As I pointed out in my reply to part 1, Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity in laws, legal procedures, etc. is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
What I can add in response to part 2 is that it is precisely such subjective control over force by a territorial monopolist that leads to a "might makes right" principle, not the principle acknowledged by most ancaps that objectivity induces rational actors to make voluntary arrangements for mutually respecting and mutually defending each other's rights. It is telling that an ethical subjectivist like David Friedman was chosen as the representative of ancap thought, not an ancap like Murray Rothbard who, like Rand, derived individual rights and legal principles deducible from such rights from the facts of human nature and not from the results of a public auction.
What objective control actually entails is a willingness to persuade other rational minds that a proposed use of force can be justified as retaliation against an aggressor and that other methods for resolving the dispute (like payment of compensation to the victim) have been rejected by the aggressor (i.e. the aggressor has become an outlaw). The "proper" state of the Objectivists, on the other hand, claims authority to order the destruction of those it labels as aggressors without having to justify itself to anyone else; and it also claims the authority to prevent others from retaliating against outlaws even if objective evidence of their outlawry is known to all.
In what sense is it ever "proper" to prevent a fully justified retaliation by others, or to use force oneself without justifying it as retaliation? Only the vastly superior firepower of a state--i.e. its might--enables the state's rulers to spurn and thwart the rational judgement of others in imposing what it claims to be right on what it claims to be its territory (which of course can be disputed by other states, further favoring might over reason as the control over the use of force).
“Let’s go further and fantasize that we have a society with a freedom-loving culture that tries to implement libertarian anarchism.”
Then we are told some of the various ways that conflict will allegedly increase. But under the given assumption there would be greater voluntary segregation into distinct property areas by any antagonistic groups. And there would be competing private policing of those areas, which would thereby be far more efficient than state policing. So, to suppose that this would increase conflict is to “fantasize” (as it is to suppose that a “rights-protecting government” could do a better job). (That said, the normal desire to protect children is strong enough to prevent any paedophile areas from being tolerated.)
Pretty good essay in my view. I really wanted to be ancap when I was younger and read Rothbard and Friedman and all the rest. I just never found it convincing for all the reasons stated here.
As I wrote in response to your first post on this theme, "Libertarian Anarchist" is an oxymoron. The way you're using the phrase suggests that one could be an Anarchist or, more extremely, a Libertarian Anarchist. But Libertarianism is what we used to call Classical Conservatism, and it's not anarchist at all - period.
Libertarianism - Classical Conservatism - is constantly and vigorously attacked from all sides, presumably because it threatens the less sensible, natural, humane ideologies. The left recently spent at least a decade trying to paint libertarianism as a plot by the Kochs to ruin everything (just because they could); and now calls it "neo-liberalism" in a transparent attempt to associate it with neo-naziism, which would be funny if people didn't fall for it. Meanwhile the right has long painted libertarianism as libertinism - which is quite another thing again - and now there's this new trend of suggesting that libertarianism is a strong form of anarchism. Anything to not actually have to explain opposition to it.
You can do better. Step 1 would be to describe libertarianism - classical liberalism - in a way that would pass a political Turing test. Strong-form anarchism ain't it.
While first being quite clear that I am of classical liberal persuasion myself, you must literally not have read any of Bryan Caplan's writings on this subject. "Libertaranism" does NOT 1-1 equal "classical liberalism".
Let's also be clear that if you are a classical liberal, then you are a supporter of minarchy. I certainly am.
Anarcho-capitalists - as Caplan makes it clear he is, at least in theory - consider themselves "libertarians". And that IS what the debate above is about! Even though it is no doubt true that not all self-describe libertarians consider themselves anarcho-capitalists.
Like you I find it regrettable that many [non-libertarian, non-classical liberal] people equate libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism, but that is not what this discussion is about.
In this particular debate, I side with the given Objectivist argument over Caplan's anarcho-capitalist argument (as you clearly do), even though in general I usually agree with Caplan and often enough disagree with Objectivism.
I realize that the challenge, with any philosophy, is to thread the needle between a) a term means whatever those who use it want it to mean and b) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
IMHO, classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism, a term that really emerged to replace "liberal" in the United States after "liberal" began to mean "left-wing statist" (in other parts of the world, "libertarian" seems to have a wider range of uses). It's useful to insist on a definition of the word, and in the US context that seems like a valid, historically accurate one. If we're going to allow it to also mean European-style left-wing collectivist anarchism (don't ask me how that's supposed to work), then it means nothing at all. Thus my insistence, "true Scotsman" style, that no anarchist is a libertarian: yes, they both oppose big government, but in philosophically distinct ways. There comes a point where the "true Scotsman" point is valid: a Londoner simply isn't one, despite coming from the same island.
