Anarchy, Liberty and the Libertarian Party
By
Roberto Diego
©2003 by Roberto Diego
Cannot be reproduced in any manner without prior approval of the copyright holder. Please contact sales@insmkt.com.
It has been some time since I have written most of the material provided in this pamphlet. I had originally intended that it be included in a book on political theory that outlined my views on how a proper society should be constructed. Since I chose to forego publication
of such a book I decided to release this article for whatever it might achieve.
Currently our political scene has witnessed a shift toward the right and it remains to be seen whether this shift will result in free enterprise or in repressive theocratic fascism. There are enough indications to warrant the danger of fascism. Because of the events of
9/11/01, many Americans have reevaluated the reasons why America was attacked and have recognized that what makes us different and hated are our freedoms, our democratic institutions, our affluence and open personalities. Some have taken to reevaluating
their religious premises and see these events from a theocratic perspective that is unfortunately, exclusive of the many non-Christian, non-denominational people. Criticisms of Muslims and other non-Christians, as well as atheists, are done with such
vehemence and anger that one would think that all non-Christian Americans are un-American. Some liberals have reevaluated the role played by liberal politicians in weakening our country and making us vulnerable to these attacks.
Other liberals, those who felt guiltiest, have gone into denial and chose to blame everything on conservatives with so much distortion that they seem childish and self-serving. Those of us who had favored limited government must now negotiate a new
political culture and ensure that in advocating a fight against terrorism and the very real enemies of America we do not also serve the interests of fascism. In addition, those Libertarians who advocate a limited government and free economy, if they
continue to fight as a political party outside the ranks of the major parties are missing a very real necessity of preventing the now entrenched Republican Party from moving toward fascism.
At the outset, I’d like to state that I consider George W. Bush to be an honest man who is doing his job with as much integrity as is possible in the most powerful position in the country. I believe that, even though he claims
to religious impulses, that he is a fair man and does his job, as required by the constitution, as a secular President. However, his tendency to voice religious motives and policies (faith-based welfare, for example), bring us to the very real
possibility of drifting toward an oppressive theocracy.
Also, I believe that liberalism will soon hold little power in our country. This is because the liberals have lost credibility by continuing to foster an ideology whose time has passed, that no longer works and has created
massive losses and little benefit to the American citizen. Liberalism fosters a massive government that consumes large amounts of money for the sake of non-existent beneficiaries (no one is benefiting) and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats.
The new political paradigm could be populated by those that advocate freedom and individualism were it not for the Libertarian Party’s efforts to work outside the mainstream. They have taken the trends toward that new paradigm into a realm that
makes them convenient targets for attacks by both the theocratic-bent conservatives as well as freedom-hating liberals.
In order for freedom to be reestablished a consistent movement must take place, one based in reason and possessing a clarity of ideas. An intellectual situation must be achieved wherein the concept of man's rights is fully understood and accepted. Because of this those who
choose to work toward the establishment of a limited government must be fully consistent. Their professed goal must be that of a limited government that is charged only with defending and protecting the rights of man. Further, they must not join forces with others who advocate opposing systems of
government.
Many people concerned about the erosion of individual rights (otherwise known as Libertarians) find themselves working along side people who claim to advocate liberty, yet who seek the establishment of what has been called anarchocapitalism. This article will examine
anarchocapitalism in order to show that the arguments made for it are false, that anarchy would achieve the opposite of man's rights, and that anarchocapitalist ideas can only sabotage and destroy the true movement toward liberty. The result of this
association is that Libertarians and their political party have been corrupted by fringe groups whose only goals are to move into the mainstream by means of the concept of freedom. This approach has only worked to the detriment of rights-advocating
Libertarians and has enabled the enemies of freedom (that control the media) to relegate them to the fringes.
The history of anarchism has been one of disrespect for the foundations of society, of hatred for law, and of superficial sentimentality based upon a professed love for man; all propped up by any philosophical statement amenable to the view that all governments should be
destroyed. Anarchocapitalists cannot be completely dissociated from historical anarchism, since their position that all governments are evil comprises the main feature upon which all variations of anarchism are based. This position, based upon a confused view of man, will be the focal point around which
this refutation of the tenets of anarchocapitalism will revolve.
