Busting myths about the state and the libertarian alternative Zack Rofer

225 Pages·2018·0.685 MB·English

by  Rofer, Zack

Busting Myths about the State
and the Libertarian Alternative
Second Edition
Zack Rofer
Published 2018 by the Mises Institute. This work is licensed under a
CreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs4.0Interna-
tionalLicense.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
MisesInstitute
518WestMagnoliaAve.
Auburn,Ala. 36832
mises.org
ISBN:978-1-61016-696-6
ISBN(ebook): 978-1-61016-697-3
TypesetbyMikeDworski
Contents
Preface 1
I. TheStatist’sView 5
People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. MythsabouttheNatureoftheState 11
Myth#1: TheStateIsGoodandDoesGood . . . . . . . . . 11
Myth#2: TheStateActsbyConsent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Myth#3: TheStateActsforthe“CommonGood” . . . . . 24
Myth#4: TheStateandItsPersonnelDeserveOurSupport . 27
Myth#5: DemocracyIsGood,Better,Best . . . . . . . . . . 35
Myth#6: TheStateDispensesCriminalJustice . . . . . . . 46
III. TheFreeMarket 57
WhatIsthe“FreeMarket”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Economics101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
AustrianEconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Myth#7: TheFreeMarketCreatesanInequalityProblem . . 67
Myth#8: TheFreeMarketExploitsWorkers . . . . . . . . . 78
IV. MythsJustifyingtheNeedfortheState 89
AcquiescencetotheState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Myth#9: TheStateIsanImprovementontheFreeMarket . 94
Myth#10: WeNeedtheStatetoProvide“PublicGoods” . . 106
Myth#11:WeNeedtheStatetoDealwithNegativeExternalities121
Myth#12: WeNeedtheStatetoDealwithAnti-Competitive
Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Myth#13: The“HobbesianFear” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
iii
iv BustingMyths
V. BustingtheMythsaboutLibertarianism 147
WhatIsLibertarianism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Myth#14: LibertariansAreUtopian! . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Myth#15: It’sEveryManforHimself! . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Myth#16: Libertarianism=Chaos! . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Myth#17: We’dBeDefenseless! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Myth#18: ThereGoestheEnvironment! . . . . . . . . . . 174
Myth#19: SomaliaDisprovestheCaseforLibertarianism! . 179
Myth#20: LibertariansAreShillsforthePowerful! . . . . . 181
Myth#21: LibertariansDon’tCareaboutthePoor! . . . . . 183
Myth#22:LibertariansArePro-ProstitutionandPro-Narcotics!190
Myth#23:IfIt’ssoGood,ThenWhyHasn’tItEverBeenTried?191
Myth#24: LibertarianismIsaFutileEndeavor! . . . . . . . 196
VI. WhyDoesItMatter? 209
MinimizingConflictwithinSociety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
OpposingWar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
GoverningbyPrinciple,NotArbitrarily . . . . . . . . . . . 211
VII. Conclusion 215
Afterword: APersonalPerspective 217
ReadingGuide 219
Preface
In non-technical terms, the libertarian is simply someone who is against
theuseofforceagainstpeacefulpeopleincivilsociety. Youwouldthink
thatthiswouldbeauniversallyacceptedideabut, aswillbediscussedin
greaterdepth,tobelieveingovernmentasweknowitistobeatoddswith
thisidea.
The vast majority of people in the world today live under some form
ofpubliclyorganizedgovernment,whichhereinafterI’llcallthe“state.”1
Most people believe that we should live under state rule, whether they
areclassicalliberals,communists,conservatives,fascists,liberals,Marxists,
neoconservatives,Progressives,Randians,socialists,oranyotherflavor,all
of whom hereinafter I’ll call “statists.” They simply differ in their views
onwhatpowersthestateshouldpossess.