Objectivism, which I haven't studied much, appears to me to be a philosophy that overlaps with libertarianism in some ways, but is also quite distinct, with its focus on objective reality. Its libertarian aspect comes from the idea that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of life, an idea I find somewhat troublesome: at the very least it requires a big asterisk.
Finally, what "anarcho-capitalism" would be, I have no idea. It sounds like something made up by one of my left-wing friends trying to scare people. Markets that involve participants beyond individuals known to each other and/or their direct relationships don't seem to exist in nature; large-scale capitalism has always been, and is today, a government policy choice (because it works). Any organization large enough to enforce large-scale capitalism would be a de facto government, I think.
Most of your other points taken. I even agree with your sentiment that classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism - or at least it should be 😀
It’s easy enough to learn what anarcho-capitalism is. It’s not a new term. In fact, I first heard it as a teenager watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not that I had any idea what it meant back then…
Both sides in this argument are completely right about the flaws of the other side, and, not only that, but obviously so to almost any outside observer.
What an interesting read! I agree with much of what was said, but disagree with most of the conclusions. The closest we came to full agreement is “In mixed economies… this is just a description of anarchy.”
Under government rule we still live with the problems of anarchy, but we also live under the problems of government. For example, people continue to steal property from each other on a daily basis despite laws prohibiting such activity, and the government also steals 40% of my income. Also, I own and carry a gun every day because I cannot depend on a government agent to actually be there when I need to be defended, and I have to live under the threat of annihilation in nuclear war. A threat which I am quite certain would never exist without government.
I believe agorists answer the right questions and have the right answers to the problems of government. The right question to every problem is “what should I do?” Allow me to elaborate:
Does my vote make the government better or worse? No, my vote has zero impact on the quality of government I might live under. Does voting make me a better or worse person? Voting makes me a worse person by wasting my time/energy and giving me a commitment bias when evaluating the quality of government I experience. Trump voters usually make excuses for bad results of the Trump administration, rather than taking responsibility for their actions which led to the bad results. The same is true for Biden voters.
Do my taxed dollars make the government better or worse? No, the government will not be noticeably better or worse if I pay taxes. Does paying taxes make my life better or worse? Worse because I have less money to pursue my own goals after paying taxes. Additionally I feel bad for paying taxes which fund programs that hurt innocent people.
These are just a few important reasons why I am anti-state.
I think if a person accepts that the government we have had is the same as the government we can reasonably continue to expect, then they will lean more to the anti-state side. If they believe that they personally can affect the government, then they will not take up the anti-state torch.
The argument is too theoretical: when States were cities, Aristotle did walk away from Stagyra and walked to Athens. The problem is when military and fiscal power follow you everywhere. This happened in Ptolemaic Egypt with people walking through the desert to escape taxes, and happens now for Americans with the federal government. https://polsci.substack.com/p/economic-consequences-of-organized
Communities and cities are able to guarantee the security and property rights of their members. If the possibility to defect is made easier, you get better competition between providers of security.
I’ve read Rand, Mises , rothbard, Hayek, Acton, toucqville, etc., over five decades.
Role of political authority . . . interesting.
Recently come across two books that have added insight on this subject . . .
One - Rodney Stark “How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity.’’ He explains that the development of the medieval monastic movements, I.e. Cistercian, Benedictines, etc., were precoursers of modern political , market systems. The outworking of the relationship with the king, the church and their own internal leaders was complex.
Two - Gert Melville “The World of Medieval Monasticism’’. Much detail on the centuries long adaptations of religious devotees creating their own communities, their own international organizations throughout Europe.
Focusing on the problems of freedom of individual conscience and political - religious control is revealing.
The difference between the Franciscan and Dominican system shows how initial ideas created different systems centuries later.
This was essential for developing a western civilization. Not usually acknowledged or understood. What’s unknown can’t be used for insight.