Classical anarchists, those who lived around the time of the Industrial Revolution, were born of a time when man's intelligence and labor were beginning to achieve a maximization of effort unprecedented in human history. In the midst of this extraordinary progress, the
anarchists of the time offered nothing more than an organic harmony with nature. They were rejected by those who knew that property and production were essential to human survival and happiness.
One of the original anarchists, Callicles of Acharnae, a Greek from the late 5th Century B.C., basing his arguments on the Sophist position that might makes right, held that laws were made by weak men, in order to control and
restrain the few who were strong. The Greek poet, Pindar, held that "natural justice," rid of the impediment of laws, would result in a situation when might would be right. These Greek arguments, with their disrespect for voluntary consent and productive effort, do not represent the stated
views of anarchocapitalists. The concept of "natural justice," as used by the Sophists, is simply too anti-social a concept for the anarchocapitalists. Their version of natural justice holds that a free, efficient, and highly advanced technological society would result from anarchy.
In the anarchocapitalist scheme, through their convoluted economic theorizing, "natural justice" would create a situation where production makes right.
The Sophists were more realistic about the outcome of a government-less society. What anarchocapitalists neglect is that throughout historical times man has been the same biological entity with the same characteristic method of survival. In order for the Sophist
position to be wrong, and the anarchocapitalist position to be right, a new man must have come on the scene, a man so constituted that he commit violence under no circumstances. No such new man has arisen, and the same laws apply to modern man that applied during Sophist times. In short, without
government to protect man's rights, might would rule, the emergence of economic theory notwithstanding.
The crux of the whole issue stands on the anarchocapitalist claim of a total and consistent faith in man's volitional nature. Since, in free‑market theory, the positive or good is allowed to predominate, they think that because of their advocacy of a free market
without government, they must be the most consistent free‑market advocates in history. I will show how a particular anarchist, Murray N. Rothbard, attempts, through definition, to preclude the consideration of any form of government that is not
coercive statism, and to rob the aspects of limited government by including them as aspects of anarchy. Also, I will show, through proper definition, that limited government is not coercive statism, but the only system in history devised to replace it (It is important to mention that my definitions
depend upon theoretical projections of the types of governments discussed, and will deal only with essential characteristics and functions). The central focus will be upon man's volitional nature, and on how each of the different types of government affects it. Only on this basis can a clear
understanding of the theoretical repercussions of such systems by obtained.
In a speech entitled "Society without a State," Rothbard begins, "In attempting to outline how a society without a state‑i.e. an anarchist society‑might
function successfully, I would like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of
If one isolates the concept government, in order to find its essential function, one finds the singular: monopoly on defense services. The only other function possible to a government is offense. But a group engaged in coercion and no defense is not a government, but a mob of gangsters engaged in general looting. Further, gangsters who want to obtain a monopoly on their coercive activities, in order to protect their scheme, would need to provide “defense” services for those who might otherwise be victimized by
rival gangs. This distinction is important to bear in mind, because it provides the clue to just what Rothbard is trying to pull.
Rothbard is right when he maintains that his speculation on the theoretical existence of competing defense agencies in anarchy does not smuggle in government. In order to smuggle in government, he would have to advocate a monopoly of some sort. One can charge, however,
that his definition of a state is imprecise since it does not clearly name the fundamentals involved. Rothbard's definition ensures that the generally regarded model of limited government falls under the category of "state" with the idea of
“state” including the characteristic coercive taxation. The use of taxation as one of the conditions necessary for statism is itself a matter of semantics. Certainly, any government that acquires its income by coercive taxation has that aspect of statism, but, properly, taxation falls under the
wider category of "offense." It is not, by itself, a proof that the total system is “statist.” At least, it indicates that it has a contradiction and is subject to possible drifting toward more coercive characteristics, policies or
institutions.
Let us use some more precise definitions.
