Topic: Political Theory
"Government or Anarchy?" revisited I reply to criticisms of my 2008 article.by George Dance
(libertarian)
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A year ago -- on June 29, 2008 -- I revised and posted onto Nolan Chart a short column, "Government or Anarchy?" (GA), which I had written for the Ontario Libertarian Party newsletter back in 2002 when I was party chairman. (1) By my own standards, the new article was not a hit: I consider a "hit" to be an article that garners more than 100 reads (unique visits) in a month, and GA received less than 60 that June.
However, GA has been a sleeper, continuing to attract more reads every month. In May it reached a couple of milestones. First, it passed 100 reads for the month; fantastic for such an old article. Second, it became the latest article of mine to pass 1,000 reads in total.
I cannot take all the credit for that. Several people commented: their comments are almost as interesting as GA itself, so they may be the reason for the continuing popularity. Notable was Brad Spangler, proprietor of the anarcho-libertarian blog Bradspangler.com (2), who sent me four separate letters of criticism. (3)
At the time -- this was during the U.S. federal election -- I was unable to give Mr. Spangler's comments the attention they deserved. However, I felt uncomfortable leaving his comments unanswered. So, given GA's continuing popularity, I thought it would not be remiss to revisit them on the article's anniversary.
The "Main Line"
Mr. Spangler's first objection is to my calling minarchist, or 'proper government' (as I called it in GA) theory the "main line" of libertarian thought, and my citing Nozick and Rand as exemplars.
Not only do other libertarians "reject this conclusion" -- we ALSO reject mis-statements along the lines of that conclusion being "the main line of libertarianism".
The most notable thing about Nozick's work is that anecdotal evidence indicates that it's the academic work on libertarianism most frequently cited by those opposed to libertarianism -- and well they should, since obfuscation serves their ends better than blatant hit pieces do.
As for Rand -- at the birth of the modern libertarian movement proper in the 1960's (well before the party), Randian students followed Rands principles to anarchist conclusions in defiance of Rand's intellectual dishonesty on this matter. It was PRECISELY their refusal to abide by Rands own refusal to consider the line of thinking her work pointed toward (anarchism) that marked them as outside of her cult of Objectivism in a different movement altogether -- the libertarian movement. Rand herself recognized this distinctive quality of the seperate libertarian movement and disavowed all connections to libertarianism.
Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia most likely is the most cited work by opponents of libertarianism -- but I'd venture that is only because (based on my own anecdotal evidence) it is the most cited work on libertarianism, period.
As for Rand, what Mr. Spangler says illustrates my point: that anarcho-libertarianism was a divergence, or branching off, from a minarchist trunk. Roy Childs's development of Randian ideas is one famous example. Murray Rothbard's development of Misesian ideas is another. Who knows: there may even be anarcho-Nozickians nowadays.
I am not as impressed with Childs's arguments as Spangler seems to be; in fact I have offered my own criticisms of them lately. (4) I do agree with his point that Rand herself always spoke of libertarians as anarchists, though not that she was correct to do so. That could indeed have been "intellectual dishonesty" on her part; though I'm inclined to think it came from the fact that her first-hand information of libertarians was mainly of Rothbard, who said the same thing.
In any case, this is a side issue: Whether an idea is 'mainline' or a deviation means nothing as to whether it is correct or not. Far more serious to my article's thesis is Mr. Spangler's next criticism.
Assuming Conflict
Spangler's next objection is that I have built a couple of vicious assumptions into my argument:
The author here promulgates what amounts to a straw man version of the anarchist vision in that he assumes a one-to-one correspondence between Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) and law codes. This builds into the argument an assumption of the conflict he purports to demonstrate results from statelessness. In the real world, industries free to establish voluntary standards through open and multilateral processes tend to do exactly that.
Actually, I made no such assumption, and my argument stands whether there is conflict or not. In light of that misunderstanding, I think I need to expound on that argument a bit more.