"Consider: In their anarchic fantasy, do the competing defense agencies all view one another as legitimate and do they all accept some single legal code and overarching framework for how and by whom decisions to wield retaliatory force will be made in cases of disagreement? If so, then these agencies jointly constitute one complex institution with a monopoly on force—one government. If they don’t, then there’s no difference at all between what anarchists are proposing and neighborhoods dominated by gangs competing with one another and with the government."
It should be noted that this applies to the Medieval Iceland example. If one even briefly goes and interrogates the sources given for this "Private market system" one finds overarching legal codes, institutions with unilateral powers, a "loose" but still non negotiable set of rules for social conduct. And a breakdown heavily influenced by considerable amounts vengeance feuds that ultimately result in the biggest and richest with significant unilateral powers over a geographical area. Even on the smaller level of what they call "godar" it is still an area where despite the chieftains role being a "market commodity" it still has non negotiable exsclusive rules of social conduct.
The Objectivist arguments above remind me of the socialists who claim that socialist failure and evil is a result of it not being "proper" socialism and that the current proponents will "get it right". Given that all states including those relying on democracy eventually evolve into tyranny (Tytler's thesis), are Objectivists not similar to conservatives in that they are both essentially compromised libertarians. Objectivists at least know the "proper roll" of government but in the gargantuan task of achieving one, wouldn't there be sufficient knowledge and awareness of such that the elimination of the state be seamless.
The difference being as noted in the first essay that partial examples of the proper role of government can be found in abundance whereas in the case of socialist (as most libertarians well know) their partial examples show failure instead of success due to the socialistic elements i.e public education, socialized medicine, nationalized industries. In fact much of the best work of Libertarians and Austrian economics adds up to this very point: To the extent the government serves its proper role we see unmatchable prosperity and growth , to the extent it doesn't we see destruction, stagnation, and regression.
As I pointed out in my reply to part 1, Brook and Watkins have a curious conception of what constitutes "objective control" over retaliatory force. Objectivity is something that is available to any rational mind that chooses to focus on the problem at hand; objectivity in laws, legal procedures, etc. is not something that is unilaterally "defined" exclusively by a particular authority. The latter principle constitutes *subjective* control over the use of force, not objective control.
What I can add in response to part 2 is that it is precisely such subjective control over force by a territorial monopolist that leads to a "might makes right" principle, not the principle acknowledged by most ancaps that objectivity induces rational actors to make voluntary arrangements for mutually respecting and mutually defending each other's rights. It is telling that an ethical subjectivist like David Friedman was chosen as the representative of ancap thought, not an ancap like Murray Rothbard who, like Rand, derived individual rights and legal principles deducible from such rights from the facts of human nature and not from the results of a public auction.
What objective control actually entails is a willingness to persuade other rational minds that a proposed use of force can be justified as retaliation against an aggressor and that other methods for resolving the dispute (like payment of compensation to the victim) have been rejected by the aggressor (i.e. the aggressor has become an outlaw). The "proper" state of the Objectivists, on the other hand, claims authority to order the destruction of those it labels as aggressors without having to justify itself to anyone else; and it also claims the authority to prevent others from retaliating against outlaws even if objective evidence of their outlawry is known to all.
In what sense is it ever "proper" to prevent a fully justified retaliation by others, or to use force oneself without justifying it as retaliation? Only the vastly superior firepower of a state--i.e. its might--enables the state's rulers to spurn and thwart the rational judgement of others in imposing what it claims to be right on what it claims to be its territory (which of course can be disputed by other states, further favoring might over reason as the control over the use of force).
“Let’s go further and fantasize that we have a society with a freedom-loving culture that tries to implement libertarian anarchism.”
Then we are told some of the various ways that conflict will allegedly increase. But under the given assumption there would be greater voluntary segregation into distinct property areas by any antagonistic groups. And there would be competing private policing of those areas, which would thereby be far more efficient than state policing. So, to suppose that this would increase conflict is to “fantasize” (as it is to suppose that a “rights-protecting government” could do a better job). (That said, the normal desire to protect children is strong enough to prevent any paedophile areas from being tolerated.)
Pretty good essay in my view. I really wanted to be ancap when I was younger and read Rothbard and Friedman and all the rest. I just never found it convincing for all the reasons stated here.
As I wrote in response to your first post on this theme, "Libertarian Anarchist" is an oxymoron. The way you're using the phrase suggests that one could be an Anarchist or, more extremely, a Libertarian Anarchist. But Libertarianism is what we used to call Classical Conservatism, and it's not anarchist at all - period.
