Anarchic Contradictions
Libertarian anarchists seek a free society. Unfortunately, the contradictions in their positions make their quest Quixotic.
Originally published 2-28-08.
A 2400 word essay examining the inherent contradictions in the concept of political anarchy.
The main contradiction in libertarian anarchy is that its foundational ideas are based on a circular argument (assuming as a premise what is supposed to be proven as a conclusion). The arguments for this style of anarchy rely on a variant of what Ayn Rand termed “the stolen concept fallacy,” that is, they use “concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 154)
The irrefutable inner contradiction of anarchy is this: one cannot engage in free-market competition in a non-free society.
Available for purchase here.
For the first part of this series, see “Government and Anarchy.” For the second part of this series, see “Government and Anarchy, Part II.” Both articles are available on Amazon.
I’ve frequently written on the requirements necessary for a free society. One of these factors is how our rights are to be protected against the criminals among us. For most people interested in promoting freedom, this translates into creating and sustaining a limited, Jeffersonian-style government, one concerned solely with establishing (in Jefferson’s words), “...a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government...”
Sounds simple enough. In principle, it is. The devil, of course, is in the details. But...
There are many in the freedom-movement who reject the very notion of “government,” limited or otherwise. Are they on to something? Or have they substituted their (fully justified) disdain and/or hatred for specific governments that have or do exist for a rational evaluation of the concept of a limited government?
Given the burgeoning police state surrounding us that routinely and unabashedly shreds the last vestiges of what we once termed “liberty,” arguing about the (sometimes) fine distinctions between “anarchy” (of the libertarian variety) and “limited government” appears about as fruitful as disputing the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. Still... If and when the day comes that humanity abandons its current insane fixation on government as the “savior of mankind,” we will need to know what target we are aiming for if we are ever to recognize when we reach it. Additionally, far too much energy is wasted among liberty advocates wrangling among ourselves. Better that intellectual power be focused on educating the public and defeating an overweening State than in diffusing our own effectiveness. (And I capitalize “State” not from some misguided desire to grant it respect it ill deserves but to draw attention to the fact that ninety-plus-percent of the world’s populace erroneously and disastrously does reify government into an all-powerful, ever-beneficent entity.)
In “Government and Anarchy” and “Government and Anarchy, Part II,” I wrote more extensively about the relationship between these two concepts. In these essays, I pointed out the contradictions inherent in proposals to achieve a free society via the establishment of anarchy. Here, I wish to emphasize the central contradiction and address a few other secondary points. (As an aside, I don’t use the term “minarchy” for “limited government.” Beyond being a contrived and inelegant term, it obscures the true nature of what I am advocating.)
The main contradiction in libertarian anarchy is that its foundational ideas are based on a circular argument (assuming as a premise what is supposed to be proven as a conclusion). The arguments for this style of anarchy rely on a variant of what Ayn Rand termed “the stolen concept fallacy,” that is, they use “concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 154)
This fundamental and inescapable, inherent error is hinted at by a variant label for libertarian anarchism, that is, “anarcho-capitalism.” Anarchists tell us that a free society can be achieved by “economic competition” among privately owned and run “defense agencies.” Indeed, they tell us that any and every individual in a society has the right to set up a defense agency, accept clients/customers, and compete with any and all other defense agencies for business. Eventually, the freedom-oriented defense agencies will “out compete” the other, less productive and efficient non-freedom-oriented defense agencies and force the latter to “go out of business.” The end result will be a free society devoid of government.
** The irrefutable inner contradiction of anarchy is this: one cannot engage in free-market competition in a non-free society. **
Anarchists assume a free society in which free-market competition exists (a begging the question/circular argument fallacy that sets the stage for anarchists’ diversionary discussions about how “private defense agencies” would operate in a free-market) then claim that they can create a free society via anarcho-capitalism (a stolen concept fallacy as anarchists immediately forget that they just assumed as already existing what they now claim their anarchy will produce). This second contradiction reverses cause-and-effect. One must first have in place the requirements for a free society before one can engage in free-market competition. Whatever private defense agencies would be practicing in a non-free-market, it would most assuredly not be “free-market competition.”
One can, of course, establish an economic market without a free-society (as all hobbled markets in history demonstrate). A group of people could even do so in the absence of any formal government. But without mechanisms in place to protect property and other human rights throughout a given society (“jurisdiction”) and the ability to coercively enforce those protections even against those who reject the authority of the enforcers in that territory, there cannot and never will be a truly free society.
In a free-market, I can always exercise my freedom and refuse to deal with or boycott any particular business. But there is no “freedom” to refuse the enforcement of rights. (See my essay “‘Imposing’ Freedom” for a more detailed discussion of this point.) This clearly refutes a basic tenet of anarchy: that a “defense agency” is no different than any other business in a free society.
Nor will it suffice for anarchists to point to the millennia long stretch of non-free States and then claim that this “proves” the impossibility of having a freedom-supporting, limited government. One could as easily state that there has never been a free society, therefore it is not possible to have a free society. (These are examples of the “appeal to tradition” fallacy.)
Many anarchists beg another question by stating that any and all governments are inherently rights-violating because they are based on “coercion” or “violence.” But coercion or violence are not always illegitimate. This is easily seen in the realm of personal self-defense, a cause virtually all freedom-lovers support. If violence/coercion are moral for an individual, then if exercised properly, they are moral for the delegates of an individual to use in his defense (whether via a government or a private defense agency).
Nor is voting inherently “coercive.” If the only purpose of voting were to elect those who would safeguard our rights (see Jefferson’s quote above), then no violation of rights would occur. (After all, even with private defense agencies, the shareholders/clients/customers could, for example, vote for the members of the board of directors.)
Neither will pointing out the historical omnipresence of taxation establish the illegitimacy of “government.” No anarchist has or can prove that taxation (legalized theft) is a necessity for financing a government, that is, a government can exist if and only if it imposes taxation. While the exact nature of how voluntary financing of government might work is unknown at present, the same can be said of any future development, whether in technology or medicine or business (or defense agencies). Reasonable options for such non-coercive financing of government have already been offered by Rand and others; enough, anyway, to indicate general avenues for approaching the problem (should that blessed day ever materialize...).
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Russell Madden: Freedom, As If It Mattered to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.