"Small Government Ideology" and the State

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So I don't feel that the below is well-written, but it is a thought I've had rattling around in my head for the past week and felt that this general argument has begged being articulated for quite some time. This is not for submission to any major publication at this time.

~~~

This is being written in response to the recent resurrection of the "Somalia" insult, hurled at libertarians since time immemorial (see below). I didn't specify "libertarian" in the thread title though because the quotes I'm pulling are not from people I believe to be libertarians, but from people who are often tied more broadly to the contemporary intellectual defense of capitalism or "small government".

Both the socialist left and the religious right can only exist through self-delusion, so I think it cuts both ways.

That's pretty rich coming from a libertarian.

Free-market, anti-authoritarian policies lead to human flourishing, unlike certain ideologies which shall remain nameless.

That's why you can easily name an existing country with all of those...and don't be smart and tell me the U.S. counts, 'cuz it don't.

Oh wait, Somalia might count.

Or perhaps that sort of thing is just a temporary state that always falls on itself to the inevitable need for authority and security.

Given that supporters of "big government" often face comparison to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or contemporary China, a common retort is that libertarians view Somalia, a failed state, as the political ideal. Assuredly, there are some libertarians who probably think like this, and probably more so in America--the most ideological and historically "small government" of the major developed nations--than in other parts of the West. After all, in an age of universal suffrage and free speech, people are allowed to voice very fringe opinions on a whole host of issues. However, they should not be seen as representing all libertarians. Nathan, quoted below, put it rather well.

There's a difference between small/unobtrusive government libertarians and ancaps who dream of completely abolishing the monopoly on the legitimate use of force and expecting everything to just shake out somehow. Dule and dead0 understand that there needs to be somebody with the ability to force others to play nice in order for any kind of ordered economic freedom to exist (Dule has a penchant for the paradigmatic authoritarian NUT philosopher Hobbes for exactly this reason), which is why I consider them serious intellectual forces on the forum whereas the more extreme flash-in-the-pan yellow avatars we used to sometimes get were not.

That said, however, is not wanting to live in a post-apocalyptic disasterscape simply a sign of being a "moderate" libertarian, or is it actually philosophically in-line with the promotion of liberty (as libertarians define the term)? While many people who actually go to Libertarian Party events may simply be cosplayers who want to pretend that it's still 1750, the latter part of the most recent century has seen an academic resurgence in support for constrained government. The idea, promoted early on by Douglass North and Barry Weingast, and in our own era by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, was thus: some forms of human hierarchy are inevitable, the preferred system is one that protects individual rights, is sufficiently limited in scope and action (and sufficiently non-arbitrary), is subject to pushback through elected organs, is not in the hands of one interest group, and so on. None of this on its own is revolutionary; of significance though is the idea that security of property through a state is what allows for technological advancement and, thus, human progress. Acemoglu and Robinson in Why Nations Fail (2012) cite several examples of governments refusing to issue patents and impeding technological progress owing to the political instability that new inventions might cause. In the case of the United Kingdom, pushback (including violence) generated what they term "inclusive institutions", including the growing power of parliament and the expansion of the franchise. But these authors never pushed so far as to claim that the state itself needed overthrowing. This is because the existence of some form of government was integral to their understanding of what makes societies prosperous and, perhaps more surprisingly, what makes societies free.

Francis Fukuyama (noted small-l liberal) has described, in Hobbesian terms, why someone with a stated preference for negative liberty (and, in particular, property rights) might nevertheless prefer a society with a state to one without, and why they would prefer that state be strong enough to fend off most internal challengers to its power.

