By Carl Milsted, Jr.

I must admit I was a bit surprised by the reaction of some anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians to my previous essay, “The Need to be Anarchists.”

For years, the active political branch of the libertarian movement has been paralyzed by its intellectual framework. Libertarians are split between the Rothbard school of natural rights theory, that rules out practical action by the government, even where the case for government is strong, and the utilitarian defense of liberty, which allows several slippery slopes towards excessive government.

The Rothbardian says “taxation is theft” and then immediately has to deal with how to have a civil society without any tax-funded government. This gets particularly difficult when dealing with the transition from today’s level of government to the ideal.

The utilitarian defense of liberty has the opposite problem. It justifies too much government. There are areas where government is competitive with the private sector due to economies of scale. A well run government can run some utilities about as well as the private sector – at least for a time. (On the other hand, if such a government runs too many utilities, it can become corrupted by having too many voters on the public payroll…) Alas, this utilitarian defense also leaves open the case for many wealth transfers which leads to moral corruption.

I offered a way to split the difference, an intellectual basis for liberty that keeps the benefits of natural rights theory while allowing some government where the case for government is compelling. The utilitarian case for liberty leaves the burden of proof on the libertarian; it is necessary to prove that the private sector solution is better on a case by case basis. My theft with compensation case for limited government turns the argument around. It is up to the statist to make the case for the government solution on a case by case basis. And it is not enough to show that government works; I demanded that to justify any tax paid government service:

1. Government must work at least twice as well as the most efficient private alternative.
2. That the taxes levied to pay for said service be in proportion to the market price for the most efficient private alternative. No transfer trickery is allowed.

Such an intellectual basis results in a call for much smaller government than we have today, without the many reducto ad absurdum traps that Rothbardian natural rights theory is prone to. Moreover, my basis provides useful guidance in both emergency situations and during transitions from current bloated levels of government toward the ideal.

This intellectual basis also justifies anarcho-capitalism if it can be shown to be halfway workable!

Ah, but you do have to show it. Given the large number of failures of anarchy throughout civilized history, this is an unpleasant burden for the devout anarchist. But it may not be insurmountable. Perhaps some clever anarchists can succeed in creating viable alternatives to government where the case for government is currently strong.

So, anarchists, why are your attacks so intense? I have cut your burden down considerably compared to the utilitarians. I have set up a framework where libertarian can effectively work to get society closer and closer to your goal. If you can work out the last few kinks in how to handle the most problematic aspects of anarchy such as defense and roads, while we minarchists cut away at the other 70-90% of government, then we arrive at your desired destination faster. So, what is the problem?

I think the answer lies in this paragraph from Rober Kaercher’s “A Reply to Milsted: The Need for Anarchists” at strike-the-root.com:

“When the parasite eventually exhausts itself, as it inevitably will, the very same 99+% of people who currently say they reject anarchy will be more prepared for anarchy than they realize.

“We just need to persuade them of that crucial idea”

I think I see the problem. Many anarcho-capitalists don’t want to see government cut in half. They want to see it grow. They want it to be bad. Then, they can stand on the sidelines pointing out every loathsome aspect of excessive government so that when things get really, really bad, the people will remember the wise pronouncement of the anarchists, and dispose with the state entirely.

In other words, many of my critics are Hegelians – Marxists of the Right as Robert Locke said in The American Conservative. They see history as needing to go in a bad direction in order to reveal the internal contradictions of government.

I have seen this mindset among minarchist libertarians as well. It provides the core plot line in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I know many Libertarian Party activists who believe the purpose of the party is not to win elections now, but to simply be there, ready to take over when the economy collapses under bureaucracy and bankruptcy.

And it is this mindset that I wish to attack vigorously. It is sick, evil and wrong!

Open your history books. Read about how bad and corrupt the Roman Empire had become under Caligula and Nero. Then, realize that the Empire was just getting started! It would continue to grow from this point, and the last parts of it continued into the 1400s! And when the last vestiges of the Empire collapsed, it was replaced not with liberty, but another empire.

Read about Ivan the Terrible. Then realize that the Czars of Russia were just getting warmed up. It would take centuries to get rid of them – in order to replace them with the Soviet Union. Read the history of China. Dynasties rose and fell, but the bureaucracy lived on. How many centuries did it take to get rid of the shoguns in Japan? The caste system in India?

Government works. Evil government works. It does not naturally wither away or collapse under its own weight. It takes effort to shrink government, and effort to keep it shrunk. Every step on the road to liberty is precious. Even if you find that the minimal state I currently advocate is still unacceptable, it is far better than what we have today.

Ah, “better.” This is the fear. Many an anarcho-capitalist fears that a minimal state will work, at least for a time, and then the people will become content, and believe that government is desirable in small doses. Better to let government grow fat and evil.

This fear is unjustified. When times get bad, people look for strong leadership, turning to more government. It is when times are pleasant that people wonder why they are paying so much for protection. It’s in the history books. Look it up. In times of crisis, government grows. Ergo, to make things better we must make them better.

Consider, suppose you want to replace a tax supported army with volunteer militias and/or private protection services. Which society is more likely to allow you to develop these institutions?

1. A state of emergency government?
2. A modern welfare state?
3. A minimal libertarian government?

If you read enough U.S. history, you will realize that the correct answer is 3.
The path to peaceful anarchy, if it exists at all, runs through minarchy.

Dr. Carl Milsted, Jr. is a Senior Editor of The Free Liberal. He is the author of holisticpolitics.org, organizer of the Libertarian Reform Caucus and chairman of the Libertarian Party of Buncombe County, NC. He also runs Quiz2d.com, an online version of the popular Nolan quiz.