MTV > wrote:

>Ah, but we're eternal optimists and believe in market forces and limited
>control by government.


"Belief" has nothing to do with it; *ethics* are the heart of the
matter, as in: What moral right do you have to rule me, or I you?

- - -


http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html
January 20, 2004

What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

by N. Stephan Kinsella


Butler Shaffer's recent LRC article, What is Anarchy?, prompted
discussion on the Reason blog and inspired me to set down a few ideas
I've also had along these lines.

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their
arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy
won't work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these
attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist
does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor
that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a
pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that
you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states
necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the
aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It 's quite
simple, really. It's an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses
utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a)
aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states)
do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens,
which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense
agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the
countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a
single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists
think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is
justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and
anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression - the initiation of
force against innocent victims - is justified. No surprise; it is not
possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify
aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the
grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused.
Anarchists don' t (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for
one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified.

Consider an analogy. Conservatives and libertarians all agree that
private crime (murder, robbery, rape) is unjustified, and "should" not
occur. Yet no matter how good most men become, there will always be at
least some small element who will resort to crime. Crime will always be
with us. Yet we still condemn crime and work to reduce it.

Is it logically possible that there could be no crime? Sure. Everyone
could voluntarily choose to respect others' rights. Then there would be
no crime. It's easy to imagine. But given our experience with human
nature and interaction, it is safe to say that there will always be
crime. Nevertheless, we still proclaim crime to be evil and
unjustified, in the face of the inevitability of its recurrence. So to
my claim that crime is immoral, it would just be stupid and/or insincere
to reply, "but that's an impractical view" or "but that won't work,"
"since there will always be crime." The fact that there will always be
crime - that not everyone will voluntarily respect others' rights - does
not mean that it's "impractical" to oppose it; nor does it mean that
crime is justified. It does not mean there is some "flaw" in the
proposition that crime is wrong.

Likewise, to my claim that the state and its aggression is unjustified,
it is disingenuous and/or confused to reply, "anarchy won't work" or is
"impractical" or "unlikely to ever occur."1 The view that the state is
unjustified is a normative or ethical position. The fact that not
enough people are willing to respect their neighbors' rights to allow
anarchy to emerge, i.e., the fact that enough people (erroneously)
support the legitimacy of the state to permit it to exist, does not mean
that the state, and its aggression, are justified.2

Other utilitarian replies like "but we need a state" do not contradict
the claim that states employ aggression and that aggression is
unjustified. It simply means that the state-advocate does not mind the
initiation of force against innocent victims - i.e., he shares the
criminal/socialist mentality. The private criminal thinks his own need
is all that matters; he is willing to commit violence to satisfy his
needs; to hell with what is right and wrong. The advocate of the state
thinks that his opinion that "we" "need" things justifies committing or
condoning violence against innocent individuals. It is as plain as
that. Whatever this argument is, it is not libertarian. It is not
opposed to aggression. It is in favor of something else - making sure
certain public "needs" are met, despite the cost - but not peace and
cooperation. The criminal, gangster, socialist, welfare-statist, and
even minarchist all share this: they are willing to condone naked
aggression, for some reason. The details vary, but the result is the
same - innocent lives are trampled by physical assault. Some have the
stomach for this; others are more civilized - libertarian, one might say
- and prefer peace over violent struggle.

As there are criminals and socialists among us, it is no surprise that
there is a degree of criminal-mindedness in most people. After all, the
state rests upon the tacit consent of the masses, who have erroneously
accepted the notion that states are legitimate. But none of that means
the criminal enterprises condoned by the masses are justified.

It's time for libertarians to take a stand. Are you for aggression, or
against it?

Notes

Another point: in my view, we are about as likely to achieve minarchy as
we are to achieve anarchy. I.e., both are remote possibilities. What
is striking is that almost every criticism of "impracticality" that
minarchist hurl at anarchy is also true of minarchy itself. Both are
exceedingly unlikely. Both require massive changes in views among
millions of people. Both rest on presumptions that most people simply
don't care much about.

Though the case for anarchy does not depend on its likelihood or
"feasibility," any more than the case against private crime depends on
there never being any acts of crime, anarchy is clearly possible. There
is anarchy among nations, for example. There is also anarchy within
government, as pointed out in the seminal and neglected JLS article by
Alfred G. Cuzan, "Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy?" Cuzan argues
that even the government itself is in anarchy, internally - the
President does not literally force others in government to obey his
comments, after all; they obey them voluntarily, due to a recognized,
hierarchical structure. Government's (political) anarchy is not a good
anarchy, but it demonstrates anarchy is possible - indeed, that we never
really get out of it. And Shaffer makes the insightful point that we
are in "anarchy" with our neighbors. If most people did not already
have the character to voluntarily respect most of their neighbors'
rights, society and civilization would be impossible. Most people are
good enough to permit civilization to occur, despite the existence of
some degree of public and private crime. It is conceivable that the
degree of goodness could rise - due to education or more universal
economic prosperity, say - sufficient to make support for the legitimacy
of states evaporate. It's just very unlikely.

Stephan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston. His website is
www.StephanKinsella.com.

--

Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce