Libertarian calls AnCap 'Anarcho-Statism' and 'competing governments'

II. Anarcho-Statism

The vast majority of libertarians and conservatives do see the need for political government in the area of local police, national defense, and a law court system or at least a Supreme Court. . . . and I agree with that position.

At least for a period of time, libertarian economist Murray Rothbard pushed what he called "anarcho-capitalism" -- a vision in which all government functions would be performed by "private" agencies which would "compete" with one another in the marketplace. Although I do agree with the Rothbardites in the need for retaliatory justice, I maintain there is no such thing as a "market court"; I make a distinction between such market services as marriage counselling agencies and arbitration agencies -- which have no authority at all to enforce their recommendations on anyone and depend wholly on the voluntary consent of those clients who go to them for advice -- and true government courts which have the police power at their disposal to enforce their judgements and penalties on those convicted of crimes. And I see the need for a Supreme Court of some sort for the ultimate adjudication of disputes that have for whatever reason not been resolved in either market arbitration or lower courts in the government's jurisdiction.

Keep in mind that as soon as any actor uses coercion or violence, for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be a purely market agent and becomes instead a "coercive entity" at least in the instant in which he or she acts coercively. This may sometimes be necessary -- as in the case of someone running down and tackling a robber trying to get away and holding him under Citizen's Arrest for the authorities; but, market entities are those characterized by non-coercive activities of voluntary exchange, and someone becomes something else when he or she goes beyond that and uses coercion for any reason.

Coercion, even when used in a rightful manner in retaliation against initiatory coercion, is not a market means or mechanism. There is no such thing as a free-market policeman. There are private free-market night watchmen and guards -- but not market police officers. It is the failure of a few eccentric libertarians [LOL!] to make the distinction between market entities and coercive (criminal or political) entities that has led some to embrace what the late great economist Murray Rothbard dubbed "anarcho capitalism".... This was the system Murray Rothbard described briefly in the first chapter of his later edition of Power and Market and other writings.

The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises called socialism "planned chaos" and he called anarchism "unplanned chaos" -- but it is clear to me that what a tiny subset within libertarian circles advocates as "anarchy" is just a floating abstraction which can never be implemented in the real world and any attempt to do so would result in the worst kind of statism.

By failing to grasp the distinction between what is coercive and what is non-coercive (market), these few fringites have attempted to extend the argument for "privatization" from such non-violent services as mail delivery, education, fire control, electric power, and so on, (which virtually all libertarians believe should have been left to the private marketplace or volunteer efforts instead of political bureaucracies to provide) to such inherently coercive activities as police, government courts, and military defense.

But a gang is not a market agency just because one calls it a market agency. If it uses coercion -- violence of any kind, either initiatory or retaliatory -- it is not a market activity of bilateral voluntarism. It is not a market agency, even though Dr. Rothbard, as brilliant though he was in economics, tried to present such competing vigilante committees and coercive gangs as an economic (market) alternative to political states. States by any other name still smell the same. And, indeed, what he advocated and called "anarcho-capitalism" -- and what I call "polyarchal vigilantism" or competing governments -- actually exists already in the world as a whole -- and always has existed. Since there is no ONE single world government, what we see in the real world are several "competing" political states, each controlling different geographical territories. I should point out that there is nothing in this political competition which benefits the citizen by producing more freedom; generally, the reverse is true: war -- the ultimate political competition -- generally destroys individual rights and allows governments to usurp more power over their citizens.

The point is that there is nothing in what Murray Rothbard advocated that would cause his (supposedly) "market" retaliation agencies to restrict themselves to the proper function of violence (i.e., to protect rights and not violate them). Competition in the political arena does not work the same way that market alternatives in the economic marketplace operate to serve consumers. Competing governments or vigilante gangs are not market agencies. They are coercive entities. This means that Rothbardian "anarchism" is not really anarchism at all since, in the real world, what he advocated would be what we already have now, and have always had: political strife on different levels vying for power.

Equivocating with the term "competition," these "anarchists" fail to see that competing violent gangs and vigilante committees and lynch mobs are not the same as competing business firms which do not use any coercion at all. There is no limit to statism under this form of "competitive" anarchy. It is the war of all against all. Whether you call something the KKK, the Black Panther Party, the posse comitatus, or Murray's Anarcho-Fascist Insurgency Association (MAFIA), if it involves the use of violence or coercion in any way -- either initiatory or retaliatory -- it is not a market entity and does not behave like one.

