This is a perfect circle. Well, actually, it isn't. It is impossible to draw a perfect circle. This is how a Yahoo! Answers contributor put it:
The circle is a mathematical concept. It is the set of points at a specific distance from another point, the center. It can't be drawn, by hand or by computer, since a point has no dimensions. A computer can be programmed to make an arbitrarily accurate representation of a circle.
They do appear in nature. A rainbow. The electric field around an isolated electron (a sphere). But even these are not purely a circle in the mathematical sense.
So, it seems that my perfect circle is not a perfect circle. It is at best a close approximation to a concept, and I can never draw one even if I wanted to do it. So, what do perfect circles have to do with anarchy?
When it comes to libertarians, there are two primary flavors. You have the anarcho-capitalists, and you have the minarchists. The anarchists tend to be philosophical libertarians or deonotological libertarians. Now, I can go on all day trying to put together a taxonomy of the different sub-flavors of libertarianism. But I don't have to do this since I know I can rely on my commenters to do this for more. It would take days to try and outline what all these different people hold. So, I'm going to roll with the generalization for the sake of clarity.
Philosophical libertarians who hold the anarchist position argue that all acts of aggression are immoral. I agree. All immoral acts are fundamentally an aggression against the rights of others. According to this definition, no government no matter how minimal can ever satisfy this moral requirement. But this is the perfect circle. It is not coincidence that anarchists tend to be rationalists.
Consequentialist libertarians tend to be minarchists. They see freedom and liberty as yielding the best consequences for society. They believe this is best achieved through a minimal amount of government, and their arguments rely upon empirical proof. Philosophical libertarians argue like philosophers while consequentialist libertarians argue like scientists.
In a debate, philosophical libertarians win up until the point they have to produce facts. It is one thing to define a perfect circle. It is another thing to actually draw one. This is why anarchists are ignored no matter how rational their arguments are. This is because they argue in the abstract. Granted, they will argue that anarchist societies have worked and cite a sprinkling of examples. But these tend to be weak. Inevitably, when they want to make progress on things like refuting prohibition or championing free markets, they resort to consequentialist arguments.
The problem with anarchy is that even though members of society can decide to defend themselves and hire others to provide this service these services can also be used to aggress against others. For instance, Somalia is as anarchic as any country we have today. Governance is done by custom and administered purely locally. So, we see anarchy is not as chaotic as we think. But Somalia is also home to piracy. Like it or not, in a totally free society, there are going to be those who opt to steal and kill others. We see this with the Mexican drug cartels, street gangs in Los Angeles, motorcycle gangs, and the like. These people choose to live outside of the system of law-and-order, but they do not hesitate to aggress against others.
Anarchists will argue that government is no different than these gangs. There is some truth to that. Governments loot and kill as well. But they also incarcerate murderers and rapists and thieves. Government ended slavery and Jim Crow. Like a weapon, government can be used for offense or defense. In a truly just world, there would be no need for weapons whatsoever. But humans are not angels. The simple fact that anyone would have to buy a gun for self-protection is already a cost imposed upon him or her by the aggression of others. The fact that firms hire private security or resort to lawyers and legal defense and what have you are all costs imposed by the aggression or possible aggression of other people. Now, we can call these measures "government" or "private" and argue which gives the best return for the dollar. But make no mistake. We live in a world of aggressors. Absolute liberty defined as freedom from all aggression is an abstraction. It is a perfect circle. It is something to aim for and measure ourselves against. But it can never be had. Liberty is an approximation to this ideal which is why I am a minarchist.
Certain anarchists argue in a binary fashion that you are either a statist or an anarchist. Per Bylund is the most notable example of this mindset. Basically, you are either for government or not for government. Naturally, he becomes pretty absurd in his arguments even going after other anarchists. In Per Bylund's mind, I am a statist. This is like calling someone a homophobe merely because they find gay porn disgusting but otherwise support gay rights. This is where rationalism leads--absurdity. Define your categories and damn everyone who doesn't fit into those categories 100%. In short, you either have a perfect circle, or you have a square. That image you saw above actually isn't a circle. It is something else.
