I found this unfinished draft article in a file. Not sure why I abandoned it. I would no doubt change the references now, but enclose it below in its unfinished state.
Attention Minarchists: Mind Your Manners
[incomplete draft, July 2008]
by Stephan Kinsella
For some time now, we anarcho-libertarians have put up with a great deal of abuse from some of our minarchist brethren and other fellow travelers—classical liberals, constitutionalists, paleoconservatives.
We anarchists, say some of our purported allies, oppose law and order. According to others, we are “pacifists.” They say we are not “serious,” since our ideas are too radical, too principled, too “unrealistic,” or too difficult to achieve. When we oppose increasing the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to overturn unlibertarian state laws, it must be because we are in favor of these laws. If we criticize the tyrannical, murderous and unlibertarian Abraham Lincoln and his illegal, unconstitutional Civil War, why, we must be paleoconservative, neoconfederate apologists for slavery. Some even condescendingly intone that we anarchists are not “real libertarians.”
Enough is enough. Look, minarchists: it’s time to get something straight. Libertarianism is anarcho-libertarianism. It is simple enough to see why: libertarians oppose aggression, period. Whether it’s committed by private criminals, or by public institutions like the state. Now, it is plain that, in order to maintain their existence, states necessarily commit aggression. Ergo, libertarians do and must oppose states, as they are merely criminal gangs that necessarily, routinely, and systematically commit aggression. (See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)
[Minarchist libertarians squirm around to avoid this issue. It’s not “realistic” to think we can get rid of the state, they say—but our position is a normative one, not a prediction. Our opposition to the state is no more unrealistic than the minarchist’s opposition to private crime, which shall surely always be with us. They try to deny that the state is aggressive—despite its taxation and compulsory jurisdiction; and despite the bloody history of state despotism throughout human history. Some try to change the subject by saying that liberty is “not everything” or that libertarianism is not only about “rights”—but their contortions to avoid admitting that they do, in fact, favor aggression, are telling. An honest minarchist would admit that he reluctantly favors a small amount of state aggression to reduce overall aggression—sort of how you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
The minarchists engage in backflips and subject-changing,]
The bottom line is: libertarians who do not oppose states are, well, to statists, since they are advocating aggression. This is true even of minarchist libertarians, who freely admit they believe a (minimal) state is not only legitimate, but necessary and good. 1 Because of their deviation on this issue—because they make an exception to their general opposition to aggression—they are not complete libertarians. Our non-anarchist separated brethren must be classified as incomplete, or quasi-libertarians. This is the unpleasant truth that we anarcho-libertarians usually politely refrain from mentioning, since we are supposed to be gracious hosts of the quasi-libertarians we let into our house. But the reality is that they are guests, and ought to be lucky to be tolerated. But their impertinence—their audacity in calling us non-libertarian—calls for a reminder of their place.
So, yes, minarchists: we ally with you—for now—because you also want to reduce the power of the state. We appreciate your respect—unprincipled and inconsistent as it is—for individual rights. We have hope that at least some of you will someday see that just as you oppose private aggression, and most public aggression, so you should oppose all public aggression. But make no mistake: our alliance with you is a tactical one, and we grace you with the term “libertarian” as an act of charity, backed by hope and optimism.
But just as hosts have obligations, so, too, do guests. Sure, we welcome your sincere and honest challenges and questions about the nature of full libertarianism. Yes, we relish debate. We appreciate your struggles as you continue in your libertarian growth. But keep in mind that you quasi-libertarians do, after all, favor public aggression, just like the criminals and socialists you condemn out of the other side of your mouth. Be aware that the implicit bargain we have is that, in exchange for our allying with you, recognizing you as libertarians of a sort, and not constantly reminding you of your nasty little deviation—you will display a little humility and manners. You do not hypocritically call us “unrealistic,” when even your minarchist goals are about as difficult to attain as ours (and talk about unrealistic: who ever heard of a limited government? What makes them think it’s even possible?). You do not mendaciously claim that we endorse one state’s criminality just because we don’t want to grant additional powers to an even bigger state to stop it; if anyone is in favor of state criminality, it is you, not us. And please, it’s time to stop with the tired old Randian line that anarchy leads to warring gangs in the streets—realize that, unless you favor a one-world government, the same alleged “problem” plagues minarchy too (see the section “Randians and One-World Government” in this post).
And you most certainly do not make the mistake of claiming an air of superiority over your betters. And especially the pro-war quasi-libertarians. How dare you? Recall Ayn Rand’s angry cursing of Nathaniel Branden after she discovered his lies and affairs: “If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you’ll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve any potency, you’ll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!” Similarly, you, who claim our mantle while supporting institutionalized theft and murder—oh, on a smaller scale than most of our fellow men, to be sure, to be sure—you, too, ought at least to think twice before being so cock-sure in criticizing total libertarians. You claim to uphold individual rights and deplore criminality—yet you support it in the guise of the (minimal) state. Think about it. At least have the grace to feel a bit guilty about it. Be a bit more humble. Be a bit more grateful that we classify you as essentially good guys.
No need to name names—we want the offending parties to be able to quietly shape up without losing face—but you know who you are. Time to shape up, quasis. Realize your place, and mind your manners. And read some of the articles below.
Recommended Reading
Gene Callahan, The Most Crucial Gap in Politics, LewRockwell.com (April 11, 2006)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography, LewRockwell.com (Dec. 31, 2001)
——–, Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State, LewRockwell.com (June 23, 2008)
——–, On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution, LewRockwell.com (June 30, 2008)
Charles Johnson, Take the A-Train (Jan. 25, 2008)
Stephan Kinsella, Minarchists as Statist-Aggressors (Dec. 8, 2005)
——–, What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, LewRockwell.com (Jan. 20, 2004)
Roderick Long & Robert Bidinotto, Bidinotto-Long Debate on Anarchism (Dec. 2003-Jan. 2004)
Roderick Long, Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections, LewRockwell.com (Aug. 19, 2004)
——–, Why Objective Law Requires Anarchy, 1998
Stephan Kinsella [send him mail], an attorney in Houston, has published widely on both libertarian and legal topics.
- I refer here to self-styled libertarians who explicitly advocate a state, not to those libertarians, such as Tibor Machan, who believe “that the opposition between anarchism and minarchism represents a false dichotomy”—that is, the minimalist “government” they favor is not, in fact, a state, but some form of voluntary territorial decision-making monopoly. [↩]