Nevertheless,statistsofallflavorsoftenreactquitestronglytothesug-
gestionbylibertariansthatasocietywithoutastate,operatingonapurely
free-market, voluntary basis, would be a more just and efficacious soci-
ety. I believe that this reaction results from three categories of errors by
statists: first,theydon’tfullycomprehendthenatureofthestate;second,
theydon’tfullycomprehendthenatureofthefreemarket;andthird,they
subscribetocertainmythsaboutlibertarianismandhowastatelesssociety
might work. That they make these errors is not surprising, since for the
mostparttheireducationhasbeenininstitutionswherenooneasksthe
question“Whatisthetruenatureofandjustificationforthestate?”,and
1Allreferencestothe“state”inthisbookincludeallarmsofthestate: thelegislature,
executive,judiciary,bureaucracy,agencies,etc. Whiletheyeachhavedifferentfunc-
tions,substantivelytheyareallfundedinthesamemanner,theyallhavethesamein-
herentcharacteristics,andtheyareallresponsibleforappointingoneanotherand/or
workingtogether.Thedifferencesbetweenthesedifferentarmsofthestatearetrivial
comparedwiththedifferencesbetweenhowthestateactsandhowprivatecitizens
act,whichisoneofthekeypointsofthisbook.
1
2 BustingMyths
thereisverylittlediscussionaboutproblemswithandalternativestothe
state.
Giventhesedefectsinstatists’understandingofthisareaofpoliticalphi-
losophy,whatIproposetodointhisbookisexposesomecommonmyths
about both the state and libertarianism. Hopefully this will facilitate a
morecriticalviewofthestateandmoreopennesstotheideasoflibertari-
anism.
Beforegoingfurther,it’simportanttonotethat,indiscussinghowso-
ciety 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
shouldbebasedonwhatwould“maximizeutility”for“society.” Topur-
suethislineofthinking,onehastoacceptthatanyparticularhumanwho
ischargedwithmakingaspecificsocietaldecisionisableto(a)appreciate
allofthebenefitsandcostsofeachalternativecourseofactiontoeachof
the individuals who compose society, (b) quantify each of these benefits
andcostsintermsofcommonunitsofutility,andthen(c)dispassionately
choosethecourseofactionthatwillmaximizesociety’sutility.
Ontheotherhand,moralityisconcernedwithdiscerningwhatthecor-
rect decision should be based on a standard of good behavior.2 A “stan-
dard” means something that is universal, i.e., applies to every man. To
pursuethislineofthinking,onefirsthastoconcludethatthereshouldbe
auniversalbehavioralrule. Onthispoint,ifwerecognizethatallmenare
metaphysicallyequal,inthesenseofpossessingthesamefundamentalca-
pacityforconsciousness,conceiving,rationalizing,andacting,thenthere
is no objective justification to define different rules of acceptable, inter-
personal behavior for different men. Every man should be expected to
treatothers,andbeentitledtobetreatedbyothers,accordingtothesame
code. Inaddition,thislineofthinkingalsorequiresonetobeabletode-
fineanacceptablebehavioralrulethat,asapurelytechnicalmatter,could
applytoeveryonewithoutexception,consistentlyandcontinuously(Iwill
developthisfurtherlater).
2Inthisbook,whenItalkabout“moralacts”and“morality,”Iamreferringonlytoan
evaluationofinter-personalbehavior,andnottotheevaluationofanyactionsonly
involvingoneself,whichmightbebetterdescribedas“virtues”and“vices.”
Preface 3
As will become evident in this book, a number of the common argu-
mentsraisedbystatistsareutilitarian,asopposedtomoral. WhileIbelieve
that the fundamental strength of libertarianism is its underlying moral-
ity—becauseitisbasedonatechnicallyfeasible,universalstandardofac-
ceptablebehavior—andthefundamentalweaknessofstatismisitsunder-
lyingimmorality—becauseitisinconsistentwiththenotionofauniversal
standardofacceptablebehavior—evenonautilitarianbasisIbelievethat
libertarianism has much more to offer than statism. In any event, I will
addresstherelevantstatistargumentsfromboththemoralandutilitarian
perspectives(forthelatter,chieflythroughthemediumofeconomicanaly-
sis),eventhoughIbelievethatthemoralargumentshouldsuffice.3
Finally,therearesomeupfront,stylisticpointsthatIshouldmake.
