Posts in "Anarcho-Capitalism"

By Shaun Bowen at 6:16PM

Feb 6, 2011

The Market Will Provide

In the last year or so I have really delved into the philosophy and economics of liberty. As my personal education has progressed, I have moved from a minarchist position into a voluntarist/anarcho-capitalist position. Since I have begun arguing for the the end of the state, the number one question I always receive is "what about the police -- how will we be protected from criminals?" Of course, I have many a responses for this, of which I won't dump on you all now (but feel free to ask questions in the comments).

However, one the easiest fall backs that any free-market ararchist can use is the old concept of supply and demand: If there is a need for a service, the market will provide." We can add the recent revolution in Egypt as another example to the list of this being the case.

When Cairo first erupted into revolution, the choas on the street was bewildering and confusing. As the masses grew, police were pulled from all corners of the city to "control" the demostrations. This left a void in protection as the police were now no longer in these areas to scare off looters. Mobs began ran sacking houses and stealing property throughout the city, as the state felt it was more useful of their police force's time to fire tear gas and bean bags at peaceful people than to protect individuals' property. So the people took action.

A libertarian technicality? Maybe. But regardless, here’s minarchism over anarchism.

I realize, of course, the debate this new post from my own blog will likely cause in the comments section -- and I probably won't join in. Also, to the anarchists in our readership: You know I like you and many of your ideas quite a lot. But nonetheless...

Q. You said you believe in minarchism. How do you reply to the claim that taxation is theft? And furthermore, since you believe in a free market, why would the market not be a good way to run things like the legal system and police forces? It works for everything else, what makes law or police any different? — logicallypositive, from tumblr.

A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation. The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary. Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible. I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course). That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.

That said, I’m not an anarchist and do want a nightwatchman state for the protection of person and property. I’m inclined to think persons smarter than I could figure out a way to fund it without taxation, but, assuming they were fairly applied (not progressive or regressive, for instance) I’m not against the very low taxes which would be required to support such a minimal regime.

Note: Taxation for unjust purposes (aggressive war, corporate or social welfare, etc.) is indeed theft. But I assume we agree on that point.

Practical Anarchy

Libertarians often brusquely dismiss anarcho-capitalism as “impractical.” But what of the allegedly pragmatic minarchism? Is this system more desirable and achievable?

The minarchist opposes aggression but favors the state. For argument‘s sake, we’ll yield that this pairing doesn’t necessarily contradict itself. If the state solely dedicates itself to protecting natural rights, (and strictly limits its “public property” to the army bases, police stations, courthouses, roads, etc, necessary to do so) let us concede it is implicitly justified.

Even given this generous interpretation, the minarchist is still dancing on the tip of a razor. This is because minarchy is unable to ensure social peace.

As BBQ Brains notes, “there are many moral and practical issues that a community would like to control that fall beyond simple property rights. Animals are property, but we don't want our neighbors abusing them. Parents don't want porn shops and bars opening next door to elementary schools.”

I’d add that we don’t want people yelling racial slurs in public venues, or “creepers” verbally haranguing teenage girls up and down the streets.

Minarchy Considered

I came across this essay a few months back through Mises.org and I felt it was still worth sharing because it provides some great insights into libertarianism. In Minarchy Considered, Richard A. Garner examines the minarchist vs. libertarian anarchist/Anarcho-capitalist debate on the existence and role of governments.

Personally, I am not advocating one side of this debate over the other, I just happen to think this essay provides an interesting analysis on this particular distinction between libertarians.

WHILST SOME DEFENDERS of the minimal, limited state or government hold that the state is "a necessary evil," others would consider that this claim that the state is evil concedes too much ground to anarchists. In this article I intend to discuss the views of some who believe that government is a good thing, and their arguments for supporting this position. My main conclusions will be that, in each case, the proponents of a minimal state, or "minarchy," fail to justify as much as what they call government, and so fail to oppose anarchism, or absences of what they call government.

Regardless of where you may fit in on the libertarian scale of things, this essay is definitely worth the read.

Posted in:

1 comment

By Matt Cockerill at 5:10AM

Mar 30, 2010

"Murray Rothbard Was a Badass" -- An Interview with Walter Block

I had the great pleasure of interviewing libertarian stalwart Walter Block Friday afternoon. The great economist/philosopher discussed his personal story of coming to liberty, his remarkable memories of the brilliant Murray Rothbard, his view on a couple controversial applications of libertarian ideology --in age of consent laws and whether or not "free market" monopolies exist -- and the moral obligation of a libertarian living in a statist world.

Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Posted in: