Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Anarchy
The other day I was reading Ludwig von Mises, and I came across a passage which I think would explain why I keep butting heads with people on this board regarding certain fundamental principles. It's because most people here have accepted the basic fundamental principle of anarchistic theory, which is that peaceful coexistence is possible without some form of legal coercion, while I have rejected that principle. I don't believe it is possible, and I have no respect for anarchy. A society of anarchy would be a society of gang warfare, which is really just another form of totalitarianism, the only real difference being that there would multiple gangs of brutes instead of just one, all powerful gang. But eventually, if the gang warfare were to go on for long enough, one of the gangs would eventually get so large that they would wipe out all other gangs and essentially become the new government, thus establishing true totalitarianism. Therefore, anarchy is not the opposite or antithesis of totalitarianism, but rather the gateway through which totalitarianism can be made manifest.
This does not mean I don't respect property rights. Quite the contrary, I strongly believe that government coercion should be used to protect individual property rights rather than destroy them. There are no property rights under either anarchy or totalitarianism, as under both systems, property necessarily passes into the hands of whichever brute is strongest and most capable of forcing others to comply with his will through violence. To place anarchy and totalitarianism at opposing ends of the political spectrum would therefore be misleading. Rather, a proper political spectrum would place them both on the same end under Lawlessness, with the other end being Rule of Law.
The biggest difference between classical liberal theory and socialist theory is that although both systems involve having a strong government, classical liberalism uses government force to protect property rights, while socialism uses government force to abolish such rights.
With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the key to stopping totalitarianism is not to get rid of government, which would only exacerbate the rise of totalitarianism, but rather to establish a government based on the Rule of Law. The only effective method for establishing peace and stability in human society is to have a strong government capable of suppressing all such gangs and ensuring that men deal fairly with one another, neither of which can be accomplished without government coercion, while also establishing a firm Constitution to limit the scope of government, implementing a system of checks and balances to keep government in its proper place, and creating an electoral process whereby politicians can be peacefully removed and replaced without a bloody revolution (a gang which gains dominance under anarchy is unlikely to have any of these characteristics).
"Whoever denies the basic idea of Anarchism, whoever denies that it is or ever will be possible to unite men without coercion under a binding legal order for peaceful cooperation, will, whether liberal or socialist, repudiate anarchistic ideals."
~ from 'Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis,' by Ludwig von Mises
Here's an excerpt from the book that more clearly articulates the distinction between classical liberalism, socialism, and anarchy:
This does not mean I don't respect property rights. Quite the contrary, I strongly believe that government coercion should be used to protect individual property rights rather than destroy them. There are no property rights under either anarchy or totalitarianism, as under both systems, property necessarily passes into the hands of whichever brute is strongest and most capable of forcing others to comply with his will through violence. To place anarchy and totalitarianism at opposing ends of the political spectrum would therefore be misleading. Rather, a proper political spectrum would place them both on the same end under Lawlessness, with the other end being Rule of Law.
The biggest difference between classical liberal theory and socialist theory is that although both systems involve having a strong government, classical liberalism uses government force to protect property rights, while socialism uses government force to abolish such rights.
With this in mind, it becomes obvious that the key to stopping totalitarianism is not to get rid of government, which would only exacerbate the rise of totalitarianism, but rather to establish a government based on the Rule of Law. The only effective method for establishing peace and stability in human society is to have a strong government capable of suppressing all such gangs and ensuring that men deal fairly with one another, neither of which can be accomplished without government coercion, while also establishing a firm Constitution to limit the scope of government, implementing a system of checks and balances to keep government in its proper place, and creating an electoral process whereby politicians can be peacefully removed and replaced without a bloody revolution (a gang which gains dominance under anarchy is unlikely to have any of these characteristics).
"Whoever denies the basic idea of Anarchism, whoever denies that it is or ever will be possible to unite men without coercion under a binding legal order for peaceful cooperation, will, whether liberal or socialist, repudiate anarchistic ideals."
~ from 'Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis,' by Ludwig von Mises
Here's an excerpt from the book that more clearly articulates the distinction between classical liberalism, socialism, and anarchy:
One thing: If people here are giving you the idea that Objectivism is in support of Anarchism then they are mistaken and misleading.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarch...
Have a great day,
O.A.
Anarchy is an absence of police, military and court systems. Anarchy is *no* systems. Every man for himself.
And calling a tail a leg doesn't make the name fit*; anarchy is an absence of government. If you have government institutions, you just decide to call them something else... you're not living in anarchy.
Words... always being abused... Well I remember reading how Rand in her own words (sorry I can't recall at this moment from what book) thought the form of government created by our founders, though not perfect, was the best ever devised, but she saw how it was being transformed not for the better. In any case I support the limited government as framed by our founding and prefer to call it government.
I am not well versed on Anarchistic literature, but what I have read seems more extreme to me... perhaps you should present a thread that contrasts the two. I would like to read your take.
Regards
O.A.
You may recall the passage in AS regarding the Gulch,
'There is government, but there is not much of it'.
There are some differences between Objectivism and Libertarianism.
One is on intellectual property rights as discussed elsewhere on this site, another is on the need for government of some kind. To my thinking, an anarchist society cannot survive as it will be conquered by outsiders if not first eaten up by the inevitable internal pressures that you describe.
No doubt other comments will follow especially on 'strong government' and ''deal fairly'.