 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider some definitions:
"Capitalism: a politico-economic system in which corporations work in tandem with government officials to obtain special favors and to exploit consumers in order to maximize profits."
How about this one?
"Individualism: a view of human beings that maintains that each person is a distinct and separate (atomistic) entity concerned solely with maximizing his or her own values at the expense of others."
One more:
"Freedom: the ability to do whatever one wants without restraint or boundaries."
Most people reading those definitions would nod knowingly or simply shrug and think, yeah, so what else is new? The reality of such reactions goes a long way towards explaining why capitalism, individualism, and freedom are seen as bad social influences deserving of external constraints. Without laws and regulations, businesses and individuals would run amuck. Chaos and anarchy would be the result, and no one wants those, right?
Funny I should mention "anarchy." I’ll get to that in a bit...
Any good libertarian reading the above definitions would cringe and raise a finger in objection. While each of those definitions contains some elements of truth, they also smuggle in gross errors. Yes, some corporations have, indeed, sought help from the State to stifle competition. Many have also been little concerned with the welfare of citizens. False claims, distortions, and outright fraud have occurred in the process of certain businesses separating consumers from their hard-earned income.
But there is nothing inherent in the concept of "capitalism" that necessitates such a linkage between business and government. Indeed, there is plenty of good evidence that when such connections are minimized, both businesses and consumers benefit the most. The fact that there has never been any period in the history of capitalism in which some businesses did not seek out and/or obtain favors from government does not obviate the desirability or possibility of such a goal in the future.
Similarly, though civilization is rampant with examples of people adopting a “get them before they get me" approach to social interactions, the concept of “individualism" (properly understood) does not exclude positive interpersonal relations in which all parties benefit and are respected even while recognizing the ultimate autonomy of every individual to direct his or her own life as he/she sees best.
Nor does "freedom" disappear if it is claimed that "freedom" is absolute but only in precisely delineated contexts that establish the conditions (boundaries) under which certain behaviors are or are not to be identified as examples/referents of that concept.
Rational people would not –– and could not –– defend the moral rightness of "capitalism" or "individualism" or "freedom" if they meekly accepted the validity of currently prevalent definitions of those ideas. The consequences of permitting such brands of unfettered capitalism or individualism or freedom would be highly destructive and repugnant.
Such myopic misconceptions have been stumbling blocks for liberty-lovers for decades, if not centuries. So much energy is spent on shattering "obvious truths that ain’t so" that many freedom advocates eventually toss up their hands and declare their task as hopeless for any foreseeable future.
How sad, then, that some people prominent in the small kingdom of liberty commit similar nonsensical errors in their presentations of what it means to be "free."
Here are some quotes from Murray Rothbard to ponder (see here):
The State "...(1) acquires its income by the physical coercion known as ‘taxation’; and (2) it asserts...a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a territorial area." The State "has its very being in...aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, [and] the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory." Such negative traits "have been possessed by...states throughout recorded history."
Anarchy, however, occurs when "...there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual."
Such definitions do, indeed, seem to place a defender of limited government in dire straits. If the State does, in fact, necessitate taxation; if taxation is legalized theft and thus immoral; then the State must inherently be immoral. No institution that is founded on immorality can be legitimately defended. Furthermore, any libertarian would agree that a free and moral society must have as its basis a society-wide prohibition against "coercive aggression."
Writer L. Neil Smith certainly appears to accept this dark vision of any misguided fool who advocates a limited government. "Government is about stealing.... It's about stealing and absolutely nothing else.... So if you're a Republican, a Democrat...or a "libertarian" mini-statist, what you're admitting to the whole world is that you're a thief.... You're admitting that, if they won't cough up in a manner that appears comfortingly voluntary, you'll send your thugs (because you lack the balls to do it yourself) to beat them up, kidnap, or kill them. You're admitting that you differ only by degree from...Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao [and their] moral cousins Churchill and Roosevelt..." (See here.)
Wow. I guess I can only conclude that Ludwig von Mises "differs only in degree" from Hitler. That Ayn Rand was fundamentally no better than Joseph Stalin. That philosopher Tibor Machan is a coward who wants to kill his fellow citizens. Indeed (horrors!), that I am the moral equivalent of Mao, mass murderer of tens of millions of his countrymen!
Guess I’d better go kill myself for my unspeakable crimes...
....not.
Arguments such as Rothbard’s and Smith’s represent rank examples of straw men fallacies. Just as real statists and collectivists offer up flimsy definitions of "capitalism" and "individualism" and "freedom" that can be easily knocked down, anarchists who support this kind of weak definition of "government" avoid dealing with the robust concept propounded by those such as Rand.
An appeal to a sordid history to discredit "government" is as much an "appeal to tradition" fallacy as the ones used by the enemies of freedom to undercut capitalism, individualism, or freedom. One might as well argue that because slavery has existed throughout history that it must (and should?) exist forever as a basic component of human nature and society.
Why should I (or anyone) accept a definition of government or the State that necessitates the inclusion of taxation? There is no rational reason to do so. There is nothing in the concept of "government" that demands an immoral form of funding its functions. Rand and others have offered suggestions as to how voluntary funding of a coercive (retaliatory) government could be managed. To dismiss out of hand as being inconceivable the very possibility of this kind of government financing is unwarranted and illogical.
(For an analysis of the morality of a coercive, retaliatory government see my "'Imposing' Freedom." For a discussion of the inherent contradictions in an anarchy that tries to establish a coercive system through noncoercive market forces, see my essays, "Government and Anarchy" and "Government and Anarchy, Part II.")
I would, of course, prefer to devote my time and effort to taking on those who really believe that my body, my life, my property belong to them. But if someone deems it acceptable and proper to equate me and my beliefs with some of the most evil humans of all time and to do so on the basis of blatantly fallacious reasoning, I am not the kind of individual to turn the other cheek.
Whether the accuser is a statist, a collectivist,
a mystic, or someone who confesses an allegiance to liberty, I will
defend capitalism, individualism, freedom, and –– yes, even the State
–– from what is loosely characterized as "thinking."
