As some of you have probably noticed, this blog is a bit eclectic. Quite often I will be writing about whatever has struck my fancy in my internet news and blog readings. You might expect this week that if I am going to write a political blog, that it might focus on one thing or another that President Obama did or did not say in the State of the Union Address, but the fact is, that is a really boring topic. Everything he said was expected and the arguments that have grown out of it are exactly what was expected. We won't cover any new ground that way. One argument I have seen going on on the Facebook walls of fellow libertarian commentators Austin Petersen, Libertarian Girl and Julie Borowski is where, how and if the anarcho-capitalist fits into the liberty movement.
I don't want to put words into anyone's mouths, but it seems that the anarcho-capitalists often argue, and angrily so, that they are the only "true libertarians" and that asserting the need of a government of any kind makes one a statist pig. The problem is that history has shown that true anarchy, the complete lack of government, leads to tyranny moreso than most forms of government. Now, here me out before you thrust the statist label upon me. The question that keeps being asked of the anarchists is how those in an anarchic society might deal with those who violate the rights of others in a particularly evil fashion (murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.). Quite often, the answer given by the anarchist is that "I would just kill that person". On the surface, that argument seems to work because in anarchic society there is no law or police to prevent one from handling his own justice and revenge, but there is also no mechanism for due process toward the accused, and no way of preventing retaliation and long, bloody feuds.
That is the drawback to anarchy. Due process is out the window and only those mighty enough to take revenge get the appearance of justice while those who are weaker only get justice, peace, and protection if they can convince a mightier person to help them. This is where the slope starts to slide toward tyranny. There is a good chance the weaker persons accept this protection and justice from their stronger counterparts in exchange for some service. This sounds great to the anarcho-capitalist so far; a free market solution to justice and protection. However, this is the exactly how feudalism begins. People in an anarchic society voluntarily put themselves into servitude to an overlord of some sort because of the protection and pseudo-justice he can supply, until after a generation or so, the servitude is no longer voluntary and we have full blown feudalism. A large scale historical example is Europe in the 1000 years after the fall of Rome, a smaller scale, but more detailed example would be reading the history of Corsica during the same period
A powerful, but limited in scope, constitutional government stands to bring the most liberty to the most people because it alleviates the need for weaker persons and their progeny to become subject to a feudal overlord system for protection. This is what the American forefathers, particularly the libertarian leaning ones, envisioned for the United States. Unfortunately, keeping the scope of that governing body as limited as it should be is a difficult and eternal task and it has gotten away from us in the last few generations. That is why revolutions (sometimes peaceable, sometimes not) have been necessary from time to time throughout human history. I am still hopeful that our problems can be solved peaceably, but it will need to be done soon. I am afraid are approaching the tipping point.
No comments:
Post a Comment