Busting Myths about the State and the Libertarian Alternative

VI. Why Does It Matter?

Why is it even worth discussing libertarianism vs. statism? What is the point of debating political philosophies?

Minimizing Conflict within Society

Ultimately, political philosophy is about searching for the most just way to govern society. That seems to be a worthy end. As noted earlier, all conflicts in society are conflicts over scarce resources, whether human bodies or physical objects. We should all be interested in defining some acceptable, peaceful standard to govern human behavior with respect to such conflicts.

If we want to live in a society that rejects force, minimizes conflict, and has a principled way to try to non-violently resolve conflicts that do arise, then we ought to advocate a political philosophy that is consistent with those ends.

Statism relies on the initiation or threat of force by the individuals at the state, and is characterized by a vigorous competition among citizens to rent the state’s coercive powers, to forcibly take things from fellow citizens. It is therefore a political philosophy based on force, and conflict is a feature of statism, not a bug.

Only libertarianism, with its sole focus on the non-initiation of force, can meet the above philosophical test. Libertarians define this peaceful principle—the NAP—and then demand that it be the standard to which every single person be held to account in everything he does.

In addition, as noted earlier, because libertarianism is based on a “negative rights” principle, it can, as a technical matter, be enjoyed by everyone in society concurrently. This makes it a highly scalable political philosophy.

In other words, not only is libertarianism the only peaceful political philosophy, it is the only political philosophy that can be universally applied.

Opposing War

Libertarians are not just in favor of the NAP domestically. Libertarians also believe that no one should initiate aggression against people who live in different geographies, just because they are engaging in activities we don’t like or because we want some physical resources they have.

Yet this is what the state does, habitually.1

Why do libertarians oppose initiating or provoking war?

Initiating or provoking war means: (a) sending citizens to their death overseas and/or to kill others who pose no imminent threat, and provoking retaliation in the homeland against citizens (blowback); (b) through taxation and “defense” spending, forcibly diverting scarce resources—which could otherwise be used to produce goods to satisfy consumers’ actual wants—to produce things the only purpose of which is death and destruction, and then using these things to destroy other scarce resources; and (c) reducing citizens’ liberties to speak, travel, earn income, move assets, etc., based on the fiction that this reduction in liberties is necessary to safeguard the population from blowback.

It’s worth emphasizing two critical points about war.

First, when an individual in society wrongfully kills multiple victims, statists are rightly shocked, and correctly label this as “mass murder.” Yet when individuals at the state initiate lethal combat operations against people overseas who are not imminently threatening the state’s citizens, this is mass murder on a much larger scale, but statists are not troubled by this activity, so long as it is labeled “war.” Yet, logically, changing the label applied to an action cannot change its moral status.

Second, with every state-manufactured, alleged danger, the state argues that it needs more powers for defense. Yet the vast majority of the time this is a disingenuous argument, because either it was the state’s prior activities which initiated or provoked the danger, or no defense is called for because there is no actual danger. As Randolph Bourne once wrote, “War is the health of the state.” It is very easy for the state and its beneficiaries to expand their power dramatically amid alleged conflict, since at these times the state can whip up fervor through appeals to patriotism and “defending the homeland.” When the alleged conflict is over—if the state ever admits this, which is exceedingly rare—the state never yields, never reduces its powers back to pre-conflict levels. This “ratchet” effect is defended by the argument that the state needs to remain “vigilant” against the alleged enemies, or new potential enemies.2

Governing by Principle, Not Arbitrarily

Why should we accept an overarching principle by which to govern society? The answer is that, if we don’t govern by principle, then by definition we are governing arbitrarily.3

Statism has no universal principle that defines when coercion is justified and how to resolve conflicts. Under statism, the rules which govern society are based solely on who is in power at any one point in time, and the whims of that ruling elite. Under a modern democracy, statists pledge fealty either to process (electoral and legislative) or a personality, or both, but not to a principle. How is this different from a monarchy or a dictatorship? Because arbitrary rulings are sometimes issued by a group, instead of by a single person?

Since state-imposed legislation is such a central part of statism, one should put to a statist the following question: By what standard should legislation be judged as good law, in the sense of being just? The statist is likely to give a blank stare in response, or may respond that, provided it is duly passed by a duly elected legislature, and not overturned by a court, the legislation is good law. However, regarding the latter response, statists’ own actions demonstrate that they don’t really believe this. Many statists have historically protested certain pieces of legislation as unjust, or ignored such legislation, such as: the Fugitive Slave Act; “Jim Crow” legislation; legislation explicitly or implicitly prohibiting universal suffrage, or homosexual relations or marriage; military-conscription legislation; legislation prohibiting the consumption of alcohol or narcotics; legislation setting vehicular speed limits; and legislation prohibiting or restricting home businesses. In cases like these, statists are actually judging legislation by a higher standard than mere legislative process. Yet if you press statists to articulate that standard, then they would likely be unable to do so, thereby confirming the arbitrary nature of statism. Not so libertarians; to them, the only just law is one that proscribes the initiation or the threat of force against peaceful individuals.

To make this point differently, “partial” statism is internally inconsistent. Most statists believe in the state for some tasks and not for others. Yet they can point to no consistent, cogent, logical principle which allows one to distinguish between the two sets of tasks. If coercive central planning is superior in one area, then it should be superior in all areas; if coercive central planning is unacceptable in one area, then it should be unacceptable in all areas.

Accordingly, to be consistently principled, one either needs to be a libertarian, or a philosophical communist. Anything else in between is unprincipled.4

The worst implication of the arbitrariness of statism is that it can only lead to more conflict. If the rules of society are defined only by who is in power, then society disintegrates into what libertarian historian Tom Woods has called a “low-intensity civil war.” Every interest group competes aggressively to exercise or rent the state’s coercive powers, since on any issue there can only be one winner (to use the example given previously, we all either have to drink Coke or Pepsi). This is what causes, and has always caused, political conflict between different groups: blacks and whites, urban and rural residents, women and men, political left and right, domestic and foreign parties, unions and corporations, environmentalists and industry, the wealthy and the less well-off, police and civilians, etc.

Why should we live like this? We’re only harming ourselves.

* * * * *

To return to the original question—Why does it matter?—it matters because we should all want the most peaceful society we can attain. To attain a more peaceful society, you need to start with a peaceful governing principle.

• 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.