Image credit.
The idea that all human concerns can be dealt with in a market context, by voluntary transactions, which is usually implied by AC, is patently inapplicable in reality. Markets only work to the extent that agreement (of a certain sort) is possible. But life is full of issues where agreement is not possible. So, there is a competition amongst intransigent concerns (“political scarcity”), and we must often yield to positions we do not like, and there must be sufficient authority to police controversy in the face of unforgiving opposition.
Large communities work differently than small groups. Coordination and cooperation in very large groups requires adequate forms of authority, powerful enforcement agencies. We cannot do without them. We must try to keep them sufficiently constrained. But there is no guarantee that we will be able to keep them under control. I am not aware of a social technology that can preclude the enormous toxic potential of the state. I sincerely regret this state of affairs; but the matter is not altered by insisting on the impossible – a world without the constraints that I have tried to outline in this note, as well as here and here. We must enter the political process and try to shape the political mood and the state so as to enhance liberty and ensure respect for her. It is an open-ended battle. We have no better means.
There is another conundrum associated with AC. Take my part of Germany as it was 1 000 years ago, and compare it to today. The difference is a huge increase in liberty. At the same time, we register a huge increase in the extent and impact of the state. Would AC deny that liberty has increased? If not, I cannot take that position seriously. If yes, how is a substantial increase of liberty compatible with substantial state growth? Ah, all the additional liberty is due to non-state agents! Well, that, however, is hardly credible. It is not my neighbour or my girl friend who enforce my rights, it is the state. And if I can prove that my neighbour has stolen X from my premises, I can be pretty sure, the state will rectify the matter.
I am not defending the state – like I do not defend the elephant. I look at both, and acknowledge their features and reality.
If one wishes to promote more liberty, one has to acknowledge the substratum within which she will have to be fought for and established.
I shall not deal with the poor philosophical underpinnings of Rothbard-type of AC; I think Feser has done an excellent job at it - for more see Natural Ends and Prudential Judgement.
It is worth noting, however, that Rothbard clearly believes that the nature of the state can be deduced without reference to the empirical world – a preposterous position that must lead to conclusions severely at odds with reality. It only goes to show the solipsistic, the hedonistic dogmatism underlying his approach to the issue.Not only is the AC approach
in its dominant Rothbardian variant methodologically fatally flawed (in its
unsustainable, anti-empirical apriorism), it is also attitudinally repugnant:
people who fail to discover the purportedly self-evident features of AC’s actually
contradictory system of non sequiturs and arbitrary and uncompelling premises
are treated as idiots or collaborators of evil powers. Naturally, an incoherent and empirically false theory can be maintained only by dogmatic arrogance.
Thus, the Rothbardian AC sits in his rocking chair savouring the joys of self-righteousness to be had from (the travesty of) an axiomatic theory of politics and morality. He refrains from politics, and specialises one-sidedly in complaining about the state. He diverts talent and impetus away from the freedom movement, binding it in self righteous, morbid inaction ( - Bob Higgs strikes me as a prime example of AC as a form of personal depression).
The adherent of AC does not understand the conditions of liberty, he damages the reputation of liberty, distorts its meaning and weakens its forces. He is either enraged, depressed, or both, and full of acerbic contempt for anyone with a divergent view.
Personally, I find it a lot harder to be a liberal, now that I have given up my implicit AC-illusions. By the latter term I mean this: since most of the valuable material that I used in recent years in order to educate myself about issues concerning liberty were provided by AC-sources, I developed the AC-habit of restricting my perceptions of the state to its lamentable aspects. This habit makes life easier, things always fit into a neat pattern. And there is a huge industry (blogs etc.) that caters to this view. I can no longer convince myself of the simplicity of that stance.
Liberty, to me, is not an end in itself. I give precedence to the unending quest by which I seek to approximate truth.
I see a certain analogy between the struggle for liberty and the Christian notion of original sin. Man is apt to act sinfully and must constantly struggle not to yield to this propensity. Liberty is a battle not to yield to conditions of the human life that tend toward arbitrariness and inordinate domination. It is an endless endeavour, never to be replaced by a final state of uncontested and perfect liberty.
See also Classical Liberalism vs. Anarchism (1/3) and Classical Liberalism vs. Anarchism (2/3).
Comments