Anarcho-Statism: A False Alternatibve
The False Alternative
of Anarchism by Sam Wells
On the fringes
of the libertarian movement today are those who enthusiastically advocate
"anarchism" as the alleged goal of libertarianism. There are two
main factions within this anarchist camp: those which may be characterized
as "anarcho-pacifists" and those which may be called "anarcho-statists"
(or what I have called "polyarchal vigilantists"). Like the vast
majority of libertarians and Libertarians (as well as conservatives), I
disagree with both these "anarchist" positions. As I will explain,
I support the Laissez-Faire Republic as the true goal of libertarianism
and the real opposite of totalitarian statism.
The ideal of liberty is for each peaceful adult to be "free" in what
he or she may try to do with his or her own person and property without
being interfered with in that freedom by any kind of coercive violation
(murder, rape, robbery, tresspass, kidnaping, embezzlement, etc.) from
other human beings. There are those,
such as the followers of Dr. Andrew Galambos or Robert LeFevre, who would
try to deal with the problem of crime (the violation of the rights pf peaceful
people) without using any political retaliation or police apparatus at
all. Some say this amounts to a kind of "anarcho-pacifism" -- although
I hasten to point out that neither LeFevre nor Galambos ever used that
term to describe their own views
I. Anarcho-Pacifism
Although I am a great admirer of Robert
LeFevre and the late Professor Andrew Galambos, and have few differences
with what I know of their views in general, I do disagree on some points.
The system which Dr. Galambos advocated involves the use of purely prophylactic
(non-violent, non-political) mechanisms for protecting property boundaries
from criminal tresspass. I enthusiastically support and encourage
the development of such defense-in-advance mechanisms to prevent crime
-- better locks, stronger doors, more effective burglar alarms, perhaps
perimeter force fields in the future . . . . but I contend that for every
new kind of lock invented, some criminal or potential criminal can eventually
figure out how to "pick" that lock using the same technology on which it
is based. As such technological defenses against crime become more
sophisticated, the criminals learn to become more sophisticated in undoing
them or getting past them. Of course, if such defense-in-advance
mechanisms as locks on doors, burglar alarms, night watchmen, force fields,
etc. could deter crime 100 percent, and the technology on which they
depended was not accessible by the criminal element, then (theoretically
at least) there would never be any crime -- and, presumably, no need for
political government or any other criminal justice system. But, as
I said before, the problem is that criminals eventually learn to "pick"
each new lock that comes along from the mind of inventors. Beyond that,
moreover, is that human beings have freedom of will so that a man may be
a good citizen and respect the property of his neighbors one day and yet
decide to act in a criminal manner the next by resorting to theft if he
thinks he can get away with it.
It is mainly for these two reasons that
I see the need for some kind of political government to provide after-the-fact
attention to crime, imperfect though that approach admittedly is.
The fact that it is imperfect does not argue convincingly against the need
for it. It seems to me that the need for after-the-fact attempts at criminal
justice arises precisely from the fact that defense-in-advance mechanisms
against crime (initiatory violence) are (as yet) imperfect themselves in
preventing crime in the first place.
Furthermore, I disagree with both Galambos
and LeFevre in their rejection of retaliatory violence since I believe
that when a person initiates (starts) the use of violence he automatically
forfeits (gives up) his right to be left alone by violence. As long as
an adult citizen is peaceful and does not initiate violence against the
person, liberty, or property of others, he should be free from coercive
interference by society (other people, including the government) in an
ideal world. But that right to be left alone is not kept by a person who
himself violates the rights of others to be left alone by his initiating
violence, force, or fraud against them. It is for this reason that
I disagree with those who believe that the LeFevrian or Galambosian positions
are somehow more "pure" or consistent because of their essentially pacifist
stance.
By failing to recognize the distinction
between initiatory violence and retaliatory force in the pursuit of justice,
their pacifism would lead those few who would adhere to it to be victims
of those (criminals) who would not. While eschewing all violence, including
retaliatory as well as initiatory, may seem more noble or consistent on
the surface, it is actually an error based on a faulty understanding of
natural rights. I disagree with their belief that a person always
retains the right to be left alone no matter what he does to others, even
including criminal violence against them. The right to be left alone by
society is a self-limiting principle; it is limited to peaceful
people and does not extend to those who themselves use violence to violate
the right of others to be left alone in their persons and properties.
This conditional nature of the right to be left alone is integral to the
principle of natural rights and goes back to John Locke and even earlier.
Therefore, I disagree that pacifism is a logical deduction from natural
individual rights. It is obvious that Thomas Jefferson never meant
that rights are "unalienable" in that sense.
