The Procession of Libertarian Anarchy Into Marxist Totalitarianism

Soren Kierkegaard on Truth

I. The Myth Behind Pure Libertarianism

Libertarianism at its heart is an ideology whose most ardent followers are completely opposed to the rule of civil law. They are divorced from the logic John Locke posited, that all have the natural right to own property and shares. Hardline libertarians unwittingly proclaim absolute autonomy to the individual void of consequences and causality, demanding all people radically accept pervasive moral bankruptcy, of profligacy unchecked, thinking an independent third party granted popular legitimacy by plebiscite will ultimately confiscate everything they own. They demand to be free of a civil society, not the presence of anything defined as civil or social, that they may subsist of their own designs, from an open range, off infinite acreages of unfettered land.

Libertarians are extraordinarily myopic, asserting once one stakes claim to property as did early frontier settlers or the earliest nomadic peoples across the globe, no known arbiter other than the stronger of two combatants must naturally be permitted to settle any disputes since in theory, it should never have been a parcel contractually owned through a third way of coercion, or tyranny. There can be no impartial third party securing a peace according to libertarians because objectivity is only subject to the conscientious objector who may enforce the law, which through enforcement, a form of coercion transpires. Ergo, libertarianism is wholly a construct based on the law of the nomad, syphoning from the lands they travel, resulting only in the profiteering off one’s claim to a widget belonging to no one of the human persuasion. It denies the validity of God’s declaration that all who feed off the land are the salt of the earth, that social interactions in peaceful coexistence as neighbors voluntarily is never guaranteed, nor the possibility a deadly struggle for another’s land is impossible due to human nature. To them, there can be no God. There is no set consensual accord that should exist if mankind neither mandated or invented it. In harmony with humanism, one gathers that libertarianism in its purest form to be asynchronous to the illogic behind blind faith, in trusting a higher power over forces one cannot control.

Locke, as the centerpiece from his landmark foundation of modern Western political thought influencing popular democracies, wrote —

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…”
The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690  (Courtesy of The European Graduate School)

All that differs between libertarianism and Marxism are the methodologies beyond their respective economies of scale. Quite literally, their ends are the same, seemingly twins separated at birth, raised in very different homes. Communists mean to abolish property ownership, favoring instead a collectivized utilitarian machine under a central authority. Libertarians, per Murray Rothbard, seek the total abolition of the state to engage in pure laissez faire capitalism even if unscrupulously conducted, where one wishing to kill his competition may do so at the cost of the victim’s most essential liberty, life. They both are lawless wielding their power. Communism therefore is the state centralizing its authority, consolidating all material resources, redistributing what it will, the retention of all revenue perpetuating its technocratic mandate for exercising total power.

For absolute libertarianism, the most corrupt actor ironically is the actual individual, the one acquiring his fortune and glory at the cost of others he willingly would destroy with total impunity. Such is life for the nomadic savage, the anarchist, liberating himself of all personal dependence as he sullies into decadence. He would unabashedly confiscate essential liberty to those of differing minds, or who is not he himself, the actual individual of internal sovereignty. The fallacy that self-ownership is preclusive to the rights of the individual lest the world be populated by homogeneous iconoclasts would lead of course to the inevitable abolition of all purposeful interdependence. Life then is suddenly nullified based on the natural law defining the human condition, the discontinuity of its utilitarian purpose while the rise of a new species under the praxeological construct commences. Mankind’s innate carnal pleasures are again repeating the historic cause of entire civilizations’ demise. Our deadly sins once again prove to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.

One insisting Edmund Burke (1729 – 97) only advocated absolute monarchies and thereby infer of an aversion to true liberty is culpable of a major philosophical breach in comprehending what conservatism truly is. Burke was in fact, pro-democracy, the most prominent member of the Whigs who during the 18th Century, opposed the Tory imperative to fully restore the divine right of the Crown over their own parliamentary mandate. He championed the American war for independence, citing his disapproval of the thirteen colonies’ lack of representation at Westminster.

