What Pushed Me From Limited Government To Anarchy?

I frequently see posts like the following around the internet in libertarian communities.

The author writes:

So, I thought I knew what a Libertarian was, and I thought I was one. Then I came here, and it seems to be a cross between [anarchism and cop bashing]. Maybe you can help me out…

This isn’t supposed to be inflammatory, or spiteful. After bouncing around political parties (Democrat for the pro choice type things and Republican for the gun ownership type things) I thought I stumbled on to Libertarian, which I was under the impression, covered my thoughts pretty well.

I don’t read political blogs and I don’t pay much attention to liberal or conservative media. But I thought it might be nice to see what other like minded people had to say about things, so I stumbled over here. And, to be quite honest, what I’ve predominantly seen so far, are completely anti government anti police posts.

So….am I in the wrong place?

I’d love to hear what your opinion of what it means to be Libertarian. I wont argue, I wont reply, I wont contradict. I’ll just listen.

Speaking for myself, it took a combination of arguments to finally push myself that last little bit over the edge into anarchy.

Most libertarians have already come to accept that a privatized school system is vastly superior and vastly cheaper than State run indoctrination camps.  Most libertarians have already come to accept that a fully privatized healthcare system is superior to the State run monstrosity we have today.   Most libertarians have already come to accept that private airport security is superior to the State run Stasi pervert squads we have today. etc.. etc.. etc..

The only thing your typical “minarchist” libertarian believes the government is necessary for is to protect property rights.  The story goes that without a State to protect private property, there can be no private property.  Everyone would run around looting each other and there would be total chaos in the absence of the State.

I know for myself, that was the major road block preventing me from becoming a full tilt anarchist.  Before I could support an entirely voluntary government, I needed someone to show me how anarchy could protect the sweat and labor of the people.

So in light of my transformation, I’m going to present to you the arguments that finally convinced me that a voluntarily funded government is the only type of legitimate government, and the only one actually capable of defending property rights.

Arguments From Morality

These arguments simply point out that initiating violence against people who have harmed no one by their actions is morally wrong.  Consider that it is oxymoronic to claim thievery is necessary to protect private property.   It is oxymoronic to claim that the initiation of violence is necessary to prevent the initiation of violence.  When a person supports “limited government”, they are giving up the moral high-ground by supporting the initiation of violence as a means of organizing society.

The Story of Your Enslavement | Stefan Molyneux

The Sunset of the State | Stefan Molyneux

Arguments From Consequentialism

Arguments from consequentialism ignore any kind of philosophical “moral” judgement about the initiation of violence used in the collection of taxes.  They purely look at the outcomes of various actions to determine what the best course of action should be.  An example of this would be the Austrian School of economics.  The Austrian School favors anarcho-capitalism for purely consequentialist reasons.  When Austrian economists analyze the behavior of markets, it becomes clear that the State never brings about a more positive outcome for society than if the State had not interfered in the market at all.

So to the point, here are a few arguments that really proved to me that free markets can provide a superior service for the protection of property rights as opposed to the State.   Hoppe’s video is the final lecture that pushed me over the edge into anarchy.  Murphy’s videos add depth and detail to Hoppe’s arguments.

A Private Law Society | by Hans Hoppe

Chaos Theory: Private Law | by Robert P. Murphy

Chaos Theory: Private Defense | by Robert P. Murphy

Murphy’s essays really get into the meat and potatoes of how private defense forces would be organized at the local and national levels.  I think Murphy really makes that case that there is no need for a State to defend against external States since private markets can accomplish this task without the violence of taxation.

Arguments Against Minarchy – the impossibility of a limited State

After it became to clear to me that privatized defense of property and privatized courts could offer superior protection of property rights, these arguments against the possibility of maintaining a limited government were really the icing on the cake.

I am convinced that giving some group of authoritarians a monopoly on the use of violence in order to rob the people under their control will always result in an oppressive super-State.  Once the machinery of violence is set into motion, it can not be stopped until it ultimately destroys itself.

Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

On the Impossibility of Limited Government | by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The Fatal Conceit: The Myth of Limited Constitutional Government | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The bottom line here is that:

1.  It is simply immoral to initiate violence against the innocent, which clearly encompasses taxation.

2.  The initiation of violence can not ever lead to superior economic outcomes.

3.  Once the initiation of violence is accepted by the public as a means of organizing government, the path towards the wholesale destruction of society can not be stopped.

4.  Private markets, in all things, lead to superior service, quality, and value – this rule includes the markets of defense and arbitration of disputes.

 

 

  • http://facebook.com/nlagrassa Nicholas

    Did you get into my brain and read my thoughts? This was an amazing article.

  • Lenciona

    This

  • Andy

     This kinds of sounds like you are using a “Reductio ad absurdum” argument against libertarianism. Do you really think Anarchy is superior to Limited government or are you just trying to make a point?

