Mini-bump:
In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.
These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?
What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?
In principle I lean heavily toward the anarchist/capitalist strand though I can definitely understand the arguments for a minimal state given the current realities.
The Austro-libertarians / an-caps / Rothbardians would agree to an extent the keeping of the state apparatus for military, police, and courts leaves behind its most authoritarian vestiges. In
For a New Liberty Murray Rothbard makes some very interesting points about the courts being appointed by the very people they are going to supposedly check. He also illustrates examples of private police & fire departments and explores hazards of someone refusing said services or not being able to pay and then compares it to what we've seen with police in both the US and abroad. Mutual aid insurance plans and competition with arbitration seem to be his ideas to settle possible cases of separate police forces and he dispels the notion of private security forces duking it out. It's a grand idea particularly as we see the increased militarization of the police, abuse of minorities, crackdowns on protesters, and a judicial system that seems to very loosely interpret the Constitution at almost every turn. He was very thorough in covering a lot of the usual objections over the course of his manifesto. It's not his most revered work but it is very straightforward in rolling out the cases against these 3 areas.
The idea from the limited government, classical liberal, even night-watchman state advocates is that if things like 'victimless' crimes (such as arresting rather than treating drug users) were not prosecuted like they were and that if the US was not so set on deposing any and all tin pot dictators who have no immediate threat to the US that the system would be run in such a way that more people have the opportunity to prosper.
I feel the one area where the limited government folks have a considerable argument is that the current system allows for a complex division of labor and specialization across international lines. The division of labor is one of the key talking points of Ludwig von Mises. Many classical liberals and libertarians view that it could be diminished if a major nation no longer had an internationally recognized system of law and that decisions in the new location was not recognized outside of that area. This is where Mises and Hayek to name a few stayed behind with the idea of not totally abolishing the state.
Generally speaking many libertarians regardless of whether they are an-caps, minarchists, or even pragmatic centrists of the Johnson/Weld fold contend that we're a long way off from that departure point. Libertarians largely agree on moving in a decentralized direction away from authoritarian policies. They want to do this without eliminating the pursuit of happiness that comes from being able to create economic opportunities for oneself and one's family and friends. To libertarians under the N American definition, private property rights and a basic agreement with the idea of the non-aggression principle are core values.
I'd like to believe not dispatching a system that has lifted a billion people out of abject subsistence level poverty in recent years is a good idea. Thus saying that private property should have limits like only 1 modest home and a small corner shop is OK but that a factory should be owned by its workers is a poor one. This example was an actual comment from a British far left socialist (non Marxist IIRC) on another message board. There really are people like this who say maintain are non-authoritarian but would want to enact policies like this on a massive scale. These people would make the decision be left to those who only know how to weld rivets or inspect for defects but don't have an inkling of financing or investment or hiring or insurance or construction. Perhaps they can vote for their representatives. Of course this voting would create very poor relationships and the hierarchies that the anarchist left despises. I would doubt such a place would succeed in a large scale operation with many complex relationships.
Likewise, people such as within our own party that are civil libertarians and advocate the falling away of the state power but say that 'rent is theft' are at odds with the core value of the party based on voluntary contracts. In a rental situation one person takes the risk of the other using their property and thus is justified to charge rental fees for wear and tear, lack of better opportunities, repair costs, and the lost time they could be spending doing something else rather than fixing a light. The other person is benefitting from not being permanently tied to a place that they have to go through a lengthy process to trade.
Interestingly so many of the talking points on why rents are so high are often ignorant of issues that are at their worst in the most liberal of places like San Fran, Boston, NYC, and DC. You'd think that the opposite would be true. Rent controls, zoning restrictions, height restrictions, subsidies, etc increase demand and reduce supply in markets that are impacted by limited geographical space. These actions are often seen as a case of 'doing something' for the poor - and the politician pats herself on the back as being for the people. But instead they often have the opposite effect.
Now, there are a number of people of all political sides that are taking a hard look at the data and rejecting policies that artificially limit supply or give incentives for honest landowners to exit the market and exploiters and corner cutters to enter it. When emotions fade and you take a look this is what you find and there is a rational explanation. Don't take my word for it - look it up there is considerable objections to zoning restrictions favoring single family homes and height restrictions as well as on rent controls from non-libertarian/conservatives in many large cities.
Overall, I see no issue with someone having 3 houses or a large company - they were the ones who took the risk in creating the company - it was their will and actions that brought it together. Particularly if they are creating opportunities for others to improve their lives through investment and innovations. If they are continuously asking for the government to grant them special favors, though this is where I depart from the big business types who just want the government to be their benefactors. I don't think there should be any standard or vetting - so even if a person was able to amass a personal fortune there's no reason why they can't give it to their relatives.
Interestingly enough many young people in the US agree with socialism but when you ask the same people if they want to pay more taxes even more people don't. Basically, it's OK to do it as long as it is someone else who's paying. This attitude is similar to the rich who ply for government favors by lobbying for their industry but howl if a tax affects them.
