Gdi 2011 Libertarianism Kritik

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Enterprise Lab
1 Libertarianism
Libertarianism Kritik
Libertarianism Kritik........................................................................................................1 1nc regular shell 1!"#......................................................................................................$ 1nc regular shell 2!"#......................................................................................................" 1nc regular shell %!"#......................................................................................................& 1nc regular shell $!"#......................................................................................................' 1nc regular shell "!"#......................................................................................................( 1nc stor) shell 1!&#......................................................................................................... * 1nc stor) shell 2!&#....................................................................................................... 10 1nc stor) shell %!&#....................................................................................................... 11 1nc stor) shell $!&#....................................................................................................... 12 1nc stor) shell "!&#....................................................................................................... 1% 1nc stor) shell &!&#....................................................................................................... 1$ 1nc + link , -.oluntar)/ pa)ment 0 coercion.............................................................. 1" 1nc + link , coercion 1isrupts the market....................................................................1& 1nc + internal link , state 0 coerci.e............................................................................1' 1nc + link!impact , ta2ation 0 immoral an1 3ails.........................................................1( 1nc + impact + coercion causes .iolence!libertarian peace theor) ......................... 1* 1nc + impact + 3ree1om 1ecision rule......................................................................... 20 1nc + alternati.e , 1a),to,1a) resistance.................................................................... 21 2nc + link , state 0 coerci.e.......................................................................................... 22 2nc + link , 4LL ta2ation 0 coerci.e.............................................................................2% 2nc + link + ta2ation 0 o5nership................................................................................ 2$ 2nc + link + linear coercion...........................................................................................2" 2nc + link + a33 1oesn6t use competition..................................................................... 2& 2nc + 478 permutation...................................................................................................2' 2nc + 478 permutation...................................................................................................2( 2nc + impact , libertarianism causes peace............................................................... 2* 2nc , 478 libertarian peace theor) 3la5e1 + 91ata:..................................................... %0 2nc + impact + .alue to li3e........................................................................................... %1 2nc + impact , 5ar..........................................................................................................%2 2nc + impact + .alue to li3e!1ecision rule....................................................................%% 2nc +impact + 1ecision rule..........................................................................................%$

USS Enterprise Lab
2 Libertarianism
2nc + impact + moral obligation 1!2#.......................................................................... %" 2nc + impact + moral obligation 2!2#.......................................................................... %& 2nc + no a33 impact , ta2ation!the state 3ails ..............................................................%' 2nc + impact , turns the case 1!2#...............................................................................%( 2nc + impact + turns the case 1!2#.............................................................................. %* 2nc + alternati.e + agorism 1!2#.................................................................................. $0 2nc + alternati.e + agorism 2!2#.................................................................................. $1 2nc + alternati.e + agorism + this roun1 is ke)..........................................................$2 2nc + alternati.e + aban1oning ta2ation sol.es.........................................................$% 2nc , 478 collecti.ism goo1!in1i.i1ualism ba1.......................................................... $$ 2nc , 47 8 libertarianism ba1!libertarianism 3la5e1 , 9ignorance: ............................ $" 2nc + 478 libertarianism 3la5e1 + 9human nature: 1!2#.............................................$& 2nc + 478 libertarianism 3la5e1 + 9human nature: 2!2#.............................................$' 2nc + 478 libertarianism!pri.atization causes coercion ............................................ $( 2nc + 3rame5ork impact turn + state coercion ba1....................................................$* Libertarianism 433 4ns5ers.........................................................................................."0 ;o link + go.ernment ser.ices 0 consumer 1esires................................................. "1 <erm8 1o both + libertarian communism 1!2#............................................................ "2 <erm8 1o both + libertarian communism 2!2#............................................................ "% ;o link!impact + libertarian intellectuals 1isagree...................................................."$ Impact turn + libertarianism ba1 + a5esome car1 1!$#............................................."" Impact turn + libertarianism ba1 + a5esome car1 2!$#............................................."& Impact turn + libertarianism ba1 + a5esome car1 %!$#............................................."' Impact turn + libertarianism ba1 + a5esome car1 $!$#............................................."( Impact turn + ta2ation is goo1 1!2#............................................................................. "* Impact turn + ta2ation is goo1 2!2#............................................................................. &0 Impact turn + onl) go.ernment can pro.i1e social goo1s ....................................... &1 Impact turn + libertarianism ba1!go.ernment goo1 1!2#..........................................&2 Impact turn + libertarianism ba1!go.ernment goo1 2!2#..........................................&% Impact turn + coercion goo1 + ke) to sur.i.al an1 general rights ...........................&$ Impact turn + libertarianism causes plutocrac).........................................................&" Impact turn + libertarianism causes 5omen oppression .......................................... && Impact turn + libertarianism can6t sol.e en.ironment ...............................................&' Impact turn + go.ernment goo1...................................................................................&(

