Fallacies of the Button-Pushing Question

“The true test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not do it, we could scarcely call ourselves libertarians, and most of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice. The genuine libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the word, an “abolitionist”; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words of another libertarian in a similar connection, ‘blister my thumb pushing that button!’” – Murray N. Rothbard, “Why Be Libertarian?“

The button-pushing question is the test of radicalism and consistency. Being an abolitionist is what it means to be a libertarian. As libertarians we must advocate the instantaneous abolition of injustice, because any form of gradualism in theory means legitimizing the continuation of injustice.

But some have objected that pushing the button would be a mistake. If people still believe government is necessary, they argue, then another government will simply take over, and the resulting chaos will negate any possible gains. For example, Wilt Alston writes:

“I’ve argued that pushing the button and ending the State would result in a lose-lose situation. Certainly, if one stopped the current state from functioning with some instantaneous bolt of lightning, that would be positive in the short run. However, in the long run, if the people, the citizenry, the proletariat, were not educated sufficiently by the time of the button-pushing, i.e., their pre-existing beliefs were not replaced sufficiently, then another state, possibly more coercive than the first, would soon arise. In the interim, we’d be faced with all manner of chaos as people nurtured on the sweet teat of the State struggled to fend for themselves!”

This view is muddled. The point of the button-pushing question is not to stop “the current state from functioning,” but to abolish it altogether. The State is not just a collection of buildings and people in suits, but a hegemonic relationship between individuals. The only way to count as abolishing the State is to abolish those hegemonic relationships.  Just interrupting the workings of government does not count as abolishing government. As Gustav Landauer wrote: “The state is a relationship between human beings, a way by which people relate to one another; and one destroys it by entering into other relationships, by behaving differently to one another.” Alston is wrong to think that merely stopping the current state from functioning constitutes “ending the State.”

To see the absurdity here, let us plug Alston’s definition into the button-pushing question:
If you could push a button that would temporarily stop the State from functioning, would you do it?

The key fallacy appears to lie in neglecting Boetié’s insight: that the power of government rests, not on force, but on public opinion. Thus, to abolish government we need to change public opinion. If government really rested on force alone, all that would be necessary to achieve anarchy would be to kill off the politicians and bureaucrats, or to blow up the Parliament building à la Guy Fawkes. But Alston recognizes this. He points out that we need to educate people so they can change their relationships. The only way to abolish government is to abolish the belief that government is necessary. But for some reason Alston does not think pushing the button will abolish this belief.

Alston’s error is creating two methods of abolishing the State: the “superficial” method and the “real” method. The former involves stopping the State from functioning. As we have seen, this does not count as abolishing the State. The latter involves abolishing the belief that government is necessary, i.e. educating the population, and hence would actually abolish the State. Now, the pushing the button causes the “instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty”. Why, then, does Alston believe pushing the button would result in the superficial method and not the real method?

Obviously, if pushing the button abolished the belief that government is necessary, then there would be nothing to worry about because people would be educated sufficiently. Society would not fall into chaos and a new State would not arise, because public opinion would have shifted to anarchism. But this is all the button-pushing question has ever said!  Pushing the button means abolishing the belief that government is necessary, not just dismantling the visible apparatus of government. The non-button-pushers have created a debate where none exists by misinterpreting the question.

To avoid this misinterpretation, the button-pushing question should be reworded to read:

If you could abolish government by pushing a button that would immediately convince everyone that government is unnecessary (which is the only way to abolish government), would you do it?