone think limited government is a stable construct? Mises leveled the same criticism against the "mixed economy." Far from stable, it is simply a point on the path to full state control. The reason anarchism is the only potentially long term solution to human social structure is that it employs competitive mechanisms. This means that change, rather than simply meaning "more coersion," yields continuous quality improvement in social order. In this regard, it is the only system consistent with people making themselves better. It is also the only system that can imagine nuanced differences between societies where those societies would not be expected to periodically go to war against each other. In a competitive system, war would appear simply too expensive, since there should be no way to concentrate the benefits on one group and dump the costs on others. In this regard we can imagine a peaceful world that remains heterogeneous.
Good luck trying to envision a stable minarchism where heterogeneity remains unchallenged.
Published: October 29, 2008 10:45 PM
Nelson
I don't think any minarchist ever claimed minarchism is perfect or with infinite duration, merely that it can exist imperfectly for some time while a pure anarchist society can not exist at all because it can not survive real problems (without reverting to some kind of statism, which defeats its raison d'être).
It essentially comes down to a debate between those who favor survival over pure morality and those who favor pure morality over survival. Therefore leave anarchism to the dead in the heavens and minarchism to those of us still walking on terra firma.
Published: October 29, 2008 11:26 PM
nick gray
Here is my idea for curtailing the state- share it out! I am a minarchist, and I think that the way to stop governments from growing is for us all to have some share in the tasks of governing. All voluntary citizens would pay for citizenship by performing some act of community service- i.e., some time might be spent on road patrol each year, or on fire brigade service, or some such activity. After the pain of service would be the gain of participating in government directly.
For instance, if my service was due in March, I would join my local militia in the first half of March, and would get to vote and move laws in the second half of March, after I'd protected the local county.
If you were too busy to vote, or join a militia, you probably wouldn't want to be a citizen. Your choice, but you could change it at any time.
This way, by getting rid of a separate entity called government, we also get rid of professional politicians.
Published: October 30, 2008 1:13 AM
Gil
Rather than complain about what's so wrong about Guvmint, why not ask what's so good about privately-owned property?
I mean:
* Why presume private landowners will stay small such that there'd only be primarily 'vertically-interaction' (one landowner interacting with another landowner)?
* Why should private landowning, sovereign individuals have to abide by private 'police forces' and private 'courts'? Most people here would regard any international organisation, such as the U.N., that tries to intervene in disputes between nation-states as a step towards a 'One World Order' or at the very least have no right to challenge the sovereignty of a nation-state?
* So what happens when private landowners work together to form a private federation whereby they agree on how they settle disputes and so on that 'love or leave it' is a very big deal to non-landowners?
* How is a large-scale private landowning family different from an autocratic nation-state? You know, tax/rent, rules/laws, fiat currency/scrip, etc.? Should a private landowner saying "love it or leave it" be any more noble than a Prime Minister or President saying it just because it's 'private'?
Gil (formerly TLWP Sam :P )
Published: October 30, 2008 1:44 AM
Robert C
I'd say I'm a minarchist, seeing zero as the minimum. Unfortunately, freedom is scaaaaaaary for most people. It's easier convincing a 2-year old to eat asparagus.
Published: October 30, 2008 2:42 AM
Keith
Quote from Ohh Henry: "Given that we must live in a world with a little of column 'A' and a little of column 'B', I still advocate that every impulse toward archism must be resisted, and every impulse away from archism must be encouraged. However unreachable, one pole is obviously superior to the other pole, and every movement in that direction will be rewarded."
I can agree with that.
Published: October 30, 2008 6:57 AM
Keith
Quote from Stanley Pinchak: "How can we constrain an entity to which we grant the monopolistic power to judge its own conflicts? It is clear that constitutions are incapable of this feat."
You can't perpetually restrain it. It will always be a threat. If not from inside, then from outside. So I think you have to ask yourself, is the greater risk from inside or from outside. If you truly achieve an anarcho-capitalist community, then obviously the greatest risk is from outside. So how can a community of pure individualists, defend itself against an aggresive community of collectivists? It can't. So unless you can abolish the thought of collectivism (not likely, thanks to our own biology), then it will always be a threat.