Libertarianism - Classical Conservatism - is constantly and vigorously attacked from all sides, presumably because it threatens the less sensible, natural, humane ideologies. The left recently spent at least a decade trying to paint libertarianism as a plot by the Kochs to ruin everything (just because they could); and now calls it "neo-liberalism" in a transparent attempt to associate it with neo-naziism, which would be funny if people didn't fall for it. Meanwhile the right has long painted libertarianism as libertinism - which is quite another thing again - and now there's this new trend of suggesting that libertarianism is a strong form of anarchism. Anything to not actually have to explain opposition to it.
You can do better. Step 1 would be to describe libertarianism - classical liberalism - in a way that would pass a political Turing test. Strong-form anarchism ain't it.
While first being quite clear that I am of classical liberal persuasion myself, you must literally not have read any of Bryan Caplan's writings on this subject. "Libertaranism" does NOT 1-1 equal "classical liberalism".
Let's also be clear that if you are a classical liberal, then you are a supporter of minarchy. I certainly am.
Anarcho-capitalists - as Caplan makes it clear he is, at least in theory - consider themselves "libertarians". And that IS what the debate above is about! Even though it is no doubt true that not all self-describe libertarians consider themselves anarcho-capitalists.
Like you I find it regrettable that many [non-libertarian, non-classical liberal] people equate libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism, but that is not what this discussion is about.
In this particular debate, I side with the given Objectivist argument over Caplan's anarcho-capitalist argument (as you clearly do), even though in general I usually agree with Caplan and often enough disagree with Objectivism.
Thanks for that clarification!
I realize that the challenge, with any philosophy, is to thread the needle between a) a term means whatever those who use it want it to mean and b) the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
IMHO, classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism, a term that really emerged to replace "liberal" in the United States after "liberal" began to mean "left-wing statist" (in other parts of the world, "libertarian" seems to have a wider range of uses). It's useful to insist on a definition of the word, and in the US context that seems like a valid, historically accurate one. If we're going to allow it to also mean European-style left-wing collectivist anarchism (don't ask me how that's supposed to work), then it means nothing at all. Thus my insistence, "true Scotsman" style, that no anarchist is a libertarian: yes, they both oppose big government, but in philosophically distinct ways. There comes a point where the "true Scotsman" point is valid: a Londoner simply isn't one, despite coming from the same island.
Objectivism, which I haven't studied much, appears to me to be a philosophy that overlaps with libertarianism in some ways, but is also quite distinct, with its focus on objective reality. Its libertarian aspect comes from the idea that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of life, an idea I find somewhat troublesome: at the very least it requires a big asterisk.
Finally, what "anarcho-capitalism" would be, I have no idea. It sounds like something made up by one of my left-wing friends trying to scare people. Markets that involve participants beyond individuals known to each other and/or their direct relationships don't seem to exist in nature; large-scale capitalism has always been, and is today, a government policy choice (because it works). Any organization large enough to enforce large-scale capitalism would be a de facto government, I think.
Thanks for the conversation!
Most of your other points taken. I even agree with your sentiment that classical liberalism is the heart and soul of libertarianism - or at least it should be 😀
It’s easy enough to learn what anarcho-capitalism is. It’s not a new term. In fact, I first heard it as a teenager watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not that I had any idea what it meant back then…
Both sides in this argument are completely right about the flaws of the other side, and, not only that, but obviously so to almost any outside observer.
What an interesting read! I agree with much of what was said, but disagree with most of the conclusions. The closest we came to full agreement is “In mixed economies… this is just a description of anarchy.”
Under government rule we still live with the problems of anarchy, but we also live under the problems of government. For example, people continue to steal property from each other on a daily basis despite laws prohibiting such activity, and the government also steals 40% of my income. Also, I own and carry a gun every day because I cannot depend on a government agent to actually be there when I need to be defended, and I have to live under the threat of annihilation in nuclear war. A threat which I am quite certain would never exist without government.
I believe agorists answer the right questions and have the right answers to the problems of government. The right question to every problem is “what should I do?” Allow me to elaborate:
Does my vote make the government better or worse? No, my vote has zero impact on the quality of government I might live under. Does voting make me a better or worse person? Voting makes me a worse person by wasting my time/energy and giving me a commitment bias when evaluating the quality of government I experience. Trump voters usually make excuses for bad results of the Trump administration, rather than taking responsibility for their actions which led to the bad results. The same is true for Biden voters.
