A. Here’s a very basic and probably somewhat biased guide I wrote up for something one time. Hope it helps!

If any of my followers have additions, corrections, or better suggestions for people/books to look up for more info, by all means reply to this post with that info. I’d also love it if you weighed in on which term(s) you use to describe your own ideas.

• Minarchist

I list this option first because it’s the label I use for myself when I wish to be more specific than “libertarian.”  The definition of minarchy can be seen in the word itself:  min- [minimal] archy [government].  Thus the minarchist wants to have a small “night watchman” state, limited to protecting citizens and their rights from aggression both foreign and domestic.  In practice, this would look like a military for defense against invasion; a police and justice system to deal with crime; and probably a largely inactive legislature and executive to enact and enforce laws against criminal behavior.

Famous Minarchist:  Robert Nozick, Harvard professor and author of Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

• Anarcho-Capitalist

I mention anarcho-capitalists next because while we agree on most political questions at issue today, minarchists and anarcho-Capitalists are often at odds in the finer philosophical debates within the libertarian movement.  As their name suggests, these are anarchists with a focus on the free market as the solution for the problems caused by both the state and its absence.  Unlike minarchists, anarcho-capitalists would ideally see needs for justice and defense provided by the free market on a model similar to how auto insurance works today.  Rather than having a universal code of law to protect everyone’s liberties, they consider the more moral option to be a market-based system in which each individual pays a subscription to a private defense agency to protect them and their property.  The state would be abolished entirely.

Famous Anarcho-Capitalist:  Murray Rothbard, noted Austrian economist and author ofMan, Economy, and State.

• Paleo-Libertarian

Though the term has to some extent fallen out of vogue in recent years, next up is the paleo-libertarian, who can be a minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist, but who adds to his convictions a preference for conservative social values (though he doesn’t wish to see them legally enforced, understanding the vice vs. crime distinction) and a disdain for the moral libertinism often associated with libertarianism.  The paleo-libertarian condemns drug use, as well as “[p]ornogaphic photography, ‘free’ thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture, and modernist films,” and stands at odds with the cultural liberalism of the cosmotarian, whom we’ll discuss next.

Famous Paleo-Libertarian:  Lew Rockwell, founder of the Mises Institute (though he no longer uses the term himself).

• Cosmotarian

The cosmotarian is stereotypically a creature native to the libertarian outfits of Washington DC.  A portmanteau of “cosmopolitan” and “libertarian,” the cosmotarian is a libertarian with socially liberal personal opinions, typically being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and lacking objection to mild drug use.  Unlike the paleo-libertarian, the cosmotarian probably likes atonal music and may or may not wear hipster glasses.

Famous Cosmotarian:  Maybe Matt Welch, editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine, though I’m doubtful he’d use the term.

• Voluntaryist

The voluntaryist is usually, but not necessarily, an anarchist, but his defining feature is the desire for all human interaction to be completely voluntary and uncoerced.  With roots in Baptist and other Christian movements for the separation of church and state in England, voluntaryists pursue societal change through nonpolitical action, sometimes even refusing to pay taxes or vote.

Famous Voluntaryist:  Henry David Thoreau, American abolitionst, philosopher, and author of Civil Disobedience.

• Classical Liberal

The classical liberal relies heavily on the philosophies Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke and Adam Smith and advocates for limited government, rule of law, and protection of the rights of the individual.  Unlike minarchists, classical liberals may allow the government to provide some “public goods” such as education or a very limited social safety net, but they are very different from the modern social liberal usually associated with the Democratic Party in America.

Famous Classical Liberal:  John Locke, author of Second Treatise of Government.

• Federalist

The federalist libertarian supports small government, but more specifically local andhierarchical government.  The American government is built on a federalist system, in which the states function as autonomous units in many matters, under the umbrella of the national government but able to cater to the desires of their own residents.

Famous Federalist:  James Madison, fourth President of the United States.

• Left-Libertarian

Left-libertarianism encompasses a number of variations, which space will not permit me to discuss in detail here.  On one end of the spectrum of left-libertarianism we find people who are similar to cosmotarians, but often more concerned with issues of social justice, the environment, sexuality, gender, and race relations.  On the other end are libertarian socialists and others who reject private property ownership.  Because of their mistrust of the free market which is so central to most other strains of libertarian thought, non-propertarian libertarians tend to conflict with other libertarians over economic matters.