  • Pingback: On Second Thought, Maybe We’re Better Off Without Rick Perry (and more good news…) » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog()

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UD3GIK7RVY3ETPFI77OQKRPERI Something

    Now, dear writer, please do convince the rest of humanity that behind Anarchy lay a cogent and logical concept.  That task also includes informing the crop of current ‘Anarchists’ that they should be behind Rothbard, not Mao.  Your arguments are sound, I would not say you are wrong.  Nor can I say that we will be victorious.  It’s a sad analogy, to be born as the king or queen of the land, slowly age to realize you are shackled and enslaved and left with increasingly no option but violence as you near the twilight.  

    May Mr. Paul win through.  

    Yes, I recognize the Libertarians reject Dr. Paul for his stance on abortion.  So it is your right.  I would implore you – and this will look quite odd as compared to my previous letters in this digital document – but I will implore you to take a look at your own aura if you can.  It’s not hard and it doesn’t take much discipline, I’m self taught (with no chemical helpers) I learned how with the help of a Buddhist.  Maybe you’re deriding that I learned from a Buddhist?  If not, kudos.  She also had a Ph.D in Philosophy and a masters in business so she wasn’t your typical run of the mill Tibetan monk type if you know what I mean.  Why do I say look at your aura?  See it?  See yourself, in that mirror, while you sit with an amazing halo of light around yourself that can only grow as your interest to investigate new found being grows.  It is existential proof life is connected beyond the flesh, that it reaches out far into reality beyond the scopes we currently understand.  If you can tell me after that… that you can end, or defend the ending of any life frivolously, I will be astounded.  While I do agree with allowing abortion in the case of rape, incest or imminent death (as in hours away) of the mother (though really, the mother that would elect her own life over her child’s, I do not understand entirely) – my Dad had a wonderful story for me (though it didn’t change my stance on the rape, incest or imminent death cases…forgive the parentheses, better editing and writing would cure that, but it’s late!):

    A medical school professor has his 20 some odd students in class.  They’re second year students and the professor throws down the gauntlet in class one day.

    “Students, you are doctors.  You have a patient come to your office; she is young, malnourished, sick with a very bad cough.  She is pregnant.  She is a single mother.  She has no income and no family to help her and from all the testing you can run on her, her baby may likely be the death of her and if she lives.  She has little hope of caring for a child in week condition, much less providing for the child.”  the professor pauses “What is your diagnosis and advice for this young mother?”

    Every student in the class recommends an abortion

    The Professor, looking smugly at his students says

    “Congratulations, you just killed Beethoven.”

    Vote Paul dear folk.  I know you would see me as I look at those who would implore me to vote for Romney or Perry should they win the primary:  Nuts.  But if all that stands in the way is that stance on abortion, and I can see no other impedance, then vote for Paul.  Yes, he’s a strict Constitutionalist and not a strict Destructionalist-Anarchist.  But, he’s still fiscally conservative, which happens to be quite similar, if not exactly the same as a fiscally libertarian given where we are in monopoly- money-world.  This country is dying by the printing of money, not acts of abortion or the abolishing thereof.  You all still have some time to switch parties and get in before the primaries to show all the media outlets, all those with the power, that it matters not what they black out:  The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

  • FreeSouthAfrican

    U live in a fantasy world. What is going to happen to the US War Machine. Should it be privatised? Who will oversee this privatisation? You? A committee of REAL Anarchists? No. It will be some government committee that will oversee the sale of all these weapons to who? Big corporates most likely the big financial institutions who creates debt and then they will really rule you all properly:-). Note that quite a number of functions of the US War Machine has been privatised. Read Naomi Klein’s book Disaster Capatislism. This has not improved anything. Next example. Transportation infrastructure. Shall it be privatised? Will this privatisation support the ideals of Libertarian anarchist? The transportation infrastructure will simply fall into the hands of monopoly capitalism. And by having a monopoly of toll fees on public roads they will simply enslave the rest of the population even more. The worst scenario would be unregulated toll monopolies. Libertarian anarchist wont even be considered in the privatisation process and do not have the power to influence anything.

    The controllers of the state, large multinationals, and the state has simply become to big and powerful. What is more important, is that these groupings are also much better organised than any other grouping. How will the Anarchists get the majority of US Citizens to support them? They will have to be more organised than their opponents and also appeal to more people than their opponents. I simply do not think that a society of liberterian anarchist will be able to be influential enough to fundementally change the worst empire in history, an empire that has caused more damage than any before them. And the American Empire itself is in turn controlled by a global financial elite that do not show their faces to the public.

    Even in tribal societies there is some kind of democracy. The elders get together and debate things and then decide what best should be done to keep peace in their community. The more complex a society gets, the more complex the governing structure becomes. If people looked out for each other, states would not even come into being.

    What is wrong in the so called American Democracy is that big money controls it as you rightly point out. So that is one of the key problems that needs to be addressed. The other is the democratic system itself. And the big one is that monopolies capitalism is allowed to reign freely. No monopoly should be allowed. The first monopoly to break should be that of media monopoly. The USA elections are controlled in mainly two ways. Firstly private funding of political parties and election campaigns and secondly control of the media through media monopolies. The same corporations and people controlling them then lobby politicians to implement policies that favour them. And that includes the creation of regulatory agencies that serves as places of control for corporates when they make sure that strategic positions in these regulatory institutions and high government positions are occupied by their people through a revolving door policy.