COERCIVE STATE
A coercive state is the dominant institution in any territorial area that engages in both defensive and offensive activities with regard to those in its area. Its basic premise is that it owns all within its domain and can rightfully impose its will upon all. From the philosophical arena, the advocates of coercive statism hold (or imply) that the political system is responsible for implementing all private ethical decisions. In effect, coercive statism requires the premise that it is proper for the initiation of force against citizens
who would do other than what the state decides is appropriate. In other words, there is no right to exercise one’s volitional choices when such exercise conflicts with the requirements of the state. In the coercive state, the individual is a slave.
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
A limited government is an agency operating in a given territorial area whose purpose is to organize the instruments of force solely for the sake of defending the individual rights of those citizens who do not deny individual rights to others.
The relationship between politics and ethics in a limited government is based upon the proposition that man has volition and that his survival requires the exercise of reason. Society and cooperation were devised to further the interests of those men who choose to exercise
their rational faculties, i.e. seek survival through peaceful, productive means. Limited government was devised to control and fight those men who choose to be irrational by seeking survival through force or fraud. But since volition applies to men in government as well, it is necessary to
discourage irrational elements from achieving any short‑term advantage from improper use of government. A limited government accomplishes essentially two things: 1) It protects the individual rights of the citizen. 2) It provides a framework of legal impediments that are designed to make the
corruption of governmental power impossible within the lifetime of any potential despot.
Morality regarding non-coercive activities is, properly, not under the jurisdiction of a limited government. The limited government is expressly designed for freedom in all areas except initiated force. It is not a vehicle for the imposition of morality over helpless
victims, but is itself limited by morality. By living in a government's territory, a man implies his sanction of the government's laws, or a willingness to obey those laws of which he disapproves, under the conviction
that through the political process he can change them. Because of the constitution, this sanction becomes a written contract of a sort. One signs it merely by being present and participating in the society.
Proper legal compulsion is acquired in a limited government only after a clearly defined procedure is established, one which recognizes a citizen's rights and his possible innocence when charged. A legal system integrated with the constitution sets the limits to what the
government can do and how it should do it. The key focus is always the rights of the individual against the imposition of morality and the confiscation of property by the government without proper due process, citizen oversight and right action.
In a limited government, it is the government that is limited in terms of the actions in which it is allowed to engage.
The foregoing discussion of statism and limited government reveals a clear distinction between the two. The only function they have in common is monopoly on defense services. Yet, this does not make them the same type of government. Limited government means "limited
to defense”; coercive statism means "unlimited rule." The anarchocapitalist position that limited government is statism is, therefore, false. By arguing against a "state," and by unjustifiably categorizing limited government as a
state, the anarchocapitalists allow themselves some major and convenient evasions. But the evasions go beyond this discussion and include even their definition of anarchy. Rothbard continues: "On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive
aggression against the person or property of any individual."
Rothbard's definition of anarchy is merely more semantics. There is no legal possibility for coercive aggression in anarchy because there is no possibility for legality. In anarchy, nothing could be legally considered to be coercive aggression because there is no single
standard of legality but a hodgepodge of supposedly market-based non-existent impediments. There is nothing that would stop a clever brute from seizing the property of another by claiming a breach of contract. There
is nothing to stop a confiscating bureaucrat or conman from taking over another person’s property or business if he is able to convince (or bribe) a court that he is the aggrieved party. It would merely depend on how corrupt or unvigilant are the
citizens whose jobs it is to create (as and when required) the rules for proper moral and legal action.
Anarchocapitalist writings frequently mention how man's rights might be protected by free market functions, in total neglect of the fact that man's rights cannot be consistently defended without documented approval of the citizenry through laws and established legal
precedents, an approval which gives rise to the possibility of legality and objective law. Rights, although derived from the nature of man, cannot be achieved politically without a constitutional statement of them and a singular government's authority to uphold them. It is only limited government
that can consistently ban coercion.
Since anarchy supplies no consistent implementation of man's rights in the legal sense, man's rights would remain at best a loose ideal in anarchy. Man's rights would be anyone's guess or opinion. The development of a legal system, in anarchy, would tend to be rudimentary
and disintegrated. Anti‑rights groups, in their competition with pro‑rights groups, would have an interest in creating as much confusion as possible on issues of man's rights. In fact, coercive aggression is very possible in anarchy. We can
see how it is possible if we analyze the difference between production and force.
Production is a requirement of man's survival that can be transferred from the primitive level of existence into the social. In fact, production reaches maximum benefit in a social situation, because trade, division of labor and specialization then come about. Production,
then, has a suitable social function. Force, however, achieves only destruction. It is an anti‑social element, unless it is harnessed to protect those in society who go about the business of producing and trading. In this context, we find the
division between initiated force and defense. Obviously, initiated force (such as terrorism, robbery or mob looting) has no place in the market, since it serves to disrupt and destroy productivity and trade. Defensive force serves the purpose of combating, deterring, and defeating those who initiate
force. Production and force are two opposites that cannot operate according to the same social laws. Production must be left alone. Force must be controlled and regulated by responsible citizens. Production
requires planning and thought. Force requires only a gun.
The market involves thousands of individual transactions, each dependent upon each man's reasoning capacity. Thousands of wrong decisions are made every day. But these only involve issues of production and trade, and the loss is to those who make the wrong choices. Because
of the cumulative nature of capital and technology across the societal background, the free market advances the general well‑being nonetheless. But if force is not constitutionally banned from the market, a strong competition between the production and force is created, thereby effectively
beating down the accumulation of capital and technology. Force is destructive, not productive.
To take a loss on an issue of production is one thing, but the issue of force represents an entirely different ballgame. When force goes on the market, those men who cannot compete successfully in the productive arena would
receive a tremendous advantage. Their errors of judgment in productive matters could be easily made‑up‑for by the use of force. This means that coercion will compete openly with defense. In such a situation those men who would use force would have the advantage of ambush, theft,
sabotage, bribery, blackmail, fraud and murder. The free market with force effectively banned has no provision for the coercive advancement of inferior products or services. They fall to better competition. In anarchy, they need not fall. And the effect
of using force as a "bargaining tool," would be the diversion from production toward protection. This is anarchy, constant warfare.
The free market depends for its success upon a well-defined, well-instituted government. It cannot exist without one. Anarchocapitalists glorify the safety and security of a free market that allows for long‑range action, totally evading the fact that without a
limited government long‑range action would deteriorate to the level of gun‑slinging.
Without a proper view of man's nature, the political system a theorist might advocate necessarily suffers from a lack of integration. The system, if implemented, would produce opportunities for flagrant activities on the part of evil men, since the theorist could not
foresee the contradictions in his speculations. For instance, coercive statism is based on the proposition that man is impotent in the face of moral decisions and that he requires a political system that will impose those decisions upon him. This false view creates a situation through which
plundering dictators achieve full control. This is because man is not impotent in the face of moral decisions. He has the ability to reason and decide appropriately.
Protecting this ability prevents the plundering dictator from flourishing at his expense. This is because limited government institutes the idea that man's survival requires the exercise of reason in all matters of production and trade. This gives rise to a government that would defend his
rights against those who deny them.
Anarchocapitalists claim that their system is consistent with man's volitional nature. But their premise that governments are evil directly contradicts their stand on volition and leads them to cynically and blindly advocate a system
that also contradicts man's nature. The anarchist view of government as evil implicitly states their true view of man's nature. Governments are not entities as such. They are comprised of men. They act institutionally only in accordance with the views and attitudes of men. If all governments
are coercive by nature, then all men must be prone to coercion and this must mean, for them, even anarchocapitalism will not work. The anarchists cannot possibly reconcile this view with their professed view of man as a being of volition.
Volition applies only to individual men. It reflects the basic ability of each man to make the decisions that life requires. Each man can choose to think or not to think. Volition only identifies the possibilities. It is this basic fact which gives rise to the necessity of
a government. And it is this fact that makes anarchy an anti-human and inapplicable concept.