Famous Left-Libertarian:  Kevin Carson, economist, writer, and researcher at the Center for a Stateless Society.

• Libertarian Party Member

The structure of the American electoral system has never worked well for third parties, but to the extent that they exist, the Libertarian Party is among the most “successful” today.  Within its ranks, the LP hosts libertarians of all varieties, but the party should not be confused with the larger liberty movement.  In general, when the distinction is necessary, we say you can be a Small-L libertarian without being a Large-L Libertarian (a member of the LP), but (hopefully) not vice versa.

Famous Libertarian Party Member:  Harry Browne, LP presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000 and author of Liberty A to Z.

• Christian Anarchist

Just as I began, I’m ending on a term which I often apply to myself.  To be fair, Christian anarchy is not strictly a libertarian philosophy, but it certainly finds representation within the libertarian movement.  Christian anarchy recognizes that the ultimate authority for the Christian is not any human government but rather God alone.

Famous Christian Anarchist:  Greg Boyd, pastor and author of Myth of a Christian Nation.

A. Hardly.  As I’ve written in the past, the absolute last thing we have is economic minarchism.  Here is a short and incomplete list of things which exist in our current system which would not exist in a minarchist society:

• Corporate welfare and subsidies
• Bailouts to a stagnant and backward American auto industry
• Bailouts to Wall Street banks
• Bailouts to foreign banks
• Other, hidden bank bailouts
• Fiat money creation to fund those bailouts to the detriment of the lower and middle classes
• The government lending tax dollars to banks for basically free and then borrowing the same money back and paying interest on it
• A devastating housing bubble funding by artificially low interest rates dictated without regard for market signals by the Federal Reserve
• Regulations, a convoluted tax structure, and  labyrinthine legalities benefiting (and basically written by) large companies with the legal resources to find loopholes at the expense of their smaller competitors
• Foreign policy significantly influenced by war profiteers and oil companies

After the last few years of rampant, bipartisan corporate favoritism we’ve repeatedly seen out of Washington, I find it marvelous indeed that anyone could think that we have economic minarchy.  After all, I assume you realize that, by definition, economic minarchy would look like the government being uninvolved in the economy except for providing a court system for the prosecution of fraud/other bad business practices and criminality, right?

A. From what I know of that site, it’s all at least nominally accurate and each claim provides a source.  The two critical questions to ask are:

1. Is the whole story presented, or has the truth been carefully presented to imply something which isn’t actually true?
2. If the statement is not at all misleading, is what he did actually a good thing?

So for instance, in answer to the first question, let’s consider this specific claim:  Obama issued an executive order to close the prison at Gitmo.  Yeah, he signed the order, but 2.5 years later the Guantanamo Bay prison is still very much up and running.  Without going through the entire site, I suspect you’ll find many such “true” claims.

As far as the second question — well, I guess that depends a lot on your politics and your partisanship.  Consider whether Obama’s achievement was merely impressive or actually good.  Consider whether it was constitutional.  Consider whether it added to future generations’ debt.  Consider the hidden costs which may not be obvious at first glance.  And most definitely ask those who disagree with you to consider how they’d feel if the exact same policy — particularly if it’s concerned with war or big business — was enacted by George W. Bush.

For quicker response, just link them here.

Q. If one considers the ultimate goal of anarchy to be a removal from hierarchy through supreme personal freedom, wouldn’t corporations and any other non commune organization destroy this ideal through hierarchy in workforce and further destroy it by the employers ability to almost indefinitely control the workers salary and working conditions. — blissfulsuffering, from tumblr.

A. I noticed that you asked the same question of Coeus (and have to take exception at the idea that I “couldn’t” answer the question! — I just couldn’t answer it right then) and thought both her original reply and follow-up were very well-put.  So I’ll only add a few things:

First, I’m not an anarchist myself, so I can’t say I’ve spent a whole lot of time considering the practical outcomes of a system I don’t personally advocate.  Second, is the objective outcome of anarchy freedom from hierarchy?  I’ve always understood the generic term to be much more concerned with absence of government and other forcefully-imposed, involuntary authorities.