Minarchists believe that liberty is best because it works. They then labor to demonstrate those facts. They are also willing to compromise if the compromise results in a net gain in liberty. I think a totally private education system beats the public education system, but I can go along with vouchers as being better than what we have currently. I believe in limited government as opposed to unlimited government which fits the proper definition of a statist. A statist is one who sees unlimited government as being preferable either in whole or part. I am not a statist. I believe the government serves a role but only out of necessity. Government is at best a necessary evil. Anarchists cannot deal with this middle ground.
When I argue with statists, I have to point out the evil and unintended consequences of government. When I argue with anarchists, I have to point out the necessity. I can go along with a system of private security firms and private courts and the like. If it works better than what we have, I think it makes sense. We already have private arbitrage for civil matters. We already hire security guards. People arm themselves. I can go along with abolishing 90% or more of the government. But those functions of courts, police, and defense remain whether you have a government or a private firm supplying them. This is not government but privatized government. The fact that you would have to pay a single penny for any of these services is a form of tyranny since they are all defenses against aggression. The fact that these services are voluntary may help a bit to satisfy the mind of the anarchist. But it is still government to me in much the same way that a private school is still a school.
Anarchists are free at any time to pursue their anarchy. They can hire their own security forces, assemble their own weapons, and then defy the government by refusing to pay taxes. People have already done this to greater or lesser success. Of course, we don't call them anarchists. We call them outlaws. Whether it is Jesse James or David Koresh, people have and do opt out of the system. Yet, I don't ever see anarcho-capitalists doing this. They may refuse to vote because it gives legitimacy to the system, but they still pay their taxes and do as they are told. None of them actually follows through with it. Why? For the simple reason they would lose. They may hate the present system, but they still live within it because it beats the alternative. When it becomes worse, then this is when revolution breaks out. Anarchists could balance the power of the state with greater numbers. But to have these numbers, they would have to come to some sort of agreement on shared principles. If this seems like a rerun of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, it is. Since individuals are so highly varied, any such agreement is going to be a compromise. Anarchists go along with the compromise even if they don't like it. This is the way it is. It can be made better or worse, but I doubt that it can ever be made perfect.
Anarchists will point out that it is in the nature of governments to grow and to become tyrannies. There is truth to this, but I think we can admit that the present system in the USA is better in some ways than it was back when George Washington was sworn in. We don't have slavery anymore. Women can vote. We still have a free press. Other things are not so good such as that damn income tax. But relative to history, the USA is indeed unique. It isn't perfect, but it can be better. In the absence of perfection, I am going to take the next best thing. Right now, that is the USA.
You can't create a perfect circle. Similarly, you can't create a perfectly free society. These things don't exist. But we can say that one circle is superior to another circle. That is the essence of consequentialism and the minarchist position. I can argue that limited government is better than statism. I can't argue that limited government is better than anarchy anymore than I can argue that Earth is better than Heaven. But that is the difference between reality and abstraction. A real circle trumps a perfect but non-existent circle. Empiricism trumps rationalism. The anarchist like the Christian and the Utopian and the Marxist must show us that it is real. So far, I remain unconvinced. Seeing is believing, and I don't see it. I can see where drug legalization works. I can see where low taxes work. I can see where free markets work. I can see the spontaneous order of the internet. But I don't see Somalia having anything superior to the USA. I don't see historical examples of anarchic societies that flourished the way this country flourishes today. Even as revolutionaries were overthrowing the government in Egypt, looters were pillaging, rapists were sexually assaulting women, and the populace turned to the military for order. The fact that government emerges from the disorder speaks to the reality that some measure of authority must be necessary. And the fact that those governments get overthrown when they go too far or become utterly corrupt also speaks to the necessity of limits.
NOTES
1. The Concept Of A Perfect Circle?
2. Deontological libertarianism
3. Consequentialist libertarianism
0 comments:
Post a Comment