Constitutions only have power as far as the people allow it. A community with a minachist constitution (whatever that should be) would have to recognise the danger from inside and always defend against it. If a minachist constitution is allowed to grow beyond it's original limits, it is because the people allowed it (the enemy within). In which case the people should either rise up to overthrow the expanding state (a very anarcho-capitalist idea) or they've abandoned the individualist ideal and become collectivists.
So my original point is that successful anarcho-capitalism presupposes that everybody in the whole world accepts it's tenets a true and right. Not likely.
Published: October 30, 2008 7:32 AM
Michael A. Clem
What does it take to form a government other than a group of people coming together and agreeing on a set of rules?
As your flood example makes clear, it takes the threat of force to those who dissent. And I would argue that the survivability of the town in your example is not improved by this threat of force. People who don't want to help may have good reasons for not doing so, may be incompetent and thus unintentionally hurt the project, or may deliberately vandalize the project because of the threat of force.
As some of us keep saying, the initiation of force inevitably has unintended consequences, in addition to its immorality. Failure to consider that is not pragmatic.
Published: October 30, 2008 10:15 AM
Stanley Pinchak
Nelson,
forgive me if I take issue with your flood example. In this case that you present you utilize the state to coerce and violate the property rights for the purpose of flood control. Why must you immediately presume that force is the best way to deal with this situation? Would it not be in the interests of these townsfolk to have private flood insurance? Would this flood insurance not cost a lot due to the high risk, being really close to the river. wouldn't competition between insurance agencies establish methods of mitigating the risk of flood through such services and facilities as levees, repair and emergency response crews, and perhaps innovate a reduction on the insurance rate for those who volunteered to run sandbags. I can not see why force is the only option, nor why it should be the first option. Furthermore, this state intervention will like all governmental moral hazard lead to more reckless individual action, in this case, increased construction on the riverfront. This in turn will necessitate more socialism in the future. It is true that riverfront property has entrepreneurial potential for high profit, but your example then socializes the risk onto the whole community. Why should the man who builds his house on the high rock subsidize the protection of the man who builds on the sand of the floodplain? As we all know, socializing the profits would reduce the incentive to work, so giving money to the man on the rock from the man in the flood plain is counterproductive, but socializing the losses is plainly theft and distorts the meaning of prudent behavior. Resorting to force is clearly non optimal even in your example. Furthermore, it is not the concept of mutual aid that anarchists are opposed to, but the monopolistic aspects and arbitrary application of force of the state.
Published: October 30, 2008 1:25 PM
Arend
Never knew that the political philosophy of anarchy states (no pun intended) that one's freedom doesn't permit to be a social being. Adam Smith talks in his Theory of Moral Sentiments about a thing called sympathy (or was it empathy?). I think this is the essential characteristic of human beings making them moral creatures. Furthermore it is a far better insurance than government force. Of course there can be towns where no one will help one another, but I don't think they will be very popular (to live in) and a selection mechanism weeds them out one way or another. Nelson's argument relies on the restrictions within his thought experiment: people in the anarchistic town will not help one another and/or there will be no certainty whatsoever that anyone will help one another. True. And so what? It doesn't follow that a government should be set up to guarantee... yeah, what exactly?
I think the main difference between the acceptance of the anarchist position and the minarchist position is not one of pragmatism but of uncertainty/fear. The instantiation of a government only adds an additional category of fear. Furthermore it is an institution that corrupts the moral interaction between individuals of which the indirect results/'unintended' consequences, we observe every day.
NB: The "free market of force" as an argument for government actually hits the mark quite well. If there is a market, why wanting a monopolist on it? If there is a market, i.e. a category of human wants, why wouldn't one expect suppliers of the good in question?
How many suppliers, at what prices? I don't know. It's like the example of the questions tha arise when privatizing the public shoe sector. Will everyone be able to afford shoes!?
Published: October 30, 2008 1:29 PM
John R.
Such a good debate!
The virtue, it seems to me, of minarchism over anarchism is to recognize the problem posed by the given existence of force in human affairs. It is an evil, but it is always with us.
My earlier point, put more succinctly, is that a "free market" in force is an oxymoron. Force is precisely the opposite of freedom. Therefore, since force is a given, then unless force can be contained, codified, limited, restricted - caged like an animal, if you will - freedom is impossible, because force will always, always govern human affairs solely on the basis of the willingness and ability to use it.