“Reflect how you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free, and think they are not. Your scheme yields no revenue; it yields nothing but discontent, disorder, disobedience; and such is the state of America, that after wading up to your eyes in blood, you could only end just where you begun; that is, to tax where no revenue is to be found, to — my voice fails me; my inclination indeed carries me no farther — all is confusion beyond it.”
— First Speech on the Conciliation with America, American Taxation (19 April 1774)

Burke warned a nation’s history and culture must not only never be forgotten, but all mankind be free to voice and influence policy based on “the wisdom of our ancestors”, a very British ideological tenet from which America’s Founders freely borrowed to achieve independence. The British culture desires to maintain the monarchy. The Royal Family is perhaps the most reflective of a common history marking their heritage to be uniquely their own. Therefore to Burke, “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

Burke too reviled the anarchic macabre of the French Revolution due to its excesses in shedding blood, the terror in which the Committee for Public Safety under Maximilien Robespierre unleashed on its political opposition. Revolutionary France, initiated by the left-wing Jacobins under Robespierre, not only never sniffed the foulest stench of democratic virtue, it proclaimed its policy in avoiding this unapologetically through murder. To Burke, the danger was real; the die, cast. For When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” We should therefore not engage simply in “what a lawyer tells [us we] may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.” A society constructed on a sound foundation will best reflect the idyllic civil society, for in Burke’s words when prescribing the cure to the American rebellion, “Freedom and not servitude is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition.”

II. Tyranny under Socialism versus Tyranny by a Multitude: Denying the Natural Right to Life

The American war for independence enjoyed broad support. Each colony elected legislators, who were then charged with appointing a delegation to represent their common interests in Philadelphia, as with the Second Continental Congress during the summer of 1776. If lawlessness has manifested each revolution since “the shot heard ’round the world” April 19, 1775 at Lexington and Concord, would this not support Rothbard’s argument for anarcho-capitalism, the abolition of the state in favor of a world without borders, of libertarianism at its most puritanical?

Burke wisely opposed the French Revolution. Thomas Paine’s support of the violent rebellion waged by les sans culottes storming the Bastille prison was a direct reflection of his inner-idyllic atheist militant. Humanism served as the philosophic legitimacy for a finite order of oligarchs who proclaimed as their battle cry “liberte, fraternite, egalite.” Their intention was for inciting supporters hungry for any change, a feat realized at the price of what they once enjoyed — the right to life, to live under a rule of law granting stability for more than a millennia under papal authority in harmony with the Carolingian dynasty of Charles Martel and Charlemagne. The atheist fringe of Robespierre manufactured its own religion (Cult of the Supreme Being) based on pagan idolatries, in the process banning papal authority and vandalizing old cathedrals. The abdication of one corrupt absolutist in favor of one far more autocratic in the obscure Corsican artillery general Napoleon Bonaparte rising to power following a coup d’etat in 1799 proved to be less than a lateral end. Untold scores of French partisans died in vain to achieve an absolute equality that never materialized. The French Revolution was the world’s first experiment in left-wing totalitarianism, the spark initiating the bloodiest epoch of violence and warfare in human history for the next 200 years. It heavily influenced both Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Mao and Kim Il-Sung, Castro and Ho Chi Minh and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.

Burke, in delivering his 1774 speech to the electors at Bristol, defended the virtues of a representative government as not serving merely as a council of disorderly delegates, but in best preserving a society in a preventive effort to its descent into dysfunction.

“… it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

If tradition is to serve only as the preeminent source of consternation, how might one justify support for any Americans at present free to celebrate Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter Sunday, to maintain the role of God in their lives? Certainly a lifelong resident cannot agree with socialists given John Adams proclaimed to Thomas Jefferson in 1813 the Revolution was won on “the general principles of Christianity; and the general principles of English liberty and American liberty”. Both Adams and Jefferson were among the five paramount Founders. Even Jefferson, a noted Christian-Deist, well understood the legitimacy behind the Revolution, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. These three critical points embolden brave patriots to fight willingly for “certain inalienable rights” endowed by “our Creator”. Each of the three ideals were again based on Locke’s “life, liberty… and property”. Without Locke, Burke would never had the foundation to apply his contention history and tradition are both key ingredients granting for a people their common identity unique to their own, and why the European Union is on the brink of a catastrophic economic, social and political collapse. If finding Burke’s concept of tradition and culture breeds an eternity of doom for America, such a person is culpable of his tacit alignment with detached politicians in Washington and at the state levels nationally. This would negate the logistical validity of a very libertarian principle evoked by one Murray Rothbard historical revision to fit how anarcho-capitalism would abolish the state.

