Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
This question is actually a response to a comment in Whiskey Sam’s On Civility where he said an inflammatory post title would be “Why Are Libertarians So Afraid to Admit They’re Anarchists?” I agree that would be an inflammatory post title, but the underlying question is actually a good one.
I’m sure Sam doesn’t believe that Thunderdome is the ideal libertarian state, and neither do I, but it seems to me that most of the libertarian comments I’ve seen on Ricochet are mostly about what libertarians are against.
Fred Cole is the libertarian member I’m most familiar with, although I know we have several others that are prominent, and they’re against some things I don’t necessarily wish to dispense with in toto (the War on Drugs, no-knock warrants) and some things I agree with them on doing away with (property taxes). Fred has plenty of thought-provoking and alarming examples of government overreach, but it seems to me that if you take libertarianism to an extreme, as people are like to do when arguing against a viewpoint, anarchy is the caricature that emerges.
To the libertarian members I ask: What level of government, if any, is acceptable from your viewpoint? What level of oversight would be best for organizations such as the FDA or SEC? Would you have a national police force such as the FBI? Could the government own land or levy income or property taxes?
If the government that rules best rules least, where is the least you would propose? And how do we reconcile that with the conservative who looks at the existence of the Department of Education and says “too much” but looks at the DEA and says “just right”?
- Comment (229)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (17)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Minarchism v. Anarchism is a big debate in libertarian circles. Most people are the former, some weirdo kooks are the latter.
To answer the question in the title of your thread, the line is having a state at all. And I'd define the state as the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of the initiation of force.
You either have one or you don't.
And, you mentioned me specifically, I'm on the most extreme end, an anarcho-capitalist. So, as awesome as they are, please don't take my commends as representative of some libertarian "norm."
Libertarianism is about individualism, so when you have a bunch of individualists, you're going to get massive individual variations in opinion.
Aug '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Umm...
It depends on what you mean by "anarchy".
Anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son) would say there doesn't have to be a line -- but then again, there are a lot of other people calling themselves anarchists who believe that anarcho-capitalists cannot possibly be anarchists (perhaps because anarcho-capitalists still believe in rule of law, though they think rule of law would work better if it were privatized).
Here's the thing: when "anarchy" is simply used as a pejorative (which I've observed is how most folks seem to use it), and not as a descriptive term for some specific (albeit still hypothetical) arrangement of human affairs, what's the point of pretending to have an intelligent discussion about it?
I think the most helpful thing I can do for you is pass along the book recommendation Fred Cole made to me: The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman. Really interesting read. I cannot recommend it highly enough to people who want to discuss anarchy in an intelligible fashion.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Fred Cole: To answer the question in the title of your thread, the line is having a state at all. And I'd define the state as the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of the initiation of force.
You either have one or you don't.
And, you mentioned me specifically, I'm on the most extreme end, an anarcho-capitalist. So, as awesome as they are, please don't take my commends as representative of some libertarian "norm."
· 0 minutes ago
Fred, as far as the initiation of force, does that mean the state is the only one that can proactive action or does reactive use of force count? If I find a burglar in my home I can legally shoot him, so is that proactive as the burglar hasn't caused me physical harm or reactive since he trespassed on my property?
Also you say you're an anarcho-capitalist: are you saying caveat emptor should be the whole of law?
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: Here's the thing: when "anarchy" is simply used as a pejorative (which I've observed is how most folks seem to use it), and not as a descriptive term for some specific (albeit still hypothetical) arrangement of human affairs, what's the point of pretending to have an intelligent discussion about it?
· 1 minute ago
My general impression of anarchy is less people in chainmail and leather chasing each other down a highway and more people largely interracting on the personal level for all interactions - more of a frontier model if you will.
Personally I'm more comfortable with some level of legal interraction above that, more on the order late 18th, early 19th century American goverment. Although I'm sure most libertarians would love to roll government back that far, would you want to go farther?