The truth is that in the real world there is nothing that distinguishes Rothbard's "anarchist" agencies from political governments -- and they can be just as statist as any other political regimes can be. This path of seeking to "privatize" (marketize) functions which are inherently coercive is a dead end. It is a false alternative. Whether any group claims a "monopoly" on the use of force in society or not, if it uses force at all, it ceases to be a market entity and becomes something else entirely -- a criminal or political entity. It is the same old statism under a different label.

We don't really have any choice of whether we shall have government or no government, but only in what kind of government it will be -- a government restrained by Principle (some kind of republic) or a statist tyranny which has no limits to the whims which direct it. That is the hard truth which the self-styled "anarchists" (many of whom are still rebelling against their parents) should face.

But couldn't the Rothbardian libertarians say the same thing about a Laissez-Faire Republic -- that it would not necessarily restrain itself to its proper duties as well? That, once set up, it could degenerate into politics as usual and growing statism?

They might -- but I'd point out that it is much easier to exercise eternal vigilance over one, fairly local system of government than to have to worry about a dozen or a hundred during a situation of constant civil wars. Ask yourself: isn't it hard enough to keep an eye on the shenanigans of the current Administration and the Congress here in the United States -- let alone 150 to 200 some odd political regimes around the world?

Those who advocate "anarchy" (competing states) don't offer a better way or any alternative to statism at all. It is the same old statism. The "competition" (war) between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America during the 1860s did not result in more freedom and less statism for most people. Even though the slaves (in only the seceding states) were freed, the states lost most of their sovereignty as the consequence of the War Between the States and this centralized power in the national government began increasingly to intervene in the economy as never before and in the decades following the U.S. system was changed by adding such statist fixtures as the Interstate Commerce Commission, a national graduated income tax, the Federal Reserve central banking scheme, and other "populist" or "progressive" measures of the socialistic Left.

Obviously, there is no system made up of human beings that will automatically restrict itself to its proper functions (that proper role having been well-described in Bastiat's The Law, or Ayn Rand's Textbook of Americanism or Benson's On the Proper Role of Government). But using rational laws, due process, and written constitutions to bind government down from "mischief" (tyranny) helps a great deal. The reverence for the Constitution and the general respect for law among the populace can be a powerful force in this effort. By contrast, there is no such thing as a constitutional anarchy -- and no limits to the statist tyranny that gang warfare in the real world can produce.

Even from a purely public relations perspective, those libertarians who wave the black flag of "anarchism" tend to alienate those Americans who might otherwise be interested in seriously considering the libertarian approach and exploring it as the principled but realistic, workable alternative to the various forms of political interventionism and socialism. The message should be: the opposite of statism is laissez faire, not anarchy.

If anarchy is merely the absence of government and political activity -- as contrasted to the competing governments and warlords that the utopian "anarchists" seem to envision -- then we already have it. That kind of "anarchy" presumably exists in the international waters of the open seas outside of the 12-mile territorial limits of nation-state countries. If the absence of government were such a libertarian paradise, wouldn't we expect businessmen of all sorts setting up shop in those open waters of the high seas? No taxes, no regulations, and no political controls. Certainly, we have the technology today for people to live and work on and under the seas. Yet, we do not see this rush to develop the oceans or the seabed by profit-seeking businessmen. Why? I suspect it is mainly because there are no private property rights there -- no way to protect private property rights from being violated (by either pirates or gunboats from regimes such as the King of Tonga) because there is no government there to protect them. Freedom rests on private property rights and the rule of law -- and those values and institutions cannot be expected to survive if unprotected.

Those sincere libertarians who naively call for "anarchy" are just going down a dead end that leads to statism, not liberty. The American founders were on the right track in their attempt to limit the scope of government by means of law and constitution. We should take off from their lead and devise even better ways to limit the scope of government to the policy of laissez faire.

http://fredericbastiat.com/Anarcho-Statism.html

Imbecile...

Thumbs down

Libertarian calls AnCap 'Anarcho-Statism' and 'competing governments'

Libertarian calls AnCap 'Anarcho-Statism' and 'competing governments'

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

Inside AnCaps, Philosophy, Libertarians & Ancapdemia's Ebony Basement