Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government – Rebutted!

[Guest Ethan Glover]

I wrote a rebuttal to Harry Binswanger's, "Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government" which was posted on the Forbes website earlier today. It basically comes down to saying that competing governments means competing force. While one government is a protection from force. The logic used was refreshing and new, but nothing special. Still maybe worth a read.

 

Article is here.

[dsayers]

I read as much of that guy's article as I could stomach and then I read your article. I like that your style was personable.

 

I didn't much care for the guy's use of the word retaliation as if it means the same as self-defense.

 

I've never like the way people use "checks and balances" when referring to governments as if both sides of the scale don't occupy one side of a much larger scale.

 

"they must answer to those people who don't want to be subject to that force" This was my favorite point you made. I've never really known how to answer that concern because it's one I don't feel is real, but I can't seem to answer it without making it sound like everybody has to be packing heat. Seems like a lot of people don't understand that the reason crime is what it is right now is BECAUSE people largely cannot fight back due to state monopoly and if they do, they're treated like the criminal. In a free society, violence comes with very large personal risk both in the moment and later on down the road.

[Guest Ethan Glover]

I read as much of that guy's article as I could stomach and then I read your article. I like that your style was personable.

 

I didn't much care for the guy's use of the word retaliation as if it means the same as self-defense.

 

I've never like the way people use "checks and balances" when referring to governments as if both sides of the scale don't occupy one side of a much larger scale.

 

"they must answer to those people who don't want to be subject to that force" This was my favorite point you made. I've never really known how to answer that concern because it's one I don't feel is real, but I can't seem to answer it without making it sound like everybody has to be packing heat. Seems like a lot of people don't understand that the reason crime is what it is right now is BECAUSE people largely cannot fight back due to state monopoly and if they do, they're treated like the criminal. In a free society, violence comes with very large personal risk both in the moment and later on down the road.

 

Thanks for your compliments. I've never seen the idea of having to balance security and freedom as legitimate. To me freedom is synonymous with security. Security is a part of that larger package. A lot of these kinds of replies aren't afraid of "chaos", but rather they are afraid that personal ideas of "utopias" wouldn't come true if everyone was allowed to go their own way. This of course suggests that most political systems and theories are ponzi schemes. But for most, I think they just need to realize that in a free world, you don't HAVE to fight for your way. All you have to do is live it. Instead of looking for "votes" you look for peers and the people who agree with you so that you may develop a life with them.

 

Of course to some, confrontation is a part of life, and they couldn't imagine a world that is not constant struggle.