It is the nature of the existing political institutions that determines the relationship between good and evil in any society. Volition, then, implies that a group of men can construct an effective government. But it does not imply that it will remain effective. Through time, men may lose their vigilance. And this reveals the fallacies of the blatant “other-worldly” views of anarchocapitalists. They believe that through “word speak” (in other words, free market economic theorizing), they can define how a society would function in a free market without government (an impossibility). They use these words (economic theories) to show that everything would be just fine as long as we are all convinced of the value of the free market. Criminals and mafia dons would all know that doing things in a coercive way is not in their economic self-interest and therefore they’d become entrepreneurs offering value for value. What they overlook is that in the real world, the free market would not stop the mindless self-hating brute that knows only how to steal the productive work of other men. It takes less intellectual energy to point a gun at a man and steal his property than it does to plan and produce that property. No economic theory will eliminate this unfortunate fact. Only a political (constitutional) system can fight this because it recognizes the existence of criminals and seeks to prevent their looting. Anarchoagencies operating as isolated competing fiefdoms in smaller geographic regions would be nothing more than looting gangs engaged in perpetual warfare and violence.
Volition implies that an unprotected market can and must descend to the level where force is the ruling element. But it does not imply that the market will naturally become free of force. Volition holds no power in political institutions except that power which is reflected through vigilance. Anarchy, then, promises constant warfare. Limited government, which provides a consistent and uniform barrier against force, adds another dimension and a stronger measure of security to the concept of self-defense. This is because limited government allows a man to deal with self-defense only on the intellectual level of the organization of his government, rather than on the brute physical level. This release's him to do the job of advancing his well being by concentrating on production and trade.
Without a limited government, a free market on force would work predominantly to the interest of evil. Look at the bloody history of this planet for an indication of which way man's societies have gone without proper limits on forceful activities. Contrary to the anarchist belief, the history of the world does not prove that governments are evil by nature, but that improper control of force can have catastrophic results.
If anarchocapitalists want to fight for a government-less society they would be more honest if they mimicked the Sophists of ancient times proclaiming that might should be right. It is because anarchy is basically an anti-rights concept that the anarchist's advocacy of capitalism amounts to nothing more than lip service, an effort to get into the mainstream by advocating the freedom of capitalism while setting up a political situation where capitalism is impossible. The anarchocapitalists are de facto enemies of capitalism.
Let's make no mistake about this: the professed belief in volition stressed by anarchocapitalists merely represents window-dressing. Their actual premise is that all governments are evil. In any period of history, an anarchist group can don any philosophical coat. But whether they acknowledge it or not, the principle they have always fought for is "might makes right."
The history of the development of limited government shows a progression toward more control over the government, with a consequent progression toward more individual freedom. The framers of these systems were intent upon eliminating the power that governments and rulers can wield over people. Each experiment succeeded somewhat, but each also realized flaws that allowed despotic types the opportunity to take advantage of constitutional loopholes. The record does not reveal that governments are evil by nature, but that coercive statism is evil by nature. A continuing effort to perfect the effectiveness of a limited government is in order. It would be unwise to forsake a chance for a true liberty by compromising with or even giving the benefit of the doubt to those who favor a system from which any form of despotism lies just a premise or a gun away.
This takes us back to our point. If you are a Libertarian who believes in limited government and not anarchism, you are losing credibility by this association. You are also losing the ability to influence events within the mainstream. You are allowing your association with fringe types to keep you from influencing the dominant parties that are still open to persuasion, and in this critical time for our country, it is important that you fight for freedom where it counts, in the mainstream, not the fringe.
SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
WHAT IS A PROPER SOCIETY?
A proper society is one whose political structure is consonant with man's ethical nature. It recognizes fully the requirement of man's nature, that he must be free to exercise his individual choices in all productive and private matters. Such a society recognizes each man's right to self-defense. This right is instituted by the government's adherence to and defense of property rights.
WHY IS AN INTELLECTUAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL ATMOSPHERE NECESSARY FOR POLITICAL FREEDOM?
An intellectual atmosphere for political freedom is an abstraction that many people do not understand because 1) we do not have such an atmosphere today, and 2) it is difficult to see how it would operate. Imagine a situation wherein a great many influential people have laid the metaphysical and epistemological foundations for the ethical concept that is man's rights, wherein most educators are able to prove that man has rights and are teaching the principles of a proper free society to a great many young people. These educators and young people, being of large enough numbers, would then have an effect upon the printed and visual media, the arts and upon politics. Political constituencies would exist that would demand that the politician do the job of protecting the individual against the encroachment of his rights. In fact, the politician would be required to agree with the concept of man's rights before he could be elected. The debates and issues in such a situation would be clear. The entire society would stand vigilant watch against the beginnings of tyranny.
