The Fatal Error of Classical Liberalism

Economics Political Theory
,
1

The fatal error of classical liberals lies in their failure to realize that their ideal is theoretically impossible, as it contains the seed of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it includes the necessary existence of a state (even a minimal one), understood as the sole agent of institutional coercion.

Therefore, classical liberals commit their great error in their approach: they view liberalism as a plan of political action and a set of economic principles, the goal of which is to limit the power of the state while accepting its existence and even deeming it necessary. However, today (in the first decade of the 21st century) economic science has already shown:

1. that the state is unnecessary;

2. that statism (even if minimal) is theoretically impossible; and

3. that, given human nature, once the state exists, it is impossible to limit its power.

We will comment on each of these matters separately.

Read the Article:

2

I’ll play the devil’s advocate here.

Isn’t a minimal state necessary? What about public goods? Also, can’t a state be kept minimal if its role is clearly defined and it has many checks and balances that cannot be altered?

3

  1. You would need to define “Public Goods” ?? Are you referring to something Bernanke has his hands in???

  2. Who will see that the state “be kept minimal” – Bush? Obama???

  3. Who will be the one to “clearly define” the state? A “Constitution” perhaps??

  4. “Checks and Balances” – isn’t that really a slogan? Hasn’t “Executive Order” sort of overridden that recently?

  5. I didn’t know how to correctly insert a link to the original article by Jesús Huerta de Soto, so I’ll see if that can be rectified here:

4

I disagree with number 3. I think the natural tendency of any state is to grow, granted. But the honus is on the people to prevent that from happening. So it’s possible to have a very limited state. A woman famously asked Benjamin Franklin “Sir, what have you given us?” To which he replied “A republic, if you can keep it.”

5

The onus is not on anyone. States have a social contract that is an unenforceable contract. The only agency which can determine the limits on the size of the state, is the state itself, not the citizenry.

6

If you start with a limited state with elected officials, in order for the state to grow, at some point the officials would have to allow that to happen.

7

“…at some point the officials would have to allow that to happen…”

And allow they do. In spades. If you don’t believe that, look at “health care” and the “debates” in the District of Collectivism…er, Columbia [:S].

8

Is there perhaps a corollary to #3?

Given human nature, a state exists where its power is impossible to limit.

I claim that the tendancy of human nature is for states to be created.

  1. It does not take a majority to create a state, in fact it may take only two people originally.

  2. Not all humans are internally motivated (internal locus of control versus external locus of control), therefore some humans will push for the creation of a state to solve their problems.

  3. Not all humans honor the NAP, therefore some humans will push for the creation of a state to either enforce their aggression or resist the aggression of others.

  4. Not all humans have impeccable reasoning powers, therefore some will err and create a state for even the most apparently benevolent reasons.

  5. Not all humans have the same capacity to thrive in anarchy, therefore some humans will push for the creation of a state to make up for their deficiencies.

Herein lies the paradox. Man will always be attracted to the allure of the state regardless of whether the state is needed or even theoretically possible in delivery of its intended purpose. Are we as a species just screwed? Is the real effort the constant struggle to oppose existing and potential states?

The preference would be to have no state so that the effort expended is towards the prevention of the creation of new states. It seems much easier to do that than to challenge an existing state that is already entrenched.

9

Master and Slave.

Presupposition. Support?

Therefore nothing. Humans have created states. That is what we know from your statement. Nothing more.

Again therefore nothing.

Presupposition. Support? and again therefore nothing.

Herein lies your assertion nothing more.

10

These are compelling reasons for why a State could rise in an anarcho-capitalism area, at least a few generations after the original establishment of the an-cap nation. I have wondered how a stateless society could be maintained, when the individuals that make up society seem so prone to embracing Leviathan.

I am past the argument, however, on whether an anarcho-capitalist society could be established, since I read the paper on the an-cap societies that arose in the American Old West (gold rush, wagon trains, and cattle towns). While the societies showed a great deal of success in maintaining order and protecting property rights without government oversight, all of them reverted back to the “norm” of having the government assume control of the territories.

That paper refers to “Schelling points”, which were necessary for the old west societies to work so well. My guess is that some sort of list of rules (“Aggressive force is wrong”; “The right to own and use property is inviolable”, “Individuals and groups of individuals are authorized to secede from this society at any time for any reason”, etc.) would have to be drawn up by the founding members of the society, and placed in a prominent place for the benefit of immigrants and successive generations.

11

Methodological individualism please!

12

K. C. Farmer wrote:

“…Herein lies the paradox. Man will always be attracted to the allure of the state regardless of whether the state is needed or even theoretically possible in delivery of its intended purpose. Are we as a species just screwed? Is the real effort the constant struggle to oppose existing and potential states?..”

I believe, Mr. Farmer, that you have landed upon the crux of the situation and explored it. But first a disclaimer: I belong to NO “Church” and have NO religious affiliation from which to proselytize. That said I want to make an analogous quote from a year-after-year all-time best selling book (a Hebrew book, actually):

It appears The Creator had offered good government to the first two human beings he had produced: government OF The Creator, BY The Creator and FOR the people (described as the tree of life).