Dec '12
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Not to be difficult, but Thunderdome was pretty much a dictatorship. Anarchy would be better demonstrated by Lord Humongous. But, for me Libertarianism is fine on paper; in theory, and it's probably a noble, if unachievable end. In reality, it has never really worked anywhere that I'm aware of. Starting where we are today, though, Libertarianism and Conservatism share the goal of smaller government (I think); that is a better direction in which to trend than anything else we're being offered.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Austin Murrey
Fred, as far as the initiation of force, does that mean the state is the only one that can proactive action or does reactive use of force count?
[snip]
Also you say you're an anarcho-capitalist: are you saying caveat emptorshould be the whole of law? · 2 minutes ago
As to your second question, that's an interesting way to put it. I'll have to meditate on that.
As to your first question, the whole idea is based on concept of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), the idea that its morally wrong to initiate the use of force (aggress) against another person.
If you apply the NAP not just to people, but also organizations, specifically governments, then you end up either a minarchist state that can't collect coercive taxes (Ayn Rand's view) or anarcho-capitalism.
The NAP only covers initiation of force. If someone hits you, you're allowed to hit back.
As to your burglar example, if you find one in your house, he's already aggressed against you, so you can use force to stop him.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Austin Murrey
My general impression of anarchy is less people in chainmail and leather chasing each other down a highway and more people largely interracting on the personal level for all interactions - more of a frontier model if you will.
Personally I'm more comfortable with some level of legal interraction above that, more on the order late 18th, early 19th century American goverment. Although I'm sure most libertarians would love to roll government back that far, would you want to go farther? · 5 minutes ago
The frontier model is interesting. I'd recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robt Heinlein. It describes an anarchist society. In fact, the above mentioned David Friedman said its what led him to anarcho-capitalism.
The problem with the 19th century in America is that for 65% of the century, half the country had an economic system based on chattle slavery, which requires a government recognizing it to function.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Central Scrutinizer:
Libertarianism is fine on paper; in theory, and it's probably a noble, if unachievable end. In reality, it has never really worked anywhere that I'm aware of.
Depends on which elements you're talking about.
Aug '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Austin Murrey
My general impression of anarchy is less people in chainmail and leather chasing each other down a highway and more people largely interracting on the personal level for all interactions - more of a frontier model if you will.
So you already have some idea as to what anarchy might be, rather than an incoherent antipathy to the very word. Good.
Know what? I'm still not sure, at least in theory.
Although I'm a moral traditionalist, my reasoning about politics is almost purely consequentialist. I'm pretty sure that human beings would flourish the most under minimal government. How minimal that minimal could be (for example, whether it could in fact be zero) is not something I feel confident answering yet.
But as a practical matter, I would be simply thrilled if government could be returned to early 19th century size -- and very skeptical that we could make even that much progress in the foreseeable future.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Fred Cole
The frontier model is interesting. I'd recommendThe Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robt Heinlein. It describes an anarchist society. In fact, the above mentioned David Friedman said its what led him to anarcho-capitalism.
The problem with the 19th century in America is that for 65% of the century, half the country had an economic system based on chattle slavery, which requires a government recognizing it to function. · 1 minute ago
Interesting point about the South's economy at the time, although I'm uncertain how much the average Southerner relied upon slavery to make ends meet even into the Civil War - or even if you could quantify that.
Do you think that large plantations and the economic benefits they supplied to the government via tariff income made it easier to have lower government involvement in the South?
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
I was thinking less Tina Turner's rule and more the "two men enter, one man leaves" aspect that anarchy or extreme libertarianism's portrayed as by lots of folks. There's an awful lot of "you'll be on your own and helpless before bullies" aspect to big-government rhetoric.
Aug '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Austin Murrey
Do you think that large plantations and the economic benefits they supplied to the government via tariff income made it easier to have lower government involvement in the South?
As Thomas Sowell has documented (see, for example, pp191-205 of his Race and Culture), it's a mistake to simply assume that plantations run by slavery were a net economic benefit, even for whites.
Slaveholding satisfies one's desire for personal aggrandizement, for lording it over others, but it's not an efficient way to get productivity out of people.
Edited on December 17, 2012 at 7:47pmApr '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
We have a system that will answer this if we would only enforce the 10th amendment. If each State is allowed to decide what agencies to create, what laws to pass and what activities to regulate, we would have 50 active experiments moving incrementally towards the best balance for their residents. The one-size-fits-all experiment from the last century is simply not sustainable. We will either return to Federalism or something else will replace what we have today.