Until there is a single, central source of authority that exercises a legitimate monopoly of force in that country [Libya], there will be no citizen security or the conditions for individuals to flourish. (p. 7)

[Later, in a discussion on the mafia's emergence in a weak state environment in southern Italy...] There are, of course, good reasons why the use of violence to protect property rights should be a monopoly of the state. Without a monopoly, protection markets themselves can become an object of violent competition. It is easy for a mafioso to move seamlessly from protection to extortion, protecting individuals from a threat that he himself creates. (p. 115) [in subsequent pages, Fukuyama goes on to discuss the role that low trust societies have in impeding the growth of that much-valued commodity--bizniss]

And what of, in particular, libertarian paradise Somalia? The below excerpts are taken from the aforementioned Why Nations Fail, which has become a classic of institutionalist (dare I say neoliberal?) political economy.

Somalia, situated in the Horn of Africa, illustrates the devastating effects of lack of political centralization. (p. 238)

Though clans had leaders called sultans, and also elders, these people had no real power. Political power was very widely dispersed, with every Somali adult man being able to have his say on decisions that might affect the clan or group. This was achieved through an informal council made up of all adult males. there was no written law, no police, and no legal system to speak of, except that Sharia law was used as a framework within which informal laws were embedded. (p. 239)

Political power was thus widely dispersed in Somali society, almost pluralistically. but without the authority of a centralized state to enforce order, let alone property rights, this led not to inclusive institutions. Nobody respect the authority of another, and nobody, including the British colonial state when it eventually arrived, was able to impose order. The lack of political centralization made it impossible for Somalia to benefit from the Industrial Revolution. In such a climate it would have been unimaginable to invest in or adopt the new technologies emanating from Britain, or indeed to create the types of organizations necessary to do so. (p. 241)

As a consequence of this lack of political centralization and the implied absence of even the most basic security of property rights, Somali society never generated incentives to invest in productivity-enhancing technologies. (p. 243)

What I hope to impart from the above nonsense is that, for many of those those who think seriously about protecting capitalism and individual rights, it is important to get the state right, as opposed to getting rid of it entirely. Outside of kooks who want to raise the (privately-owned) flag of ancapistan (on their own property), the stateless world is a threat to human liberty.

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[John Dule]

A stateless society cannot properly be called "libertarian"-- actually, you can't really classify it under any sort of ideology whatsoever. Political ideology is a system of thought that is primarily used to determine the best course of action a state can pursue. When there is no state, this whole debate is pretty much meaningless.

When there is no state, the only effective laws governing human behavior are the laws of nature. The prevailing ideology is whatever the local strongman says it is. Capitalism cannot exist because there is no state to ensure a return on investment, and socialism cannot exist outside of small-scale communes. If you want to call a stateless society like Somalia "libertarian," then I guess humans lived in "libertarian" societies for thousands of years before the development of the first governments.

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

This is one of the greatest things ever written by a human. It perfectly encapsulates how state power and individual enterprise work together to create a flourishing society for mankind, and how the people who advocate for the abolition of either of those things are deeply misguided.

[Torie]

In my life experience, ideology very often gets mugged by reality. In too large a dose, in some cases, it can be the equivalent of substance abuse. But avoiding  ideology from fencing one in, is not alone enough for the virtuous polis, at least for someone in power. You also need to be neither a narcissist nor a sociopath. Just saying.

[AGA]

People need to learn that there's a difference between libertarians who want the government to be limited to its basic roles (protecting property rights, defense, etc.) and full-blown anarcho-capitalists.

[John Dule]

People need to learn that there's a difference between libertarians who want the government to be limited to its basic roles (protecting property rights, defense, etc.) and full-blown anarcho-capitalists.

Nuance isn't as fun as yelling "SUUUUHHMAAALIA" every time a yellow avatar appears.

[RINO Tom]

People need to learn that there's a difference between libertarians who want the government to be limited to its basic roles (protecting property rights, defense, etc.) and full-blown anarcho-capitalists.

People also need to learn that "small government" and "big government" are not coherent ideological philosophies; they are TACTICS used to achieve either inherently liberal or inherently conservative (for reasons unrelated to scope of government) goals, depending on the context.