    So if all the issues listed above could be eliminated, democracy in the USA would not be such a bad thing. It can be done. Start a party that will get the support of a broad group of people. Stay away from ideological labels, debates and attacking particular institutions or people. Simply state the obvious, America is bankrupt, very corrupt and spending far too much on the war machine. Then start a political party that can hopefully still take part in the next elections. The party manifesto is simply the following: 1. USA need a Federal Electoral Commission with limited powers which they share with political parties. All campaign donations should go to a central fund. Political parties are then allocated a percentage of funds based on the amount of proven party members of eligible voters. Parties only allowed to charge a maximum amount of say USD 100 for party membership. 2. A company cannot own more than one national television station and one national newspaper. No cross ownership allowed. A company owning a national television station and newspaper cannot own any state based television stations or newspapers. International news agencies not allowed to own any newspapers or television stations. 3. Lobbying to be outlawed and to be replaced by public participation of voluntary interest groups in legislation. 4. Tax exemptions of foundations such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, CFR and religious groupings to be ended. They are simply political lobbying groups towing the line of corporate masters and other manipulators. If taxed, they need to be run like any business. 5. Bring an end to “revolving doors” by making it illegal for senior government officials to work in a position of influence in the private sector in the same industry or field they worked in government. The private sector does this all the time by demanding senior officials to sign restriction of trade agreements. Although this is a curtailment of individual liberty this is in the interest of the public as this will stop large corporates from controlling industries by manipulating government institutions. 6. I would also like to include the ending of the federal reserve system but maybe it would be best to demand the audit of the federal reserve system as well as an investigation of all the problems that was created over  particularly the last 50 years, but also since the inception of the federal reserve system,  and the reform of the financial system based on a process of investigation and proposing alternatives by experts not connected to the current system which will then be debated in public before new reforms are legislated.

    This is a minimum that is needed to ensure that politics in the USA is freed from the control of big corporates. The owners of big monopolies and those that support them are in a minority. The aim of this party is to first end the stranglehold of the big corporates and the two parties they own, the “Democratic” and “Republican” parties over the political system in the USA. The only statement on policy should be that all government institutions and policies are to be reviewed by elected officials, the relevant stakeholders (e.g. government departments / institutions, industry associations, labour associations, public interest groups and the general public). This is about saving the USA and world economy as well as bringing true democracy to the USA for the first time in it’s history.

    An interesting reform of the electoral and governing system of the USA and which should be one of the proposed reforms and not one that is forced onto the electorate, could be along the line of Ghaddafi’s green book. In a city the smallest governing unit is for a group of e.g. 240 eligible voters, who live as neighbours next to each other, to form a governing body responsible for all issues effecting that group which they can handle e.g. education of children, fund-raising for community initiatives, crime prevention, waste removal, road maintenance, whatever. They then select representatives 4 representatives 2 elders, male and female, and two youths (male and female between e.g. 30 and 20) who will represent them in a group of again 240 people at the next layer that will handle inter-group issues. This can continue up to state and then national level. The top group will always need the approval of the bottom group for any decision they make. A cumbersome system, but one that could ensure maximum liberty. Of course, how decision making is done within groups is another matter. Should one use consensus or a voting with a simple or 2 third majority? If people want to group themselves in political parties at any level, that’s up to them.

    My main argument is that the monopoly of big capital and their cohorts, the Democratic and Republican parties should be broken. This is more important than debates over ideologies. If you stay away from ideologies, which includes whatever flavour of anarchism you favour, you have the best chance of creating a united front to break the political monopoly which will allow you to break the capital monopolies which will enable true free enterprise and more important, freedom of being. By staying away from ideology one can focus on the core issues which inhibits the freedom of the American people. And the medium you can use to run the campaign is the internet and word of mouth. With emails, youtube, social media etc you can get the messsage to most people without needing huge sums of money, rather the energy and resources of volunteers. Then you will also need dedicated volunteers who can take the message to people who don’t use the Internet e.g. old age homes, homeless people etc. Of course, you will need a presidential candidate as well as candidates for other levels of government. Choose untainted non-party affiliated people with good leadership qualities who are not professional politicians but natural leaders.

    And if you want to start experiments with anarchy, you can do it now. Start first one, then a group of intentional communities / ecovillages based on the principles of your flavour of anarchism and make it work. Then you will have the practical experience and working examples of your ideas which you can use to convince people of your ideas. All these ideological debates are simply word wars which don’t influence much and are easy to do because you do not have to accomplish anything measurable in the real world. This is as true for me as it is for you.

    I am from South Africa but as whatever happens in the biggest economy and most powerful political entity in the world, has an influence on us here, it is in my interest that the system in the USA is reformed. The current OWC will by itself, not change anything as it will simply be smashed or co-opted, especially if they cannot offer alternatives. U have an electoral system. Use it creatively and with maximum effect to free yourself from your current slavery.

  • Pingback: 3.9 Anarcho-Tyranny | Radish()