I still occasionally turn to the late Harry Browne for wisdom.  I just read an old article from 1997 entitled What do Libertarians Want?

While not specifically mentioning anarchy, Browne essentially addresses the topic in this article.  I had also heard him discuss this on a radio show one time, and this article seems consistent with what I remember him saying.

The last paragraph is the most telling.  Browne states:

“If we can reduce government to a fraction of its present size, it will become profitable for the best minds in the world to discover and offer methods of replacing the remaining governmental programs with non-coercive market institutions.  We don’t have to devise those solutions now, and we don’t even have to wonder whether it’s possible to devise such solutions.  It simply isn’t relevant – and it won’t be until we’ve moved much closer to our goal of reducing government to a much smaller size.”

I don’t get into this topic a lot, but it does occasionally come up in libertarian circles.  I have written before on the subject of panarchy.

I think some libertarians who consider themselves anarchists make a major mistake.  They can wish for anarchy for themselves, but they should never seek to force this idea onto others.  If someone else wants to live under a particular type of government, they should be free to do so.

The problem with the state as we know it today is that we can’t opt out.  If we could opt out or choose a different state to live under, then we would have liberty, assuming that other states respected this view.

I have not been involved in many discussions on the idea of anarchy with non-libertarians, although it has occasionally come up.  Even with the concession that anyone should be able to live under a government of their choosing, I tend to struggle with the issue of the courts.  How would a justice system operate in a society without a state?  Who would decide on putting someone in jail who is a violent threat to society?

It’s not to say that I haven’t attempted to answer such questions in my own mind.  I just have trouble articulating the answer to my own satisfaction.  I believe this is one area that libertarian anarchists have failed to answer.  I have tried to read what has been written on this subject, even by greats such as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Tom Woods.  Still, nothing has satisfied me yet on this topic.

That is why, as of right now, I basically default to Harry Browne’s position, along with the position of panarchy.  With the occasional discussion with a non-libertarian on the idea of anarchism, I get asked questions about how the roads would work, how the fire department would work, how the country would be defended, how the court system would work, etc.  I feel I can adequately answer the first three questions, but I still struggle with the court question.

But in such a discussion, I ask the non-libertarian if he favors getting the state completely out of education.  In other words, parents should be free to send or not send their kids to school.  And if they do send them to school, they will have to pay for all of it, or rely on charity.

I will also ask the person if he believes we should abolish the FDA and rely on the free market for regulation.  I will ask if he believes in getting rid of Social Security.  I will ask if he believes in legalizing all drugs.

If the person takes the non-libertarian position on any one of these – which it is highly likely he will take the non-libertarian position on most of these – then I have my response to get away from the question of anarchy.  I will say that if I can’t convince him to get the government completely out of education, then I am certainly not going to convince him to get the government out of building roads or defending the country.

I think this is similar to Harry Browne’s point.  It is ok for libertarians to have friendly debates about these topics amongst themselves.  We like to philosophize.  But there isn’t much point with non-libertarians unless you are just hitting them with a moral argument that the initiation of force is never acceptable.

I believe Harry Browne was correct in saying that we need to significantly reduce government, which will in turn allow the best minds in the world to figure out the rest.

When Browne wrote that article, the internet was just starting to take form.  We live in a different world now.  At that time, there were probably some libertarians who thought the state had to at least provide a postal service.  Now, we can see that the Post Office is becoming obsolete, and the little that the Post Office does do could easily be done by institutions in a free market.

Maybe one day we can get to a point where government is such a small part of our lives that the main political arguments in society will be between minarchists and anarchists.  We can only hope.