I’ve been reading Howard S. Katz’s interesting musings on the liberty movement. Today he made it clear that he advocates Jeffersonian minarchism. Upon reading this it occurred to me, what reason do we have for believing that doing away with government will result in anarcho-capitalism this time, when it hasn’t in the past?
Don’t be too dissuaded that he attacks Rothbard’s ideas in the quote below; even if he’s wrong about that, he’s always got very interesting views on an array of topics. Which is why I’d like to know how much validity his points on anarchism have, although obviously not fully elaborated in today’s blog post. There are some obvious jibes that could be made, but overall the prima facie argument seems somewhat persuasive (albeit incomplete, and he never gives specific examples of anarchy besides Ireland). Can anyone refute the main thrust of the notions presented? Partial quote:
I’ve stopped caring about what minarchists think. They construct a set of fears that somehow justify imposing coercive rule over others and not letting them experiment with anarchism. Given that most (all) states own nothing by right, even under minarchism they would have a greatly reduced jurisdiction - and via secession will be even smaller, so the more interesting question is how long will these states last…
Here’s the disconnect. Anarchists believe that we have the right to be free from initiatory aggression. Minarchists don’t.
Minarchists generally want to establish a government to protect us from having our rights violated, but fail to understand that governments, by virtue of their very nature, violate the rights that they were ostensibly established to protect. A → ~A is always false. You cannot institutionalize coercion in order to prevent coercion. End of story.
EDIT: Perhaps its more useful as a proof. The first premise is provided by Mr. Katz
If a government violates rights, then it is evil.
Then we add in a second premise, which encapsulates how anarchists see the world.
All governments violate rights
And the conclusion naturally follows
All governments are evil.
A valid argument, and I would think Mr. Katz would have a hard time quarreling with the second premise.
What most minarchists don’t understand is that what they see as a regulatory mechanism solely within the realm of the State, is in fact solely in the realm of people and their institutions. These institutions need not a enforced monopoly to operate either. Spoken/written languages are proof in the pudding to peaceful adoption and adherence to “social norms.” So why, argue for a State when something vastly more complex such as our languages evolved without enforcement?
I will try to help you out here by noting Katz’ false arguments…
Jeffersonian government stems from non government, that is the government of the individual over his own life, this is the point of “Consent of the Governed” in the Declaration of Independence, he understood that government was wrong, but knew that he could not sell it to the colonial leadership, so he used a play on words to get them to agree that the government only exists as long as the governed allow it, it is also why he supported REBELLION (not revolution) every 20 years…
Jefferson was an anarchist selling anarchism to governing officials
Romans created the Rule of Law, so to speak, from the philosophical leanings of Aristotle, but this was not to legislate the lives of the people but the role of the government, law in the sense that Katz is talking about really gives no assurance that “the strong man will not kill you” but that if he does he may be punished for it. The nonsense that this is stems from the fact that if the “Strong Man” has a badge he is not subject to the same punishment…
Of course he claims that more government is “good” when it protects people, but does not elaborate that when it is the government that is violating the people it is not so good…
And again Jefferson does not quantify government because that is a violation of rights in itself, and Jefferson knew this, apparently Katz does not… Jefferson understood it was the individual that needed to decide the scope of the government and be allowed to regulate his own government by withdrawal from participation.
Katz would also do well to read “The Man Eating Myth” by Wm. Arens, my Anthro Professor from a decade and change ago…
Cannibalism is not a norm for any society of men
Katz would also do well to understand that Jefferson believed in the inherent goodness amongst the majority of men, that the immorality was a minory phenomenon at best, another dispense of minarchism is the thought that man is inherently in need of government to keep from aggressing his neighbor
This is where Katz ignores economics, if the resources are scarce the society will not prosper as much as when the resources are plenty, you cannot compare Ireland on the scale of resources vs. population to America, or at that time the English Empire…
This is a gross misrepresentation of reality…
The united states has been getting more and more tyrannical since the revolution, the tipping stone was the beginning of the new republic (thanks to Lincoln)…
Rome went from free to tyranny, and then ended, there was more peace in the former Jurisdiction of Rome after the fall than just prior to it…
Other than unsubstantiated and misdirected arguments, he seems to like to go with being afraid of the “Strong Man” to justify the theft of money from the non-consenting individuals…
The only non-contradictory type of government is a voluntary government. If landowners want to come together voluntarily to provide for their common defence, that is totally compatible with libertarianism. However, a government that imposes itself upon unwilling participants, is guilty of violating the very purpose of its own existence; this is also known as a state. Also, the question of whether or not a minarchy is better at protecting the rights is not only subjective but precluded by its very existenence since its very existence is a violation of rights.
This guy claims to have known Rothbard? Too bad he never read him…
The problem with this argument is that the minarchist can respond by saying: “government is a necessary evil; it may violate rights, but it is the best system in that it has the least rights violations.”
What you need is a comparative analysis, showing that market anarchy is better than government in protecting rights.
Sure, if you’re a utilitarian. I’m interested in doing what’s right.
Besides, what sort of ethics allow for doing unethical things when they’re arbitrarily deemed necessary? Who would walk into a courtroom and say “Normally I’m very much anti-murder, but this is an exception because it was necessary”?
No, even from a deontological perspective, the minarchist could say that all political systems must violate rights, and that minarchy is the best system because it has the least rights violations, i.e. minarchy is better than the alternatives.
To answer this we need to do a comparative analysis to show that market anarchy does not violate rights, and that it can protect rights better than government. Just saying that government is a contradiction in terms (an expropriating property protector) is not enough. You have to do a comparative analysis.
You feel the same disgust as me at people who claim to have ethical principles, but, in practice, abandon them whenever they become inconvenient? Or did you mean to say that you sometimes sympathize with those people?
That’s a flawed analysis. If we’re looking to minimize the amount of rights violations then anarchy would de facto be the best, because it does not necessitate a single violation of rights. Sure, rights may still be violated, but any political system GUARANTEES that there will be rights violations, whereas anarchy leaves it only as a possibility. Based on the criteria you just set forth, anarchy is the default winner.
Any argument that contains a contradiction (and allows for a reductio ad absurdum) or contains fallacious premises cannot be valid. Why need we go further than this? I’m not going to debate the merits of an invalid argument.
And this is precisely what Hoppe accomplished in the private production of defense and what has been argued by other Rothbardian and proto-Rothbardian economists again and again. In short, as I understand it:
Monopolies, especially coercive monopolies viz the State, are less efficient than markets. The quality of the good decreases and the price increases. Without competition there is no incentive to respond to consumer needs.
When the State provides defense it does so as a monopoly per above.
Ergo, State provision of defense is inferior to private provision of defense in providing defense. Inversely, this will cause the quality of the good [defense] to increase and the price to decrease.
This proves my point. You’ve just given a comparative analysis.
If the minarchist is arguing that minarchy will protect all rights, then the contradiction argument is a sound refutation.
But if the minarchist is arguing the weaker claim that minarchy will maximize the protection of rights relative to other political systems, then the contradiction argument misses the point entirely. In order to counter this weaker claim, we need a comparative analysis, like the one you’ve given above.
Yet, I wouldn’t call that ‘government’ because government’s business is to rule, plan, control and give orders - i.e. govern, not defend. Although the name Private Defense Agency is cumbersome, it it a good replacement for ‘government’ IMO.