 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In "Government and Anarchy," I discussed some of the primary assumptions of libertarian anarchism and found those premises circular and unrealistic. A few recent discussions have further convinced me that anarchists are either unwilling or unable to recognize the fallacy involved in pretending that our freedom and our rights can be adequately protected by defense agencies operating according to non-shared principles. (Well, to be precise, some of these discussions have been rather truncated. After I addressed objections to my position, my correspondents mysteriously vanished into the ether...)
Anarchists who maintain that the "free market" would be best at protecting our rights have reversed the conceptual and causal hierarchy involved. The free-market is dependent upon the acceptance and practice of freedom, i.e., there has to be "freedom" before there can be a "free" market. Freedom -- which as a concept/principle is only applicable within a social setting -- is dependent upon the concept/idea of property, i.e., freedom is delimited by the property that has been earned by individuals; "freedom" means primarily that one has the ability to act upon one's decisions regarding how one should peacefully use one's property. Without property and freedom, i.e., the enforcement of negative rights, there can be no free market, i.e., one cannot engage in peaceful exchange of one's property. The free market is a tool or a mechanism for practicing one's freedom to dispose of one's property. It is impermissible to say that the "free market" is what creates freedom and property and their attendant rights. The free market is one result of respect for freedom and property.
Freedom and property can be safeguarded only when everyone (in a given jurisdiction) is required to respect them, whether they want to do so or not, i.e., the principle of freedom must be in place and enforced even against those who reject that principle. Otherwise, we could have a group, say, of collectivists or altruists who would claim that everyone must be required to provide for less fortunate others (i.e., positive rights; the situation we now have). A freedom-based defense agency could not peacefully exist in the same territory with such an altruist defense agency. The latter would try to force its fundamental principle of positive rights on the populace (on behalf of its clients) while the former would resist and try to enforce the negative rights of its clients. One or the other must eventually win. Once that happens -- even if a group of defense agencies forceably defeats another group and imposes negative rights -- then a de facto government has been established.
Some anarchists claim that businesses succeed in providing goods and services now without a jurisdiction-wide standard, so no society-wide (however defined) standards are required for enforcing rights. But businesses succeed (in a free market) partially because they are enjoined (all of them) against fraud/theft/etc.; i.e., they are all supposed to operate according to the same fundamental principle, i.e., freedom (with property rights, etc.). So there is (was, anyway) a "national standard" for businesses: observe property rights; no initiation of force. One cannot simply substitute "business" for "government" and pretend that such an arrangement will achieve the same ends, only better. I can refuse to deal with any business (in a free market). I cannot (properly) refuse to adhere to negative rights. You can call the enforcing bodies that punish me if I violate property rights "defense agencies," if you want, but the result of a national standard enforcing the same fundamental principle is equivalent to a properly limited government (of the type Jefferson defined). There must be some mechanism of enforcing even against unwilling private citizens a single standard of acceptable social interaction. Whatever one calls that enforcing body or collection of bodies, it is functionally equivalent to a limited government (a "watchman" style government).
Claims that "decentralized" standards in protecting our rights would work are likewise without foundation. First of all, what would this mean: altruism in one place and property rights in another? But these "decentralized" standards would have to exist side-by-side since -- as far as I understand it -- one defense agency cannot claim territorial exclusivity or forceably prevent competition. If one set of customers is only "satisfied" when everyone is forced to support the indigent and another set of customers is "satisfied" only when they are left alone, conflict is inevitable.
Some anarchists seem to treat "government" as a "thing" that is focused on gaining power. But a government is not an entity. We should be wary of language that tends to reify it. Government is simply a collection of individuals acting within a set of principles. If we have people like Jefferson and Washington who (basically) respect property, then government will not be concerned with gaining more power. If we have people like FDR, Wilson, and Bush who reject property rights, then government (i.e., the people who run it) will increase in illicit power.
Simply because X can be abused (whether government or Objectivist principles) does not necessarily mean that the abuse is inevitable or unavoidable. (Cf this to those who want to ban guns or knives or drugs because they are sometimes abused.) Yes, power tends to corrupt. But people have free will. If they and those who make support them are ignorant and/or corrupt and make bad decisions, bad results will happen. If people are knowledgeable and principled, good results will happen.
