Musings from a Smoke-Filled Room
I love getting together with intelligent, interesting people to discuss weighty topics like, you know, religion, philosophy, science, and so on. Back in the day, the men would gather in the library, light cigars, and the room would fill with smoke. But, being that smoking is not as stylish as in bygone days, the more likely scenario would be outside under a shady tree with lawn chairs and an ice chest full of beer. But nonetheless, the concept is the same: everybody speaks their mind, cordiality is the order of the day, and all the world’s problems are solved! In theory
.Of course the conversation eventually turns to politics. As a precursor, I always take a moment to remind attendees that this gathering is all about enjoying each other’s company, and that debating is, basically, a game. Winning attributes are eloquence, wisdom, and knowledge of current events. Understand that we’re unlikely to change the mind of anyone firmly entrenched in their chosen political corner. But just the same, let’s all try to score some points of persuasion. (Oh and if someone does make a really good point, everyone must acknowledge and take a drink!) Besides, there are others listening to the conversation who may be seeking a political home, and our words could plant a seed.
As the debate rages, I will make the point that government is a terrible choice for solving problems or producing the goods and services that we all want and need. Inevitably, somebody is guaranteed to ask: How in the world could we have roads and streets and highways if government did not provide? This leads into a discussion on how the free market actually works. I explain that if consumers truly want something (in this case: transportation), then some enterprising entrepreneur will figure a way to do it - for a profit. Provided that the government gets out of the way and does not inhibit it or subsidize the competition
.The next retort is something along the lines of: but the free market is not perfect! I reply: that is true, because the free market is run by humans, and humans are not perfect. But - remember that government is also run by imperfect humans, so do not assume that government is fundamentally better. Government is not some super-human deity.
Another retort that always seems to pop up is this: Well, Mr. Libertarian, if free enterprise is so superior, then why not take it all the way to its logical conclusion? Let’s privatize the police, the judiciary, the military, the whole shebang!
Now - if everyone in on this conversation were libertarians, then we could launch into a serious discussion of the pros and cons of going “all the way”. But normally that is not the case - a more typical gathering includes some non-libertarians. In fact, some of you out there reading this may be non-libertarians, so this is for you, too! So, how to proceed?
The biggest hurdle to advocating “all the way” libertarianism is: language. Words carry baggage - and baggage can weigh you down.
The English language has a smattering of words to describe various forms of government. You have monarchy (rule by a single person), theocracy (rule by a religion), democracy (rule by “the people”, whatever that means), oligopoly (rule by a select group), aristocracy (rule by law and order), dynasty (rule by inheritance), and others. Read about it here.
There’s another form of government that doesn’t get mentioned very often. It’s a government of no government. “All the way” libertarianism. Everything is run by the free market. Not one single government employee on the payroll - anywhere.
Why does this form of government get so little airplay? Well, it’s because of the baggage-filled word - the only word in the English language - that fits. And that word is: Anarchy.
Now you may have personal opinions about all the other forms of government - monarchy and theocracy and all the others. You may personally feel that some of them are “good” or “bad” governing concepts. But the words themselves are simply neutral descriptions; they carry very little qualitative baggage.
“Anarchy”, however, resides in a totally different universe. What comes to your mind when you hear the word?
Chaos!! Disorder!! Rampant crime!!
And there lies the rub. Just try to have a conversation about “all the way” libertarianism, and the-word-that-I-will-not-even-mention-again will inevitably come up.
The whole purpose of discussing liberty and free markets is to win converts. But to do that, you gotta get, and keep, their attention. If you so much as think about uttering the-word-that-I-will-not-even-mention, you lose them. They’re gone. Forever. And it’s not because “all the way” libertarianism is or is not a viable concept; no, the problem is all that weighty linguistic baggage that cannot be shed.
So, what to do when that question comes up? Here’s my strategy: just don’t go there. I have a compromise that goes like this: Hey, if you want a tax-supported government to run the police, the judiciary, and the military, I’m Ok. Just get rid of everything else that government does, or attempts to do. This entire governmental apparatus could be supported by a tax that works out to about 2% of your income. I could live with that.
We have a name for this: Minarchy. We libertarians coined the word, so it’s not exactly mainstream English. My spell-checker balked when I typed it in.
This linguistic debate strategy has served me well for decades. So go ahead - head for that smoke-filled room (or shady tree) with a positive attitude, and sell liberty!
Oh and about those roads and streets: yes they can - and should - be privatized.
My theory of the best libertarian persuasion strategy starts with the famous physician’s oath “First do no harm”
The sound bite goes something like “Before we talk about spending another hundred billion to “solve” Problem X, let’s peel back existing policies that have either caused the problem”. There’s a lot of low hanging fruit to talk about.
I think this would be more useful than trying to hit someone over the head with Rand or Hayek. Let folks see the pattern through endless examples.