Monday, November 4, 2013

The Libertarian Spectrum and Government

By The Bionic Mosquito

At LRC, Walter Block recently posted an interview he did with the NBC affiliate in Baton Rouge.  Subsequently he posted the background story – a video of apparently the entire, unedited interview.  As with anything Dr. Block writes or says, this longer video is well worth the time.

I will focus on one segment of the interview, where Dr. Block discusses the libertarian spectrum.  It is an interesting topic, especially to those of us who find our way into this political theory and struggle with where exactly in this scale we might find comfort.

I do not have a transcript of the interview, so what I attribute to Dr. Block is paraphrased.

He begins at the top, with what he describes as the most consistent libertarian position, being an anarcho-capitalist position.  As one of the pillars if not the pillar of libertarian theory is the non-aggression principle, Dr. Block points out that there cannot be government.  He places himself within this camp.

Next on the spectrum is the minarchist, one who believes that government exists solely for the purpose of protection of people and property.  Toward this end, appropriate government functions are limited to a defensive military, the police (but only for crimes of aggression), and courts.  He places Ayn Rand in this camp.

Third is described as a Constitutionalist – one who accepts government within a strict reading and understanding of the Constitution – which Dr. Block describes as not authorizing much more than a military, police, and court; but also including a post office and a few other offices.  He suggests that Ron Paul is an example of a libertarian with this position.

Finally he includes classical liberals – those with relatively good free market inclinations and favoring relatively smaller government.  In this context, he mentions Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Rand Paul.

As one of the best thinkers in libertarian theory, it seems to me that if Walter Block can be open to such a broad spectrum under the umbrella of “libertarian,” perhaps the myriad internecine struggles within our community on the litmus tests might be seen as petty. Although Rothbard makes clear that we should regularly remain open to debating such issues amongst us, as it helps both to clear up faulty thinking and to further develop the theory.

So right off the bat, I will take a whack at one of the four categories that Dr. Block includes as “libertarian” – I personally cannot include the fourth category within a spectrum of what I would describe as libertarian – especially given the names he associates within this view. 

However, this is tangential to my main purpose in this post.  Dr. Block’s comments offer an opportunity to explore this idea of “government.”  It is a term that has come to mean one thing today – a monopoly institution of legalized coercion; an institution charged with legislating, executing, and adjudicating the law.  In times of old, such an institution would have been labeled a tyranny.

“Are you an anarchist?” “Do you believe in government?” For many who find comfort within the libertarian spectrum, if the answer to one of these questions is yes, the answer to the other must be no.

It seems to me that the answer to both depends on definitions.  I won’t spend significant time on my definition of anarchism – suffice it to say it is consistent with that which is understood within much of the libertarian community.  Call it Rothbardian.

However, I will explore the concept of government.  Over the years, I have decided it would be virtually impossible to live in a world without government.  Shocked?  Please, bear with me.

There are many types of government.  First might be considered self-government. Reasonably healthy adults typically are able to restrain themselves from becoming rabid animals in social settings.  They attempt to be productive members in society; they meet their financial and personal obligations.

There is the government of the family structure. Raising reasonably healthy children, providing guidelines and sanctions, and setting expectations for behavior all are aspects of or otherwise require government. 

There is the church, providing moral and ethical counsel. The church provides guidelines for behavior, and sanctions relative to the guidelines.  There is an expectation of performance if one wants to remain within the church family.

There is the community – be a good neighbor.  If one wants to live in relative peace with his neighbors, it is important to understand community expectations and figure out ways to satisfactorily live within these expectations.

There is the market – find ways to profitably serve your fellow man.  Do a good job and you are rewarded with resources to continue and grow; do a poor job and see resources drained and eventually you are forced to stop.

All of these are forms of government that seem to me to be quite acceptable.  For this reason, I can answer yes to both questions.

What, then, is unacceptable about the term “government”?  In what criteria would I answer “no” to the question above?

It is the issue of monopoly and the initiation of force.  It is the violation of the non-aggression principle.

I am all for government that doesn’t violate these.  I don’t know how society could exist without such “government.”  Perhaps a better term that fits within my cube would be “governance.”

I am against government that exists via such means and in order to perpetuate these. Perhaps the term to apply to such a government is the “state,” or “tyrant.”

This is the struggle I have when I am asked one of these two – or both – questions.  I consider myself to be an anarchist is the best Rothbardian sense.  I also believe in government (governance) in the sense I describe here.

I am all for government; just don’t violate the non-aggression principle when delivering it!

The above originally appeared at Bionic Mosquito.

11 comments:

  1. Can't fault the logic! Especially since I share the exact same opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anybody that sees a role for the government in the economy, education, morality or a host of other spheres outside of the defense and protection of individuals, their negative rights, liberties and property, is not a libertarian in my book. This for the simple reason that (among others) the moment positive rights or liberties enter into the equation, any justification for either government or no government leaves the sphere of the objective and rational and becomes purely emotional, subjective, arbitrary and ideological.
    When interference with things like healthcare, education, the economy etc by the government becomes acceptable, there is simply NO rational argument left as to why everything should not fall under the control of government.