Third, as Coeus said, I don’t share your interest in perfect equality outside the legal realm.  I don’t think it’s necessary for everyone to have equal wealth or authority, for instance.  Finally, I do think we’d agree on the importance of voluntary involvement in economic arrangements.  I’d also argue that with a smaller government and freer market, lacking all the corporatism and subsidies which are currently so pervasive, would tend to produce a less hierarchical business world in which the largest companies would not be nearly so large and powerful.  And that would be a good thing.

Q. In your perfect world would an individual be able to secede from the government and just live in their same house w/o gov’t services and tax free? — nellieblystunad, from tumblr.

A. Probably, but I doubt it would matter. Here’s what I’ve written on the subject before.

Maybe also check out the other stuff in the anarchy section of my FAQ for a couple articles which, among themselves, also address different aspects of this question.

Q. How do you prevent a minarchist government from accelerating in power and growing? It seems to me that this was the purpose of the US Constitution — to limit government power — but I see that this has changes over time. What is to truly limit a minarchist government, then? — coeus, from tumblr.

A. This is an incredibly important question, especially given the obvious failure of the U.S. Constitution.  I’ve argued with Nozick that an anarcho-capitalist system would tend to become minarchist, so what’s to prevent a minarchist government from becoming…maxarchist, to make a neologism?

I don’t think I can give an entirely comprehensive answer on this, but here are some basic ideas I have on the subject:

• Write a better founding document/social contract than the Constitution. As much as I think it’s important that it be followed as long as we’re pretending it’s the law of the land, and as much as I think that following it would be better than what we’ve currently got going, the Constitution has some serious issues.  Sloppy wording allowing for statist interpretations, stuff like the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and eminent domain — it’s full of nasty things like that (not to mention the 3/5 Compromise and other abysmal things since amended away).  In short, the Constitution has its merits, but we could do better.
• Have a smaller country. The U.S. is huge — I’d say too big (as in populous) to successfully maintain small government.  I suspect a free society would have to stay small to stay free.  You know, where you could actually easily meet with representatives and officials and hold them personally accountable.  What we’ve got now is a system of celebrity and circus, not accountability.
• Bring the basic contract up for revision more often. Stability of law is important, but it’s also important for people to be government by something they actually approved.  A common libertarian/anarchist objection to the social contract is “I didn’t sign any contract.”  Perhaps on a generational basis, or something, you’d have the opportunity to review the basic structure of your government and develop new ways to keep it limited.

I’m sure other, smarter people have come up with better ideas than these for keeping a small government small.  Anyone got some examples?

Anyway, here goes…

Q. Do you consider yourself a left-wing libertarian or a right-wing libertarian? — Tyson, from the internet.

A. I don’t typically think of myself in either category — if pressed for specificity beyond the general term “libertarian,” I typically go with “minarchist.”  I also identify with Christian anarchy.  Nonetheless, were I forced to choose, I’d go with right-libertarianism over left.  That said, though it isn’t explicit in the philosophy, I do often find an emphasis on matters of war, peace, and foreign policy in left-libertarians which I really like, and many of the other ideas encompassed this branch of libertarianism definitely interest me.  So while I would throw my lot in with the right, I look forward to further research and learning about what left-libertarianism has to offer (for instance, the careful, insistent noting that what we have at present isn’t a free market, so the distribution of wealth we’ve currently got is probably not just).

P.S. For an interesting read from Murray Rothbard on this subject, check out this essay.  Advance confession:  I haven’t read the whole thing yet.  Sheldon Richman has his own take here.

Q. As a Libertarian, what is your opinion on voluntary collectivism, communes, other such voluntary ways of socialist living. — George, from the internet.

A. As long as they’re voluntary, I don’t have the least sort of problem with that sort of thing.  In fact, I’ve lived in community before in a missions context and quite enjoyed it (well, most of it.  Dorm-style bathrooms are never too fun).  I’m not sure it’s something I’d want to do long term, but I see the appeal.  More to the point, if someone wants to live that way and doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights in the process, I see absolutely no reason to stop them.

Q. What is your opinion of the anarchist wing of libertarianism, particularly the left wing of the movement (Brad Spangler, Roderick Long, Gary Chartier, Sheldon Richman, etc.)? — Alex, from the internet.

A. This question is mostly addressed, I think, by the questions above and below it.  The only thing I’ll add, however, is that pretty much everything I’ve ever read from Richman is great.  And also that looking him up to answer this post brought me to what appears to be his personal blog, which I will now be adding to my blogroll along with The Freeman, if it isn’t there already.

