As we have come to learn, a libertarian society involves a free market of voluntary exchange predicated upon the natural right to self-ownership. And in this reality, the tenants of life, liberty, and property may truly be realized. In a fashion that would rival the great poets, the State – for which was once conceptualized to protect these tenants and preserve a free society – is inherently the greatest violator and obstacle to a free and libertarian society.
It is this insight that turns the classical liberal into an anarcho-capitalist: the libertarian framework I ascribe to and have hence outlined. Its label was first coined and properly articulated by Murray N. Rothbard, a libertarian scholar I have previously cited. This label however is not entirely necessary as the framework is one that perceives the world consistently through the intent of maintaining unviolated liberty.
And this consistency is what equips the libertarian with the moral duty to object to the existence of the State. By its very nature, governments are a force of aggression once believed to be solely used in defense. This is precisely why governments are labeled ‘necessary evils’. Alas, the libertarian in their consistency refuses to compromise and enable any evil no matter how necessary some men may perceive it to be.
Ludwig von Mises noted this reality, and hence why as a classical liberal he advocated for as limited government as possible:
The worship of the state is the worship of force…the worse evils which mankind ever had to endure were inflicted by governments.
The libertarian staunchly stands by the conviction that if government is an act of force, it shall be expelled. And one need only look around them to observe this basic fact that still remains illusive to the masses.
Murray N. Rothbard eloquently summates the necessity to oppose the State:
Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely the expropriation of private property through taxation [and] the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory.
In more plain language, what Rothbard speaks to is the two fundamental problems with the modern State which makes it completely incompatible with a free society. The first primary violation to liberty is that government coercively confiscates the property and related fruits of one’s bodily labour from individuals through the act of compulsory taxation. The beliefs that justify this blatant act of aggression is that governments are above the law (for they create it) and citizens consented through an imaginary social contract which outlines a dutiful obligation towards the State.
From the perspective of our new libertarian paradigm, this justification is laughable and the act of taxation is criminal behavior no different to bandits demanding levies from villages. The villages, after all, may be told that they owe these bandits for the protection that bestow upon them. It is in this way that governments transform into glorified bandits and in the spirit of Frederic Bastiat, legally plunder the people.
The second fundamental violation is that governments maintain a monopoly on violence. It is only governments who can force others to bend to their will and aggress upon others in the names of: public safety; public interest; national security; public security; and public health to name just a few excuses. Only government accredited and ordained men in badges have the capacity to violate the life, liberty, and property of individuals. And in return, no individual can defend themselves without being criminalized.
It is, in fact, these men in badges who are the enforcers of the legislators (the government officials that create the law; an issue in and of itself). This leads to a twofold insight inherent within the nature of government. Not only is every government act a creation of law and thus a decree and coercively enforced through violent aggressors of the State. When the government acts it does not act on suggestion or recommendation, it is a demand that criminalizes anyone who refuses to comply.
This is its bare nature, and why more government equates to more force and thus less liberty.
Libertarians engage in a simple thought experiment. I ask that you list all the powers government agencies and officials have and how their powers impact the lives of ordinary individuals, and then ask yourself whether such an act would be tolerated if it were committed by your neighbor.
Ten times out of ten, you will notice that if we utilized the same moral compass towards government as we do our neighbors, the entire government apparatus would be criminalized.
Hence why it is that libertarians consider the government a band of criminals; a legalized cartel. Their existence is only made possible through a perceived legitimacy. Everything that governments do in any other context would be considered banditry and cartel behavior. The only saving grace for governments is that the people convince themselves they have consented to its force and rationalize it by believing that the government acts on their behalf and does it for their protection.
One need only look to the most present of histories – at the lockdowns the last two years – to conclude that modern governments are antithetical to freedom and liberty. No more persuasion is truly needed for anyone that is steadfast never to sacrifice nor outsource their life, liberty, and property.
While this subject matter is one of great fascination and much more can and will be said, I will close it here and end my introductory series to the libertarian framework I will utilize throughout my commentary and analysis. And I hope that this has served useful as both a refresher for those already libertarian and those who may be new to the movement and wish for a brief, concise, and layman delve into what libertarianism means.
In the next post, I will recommend some libertarian literature primarily for those who are new to the movement and wish to read further into libertarianism and the various figureheads surrounding the ideology.