So, this takes us back to the big question
of political philosophy: how are peaceful citizens to be protected
against their protectors (government agents) if and when those agents become
corrupted and become criminals themselves or allies with the criminals
-- as they have done? This is where the idea of the Laissez-Faire
Republic comes in. For it is only by restricting government to
a policy of laissez faire that we can prevent violent force being used
to favor some special interests at the expense of others, and it is only
through such a policy that individual freedom may flourish within a social
context, based on the rule of law of a constitutional republic.
You may ask: what hope is there for
the actual achievement of such a Republic? Is it practical?
We know what has worked in the past --
at least what worked quite well compared to other systems -- the Anglo-American
Constitutional Republic as it has evolved in fits and spurts from the narrow
class demands in the Magna Carta of 1215 to the idea of the universal rights
of peaceful adult humans as expressed in the American Declaration of Independence
and the U.S. Bill of Rights, and as refined by modern libertarian scholars.
On my website I include a section on the major historical
documents which comprise the (mainly) Anglo-American tradition of limiting
the scope of government (originally the King and his agents) by constitutional
law and bills of rights to carve out enclaves of freedom for peaceful,
self-responsible individuals. But when a person ceases to be
peaceful, and initiates the use of violence, coercion, force, or fraud
against the life, liberty, or property of others, he forfeits the right
to be left alone uncoerced by government.
What I mean by the Laissez-Faire Republic
would be the culmination of that development toward liberty and is the
ideal republic toward which the original American Constitutional Republic
was the most important step in history. For this to work in practice,
there must be a whole body of reasonable, settled law -- such as the English
Common Law and evolved Roman civil law -- and a general willingness to
abide by the principles expressed therein in the settlement of disputes.
Mainly, this means a well-developed system of law defining, recognizing,
and protecting private property rights. (And by private property
I don't mean merely real estate, but anything that a human or group of
humans can own -- have exclusive right of control over, in whole or in
part.) Private property rights provide a legal framework within
which disputes may be settled and problems solved without the arbitrariness
of might-makes-right violence.
In other words, the idea behind a republic
-- as opposed to a monarchy, or an oligarchy, or a democracy -- is that
government will be bound down by Principle rather than guided by changing
arbitrary Whims, whether it be the whim of one man, a small group of men,
or a majority of voters of the moment.
The ultimate choice is between Government
by Principle or Government by Whim. Ah, but what principle,
you may ask. The Laissez-Faire Republic would be based on and restricted
by the principle of indiviudal rights of self and property of peaceful
adult citizens, and rules of the game that would not be easily changed
so that some players could not gain an artificial advantage over other
players by such change. In short, I believe the Glorious Revolution of
1688 in England and the American founding fathers were on the right track,
and the Laissez-Faire Republic would build on their relative success, learning
from these experiences -- and perfect what they started and put into motion.
I believe the founders were on the right track with the idea of limiting
government by law and Constitution and checks and balances. Instead
of abandoning their path, we should learn from and build on their partial
success and make it better.
As already covered, the followers of Robert
LeFevre and Andrew Galambos seek totally non-political solutions to the
problem of crime and coercion. For reasons already given, I (and
most libertarians) reject that approach as inadequate even while we applaud
any and all attempts to secure personal liberty from crime by means of
improved defense-in-advance mechanisms. Let us now turn our attention
to the second faction within the libertarian "anarchist" clique.
II. Anarcho-Statism
The vast majority of libertarians and conservatives
do see the need for political government in the area of local police, national
defense, and a law court system or at least a Supreme Court. . . . and
I agree with that position.
At least for a period of time, libertarian
economist Murray Rothbard pushed what he called "anarcho-capitalism" --
a vision in which all government functions would be performed by "private"
agencies which would "compete" with one another in the marketplace. Although
I do agree with the Rothbardites in the need for retaliatory justice, I
maintain there is no such thing as a "market court"; I make a distinction
between such market services as marriage counselling agencies and arbitration
agencies -- which have no authority at all to enforce their recommendations
on anyone and depend wholly on the voluntary consent of those clients who
go to them for advice -- and true government courts which have the police
power at their disposal to enforce their judgements and penalties on those
convicted of crimes. And I see the need for a Supreme Court of some sort
for the ultimate adjudication of disputes that have for whatever reason
not been resolved in either market arbitration or lower courts in the government's
jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that as soon as any actor
uses coercion or violence, for whatever reason, he or she ceases to be
a purely market agent and becomes instead a "coercive entity" at least
in the instant in which he or she acts coercively. This may sometimes be
necessary -- as in the case of someone running down and tackling a robber
trying to get away and holding him under Citizen's Arrest for the authorities;
but, market entities are those characterized by non-coercive activities
of voluntary exchange, and someone becomes something else when he or she
goes beyond that and uses coercion for any reason.