(This reminds me of a discussion I had with a woman who continually wanted to condemn males, as such, [essentially every male] for all the bad things that have happened to women -- rape, slavery, murder, AIDS, etc -- because men have been in control for virtually all of history and have always committed such heinous acts. Well, it is no more inherent in the very concept of "males" to act thus than it is inherent in the concept of "government" to be corrupt and violate rights.)
Despite the protestations of some anarchists, a limited, rights-respecting government is not a fantasy. One might as well agree with those today who claim that a morally run corporation is impossible because there have been so very many examples of corrupt businesses (e.g., so-called "robber barons") for so many years. Leftists who claim that corporations are inherently destructive of human life are as wrong as those anarchists are in their claim that limited government is a logical and conceptual impossibility. We came very close to a properly limited government in the early part of our nation's history. Considering that this was the first attempt -- in the history of the world! -- at such a free society, it is hardly surprising that errors were made. Many of those errors have now been identified. There is nothing but the continued erroneous decisions of individuals today preventing the application of those palliatives. (See also above re: the "history of males" vis a vis women as to the error in automatically ruling out the validity of a "limited government.")
Government is a human creation just as are guns, knives, etc. The latter can be abused by some, but that does not imply they should be banished from life. Government can be abused by some, too, but that mere fact of abuse does not logically imply that government -- of any and every type -- must be prohibited. Government (properly understood and implemented) is a tool for protecting our rights. So are guns and knives.
Some anarchists complain that obediance to (even a limited) government is not "voluntary" and thus must be rejected because it is "initiating" violence. But again, one must ask what precisely they are referring to re: "voluntary"? The formation of a government? That can surely be voluntary. As I said before, however, it should not be "voluntary" whether one respects freedom/rights/property. Nor is a government that enforces negative rights "initiating violence." Quite the contrary. (For more on this, see my "'Imposing' Freedom.") Government is no more "inherently a threat to liberty" than males are "inherently" a threat to women, simply because "throughout history" they have abused women and deprived them of their rights.
Anarchists I have argued with continually assume an underlying unity of principle for the operation of their defense agencies sans government yet never really explain how that foundation is to be achieved. They wave their hands and claim "the free market will do it" but ignore the points I made above. Likewise their premise that government must necessarily be anti-freedom. Yet no anarchist I have read has been able to prove -- conceptually and logically -- that the very idea of government is incoherent. Merely assuming that there can be peaceful "competition" on the fundamental principles governing social interaction won't do. As I have indicated, such a situation is impossible. To achieve a free society, eventually everyone in an area must abide by the same principle of negative rights, even if they personally do not accept or believe in it. This homogeneity of principle (this standard) should be established and protected -- by (retaliatory) force, if necessary.
Merely pointing to the murderous actions of governments won't do. Again, anarchists can condemn illicit governments all they want, and they will have my agreement. But that fact -- again -- does not necessarily imply as they assert that it is impossible to have a moral government.
Governments should and must be extremely limited. But it is almost as though anarchists expect that a government should automatically continue to operate on the basis of limited, delegated power once it is established without continuous feedback and control placed upon it; that any deviation from its original intent condemns the very idea of "government" itself. But when people -- such as today -- forget what freedom is; when they condemn objectivity, rationality, and morality; when they forget TANSTAAFL; they create conditions for a government to run amuck. Don't blame the very concept/idea of a limited government for what results; blame the individuals who seek the easy way out, who don't engage in the work of maintaining the extremely important value that is freedom.
Keeping and retaining any value -- especially one as important as freedom -- requires constant and continual work. Compare this to a marriage: a marriage won't function properly if the couple goes on autopilot once the marriage vows are completed. Same goes for a government. Both will go astray without work. But I would not say "marriage is impossible" or "inherently" evil simply because much evil and suffering can result from individuals who are married. Nor should such untenable a claim be laid at the feet of the concept of limited government.
