by Don Hank, Guest Contributor
After years of investigation and thought, I have decided that, despite the libertarian rejection of socialism, I do not accept American libertarianism. The American libertarians, spelled with a capital or small L, are generally indoctrinated by the von Mises wing of the Austrian School, in contrast to the European libertarians, who lean toward Hayek.
What’s the difference?
While Hayek believed in law and order, despite his libertarian approach to economics, the more radical of the von Mises wing (not necessarily Von Mises himself) believe in something called Anarcho-Capitalism, which teaches an ideology that has never been tried on a national scale and, while it seems tempting to many, is not based on anything tried and true, merely on philosophical conjectures.
Here is that definition:
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
The focus is therefore on private vs. public security, where the depositing of security functions in the private sphere would supposedly be superior in functionality and quality and would somehow be more fair. However, since the State is not involved, there would be no law or rules to use as guidelines. Further, only the rich could own the latest security systems, and since the State would not participate in security and crime control, there would be no mechanism for keeping the security system from being corrupted and little or no help for the little guy. The individual or company who could afford less security would be a sitting duck for the richest criminals. Without a centrally defined concept of law and order, there would quite simply be none. Soon the nation would be divided into fiefdoms and most of us would become serfs (not to say we aren’t already becoming serfs in our overregulated world, but in Anarchy, there would be no recourse). Capitalism itself, without a moral underpinning, will soon become corrupt and the same bankers who now rule over our inflated currency with an iron fist and rob us blind will soon rise to the top of an anarchic system as well, simply by adapting their methods to it. After all, they are already tacitly given carte blanche to rob us. In an anarchic system, that tacit carte blanche would give way to an explicit carte blanche.
Without a moral basis, and without law and order, the whole thing will blow up very quickly.
Here is a novel idea no one has tried:
Look at economic and social models that WORK. Stop arguing over untested theories. Instead of launching into endless philosophical discussions on the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth, simply count the teeth.
Humans have had the scientific method for centuries, yet they are careful to limit it almost exclusively to the laboratory and the field of science and physics.
The Fed has never tried real world objective scientific research. The Keynesians who control national and supranational economies eschew it. The result is that the entire West seems poised to collapse.
Thus, the anarchists are already in charge.
Thus, the only difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and the system we now have is that we call our present anarchy democracy. And we call our anarchists public officials and bankers.
In the libertarian system we could call them what they are…
… but we’d still be their slaves.
/* Style Definitions */
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;