Coercion, even when used in a rightful
manner in retaliation against initiatory coercion, is not a market
means or mechanism. There is no such thing as a free-market policeman.
There are private free-market night watchmen and guards -- but not
market police officers. It is the failure of a few eccentric libertarians
to make the distinction between market entities and coercive (criminal
or political) entities that has led some to embrace what the late great
economist Murray Rothbard dubbed "anarcho capitalism".... This
was the system Murray Rothbard described briefly in the first chapter of
his later edition of Power and Market and other writings.
The great Austrian economist Ludwig von
Mises called socialism "planned chaos" and he called anarchism "unplanned
chaos" -- but it is clear to me that what a tiny subset within libertarian
circles advocates as "anarchy" is just a floating abstraction which can
never be implemented in the real world and any attempt to do so would result
in the worst kind of statism.
By failing to grasp the distinction
between what is coercive and what is non-coercive (market), these few fringites
have attempted to extend the argument for "privatization" from such non-violent
services as mail delivery, education, fire control, electric power, and
so on, (which virtually all libertarians believe should have been left
to the private marketplace or volunteer efforts instead of political bureaucracies
to provide) to such inherently coercive activities as police, government
courts, and military defense.
But a gang is not a market agency just
because one calls it a market agency. If it uses coercion -- violence
of any kind, either initiatory or retaliatory -- it is not a market activity
of bilateral voluntarism. It is not a market agency, even though
Dr. Rothbard, as brilliant though he was in economics, tried to present
such competing vigilante committees and coercive gangs as an economic (market)
alternative to political states. States by any other name still
smell the same. And, indeed, what he advocated and called "anarcho-capitalism"
-- and what I call "polyarchal vigilantism" or competing governments --
actually exists already in the world as a whole -- and always has
existed. Since there is no ONE single world government, what we see in
the real world are several "competing" political states, each controlling
different geographical territories. I should point out that there is nothing
in this political competition which benefits the citizen by producing more
freedom; generally, the reverse is true: war -- the ultimnate political
competition -- generally destroys individual rights and allows governments
to usurp more power over their citizens.
The point is that there is nothing in
what Murray Rothbard advocated that would cause his (supposedly) "market"
retaliation agencies to restrict themselves to the proper function of violence
(i.e., to protect rights and not violate them). Competition in the political
arena does not work the same way that market alternatives in the economic
marketplace operate to serve consumers. Competing governments or vigilante
gangs are not market agencies. They are coercive entities. This means
that Rothbardian "anarchism" is not really anarchism at all since, in the
real world, what he advocated would be what we already have now, and have
always had: political strife on different levels vying for power.
Equivocating with the term "competition,"
these "anarchists" fail to see that competing violent gangs and vigilante
committees and lynch mobs are not the same as competing business firms
which do not use any coercion at all. There is no limit to statism
under this form of "competitive" anarchy. It is the war of all against
all. Whether you call something the KKK, the Black Panther Party,
the posse comitatus, or Murray's Anacho-Fascist Insurgency Association
(MAFIA), if it involves the use of violence or coercion in any way -- either
initiatory or retaliatory -- it is not a market entity and does not behave
like one.
The truth is that in the
real world there is nothing that distinguishes Rothbard's "anarchist" agencies
from political governments -- and they can be just as statist as any other
political regimes can be. This path of seeking to "privatize" (marketize)
functions which are inherently coercive is a dead end. It is a false
alternative. Whether any group claims a "monopoly" on the use of
force in society or not, if it uses force at all, it ceases to be a market
entity and becomes something else entirely -- a criminal or political entity.
It is the same old statism under a different label.
We don't really have any choice of whether
we shall have government or no government, but only in what kind
of government it will be -- a government restrained by Principle
(some kind of republic) or a statist tyranny which has no limits to the
whims which direct it. That
is the hard truth which the self-styled "anarchists" (many of whom are
still rebelling against their parents) should face.
But couldn't the Rothbardian libertarians
say the same thing about a Laissez-Faire Republic -- that it would not
necessarily restrain itself to its proper duties as well? That, once
set up, it could degenerate into politics as usual and growing statism?
They might -- but I'd point out that it
is much easier to exercise eternal vigilance over one, fairly local system
of government than to have to worry about a dozen or a hundred during a
situation of constant civil wars. Ask yourself: isn't it hard enough
to keep an eye on the shenanigans of the current Administration and the
Congress here in the United States -- let alone 150 to 200 some odd political
regimes around the world?