Government is simply an attempt - always imperfect and doomed to failure in the long run - to do just that. All the attempts are flawed, but the only alternative is barbarism. I think civilization is to be preferred.
>>Where does this leave a "limited" government whose managers are the ultimate arbiters of the limits of their power?
The managers never turn out to be the "ultimate" arbiters. Sooner or later, the peasants storm the Bastille.
But it's no fun when the guillotines come out, for anyone.
Look at it this way. Government is a repository of force agreed upon or consented to by its subjects. As long as it is limited in its functions, scope and geography, so that individuals are always free to leave its jurisdiction when they can no longer go along, it is probably the best we can do with the problem of force.
Published: October 30, 2008 5:58 PM
Chad Rushing
Stanley Pinchak said, "John R. and the rest of the minarchists, how do you propose that we limit the extent of state power?"
Two words: wise citizens
In a participatory government like we have (or had, depending on whom you talk to), it has always been up to the people to choose their rulers and then actively keep those rulers in check.
A wise citizenry will not tolerate foolish rulers or foolish laws. If we have foolish rulers in power or foolish laws on the books today which are widely tolerated (and even celebrated), it is only because the people -- or at least a voting majority of them -- have become foolish themselves.
With very rare exceptions, the elected rulers we have today would not be able to hold a candle to the learned and insightful individuals who designed our (original) system of government with its internal checks and limited powers, even the scoundrels like Hamilton.
All it would take to clean up Washington, D.C. in a single generation would be subsequent elections in which only wise candidates received popular support from a wise people along with a series of high profile impeachments of those already in power who acted foolishly (or illegally). The marginal rulers who were still in power would gain a healthy fear of the people again and adjust their actions accordingly until they could be replaced in future elections.
Although I heartily acknowledge all of the abuses by the Fed, the U.S. government, and the many other institutions criticized on this web site and its sibling sites, I again state my belief that what we ultimately have is a people problem in this country. You cannot expect wise and moral conduct from a society or its institutions when that society largely tolerates and/or outright promotes foolish ideas and immoral conduct.
Now, people will argue as to what is the best way to foster wisdom in a society. That being the case, one practical suggestion for our current government is to impose term limits on all offices. This means that no one official can become permanently "entrenched" in the House, Senate, or anywhere else, causing ongoing damage. If they want to stay in Washington indefinitely, then they will be forced to constantly move around (ex. Congressman to Senator) and re-market themselves to voters. Imagine how less powerful (for evil) Congress would be if it had complete turnover every twelve (six?) years. Since the presidency has become such a powerful office, perhaps each president should now be limited to just one term rather than two.
Regardless, a kingdom will only be as good as its king. And in a country like ours where we select our "kings," the kings will only be as good as the people selecting them. Address the people problem, and you will address the problems with the kings and the kingdom.
Published: October 31, 2008 5:42 AM
Paul Kautz
David Gordon, I thank you for your trenchant comments on a book about a debate between minarchists and individualist anarchists, if only because your comments are stimulating further debate in the blog and such debate is salutary. I also think your comments and your excerpts from the book reveal problems in careless assumptions and careless use of terminology. Some examples:
One. In your quote of Thomas, a minarchist, regarding Childs, an anarchist, he uses the word
'government' presumably assuming that in an anarchistic geographical area there would exist coercive governments, i.e. states. By definition, an individualist anarchist society in a given geographical area is a society (and area) without a state, or in different words a society where there is a true free market in all goods and services, including security, justice and law services, those three things being goods of great value to consumers when truly constituted. In such a society and area there would not be any governments, i.e. organizations having a monopoly of coercive power in a given geographical area.
Two. Six paragraphs further on, we find this: "Thomas raises another problem. What about coercive agencies that do not respect rights?" Presumably he is thinking of a rogue or predatory (i.e., criminal) agency, organization or person. In which case the essence of his concerns is simply that a society without a state would not be able to effectively defend itself against criminals.
Three. In your comment on the excerpt from Narveson, I think you make a careless assumption, where you say, "They have no duty to return the stolen property.." When Narveson says, "A not only owes something to B,,,", would it not be fair to assume that what that something is, is the restoration of the stolen property?
