03.12.09Constitutionalism is Socialism
A constitutionally limited government provides the services of security and justice. To accomplish this, it establishes a system of national defense, police and courts—these are the means of production of security and justice. By definition then, limited government is socialist (i.e., state ownership of the means of production.) It’s also socialist in the sense that the provision of security and justice is socialized: the costs and benefits are collectively shared. Furthermore, these services are funded through involuntary taxation and private citizens are coercively prohibited from competing in their provision. Government is inherently a coercive socialist monopoly. Therefore, constitutionalists are socialists, as they support limited government. (To be precise, constitutionalists are coercive socialists—I have nothing against voluntary socialism, which is perfectly legitimate.)
The thing is, they also consider the principles of liberty to be important. Constitutionalists believe that markets are better than central planning, but that government is necessary to protect liberty—that government is a necessary evil. This contradictory position mainly exists because they lack the understanding of the logical conclusion of the principles of liberty: the stateless society. But rather than just rejecting them as statists, we should reach out to them as potential libertarians in the spirit of gain orientation. Fortunately, an open mind and a little education are all that’s needed to arrive at a consistent pro-liberty position.
On practical grounds, Austrian economics is quite clear: the market always beats the State. Competition always beats monopoly. Why leave the government with any role at all if the market can provide us with everything we want? If the market is better than government in every other area, why would it fail in the so-called “essential roles of government”: national defense, police and courts? The functions of both national defense and police could be produced more efficiently by entrepreneurs selling protection services. Private courts would easily provide better, speedier and more affordable justice than government courts. Security and justice are extremely important, all the more reason not to leave them in the hands of a coercive socialist monopoly. There is no place for the state in a free society; anything the government can do, the market can do better.
The state is also incompatible with basic moral principles. For instance, it is morally wrong to initiate violence against another person. Yet this is all the State can ever do, using “the strong arm of the law”. Taxation is a perfect example, since a government couldn’t exist without it. Taxes are not voluntary, they must be enforced with coercion. Government can only tax you because it has the overwhelming power to force you to pay. If it didn’t have so much power, you could try to defend yourself. However, most people choose to pay because of this threat of violence (which, in any other scenario, would be recognized as extortion or robbery). If you don’t pay, and insist on not paying, you will eventually be staring down the barrel of a government gun. After your non-compliance with their written requests, they will initiate violence against you by arresting you and putting you in jail (otherwise known as kidnapping). If you resist their efforts and attempt to defend yourself, you will be shot (murdered). Notice that the government is the aggressor—it initiates the violence. The person who refuses to pay does no more than defend himself from their attacks.
The State is a destructive parasite that is inherently immoral. Government is socialism—even the smallest one. Les Antman nailed it when he wrote that “limited government is the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly.” There’s no way around it: the State must go.
Most constitutionalists have a healthy anti-government attitude. They just don’t realize that a society without government is both possible and desirable. They’re ripe for becoming full-blown libertarians.
To learn about the workings of a stateless society, I recommend reading Chaos Theory (only ~50 pages) [pdf version] or The Market For Liberty [also in pdf and audio-book]. Another excellent short introduction is Roderick Long’s Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections.
1-900-NOO-CLUE.
Toban, you obviously don’t understand management optimization at all.
Socialism is full government control.
Limited government, WHEN IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY, is designed to protect the lives and property of the people from force imposed on them, even by government itself.
Socialism *is* that force so imposed. You’re claiming that we need socialism to protect ourselves from socialism.
A limited structure of government is designed to create a minimal framework of maximum flexibility to preserve those rights and otherwise get out of the way.
Your error is conflating what we actually have now with that which it should be.
The idea of a stateless society being the logical conclusion of liberty is contradicted and even disproved by the simple self-serving shortsightedness of people.
The fact is, governments are a necessary evil because most people are well-meaning but stupid, and of the rest who aren’t, part of them aren’t well-meaning and smart, and they look to exploit others and the system for their own gain at the expense of others, and that’s the problem that will never go away.
Tannim, I stipulated the definition of socialism as state ownership of the means of production (and also mentioned the other meaning: sharing the costs and benefits of the production of a good). Since the government produces (or attempts to produce) justice and security using means (police, military, courts) that it owns; then by definition there is socialism in the production of those services.