Q.  Do you think that the social contract theory you use to defend minarchy over anarchy is inherently violent?  An anarchist system would provide plenty of ways of resolving disputes/dealing with criminals, and it would be in both parties’ interest to cooperate.  Moreover, taxes are theft, so a “justice” system funded by them can never really be just.  One’s right to life, liberty, and property does not extend to infringing on others’ rights to protect your own, which is what even minimal, night-watchman government does.  You say that, in your understanding of anarchy, your property would be on loan to you until someone bigger decided they wanted it… doesn’t that sound like eminent domain to you? Or taxation?   — gleaned from this comment thread on an older post which I’ve been promising to address forever.  Reference the original comments (which are much longer) and please comment here if you have concerns that I’ve summarized unfairly.

A. First, as I mentioned in the question, I have been putting this off for way too long.  It’s not that I wanted to delay the conversation, I swear — it’s just a really big issue, and not something I wanted to treat lightly.  Anyway, hopefully I’ve summarized the anarchist side of things fairly, so let me begin:

Violence inherent in the [Social Contract] system: Can I say yes and no?  On the one hand, yes, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for government:

And neither are imaginary social contracts.  As Dan McCarthy puts it,

If you don’t remember signing the social contract, don’t worry, someone else has signed for you — without your permission and without consulting you as to the terms of this agreement. Oh, and this signatory is imaginary, by the way….

“The social contract…is an idea that people would rationally choose certain constraints on their behavior, constraints which culminate in certain reciprocal rules under which to live.” The subjective theory of value that Austrian economics has articulated might suggest that, in fact, different people want different constraints on different behaviors; and just looking around the world as it exists might confirm such a theory to just about anyone’s satisfaction.

This critique is accurate.  In all political systems of which I am aware to date (with the possible exception of truly tiny communities like Pitcairn Island), the social contract is nothing but a myth, and often a devious myth used to give credibility to a system which none of us actually consented to in any meaningful manner:

Being grounded in force, all political systems have been created through conquest, violence, and disregard for the rights of those who do not voluntarily choose to be a part of the arrangement. Even the origins of the United States of America – which provides us a great deal more empirical evidence – reveals the absence of any “contract” among its citizenry to participate in the system. As best I can tell from my reading of history, the Constitution was probably favored by about one-third of the population, strongly opposed by another one-third, and greeted with indifference by the remaining one-third.

However, this is where I stop answering “yes,” and start answering “no.”  We do not have, and indeed have never had, a social contract which was anything more than a myth created to disguise the violent origin of a government already in place.

But let’s suppose for a moment that we actually did have a government in which the social contract wasn’t merely a myth.  (After all, we also don’t have an actual example of anarcho-capitalism in real life, so this is all little more than an intellectual exercise at this point.)  What would it look like?

Here I see two options:  an explicit contract or something like Nozick’s invisible hand formation of a minarchist system.  (I’m not certain which I think would be better — as I’ve said before, the exact nature of how a just government might fund itself or determine participation is something I don’t have set in stone at this point.)

For an explicit contract to work, the government would likely have to operate over a fairly small geographical area or, if non-geographical in nature (unlikely, but possible), include a smallish number of people.  This would be important for real consent to occur; the United States, for instance, are way too big when united to ever have true limited government.  The contract would also most likely have to be renewed and revised on a regular basis, though were the government actually limited to defense of person and property, I’m not sure how much room for revision there really would be.

In Nozick’s invisible hand variation of the social contract,

anarcho-capitalism would inevitably transform into a minarchist state, even without violating any of its own non-aggression principles, through the eventual emergence of a single locally-dominant private defense and judicial agency that it is in everyone’s interests to align with, because other agencies are unable to effectively compete against the advantages of the agency with majority coverage. Therefore, he felt that, even to the extent that the anarcho-capitalist theory is correct, it results in a single, private, protective agency which is itself a de facto “state.” Thus anarchy may only exist for a limited period before a minimalist state emerges.

I did a reasonable amount of research on Nozick in college, and I have to admit that I find this idea appealing as well.  His idea also deals with the question of endless secession (if a state may secede from the union, may a city secede from the state, or a neighborhood from the city, or an individual from the neighborhood?):  There might be a very few people who would wish to be outlaws, but they would be extremely few and far between because it wouldn’t be in their best interest.