Published: October 31, 2008 9:21 AM
David Gordon
I thank Paul Kautz for his comment but don't think that I've made the careless assumption he mentions. "They have no duty to return the stolen property" refers to innocent purchasers. A isn't in this class but is a thief. He can't restore the solen property because he doesn't possess it any more. He has sold it to C.
Published: October 31, 2008 10:20 AM
Paul Kautz
John R, in your first comment you say, "Left entirely to natural tendencies, greater force prevails over lesser force." Not so. For thinking man, thought and the use of intelligence, observation and learning from experience are all natural tendencies, and these lead to the compelling conclusion that cooperation among the many who see the benefits of cooperation can overcome the combined might of the few who choose to live by predation rather than cooperation. That is, until the state unnaturally and fraudulently enters the picture and gains the acceptance of the public--first by deception, second by threat of violence, and finally by the widespread fatalistic belief that the state is inescapable.
You go on to say, "..the 'free market' in force must necessarily result in might making right." Not so. To begin, we must distinguish between predatory force and the only morally legitimate use of force which is to defend against aggressive or predatory force. A true free market can only exist based on cooperation, and predation is the exact opposite of cooperation; therefore there is not a free market for predatory force, although there is (conceptually) a free market for defense against predatory force. 'Might makes right' is a popular saying, but the ultimate truth is that right makes might, although a critical mass of right thinkers is needed to prove that truth in a given population. (That's why a debate of this kind is important.
And you say, "..the given fact of the presence [of] force in human affairs justifies a minimal government as a check upon the natural tendency." Big mistake. Let me interject here that for most of my life I was a minarchist (although only learning of the term in recent years), but have since come to the conclusion that the state is and has been from the beginning a criminal protection racket, not worthy of the allegiance of any of us, although interestingly it can only survive with the allegiance of most of us. In my blog, Paul's Dialog with the World at http://www.duncansbeemers.com/Dial.html in a piece called 'Government, i.e. the state -- Is it really necessary?' I describe the steps in my mental journey from minarchism to anarchism.
Why would anyone in his right mind, out of felt need for defense services against predatory violence, trust the provision of those services to an organization (the state) which: 1. has a legal monopoly on the use of force, 2. can charge whatever it wishes for its service and impose payment (taxes) by force, 3. is the chief predator against its subject population, 4. regards all crime as offences againt itself, not against victims, 5. therefore, is not interrested in restitution to victims, only in punishment of offenders it chooses to prosecute, 6. elevates legality over justice, and constantly further politicizes the entire justice process, 7. offers no contractual listing of services to be provided to its clientele nor takes responsibility for good service, 8. constantly raises the prices (taxes) for its security and justice services since it is a monopoly and can therefore do so without let, 9. tends to constantly lower the quality of its security and justice services since, once again, it is a monopoly and there is no competition or adequate motivation to encourage either efficient or effective service, also because in politics, image trumps substance.
You say, "..governments of one kind or another always seem to accompany community living,.."
Notice the word 'seem.' But a careful study of history shows that prior to the emergence of the modern state, there were various free market solutions (relatively) to the defense against predation problem.
I submit I have wrestled somewhat with your question.
Published: October 31, 2008 1:45 PM
Paul Kautz
David Gordon, thank you for correcting my statement. You have clarified my thinking. I think we still have some difference, however. I suspect Narveson did not complete his intended meaning, thereby leaving himself open to being misinterpreted. His final sentence, "Saddling C with a debt that he had no reason to think he owed anyone is not on," would indeed be 'wildly implausible' if Narveson meant it would be perfectly appropriate for C to be reimbursed what he paid, and still keep what he innocently bought, but which was actually stolen goods. Therefore I conclude Narveson's intended but incompleted meaning was that justice in the form of restitution would be done to both B & C by A's giving back C's money, thereby enabling C to return x to B without C being saddled 'with a debt that he had no reason to think he owed anyone.' One could readily see this being the judgment of an impartial judging service, with A also being assessed investigation and court costs, as well as a fine to be paid to B and C for his intended defrauding of both of those parties.