    Classical liberals as defined above i would not consider libertarians either.
    Block defines them as "...those with relatively good free market inclinations and favoring relatively smaller government."
    But relative to WHAT? A communist state? A socialist state? Social democratic? Mercantilist?
    Relative to Obama? Bush? Clinton? Reagan? FDR?
    In the 'progressive era' there was much more economic freedom, but nevertheless big business colluded with government to foist regulations on the market for its own interests. Are proponents of this classical liberals too, since the market was still much more free than it is today?
    The definition is way too vague and therefor meaningless. Especially because of my objections above that classical liberals may see justification for government interference in some spheres, to where they no longer have a rational argument to be against government interference where they would NOT like to see it. It becomes merely a case of subjective preferences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've done a good job explaining why Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

      Delete
  3. If you thumb through Dr. block's YouTube videos, specifically that one when he was in Canada debating about Milton Friedman, he explicitly strikes out classical liberalism from the spectrum of libertarianism, jokingly saying that we cannot let political riff-raffs hijack the word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. But...but......who wants to live in Somalia?
    I read somewhere that Somaliacs actually...drive.....cars.....without...buckling their seatbelts AND....(gasp) ..smoke cigarettes in restaurants.
    Shudder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where do we stop fighting and accept a certain level of NAP-violation? Would we be protesting as libertarians if the federal government were following the letter and intent of the constitution? I know I, personally, wouldn't even care if DC were so limited. Would it still be wrong of them to initiate force within the confines of the constitution? Sure. But would it be an acceptable level of infringement?

    We need to be sure we're not eating our own. Look at a self-styled libertarian's position, look at the level of NAP violation that person would tolerate, and if it would be a free-ish society, should we support that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We never stop fighting and never accept a certain level of NAP-violation.
      This does not mean that we would not welcome an improvement that is not perfect. Of course we would and should. But to stop fighting there, and to "accept" the remaining violations of the NAP, is to sit on your laurels. Disinfecting a festering wound is great, but is that all you would expect from a doctor?
      Murray Rothbard made a great case for this. You can support legitimate improvements that may not be perfect, but only under certain conditions. There must be no increase of statism to go along with it. There must be no acceptance or toleration of excuses for aggression that still exist.

      But this is regardless of the obvious question of whether someone that "tolerates" a level of NAP violation really means it, or whether he is just blowing smoke in return for votes. If a con man is promising you a chance at winning, is the 'potential' of winning more important than the fact that he is in an occupation centered around deceit? That's the problem. Still too much trust in politicians with slick rhetoric, as if that has never been the grease for the political system.

      Delete
    2. How can you fight if you believe in NAP? Suppose you can rationalize that you are acting in self-defense but that's what the govt does when engaging in aggression.

      Delete
    3. If you can't differentiate between the different natures of one action versus another, that is YOUR problem, Wolfgang.
      If you expect anyone to take you seriously, which i doubt, you should learn some basic logic.

      Delete
  6. I enthusiastically agree with every substantive word that Bionic Mosquito says. I have only a verbal dispute with him. Why confuse matters by saying that "government" is compatible with libertarianism? Why not just say that we Rothbardian libertarians favor "governance," but not "government?"

    Now let me reply to these two comments.

    1. "If you thumb through Dr. block's YouTube videos, specifically that one when he was in Canada debating about Milton Friedman, he explicitly strikes out classical liberalism from the spectrum of libertarianism, jokingly saying that we cannot let political riff-raffs hijack the word."

    Yes, I've changed my mind on this. I've become "wet" in my old age. Alzheimers must be setting in. I now think of Milton as a libertarian, although in the fourth and lowest category. I was young and foolish and too rabid in my Canadian days. Hey, I now live in New Orleans, which is closer to Washington D.C. than Vancouver, Canada. See? I've "grown" in office, so to speak.

    2. "Classical liberals as defined above i would not consider libertarians either. Block defines them as "...those with relatively good free market inclinations and favoring relatively smaller government." But relative to WHAT? A communist state? A socialist state? Social democratic? Mercantilist? Relative to Obama? Bush? Clinton? Reagan? FDR? "

    C'mon, be fair. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Rand Paul are quite a bit better than anyone on that list. You don't get to be widely considered "Mr. Libertarian" like Milton if you aren't good on SOME things. Milton was magnificent on minimum wage, rent control, free trade, occupational licensure for doctors, and much much more. (Of course, he doesn't deserve the appellation "Mr. Libertarian." That's Murray Rothbard). Friedrich Hayek was very very very good on central planning, and the Austrian business cycle. And what about Rand Paul? Bob Wenzel has accurately and courageously mentioned Rand's numerous deviations from the libertarian philosophy. But, surely, Bob would agree with me that Rand is the most libertarian person in the Senate at present? If so, I claim, he deserves to be considered a libertarian. Although, I supposed, I'm open to considering Milton, Friedrich and Rand not as libertarians, but as classical liberals, provided that we regard classical liberals as our closet cousins.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "But, surely, Bob would agree with me that Rand is the most libertarian person in the Senate at present? If so, I claim, he deserves to be considered a libertarian. Although, I supposed, I'm open to considering Milton, Friedrich and Rand not as libertarians, but as classical liberals, provided that we regard classical liberals as our closet cousins."

    I can live with that! Cousins from the city?

    ReplyDelete