Nonetheless, all matters of the exact process through which a just government might be formed aside, I think it’s important to pause and note a major point:  The essence of anarchism is its complete rejection of government legitimacy.  I respect that idea and would prefer it to our current system, but I don’t agree that it’s the best option.  I think that government has a legitimate purpose in protection of natural rights to person and property, and, as long as it is limited to that jurisdiction, do not share the anarchist assessment of inherent illegitimacy.

Dealing with crime in anarchy: I haven’t done as much reading on this as I’d like (some of the book recommendations in the comment thread which sparked this are on my list to read, but you know how that goes:  so are a billion other books), but I am familiar with the insurance companies, independent arbiters, and similar market-based aspects of anarchist dispute resolution schemes.

Nonetheless, while certainly these market solutions would often work (and indeed, in a minarchist system, I’d expect to have some people — perhaps specifically in more exclusionary religious contexts — would elect to use these options of private arbitration), I don’t think it’s reacting from fear or a lack of logic to say that there are many situations in which voluntary participation from one or both parties could not be expected.  Let me give a few example scenarios off the top of my head:

1. Suppose there are two men, Smith and Jones, each wealthy enough to afford his own personal defense agency which he need not share with other clients.  The men are fierce business competitors as well, and each tends to suspect that the other is acting to remove the competition.  Smith claims Jones wronged him, which Jones denies, and neither will (nor needs to, since both are so well-armed) submit to the other’s suggestion of a third party judge.How will this dispute end?  Will their defense agencies have a battle?  Surely this would be disproportionate and extremely expensive.  Will Smith just let the supposed wrong go unpunished?  Also unlikely.  How will this impasse be resolved?
2. Suppose a black man is found murdered on the property of a virulent racist.  Then suppose the racist is poor and can’t afford a defense agency subscription, and that the black man’s defense agency happens to employ a black arbiter likely to be predisposed against the racist.  Also suppose that community opinion is heavily against the racist, who maintains his innocence regardless.  What possible motivation would the racist have for agreeing to submit to the ruling of the murdered man’s judge?  He doesn’t have a defense agency subscription to lose over lack of cooperation, community opinion is already against him, and he’ll probably be convicted.
3. Suppose an old man who hates and is hated by everyone in his town has a car which a businessman wants.  He refuses to sell, and so the businessman simply takes it.  The old man has no other property to sell to pay for a defense agency and no friends to help him hire one.  He could take out a loan to try to get his car, but what bank would lend to a mean old man with nothing but the clothes on his back?  So how will he retrieve his car?  More significantly — as I discuss later — can we really say it was ever his car if he has no means of keeping it from being stolen?
4. Suppose a man witnesses a boy brutally killing a stray cat.  He calls on his defense agency to prosecute the boy.  The boy’s defense agency does not recognize animal rights, as the man’s does, and since the man did not own the cat, it refuses to surrender the boy for punishment.  In absence of other recourse, the man’s defense agency kills the boy’s dog in retaliation.  Now both sides consider themselves wronged, but each repudiates personal guilt.  How will this situation be resolved?  If each agency has a different definition of rights, how will they agree on whose rights have been violated?

These are just a few examples, but I think the point is made:

Anarchists say this scenario [of instances in which private redressing of criminal activity without a final government arbiter fails] is unrealistically pessimistic: it assumes people are going to want to do the wrong thing. In fact, people “naturally” seek their rational self-interest, they declare, once government is out of the way. They would try to cooperate, work things out.

In many cases, yes, absolutely.  I’m on board so far.  But if that were always the case:

…why would they need any agency — governmental or private? Why wouldn’t [everyone] naturally cooperate on this planet without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes?

The problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is. Ask the Palestinians and the Israelis to define “rights,” “force,” “property,” “justice,” “self-defense,” and “protection.” Or ask the IRA and the British. Or George III and George Washington.

Contra this point it has been argued that, if we consider what would actually happen under an anarchist system, we recall that “most of the time most legal disputes eventually end. Someone finds it too costly to continue fighting.”  Granted.  (And it’s always important to consider what’s likely in addition to what’s possible.)  But that doesn’t mean that any actual justice was achieved.  It simply means that someone discovered that their rights were dependent on the contents of their bank account.

There will unquestionably be some cases in which private, voluntary dispute resolution will be found wanting.