Limited government is a ridiculous idea. It runs something like this: government is inefficient and prone to corruption, therefore it should only be entrusted with the most vital services. It’s patently absurd!
Furthermore, how can an agency which expropriates property claim to be a property protector? How can an agency which judges its own cases claim to provide justice?
Last, people’s short-sightedness is the direct result of government, and especially public government (i.e., democracy/republic). But that’s just another argument against government. Short-sighted self-serving people are much more dangerous when they can vote.
In a free-market system of government, how would these businesses make a profit?
I’m not sure I agree that there is a ideological contradiction because the powers granted to government are actually powers which only arise when there is a group of people functioning as a group – not individuals making arrangements with other individuals.
Look at all of the authority granted to the general government… notice that the powers granted to them are not individual rights. They weren’t granted the right to life, liberty or property. It makes no sense to speak of the power of the general government in the sense of individual rights. How about the right to make treaties with foreign nations – it assumes nationhood (a group of individuals). Commerce between states – would an individual have need to resolve an issue between he and himself? There is another class of rights and powers which are manifest only when a group of individuals come together.
We would not need a court system if a nation consisted of only one person or even two persons – who would be a neutral party if one were to seek suit against the other?
Government may be socialism in a sense but it is correctly classified as such within the bounds of Libertarian ideology due to the nature of the delegated powers of government.
When speaking of taxation, I agree that our government is currently violating Libertarian principles but they are also violating the Constitution. Under the Constitution, taxation of activity between individuals is a violation of individual rights. Only corporate profit is to be taxed within the United States according to the constitution. The use of force to require individuals to comply is contradictory to their purpose but the constitution is not contradictory to Libertarian ideology.
Businesses providing security and justice would make profits just like any other business does: by selling their services to paying customers.
Are you saying that groups have different rights than the individuals of which they are composed? If so, I disagree. All rights are individual rights.
Regarding taxation, corporations are made up of individuals. So taxing corporations is taxing individuals and violating their rights. And the constitution contradicts libertarian principles in too many ways to list here.
Tannim said; //because most people are well-meaning but stupid//
This is a very unfair position to take. Do you include yourself in this list? Probably not. Do you know “most” people? Probably not. This is a collectivist statement and collectivist statements are usually inaccurate.
Toban said; //is inefficient and prone to corruption, therefore it should only be entrusted with the most vital services.//
I would consider food and water delivery to be the most vital services, and I certain don’t want government running that!
//Businesses providing security and justice would make profits just like any other business does: by selling their services to paying customers.//
Bingo
Toban, thanks for a fantastic post! It really spoke to me because, while I can see that liberty leads to “anarchy”, it is still a pretty frightening prospect. I am not an anarchist or minarchist, I just haven’t decided yet (in fact I think we should remain eternal sceptics).
I see that you are a Rothbardian. I am beginning to characterise myself that way. He is certainly influencing my thinking the most at the moment. I am reading America’s Great Depression and listening to For a New Liberty (which I think is a similar work to the one you recommended – Market for Liberty).
What concerns me is that on the About page of this site it says
I’ve read a little about Agorism and it sounds like revolution to me. Plus I hear there are different “phases” of this revolution and I imagine that it’s gets ugly towards the end. I can agree with peaceful means of achieving freedom – certainly with education and peaceful secession. Education seems the most important thing. Most people think that you’ve achieved freedom when you have a democracy! Unfortunately, there is no concerted single voice for freedom. There is much disagreement and squabbling which makes it difficult even for those seekers like myself.
Also curious about any distinction you might make between what you call “market anarchism” and “anarcho-capitalism”. Perhaps it’s in the phrase “voluntary socialism … is perfectly legitimate” (I couldn’t agree more). Freedom is freedom. If someone wants to start a communist state then good luck to them – may the best philosophy/ideology win
I don’t like the term anarchy. It scares people. I quite like the term Voluntarism (or Voluntaryism if necessary). Many people equate anarchy with lawlessness. This freaks people out. Anarchy is without rule or without leaders. Somehow I think a free society would not be without leaders (or perhaps even without rulers if you can imagine voluntary rule). As long as the individual is free to secede at any time. The best term seems to be freedom but people these days have forgotten what it means.
