Libertarianism and the State
(A) The State is fundamentally self-interested and will always act to increase its power over and against the people it is alleged to represent.(B) The State already exists.(C) There is no material power greater than the State, except a larger state.[THEREFORE] The State that exists can never be reduced.
I submit this argument for your discussion. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I often wonder whether libertarians have a solid enough theory of power and the State. How is it that a free market can co-exist with a State if it is in the state’s very nature to increase its power over the market? It seems we either have to have a theory of a “good state,” which means a state that does not behave in its self interest or we have to accept anarchy as the only free market alternative. Neither of which seem very likely. Discuss.
Comment by Dan on 27 October 2009:
While I happen to think a stateless society (anarchy) is the only true free market solution, getting to that goal or even the goal of a limited state seems very daunting right now. However, I have hope that the market can out compete the existing states and simply leave them behind. We could hope that the market evolves so much faster than the state that the market finds solutions to society’s problems before the state can and the state will be shown to be unnecessary.The major problem that the market would have to solve in the end would be dispute resolution between victims of the state and the state.There’s also the idea of increasing competition among states for citizens and/or taxes. Tax competition taken to the extreme essentially makes governments businesses competing for citizens/taxes/payment. Seasteading could play a role in this.Lastly, there’s always hope in new technologies. With the internet there’s much more freedom to be found and ways to fight back against the state. Recently I’ve been encouraged by David Friedman’s new book (http://daviddfriedman.com/Future_Imperfect.html) and ideas (http://daviddfriedman.com/MyTalks/MyRecentTalks.html). I’d profess that I’m plugging him only because I like his ideas but since his book is online for free I think you’ll see that neither he nor I could possibly gain any DIRECT monetary benefit from your reading his book or listening to his talks.
Comment by Greg on 27 October 2009:
I think that stat can be reduced if there is an external group enforcing tight control over the state, and spreading this culture throughout the people.
Anyway, once you get a minimum state you’ll need to abolish it, if not it will start growing again.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 27 October 2009:
Governments are all based on the support of the people over whom they are governing. As such they must be cognizant that the government does not go too far too fast. In South American countries the informal market flourishes despite the omnipotent state because the ruling elite is smart enough to know that were their power to be completely exercised the people would in fact starve to death. This would cause a massive revolt. Thus you have a dynamic informal market where virtually everything is available for sale and purchase in cash. What you do not have is security for capital lending. The state will collapse when it loses the support of the people. Hyperinflation is the referendum.
Comment by RichF on 31 October 2009:
Self-government (anarchy) *is* the only free-market alternative. The extent to which markets are free is solely dependent on the people’s willingness to resist the state.
Comment by gerardleary on 4 November 2009:
I don’t think anarchy is a viable solution. Mafia-like thugs would recreate the state and we will be right back where we started.The solution is culture. No one in America would advocate chattel slavery. It would be unthinkable, and there is no governing body that would advocate it even if it would increase its power because of the reaction of the public. It is an auto-response. No one would have to dissect the pros and cons of slavery, no one would have to explain the economic effects. It would just be a moral reaction.That is where we have to get liberty. We must effect the culture to achieve an auto-response on the behalf of people to any encroachment.The arguments we have been making are long and nuanced. We need to change them. For example, when we argue against the minimum wage, we often give elaborate explanations about the effects on youth employment, and site empirical evidence. The opposition just says that it is morally right that people should have a higher wage, and always site the poor family man working at McDonalds. Of course, that man does not exist, but the argument is emotional, moral and short. Who doesn’t want to help that poor worker, and without actually having to do it themselves to boot.So we need a like argument. We can use two of them. One is to show out-of-work teens on a street corner because they are priced out of a job. Or we could just say it is morally wrong to force someone to pay more for something because we disagree with their choice.In other words, we must make the base argument, very well made by the founders, that it is immoral to use coercion when we don’t like the results of free people making free choices. My reply when people give me the “we should provide people with health insurance” or “people should only buy fuel efficient cars” is to say, “Go ahead. It’s a free country. Start a non-profit health insurance company. And buy whatever car you want. What is stopping you?”If anyone argues that the government should do something, turn it personal. If the state should do it, then they should be doing it. It is immoral for them not to do themselves what they are advocating. If they believe we should help kids get to college, ask them what they are doing about it. If they get smart and ask what you are doing, reply that you do your job everyday, and are paid because someone sees value in it. That is what you do.In the end, if we do not make it a moral imperative that people should be free, we will not win. Forget economic arguments, though they are very compelling to thoughtful people. Make the same arguments the other side is making. Besides, it is fun to fein shock and outrage that someone would be so callous as to advocate helping the poor without doing so themselves!
