A major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all.
The original version of this paper was delivered at the Sixth Annual Libertarian Scholars Conference, held in October 1978 at Princeton University, by Henry B. Veatch.
Most libertarians view civil disobedience or resistance to the State differently than members of the general public. Many people, of a variety of persuasions, recognize the right of the individual to resort to self-defense when attacked or threatened by the criminal. In the libertarian view, and by libertarian definition, only the criminal resorts to the initiation of force against the peaceful and the innocent. Where the libertarian and the non- libertarian part company is over the criminality of State initiated compulsion. To the libertarian, the whole State apparatus is criminal.
To most historians, and to much of the general public as well, the name of the late Lawrence Dennis has long been associated with American “fascism.” Arthur S. Link calls him “the intellectual leader and principal adviser of the fascist groups.” Charles C. Alexander sees him as “the leading intellectual fascist in America.” When Dennis’s thought is treated in depth, it is usually in the context of anti-democratic political philosophy and elitist theory.
Were a government to demand the sacrifice of 46,700 citizens’ each year, there is no doubt that an outraged public would revolt. If an organized religion were to plan the immolation of 523,335 of the faithful in a decade,’ there is no question that it would be toppled.
The Progressive Era and the eighteen-nineties immediately preceding it have probably been the foci of more superior scholarship than any other periods in American history. Yet, as the volume of research has increased, the divisions in interpreting the data are sharper now than ever before.
In America today, as throughout the West, most people fundamentally accept the “welfare state.” Republican Presidents live happily with huge deficits in government accounts, while conservative politicians no longer challenge Medicare or Social Security. The State has become a pervasive force in every individual’s life, from cradle to grave; it consumes an ever- growing share of national product and employs a sizeable percentage of the labor force. Yet the “positive” state that so many now take for granted is a remarkably recent phenomenon.
Moral relativism, a theory typically beclouded by inexact formulations and confusions with cultural relativism, has recently been defended lucidly and forcefully by Gilbert Harman. His article has the dual virtues of carefully stating the version of moral relativism being proposed and drawing explicit attention to the logical grounds underlying his advocacy. Indeed, Harman characterizes his relativism as “a soberly logical thesis,” and it is as such that it deserves analysis.
Many economists consider public goods to be a case of market “failure.” They argue that the free market cannot finance the optimal amount of public goods. Therefore, they say, the government must finance their provision. In this paper I shall challenge this view. Three well-known arguments supporting this view will be presented and critically examined.
Slavery is a critical issue by which all libertarians may determine their bona fides. Slavery and liberty being polar opposites, there is no question that the libertarian must unconditionally oppose slavery and support liberty. However, there are several alternatives. First, the libertarian may advocate simple abolition, and no more. The means of production, the plantations on which the slaves had worked, would then remain in the hands of the masters.