Published: October 31, 2008 11:06 PM
Gil
How on Earth is a government different from a large-scale private landowner? The tired chestnut has something to do with 'monopolistic force over land'. Huh?! A private landowner have monopolistic right to his land and can exclude everyone and all as a 'trespasser' - it sounds pretty much the same to me. Apparently the only difference is that a private landowner acquired land via 'homesteading' or 'rightful trade'. Unless an obvious reason can be explained for what government mystically does that a private landowner can't then all 'anarcho-capitalists' are really hoping for is the breakup of modern governments into small mini-monarchies.
Published: November 1, 2008 6:11 AM
newson
...though "mini-monarchies" would at least be an improvement, allowing people to vote with their feet. i cannot imagine anyone on this site favoring anything but decentralization of power, whatever form that authority may take.
Published: November 1, 2008 7:54 AM
Stanley Pinchak
Gil,
the state has taken upon itself the monopoly on force, including the ability to use force to expand its land holdings. A private land holder, regardless of how large, must acquire his holdings through peaceful means, or be labeled a bandit and become a target for justice, from both inside of his realm and from those protection agencies outside of his realm. If his rents become to large and his rules too onerous, he will lose tenants to surrounding areas, eventually forcing the landowner to reform, or compelling him to sell part of his holdings to maintain his own consumption. Since no one can be enslaved to another via contract, all peaceful private property owners must allow emigration, those who violate the persons of their tenants again open themselves up to justice from within and without. This will allow the market to weed out bad managers of property and allow more productive arrangements to become the norm.
The ultimate problem with the state comes down to force. Its ability to restrict movement, tax, regulate, restrict, etc. are all founded ultimately on its monopoly of force. The private landholder on the other hand, while he may attempt some of these actions, must operate within the rule of natural law, respecting the persons and property of those with whom he interacts. The state may operate unilaterally up until he has so alienated the majority that they rise up against their tyrant. As history has proven this requite quite a rare combination of freedom loving subjects and terrible P.R. on the part of the tyrant.
Published: November 1, 2008 12:40 PM
Gil
Actually there's nothing to stop people voting 'with their feet' or Americans voting 'with their guns'. But it's humourous to expect people to 'vote with their feet' but Libertarians don't like to 'love or leave it' which is exactly the same thing. Or Libertarians don't want to be nomadic when they are the minority power but will expect everyone else to do so in Libertopia.
Published: November 1, 2008 9:15 PM
Gil
Actually there's nothing to stop people voting 'with their feet' or Americans voting 'with their guns'. But it's humourous to expect people to 'vote with their feet' but Libertarians don't like to 'love or leave it' which is exactly the same thing. Or Libertarians don't want to be nomadic when they are the minority power but will expect everyone else to do so in Libertopia.
Published: November 1, 2008 9:16 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Gil,
how large of a geographical area do you fear an onerous private property owner will obtain on the free market? I contend that the less onerous a property holder is, the more likely his holding will increase. Market forces will work to reduce the holdings of bad managers limiting the distance that tenants would have to move and reducing the number of tenents over whom the bad manager may live out his regulatory excesses. This is in direct opposition to the nature of the state, which expands without regard to the liberty of its subjects. Hoppe has shown that personal liberties are less important than economic liberties for the expansion of states. Under a private property regime, respecting economic and personal liberties would be essentially tied to the success of a landlord. States are, due to their nature and status, capable of insulating themselves from these feedback mechanisms to a great extent. A large component of its ability in this regard is a result of the general population's exception to the violation of rights provided to the state.
Published: November 1, 2008 9:43 PM
Paul Kautz
Toolkien (I like your moniker for its symbolism regarding this debate), your argument seems to be that we will never succeed in getting rid of a state, so it's pointless even to think about it, but that when a state gets too egregious, we may have to revolt to bring it back within bounds, quite likely repeatedly. That repeatedly bears some thought since blood, sweat and tears are involved each time. I'd ask Jefferson, as I'll ask you: if we didn't get it right the first time in 1789 (as I've come to the sad conclusion that we didn't--see http://mises.org/daily/2874 for some keen insight in this regard), why not get it right the next time instead of repeatedly trying to get something to work that ain't never gonna work morally and therefore satisfactorily, namely a state--which is a flawed concept, most fundamentally because it isn't built on a moral foundation. It's built on the same mental concept ultimately as a criminal protection racket.