Here is one example that comes up a lot: A modern conservative can appreciate Jefferson for his small government principles, no doubt, but it is clear from primary sources and his articulation of his problems with the Federalists that he formed many of these "small government stances" from an ideologically left-wing starting point.  Thomas Jefferson opposing government interference in the economy because he saw the government as an effective welfare tool for only those wealthy enough to utilize its economic programs (i.e., men of property) is just simply not the same ideologically as Rand Paul opposing government interference in the economy because he sees it as slowing economic productivity and actually oppressing the economic rights of "men of property."  In this case, it appears a lot more relevant to me that Jefferson supported the French Revolution and Hamilton vehemently opposed it than the fact that Jefferson wanted "small government" and Hamilton wanted "big government," lol.

[Tollen]

There are no inherently cohesive ideologies at all. Ideology is a smokescreen for interest. And that's it. The most ignorant man who has an instinctive dislike of all politicians as liars has a more subtle understanding of the world than every big brain would-be intellectual.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

There are no inherently cohesive ideologies at all. Ideology is a smokescreen for interest. And that's it. The most ignorant man who has an instinctive dislike of all politicians as liars has a more subtle understanding of the world than every big brain would-be intellectual.

ok

[Indy Texas]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

In their mind, it took too much power away from white people and gave it to black people who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from owners and gave it to workers who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from wealthy families who owned large industrial concerns and gave it to administrative state bureaucrats who didn't deserve it.

Basically, to them, the state has only one purpose: to protect property rights and by extension to ensure that property (and the power it entails) stays in the hands of the people who have it at the time "the system" came into being.

Why are they such big fans of the gold standard and tight money? Because it privileges those who already have money and live off low-return investments like bonds, over both the poor who must borrow to make ends meet and the "strivers" who want to start businesses and might someday overtake the existing elite if allowed to do so.

Meanwhile, they've either twisted their brains into gordian knots squaring their "Don't Tread On Me" flag with the "Thin Blue Line" flag they now fly right next to it, or endorsed unadulterated vigilante justice where any man with a big gun can shoot any person who they feel is "threatening" them and ask questions later with no consequences.

[John Dule]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

I am anti-democracy because I think it's too authoritarian, not because I think it isn't authoritarian enough.

[Alcibiades]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

I am anti-democracy because I think it's too authoritarian, not because I think it isn't authoritarian enough.

What is your ideal form of government?

[John Dule]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

I am anti-democracy because I think it's too authoritarian, not because I think it isn't authoritarian enough.

What is your ideal form of government?

I believe democracy is the best we can do at our current technological level, but there are ways to improve on it. I believe this can be done with a clearly worded, strictly enforced constitution that effectively bans certain issues from ever coming to a democratic vote (i.e. proposals that would take away the human rights of other citizens). A society in which 51% of the electorate can take away my rights on a whim cannot be called truly free. Until this is fixed we are all at the mercy of the mob.

[Alcibiades]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

I am anti-democracy because I think it's too authoritarian, not because I think it isn't authoritarian enough.

What is your ideal form of government?

I believe democracy is the best we can do at our current technological level, but there are ways to improve on it. I believe this can be done with a clearly worded, strictly enforced constitution that effectively bans certain issues from ever coming to a democratic vote (i.e. proposals that would take away the human rights of other citizens). A society in which 51% of the electorate can take away my rights on a whim cannot be called truly free. Until this is fixed we are all at the mercy of the mob.

This aligns pretty well with my own views on the issue (although I do not consider myself anti-democracy). Democracy ought to be a means to the end of protecting human rights and individual liberty, not an ends in itself. The Brexit referendum has also convinced me that representative democracy is far superior to direct democracy.

[John Dule]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

I am anti-democracy because I think it's too authoritarian, not because I think it isn't authoritarian enough.

What is your ideal form of government?

