Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
Are Small Govt Libertarians Statists? Exploring the CABAL Pod of 7-7-09
I wanted to open this one up for you all, because I find the debate very interesting, although it can be contentious. As you might have heard, Scott McPherson sent me a copy of a piece he wrote in response to a post at LewRockwell.com. In the original post, by Steve Kinsella, it was pretty much flushed out that small government libertarians should take the final step away from the state, and support total freedom. I agree philosophically, though in our current struggles, I am perfectly comfortable working with small government folks to at least reduce the size and scope of government, even while I try to convince them of the logical and ethical consistency of anarchy. Mr. Kinsella is of the opinion that if one supports a small government, even if one calls himself a libertarian, he is still a statist. Scott disagrees, and believes that making such claims insults real libertarian thinkers (though he does toss George Washington in there, which hurts his argument a lot). I stated before I turned his essay into a portabel audio pod that I disagree with Scott. I actually agree with many of the points of Steve. Although Scott cites the Webster's Dictionary definition of "statist", which defines it as one who supports the total control by the state (I'm paraphrasing), I believe that if one supports any aspect of the state, he must be, by logical analysis, a statist. He might not be a statist according to the primary definition of the word in Websters, but I think those who wrote the definition in Websters are wrong. For example, if one supports one aspect of mercantilism, but not all aspects, he is still a mercantilist. if one supports socialism, but not all aspects, he is STILL a socialist.
Speaking to some folks about this, it was noted to me that it's a tricky thing to study, because we are clearly talking about matters of degrees. One person mentioned to me (at her first glance at it) that a person who just supports the basic police function of the state should not necessarily be termed a statist. But I mentioned that the very existence of that police force, created ostensibly to support the "small government" that Washington, Locke and others supported, MUST, by its nature, use force, infringe on rights to property, and will be coercive to some. All government is based on predation, for it must take money from those who would not want to pay, or would not want to pay the amount prescribed by the majority, or would want it spent another way, etc. That is evil. That is the state -- at the outset. So, I asked, if a man molested a child once every twenty years, rather than once every year, would he not be called a child molester? When it comes to definitions about things like these, it seems that the matter of degree is not something we should be considering, as bad as it might make people like Locke look.
Now, I am not equating Locke, Hayek, and other small government libertarians with child molesters. I am merely using the comparison for the purpose of loking at how we use the language and apply definitions. It seems to me that calling a small government libertarian -- who is a supporter of the state, even though it's a "small" state -- a statist is correct. If he supported some racism but not all, he would be a racist none the less.
Again, using these comparisons is not intended to malign small government libertarians, but to pose the question to others: Am I incorrect in thinking that a supporter of government, no matter how small it might be, is still a statist?
My initial reaction is that we should probably drill down a bit more on what we mean by the word "support" in this context. If someone actively believes that the use of government (in whatever capacity) is a good thing, then I would say that individual supports the state and could legitimately be referred to as a "statist." Personally I choose not to label minarchists with that term, because it is clearly a pejorative for almost everyone in the freedom movement, and I don't wish to alienate those who work for greater liberty (even if they might not be willing to go as far as I would). Instead, I reserve it for those who actively seek to increase the state's control over our lives.
I think it's also important to recognize that some minarchists have honestly considered the anarcho-capitalist arguments and are simply unconvinced that it's a viable model for whatever reason. In that case, I would suggest that they don't so much "support" the state as they are merely resigned to it. I don't think these individuals merit the term "statist" because they will still actively seek to reduce, rather than expand, the state's role wherever possible - we just disagree about the degree to which coercion can be eliminated from social organization.
For example, I consider myself a "pessimistic anarcho-capitalist." That is, I agree with the voluntaryist philosophy. I believe the anarcho-capitalist model would encourage a more ethical and prosperous society, and I also believe that it would work in practice if ever given the chance. However, I also suspect that most people in modern society hate freedom like poison, and that they would fight it with all their might if it were ever offered to them. Does that make me a statist? I don't think so, but others may disagree (and I'm certainly interested to hear the opinions of the rest of the CABAL).
Good topic...thanks!
(Gard - feel free to use this in the podcast if you think it would add value to the discussion).
- Stephen M. Smith
if one supports socialism, but not all aspects, he is STILL a socialist.
1) Depends on what you class as a socialist?
2) Depends who you ask
Where as I know pretty much automatically that you'd class say Tony Blair as a socialist I know plenty who'd say he wasn't
This will be a fascinating podcast, Gard. Good call!
Downloading it now and will share my thoughts later. I think this could be a great debate for the forum! Bring it on! :)
According to me a small govt Libertarians are not a statists, just like a child rapist is not really a rapist, because he supports raping of younger people(the rape they think is absolutely required for the protection of consent).
Haha, anyways it is not a real argument. The real argument is, is it possible to have a small government.
Mises in his essay "Middle of the Road policy leads to Socialism" explained that a lot of people believe Capitalism is evil, and they clearly understand the perils of Socialism support a middle of the road policy. The problem is that middle of the road policy is a slippery slope.
There is a very strong logical reason why the size of the govt always increases.(Most Republicans and Libertarians grow up believing that size of the govt "just" increases). Minarchists believe that bad people(bad as in Hitler bad) increase the size of the govt, and good people, reduce the size of the govt.