The interesting thing to me in this is that pretty much the same elements are required for a successful revolt to bring the state back within bounds, as for a successful revolt to replace the state (at least within a given geographical area) and establish a basis for a given society to work together morally, prosperously and safely, stateless. Almost surely, less blood, sweat and tears would be required for the latter than for the former, with more likelihood for success (in the revolt, or secession, as the case may be). Because with the former you have to address the entire geographical area of the state, whereas with the latter you can bite off bite size pieces of geographical area at a time.
But the same elements are required for both, and the three most fundamental are:
One. A thoroughly thought through program based on moral principle in all particulars.
Two. A critical mass of committed, unified thinkers achieved within the given geographical area.
Three. Rules of engagement just as thoroughly based on moral principle.
Unless all three are developed before engaging, and adhered to thereafter, almost certainly it'll be a case of going from the frying pan to the fire.
Published: November 2, 2008 1:12 AM
Paul Kautz
Jeffrey Tucker, it is the individualist anarchist's conviction that real crime, most emphatically including those You have specified, will be tremendously more effectively minimized in a society without a state (anarchist society), than in a state (a government having a monopoly on the use of coercion in a given geographical area). That is because being a monopolist of coercion including the power to tax (now unlimited on the US federal level), the state will be found to constantly be increasing the prices (taxes) for its protection services while diminishing their quality (by virtue of approaching all of its tasks on a political basis), and for the same reason will concomitantly be found to be augmenting predation instead of protection. A poor bargain.
Published: November 2, 2008 6:49 PM
David Gordon
The position that Paul Kautz thinks Narveson really intends is much more more plausible than the one Narveson actually states. He does indeed adopt the "wildly implausible" thesis I attributed to him. If Mr. Kautz disagrees, he needs to support his view with evidence from Narveson's text, not conjectures about what he must have meant.
Published: November 2, 2008 8:11 PM
Paul Kautz
Maturin, you say there is a need "to account for...our essential primate survival social instincts," speak about an instinct for turning to a strongman for resolution of disputes, assert "That humans could peacefully coexist without such a force-based power structure, or 'state,' is in my view a fantasy that ignores our fundamental primate nature," and that "a true anarchist utopia ...has never existed yet in human evolution."
But man is reasoning man and acting man, able to use reason and the accumulated wisdom of the ages (if we will) to do better than confine ourselves to our instincts and turn to strongmen and demagogues for dispute resolution. And we cannot achieve anything that we do not first lift up as an ideal toward which to strive. If we limit our ideals to what we have so far experienced in our lifetimes and to what we have so far read about in history, then our spirit and our experience will be poor indeed.
Published: November 2, 2008 8:24 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Paul Kautz,
You must be careful when you say that state has an unlimited power to tax, for this is not true. The state may tax only to the point where it still retains the tacit consent of the majority. This is, despite being much greater predation than liberty lovers would be willing to accept, a figure much below that of a true unlimited taxing power. This same limitation ultimately restricts all of the actions of the state. I agree as would probably every participant in this discussion that this level of state power should be reduced and the acceptance of the populace to these injuries should be scaled back through education and moral persuasion (it is the extent to which where there is disagreement).
Published: November 2, 2008 9:43 PM
Paul Kautz
Stanley Pinchak,
You are correct of course, for the federal power to tax is clearly finite and not infinite. At the very least I should have put virtually in front of unlimited. However, I'm really not sure to what extent your phrase 'tacit consent of the majority' applies to the situation, because the hidden, widely unrecognized, seldom acknowledged inflation tax is never voted on by either the people or the Congress, except indirectly through spending bills. Then whatever difference there is between total spending and regular tax receipts is ultimately covered by the inflation tax. And then for every piece of spending there will be a special interest constituency resisting any diminution of that spending.
This tax of course occurs by the inflation of the money supply, which means the depreciation of the value of the fiat paper money which everyone, whether rich or poor, uses by virtue of the legal tender laws. Even those who, for example, pay no income tax, feel the impact of the inflation tax as the paper money progressively and continuously buys less, although perhaps most people do not recognize that a major reason for the higher prices they pay is because their dollars are worth less. It occurs so gradually from day to day, when and how and to whom do you register withdrawal of consent, tacit or otherwise? And how do you make a withdrawal of consent stick? Washington is more and more flagrantly and frequently ignoring expressed preferences of the people.