All that I assumed of the 'anarchist vision' was its core idea: that every man is free to choose the law he lives under. Such could be the law of a DRO, but it could just as easily (and just as legitimately, to the anarcho-libertarian) be a law that he makes up himself.
So what is wrong with that vision? The fact, as Rand alluded to, that 'living under' a law means not just obeying that law oneself, but also enforcing that same law on other men.
If every man is free (as he is, under anarcho-libertarian theory) to enforce whatever laws he chooses on other men, then the result is that every man is, at any time, subject to laws he may not agree with, laws he may explicitly repudiate, laws he may not even know of, laws that may even be inconsistent with each other.
At the core of proper government theory is the principle of the Rule of Law: that everyone is subject to the same law, that everyone can know that law, and that therefore everyone can always act knowing whether his actions are legal or not. Without the Rule of Law, there is no possibility of a law that it would be rational to consent to: it is not rational to consent to anyone else's use of force against one, without knowing when or where that force will be used against one.
At first blush, the anarchist vision looks like an extension, or even a fulfillment, of the Rule of Law principle. However, some thought shows that it is not only no such thing, but that it in fact jettisons that principle completely. In the anarchist vision, a person is always possibly subject to having force used against him for laws he never knew of; and it is always conceivable that, in trying to obey one set of laws, he runs afoul of (and has force used on him for violating) another set of laws.
If such a person is able to resist what he sees as unjust force being used against him, then there will indeed be conflict. If he is unable to resist, there will be no conflict. But is the latter any more just, or fair, than if there were? Suppose Vito and Charlie of La Cosa Nostra DRO decide to beat up X for violating LCN's law about paying it a protection fee? To Vito and Charlie, that's an obviously just law -- they may gladly obey it themselves -- but X might not see it that way. Does it matter in the slightest, to the question of justice, whether X resists -- whether there is conflict -- or not?
Most likely, some X's (or their DRO's) will be able to resist, and there will be conflict. That conflict could be over anything; two DRO's could enforce two different legal systems, identical in ever respect but one, and the possibility of conflict is present.
Spangler, though. sees a hopeful analogy:
Furthermore, the unjustifiable assumption that enforcement agencies subscribing to different law codes could not peacefully and amicably coexist inexorably leads to a position I doubt the author endorses -- a single global super-government. After all, if DROs are doomed to not be able to get along with other DROs -- that is to say, if we humans are all robotically inclined to maximise conflict in defiance of self-interest in any situation where conflict is even theoretically possible -- the governments could not co-exist with each other either. There could be only one.
Indeed, nation-states have worked out many ingenious conflict-prevention mechanisms, from bilateral agreements between states, to supernational legal communities like the European Union, to attempts toward one world law or government like the World Court or the United Nations. However, that has clearly not prevented some states from violating the rights of citizens of other states. Nor has it prevented conflict between states. Nor has it eradicated the ultimate conflict of war. Spangler's analogy does not help his case as much as he might think it does: A world government has indeed not evolved -- but not because peaceful and amicable international coexistence has been achieved without one.
It is true that (as Rothbard, among other anarcho-libertarians, has been at pains to spell out) that, given time, it is possible for a Rule of Law to evolve in a stateless society. But that possibility is no reason for a libertarian to call for jettisoning the Rule of Law now: no reason to, as Rothbard puts it, "join anarchists in calling for the abolition of all existing states, and then to sit back and wait for [an] invisible hand to operate." (5)
Whose Law?
Finally, Spangler says that at least one of the examples I used in GA, of DRO's using force, is inconsistent with what anarcho-libertarians themselves have said on the subject:
And, as an addendum, I should note that most anarchist theorists point the way toward restitution rather than punishment. That puts capital punishment off the table.
Which is true, but irrelevant -- because there is no reason to think anarchist theory would play any role in what laws DRO's enforce, or what procedures of governance they would abide by.
