Get Real

Why today's libertarians get no respect -- and how to help them get some
Marty Beckerman

Like many others who abhor the politics of Jesus Freaks and Stupid Hippies with equal vigor, I was drawn to libertarianism because it pissed off everyone:

- Are you a religious fundamentalist? Under libertarianism you can’t impose your theology on anyone other than your poor, not-yet-suicidal children.
- Are you an ethnic, religious or sexual minority? Under libertarianism you can’t silence other people’s senses of humor simply because you don’t have one of your own.
- Are you overweight or addicted to nicotine? Under libertarianism you have no one to blame—and no one to sue—but yourself, you slovenly reckless bastard.

Yes, under libertarianism the world is free of authoritarian imposition. However, there’s no such thing as “under libertarianism,” and there never will be, for one simple reason: pure libertarian economics are galaxies away from the American mainstream. Although many Americans—especially the young folks—are receptive to the live-and-let-live philosophy (“do whatever you want as long as you don’t harm anyone else”), the vast majority find hardcore social Darwinism ludicrous. If libertarians want to extend their reach beyond the stoner ghetto, they must accept the fact that civil rights are far more vital than sparing billionaires from inheritance taxes.

“Anarcho-capitalists,” “minarchists” and other dogmatists overwhelmingly dominate the libertarian discourse. Moderate libertarians have no chance of influencing public policy until they completely disassociate from these economic extremists. (I originally used the word “purge” instead of “disassociate from,” but then I decided that it was too Stalinist, but then I thought, “Is there really such a thing as too Stalinist? Isn’t that like saying ‘too Pocky’ when discussing the wonderful Japanese treat, or ‘too Masi Oka’ when discussing the wonderful Japanese treat?)

Anarcho-capitalism is a bizarre, radical vision in which corporations would replace the world’s governments and serve all legislative functions. If you want to leave your residence, you pay a fee; if you want to walk in the park, you pay a fee; if you want to borrow a book from the library, you pay a fee; if you want to do anything, you pay a fee because there is no such concept as “public.” Of course, we already pay taxes for roads, forest management and sultry 23-year-old librarians who keep their glasses on during sex in the microfiche room, so does it matter if they’re called “taxes” or “fees”?

Under anarcho-capitalism landlords would become dictators; movement would require money: there would be no public roads, no public forests, no public oceans. No police, no firefighters and no courts—at least, no public security, no public services and no public justice. (No public toilets either; how much will our corporate overlords charge us to relieve ourselves, or—if you’re a Republican congressman—relieve yourself inside your fellow men?)

It sounds like a joke, or an excruciating novella for “Contemporary Issues in Futurist Fiction 101,” but thousands of serious people in the libertarian camp share this ridiculous daydream. Whether you like it or not, if you describe yourself as a libertarian without a litany of qualifiers, you’re endorsing these delusions.

Anarcho-capitalist pioneer Murray Rothbard made many good points about the evils of authoritarianism (“[i]t is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society”), but he loathed the concept of authority—even justified authority—with such passion that he envisioned “a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely un­hampered by violence or threats of violence.” Instead of laws, a “legal code which would be generally accepted…” Seriously, Murray, millions of people don’t accept the laws that actually exist; why would they accept the ones that don’t?

Prominent anarcho-capitalist David Friedman elucidates: “[T]he systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars.” He concedes that the effectiveness of such a system “remains to be proven.” There is a reason for its unproven status: it’s asinine.

Members of the “Old Right,” who condemn FDR and Lincoln as tyrants instead of liberators, slap the label “statist” on their opponents—even moderate libertarians—but a third grader could better explain how the law works:

Sometimes other kids try to steal your lunch money, but if they get caught they go to the vice principal and get punished. The threat of “violence” (read: detention), which the indisputable authority imposes, keeps bullies in line. (There is no “mutually agreed upon legal code based purely on voluntary action.”) Should the bullies attack when the vice principal isn’t around to save your butt, that’s why God invented firearms.

Part of growing up is shedding your impracticable youthful idealism. Life isn’t fair; people get screwed. Heartless jerks are most likely to succeed in business, not Ayn Rand’s principled superheroes. Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but the government does. You have to pay taxes, often for very good reasons. Privatization would make certain goods and services—roads, courts, etc.—absurdly complicated. Public schools are necessary for civilization. Industries need regulations to thrive and benefit society. A public toilet is not an outpost of communism, although it’s quite possibly an outhouse of communicability.

If the current administration has taught us anything, it’s that policy realism is paramount for our age. We cannot remake the world in the image of our utopian fantasies; humans are limited and imperfect, which is something that conservatives are supposed to acknowledge. Anarcho-capitalists despise the government but romanticize, idealize and idolize the corporation, forgetting that many businesses also suffer from gross ineptitude, corruption, cronyism and thuggish intimidation.