First, since in this book I am contrasting those who support the no-
tionofastatewiththosewhodon’t,Iwillbeusing“libertarian”tomean
onlysomeonewhoarguesforacompletelystatelesssociety(asIdo), also
knownasan“anarcho-capitalist,”“voluntarist,”“libertariananarchist,”or
“Rothbardian.”4 Therearemanypeoplewhowouldnotargueforastate-
lesssocietybutwhoneverthelesslabelthemselves,orgetlabeledbyothers,
as“libertarian.” Iamnotreferringtotheminanyway;inthisbook,they
wouldbe“statists.”
Second,Iappreciatethatnotallstatiststhinkalike;whilethoseonthe
left, in the middle, and on the right are similarly weak on many issues,
theyarealsodifferentlyweakonotherissues. Accordingly,whenIreferto
theassumptions,beliefs,andargumentsofstatists,Ialwaysmean“some”
statists,eventhoughIwillnotalwaysbotherusingtheword“some.” One
purposeofthisbookistolayoutthepreceptsofstatistthinking,notthe
thoughtsofevery,oranyparticular,statist.
Third,Ihaveavoidedcitingtoomanyspecificsourcesinanefforttotry
3Istillbelievethatthereisaroleforutilitariananalysis,butnottheonethatisusually
cited. Ifeconomistsbelievethataparticularoutcomewouldleadtogreaterbenefits
(howeverdefined)thantheoutcomethatwouldresultfromindividualsactingbased
ontheirownpreferences,thentheseeconomistsshouldpublicizetheiranalysisand
useittotrytopersuadeindividualstochangetheirdecision-makingprocesses. The
realproblemwithutilitariananalysisisthatitisusedbystatiststojustifyforcingin-
dividualstomakedifferentdecisions,insteadofmerelytryingtopersuadethem.
4ThelasttermreferstoMurrayRothbard,whowasthelibertarianhistorian,economist,
andphilosopherwhoreallyignitedmodernlibertarianisminthe20thcentury.
4 BustingMyths
tocreateamoreconversationaltone. Instead, IhaveincludedaReading
Guideattheend,whichreferencesmuchofthesourcematerialthatpro-
videdmewiththefoundationstowritethisbook. Thatsaid,allerrorsof
courseareminealone.
Fourth,Iwouldencourageyoutoreadthefootnotes,whichgenerally
containadditionalsubstantivematerialorexamples,asopposedtojustdry
sourcereferences. Sometimesthat’swhereIhavemymostfun!5
Ithasbroughtmetremendouspleasuretoresearchandwritethisbook,
andIcanonlyhopethatyouasthereaderderiveatleastafractionofthat
pleasurefromreadingit. Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorcommentsthatyou
wouldliketosendmeaboutthisbookoranytopicsraised(ornotraised)
herein,[email protected].
ZackRofer(August2018)
5Justcheckingthatyouwerepayingattention.
I. The Statist’s View
People
Thestatistperceivesthestateasagroupofindividualswhoselflesslytoil
forthe“commongood,”andwhohaveamandate,throughtheelectoral
process,topasslegislationastheseindividualsseefittoforcechangesinbe-
havior of those outside the state. The statist lauds “public service,” and
believes that those at the state are deserving of special privileges and re-
spect given their selflessness and the awesome power they wield. Indeed,
many of the most powerful figures at the state, particularly the national
leader, generate cult-like followings, where statists identify passionately
withthem,hangontheireveryword,looktothemfornationaldirection
andsalvation,andbelievethatitisnotonlytheirtasktorighteverywrong
butalsothattheyhavetheabilityandwisdomtodoso. Eveniftherearea
few“rottenapples”nowandthenatthestate,thisisnotseenasanindict-
mentofthenotionofthestate,justofthoseindividuals. Whenthestate
makesmistakes,thestatistisveryforgiving,almostresignedtothefactthat
this is to be expected. These mistakes don’t cause the statist to question
theideaofthestate, butsimplyconfirmstothestatistthatsocietyneeds
toelectbetterrepresentativesatthenextelection.
