Why I’m A Libertarian And Not An Anarchist

Lately, I’ve been watching more videos by Jeff Berwick from The Dollar Vigilante, and as a result I’ve begun to question my political beliefs as a libertarian. Jeff is an anarcho-capitalist who believes there should be no state whatsoever, and as individuals we are best at governing ourselves. While I completely agree with the last part, lately I’ve begun to solidify why I’m a libertarian.

As a libertarian, I do believe it’s necessary to have a state. Why? To ensure the natural rights of those who choose to live within a geographical area. In an anarchistic society there is nothing preventing a group of men from stealing life, liberty, or property from another group; other than the group being stolen from better have the larger force. If the group initiating force has the greater force, then you can kiss your anarchy goodbye.

I’m concerned this is what happened during the early formations of government. Man was obviously born anarchistic, living in tribes. However at some point the state formed. Likely as a result of agriculture which required man to stay fixed into one geographical location, thus opening him up to invasion. So why didn’t they just stay anarchists? Likely because a powerful group of men offered them protection from other states looking to steal and pillage their lands. The agreement, of course, was not written and enforceable by both parties, as would be the case under a republic. Instead the agreement was taken at blind faith, which would for obvious reasons lead to despotism.

One might argue that an anarchistic society would have just as much of an ability to maintain a strong force against invaders, perhaps even more so because of the rapid advances in technology and philosophy an anarchy would certainly provide. However, the crux is that there is no unifying form of power. No agreement among the people that everyone agrees to work together militarily, and not initiate force against one another. I’m certain in an anarchy there would be division among the people and dominance by the stronger forces within the society. This could very easily lead to another despotic situation.

At some point there would need to be a written and enforceable agreement. Something written between the people stating they agree to not initiate force against one another. This very act, by definition, forms a republic; and is the natural progression of a free society. This agreement’s foundation would be that no man can initiate force against another, and if violated the state, or any individual, could use force against the perpetrator. All you really need to enforce this is a guarded court system to ensure natural rights are being protected, particularly those of defendants. Suffice it to say, this minimal form of government could easily be funded through volunteer work and voluntary funding, without any initiation of force needed by the government.

So what prevents the government from becoming the despot? The free people and their military strength. The people would need to maintain a powerful militia in order to enforce their side of the agreement. Such is necessary for any agreement.

This libertarian form of governance uses the non-aggression principle which is paramount in any free society. However, unlike anarchy, it is clear and enforceable. Two equal balances of power, between the government and the people; in contrast to whichever group musters up the largest military, as would be the case in an anarchy.