The truth is, a govt can be either non-functioning/inefficient, or it has to increase its size. For example a govt which tries to control the price of Milk, by fixing it too low sends the marginal producers away into making butter, or beef. So now the govt has try to fix the prices of the factors of production so that the marginal producers come back and produce milk. Now the marginal producers of factors of production of milk stop producing milk. Therefore soon the whole economy has to be controlled by the govt, just to fix the price of one commodity, like milk.
That is the two options in front of the govt are:
1) Perform operations against the market
2) Perform operations with the market
If the govt should choose to do operations with the market then we don't need the govt.(If govt is not going to provide justice to an individual who did not pay for his justice, then why not use free market work freely rather than having govt do the exact same things). This is not why Minarchists want a minimal government.
If the govt choose to perform operations against the market(like with our price control of milk) the market starts to move against it, then the govt must control that part of the market, then more part, and then more part.
If the govt runs the road exactly like market(that is by making real profits) then we don't need the govt to have a monopoly in roads, do we? Why don't we opt for the free market solution of roads? But then, if the govt decides to provide roads to everyone, to desert areas, to an Alaskan town of population 5,000, then it must need some real funds.
Therefore the govt must tax people from somewhere. Because if govt can manage stuff without taxing and only by profits, then free market can also do the same thing.
There is no such thing as voluntary taxation:
Taxation cannot be voluntary, because if people are completely free to give their money to anyone, then they will by giving that money to a free market competitive organization for better services. If govt is the best and most competitive organization, then why do we have the govt to start with?(What is govt doing more than a free market entity?) That means the govt must be having an artificial monopoly in some field or the other. If the govt has a violent artificial monopoly in say making roads, then that means you have no option but to give that money to the govt, therefore the taxation is not voluntary.
Small govt cannot deal with foreign invasion, because if small govt can deal with a foreign invasion then free market can deal with foreign invasion. Only big govt can be SURE to repel a foreign invasion.
I don't understand why minarchist talk about a possible foreign invasion as a reason for existance of a small govt. The fact is if small govt can deal with a foreign invasion, then free market society will also be able to deter a foreign invasion because it will be having the same power.
On the other hand, if free market is uanble to deal with a foreign invasion because the Chinese will be coming in Helicopters and Scut missiles, then that means small govt can also not deal with a foreign invasion(we won't really be spending trillions of dollars on war defense in a Minarchist society, will we?).
If Minarchists believe that single payer healthcare system of Canada is of very inferior quality than free market healthcare system of America, then why do they support a single payer justice system? Wouldn't our justice system be as qualified as our medicare system?
Anyways my toughts are all over the place, but the conclusion of my thoughts is, Minarchism is even more inviable philosophy than Anarchy. Every minarchist govt will have only two options, to either provide lousy horrible services, or to expand in size and provide good services.
I suggest this music if you choose to use my post(which you can).
Ophelia's Song
(Creative commons 2.5 By Attribution only)
You can copy, distribute, advertise and play this album as long as you:
Give Credit to the artist.
New listener to the podcast and new forum member jumping into the deep end. I see that some of the responses above apply William James's adage, "whenever you meet a contradiction you must make a distinction." Let me take that a bit further,
The 2 key distinctions here are the meanings of minarchist and statist, since the crux of the matter is whether minarchists are statists. Dictionary definitions provide only a starting point to these distinctions.
Let me build a simple mental model with a 1-5 scale of various views of the state that are simplifications of positions people hold. I'm making this up, so it's not a perfect model, but you can get the idea and see that the approach is valid.
1. The state is good - the bigger the better, no limitations
2. The state is good as long as it abides by some limitations (scope, size, etc.)
3. The state is bad, but it's a necessary evil that should not be abolished
4. The state is bad and should be abolished, but practically that's not going to happen so we must work within the system
5. The state is bad and should be abolished, and working for secession/abolition is good
So which of these would be considered a minarchist? Positions 1 and 5 are obviously not minarchist, since a minarchist by definition advocates small government - neither unlimited state nor abolition of the state qualifies. A 3 on the scale is probably an unambiguous minarchist. But 2 and 4 would be a judgment call - some might consider those positions minarchists and some would not.
Alright, so which positions on the scale would be considered statist? Clearly 1 is in and 5 is out. What about 2-4? That would be a judgment call where we need to make a distinction.
Finally, where on the scale qualifies as libertarian? We can eliminate 1. The rest of the positions could fit someone's definition of libertarian and be excluded by others. Thus the need to make a distinction.
I don't know how Kinsella and McPherson would answer these questions, but let's imagine 2 hypothetical people, Scott & Stephan, who apply the scale as follows:
Scott: identifies himself as minarchist, says that
statist = 1
minarchist = 3 & 4
Therefore, minarchists are not statists.
Stephan: identifies himself as anarchist, says that
statist = 1-4
minarchist = 2-4
Therefore, minarchists are statists.
So without making any distinctions, Scott and Stephan can throw around a lot of labels and argue about whether Scott is a statist or not. Scott will say No, and Stephan will say Yes. When you add more people to the scenario and include terms such as libertarian, conservative, liberal (with classical and modern definitions), and patriotic, now you have a real mess.
Making distinctions with our mental model allows us to understand one another more clearly without a need for comical righteous indignation (yes, Scott McPherson, I mean you).