USS Enterprise Lab
% Libertarianism
;o impact!alternati.e , libertarianism 3la5e1 + 1epen1enc) e2ists ........................ &* 4lternati.e 3ails + libertarianism 0 liberalism + .ague 1e3initions ........................... '0 4lternati.e 3ails + coercion ine.itable......................................................................... '1 4lternati.e 3ails + an) resi1ual links re.ert the re.olution ....................................... '2 4lternati.e 3ails!plan sol.es + the a33 is a prere=uisite ..............................................'% 4lternati.e 3ails!plan sol.es + the a33 is better an1 no clear alternati.e ..................'$ 4lternati.e 3ails + it6s too simplistic............................................................................ '"

USS Enterprise Lab
$ Libertarianism
1nc regular shell (1/5)

7a2pa)ers ha.e a moral right to their income 5hich the a33 plan .iolates + the state can6t i1enti3) social goo1s that coul1 reimburse income> an) social goo1s i1enti3ie1 are 1eli.ere1 ine33icientl)> ta2ation 1estro)s social goo1s an)5a)s> an1 their e.i1ence is biase1 to5ar1s e2pan1e1 go.ernment.
Kuznicki * (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects,

Research Fellow and Managing Editor at Cato Unbound [an intellectual thin tan publication!, prior "roduction Manager at the Congressional Research #er$ice, "h%&% in histor' from Johns (op ins )ni$ersit', Cato Journal, *oo re$iew of The Libertarian Illusion: Ideology, Public Policy, and the Assault on the Common Good, #pring+#ummer ,--., /olume ,. Issue ,, http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid2-de.34,563-a767853694f56 84bf5:a9aa8e;7-sessionmgr53<$id2,<hid25,, #"= 4 ta2pa)er has a moral claim to all o3 his honestl) ac=uire1 income. 7his claim is stronger than that o3 an) other in1i.i1ual or group. 411ing the 5or1s ?state? or ?societ)? to the claims o3 others 1oes not change this situation in an) rele.ant sense. 7his is the heart o3 libertarian thought on ta>ation% I3 lo5ering ta2es changes the state@s re.enue> a libertarian ma) 3in1 this a 3ortunate or un3ortunate si1e e33ect, at his discretion% Au1son, howe$er, 1isagrees not onl' with ?or@uist and Aaffer, but also with the libertarian moral claim% Ae 5rites. 7he abilit) that an) o3 us ha.e to earn income an1 ac=uire 5ealth 1epen1s onl) partl) on our o5n in1i.i1ual e33orts. It relies as 5ell on the operation o3 political> economic> an1 social institutions that make it possible 3or an) o3 us to ?earn a li.ing %B % % % /iewed in this light, those 1e1uctions 3rom m) pa)check can be seen as reimbursement to societ) 3or that portion o3 m) earnings 1eri.e1 3rom social goo1s [p% 73!% 4lthough social goo1s clearl) are part o3 e.er)one@s capacit) to earn income> it@s a precipitous mo.e to sa) that the state ma) there3ore ta2 us. It is b) no means clear that the state, among all institutions in societ', is best e=uippe1 to recei.e that 5hich 5e o33er in gratitu1e 3or social goo1s. It is 1oubt3ul that the state coul1 i1enti3) the rele.ant goo1s> an1 that it has supplie1> or coul1 suppl)> an) but a 3e5 o3 them e33ecti.el). It@s e.en 1oubt3ul 5hether the state coul1 kno5 5hen ta2ation itsel3 has become 1estructi.e o3 social goo1s. Indeed, the state@s o5n incenti.es run to5ar1 o.erassessing its importance> 1eli.ering social ?goo1s? that no one 5ants> an1 suppl)ing them in comicall) ine33icient 5a)s. Bommunitarianism appears unfaCed b' these concerns, and it proposes a11ing man) ne5 go.ernment programs that seem e=uall) likel) to 3all into these same ol1 traps. It seems that our 1ebt to societ) is ne.er 3ull) pai1> but that societ)> in the 3orm o3 the state> is al5a)s eager to suppl) us 5ith more. 4t 5hat point, if an', is m) 1ebt to societ)Cor m) 1ebt to a certain .er) earnest intellectual o3 highmin1e1 i1ealsCrepai1D Dnd wh' do I find m'self ha$ing to describe producti$e wor in terms that $erge on those of criminal justice1