Those who advocate "anarchy" (competing
states) don't offer a better way or any alternative to statism at all.
It is the same old statism. The "competition" (war) between the
United States of America and the Confederate States of America during the
1860s did not result in more freedom and less statism for most people.
Even though the slaves (in only the seceding states) were freed, the states
lost most of their sovereignty as the consequence of the War Between the
States and this centralized power in the national government began increasingly
to intervene in the economy as never before and in the decades following
the U.S. system was changed by adding such statist fixtures as the Interstate
Commerce Commission, a national graduated income tax, the Federal Reserve
central banking scheme, and other "populist" or "progressive" measures
of the socialistic Left.
Obviously, there is no system made up of
human beings that will automatically restrict itself to its proper
functions (that proper role having been well-described in Bastiat's The
Law, or Ayn Rand's Textbook of Americanism or Benson's On
the Proper Role of Government). But using rational laws, due process,
and written constitutions to bind government down from "mischief" (tyranny)
helps a great deal. The reverence for the Constitution and the general
respect for law among the populace can be a powerful force in this effort.
By
contrast, there is no such thing as a constitutional anarchy -- and no
limits to the statist tyranny that gang warfare in the real world can produce.
(I went into more analytical detail on this subject of Rothbardian "anarchy"
in a manuscript I wrote in 1978, a small portion of which was published
in the February 1979 issue of Reason Frontlines.)
Even from a purely public relations
perspective, those libertarians who wave the black flag of "anarchism"
tend to alienate those Americans who might otherwise be interested in seriously
considering the libertarian approach and exploring it as the principled
but realistic, workable alternative to the various forms of political interventionism
and socialism. The message should be: the opposite of statism
is laissez faire, not anarchy.
If anarchy is merely the absence of government and political activity
-- as contrasted to the competing governments and warlords that the utopian
"anarchists" seem to envision -- then we already have it. That kind
of "anarchy" presumably exists in the international waters of the open
seas outside of the 12-mile territorial limits of nation-state countries.
If the absence of government were such a libertarian paradise, wouldn't
we expect businesmen of all sorts setting up shop in those open waters
of the high seas? No taxes, no regulations, and no political controls.
Certainly, we have the technology today for people to live and work on
and under the seas. Yet, we do not see this rush to develop the oceans
or the seabed by profit-seeking businessmen. Why? I suspect
it is mainly because there are no private property rights there -- no way
to protect private property rights from being violated (by either pirates
or gunboats from regimes such as the King of Tonga) because there is
no government there to protect them. Freedom rests on private
propeprty rights and the rule of law -- and those values and institutions
cannot be expected to survive if unprotected.
Those sincere libertarians who naively call for "anarchy" are just going
down a dead end that leads to statism, not liberty. The American
founders were on the right track in their attempt to limit the scope of
government by means of law and constitution. We should take off from
their lead and devise even better ways to limit the scope of government
to the policy of laissez faire.
I salute the great genius James Madison
and his noble endeavors as Father of the Constitution. I salute George
Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the other Founders. I think
they were on the right track. Constitutional checks and balances
are essential aids to keeping government in its proper place. These
constitutional mechanisms are among the most important means used
to help limit government to its proper role in order to achieve and maintain
the end of freedom for peaceful citizens. They seek to stop
or at least slow down an overall statist impulse by pitting the interests
and natures of human beings in the political arena against one another
in such a way as to avoid any one man or group of men centralizing enough
political power to tyrannize over the rest of society. Sometimes
these schemes work and sometimes they don't, but the idea behind them was
and still is a great one that we should not abandon.
A widespread respect for law is necessary
for a constitutional republic to function in preserving liberty.
Unfortunately, when law is increasingly abused by Whim, people begin to
lose respect for law, and when that happens, the cause of liberty loses
ground and society may degenerate into an even worse tyranny -- as what's
left of a constitutional republic collapses into some form of Whimarchy.
Perhaps we can come up with even better
checks and balances to better limit government and keep corruption and
tyranny at bay. Perhaps someone will invent an ingenious system of
checks and balances so carefully keyed to the government's revenue devices
that whenever public officials tended to go beyond their proper functions
and would begin to encroach on the liberties of the people, the revenue
to those officials would quickly and sharply decline in response.
In other words, wouldn't it be great if the revenue to government was somehow
made to be inversely proportional to the extent that the government tried
to go beyond its proper authority, and would drop off dramatically if and
when government officials usurped powers they had no right to claim? Of
course, it would! But, how would one set up a system to work like
that, a system made up of human beings, with all their various drives and
ambitions and intentions?