I believe democracy is the best we can do at our current technological level, but there are ways to improve on it. I believe this can be done with a clearly worded, strictly enforced constitution that effectively bans certain issues from ever coming to a democratic vote (i.e. proposals that would take away the human rights of other citizens). A society in which 51% of the electorate can take away my rights on a whim cannot be called truly free. Until this is fixed we are all at the mercy of the mob.

This aligns pretty well with my own views on the issue (although I do not consider myself anti-democracy). Democracy ought to be a means to the end of protecting human rights and individual liberty, not an ends in itself. The Brexit referendum has also convinced me that representative democracy is far superior to direct democracy.

I have my doubts about direct democracy, but I have some interest in using modern technology to enhance our democracy in certain ways. I'd like to see some sort of feedback system whereby citizens in a district could download an app that would keep them updated on the salient points of key bills that are being voted on. They could then take a short poll that would communicate their views to their representative. This would be non-binding, but would give our elected officials a much better idea of what people actually think.

The bigger problem, of course, is that even the people don't know what they actually think. They can be swayed by leading questions, emotional appeals, and whether or not they're hungry while they're being asked. An educated citizenry capable of thinking critically about these issues is necessary for the success of democracy, and right now (to put it simply) we don't have that.

[dead0man]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

In their mind, it took too much power away from white people and gave it to black people who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from owners and gave it to workers who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from wealthy families who owned large industrial concerns and gave it to administrative state bureaucrats who didn't deserve it.

Basically, to them, the state has only one purpose: to protect property rights and by extension to ensure that property (and the power it entails) stays in the hands of the people who have it at the time "the system" came into being.

Why are they such big fans of the gold standard and tight money? Because it privileges those who already have money and live off low-return investments like bonds, over both the poor who must borrow to make ends meet and the "strivers" who want to start businesses and might someday overtake the existing elite if allowed to do so.

Meanwhile, they've either twisted their brains into gordian knots squaring their "Don't Tread On Me" flag with the "Thin Blue Line" flag they now fly right next to it, or endorsed unadulterated vigilante justice where any man with a big gun can shoot any person who they feel is "threatening" them and ask questions later with no consequences.

can you give some examples of this type of libertarian?  'cause I've never seen one before.  Most libertarians are anti-cop (or at least cop skeptical), no libertarians want the guy with the most guns to be in charge.

[Indy Texas]

can you give some examples of this type of libertarian?  'cause I've never seen one before.  Most libertarians are anti-cop (or at least cop skeptical), no libertarians want the guy with the most guns to be in charge.

Driving through suburbs I have seen jacked-up pickups with both Don't Tread On Me and Thin Blue Line flags on multiple occasions.

I would suggest you look at the writings of Lew Rockwell and other right-libertarians in the late 20th century, who often parroted Republican tough-on-crime talking points.

The same people who regard an EPA inspector asking their business not to dump chemical waste in a nearby stream as tyranny think a police officer shooting a black teenager for being insufficiently deferential is necessary to be a "nation of laws."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

can you give some examples of this type of libertarian?  'cause I've never seen one before.  Most libertarians are anti-cop (or at least cop skeptical), no libertarians want the guy with the most guns to be in charge.

Ancap icon Murray Rothbard was explicitly pro-police brutality, but you and I both know ancaps are nuts anyway. Minarchists in my experience tend to make way more sense on law enforcement issues.

[dead0man]

can you give some examples of this type of libertarian?  'cause I've never seen one before.  Most libertarians are anti-cop (or at least cop skeptical), no libertarians want the guy with the most guns to be in charge.

Driving through suburbs I have seen jacked-up pickups with both Don't Tread On Me and Thin Blue Line flags on multiple occasions.

I would suggest you look at the writings of Lew Rockwell and other right-libertarians in the late 20th century, who often parroted Republican tough-on-crime talking points.

The same people who regard an EPA inspector asking their business not to dump chemical waste in a nearby stream as tyranny think a police officer shooting a black teenager for being insufficiently deferential is necessary to be a "nation of laws."

