International Man: Today, we’ll explore some of the most common criticisms of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
Imagine two tribes. One is cohesive and tightly knit. The other promotes hyper-individualism. Which is likely to win in a conflict?
Doug Casey: There’s nothing wrong with forming cohesive groups. Humans have always been tribal because it’s conducive to survival. Many hands make light work. And specialization and division of labor—which is critical for progress—is only possible with a group. The problem is whether the group is voluntary or coercive in nature.
And you’re right. In a war, the tribe structured like a military unit has some advantages over a loose group of rugged individualists. But its only advantage is in war, which is something to be avoided at almost any cost. Why, then, do humans usually default to collectivism instead of libertarianism?
Unfortunately, the institution of the family, which is the foundation of society, inadvertently sets a bad example. That’s because the family—by its very nature—is authoritarian and socialistic. The parents call the shots and provide free food and shelter, while the kids get into the habit early of having things provided for them. They give according to their ability and receive according to their needs, a Marxist ideal. So perhaps the family, which is a good thing, paradoxically gets people off on the wrong foot.
Worse, in the real world, the arguments for liberty and individualism are all intellectual. They’re logical, they make sense—but most people don’t reason. The average person doesn’t live in an intellectual world; he lives in an emotional world. He acts according to what he feels, not what he thinks. He does what feels right without thinking about the consequences—even the immediate and direct ones, let alone the indirect and delayed ones. Reason is often used to justify emotions.
Those are two major reasons—and there are lots of others—why socialism has more appeal than capitalism, not to mention libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
The socialistic habits we learn with the family are reinforced by emotions, feelings, and, oftentimes, irrational assumptions. Unlike libertarianism, socialism promises something for nothing, the prospect of automatic security, and a perpetual free lunch. Socialism sounds better to those who haven’t got critical thinking skills. That’s a real problem, and a cause for pessimism about the future of humanity.
The problem is compounded by the nature of politics, which brings out the worst in people. When you’re trying to influence “the masses,” emotion works 100 times better than reason. Worse yet, the people who are drawn to politics want power and want to manipulate others. Politics naturally attracts criminal personalities.
It’s almost genetically guaranteed that individualists, AnCaps, and libertarians have the odds stacked against them.
International Man: How, then, do you respond to critics who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are impractical, utopian fantasies?
Doug Casey: Well, you can look at this from two points of view—the practical and the moral.
In primitive times, it was possible for a central power to dictate how much food would cost, how much laborers would be paid, and what the rules were in every area of life. It was counterproductive, but it was possible because things were very simple, unlike today’s world, with billions of people and trillions of transactions taking place every day. However, central authorities and socialism are at odds with a technological society. Collectivism is unworkable on any scale larger than a family, as the Soviets and the Maoists proved. It turned out that, in the real world, communism was the utopian fantasy.
More importantly, any system other than radical libertarianism is immoral. I won’t discuss property rights at length here, but suffice it to say that your primary possession is your own body. And why should anybody else have a right to tell you what you must or must not do with your own body? That includes how you use it, what you ingest, what you think, what you say, and how you use your other possessions. Every person is a sovereign being.
Unfortunately, humans’ innate character flaws and ingrained psychological tendencies cause them to do self-destructive things like trying to replicate the family on a giant scale, by creating the institution of the State.
International Man: How do you respond to those who argue that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are, at best, irrelevant? And at worst, tools used by powerful interests to atomize individuals, making them easier to control and dominate?
Doug Casey: Politicians are disinclined to treat people as individuals. They try to control and dominate by forcing individuals to become parts of a collective.
Some say libertarianism is irrelevant because so few people understand its principles. And even if they do understand them, they don’t put them into effect.
But libertarianism cyclically expands and contracts. For instance, the reason that America was unique in world history is that it was the first country ever founded on the principles of libertarianism. And those principles are responsible for its immense success. But over America’s history, sometimes those principles grow, and sometimes they fade.
Libertarianism is basically a belief in the non-aggression principle and the limiting of force. Anarcho-capitalism goes beyond libertarianism because it doesn’t believe in the existence of the State as an entity, as an institution. And 50 years ago, the term “anarcho-capitalism” didn’t even exist. Now it’s widely discussed. The president of Argentina is an anarcho-capitalist, and the country is being radically transformed.
Speaking as an Ancap myself, I’d like to see not just 200, but eight billion sovereign nations in the world. The key is to develop institutions and accepted ways of thinking that emphasize cooperation, not coercion, in everything.
International Man: Many libertarians and anarcho-capitalists argue that fully privatizing all property would effectively solve the migrant and border issue.
Critics, however, say this vision is unrealistic and not a serious solution, claiming it ultimately serves as cover for open-border advocacy and worsens the situation in practice.
How do you respond to that criticism?
Doug Casey: Moving the U.S. toward pure libertarianism—anarcho-capitalism—is by far the best solution to the border issue. Much better than walls and border guards checking to see if “your papers are in order.” If 100% of the U.S. were privately owned, with no exceptions, it would be up to the owner of that property to decide whether any given person or group could use it or trespass on it.
The real problem is the welfare systems of the U.S. In the 19th century, there was immense immigration to the U.S. But there was zero government support. Arrivals were immediately responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves—or they would, frankly, starve. Immigrants knew that. As a result, the U.S. drew the best and most enterprising people.
Today, however, migrants are quite aware of the immense welfare systems available at the local, State, and national levels, in addition to what’s provided by NGOs, which are basically maintained with tax dollars, directly or indirectly. There are networks that actively facilitate the travel and upkeep of the migrants. If welfare were abolished, we wouldn’t draw these kinds of people. The argument can be made that George Soros might use his billions to purposely import them to property that he owns. But there they would have to stay; it’s a straw man argument.
Without a government to support them, migrants would be discouraged. Of course, they could steal for a living. But thieves could expect to be treated harshly, perhaps with extreme prejudice.
Ultimately, you can’t keep people from coming or going. And why should you? Groups have migrated throughout world history. But the best way to maintain stability is with 100% private property, not a reliance on political gimmicks. Politicians can be corrupted and bribed. In fact, that’s why many get into politics. Ancaps rely on the market, not politicos, bureaucrats, and storm troopers, to maintain stability.
International Man: Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism emphasize individual liberty and voluntary exchange, but critics argue they offer little guidance on deeper ethical or moral responsibilities beyond the non-aggression principle.
How do you see these philosophies addressing complicated questions of ethics and morality in real-world situations?
Doug Casey: Ancaps don’t intend to address issues of ethics and morality. Those things are settled by religion and philosophy. Libertarianism and ancapism are mainly concerned with how society can best protect itself from the initiation of force and fraud. It doesn’t really matter what philosophy or religion individuals are partial to, as long as they don’t initiate violence against each other.
Remember, there are just two rules: Do all that you say you’re going to do, and don’t impinge upon other people or their property. With only two laws, you don’t need a legislature. And ignorance of the law is truly no excuse.
Beyond that, you can believe or do whatever you’d like. The fact of the matter is that birds of a feather naturally flock together. People form into groups based on whatever is important to them. For some, it’s their race. For some, it’s their religion. For some, it’s their way of thinking. None of that matters as long as they don’t aggress against other individuals or other groups.
There’s much more to be said about these things. I urge you to read “The Market for Liberty.” It’s a very short book. But one that can totally change how you see the world.
* * *
Economic turmoil isn’t a question of if—but when. Most will panic. The prepared will not only survive but come out ahead. We’ve put together a free special report revealing practical steps to protect your assets, secure your lifestyle, and uncover opportunities that emerge when the system breaks down. Download your Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse now—free of charge.
Loading recommendations…