All that anarchist theory dictates is that the state be abolished (or demonopolized), and that DRO's be allowed to emerge by market forces. Some anarchists theorists have added, to that theory, an account of what laws they would like to see those DRO's adopt, and what procedures they would like to see them obey. However, they have to admit that the actual laws and procedures will be determined, not by their own theory, but by the marketplace: and that they cannot second-guess the market, to predict what laws and procedures any DRO will adopt.
DRO's are envisioned as private, often (but not necessarily) profit-making, entities. Private, profit-making entities are not governed by questions of justice, but by questions of efficiency. A DRO will have contractual reasons to act justly with respect to its subscribers. However, it will be enforcing its laws on everyone, subscribers and non-subscribers alike; and nothing but the threat of "conflict" with another DRO gives it any incentive to act justly toward its non-subscribers.
The winner in the marketplace is not the most libertarian firm, but the most efficient firm. Similarly, dominant DRO's will not be the most libertarian, but the most efficient. It may well be that the most efficient DRO is one that simply shoots non-subscriber suspects rather than going to the expense of jailing and trying them -- or at least gives them a choice between subscribing, right then and there, or being shot -- and that will become the dominant DRO, the one with the most subscribers. (If so, the problem of "conflict" will have been solved, in a fashion.) There is no way to predict how the marketplace will function.
----------
Sources
(1) George Dance, "Government or Anarchy?", Nolan Chart, Jun. 29, 2008. http://www.nolanchart.com/article4140.html
(2) Brad Spangler, BradSpangler.com (accessed June 30, 2009). http://bradspangler.com/
(3) All comments in italics are from: Brad Spangler, "Comments" on Dance (1).
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I think an interesting analogy is religion. Take away religion, is there more war, murder, violence? or the same or less? The same question looms with government.
George, you state that all you “assumed of the 'anarchist vision' was its core idea: that every man is free to choose the law he lives under.”I think this is a bad definition of anarchism.He may be free to choose the law HE lives under, but not the law I live under.I don’t believe the concept that, “every man is free … to enforce whatever law he chooses on other men,” is anarchism; surely it is instead chaos!
I have just finished reading Jan Narveson’s book, You and the State.In it he makes a good argument for anarchy in the last chapter.However, his vision of anarchy is that you are left alone to pursue your own happiness, so long as you respect the same right for others. I believe few (no?) anarchists are interested in making any laws to be imposed on others.
I doubt that DROs would make 'laws' that would/could be enforced against individuals who are not their clients! Surely the reason I contract with a DRO is for them to provide protection for me, or from the DRO's perspective, the service they would be prepared to offer to their clients is protection of your right to be left alone (so long as you don't aggress against a claimant).
It is conceivable, but highly unlikely, that a DRO might offer to enforce something like "right to life" and other rules and be prepared to take action against non-clients who perform abortions or break said other rules. But why would they?Maybe they think they could get more clients by offering such a ‘service.’But such an ‘anti-abortion’ DRO (aaDRO) will then have to deal with the abortionist’s DRO who has agreed to protect its client’s rights.The most logical resolution would be for the two DROs to submit to arbitration by a mutually agreeable third party.What if the aaDRO refused to participate?Would it be prepared to commit trespass and kidnapping to enforce their ‘law?’The abortionist’s DRO is obligated to protect its client.Would the two DROs go to war?Not likely.Other DROs would likely assist the abortionist’s DRO to protect its client.They would also likely find some way to discipline the aaDRO.
By the time we get to a ‘proper’ (or limited) government, the vast majority of the population will understand and agree with the non-aggression concept.There will be little incentive for a DRO to agree to enforce rules on non-clients.The aaDRO may only require its own clients to not perform or obtain an abortion.Most DROs would include terms and conditions, as Eric commented on your original GA, against murder, assault, robbery, theft, fraud, and so forth, and would cooperate with other DROs if their client breaks, or is suspected of breaking, any of the conditions.(Mind you, I don’t see Eric’s vision of DROs where one would need some sort of tamperproof ID from one’s DRO to walk down the street or rent a hotel room.Shades of big brother.)
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