USS Enterprise Lab
" Libertarianism

7a2ation is the3t + the state is a s)stem o3 .iolence using coercion to gather ta2ation 3or the a33 plan.
Eothbar1 (1 (Murra' ?% &ean of the Dustrian #chool of economics% Ehe Cato Journal The
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# Fe are no5 in a position to anal)ze go.ernment an1 its relationship to the market. Economists ha.e generall) 1epicte1 the go.ernment as a .oluntar) social institution pro.i1ing important ser.ices to the public. Ehe modern Bpublic choiceB theorists ha$e perhaps gone furthest with this approach% Fo$ernment is considered a in to a business firm, suppl'ing its ser$ices to the consumer6$oters, while the $oters in turn pa' $oluntaril' for these ser$ices% 4ll in all> go.ernment is treate1 b) con.entional economists as a part o3 the market> an1 there3ore> as in the case o3 a business 3irm or a membership organization> either totall) or in part neutral to the market. It is true that i3 ta2ation 5ere .oluntar) an1 the go.ernment akin to a business 3irm> the go.ernment 5oul1 be neutral to the market. Ge contend here, ho5e.er, that the mo1el o3 go.ernment is akin> not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization> an1 in1ee1 that the State is the organization o3 robber) s)stematize1 and writ large% 7he State is the onl' legal institution in societ' that ac=uires its re.enue b) the use o3 coercion> b) using enough .iolence an1 threat o3 .iolence on its .ictims to ensure their pa)ing the 1esire1 tribute. 7he State bene3its itsel3 at the e2pense o3 its robbe1 .ictims. Ehe #tate is, therefore, a centraliCed, regulariCed organiCation of theft% Its pa'ments e>tracted b' coercion are called Bta>ationB instead of tribute, but their nature is the same%

