Libertarianism, Free States, and Oppressive States

I am not going to here portray the free state utopia of the libertarian imagination, but instead will explore the logic of the libertarianism, by testing its “free state” and “oppressive state” categories in extreme cases selected for the purpose of bringing the logic of the theory to the surface.

First an apology for here knuckling under to the nearly universal, but highly misleading, practice of leaving our friends on the political right the word “libertarian” as if they possessed its trademark. My own belief is that they don’t deserve the word because their notion of “liberty” is so very cramped. It would be like calling a group “democrats” because they believed that all, but only, males who paid over X dollars in income tax should have the vote. I think any adequate theory of human liberty is going to entail a politics well to the left of, and more deserving the label “libertarianism” than those who are now popularly so called.

The Free State

The nation of Dexia possesses a substantial military. They have to. Through no fault of the Dexians they are beset by hostile neighbors. They have no aggressive intentions of their own, and do not even seek to sponsor or support an international order of any sort. Yet, Dexia must, nonetheless, tax heavily simply to protect themselves from foreign invasion and intimidation. The taxes are set and the details of their use to support the military decided by a technocratic body charged to provide an adequate defense at the smallest possible cost to taxpayers. This, it is generally agreed, they accomplish reasonably well. 

Police are the second place expenses of Dexia, with appurtenant criminal courts, jails, and prisons. The same technocrats administer this system, generally meeting their charge to reduce criminal activity to a tolerable level at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The rough guiding principle is that spending 90 cents to prevent a dollar theft is good policy and that spending $1.10 is not. (The generalization of this principle to offenses not easily monetized requires some subtlety, but assume it has been accomplished.)

There is a civil court system for contract and a narrow range of other disputes (just how narrow is a worthy question for another time.) A small foreign service is also supported for negotiating cease fires and non-aggression treaties. That is the entirety of the Dexian government. All other functions are private: transportation, including roads, airports, harbors, rail; education; health; culture; sport; parks; and so on. If you are going to have or use something, you are going to buy it.

Unfortunately, because the defense demands are so great, there is not much left for private consumption. No one lives in real discomfort, but only a few have much for extras.

In this setting it is inevitable that there should be resentment of the level of taxation, but it is generally understood that it is necessary to the survival of Dexia. Taxation is almost flat in the strong sense of the same amount per capita on the theory that foreign and domestic security protects everyone almost equally. There is a small wealth tax in that the rich have more to lose than the poor and so receive more valuable protection when the police protect against theft. Even the security from foreign invasion, it is thought, is of some greater benefit to the rich.

Dexia is not a democracy or even a republic. The technocrats are self-perpetuating, choosing new members on their ability and their dedication to keeping Dexia secure and the courts fair -- all at a minimum cost to the taxpayers. In line with the ideal of privatization, however, the position as a technocrat, as well as that of judge, or military or police ranking officer, can be purchased, subject to periodic review by the technocrats.

So far this has all worked fairly well – with no major corruption scandals. Some wonder about the future, however, having a belief that human psychology is, to a large extent, fundamentally self-interested. Dexia has nothing institutional to prevent the technocrats, or those with the resources to buy a controlling number of technocratic and judicial positions, from transforming the society into a tyranny of their class or caste.

Yet, so long as nothing like this transpires, Dexia, though without any sort of direct citizen control over government and though its citizens have relatively few options in life (the resources problem), is, according to libertarian theory, a paradigm of a free state.

The Oppressive State

Arista finds itself in circumstances blest in the ways that Dexia’s are cursed. Through nothing but its great good luck, other nations are friendly and cooperative. Because, in addition Arista has abundant resources, although some must be devoted to public security against crime, there is a great deal left over.

Arista has a deeply democratic government, one person one vote, with no advantages or disadvantages for geography, wealth, poverty, ethnicity, religion, or race. That government has chosen to tax and spend on such public goods as transportation infrastructure, free education, free medical care, culture, sports, recreation, and so on. It has been an Arista priority to enlarge the range of options open to its citizens for vocation and avocation. No one in Arista is blind for the lack of funds for a sight restoring operation. No one who could be a prima ballerina or a hockey star or mathematician fail because of where they live, their parents’ background, or whom they don’t know.

This legislation for none of these expensive projects has received unanimous approval, and, although all have received well over majority support, and although the minority has been ever shifting, there are few Aristians who don’t feel that some particular dollars should have been left in their own pockets rather than going to this or that public project. 

For the libertarian each of those dollars is theft. It is theft even if each of the victims is a co-conspirator in like thefts from others who are taxed for projects of which they disapprove. (Thieves can steal from other thieves.) Should no one in Arista want to change the system, it would still egregiously violate rights. Indeed, even if everyone voted in favor of a particular tax and spend project, that would not save it. A free contribution by all would be fine, but using the state’s coercive apparatus for any but the essential security related services is unjust. Arista, on libertarian theory, is, therefore the poster child of an oppressive state.