[SecretSquirrel]

To everyone who thinks that libertarianism is not anarchism, I present the following article by Stephen Kinsella

by N. Stephan Kinsella

Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas I've also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression — the initiation of force against innocent victims — is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved — I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work," "since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be crime — that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights — does not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified, it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is "impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously) support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims — i.e., he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else — making sure certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost — but not peace and cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the same — innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the stomach for this; others are more civilized — libertarian, one might say — and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or against it?

[smashthestate]

Interesting article overall. It's certainly true that libertarians and anarchists have a lot more in common than either care to admit. I suppose a libertarian would have the following objections to the accusation that a state and its activities is necessarily aggressive in nature:

1) Enforcement of contracts - Should violators of contractual agreements be morally shielded from state-corrective aggression in the enforcement of such contracts? It's true that the state must use aggression in contract enforcement, but should people be free to willy-nilly violate an arranged agreement? Should violation of contract be considered an aggressive act?

2) Voluntary state funding - Many libertarians argue that the state would be voluntarily funded via private donations. Where the aggression in this?

3) Defense - Unless the entire world is united by the same anarchic system, a national army must exist in order to defend the inhabitants from outside aggression. Again, where is the aggression in this if the government is voluntarily funded?

[SecretSquirrel]

1 -- I do not believe that fraud merits coercive force in response. My principles firmly specify that only aggressive use of force or coercion could potentially merit the use of coercion/force in response.

2 -- Supporting an agency who uses coercion and violence to achieve its goals (not just to fund itself as per your hidden assumption) through voluntary donation somehow legitimises its offenses? Sounds to me more like those who fund it voluntarily are accomplices.

3 --

Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It's quite simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

[smashthestate]

1 -- I do not believe that fraud merits coercive force in response. My principles firmly specify that only aggressive use of force or coercion could potentially merit the use of coercion/force in response.

Fair enough, but would you agree that fraud ought not to go unpunished? Or is fraud simply a buyer-beware issue for you? If you are a the victim of fraud, so sorry and better luck next time?

2 -- Supporting an agency who uses coercion and violence to achieve its goals (not just to fund itself as per your hidden assumption) through voluntary donation somehow legitimises its offenses? Sounds to me more like those who fund it voluntarily are accomplices.

What is my hidden assumption? In the three examples I gave you, the first was a case of justified aggression (a value judgement admittedly, but so is the entire case against aggression), the second and third involved no initiative coercion or aggression.

As for the moral case, I think many non-aggressive acts (fraud being one) justify aggression in response. How else can you punish frauds without the use of aggression? Ask them nicely to make good on the contract?

[SecretSquirrel]

fraud is 100% a "buyer beware" system. In a free market, fraudulent people would also quickly have their reputations ruined beyond repair. The problem solves itself.

[smashthestate]

That doesn't help the victims along the way, does it? And do you really think that every small-time fraud would be known world-wide to be a fraud? How do you think con artists work in the current environment where fraud is illegal? Imagine the free-reign they'd have where there was no penalty to fraud beyond a 'bad reputation'! For a savvy person, it would only take a single fraud and they could be set for life as far as material wealth. Imagine someone taking out a home loan and deciding not to pay it back, while the loaner has no recourse whatsoever besides telling other people what happened. Let's get real.

[copaceticmind]

^^^

No offense to you - I respect your willingness to respectfully debate the issue - but this all this means is that you have not yet put sufficient thought into your argument.

First of all, as previously addressed in the article, the principles of anarchy say nothing about how well they will work against any particular problem. Concerning the utility of anarchy in cases of fraud, this argument also assumes that the current system, whatever it may be, sufficiently deals with victims along the way. Considering the cost and inconvenience of any court proceedings - even small-claims court - many victims go uncompensated. These problems are further exacerbated by the illusion of security that laws provide. Without the illusion to make people think a solution already exists, entrepreneurs will step in and find solutions that do solve the problem. Ebay is a wonderful example of this. There are no "laws" to deal with fraud. It is all buyer beware, and yes, small-time fraudsters are known all across Ebay as fraudsters.

Defaulting on a loan is a bad example. Any loan for a large sum of money would require collateral. At default, the collateral effectively becomes the property of the lien-holder. In an anarchic society, if one were to ever exist, a lien-holder could confiscate said property without the use or need of a state

[smashthestate]

I accept your point about effectiveness not being an issue, though I must admit this seems strange that it would not be important, however I was also trying to argue that fraud justifies the use of state power in order to remedy it. Whatever the effectiveness of the current system, at least there is the possibility of recourse for a victim of fraud, and of actual punishment for the act of fraud.

a lien-holder could confiscate said property without the use or need of a state

But not without the use of aggression, which, according to your argument is initiative and thus morally wrong, as fraud does not constitute prior aggression. The whole concept of collateral implies that the lien-holder will use aggression to obtain the collateral if the borrower doesn't honor the contract.

[Zyx]

The article is well-written to the extent that those insufficiently informed on the ways of the world will unquestioningly recognize the arguments laid out. Unfortunately, the writer does not address the fundamental question, which I would be surprised if any Anarchist or Libertarian can answer, and that is "How does one decide whose land is whose?"

So to speak, it's fun to make exchanges without the intervention of the state, but without the state, how does one make a claim to land?

[SecretSquirrel]

tell me zyx. How does the real or imagined difficulty and/or potential impossibility of determining land ownership logically lead to the conclusion that a coercive institution such as a state is legitimate?

