I wasn't planning on posting today, but I came across a
great post by classical liberal economics professor Steve Horwitz. In it, correctly identifies a problem that frequently occurs with libertarians, which I would call an all-or-nothing position of anarchy, but professor Horwitz calls (cleverly, I might add) the dichotomy of being "Anti-State" as opposed to being "Pro Liberty". The anarchist or, I am sorry to say, Rothbardian sees no distinction and that you cannot support the latter; liberty, without being the former; anti-state. I personally see this as being dogmatic and frankly, nonsensical, because it tends to treat all states, all the time, with the same rancor.
As Horwitz says;
"And more important: even if libertarians agree that “all states are bad,” that does not mean that all states are equally bad.
The US government is bad, and so was Stalinist Russia. But you know
what? I’m pretty comfortable thinking that Stalinist Russia was a hell
of a lot worse state than the US was then or now. "
Hear hear. I would even go a step further in saying that all state actions are not equally bad either.
Some actions taken by the state, however rarely, might actually be good. Arresting murderers for example. The same reasoning can be applied to the Israeli government; it's not good, but it is
much better than the alternatives. Yet many people don't see it that way. As one anarchist named "
Marc Abela" with whom I was arguing stated (emphasis mine);
"degrees of severity are of interest to you. They aren't to me. I try
to do without. It blurs my thinking process to study whether Islam is
grayer than Christianity.
Australia, Britain, Nazi Germany, Japan - all the same stuff.
Barbaric statism. I live better and my reflection is cleaner when I just
condemn rape and racism all together, not when I try to classify forms
of racism into different groups and various flavors. A taxpayer funded
post-office is the wheel on the genocidal car."
This person claims that Australia is the same, morally speaking, as Nazi Germany. If that isn't morally reprehensible thinking, I don't know what is. To this person, everything, at least with regards to the state, is equally bad. That is to say a congressman who uses his office to pay for, lets say, some new suits, is morally equal to this
man. What other way is there to describe this binary thinking other than sick?
I suspect this person is being somewhat dishonest though and that he doesn't really see everything as being a yes or no question. But, he presented an argument a certain way from the begining and was more focused in maintaining argumentative purity, rather than being reasonable. You can read the entire exchange
here. (I'm kev3d, in case you were wondering.)
Of course what is reasonable is to examine things on a case by case basis, to carefully weight the social, environmental, economic and most importantly, the moral costs and benefits. As I have stated elsewhere, a good doctor understands triage; the most urgent problems require the most urgent care. This requires a discriminating assessment, not all-or-nothing thinking. Would you really want a hospital to treat someone with a sprained ankle with the same urgency as a person with a heart attack? Or a common cold with the same remedy as cancer? Of course not. So before we claim that Israel is equally morally reprehensible as Iran, lets keep a little perspective, shall we?
As professor Horwitz says;
"Yes, we all dislike the state, but sometimes the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Ending the state is not the same as building the institutions that safeguard liberty. A free society is more than just one without a state; it is one with
the rule of law, protection for private property and contract, and
equal political rights for all. Only Israel comes close to having that,
and the alternative Israel-free Middle East would be a net loss for
liberty."
Happy new year everyone.