Consider the months of debate and discussion that surrounded the creation of the US Constitution. That it was even created (with only a small amount of contradiction) can be attributable to the fact that there was considerable agreement on certain basic and necessary concepts at the time of creation. That it took months to draft indicates the degree of complexity that such issues held. To compromise now on these issues leaves us open to the same contradictions in a future Constitutional Convention, if it doesn't prevent our even having one. This is not to say that we need philosophical agreement from the entire society or even a majority. A philosophical atmosphere is always created by the influential, the educators and other key people. The establishment of such a climate, although difficult, may not take that long. But we must focus on the intellectual institutions whose role is to provide ideas to the culture.
WHAT IS POLITICAL FREEDOM?
Political freedom is a concept that arises only in the context of a limited government. Political freedom is the absence of governmental coercion. It requires a rigid governmental structure that has only one goal: the protection of the rights that proceed from man's nature. Political freedom pushes criminals outside the protection of government and places self-defense under the control of those who would foster the interests of the productive and peaceful. Political freedom makes an ethical and a social life compatible.
WHY MUST ONE BE CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICS?
There is no army in the world large enough to establish a tyranny. There is no tyranny in the world that would not fall overnight if the people under it refused to work for or support it. Everything done by a government is done in the name of and with the approval of its citizens. Not to be concerned about politics, not to speak out about political issues, leaves the door of tyranny open, makes one's silence a sanction by default.
Each man is responsible for his own life, and therefore responsible for his own protection. To refuse to speak out is to abdicate both. It is not true that one can't do anything about political trends. A man can speak and refuse to sanction the government's actions. He can refuse to work for his enslavers if his voice is loud enough. And he can leave the country if destruction is inevitable.
Education is the balance on the scale between a free society and tyranny. Reason is the measure that can tip the scale in favor of liberty. Vigilance is the weight that secures liberty. Those who claim that we can't do anything about the trend toward coercive statism are merely admitting that they are afraid to take the appropriate moral stand on the issues. They are the kind of people dictatorship needs, the victims who make possible their own destruction.
HOW DO WE ESTABLISH A PHILOSOPHICAL ATMOSPHERE?
The answer to that question rests primarily with the individual and his situation. If one is an educator, one should do all one can to improve the arguments for a proper society. Above all, one should not compromise to the extent of playing all sides of the philosophical fences. There is no substitute (in prestige or result) for consistency. Further, the educator should not labor under the belief that the cause is lost. It is not lost, as long as he has the power to speak and teach. Ideas move a culture, and the educator is a man of ideas.
If one is not an educator, one should seek out those educators who are doing an adequate job; one should encourage them, promote them, quote them and speak out on what that educator has taught them. One should try to spread what little philosophical Influence there is on the subject of man's rights. One should write to one's congressman, and discuss the issues with him in terms of principle. One should not engage in the confusion of the time by resorting to civil disobedience (of the improper kind), quick solutions, blind protests and blind following of blind leaders.
There are a great many ways through which one can spread the idea of man's rights. The imagination is unlimited. But before one begins doing so, one should know clearly what one is talking about and why it is right.
A Libertarian Party is an ineffective way to fight for liberty. The idea of eliminating U.S. foreign intervention today reveals an amateurish understanding of international relations that most Americans would reject out of hand. Before the U.S. can withdraw its "intervention" in the affairs of other nations, it must first be assured that terrorists and other belligerent interests would stop their murderous activities. Today, the Libertarians and the anarchists who manipulate them would unilaterally withdraw from the world under the false belief that the market would somehow continue to function. How can a Libertarian candidate advance liberty today when he stands for an anarchostyle withdrawal from the world and an acceptance of the current domestic scene?
Are we to assume that Libertarianism means liberty? No. Are we to assume that libertarians fight for individual rights? No. Are we to assume that the ultimate goal is to create a free society? No. We cannot take anything for granted. Why should we? When Libertarians are aligned with anarchists, we can only assume that they favor anarchyThe New Century Marketing Concepts Secure Online Catalog.
We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Diners Club and Discover Card.
| Roberto Diego . |