Do my taxed dollars make the government better or worse? No, the government will not be noticeably better or worse if I pay taxes. Does paying taxes make my life better or worse? Worse because I have less money to pursue my own goals after paying taxes. Additionally I feel bad for paying taxes which fund programs that hurt innocent people.
These are just a few important reasons why I am anti-state.
I think if a person accepts that the government we have had is the same as the government we can reasonably continue to expect, then they will lean more to the anti-state side. If they believe that they personally can affect the government, then they will not take up the anti-state torch.
The Myth of the Rational Voter
vs
The Reality of the Rational Non-Voter
The argument is too theoretical: when States were cities, Aristotle did walk away from Stagyra and walked to Athens. The problem is when military and fiscal power follow you everywhere. This happened in Ptolemaic Egypt with people walking through the desert to escape taxes, and happens now for Americans with the federal government. https://polsci.substack.com/p/economic-consequences-of-organized
Communities and cities are able to guarantee the security and property rights of their members. If the possibility to defect is made easier, you get better competition between providers of security.
Does this actually reply to Caplan in any way? They seem to address some other opponent.
I’ve read Rand, Mises , rothbard, Hayek, Acton, toucqville, etc., over five decades.
Role of political authority . . . interesting.
Recently come across two books that have added insight on this subject . . .
One - Rodney Stark “How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity.’’ He explains that the development of the medieval monastic movements, I.e. Cistercian, Benedictines, etc., were precoursers of modern political , market systems. The outworking of the relationship with the king, the church and their own internal leaders was complex.
Two - Gert Melville “The World of Medieval Monasticism’’. Much detail on the centuries long adaptations of religious devotees creating their own communities, their own international organizations throughout Europe.
Focusing on the problems of freedom of individual conscience and political - religious control is revealing.
The difference between the Franciscan and Dominican system shows how initial ideas created different systems centuries later.
This was essential for developing a western civilization. Not usually acknowledged or understood. What’s unknown can’t be used for insight.
Thanks
Clay
My argument against Anarcho-Capitalism.
Anarcho-Capitalism is not a free-market system according to the very
definition of free-market used to justify it (i.e. NAP).
The reason why defense companies under Anarcho-capitalism would exist
is the credible threat of being robbed, killed, mugged, etc. This threat will
move people to insure themselves against aggression. However, a market
that exists due to the credible threat of physical violence is not a free one.
QED
"Consider: In their anarchic fantasy, do the competing defense agencies all view one another as legitimate and do they all accept some single legal code and overarching framework for how and by whom decisions to wield retaliatory force will be made in cases of disagreement? If so, then these agencies jointly constitute one complex institution with a monopoly on force—one government. If they don’t, then there’s no difference at all between what anarchists are proposing and neighborhoods dominated by gangs competing with one another and with the government."
It should be noted that this applies to the Medieval Iceland example. If one even briefly goes and interrogates the sources given for this "Private market system" one finds overarching legal codes, institutions with unilateral powers, a "loose" but still non negotiable set of rules for social conduct. And a breakdown heavily influenced by considerable amounts vengeance feuds that ultimately result in the biggest and richest with significant unilateral powers over a geographical area. Even on the smaller level of what they call "godar" it is still an area where despite the chieftains role being a "market commodity" it still has non negotiable exsclusive rules of social conduct.
The Objectivist arguments above remind me of the socialists who claim that socialist failure and evil is a result of it not being "proper" socialism and that the current proponents will "get it right". Given that all states including those relying on democracy eventually evolve into tyranny (Tytler's thesis), are Objectivists not similar to conservatives in that they are both essentially compromised libertarians. Objectivists at least know the "proper roll" of government but in the gargantuan task of achieving one, wouldn't there be sufficient knowledge and awareness of such that the elimination of the state be seamless.
You nailed it
“REAL constitutionally limited government has never been tried!”
The difference being as noted in the first essay that partial examples of the proper role of government can be found in abundance whereas in the case of socialist (as most libertarians well know) their partial examples show failure instead of success due to the socialistic elements i.e public education, socialized medicine, nationalized industries. In fact much of the best work of Libertarians and Austrian economics adds up to this very point: To the extent the government serves its proper role we see unmatchable prosperity and growth , to the extent it doesn't we see destruction, stagnation, and regression.