So, according to the author, the anarchist realizes anarchy is not practicable, and works to minimize the State? I thought that was minarchism, but apparently not. After redefining anarchism, the author redefines minarchism also, and then assures himself that such a belief is impossible. For good measure, he also accuses his critics of attacking "a straw man".
The author should read "The Federalist". Our nation's founders debated this issue extensively. The defense of natural rights must be both against the autocrat, and against the mob. Thus, we establish the Rule of Law, based on our self-evident natural right to Life, Liberty and Property. For the Rule of Law to work, it must apply equally to all. No one can be exempt from the law, and all must be subject to its judgment. The poor, the outcast, the dissident, the loner -- those who are always the mercy of the majority -- must be guaranteed equal protection and standing before the law. "Guarantee" cannot require finding a charitable private security firm. It is easy to ensure against autocracy or oligarchy, if you submit to mob rule. And vice-versa. Finding a balance that provides the best defense of Liberty against both threats is more difficult. Chris Edes > Hello All, > > > Although this is an old piece that was brought to my attention via a blog > posting it is worthwhile to send out again > > as it dispels some Fallacious arguments routinely used by those who are not > Anarcho-Capitalists to justify their position. > > "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 detai > > > http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ------------------------------------ > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
