Busting Myths about the State and the Libertarian Alternative

Preface

In non-technical terms, the libertarian is simply someone who is against the use of force against peaceful people in civil society. You would think that this would be a universally accepted idea but, as will be discussed in greater depth, to believe in government as we know it is to be at odds with this idea.

The vast majority of people in the world today live under some form of publicly organized government, which hereinafter I’ll call the “state.”1 Most people believe that we should live under state rule, whether they are classical liberals, communists, conservatives, fascists, liberals, Marxists, neoconservatives, Progressives, Randians, socialists, or any other flavor, all of whom hereinafter I’ll call “statists.” They simply differ in their views on what powers the state should possess.

Nevertheless, statists of all flavors often react quite strongly to the suggestion by libertarians that a society without a state, operating on a purely free-market, voluntary basis, would be a more just and efficacious society. I believe that this reaction results from three categories of errors by statists: first, they don’t fully comprehend the nature of the state; second, they don’t fully comprehend the nature of the free market; and third, they subscribe to certain myths about libertarianism and how a stateless society might work. That they make these errors is not surprising, since for the most part their education has been in institutions where no one asks the question “What is the true nature of and justification for the state?”, and there is very little discussion about problems with and alternatives to the state.

Given these defects in statists’ understanding of this area of political philosophy, what I propose to do in this book is expose some common myths about both the state and libertarianism. Hopefully this will facilitate a more critical view of the state and more openness to the ideas of libertarianism.

Before going further, it’s important to note that, in discussing how society should be organized and how individuals should interact with one another, there is a distinction between using “utilitarian” principles and “moral” principles.

Utilitarianism is concerned with discerning what the correct decision should be based on what would “maximize utility” for “society.” To pursue this line of thinking, one has to accept that any particular human who is charged with making a specific societal decision is able to (a) appreciate all of the benefits and costs of each alternative course of action to each of the individuals who compose society, (b) quantify each of these benefits and costs in terms of common units of utility, and then (c) dispassionately choose the course of action that will maximize society’s utility.

On the other hand, morality is concerned with discerning what the correct decision should be based on a standard of good behavior.2 A “standard” means something that is universal, i.e., applies to every man. To pursue this line of thinking, one first has to conclude that there should be a universal behavioral rule. On this point, if we recognize that all men are metaphysically equal, in the sense of possessing the same fundamental capacity for consciousness, conceiving, rationalizing, and acting, then there is no objective justification to define different rules of acceptable, inter-personal behavior for different men. Every man should be expected to treat others, and be entitled to be treated by others, according to the same code. In addition, this line of thinking also requires one to be able to define an acceptable behavioral rule that, as a purely technical matter, could apply to everyone without exception, consistently and continuously (I will develop this further later).

As will become evident in this book, a number of the common arguments raised by statists are utilitarian, as opposed to moral. While I believe that the fundamental strength of libertarianism is its underlying morality—because it is based on a technically feasible, universal standard of acceptable behavior—and the fundamental weakness of statism is its underlying immorality—because it is inconsistent with the notion of a universal standard of acceptable behavior—even on a utilitarian basis I believe that libertarianism has much more to offer than statism. In any event, I will address the relevant statist arguments from both the moral and utilitarian perspectives (for the latter, chiefly through the medium of economic analysis), even though I believe that the moral argument should suffice.3

Finally, there are some upfront, stylistic points that I should make.

First, since in this book I am contrasting those who support the notion of a state with those who don’t, I will be using “libertarian” to mean only someone who argues for a completely stateless society (as I do), also known as an “anarcho-capitalist,” “voluntarist,” “libertarian anarchist,” or “Rothbardian.”4 There are many people who would not argue for a stateless society but who nevertheless label themselves, or get labeled by others, as “libertarian.” I am not referring to them in any way; in this book, they would be “statists.”

Second, I appreciate that not all statists think alike; while those on the left, in the middle, and on the right are similarly weak on many issues, they are also differently weak on other issues. Accordingly, when I refer to the assumptions, beliefs, and arguments of statists, I always mean “some” statists, even though I will not always bother using the word “some.” One purpose of this book is to lay out the precepts of statist thinking, not the thoughts of every, or any particular, statist.

Third, I have avoided citing too many specific sources in an effort to try to create a more conversational tone. Instead, I have included a Reading Guide at the end, which references much of the source material that provided me with the foundations to write this book. That said, all errors of course are mine alone.

Fourth, I would encourage you to read the footnotes, which generally contain additional substantive material or examples, as opposed to just dry source references. Sometimes that’s where I have my most fun!5

It has brought me tremendous pleasure to research and write this book, and I can only hope that you as the reader derive at least a fraction of that pleasure from reading it. If you have any questions or comments that you would like to send me about this book or any topics raised (or not raised) herein, please feel free to email me at TheNAPster3226@gmail.com.

Zack Rofer (August 2018)

• 1All references to the “state” in this book include all arms of the state: the legislature, executive, judiciary, bureaucracy, agencies, etc. While they each have different functions, substantively they are all funded in the same manner, they all have the same inherent characteristics, and they are all responsible for appointing one another and/or working together. The differences between these different arms of the state are trivial compared with the differences between how the state acts and how private citizens act, which is one of the key points of this book.
• 2In this book, when I talk about “moral acts” and “morality,” I am referring only to an evaluation of inter-personal behavior, and not to the evaluation of any actions only involving oneself, which might be better described as “virtues” and “vices.”
• 3I still believe that there is a role for utilitarian analysis, but not the one that is usually cited. If economists believe that a particular outcome would lead to greater benefits (however defined) than the outcome that would result from individuals acting based on their own preferences, then these economists should publicize their analysis and use it to try to persuade individuals to change their decision-making processes. The real problem with utilitarian analysis is that it is used by statists to justify forcing individuals to make different decisions, instead of merely trying to persuade them.
• 4The last term refers to Murray Rothbard, who was the libertarian historian, economist, and philosopher who really ignited modern libertarianism in the 20th century.
• 5Just checking that you were paying attention.