[Zyx]

Well, we can imagine a simple scenario. You are in a house and I claim that it is my house. How do we non-violently settle the dispute? If there are no papers between us, or worse we have competing documents, upon what basis do we decide whose house it is?

[SecretSquirrel]

that has absolutely no bearing on the question i asked. Please do better

How does the real or imagined difficulty and/or potential impossibility of determining land ownership logically lead to the conclusion that a coercive institution such as a state is legitimate?

SS

[Zyx]

The entire institution of private ownership more or less requires coercion. Insofar as private ownership is legitimate, the state is legitimate, because there needs to be a third party legitimizing private ownership. Granted, I do not agree with private ownership, but since anarchist and libertarians do, I decided to point out the kink in their armour.

[copaceticmind]

Whatever the effectiveness of the current system, at least there is the possibility of recourse for a victim of fraud

Whatever the effectiveness? It sounds as though you are saying that as long as recourse is a possibility then it doesn't really matter how effective the system is. Recourse must not be just a possibility but also accessible which it is not. I could go much further into creating a system to decrease fraudulent trade, but that's really not what it's about. The question is whether or not state aggression is justified. To an anarchist the answer is no.

The whole concept of collateral implies that the lien-holder will use aggression to obtain the collateral if the borrower doesn't honor the contract.

Aggression may be used, but I would not consider it the initiation of aggression. While not obvious and explicit, I would consider withholding the property of another against the owner's consent as definitely being a use of aggression.

[Melodramatic]

To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work"

Anarchists who don't aren't very convincing...

Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression — the initiation of force against innocent victims — is justified.

Ohhhhh I wanna try! It brings towards a greater good . It doesn't, I would not trust another to tell what that is, I would not do it myself because I would not want it done to me and I would be ashamed of those who will not stop me, but, objectively, it is a logical claim. Morals are things of god-men. Ethics are social standards. Aggression is not any more evil than the damage it does.

I am not a violent man but there are more than enough cases in which I would act violently, in which case it would be correct for me to be punished. Punishment ain't fun, so I don't hope I do, but I hope society does all it can to do so. To be frank SS, you're "holier than thou" attitude is annoying me like shit. Morals have nothing to do with politics.

[copaceticmind]

Morals have everything to do with everything. There are certain universal morals that apply to everybody. There are certain actions which are wrong no matter who you are. The initiation of force is one of these actions. It is wrong no matter what your ultimate goal. To say otherwise is to say that the ends justifies the means, and if this is true then fascism - with the proper goals - is just as moral as a democratic republic.

[Zyx]

On the necessity of the state for the sake of private ownership, I decided to bump standford's philosophical treatment on the question up on my reading queue.

The reading is not difficult, but I am hard to concentrate on it. Nevertheless, it has some early and interesting snippets for the Anarchist/Libertarian question:

Any society with an interest in avoiding conflict needs such a system of rules. Their importance can hardly be overestimated, for without them cooperation, production, and exchange are virtually impossible, or possible only in the fearful and truncated forms we see in ‘black markets.’ This necessity is sometimes cited as an argument in favor of private property (Benn and Peters 1959, p. 155). In fact, all it establishes is that there ought to be property rules of some kind: private property rules are one variety. Some human societies have existed for millennia, satisfying the needs and wants of all their members, without private property or anything like it in land or the other major resources of economic life. So the first step in sound argumentation about property is distinguishing those arguments which support the existence of property in general from arguments which support the existence of a system of a specific kind (Waldron 1988).

. . .

Though private property is a system of individual decision-making, it is still a system of social rules. The owner is not required to rely on her own strength to vindicate her right to make self-interested decisions about the object assigned to her: if Jennifer's employees occupy the steel factory to keep it operating despite her wishes, she can call the police and have them evicted; she does not have to do this herself or even pay for it herself. So private property is continually in need of public justification—first, because it empowers individuals to make decisions about the use of scarce resource in a way that is not necessarily sensitive to others' needs or the public good; and second, because it does not merely permit that but deploys public force at public expense to uphold it.

. . .

In the early modern period, philosophers turned their attention to the way in which property might have been instituted, with Hobbes and Hume arguing that there is no natural ‘mine’ or ‘thine,’ and that property must be understood as the creation of the sovereign state (Hobbes 1983 [1647]) or at the very least the artificial product of a convention ‘enter'd into by all the members of the society to bestow stability on the possession of…external goods, and leave every one in the peaceable enjoyment of what he may acquire by his fortune and industry’ (Hume 1978 [1739], p. 489). John Locke (1988 [1689]), on the other hand, was adamant that property could have been instituted in a state of nature without any special conventions or political decisions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

I will read this more, but thought I would share it, since SecretSquirrel challenged me to 'do better.'

[Suska]

Zyx, you have BECOME a tangent.

Anarchism is a term that tends to distract from the essence of an interest in a world in which social activity is VOLUNTARY. Voluntarism is a better term.

[Zyx]

What are you saying? Private property is voluntarily recognized?

In the above example, Jennifer 'owns' a factory but decides to stop running it. All the people are unemployed. Can the people, despite Jennifer's wish, continue to run the factory?

Methinks that you are on the tangent.

[Suska]

You are babbling.

Voluntarism is an ideal. The point of this thread is that Libertarians are working toward the same ideal as Anarchists. In fact socialists are too - and are just as often as confused as Libertarians about it.