Taxes are theft: Again, can I go with yes and no?  Taxes are theft now (because they’re involuntary, and violence is done to you for not paying though you’ve committed no real crime), but they don’t have to be.  The nightwatchman state could easily exist without forceful taxation.

There are, for instance, many very wealthy people with very charitable impulses.  There also seems to be a large class of people which practically enjoys paying taxes.  There are voluntary ways in which foolish people give money to the government, like lotteries.   There’s also the possibility of fining guilty parties in nonviolent criminal proceedings, which would pay for much of the legal system (to some extent this is done already).  And finally, I suspect many people would voluntarily pay some taxes on an ad hoc basis.  For instance, if I took advantage of police services in a minarchist system, I’m fairly sure I would contribute some taxes to pay for it — and I think most people would as well.

Government “justice”: This is an important point, and kind of ties in with all the other sections here.  For that reason, my answer will be brief.

If the government has come into being in a just manner, is keeping to its purpose of defense of property and person and nothing else, and is funded in a just manner, then I see no reason why it can’t be just.  As I said above, I think that government has a legitimate jurisdiction. — i.e. one in which it can act justly.

Property on loan: Last but not least, property rights — so near and dear to libertarians and anarcho-capitalists alike.  I’ve argued both in this and previous posts that in an anarchist system the property of the poor would in essence be on loan:  If they lacked the resources to defend their possession, it would only be theirs until a wealthy and immoral someone came along and decided to take it.  Though a charitable defense agency might step in, there would be no guarantee to the security of the person or property of such impoverished people.  (Let’s not build a straw man here, by the way, by imagining that I think minarchy would provide absolute protection at all times because I use the word “guarantee” — I simply mean that a default system would be in place with that aim, regardless of the victims’ ability to pay to keep his own stuff.)

This does indeed sound a lot like problems of excess government power, such as eminent domain or property taxes, which make possession of property dependent on the government’s good will.  In fact, the only difference is that anarchy creates a de facto system of illusory property rights rather than a de jure one. Minarchy, by contrast to both anarchy and our present system, actually guarantees those rights from both the government and private aggressors.

To conclude…well, this post is currently coming in at about 3,000 words, so I’ll try to be brief (for once).  My final argument for minarchy over anarchy is less specific than what I’ve addressed up til now:  The anarchist argues that minarchy, like all other government, will eventually dissolve to some degree of coercion and tyranny.  I counter that this need not necessarily be the case.

Governing must, like any other profession, be defined by a specific set of activities.  For instance, if you hired a plumber who told you he had to breed your purebred Siamese cat with his in order to fix the sink, you’d throw him out.  You might eventually make a deal with him to do this later, but it would be in his non-plumber capacity, for that simply isn’t what plumbers do.

Likewise, if you hired a lawyer who wanted to redirect the money you were spending on new flooring to an insurance plan while preparing your entirely unrelated case, you’d get a new lawyer.  In the same way, a government which attempted to do anything but defend the persons and properties of its people ought to be thrown out and replaced as well.  Because that just isn’t what governments do.

A. Libertarianism is a system of political thought which covers a lot of subjects — economics, social policy, the nature of human rights, foreign policy and war, and the correct nature of government, to name a few.  There is, as well, a reasonable amount of diversity within libertarian thought — though all concerned with limited government and individual rights, libertarians may have different ideas on exactly how limited the government should be or what sort of policies and practices will best protect freedom.

Austrian economics, on the other hand, is a specific school of economic thought well-known for its theory of the business cycle and associated with economists like Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard.  So many — if not most or all — adherents to Austrian economics might fall into the broad tent of libertarianism, but not all libertarians would consider themselves Austrians.

Q. I haven’t been following you long enough to be able to ask you a question through Tumblr.  However, I thought you’d really enjoy this one.  Actually, “enjoy” is probably the wrong word. — Tonya, from tumblr.

A. Ugh, I read about this.  The list of abuses seems to keep growing daily, and it is maddening, to say the least, that more people don’t object.  As I wrote for Young Americans for Liberty’s anti-TSA activism guide, having the TSA virtual strip search you or perform an open-handed pat-down on the most private regions of your body is incredibly invasive.  It’s also unconstitutional.  The Fourth Amendment guarantees our right to security in our “persons” – and it doesn’t have an “unless you want to travel by air” clause:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The most ridiculous part is that it’s not even remotely worth it — the TSA has never stopped a single terrorist attack.  Its methods are grossly ineffective.  In fact, security experts say we would be equally safe if we returned to pre-9/11 security levels.

