Anarchic Law
People unfamiliar with market anarchism or libertarian anarchism often seem to mistakenly believe that the stateless (anarchic) society we advocate is one of chaos and lawlessness. Of course, this is incorrect. We recognize that human beings are social creatures who accomplish a great deal through cooperation and that they naturally come up with various voluntary systems of rules to facilitate that cooperation. The market anarchist's contention is that it's simply not justifiable for one person or group of people (a king, a 'central committee,' a democracy, a constitutional republic, etc.) to come along and claim they have the right to monopolize by force such systems of law and then proceed to forcibly extract payment for their services. Here's the first of a great 10-part video series of Roderick Long discussing an anarchist legal order at a Mises Institute Seminar: An Anarchist Legal Order.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
The Subjective Happiness Rationale for libertarianism
Here's one way to explain the rationale for libertarianism. I will call it the Subjective Happiness Rationale, and I'm no doubt borrowing some ideas from Murray Rothbard and possibly others. And I should reiterate that when I say libertarianism, I mean pure anarchist libertarianism (as distinct from the limited-government minarchist libertarianism of people like Ron Paul and Milton Friedman).
A consistent theory of human ethics should seek to maximize human happiness (or minimize suffering). But happiness is entirely subjective (just ask a masochist). Since there's no way to determine the nature of someone else's happiness, the only way to maximize it is to allow maximum freedom for the individual to act and thus seek his own happiness. To be consistent, the rule must apply universally to every rational being, or moral agent. The result, it seems to me, is the rule that no one may aggress against anyone else, even if it's purportedly for a noble cause or their own good or the common good. So the state, which by definition is created and maintained by aggression against those within its claimed borders, is illegitimate. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere (which is possible).
Thoughts?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!