Liberal uses anarchy as a reductio against libertarianism

Economics Political Theory
1

Christopher Wellman writes in his contribution to The Blackwell guide to social and political philosophy:

While libertarians stress that their account of justice is incompatible with forced redistribution, it also appears to conflict with the minimal, “night watcher” state. The problem is that just as a welfare state cannot redistribute funds without first forcing citizens to relinquish some of their wealth, a minimal state could not secure peace, enforce contracts, and provide military protection unless it coerced those within its territorial boundaries to both follow a single set of rules and contribute to the institutions required to draft, promulgate and enforce these rules. Albeit to a lesser extent and for fewer purposes, a minimal state is guilty of the same crime — non-consensual coercion and invasion of property rights — with which libertarians charge the welfare state. If so, libertarians must eschew even the minimal state in favor of anarchy. Of course, anarcho-libertarians urge us to embrace just such a conclusion, but most consider anarchy an unpalatable conclusion. Faced with either endorsing anarchism or abandoning libertarianism, many would opt for the latter.

In other words, Wellman takes the libertarian anarchists’s modus ponens and turns it into his own modus tollens.

2

I can’t disagree with anything he said. I don’t know about the “abandoning libertarianism” part, but other then that, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

3

Yes, it’s a great argument against minarchy. Is that all he says about “anarcho-libertarians”? He seems to just dismiss anarchy out of hand, like many people who have trouble seeing how law can be provided in a free market.

4

I don’t know… for a book of this nature (at least what I superficially noticed from the link), that’s actually a fairly insightful analysis. And this passage seems like it’s meant as more of a generalization about people’s views, in which case it would be spot-on.

5

It’s refreshing to see that people outside of the libertarian movement are beginning to understand the implications of libertarian philosophy.

6

Yup, and he’s correct on all points. When faced with the dilemma I went towards anarchism, and I think the only thing that’s keeping many people from doing the same is their emotional attachment to the state

7

Many people are not capable of independent thinking. They will come around to libertarianism when it is mainstream and there is no social risk in embracing it.

8

Yeah, we only need to convert a large minority. The rest will follow.

Just as a side note; I think that after the Ron Paul presidential campaign a fair amount of those on the brink shifted towards anarchism, no doubt those that took the effort to learn about Austrian Economics would have or are certainly on the path too.

I think that 2012 is a last hope again, for a lot more people. And when these people realise that it “didn’t work”, i.e getting elected to change the system, they are naturally more open to abolishing it. They first have to give it a go, so they can accept the fact that they did try.

What is missing from the analysis given by Moleyneux and others, is that education and spreading the message are pretty much the sole focus of Rons activities. Running against the presidency, getting in the debates - are what has sparked a lot of interest for a lot of people.

9

That will have to be someone else’s job. As soon as libertarianism goes mainstream, all sorts of power addicts and charlatans will come out of the woodwork. I’m already turned off by the deification of certain personalities in “the movement”. That will be the ugly phase, where people accept libertarianism because it is popular, not because it is principled or understood.

10

last hope again? So you’re saying that Ron’s campaign was a means to an end and a dishonest use of the system for selfish purposes?

11

A dishonest use of a fraudulent system?

Every purpose is selfish. It’s called rational egoism.

12

Well said.

13

I used to bring up a lot of Austrian/Libertarian principles in my macroeconomics class last semester, which was taught by a quasi-monetarist/new-Keynesian professor. At first it was kind of taboo, but just the other day I overheard him defending the Austrians and libertarianism from the other post-Keynesian/Neo-Ricardian professors. I guess libertarianism isn’t something that appeals to only the ignorant and naive. Hopefully he’ll rub-off on the other professors.

14

For those who still think he can be elected president, and for those that think it is his goal, yes.

Yes.

Everyone follows their self interest. What was dishonest about it?

15

Whipitgood, I don’t wish to pick on you, so don’t take this personally. It’s just that I think you’re post is quite representative of the views a lot of people have around here.

It’s not particularly fair to decry dismissals of anarchism only to say that those who don’t accept it do so, not because of reason, but because they have an emotional attachment to the state. The fact is that there are some brilliant minds out there who nonetheless disagree with anarchism because they see it as flawed. I wouldn’t for a second say that Nozick, Mises and Hayek made bad calls because of any “emotional attachments” to the state.

I’m certainly no anarchist myself, and yet, I was. Do I just have an emotional attachment to the state?

16

If the presumption is that there is a rational case for anarcho-capitalism, and there is no rational case for the state, then his decrying is completely fair. I have to admit that I, myself, have an emotional attachment to the state but I don’t allow that to void rational arguments against the state, because I know less state is better even though I don’t feel it.

So if there is a strong rational case for the state, then it is very likely that people are supporting the case for the state based on logic. In my experience, the case for the state is logically weak, and the case for anarchy is stronger. So I also tend to view those who support the state as people being emotionally connected with the state.

17

My comment was not directed at you, Mises, Hayek, or Nozick. This is why I said ‘many’ instead of ‘all.’ I meant that most people who have not considered anarchism as a viable alternative, when presented with the idea, will reject it outright for the reason I mentioned above. Not everyone does that. Some consider it fairly and accept it. Others consider it fairly and reject it. I still think that the majority won’t give it a change, though.

I apologize if I came off as condescending there, but I stand by my observation. I have nothing but an academic disagreement with people who have given anarchism a fair chance and decided against it. I have far less respect for those who won’t even consider it.

And if you e-mail or pm me sometime, I’d love to hear the reasons why you switched your position, and what lead you to where you are now. I don’t want to hijack the thread though, so that discussion should probably be kept private.