No system of checks and balances
is likely to be perfect. The Constitution does not enforce itself;
it is writing on parchment. Whether the system works or not depends
on the people in it, and their reverence for the rule of law and loyalty
in upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would like to
believe that today we have a clearer idea of what laissez faire is and
what it requires, and that clarity of goal on the part of a sufficient
number of people is our greatest hope and assurance of success. If
enough people can keep their eyes on the real "eight ball" which is at
the core of freedom for all peaceful adult citizens, namely, the proper
recognition and protection of the true rights of Self-Ownership
and Private Property as the sacred principles on which individual
liberty rests, then they will not lose sight of that precious goal for
which constitutional checks and balances are among the means for achieving.
Ultimately, the price of
liberty is eternal vigilance to keep government in its proper place --
and this requires a sufficient number of people who understand what that
is and what it requires. Ayn Rand showed us the way to make this possible
by explaining that politics does not exist or evolve in a philosophical
vacuum -- that the kind of political system a culture has will tend to
depend on the kind of philosophical and moral foundations which dominate
that culture. A culture mired in the soil substrate of irrationalism and
the ethics of human sacrifice will almost certainly sprout a collectivist
tree with tyrannical, statist branches. On the other hand, a culture with
a sound foundation and topsoil of reason and individual rights will more
naturally support the Tree of Liberty and constitutional government --
one that CAN be monitored with vigilance so that freedom can be jealously
guarded from usurpation. Such a system would be the Laissez-Faire Republic
which I advocate and which I believe is doable in the real world.
Unlike socialistic central-planning oligarchies or the unlimited statism
of anarcho-whimarchy, the Laissez-Faire Republic is based on and is consistent
with the nature of reality and the nature of man, and is therefore approachable
in the real world and ultimately practicable.
A Few Related Articles or Documents
The
Three Categories of Human Activity and How They Relate to the Proper Role
of Political Government -- or, Where Libertarians Would Draw the Line
Dr.
Walter Williams on Violence & the Moral Limits of Political Action
Separation
of Force and Whim -- The Laissez-Faire Republic vs. Whimarchy:
The Principle of Clearly Defined Individual Human Rights in a Limited Constitutional
Republic versus the Tyranny of Unlimited Government by Whim
Constitutional
Republic vs Democracy: The Role of a Majority Vote in a Free Society
Versus Unlimited Majority Rule in a Democracy
Did the founders of the United States of America intend to establish a
democracy? Is a republic merely a representative democracy?
Selected
Historical Documents List of Major
Documents, Books, Essays, Pamphlets, & Tracts in the Historical Development
of the American Constitutional Republic, and how this increasingly placed
legal limitations on the prerogatives of political rulers (first the King
and then the Parliament itself), thus effecting a separation of whim from
the use of government force by the assertion of private rights.
An
Outline of Political Systems, and Where the Laissez-Faire Republic Fits
Up versus Down "Peg" Spectrum
Because of confusions arising
from propaganda and contradictory
definitions, perhaps we should
abandon the left-right spectrum and
instead have a VERTICAL "spectrum"
of UP and DOWN -- Up to the maximum
of individual liberty consistent
with law and order, or Down to the
maximum of political interventionism
(and minimum of freedom).
"Extreme
|10 The Laissez-Faire Republic (No Meddling with Peaceful Citizens)
Right"
|
| 9 U.S. Libertarian Party
|
| 8 Thomas Jefferson; U.S.A. prior to 1914 (no income tax, no Fed);
"Right"
|
| 7 Rush Limbaugh; National Review; American Spectator; YAF
|
| 6 U.S. Republican Party (Average Position)
|
| 5 U.S. Democrat Party (Average Position)
|
| 4 European Welfare States
"Left"
|
| 3 Mussolini's Italy; Franco's Spain
|
| 2 Nazi Germany under Hitler; Yugoslavia under Tito
|
"Extreme
| 1 Red China under Mao; the former USSR; Castro's Cuba; N. Korea
Left"
|
| 0 "Ingsoc" as described in Orwell's book 1984 (Total Control)
Since Individual Liberty
is generally inversely proportional to the
Degree of Government
Intervention in the private affairs and voluntary
(market) relations of
peaceful people, the highest level of freedom is at
the top of the spectrum
and the lowest level of freedom is at the bottom
(where maximum government
intervention is). Note that the vertical line
comprising this spectrum
measures one thing: the degree or extent of
encroachment or intervention
by the political state on the private affairs
or voluntary relations
of peaceful people, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY
rule the official government
(monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc). It is
a one-dimensional scale
which nmasures the overall SCOPE or extent of
government intervention
regardless of the FORM of government.
|
|