The orchestrator and executor of the depreciation of the money isn't even a part of the government. It's owned and controlled by the big private banks comprising the Federal Reserve. Congress can't even agree to audit the Fed. Perhaps the real limit on this taxing power though is the end of the cycle, which is hyperinflation followed by collapse of the financial system, such as is occurring in Zimbabwe just now, where it takes millions of units of their money just to buy lunch. And still Mugabe, the orchestrator of this particular inflation, is in power.
But why, it may be asked do I call inflation of the money supply a tax? Because it eats into real people's spending ability, just as thoroughy as more obvious taxes do, and it's the only reason the exorbitant spending levels at the federal level can be accomplshed, and that's a major reason the Fed was established in 1913 to begin with--to free up the federal government's ability to spend.
Published: November 3, 2008 11:56 AM
Paul Kautz
David Gordon:
On November 2, you said, "If Mr. Kautz disagrees, he needs to support his view with evidence from Narveson's text." I now have Narveson's chapter in front of me.
He makes 3 points in his paragraph which is concluded by his A B C and x scenario. 1. It is claimed by some that "the ownership of almost everything is called into question by past sins"; 2. He
illustrates this claim by the hypothetical case (mistaken, per Narveson) that I owe you something because my grandfather stole something from your grandfather; 3. He offers as further illustration his A B C and x scenario. You say, "He does indeed adopt the 'wildly implausible' thesis I attributed to him," [that thesis being, "Innocent buyers fare especially well on Narveson's view. They have no duty to return the stolen property and may also proceed against the thief to get back the money they have paid for this property."] I am still not convinced this is Narveson's intended meaning.
First let me deal with a couple of ancillary points. 1) I feel it was perfectly appropriate for you to quote just the scenario from Narveson's chapter, because it is indeed, in my view, a stand alone scenario, the surrounding context not contributing to its interpetation. 2) The first two sentences in the paragraph following the scenario, where he says we aren't "all responsible for everyone's injustices," continues his line of thought, but doesn't, in my view, explicitly apply to the interpretation of the scenario.
So, since I don't find any evidence for the intended meaning of the scenario in the surrounding context, I find I have to look to the internal evidence of the wording of the scenario itself. First clue is the word 'obvious' when Narveson says, "..it's not obvious that C does [owe B something]." If it's not obvious, this at least implies there may be something unobvious that C owes B. Narveson doesn't directly say what this is, but in his last sentence, as it appears to me, he says elliptically, in effect, that if C were to be required to return x to B without reimbursement of any kind [the "debt that he had no reason to think he owed"], that would not be 'on' [fair]. Meanwhile, Narveson already has A owing C something, "C's money back, for instance." This would indeed be 'wildly implausible,' if A (and any others involved in the resolution of the affair) expected C to then keep x, but would be entirely reasonable if there were an agreement of some kind that C would get his money back and B would get x back. If C was indeed expected (by A and others) to keep x, it would make more sense for A to give the money to B, but this resolution would be inadequate justice for B, and would leave C at least in bad odour--for keeping stolen goods once he knew they were stolen.
Why should we conclude a wildly implausible intended meaning when there's a possible plausible intended meaning, even if Narveson conveyed that meaning obscurely, poorly and without sufficient clarity? This plausible meaning is consistent with Narveson's expressed views prior to and following the scenario--namely that we do not owe others harm to ourselves for something we have not personally or intentionally done.
Published: November 19, 2008 8:34 PM
David Gordon
It has been brought to my attention that Tibor Machan believes that I have misrepresented his position. I wrongly suggest, he thinks, that he endorses a government monopoly of force. As he views his position, he does not not do. Just as a competing department store cannot do business in Macy's, clients of the same agency grouped together in a territory leave no room for competing agencies within that territory.
This note is not the place to debate the issue, but I think that this position, as I far as I understand it, does not differ from standard minarchism: it does grant government a monopoly of force in a given territory. But, to reiterate, this is not how Professor Machan views his position. In brief, when I said in the review that he defended standard minarchism, this was my assessment of his position, not his own. I am sorry if my review left this matter in doubt.
Published: December 20, 2008 10:12 PM