Along came a Whispering Enchanter (“Serpent”). He is described as “more subtle than any beast of the field…” (Sound like one of those smiling, waving gangsters who from time to time solicit your “vote”?) He was successful in convincing them: “You can have government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people!..” (tree of knowledge of good and evil).

“…Man will always be attracted to the allure of the state..”

I’m afraid you are right, Mr. Farmer. You are right, my friend. My solution has been to become a sovereign state.

But in order to do that I have to be ever mindful of the limitations of being a sovereign state. I constantly live in “occupied territory”. I must be aware of criminal elements in my environment. I’m not talking about non-government criminals. Non-government thieves and robbers are easy. They are relatively honest about their intentions and are not difficult to defend myself from. They don’t imply I “should” vote, pledge allegiance to flags, file “returns” (so that they can know every nuance of information about me and where I might store resources they might one day pilfer). Non-government criminals are fairly honest and forthright and let me know up front they intend to rob me and take anything of value I don’t keep under lock and key. I have no real problem with non-governmental criminals.

My problem is government criminal elements. They include, often as not, members of my own family, neighbors, friends. They are the ones who have been inculcated from the time they were babies that civil government is good, deserving of their support – and my support. They “elect” and LOVE their “leaders”. They even expect me to pay them in fiat “money” with pictures of their historical public “Caesars”. They voluntarily and enthusiastically make compacts with actual employees of government to report “earnings” and other private data. “We should all pay our fair share!” This time of year they love and support public holidays designed to make it incumbent upon me to support their wars and “Our Troupes”.

It is not easy being a sovereign state. But it is rewarding. The entire set of laws which govern a “sovereign state of one” can be placed upon two tablets of stone.

And you can be sovereign.

Yes, you can.

Regards, Samarami

13

Cavalier 973 wrote:

“…These are compelling reasons for why a State could rise in an anarcho-capitalism area, at least a few generations after the original establishment of the an-cap nation. I have wondered how a stateless society could be maintained, when the individuals that make up society seem so prone to embracing Leviathan…”

A basic “compelling reason” might be that of two foxes who decide there should be agreement with yonder lamb for agreement as to what’s for lunch [*-)]

14

“And allow they do. In spades. If you don’t believe that, look at “health care” and the “debates” in the District of Collectivism…er, Columbia .”

Quick Reply

That’s why we the people have to take action. We can vote in elections, and if our elected officials don’t honor the constitution, then we have the second amendment (obviously that’s for extreme cases).

Liberty is something that will die very quickly if it is not upheld by every subsequent generation.

15

Quite true. Perhaps I should have phrased these statements as questions to be answered with empirical evidence as part of a study on human behavior.

Study: 5000 participants are brought to a secluded area where there are available natural resources for an extended period of time (let’s say 5 years). Each participant is permitted to stake a claim and establish a homestead. There is no government, no established rules other than the NAP. Each participant would be interviewed periodically to see how they are adjusting to this new way of life. Participants would be asked a variety of questions, including those on the establishment of democracy or a state - this of course must be handled correctly so as not to influence the study. What would happen? Would we see the formation of quasi-states, gangs or other such groups? What would be their reasons? Has the current way of existence, with the state, tainted the judgement of individuals?

16

If you are right, then I don’t live in a statist society.

I do live in a statist society.

You aren’t right.

17

what level of wealth of capital goods would they have access to? I’m trying to decide whether to join up.

18

Add the word “vigilant” and you’re spot on.

19

Location would obviously be a factor - not only for resources but also to prevent the state over such a location to allow the study to continue unimpeded. This state would essentially have to be paid off to cover any taxes and to remove any potential interference.

The participants would also be a factor. 5000 unskilled ditch diggers wouldn’t be representative of a modern society. Of course the skills required to convert undeveloped land are different than those of modern society too. There would have to be a proper mix that fits the setting.

The study isn’t about creating technology from day 1, so there should be a reasonable amout of tools, equipment, raw materials, and other goods that participants are allowed to bring into the study or are provided to simulate the accumulation of such resources over a longer period of time. For example, doctors would require a modest amount of medical equipment and supplies to handle 5000 people for a 5 year period.

Technology requirements would be running water and waste - to be privately owned of course. Privately owned power. Each participant would have the resources to fund the construction of 1 house and lay the various power, water and sewage lines through their property (call this their inheritance). To start they may have to live in trailers or some other portable living quarters until their projects are realized. These would not be free, of course, and they could opt to live in a tent and rough it if they so choose.

Now the size of the population will have natural limits on the available goods. So while it’s possible to create some pretty elaborate goods with 5000 people, your average good is going to be modest in terms of technology. But hey, if those 5000 people decide that wrestling on HD TV is what they want, then so be it (not that that would be my choice).

20

can’t they free trade with the outside world, like say, Hong Kong?