Zeal For Truth

Typically, those who are opposed to “pure” libertarianism - which is generally articulated as some form of anarchy or decentralised society - do so on the grounds of 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (whether intentionally or not). This includes all statists, from obvious ones such as Marxists or socialists; moderates such as republicans or democrats and even minarchists like libertarians and objectivists.

The Hobbesian view is that man needs a government in order to prevent a “war of all against all.” That without a referee (namely a government monopoly), men would be unable to figure out the rules of the game, so to speak. But more than that, they would break any rules that were established and society would quickly degenerate into complete chaos.

But there are numerous illustrations available to show that this construct is actually not workable (empirically) and not logically consistent (axiomatically). Government intervention does not empirically do what it is supposed to, and the axiomatic legitimizations for it have yet to be shown as water-tight. As government increases, wars and rule-breaking don’t decrease. In fact, the state itself becomes the largest aggressor and rule-breaker. It doesn’t use it’s monopoly on force - and it’s exemptions from the rules the rest of society must follow - purely for good. Not surprisingly, it uses these exceptional powers to favour the agendas of those who wield them - whether it is world domination, trade or environmentalism.

Hans Hoppe explains this conundrum in The Myth of National Defense:

The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S —whether king, dictator, or elected president— is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if S must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of S as an expropriating property protector? In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between A and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects.

The Hobbesian philosophy essentially demands that larger and more powerful groups of thugs be in charge of smaller groups of thugs because people obviously seems to just want to commit random violence against each other like animals and require a big group of thugs with sticks to keep them in line. Government is empowered in this manner because otherwise, what, a government will develop? In reality, the argument against anarchy is that “a big group of thugs will come unless we have a big group of thugs.” Is the circular reasoning not evident here? We don’t want the world to devolve into chaos where a big group of thugs can run wild and enslave us - so enstead we enslave ourselves to a big group of thugs which then creates chaos to justify it’s perpetual dominion (wars, economic crises, social crisis, national emergencies, etc…).

The Burden of Proof
I put the emphasis on statists (whether they are libertarians or Marxists) to justify their argument for why the initial natural order requires a government (which no matter how complicated or advanced it is - is based on the philosophy of the strongest thugs and bullies running the show - this is its axiomatic argument, despite platonic motives attached to it) to be superimposed on it. The intervention requires justification - not nature. The protection racket or group of thugs needs to demonstrate a) that their ideas will work and b) that they even have a legitimate right to force their will on naturally free people.

Even if the natural state of man is chaos, it is the responsibility of those who would put it “right” to justify their actions - even with the best motives. If they refuse to do this, and hope to just beat men into submission “for their own good” - they are no better than the men they are trying to reform and put to order. They are using the same methods.

Some Criticisms
Of course, the anarchist’s alternative is not that suddenly without a state everyone is going to hold hands, obey common laws and never fight with one another. There are still going to be wars, crimes and disorder. In addition, many men, even if purely free to do so, will not do what’s best for them. If drugs were legal and freely available, for example, of course more people would use them - and this would not be a good thing.

In fact, if this is true (which I think it is), that man is not always going to do what’s best for him, then the case for government breaks down very quickly (much more quickly than an anarcho-capitalist system) - as man doesn’t magically become “rational” when given a monopoly on force over other men. He doesn’t magically become a philosopher king. If anything, he abuses his power. The Hobbesian case for government presumes a miracle - that a man will suddenly find a conscience if he is given power over other men.

In other words, if we allow a group of thugs to regulate our behaviour, even for good, why do we think that this group will now be so morally consistent and superior as to enforce this justly?

Another set of criticisms is empirical. I saw a bunch of socialists protesting at a mall the other day, handing out editions of the Morning Star showing a photo of bankers with the headline: “Capitalism has failed.” However, the banking sector is hardly free market. If capitalism - or the purest form of capitalism: market anarchy, is to be critiqued, it needs to be done logically, not empirically.

I think a strong logical argument can be made that monopolies and class-gaps are not created in a free market. The fact that these things happen empirically does not invalidate pure freedom (or anarchism). In fact, it probably means that laissez-faire wasn’t taken purely enough - that is close enough to the axiomatic ideal where it proves to work perfectly. Again, this is the same case with communism. Did communism fail because of empirical or axiomatic flaws with Marxism? I think communism is best criticised by criticising the logical flaws in Marxism, not from taking data from Soviet Russia - which never really was “communist.”

Inevitable Thugs?
This still leaves the problem of the big group of thugs. Presuming Hobbes is right, if we don’t put one in power, how do we still prevent them from rising up anyway if we let nature take it’s course?

As to why big groups of thugs would be discouraged in a anarcho-capitalist world - Hans Hoppe explains his vision of how this might work out in The Private Production of Defense. He argues that thugs would turn into non-aggressive insurance companies pretty quickly.

…defense is a form of insurance, and defense expenditures represent a sort of insurance premium (price). Accordingly, as Rothbard and the Tannehills in particular would emphasize, within the framework of a complex modern economy based on a worldwide division of labor the most likely candidates for offering protection and defense services are insurance agencies. The better the protection of insured property, the lower are the damage claims and hence an insurer’s costs. Thus, to provide efficient protection appears to be in every insurer’s own financial interest; and in fact even now, although restricted and hampered by the state, insurance agencies provide wide-ranging services of protection and indemnification (compensation) to injured private parties. Insurance companies fulfill a second essential requirement. Obviously, anyone offering protection services must appear able to deliver on his promises in order to find clients. That is, he must possess the economic means —the manpower as well as the physical resources—necessary to accomplish the task of dealing with the dangers, actual or imagined, of the real world. On this count insurance agencies appear to be perfect candidates, too. They operate on a nationwide and even international scale, and they own large property holdings dispersed over wide territories and beyond single state boundaries. Accordingly, they have a manifest self-interest in effective protection, and are big and economically powerful. Furthermore, all insurance companies are connected through a network of contractual agreements of mutual assistance and arbitration as well as a system of international reinsurance agencies, representing a combined economic power which dwarfs that of most if not all existing governments.

Again, it is not hard to see illustrations of these basic ideas - that people are incentivised to cooperate and work together for mutual benefit. It’s easy to see this applied in some areas: churches, charity, trade, small businesses, civil disobedience, book clubs, families and so on. Why defence and policing is somehow taboo doesn’t make sense. Cooperation and mutual benefit are not exclusive only to certain kinds of human behaviour- but it is a natural incentive in humanity itself.