Irn-Bru wrote:Kazoo wrote:From what I'm reading I'm not sure I'm seeing it your way that an anarchist libertarian is an anarchist. They are more a combination of the two where they believe in government provided by the private sector.
That depends on what you mean by those terms. Take, for example, "government." Apart from the services that the government provides: roads, education, courts, police, health care,legal representation, money and banking, etc.—and what exactly is left? Each of those services is just that—a service—and each of those I have mentioned (as well as any service that any government has ever provided) has at some point been taken care of privately at one point or another.
(There are few areas where the government hasn't tried to step in to provide services. Hell, religion has been a function of the state in many socieites. And we would get indignant at that as though we are on a moral high ground there.)
OK, add to what I've just said the belief that voluntary association is infinitely more moral, far more efficient and effective, and exponentially more compassionate in providing those services. The logical conclusion becomes clear. There is no sanctified "role of government" that rises above the ordinary needs of ordinary people.
One might argue that people left to their own devices aren't capable of organizing those services in a given society, but that's missing the point: all I'm saying is that government is nothing but those services. There's no set-apart role that is metaphysically unique to governance. "Governance" outside of the conglamoration of those activities doesn't exist.I haven't had a lot of time to read up yet. But it appears to call Rothbard an anarchist isn't actually accurate.
In what way? No matter where he was in his activity, if you had asked him: "Do you believe that voluntary association is sufficient for human society?" he would have answered "yes." He thought government was by nature unjust—but that didn't stop him from advocating his views through whatever means he could, including political activity. I'm still not seeing the contradiction.
I'll read more up on him and comment further, but here's my problem with visualizing what he's proposing. We START by "voluntary association." But we run into conflicts over limited resources. Land, water, airwave frequencies. One of two things happen. There is a war (like in the Japanese system) where smaller groups are assimiliated into larger or there are negotiations. In the end the inevitable result to me is an "oversight organization" with expanding involuntary components. And one day a bunch of them, let's arbitrarily choose the word "Democrats" realize they can gain power by promising some people to take other people's earned money and give it to them using the power of the State.
Anyway, that's not an argument, just a reaction. I will say his views are interesting though and I'll read up more on him and get back to you.
I saw that, and I'm pulling for them.