As libertarianism goes, so too would it abolish more than the human condition. Dr. Rothbard was noted for professing the abolition of the state in favor of anarcho-capitalism. Yet such remarks as the following prove how much is necessitated to achieve his idyllic chaotic world order.

“If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy,’ why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person?”

If Dr. Rothbard was content simply stopping at a full secession of the individual from himself, what might stop the abolition of the family, the lone cohesive force to legitimately instill in each youth his core principles under a higher power than the self? What taught him what he knows well and values most?

An answer might be found in Dr. Rothbard expressing a fetus as a “parasite” and “invader” in his Ethics of Liberty.

“The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.”

Most emphatically, Dr. Rothbard rejected Locke’s principle thesis, writing “no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body”.

Furthermore, Dr. Rothbard declared “A new-born baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party may be the baby’s owner….” And John Walker in 1991, in his repudiation of Dr. Rothbard’s intellectual disingenuity, asserted We have probably all come across libertarians for whom any restraint on their wills is intolerable. But the only real restraint on our wills is obligation — the recognition of the rights of others.” He seemed most content living in the denial one may have any enforceable obligations including the provision of labor as a means of subsistence, a violation of any reputable interpretation of praxeological pro quid quo given in the same book (Ethics of Liberty), he rejected F. A. Hayek’s claim “there are, undeniably, occasions when the condition of employment creates opportunity for true coercion. In periods of acute unemployment the threat of dismissal may be used to enforce actions other than those originally contracted for.” Finally, he rejects Hayek’s private ownership of capital and labor entirely, how “… in conditions such as those in a mining town the manager may well exercise an entirely arbitrary and capricious tyranny over a man to whom he has taken a dislike.” It therefore is ironic how Dr. Rothbard’s arbitrary judgment of coercion and enslavement even by an employer is somehow contradictory to the a moral right to jettison what does not yield a profit due to a lack of utility.

Given Locke’s fundamental right to property ownership was Americanized by Thomas Jefferson as “the pursuit of happiness”, this should come as no surprise. Dr. Rothbard was in fact, hypocritical in his assailment of Hayek with the fantasia of his dichotomy. — 

“… either to confine the concept of ‘coercion’ strictly to the invasion of another’s person or property by the use or threat of physical violence; or to scrap the term ‘coercion’ altogether, and simply define ‘freedom’ not as the ‘absence of coercion’ but as the ‘absence of aggressive physical violence or the threat thereof.’”

It appears puritanical libertarianism does not value Locke’s most fundamental right — life. It therefore is among the most grotesque of abuses in the possible preclusion of mutual associations. To Dr. Rothbard, liberty merely entailed how ultimately mankind is not meant to be free from the state, but of self-responsibility. We are to each be liberated of all necessity to maintain order, even of the manifest preservation of life supporting Locke’s contention that life must live to experience essential liberty. None other than former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin wrote for Pravda in 1912 “that a powerful and vigorous movement is impossible without differences — ‘true conformity’ is possible only in the cemetery.”

Since history teaches that every successful government to have lasted did in fact lend its legitimacy upon an omnipotent supreme being, why then do so many atheists insist upon explaining God through his secular redheaded stepchild, intelligent design? Would that not entail believing nothing created the universe asserts how the actor is self-contradictory of his own position that “an infinite regress that is inescapable”? And why the borderline religiosity necessitating the mobilization of peoples charged to govern only themselves, absolved of all things tangible or theistic as is the apparent religiosity behind libertarian duality? If the state according to Locke arbiters protects the individual’s God-given right to property ownership, what according to revisionist libertarians grants the individual this right? Because libertarians, or anarchists according to its contemporary founder Rothbard, do not believe in anything that does not involve the self as the supreme power in one’s life. Selfishness is its lone virtue, greed the only law it knows not to exist within the self’s capacity to explain these phenomena, much less a psychological dialectic of choices. It is, in the end, singular; a one-tracked, thoughtless void, even the definition of nothingness or nihilism. Rothbard, in the end, created the concept of a utopia where people must possess nothing. If libertarianism, defined by Rothbard as anarchical, necessitates the state be dissolved, perhaps Karl Marx and him have more in common than simple semantics regarding why property is the commission of theft by the individual, who then usurps an authoritarian air.

