Skip to main content

DEGREES OF LIBERTARIANISM

I reserve the right to be wrong.



What would make Libertarianism's internal divisions clear? Perhaps a simple exposition of degrees of Libertarianism is in order. The degree to which different Libertarians reject elite monopoly power - whether it's a system built for a small fixed caste (oligarchy) or for the rich (plutocracy) - is important to recognise correctly so as to know what it is that people actually want the world to be like.



First, a definition of terms.



State - Metaphysical entity that is governed by an elite/government who are appointed either by themselves, the population at large or by sortition. Responsible for agreeing to and abiding by international treaties.

Courts - Arbiters in deciding which parties in a disagreement are right on a case by case basis.

Supreme Court - Arbiter in cases involving the body of laws itself.

Policing - Legally-empowered enforcers of laws.

Defence - Peeps with guns of various sizes for discouraging armed incursions by other nations' defence forces.

Welfare - Redistribution of money to help people pay for things they otherwise couldn't.

Licensing - Granting of legal right to engage in an activity. Those who do a thing without a license are breaking the law and can be punished in some way for it. Examples include driving a car or practising medicine.

Development Interventionism - Redistribution to infrastructure projects by government.

Taxation - Compulsory payment of money to government, descended from the tributary relationships between vassals and masters in ages past.



So, with our criteria defined, what do various stripes of political thought make of these several state activities.



SOCIAL LIBERALISM

Liberalism and socialism scraping for supremacy, both on the inside of the government at all times. Policies will express arbitrary mixtures of inspiration from both Liberalism and Socialism.

Yes to the State.
Yes to the State Courts monopoly.
Yes to the State Policing monopoly.
Yes to the State Defence monopoly.
Yes to State Welfare.
Yes to State Licensing.
Yes to Development Interventionism.
Yes to taxation to fund the above.



CLASSICAL LIBERALISM

Not really my idea of Libertarianism at all.

Yes to the State.
Yes to the State Courts monopoly.
Yes to the State Policing monopoly.
Yes to the State Defence monopoly.
Maybe State Welfare.
Maybe State Licensing.
Yes to taxation to fund the above.



MINARCHISM

Yes to the State.
Yes to the State Courts monopoly.
Yes to the State Policing monopoly.
Yes to the State Defence monopoly.
Maybe State Welfare.
Maybe State Licensing.
No taxation.



MINARCHO-CAPITALISM

Yes to the State.
Yes to State Supreme Court.
No State Courts monopoly.
No State Policing monopoly.
No State Defence monopoly.
No State Welfare.
No State Licensing.
No taxation.



ANARCHO-CAPITALISM

No State.



It is beyond the scope of this blog post - or the author's knowledge - to look into the philosophical justifications for each of the positions taken above. Anarcho-capitalism is perhaps the most philosophically consistent of the lot, but that's not where I lie.

I am for now one rung above, a minarcho-capitalist, determined to see competition weed out bad governance, but nevertheless desirous of two state institutions to remain, but that's another story.



On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Mr Matt demonstrates how un-libertarian it is to permit others to be un-libertarian!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...
Post a Comment
Read more

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...
Post a Comment
Read more

ECON 1c: GOOD GOD, IT'S THE GOODS!!

I still reserve the right to be wrong. So, goods. Goody gumdrops. It's a good thing, in a blog about economics, to talk about goods. Hopefully I'll do a good job, because I'm running out of tired turns of phrase. SCARCE AND NON-SCARCE RESOURCES So, there's some stuff you can get as much of as you like ( I can download the pdf of Jeffrey Tucker's "It's a Jetsons World" ) and there's some stuff you can't. The latter would include computers. But let's use an easier example; that pdf is a digitised version of a book, and books in their hardcopy form are scarce, as opposed to the intangible text inside. Air is another non-scarce resource. NON-SCARCE GOODS Non-scarce goods are called goods because they can be consumed by humans. If they have their origin in human action or production they can also be called products (as per ECON 1a). You can consume air, so air is a good. As regards produced goods, if they are infinitely repro...
Post a Comment
Read more