The Question That Stumps Libertarians
The libertarian, upon pointing out the excesses of the state, is confronted by the inevitable question from the statist: “Are you an anarchist?” The connotations of anarchy are such that the libertarian, if he says yes, finds himself defending ‘chaos.’ If, on the other hand, he says no, he legitimizes a degree of state intervention, and from that point, having ceded ground to the statist, he consigns himself to the defensive for the remainder of the debate.
‘Anarchism’ is used in different ways by different people. With such vagueness of description, the term can be used to mean its exact opposite. The question above cannot be properly answered unless the term ‘anarchism’ is better defined.
Anarchism: Etymology and Confusion
The root of the term ‘anarchy’ is ‘anarchos’, which refers to ‘opposition to commands or authority’. It does not mean ‘chaos’. Chaos is randomness, unpredictability, a state in which individuals cannot meaningfully plan their futures or anticipate the actions of others. Sure, such chaos might involve utter disregard of authority, but anarchy does not have to be that.
Anarchy is simply what we get through voluntary interaction of individuals. Rules and conventions emerge from such interactions. Think of the anarchy behind language, sports, cuisine, or music. Do any of these anarchic systems resemble anything like chaos? They develop order through centuries of voluntary interactions. Authorities to govern them or gatekeep them (examples: Real Academia Española or Académie française, FIFA or FIDE, etc.) through force develop long after the emergence of anarchic order.
So, when considering the meaning of anarchism, rather than thinking ‘chaos’, think along the lines of ‘voluntary interactions’, ’no coercion’, or ’emergent order’.
Anarchic Communism
The anarchic communist is opposed not just to the state but to private property as well. They replace the idea of ownership by state or individuals with ownership of the community. This ill-formed idea results in one of two outcomes: communism or chaos. Neither resembles anarchy as described earlier.
By demanding that the community owns resources, the anarchic communist simply replaces the state with something state-like. This state-like entity must decide from up high how the resources are to be utilized and which individuals are to be employed in which manner. This makes coercion necessary. It is no longer a voluntary system. It is hardly anarchic either since there is an authority to be obeyed.
Within anarchic communism, the way to resist coercion is to prevent the formation of such a state-like authority. This can be done by forming smaller, compartmentalized groups, each with limited authority over certain types of labor or certain types of other resources. But without a dictator and without price signals (remember, anarchic communists oppose private property and associated property rights; in such a scenario, markets and meaningful prices cannot emerge) there would be no way for these groups to agree on how to allocate resources. There would be chaos.
Anarchic Individualism
Anarchic individualists do not demand the abolition of private property. Some anarchic individualists (Benjamin Tucker, for example) have presented strong arguments against the excesses of the state, but have also forwarded inane hyperinflationist proposals. Regardless, if voluntary interactions among individuals occur without the meddling of the state, markets and prices will function and a decentralized order will emerge.
Anarchic individualism is what I mean when referring to the term ‘anarchism’. It is unfortunate that so much exposition is necessary to divorce the concept from the commonly held notions of chaos and anarchic communism.
Where Libertarianism Diverges from Anarchism
To me, anarchists differ from libertarians in their complete rejection of the state. Libertarians support limited government. But once you allow for the state apparatus to employ coercion to provide services such as defense, what argument do you have against such coercion to provide infrastructure, social security, etc.?
Anarchism does not allow for utilitarian calculations that allow libertarians to arrive at support for certain government interference. The anarchist position is a moral one. No coercion from an authority figure from up high is permissible. This necessarily advocates for the abolition of state, which, in the anarchist view, is inherently illegitimate.
Addendum: The Role of the State
While I have not yet read anything form Rothbard that explicitly supports the state, or mentions an area in which the state is necessary, he does assert in the letter cited below the need to establish a libertarian constitution which the local courts would have the duty to uphold. Then perhaps it can be said that the role of the state is to establish such a constitution.
I have previously been persuaded that security is a service that can be provided by the free market (see Saifedean Ammous Principles of Economics). Whether this can be expanded to border protection of territories the size of nation states remains a question to ponder. It is difficult to imagine, but possible in principle. Besides, even nation states today with all their resources fail to protect their borders, so a market-based perfect border protection service might be an unfair ask. Furthermore, if an anarchist world results in numerous tiny nation states with rulers functioning as little more than territory managers, defense would look drastically different from how it does today.
Perhaps the ultimate role of a state is to protect its citizens from other states. In discussing how coercive a state can be towards its citizenry, it is easy to overlook how much worse another state might be to them. For anarchic solutions to work these aggressive states would have to be small and without access to fiat printers. But until then, states may serve a defensive role.
Reference
- Murray Rothbard, Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’? from Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard (2010).