Q. I don’t understand how you can support secession but not anarchy. Doesn’t secession logically lead to the possibility of statelessness? If a state can secede from a nation, why not a county from a state, a city from a county, a neighborhood from a city, or an individual from a neighborhood? At what point are you comfortable with using coercion to force people to stay in a political union against their will? — Dan, from the internet.

A. The short answer is social contract theory.  As a minarchist, I think that government should be minimal and limited to defending persons and property though a legal system and an (actually defensive) national defense.  If the government has superseded these boundaries and thus breaks the social contract, the people are no longer restrained by the contract and can secede to form a new contract and a new government.

As for the chain of secession you described, I think it may be a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I don’t really have any problem with it.  Other than practicality in terms of defense against larger aggressors (one of the reasons our States decided unite in the first place), I don’t see any reason why a single city, for instance, shouldn’t have an autonomous government if that’s what the people there prefer.  No one could argue, for instance, that New York City is less fit for independence than say, Wyoming, because of its geographical size.  Indeed, it might be better fit because of its population — I don’t know.

At the bottom of the slope, however, you get to individuals seceding and ask whether I would want to use coercion to keep this from happening.  Like Locke, I primarily think this would be a non-issue.  I have a couple other (very) belated questions which I’m hoping to answer on this blog this weekend that will probably address this at greater length, but in 99.99% of the time, I highly doubt individuals — or even any group much smaller than a decent sized city — would wish to secede on their own.

I mean, look at the current — absolutely awful — state of our government.  Look how many people hate it.  Even look at the growing number of people who accept secession as legitimate.  Aaaand then look at how many people are seceding on their own.  Even Key West, which had a pretty legitimate reason to secede (invasive government roadblocks to check for drugs and illegal immigrants on the only road in and out of town) and an ideal location for doing so only pretended to as a tourism stunt.  My point is that the vast majority of people have neither the personal resources nor the inclination to decide that personally being free of any and all government (being an outlaw, if you will) is a very attractive prospect.

So no, I don’t think secession would lead to statelessness — far from it.  If it did lead to a large portion of the population wishing to live outside of the state, I tend to think that Nozick is right, and it would fairly quickly evolve into minarchism.  As I mentioned before, I’m with Locke in that I believe people would voluntarily want to form a government of their choosing, even if they’d just seceded from one they didn’t like — and that, like Nozick says, even if they initially thought they didn’t want government, it would grow into existence anyway.  Finally, if for some reason that didn’t happen…I don’t know.  Obviously, as a libertarian, I’m not fond of coercion, and this is still something I’m deciding in my own mind.  At this point, as I’ve explained, I think it would likely be a moot point, but beyond that I haven’t yet determined.

Even if you came up with a method of funding a state without taxation, you’re still oppressing individuals who would like to enter the defence market by insisting on a violent monopoly on defence services, correct? I mean that’s the definition of the state, a monopoly on violence within a given area. What about the right of people to buy and sell services in that particular market? Why force consumers to settle for the socialised service when we know the free market always provides superior results?

Obviously you have a right to non-violation… you also have a right to purchase health services, or feed yourself. Why is it that only the defence service should be socialised, when all are equally necessary to human survival? You say you have “no right to health care”, meaning you have no right to violently steal that service from others: why is this different in the case of defence services? It seems like an arbitrary distinction.

Loved the post, looking forward to your response. Cheers! — underattack, from tumblr

A. I must say, when I started this blog I never thought I’d get so many questions from an anarchist perspective!  But anyway, here we go…

Taxation is theft when used to fund aggressive war, corporate welfare, and similar practices outside the role of government.  Basically, I ascribe to the idea of the social contract for the creation of a minimal night watchman state.  If you recall the nature of the social contract, it is a voluntary coming together of a group of people who wish have protection for their persons and properties.  In a truly libertarian system, the contract would likely be renewed by each generation to ensure that it remained voluntary.  I don’t see inherent violence in a system such as I’ve described.  On the contrary, I’d argue that it provides the best possible protection of property rights and freedom for two primary reasons.

