No Coercion

I often converse with people who are not anarchists (yes, I’m quite cultured). They are often conservatives or liberals who claim to sympathize with the idea of a limited government. Sometimes they are even my fellow libertarians (but of the minarchist variety). They say things like, “I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m relatively happy with how things are right now with government providing roads, water, sewers, national defense, etc., and I don’t want to end up in a Mad Max movie just to see how things would work out absent the state.”

To such statements, I have to ask (as Stefan Molyneux does), “How badly do you really like your government roads and sewers? Are you willing to hold the gun to your neighbor’s head if he refuses to pay taxes to fund those things?”Because that’s how government works. A group of people get together and claim a monopoly on law-making and law enforcement and say that they’re going to “protect you” and “do things for you,” and then they come around with guns and ask everyone to “pay their fair share.” If you don’t pay, they attempt to abduct you (they use the word “arrest”). If you resist their abduction, they will kill you. Of course, they usually do end up providing some things and performing a certain degree of protection, but only enough so that they are not violently opposed en masse.

So if you support the legitimacy of the actions of this group of people, you must believe that their actions are just. So you must believe that you have a moral right to that government road such that it is legitimate to kill your neighbor for refusing to help pay for it. So would you be willing to hold the gun to your neighbor’s head, ask him to pay his fair share, and shoot him if he refuses?

And if you’re reluctant to embrace the stateless society as a goal because you’re making out pretty well under the current system and you’re having trouble imagining how we could all live together on a voluntary basis and enjoy all our modern conveniences, I would ask how you think that’s different from slavery supporters in the 19th century who made the same arguments against ending slavery. In both situations, the defender of the current system is benefiting at others’ expense through the organized, legal violence of the state.

Just something to think about.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!