If libertarianism’s post-human platform, transhumanism, calls for the abolition of the organic presence of humanity in lieu of secular artificial intelligence, man might have set himself on a course for extinction. At that, what difference does it make other than it becoming a debate over semantics? Like any good left or right-wing socialist, Murray Rothbard applied historical revisionism to his praxeological methodology. What did not serve him as an inhibitor of the truth, he rewrote in order that misinformation would be disseminated on a systemic standard of curricula akin loosely to Common Core. Whether one defines Rothbard’s ideas as a unitarian philosophy, it still reeks of the same old socialism or statism he totally rejected as obtrusive. Nomadic savages again migrated, existing not as iconoclasts, but as an interdependent, socialized people understanding well that through an applied Aristotilian view under a communitarian construct that according to Charles Taylor in his highly-influential paper “Atomism”, “Man is a social animal, indeed a political animal, because he is not self-sufficient alone, and in an important sense is not self-sufficient outside a polis”, thus rejecting the concept mankind can be self-sufficient outside society. The concept of mankind adopting the omnivorous diet was not so much a matter of strict naturalization, but how life as carnivores proved counterproductive given migration is attributed to hunting game in various regions to extinction and did not necessitate people to live as “pack animals”, townships or collectives. Therefore in reflection of Kant’s conceptual analysis of empiricism, one must be immersed in his environs to learn. For all actors in referencing the intellectual giants Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, vast areas of the individual’s life are in fact governed by the unchosen routines inherited in one’s youth. More often than not, citing the communitarian thinker, each individual is influenced by his social background: when we walk, how we dress and play games, the way we speak without having formulated any goals or made any choices. Only when the established order devolves into chaos may the individual actor consider himself the subject on the interior of an external social reality, having no experience formulating a diverse array to execute one’s goals, choosing among these new, very foreign concepts, the radicalism being the individual’s acceptance of responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

As American criminal cases are decided by a jury of one’s peers, they are never known as to their identity, nor even motive. And as such, this is true of government or the state in foreign nations, because justice is only blind to he who sees it, and yet cannot behind its veil. George Orwell understood that well, having imparted his most valuable lesson in Animal Farm, “Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

Mob rule, then, is the same any which way history records how it transpires. Karl Marx called for the world’s workers to unite. Burke in fact wrote to Thomas Mercer that  “The tyranny of the multitude is a multiplied tyranny.” He furthermore asserted “Kings are ambitious; the nobility haughty; and the populace tumultuous and ungovernable.”  The French Jacobins mobilized and funded the sans culottes to topple the Ancien Regime still abiding by a feudalist code in which the three estates socially partitioned where a person existed in society: the Roman Catholic Church as the first estate; the Bourbon Dynasty of monarchs and landed nobility as the second; and the rest of the population, bourgeoisie or the peasantry in the rural countryside, at its tertiary. What left-wing totalitarianism has yet to topple — a free market, capitalist society — will never occur. In citing Burke again, The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own.” Furthermore, There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity — the law of nature, and of nations.”

III. Marxism’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat vs. Bakunin’s Collective Tyranny Under Mob Rule 

The Russian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, himself initially influenced by Marx, opined his position behind the greatest flaw of Marxism, asking —

“We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim — the foundation of a people’s state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule? It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.”

If pure Marxism and Rothbard’s foundation for puritanical libertarianism — anarcho-capitalism — will lead to mob rule, the bleakest form of tyranny will arise, and in Marx’s reply to Bakunin, “It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means.” Furthermore, Marx stated “It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.” Thus anarchy under any standard leads to an aggressive tyranny that is unimaginably evil, that is amoral, that must engross all characteristics of its impressed serfs lives.

I define socialism as the means to racial supremacy through the progression of first class warfare, segregation, compulsory internment and lastly, genocide. It is, in fact, an epochal procession. And if communism is not to recreate the world under one totalitarian government, the Fabian Society’s standard of the progression of its platform through corporatism will. To cite Dr. Rothbard on a point over which I am in agreement would suggest “… the foundations of today’s massive state intervention in the internal life of the American family were laid in the so-called “progressive era” from the 1870s to the 1920s.” Furthermore, “‘Pietists and “progressives’ united to control the material and sexual choices of the rest of the American people, their drinking habits, and their recreational preferences.” The art of sublimation under corporatism has successfully engendered a world where the individual’s “… values, the very nurture and education of their children, were to be determined by their betters. And as a result, “The spiritual, biological, political, intellectual, and moral elite would govern, through state power, the character and quality of American family life.” The world is no longer “hip to be square” because truthfully, the quality of such an equilateral polygon is undefined by human characteristics. Verily, we may only take it on faith in assuming it is what it is.