Not only do anarcho-capitalists forget these facts, they would paralyze the one thing—the law—that keeps predatory conglomerates in check, and they would even give CEOs the powers of judges. Anarcho-capitalists aren’t anarchists whatsoever; they’re simply people who would prefer their dictators to hold MBAs instead of political science degrees. Gordon Gekko for Der Fuhrer.

The ‘00s should have also taught us that libertarianism has nothing to do with modern conservatism’s bloodthirsty, religio-pathic totalitarianism. If libertarians actually want to lobby for greater personal freedom, instead of wasting time over bong hits and Wikipedia entries, they need to get over their childish fears of non-dictatorial government institutions (libraries, swimming pools, the DMV, etc.), cease their bootlicking toward the ultra-wealthy, and create a new coalition with centrists and moderate liberals who care about civil liberties, free speech, the separation of church and state and the dangers of unhinged militarism. They need to make nice with the Stupid Hippies, which shouldn’t be difficult with all the bong hits.

Yes, the extreme P.C. left is just as draconian as the extreme religious right—and the ‘90s scared many libertarians away from the Democratic Party forever—but the U.S. is moderating after years of right-wing lunacy. The pendulum is finally returning to the center, and if there is no effort to pioneer a new fusionism with a generation of liberaltarians, then libertarianism will remain a useless, sidelined joke forever.

So there it is; I’m a “statist.” Oooooooooh. You got me. At least when I spend countless hours fantasizing about something that will never happen, it involves that sultry brunette librarian… and her sister…

The above work is the opinion of the author, and not necessarily that of the Prometheus Institute.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Kristina Love, March 13, 2008

Ummm.......why is this article featured on the Prometheus Institute website? Did the editors just glance at the subtitle without reading the article?

This article is replete with straw man arguments. The author makes a compelling, almost iron-clad case against a ridiculous, asinine figment of his own imagination. This figment may partially resemble the select views of individuals within the libertarian movement, but I'm pretty sure that even those who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists," if they wanted to respond to his indictment, would first have to spend several pages of rhetoric in simply correcting his outright false preconceptions.

As to this article's application to me personally, I find that it paints a warped caricature of my ideals that is laughably, in some places, almost the complete opposite of where I stand. And I don't think I can be considered a "moderate" or a "centrist."

Despite the author's knack for making a case that would sound incisive and witty if taken alone, i.e. without the benefit of an iota of independent research or previous knowledge, I find him to be so grossly mal-informed that it would seem to defy any explanation as to why a reasoning adult would take such a hard line on a topic about which he knows so little. However, the emotionality and spite with which this article is laced provides a clue.

When someone has an emotional stake in reinforcing their own preconceived notions, so much so that they are incapable of engaging in an honest debate ("honest" in the sense that one argues against the true positions of his opponents, instead of falsifying the opponent's positions in order to make it easier to undermine), reason takes a back seat.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Robbie, March 15, 2008

Well said Kristina. I have studied anarcho-capitalism, and while I am unconvinced by it's feasibility, the arguments against it presented in this article are silly.
"If you want to leave your residence, you pay a fee". If privatisation was done correctly, the residents would each initially a share of the local roads and would dictate the terms under which a company maintained the road. Given this, I highly doubt that they would consent to a contract that involved a price be paid for walking on the sidewalk. Under public ownership of roads people are already denied mobility by the government monopolising car licenses and causing traffic jams by below market pricing of road use.

"if you want to walk in the park, you pay a fee" - I'm not sure how a private association that owns a park would acquire funds for it's maintenance but it seems charging the people that use it would be the most just system. Especially considering the alternative is having the park subsidised by people that don't even use it.

"if you want to borrow a book from the library, you pay a fee" - Would this really be a drama? I have no qualms about paying to hire a DVD. Plus in a free market copyright would probably not exist so you would have bookshops selling books at cost of production (essentially $0) rather than a monopoly price granted to the publisher. This means that everyone would have far greater access to free information.

"if you want to do anything, you pay a fee because there is no such concept as “public.” Of course, we already pay taxes for roads, forest management and sultry 23-year-old librarians who keep their glasses on during sex in the microfiche room, so does it matter if they’re called “taxes” or “fees”?" - Yes it most certainly does! Taxes are compulsory whether you use the service or not. In a free market you wouldn't be forced to use roads, forests, swimming pools and libraries so the fee would be voluntary. This is an essential aspect of libertarianism - non-aggression means not confiscating peoples wealth unless they consent to it.

"Anarcho-capitalists despise the government but romanticize, idealize and idolize the corporation, forgetting that many businesses also suffer from gross ineptitude, corruption, cronyism and thuggish intimidation." - I don't think anarcho-capitalists idolise any organisation but they acknowledge that the state is the only institution that acquires its wealth through coercion. When corporations engage in theft or fraud they should be prosecuted.

I get the feeling this article stems from the authors dislike for corporations and hence the free market aspect of libertarianism. But there is no liberty without freedom to engage in consensual trade. To the extent that we are forced to pay for goods and services we do not want, we are not free. Forgetting this is a betrayal of libertarianism whether you are an anarchist, minarchist or moderate.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2