Busting Myths about the State and the Libertarian Alternative

VII. Conclusion

The very nature of the state means that it is morally and efficaciously untenable, and it is only a matter of time before the state collapses on itself as it confronts reality. The libertarian views the process of moving to a stateless society like riding on a train from where we are now to where we want to be. Sometimes the train will be traveling faster, and sometimes slower; sometimes in a more circuitous route, and sometimes more directly. The libertarian’s key tasks are to try to accelerate the velocity and increase the directness of this train.

Along the way, the libertarian is happy for the train to stop to pick up those who might want to ride with us, such as statists of both the political left and right who agree with the libertarian on particular issues. However, the libertarian recognizes that such riders would likely get off well before we reach our final destination. That’s fine too.

The libertarian is guided by a very compelling, universally applicable principle of non-aggression, and should never be reticent to articulate this principle when people question why he is riding on this train.

Nor should the libertarian be reluctant to press the statist about which fundamental principle underlying statism can be more compelling than being against the initiation of force. In fact, if you were to ask a statist if he is against the initiation of force, and if he believes that all men should live by the same standard, then you’d likely get a resounding “Yes!” It’s only when you point out that this leaves no room for the state that the statist starts to backtrack.

If no man has any natural entitlement to rule another—a euphemism for “initiate force against another”—then the burden of proof must logically be on the statist to justify coercion by individuals at the state against others, and not on the libertarian to justify freedom from such coercion. Yet, in arguments about political philosophy, statists typically invert the burden of proof, as if coercion by individuals at the state is the natural order of things. Libertarians ought to vigorously reject this framing of the argument.

In this respect, as libertarian historian Tom Woods has noted, the most effective way for a libertarian to frame the argument is as follows: since libertarianism rejects the legitimacy of the initiation of force, to be against libertarianism is to believe in the legitimacy of the initiation of force. Therefore, the libertarian ought to challenge the statist to articulate his compelling arguments in favor of the initiation of force.1

In this book, I have sought to explain that (a) there is no technical reason that a stateless society could not function, (b) such a society would be economically more prosperous for all, especially the least well-off, and (c) above all, the NAP would be a moral basis by which to govern society. Hence libertarianism is only “unrealistic” presently because the majority of individuals do not understand or support it, but, given the huge cultural changes that have occurred in society over time (e.g., attitudes about slavery, women, and homosexuality), this too could change.

In medieval times, there were many practices carried out which we now regard as absurd, such as trial by ordeal, but which back then were regarded as quite proper, because most people in society believed that a deity would continually and justly interfere in the world upon the invocation of the priesthood. Libertarians see an analogy here with statists’ fealty to the state and its rituals, namely, that most people in society believe that the state will continually and justly interfere in the world upon the invocation of the ruling elite. This absurdity, which is on par with medieval practices, will ultimately be unmasked over time. When, we cannot be sure.

To be a libertarian means to open your eyes to all that is wrong with the state, and to open your mind to the fact that there is a much better alternative. Hopefully this book has helped.

• 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.