Russell Kirk defined ten conservative principles what societies must value to maintain cohesion:

  1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

  2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire.

  3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.

  4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues.

  5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems.

  6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom.

  7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth.

  8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community.

  9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic.

  10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects

Ergo, as the state of nature, of matter, is not to be created nor dematerialized under man’s own fallible machinations, we may only permit the chips to fall where the state of nature (or the good Lord) may.

So long as the transformation process is forcibly hastened, where did the entire principle behind dialectic materialism fall through? Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolutions were quite malleable, waged liberally in applying the Machiavellian practice of historical revisionism as a means achieving the ultimate end. Like Marx and Mao employed revisionist practices under communism, so too did Rothbard. History never guarantees even to the most intellectual of people any idea can possibly be full-proof. It takes the most grandiose narcissist akin to Marx, Rothbard and Barack Obama to demonstrate to any buffoon of a psychoanalyst given the pen and phone traditionally prove mightier than the sword in politics. Desperation, therefore, will only breed discontent consistent with one variable of fallibility overlapping many others through interpersonal evolution.

It may be recorded in one manner and recalled the same, but in the end, only God will have the final word upon judgment day given He is infallible unlike mankind even if one determines God to be a matter of a subconscious specter where humanism has no answer to address individual imperfections except to eradicate its source, what makes people human. Institutional-undesirables be damned; Margaret Sanger would wholeheartedly approve, with no argument attempted for her time to waste. Such an anachronism, ergo, apparently is the ultimate answer to a future libertarianism as an anarcho-capitalist base cannot derive from its own vision nor ingenuity. If Rothbard and others could not invent the wheel, they “reinvent it”, giving themselves the credit, rewriting history books pertaining to a prehistoric phenomenon. Any which way history is witnessed, the eye test is almost assured to win.

Common sense teaches people what looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, usually is a duck. Then again, there are no absolute truths lest Dr. Rothbard had himself ensured this to be his reality, not my fundamental truth. In rejecting both statist and anarchic tyranny, I simply choose to espouse Hayek’s position that while government is tyrannical, it is a controlled entity which can be bound contractually by its plebiscite’s popular sovereignty —

“The coercion which a government must still use … is reduced to a minimum and made as innocuous as possible by restraining it through known general rules, so that in most instances the individual need never be coerced unless he has placed himself in a position where he knows he will be coerced. Even where coercion is not avoidable, it is deprived of its most harmful effects by being confined to limited and foreseeable duties, or at least made independent of the arbitrary will of another person. Being made impersonal and dependent upon general, abstract rules, whose effect on particular individuals cannot be foreseen at the time they are laid down, even the coercive acts of government become data on which the individual can base his own plans.”

For when Dr. Rothbard declares property ownership, like taxation, is theft, the utilitarian’s endorsement “as right and just whatever the government happens to decide; that is, by blindly apologizing for the status quo.”

And if the answer to a McCoy killing a Hatfield is for a reciprocation of the act against whom “… he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then?” Chaos ergo, naturally ensues, given “… in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield.”

Dr. Rothbard, the anarchist, rejects the presence of civil societies. Marxism thrives on a central authority manufacturing the same conditions Dr. Rothbard supported under anarcho-capitalism. But as a conservative, I prefer the prudence of organization. In Christ’s own words, To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” (Romans 5:13)

And the Lord declared to Jeremiah no nation of peoples can be established without His design for the individual’s manifest destiny.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
   before you were born I set you apart;
   I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

Therefore, to know true liberty, one must first be born to experience it. No person is to be enslaved as the personal property of another. It was God’s will, after all, for each child conceived to fulfill his manifest destiny, not to engender and perpetuate social Darwinism. And even Dr. Rothbard acknowledged that as rights are universal, “their enforcement must be local” based on the lowest common denomination of mutually-shared cultural values.

Comments are closed.