View source for Libertarians Misunderstand Government

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:Mike Huben]]
[[Category:Government|200]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalism|100]]
{{DES | des = Libertarians are generally guilty of misrepresenting government.  They also overlook the fact that [[Anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalist]] land ownership does not differ from government by a dictator: the landowner can require anything he wants on his land, including abiding by his rules (laws), taxes, and punishments (up to and including death) by the contract to be on his land. | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->

Libertarians are generally guilty of misrepresenting government. First, they discuss government as if it is monolithic, but it is not. Modern government is dispersed in two ways: by separation of powers among three branches and by division of responsibilities among federal, state, local, and non-government authorities. Second, libertarians represent government as a source of coercion, but it is not. Coercion is an inherent ability of people that cannot be eliminated and is pervasive through almost all social interaction.  Government is where we deliberately channel coercion because the alternative (the private sector) gives much worse results, as the history of privately owned states (monarchies, dictatorships, and other despotisms) and private "law" such as slavery, mafias, warlords, etc. show rather clearly. We have constructed a government that is jointly owned by all, because private ownership gives too much incentive for private profit through coercion of others.

Government is NOT a monopoly of violence/coercion: it is a monopoly on determining legality of them. Big difference. Because in the US and most other nations, private violence is often permitted for defense and protection of property and other rights.
<pre>
(Currently, this is simply a hodgepodge of misc points to be rewritten.)

Bundling of decisions is easily confused with coercion.  For example,
accepting employment at will equates all orders with "voluntary agreement".  In law, bundling is called standard form or adhesion contract.
Why not then for social contract?

Libertarians will not explain why government works as well as it does.  They have numerous theories of government failure, but ignore explanations of government success (such as the creation of the market system.)  A prime example of confirmation bias.

The inescapable evils of coercion are not unique to government.
        Government is where we choose to channel them, because the alternative
        (the private sector) gives much worse results, as the history of
        privately owned states (monarchies, dictatorships, and other despotisms)
        and private "law" such as slavery, mafias, warlords, etc. show rather
        clearly.  We have constructed a government that is jointly owned by
        all, because private ownership gives too much incentive for profit
        through coercion of others.
        The private sector is not benign: it would be far more rapacious than
        representative government if our government didn't curb those
        practices.
        That you have the illusion that private entities can't do those
        things is a testimony to the efficacy of our government at stopping
        what used to be common private practices.
        Concentrations of power cannot be avoided.  They can only be
        regulated.  The heart of liberalism is the insight that such
        concentrations of power can be regulated by systems of checks and
        balances.
        Other examples of private law: feuds, medieval Icelandic law, lynchings,
        terrorism, etc.

The unable/coerced dichotomy for distinguishing freedom is usally false
because most "unable" really means that you haven't the money to bribe your
way past the coercive protections of property.  (freedom as absence of
restrictions does not apply in a market society, where all useful material
and situations tend to be property, and you must bribe your way past coercion.)

You are equally unfree to do something if it is prohibited to you by
government or if you haven't the money to bribe (pay) private owners not
to coerce you.

The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer
you overlook, are our governments.
    Government traditionally has been a hindrance to, and not a defender of our
    freedoms... Government can only get in the way.
The simple answer is that if government is a hinderance to your freedoms,
go where there is no functional government; for example Somalia.  Bring your
AK47 and your posse.  You can do all the drugs you want in Somalia, and have
all the freedoms you want.
Why would be dissatisfied with Somalia?  Perhaps because you don't want full
freedom, which includes the freedom to oppress others.  Instead you want to
trade off some freedom for order, for safety, for rights, for equality.
That's what our government does, and many don't even notice because they're
fat, safe, smug, and protected; they've never had to suffer, never had to
provide those things for themselves, so they presume they're natural and not
a creation of government.
Alternatively, you could be set down naked in the middle of international
waters.  No government interference: you can do anything you want.  Perfect
freedom, no laws, nobody interfering with any of your desires.  So why might you
want anything else?  Doing what you want requires more than just freedom: it
requires
The basic problem of many libertarians is their refusal to admit that there are other values than liberty, and that there MUST be tradeoffs to satisfy those values.  And liberty by itself is inadequate to fulfill our desires.

Even individual wealth is a government construct: without coercive protection, nobody would be able to accumulate much wealth, and all would be much more equal (albeit very much poorer.) In general, libertarians want to overlook government action and (their term) coercion when it supports their preferences, and condemn it for others.

Why do people prattle about "as if an invisible hand" when it is government
alone that visibly constrains the businessmen to mere economic competition
rather than violently achieved monopoly and theft?  It is that government
coercion that redistributes from the businessman to the consumer the vast bulk
of the consumer surplus, and limits business profits.
(Note the incredible coercion required to create anything resembling a free
market.)

        But then the same is true for the libertarian idea of property: it is
        just as coercive and illegitimate as the state because it demands duty
        without any question or compensation.

by Kevin A. Carson
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/iron_fist.html
As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist.


"The only thing that makes a government special is its monopoly on legitimate violence."
Government is not a monopoly of legitimate violence (force) in the US: there are federal, state, county, and local governments, all of which can use force.  They all have their own laws and police, and many have their own courts.  Individuals are also allowed many sorts of legitimate violence in defense of person and property, as any gunloon can tell you.  Indeed, the US was set up that way precisely to avoid problems of monopoly.
</pre>

<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=Libertarians Misunderstand Government|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=Libertarians Misunderstand Government|quotes=true}}