Nov '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
kesbar
We have a system that will answer this if we would only enforce the 10th amendment. If each State is allowed to decide what agencies to create, what laws to pass and what activities to regulate, we would have 50 active experiments moving incrementally towards the best balance for their residents. The one-size-fits-all experiment from the last century is simply not sustainable. We will either return to Federalism or something else will replace what we have today. · 11 minutes ago
The DOJ has several national policing agencies because crime is not limited to a single state. Would strict Federalism be eliminating these agencies and if not what kind of Federal government oversight should be allowed?
Personally I like the idea of an FBI that has the manpower to track down serial killers, for example, when a small town (or state) police force is out of its depth.
Sep '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
There is a punchline to a joke most people know.... "can I do it til I need glasses?"
I'm a conservative who thinks we need a lot more libertarianism. I think most sane libertarians simply want more freedom than we currently have. Why do we have to find where the anarchy line is? We aren't even close. Let's debate that once we start moving too far in that direction.
I'd love to be at a point where moving toward anarchy would be a remote concern. Right now, my impression is that we are moving very quickly away from freedom and anything close to libertarianism thanks to both Dems (especially deems) and Republicans.
Sep '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
I forgot that my avatar has some pretty thick lenses.....have at it.
Aug '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Fred Cole
The frontier model is interesting. I'd recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robt Heinlein.
The frontier model is also a matter of economic history.
Hernando de Soto documents in his The Mystery of Capital why some societies flourish economically and others do not. It turns out that third-world countries have an official rule of law at loggerheads with the socio-economic arrangements that the people in those countries naturally tend to make among themselves.
De Soto has a fascinating chapter on "the missing lessons of US history". He posits that what we had in the Wild West wasn't lawlessness, but a clash of legal systems: the "extralegal" legal systems that settlers established amongst themselves versus the official legal system, which, with its roots in English common law (England being a small island that had been fully settled for centuries), was ill-adapted to frontier land-ownership. Peace broke out in the Wild West when the official legal system caught up to the informal legal systems and finally acknowledged the arrangements that people had already been making amongst themselves.
And if official law works best when it acknowledges the arrangements people make anyhow...
Edited on December 17, 2012 at 8:21pmApr '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Austin Murrey
The DOJ has several national policing agencies because crime is not limited to a single state. Would strict Federalism be eliminating these agencies and if not what kind of Federal government oversight should be allowed?
Personally I like the idea of an FBI that has the manpower to track down serial killers, for example, when a small town (or state) police force is out of its depth. · 3 minutes ago
There are crimes mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Among those are piracy, counterfeiting and treason. This would be reason to keep the DOJ in some form, but there is no need for the DEA, ATF or the other agencies. The reason for this is corruption; who watches the watchers? Let the States handle those LE responsibilities and let them finance the cost by taking the Federal Government's power to tax individuals away and give that power to States exclusively.
Aug '10
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Fred Cole:
Libertarianism is about individualism.
Just for fun, I'll disagree with that. Not even anarcho-capitalism has to be individualistic. There's nothing saying that the associations people choose to be part of under anarcho-capitalism can't be extremely communitarian.
Yes, free choices are ultimately made by individuals, and in that sense, libertarianism does contain an irreducible element of individualism. But I would liken anarcho-capitalism more to extreme federalism or even extreme communitarianism (in the sense that voluntary communities have complete control over their own laws) than I would to extreme individualism.
If the opinion of a novice counts for anything, which it might not.
Feb '11
Re: Where Is the Line Between a Libertarian State and Anarchy?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Austin Murrey
My general impression of anarchy is less people in chainmail and leather chasing each other down a highway and more people largely interracting on the personal level for all interactions - more of a frontier model if you will.
So you already have some idea as to what anarchy might be, rather than an incoherent antipathy to the very word. Good.
.....
Midge, I know we've clashed in this realm before; I don't think we need to retread that ground. However, please allow me to pop in only to say: antipathy isn't necessarily incoherent.