The first is concerned with domestic protection against crime (as opposed to invasion).  Suppose we live in an anarchist system, policed by private security firms; and suppose you burgle my house.  I find out and want to take you to court.

How will we decide on a judge to settle our dispute?  If we’re both in the same religious or ethnic community, for instance, and there is someone we both respect, that’s great.  But suppose we aren’t and there isn’t.  What if there is no judge upon whom we can agree?  Should I force you to take the ruling of my judge or should you force me to take the ruling of yours?  Wouldn’t either result be a violation of someone’s rights?  You might say it would be ok if I, the wronged party, force you to take my judge’s ruling.  But what if you’re not actually guilty?  What then?

If we can’t settle things in court, what next?  Should I sic my security firm on you?  What if my idea of what you stole is inaccurate and they punish you too severely?  Will you send your security firm back to punish me in turn?  Or suppose you can’t afford a security firm.  Who will stop my firm from getting my property back…and more?  Or, on the other hand, suppose I can’t afford a security firm.  How will I retrieve my property?  And — this is the central point — how real is my property right if thieves go unpunished?

It seems to me a property right which allows anyone to take my property without consequence if I can’t afford a security firm or find a judge amenable to criminals is not a property right at all.

The second reason is concerned with defense against invasion, rather than crime.  In a minarchist society, there would no doubt be many non-geographically organized systems of governance — and keep in mind I’m distinguishing between governance and the state.  These would be voluntary associations which would hold members to a higher standard than the night watchman state would be permitted to do.  For instance, Christian groups might determine amongst themselves to punish use of drugs and pornography by their (voluntary) members; vegan groups might punish consumption of meat; Muslims might choose to live under Sharia law.

But though I by no means rule out the possibility of non-geographic defense, I have real difficulty imagining exactly how this will work.  Imagine, again, that we are living in this anarchist society.  Everything’s great until Canada (not anarchist) decides that those losers to the south are ruining their half of Niagara Falls.  It’s time to invade!  So the great Canadian army floods Western New York, sinking the Maid of the Mist and bashing in the windows of the few shops actually still open (it’s an economically depressed area, if you weren’t aware).

Some of the people in the area can afford a security firm to defend them.  Some cannot.  How is this defense to be managed, precisely?  Will the security firms bravely hold the lines while the Smith’s house is attacked, fighting back those vicious Canucks, only to step politely aside when they go for the Jones place, because the Jones family didn’t pay up last month?  That doesn’t really seem to work strategically.  After all, the firms won’t voluntarily defend the Jones property, for why would they risk their lives without even a guarantee of payment?  Also, the Smiths are unlikely to want to live in their neighborhood again since the Jones family, only able to defend themselves so well, just became casualties of war (criminals they could manage, but an army?).

As for the distinction between my right to nonviolation of my person and property and my right to purchase goods…well, I can hardly believe I’d have to explain that.  I mean the difference is obvious in the words themselves, right?

The right to nonviolation is concerned with not having something done to me without my consent; it’s a negative right (thus the “non”).  The right to purchase health care, for instance, is a positive right — if indeed it can be considered a right at all.  I’ve only a right to purchase health care if someone is interested in selling it to me.  That’s a conditional claim based on other people’s consent.  My right to the preservation of my life, liberty, and property, however, has nothing to do with whether or not other people are ok with that.  As I said above, how real is my right to my property if you may take it from me without consequence simply because I am poor or you don’t like my judge?  It seems to me that this would be no right at all; stuff would just kind of be on loan to me until someone bigger or richer decided he liked it.

The short version: If a minimal state is created with the consent of the governed only to protect person and property and conducts its taxation solely for those purposes in the least invasive manner possible, I don’t see where the violence comes in.  In fact, I’d contend it’s the most effective way to guarantee those rights, which are hardly real rights if the consequences for violating them are dependent on wealth and connections.

Contrary to what you said, that’s a very libertarian point of view; to disapprove of such a system would better be described anarchism…and though I agree with my anarchist friends on many things, I am not an anarchist.

A. Well, I’m not fond of taxation.  The income tax is certainly abusive and unnecessary.  Indeed, I’d prefer to have the government funded in as noncoercive a manner as possible.  I kind of like Ron Paul’s idea of a low, uniform import tariff — or, even better, lottery (with private lotteries legalized, of course).  That’s basically voluntary taxation, which I find completely acceptable.