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 4 November 2009:
gerardleary – Rothbard wrote about working examples of anarchy in the early history of the United States in Pennsylvania which were successful. The issue is a moral one. A moral people who adhere to non-violence, non-theft, non-fraud can live without government. I am willing to take the chance since nothing could be worse than the violence of the 20th century when thugs such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, Mussolini, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ho Chi Minh, all the tribal (government) “leaders” of Africa, et al killed over 100 million people, destroyed Europe, destroyed 2 large Japanese cities, destroyed bombed a country back into the stone age (Vietnam), destroyed villages and countries in Africa to war against each other or purge political opponents for political power and economic advantage. Could anything be worse than this carnage of mankind? Could anything be worse than the carnage and destruction in Bosnia, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Zimbabwe all done by government? I will take my chances with no government thank you.
Comment by gerardleary on 4 November 2009:
Agree to your main point, but I don’t see anarchy working in the modern era. If we all had equal tools of force, then maybe, but we do not.If you had anarchy, and I mean a peaceful one, there would be people looking to use violence to dominate, either from within the society or from without. Immediately people would look to the strong for protection. This would happen organically, not by a vote. The strongest and wisest, much like a tribal chief, would be the start of a new state. It probably would look like the Greek city-states of the ancient world. As threats came and went, there would be the natural progression of consolidation. A better solution is a cluster of very small states, much like the founders envisioned. I still see New Jersey as rightfully a free and independent state. I admit that others don’t see it that way but small sovereignties are a safer approach. No one worries about the tyranny of Liechtenstein!I am a somewhat unusual American that I see myself as a New Jersian first, and would fight to defend my home state from invasion by another state. I do not have a strong “Amercian” identity, anymore than I would have a strong “North American” identity. I would be fine if the Union was dissolved (and no, I don’t want slavery). I find loyalty to the government in Washington a bit weird, and don’t understand how my fellow citizens can cling to it.Besides, I would be fine if each state charted its own course. If NJ wants public health care, they will get it. If not, than not. But DC will force it on us without our consent. And it is not like I would be able to leave the state to avoid it.I see DC as a foreign government, much like the founders saw Britain. Again, I admit that most people don’t agree with me on that.
Comment by Jacob Steelman on 4 November 2009:
gerardleary better yet city-states such as Singapore, New York, London,LA, and all the land in between free and open. You still are against anarchy when we have political thugs killing over 100 million people and bombing cities and countries back into the stone age? You think there can be anything worse than that? How can you support such violence, such massive human carnage, destruction? How can you support politicians that steal millions, billions, trillions of dollars from people to redestribute it to the the various ruling elites? The Federal Reserve Banking cartel would never have survived unless it had government support which forced us to accept worthless pieces of paper as “legal” tender. Can you imagine a private cartel telling us to accept worthless pieces of paper? They would long gone into the dustbin of history if they continued with such a policy. Would large corporations exist without government incorporation laws which limited the liability of corporations? Can you imagine a business surviving if it posted a sign “our liability is limited”? It is the government and its many thugs that enforce all these things at the point of a gun. And they are willing to enforce it as the lives of over 100 million people shows.
Comment by Gerard Leary on 4 November 2009:
Whoa, Skippy! Slow down. I didn’t say I was “against” anarchy. I said I didn’t think it was viable and we would end up back with a state. I certainly didn’t say anything about endorsing or supporting the current system. Your preaching to the choir here. I agree. I just don’t think anarchy would work. I may be able to be convinced otherwise, but I look at the state of Somalia, and they have constant attempts to force a national government on them with the resulting violence. The people will eventually tire of the violence, and a de facto state will be implemented.Wish it weren’t so but I think anarchy is Utopian. I just think the people who currently run for office would still be out there peddling their crap. They will move to recreate a state as a first order of business.Re-read my post. You will see I am no fan of the government.