However, for me, there remains many tough questions. Many have been addressed by various people and I only need read about them – such as private roads, law, police etc. These I need to read more about but have a good intuition about. What concerns me more is that the mega-wealthy will become supremely powerful. We say that the business cycle will end if we avoid fractional-reserve and central banking but couldn’t the interest rates be manipulated by someone(s) with enough money? What would stop the mega wealthy from requiring the signing of various contracts in order to receive services that are monopolies or would take years (and much money) to develop alternatives? That a plutocracy would develop is my greatest fear for anarchism. I haven’t to date heard this concern address in any of my readings. If a plutocracy was to develop then probably violent revolution would be the only way out (and that disagrees with me very much).
Hi Steven, glad you liked the post!
On the agorism question, I don’t see much use for a self-conscious movement of agorists. Agorism is just doing business under the table—entrepreneurs do it all the time when the reward outweighs the risk. No libertarians are needed to push it along. Black market enterprise will arise on its own to provide the institutions to replace the state. Strategically, I think secession (and especially microsecession) is the way to go. Education is pretty important too, especially teaching people that secession is legitimate.
Market anarchism = anarcho-capitalism in my books. “Capitalism” is a lost term—too many different definitions and it has really bad connotations for most people. I like “market anarchy”. The A word is in a really deep hole right now, but insofar as our goal is anarchy, we’re going to have to face the music eventually. If you try to avoid using the word, people are going to make the obvious point that you’re advocating anarchy. So we may as well just be upfront and open about anarchy now, rather than run into these problems down the road.
On plutocracy, I don’t see any reason for concern. Even if there were some super wealthy people, what could they do? Without political power, they’d be impotent. Any attempts at monopolizing industries would be fine because anyone else could try to compete. If they couldn’t compete, then that means the monopolist is serving the customers well (good products at good prices). So no problem. Further, any attempt to establish monopolies with wealth alone would be a huge waste, as the monopolist would be constantly losing money in trying to undercut or buy out competitors.
Keep reading, you’re on the right track. The Mises Institute is a superb resource.
I was increasingly horrified by the videos on Agorism by Niccolo Adami. http://www.agorism.info/recommended_videos
On plutocracy. I feel that sometimes it can take a long time to develop an alternative to a monopoly. If the owner(s) of that monopoly the require not just certain (high) payments but also that certain contracts are signed prior to doing business with you, then it leads to great “political” power. It could be highly coercisive.
Yep, I’ve got a bunch of books from the Mises Institute and my RSS reader is overflowing with Liberty and Economics websites the world over
Did you study economics formally yourself? Do you recommend the Mises University?
Niccolo is a bit crazy. I totally understand your horror.
Plutocracy is not a problem, because no matter how much economic power one has, people can avoid them if they choose. Only government coercion is unavoidable. So if a monopolist springs up, he is held at the mercy of the customers and the potential competitors.
I haven’t studied formally… yet. I did go to Mises U 2008 though. I recommend it, very good experience to learn and network.
“Plutocracy is not a problem”
According to a narrow application of NAP, yes. But on thick libertarian grounds, there are many arguments against plutocracy. That’s why the subtitle to Roderick’s blog is:
“”Austro” as in Rothbard and Wittgenstein, “Athenian” as in Aristotle and smashing-the-plutocracy.”
Hi Steven,
Actually, your concerns are not new. Many writers have addressed them, although it’s possible that you may disagree with their responses. However, for a start, you might want to check out “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” by Roderick Long (in particular, objection #8 – “The Rich Will Rule).
As for Agorism, Toban will have to confirm, but I think he’s not as excited about it as he used to be (note: I’m not an Agorist, but I see some merit to it).
I also prefer Voluntaryism, over Anarchism ( or Anarchy). I personally don’t see the “A” terms being redeemed any time soon, if ever. http://www.voluntaryist.com/
Richard G.
Some strange and confused responses to your entry. Maybe it’s the word “constitutionalism” in the title that attracted these people. Who knows.
And how do we define property rights?
Hi Richard. Thanks for the response. I’d downloaded a PDF of Long’s article recently. Good to know that I have “#8 The rich will rule” to look forward to. I’ve just moved it to the top of my reading pile