a person with those two bumper stickers is probably not a libertarian.  Again, libertarians are anti-cop (or at least cop skeptical).

Lew Rockwell is a kook.

The vast majority of libertarians are against people dumping waste and all of them are against shooting black teenagers for not being deferential enough.

[Vosem]

Some half-formed thoughts that went way longer than I intended them to:

Acemoglu’s basic point -- that libertarian ideology hopes to create a society where certain rights are uniformly respected, but that the only force historically capable of enforcing the respect of those rights is the state -- is a very old observation that gets at the heart of the difference between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Inasmuch as some anarcho-capitalists have suggested solutions to this problem (like David Friedman), they tend to involve the creation of unheard-of institutions entirely from scratch and to involve hope that these institutions will succeed, in a manner that is at least a little reminiscent of never-really-been-tried-before Marxists.

The ‘Somalia’ attack is a tired canard, but its persistence does underline a point that libertarians need to better explain to non-libertarians: if negative rights are so important (and basically every libertarian is attracted to the ideology out of a feeling that having negative rights be guaranteed is maybe the most important thing in the world), why is the solution to curtail the power of the state? It is absolutely true that such rights are often infringed by religious organizations or employers, for instance. Curtailing state power would probably make such entities more powerful by removing a check on their activity.

The answer here is just that the state’s theoretical power is far greater than that of these organizations. The hypothetical violation of negative rights done by an entity with an absolute monopoly on violence, which can absolutely do everything from shooting teenagers to invading and conquering entire continents, is far greater than that done by some other entity, and this is repeatedly borne out in the historical record by planned genocides and famines, carried out exclusively in modern history by state entities (whether ‘typical’ state entities or corporations which become them in the case of the EIC). When the world is viewed in this way, with the potential devastation caused by state actors seeming far greater than that caused by other forces, then libertarianism’s focus on curtailing state power seems quite natural.

The ‘Somalia’ attack also seems strange in light of the fact that countries have absolutely gone from being wealthy democracies to poor dictatorships on account of ‘statist’ policies -- Venezuela is a good modern example -- but there are no recorded cases of wealthy democracies becoming poor on account of state disestablishment. The triumph of anarcho-capitalism tomorrow is just not something that needs to be worried about.

[Vosem]

A lot of libertarians have a troubling illiberal, antidemocratic streak and seem to basically believe there is a rightful hierarchy of people in society and a general "way things ought to be" and that the state post-1910s started doing a bunch of stuff it shouldn't have to upset and subvert that hierarchy.

In their mind, it took too much power away from white people and gave it to black people who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from owners and gave it to workers who didn't deserve it. It took too much power away from wealthy families who owned large industrial concerns and gave it to administrative state bureaucrats who didn't deserve it.

It is indeed a pretty foundational libertarian idea that hierarchies created by government interference are more dangerous than hierarchies which emerge 'naturally' in an environment where there is equality under the law of the sort pooh-poohed by Anatole France (not to suggest that 1910s America was a society where blacks were treated equally under the law, of course...). This seems to be borne out by many different societies' experiences; government-enforced hierarchies are prone to becoming murderous.

Basically, to them, the state has only one purpose: to protect property rights and by extension to ensure that property (and the power it entails) stays in the hands of the people who have it at the time "the system" came into being.

This is reductionist but might be true for a very broad definition of 'property rights' (and, indeed, such a definition might be embraced by a libertarian). Your post is a great example of how much of the popular reaction to libertarianism is flawed, since it examines the downsides of a system that is (or was) in existence without considering the costs of shifting to another system are (or were).

Why are they such big fans of the gold standard and tight money?

Because allowing the government to regulate the value of money gives a great deal more power to an organization that holds life and death in its hands, and this is power that has been treated carelessly, resulting in ruin for ordinary people, many times in a variety of societies?

Not that there aren't huge problems with the gold standard, but its appeal on a fundamental, simplistic level seems undeniable.