Libertarians are not Anarchists
Libertarians are not anarchists
Often, I have noticed that many who utilize emotional appeals to criticize libertarianism will often allude to necessary government services like police, fire departments, courts, etc. and ask sarcastically if I support those institutions too because they are, in fact, governmental institutions and are collectively funded by taxpayers.
Allow me to break down the difference between libertarianism and anarchism. Essentially, libertarianism means maximum freedom, with minimum government interference. Unlike anarchists, libertarians also believe that NO government can also impede freedom. Imagine a graph where the x-axis is amount of government and the y-axis is freedom, on scale of 0-100 for each. On one end of the x-axis at 0, you have complete anarchy, however, this data point would coincide with a low freedom rating on the y-axis, as would a 100 rating on the x-axis (complete state control). Imagine this as an upside down parabola. What libertarians argue is that government is a necessary evil, but 0 government is as bad as 100 government. What libertarians perpetually question, study and experiment, is what x-axis amount, along this parabola, will find the maximum freedom on the y-axis: where does the parabola “peak?”
Libertarians believe in public, socially provided (via tax) services that provide additional value over the amount of tax needed to finance them. Libertarians believe in government that contributes to and facilitates the functioning of a free economy and society. A local county police force, a socially provided governmental institution, is a good example. Is it more economically feasible for the shop keeper to be constantly vigilant guarding his store with a rifle to protect his goods, while also ever fearful that someone might rob him? Maybe he should hire a guard, but that would impact his income statement and crowd out the potential hiring of another employee. Or is it better to give up a bit of tax in association with other tax payers to fund a collective police force to enforce the law for everyone? I argue the latter, and that any government program that provides benefits to society in excess of cost is a worthwhile venture. Instead of spending a large salary on a personal body guard, the shop keeper pays a modest tax smaller in amount as his “share” to this collective program.
This is the essential meaning of modern-day American libertarianism. To recap:
1. Government is a necessary evil.
2. Having no government to protect our rights can impede freedom as much as total government.
3. Cost-benefit considerations should be given to all government programs.
4. Government’s role is to facilitate the functioning of a free economy and society.
5. We do not believe in the rule of the people, we believe in the rule of law.
Often, I have noticed that many who utilize emotional appeals to criticize libertarianism will often allude to necessary government services like police, fire departments, courts, etc. and ask sarcastically if I support those institutions too because they are, in fact, governmental institutions and are collectively funded by taxpayers.
Allow me to break down the difference between libertarianism and anarchism. Essentially, libertarianism means maximum freedom, with minimum government interference. Unlike anarchists, libertarians also believe that NO government can also impede freedom. Imagine a graph where the x-axis is amount of government and the y-axis is freedom, on scale of 0-100 for each. On one end of the x-axis at 0, you have complete anarchy, however, this data point would coincide with a low freedom rating on the y-axis, as would a 100 rating on the x-axis (complete state control). Imagine this as an upside down parabola. What libertarians argue is that government is a necessary evil, but 0 government is as bad as 100 government. What libertarians perpetually question, study and experiment, is what x-axis amount, along this parabola, will find the maximum freedom on the y-axis: where does the parabola “peak?”
Libertarians believe in public, socially provided (via tax) services that provide additional value over the amount of tax needed to finance them. Libertarians believe in government that contributes to and facilitates the functioning of a free economy and society. A local county police force, a socially provided governmental institution, is a good example. Is it more economically feasible for the shop keeper to be constantly vigilant guarding his store with a rifle to protect his goods, while also ever fearful that someone might rob him? Maybe he should hire a guard, but that would impact his income statement and crowd out the potential hiring of another employee. Or is it better to give up a bit of tax in association with other tax payers to fund a collective police force to enforce the law for everyone? I argue the latter, and that any government program that provides benefits to society in excess of cost is a worthwhile venture. Instead of spending a large salary on a personal body guard, the shop keeper pays a modest tax smaller in amount as his “share” to this collective program.
This is the essential meaning of modern-day American libertarianism. To recap:
1. Government is a necessary evil.
2. Having no government to protect our rights can impede freedom as much as total government.
3. Cost-benefit considerations should be given to all government programs.
4. Government’s role is to facilitate the functioning of a free economy and society.
5. We do not believe in the rule of the people, we believe in the rule of law.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
This is so true, I wish Portland was more of a conservative libertarian city, and you can see where the rest of Oregon is starting to learn more to the libertarian side. Would be nice to see some of these useless liberals get pushed out.Posted 10-05-2015 at 05:40 PM by borntorun1180