Contrastthiswiththestatist’sviewsofthoseintheprivatesector.These
peopleareseenasindividualswhoselfishlyseekprofitsbytakingunfairad-
vantageofconsumers,andwhomustbebroughtbackintolineandclosely
regulated by the state. Working in the private sector doesn’t garner any-
where near the respect that working for the state does, and the statist is
constantly critical of any excesses enjoyed by those in the private sector,
suchastheaccumulationofsignificantwealth. Any“rottenapples”inthe
private sector only confirm to the statist the wretchedness of the private
sector and the need for regulation by the state. In fact, no matter how
closelyregulatedbythestateabusinessmaybe,ifthereisaproblemthat
5
6 BustingMyths
surfaces,thestatistassumesthatitissolelytodowiththenatureofthepri-
vatesectoritself,andthattheonlyanswerismorestateregulation. When
businessesmakemistakes,statistsareunforgiving;asconsumers,theymay
immediatelytaketheirpatronageelsewhere,oftenbankruptingsuchbusi-
nesses.
Thecontrastbetweenhowthestatistviewsthoseatthestateandthose
intheprivatesectorissomewhatodd. Icanonlyfathomthreereasonsfor
this.
Perhapsstatistsbelieveinextra-terrestrials,inthesensethatthebeings
atthestatebelongtoadifferentspeciesfromthemerehumanswhocon-
stitutetheprivatesector. Theseextra-terrestrialbeingsdonothaveanyof
thefoiblesofprivate-sectorhumans,andthusareperfectlysuitedtowork
atthe stateand naturally gravitatein that direction(I’ll callthis the “ET
Theory”).
However,thatexplanationwouldn’tsufficeregardingthosebeingswho
movefromtheprivatesectortothestate. Thusperhapsstatistsbelieveina
specialtypeofmachineknownasthe“Moral-ator.” Whenapersonmoves
fromtheprivatesectortothestate,perhapshepassesthroughtheMoral-
ator,whichstripshimofhisprivate-sectorfoiblesandconvertshimintoa
selflesspublicservant(I’llcallthisthe“Moral-atorTheory”).1
Finally,perhapstherearesomehumanswhoarecompletelyselflessin-
dividuals. Perhapsthevoters,whoapparentlyareincompetenttomanage
theirownliveswithoutdetailedoversightfromthebeingsatthestate,nev-
ertheless in a single act of brilliance each election are able to find these
specialindividualsfromthebroaderpopulationandelectthem,andonly
them, into office (I’ll call this the “Voter Episodic Brilliance Theory” or
“VEBTheory”forshort).2
Iwillhereinaftercallallthreeofthesetheoriestogether,the“ToothFairy
Theories.”
1It’snotclearhowthestatistthinksaboutthosewhomoveinthereversedirection,from
thestatetotheprivatesector.PerhapstheMoral-atorworksinreversetoo,attaching
private-sectorfoiblestoformerstatepersonnel.
2Statiststendtoidentifypassionatelywithonepoliticalparty.Givenhowreadilystatists
overlookorminimizethefoiblesofcandidatesfromtheirownparty,andhowquickly
theyexcoriatecandidatesfromthe“other”partyfortheireveryfoible,nomatterhow
small,statistscouldonlysubscribetotheVEBTheorywhentheirparty’scandidates
areelected.Whichonlymakesthistheorylesscredible.