Musing on Libertarian Totalitarianism

David Friedman has an interesting take on the libertarian-liberal alliance: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2007/01/liberals-libertarians-objectivists-and.html. The conclusion (in the sense that it concludes the post):

“Politically speaking, if Republicans supported less government instead of more,
they would be natural allies for libertarians, whether those libertarians
reached their conclusions via Catholic philosophy, natural rights,
utilitarianism, skepticism, or hedonism. Since Republicans at the moment support
more government—more even than Democrats as of the last time they were in
power—it is worth looking for other allies.”

David refers to a Cato poll that showed that 15% of the American public is “libertarian”. They are libertarian in the sense that they are relatively socially liberal AND economically conservative, as those characterizations are popularly understood. Anti-state hard core libertarians are much rarer. Even the 15% identified by Cato is not even enough to counter the wingnut authoritarian right with its 25% let alone counter the remaining 60% who otherwise embrace the state wholeheartedly. Unless the libertarians win over a lot more people and become even more libertarian in their leanings, there is no way that the democratic process is going to do anything for libertarianism. On the contrary, the democratic process will mean more and more government until every aspect of our lives is completely managed by the state right down to our bowel movements.

With the democratic process, the best libertarians can hope for is to put a slight drag on the inevitable slide into totalitarianism.

Perhaps a free society will come only with the seizure of power by revolutionaries. History has shown that a small ideological minority can take the reins of power in a state and impose its will on the masses if it has an army. It would not be enough for libertarians simply to destroy the state, because the masses will simply sell their freedom to any master who will reconstitute it at the first opportunity. Rather, libertarians must take over the state and monopolize the initiation of force in order to prevent the development of any other nascent state-like institutions. Powerful institutions of voluntary civil society would not be problematic, but no person must be able to impose any involuntary obligations on another except under the authority of the revolutionary party.

Could such a state devoted to entirely to inactivity on its own part other than the defense of its subjects from internal and external enemies be maintained without succumbing to the corruption of power? It could be maintained only so long as its apparatchiks were selected based on ideological purity. Party membership must be restricted to those who profess only the profoundest commitment to liberty. Selection to the people’s congress would be from party members by lot rather than by election; therefore, the congress would not necessarily be comprised of the most ambitious and power hungry people. Sponsors of legislation and those who vote in favor of any legislation, other than to repeal something already on the books, will be considered to have resigned from the congress and will be ineligible for the central committee or the chairmanship or other high office. This will ensure that activist legislators do not gain advancement. The chairman will have a veto which cannot be overridden.

The state will have only such personnel and perform only such functions as are absolutely necessary to perform its "essential" obligations:

Defense of the realm;
Criminal justice and dispute resolution;
Self Preservation;
Maintenance of party power.

Insofar as possible, the defense of the realm should be in the hands of voluntary militia. Criminal justice should be handled by a voluntary constabulary and trials presided over by party members with paty member juries. Dispute resolution should be done by courts convened and paid for by the litigants, subject to review by local party apparatchiks. Self preservation and maintenance of party power may require the maintenance of a substantial security and surveillance apparatus. Despite this, rule by the party will be far less costly than the current system of government, and the tax burden on the people will be miniscule. It may be difficult for the opposition to develop much interest in the masses to revolt, since about the only limitation the party will place on the people is to restrict their ability to meddle with their neighbors.

The only way to defeat the state may be to capture it and tame it.