USS Enterprise Lab
& Libertarianism

Boerci.e societies cause .iolence + the) polarize social 3orces> re1uce multi, 1imensional 3iel1s> 1e,emphasize peace3ul e2change> an1 make citizens pa) in bloo1 an1 ta2es.
Eummel (" (R% J%, "rofessor Emeritus in the "olitical #cience &epartment at the )ni$ersit' of
(awaii, Ehe Journal of Conflict Resolution, Aibertarian "ropositions on /iolence within and between ?ations0 D Eest against "ublished Research Results, #eptember 5.98, /olume ,. ?umber 3 6 http0++www%jstor%org+stable+pdfplus+543.77%pdf, #"= Ehe basic principle is that socioeconomic an1 political 3ree1om> the hallmark o3 a libertarian societ)> minimizes .iolence% Ds the theoretical understanding of this has been de$eloped elsewhere (Rummel, 5.486 5.95, 5.93a, 5.97=,H I need onl' point out that such a societ) is a multi, 1imensional 3iel1 o3 1i.erse social 3orces,some intersecting> some opposing> some o.erlapping. 7he net e33ect is to cross,pressure interests> to cross,cut status an1 classes> an1 thus inhibit the gro5th o3 societ)5i1e .iolence. 4s a societ) becomes more authoritarian or coerci.e> ho5e.er> the spontaneit) o3 a social 3iel1 1eclines> social 3orces become polarize1> the multi1imensionalit) o3 interests is re1uce1. Interests an1 issues begin to re.ol.e aroun1 a single 1imension8 one@s political po5er. 7he 1i.i1ing line bet5een the ?ins? an1 ?outs? becomes a con3lict 3ront across societ) along 5hich e2treme .iolence can occur. Dt this theoretical le$el, then, the e' ideas are that of a social field, cross6pressures, and polariCation% Dt a less abstract le$el, there are the e2planations common to liberal scholars8 the aggregating an1 compromising> an1 there3ore con3lict, re1ucing> e33ects o3 competiti.e part) s)stemsG the institutionalization o3 societ)5i1e con3lict resolution through competiti.e politics an1 the ballot (Bthe ballot replaces the bulletB=I the 3ormalization an1 regulation o3 con3lict an1 .iolence (e%g%, labor6 management collecti$e bargaining laws=I the 1emocratic emphasis on e2change instea1 o3 authorit) an1 coercionG the un5illingness o3 1emocratic maHorities to pa) in bloo1 an1 ta2es 3or the 3oreign a1.entures o3 a political elite.

USS Enterprise Lab
' Libertarianism

In3ringements on libert) must be reHecte1 at all costs or 5e 3or3eit to totalitarianism.
<etro, Eoledo Aaw Re$iew, 5.'$ (#'l$ester, #pring, page 79-=

(owe$er, one ma' still insist, echoing Ernest (emingwa' 6 BI belie$e in onl' one thing0 libert'%B Dnd it is alwa's well to bear in mind &a$id (umeHs obser$ation0 ?It is sel1om that libert) o3 an) kin1 is lost all at once.? Ehus, it is unacceptable to sa) that the in.asion o3 one aspect o3 3ree1om is o3 no import because there ha.e been in.asions o3 so man) other aspects. 7hat roa1 lea1s to chaos> t)rann)> 1espotism> an1 the en1 o3 all human aspiration% Ds #olChenits'n% Ds Milo$an &ijas% In sum> i3 one belie.e1 in 3ree1om as a supreme .alue an1 the proper or1ering principle 3or an) societ) aiming to ma2imize spiritual an1 material 5el3are> then e.er) in.asion o3 3ree1om must be emphaticall) i1enti3ie1 an1 resiste1 5ith un1)ing spirit%

USS Enterprise Lab
( Libertarianism

Fe must take e.er) chance to battle 3or libertarian 3ree1om.
Iicksler * (James A%, "rofessor in Finance and Economic at Rutgers )ni$ersit' at the
Rutgers *usiness #chool, International Journal of &isclosure and Fo$ernance, Classical libertarianism: The economic !ers!ecti"es of Milton #riedman including his li$ely "ie%s on the &!ro!er' role of go"ernment in the sub!rime mortgage debacle, ,--., /olume : Issue 5 6 http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid28,8,cd4e6-9a:6777c6a4:96 :7b:5efc4de3;7-sessionmgr58<$id27<hid259, #"= Ehe @uest and battle for economic> political an1 ci.ic freedoms is ne$er won in a finalit' sense% It is a da'6to6da'> meaning an ongoing battle> 5here ne5 challenges an1 .ariations o3 ol1 arguments an1 3allacies 3or collecti.ism an1 its policies arise. 7he particular issue on the battlegroun1 3or 3ree1om an1 its implications 3or 3ree1om changes o.er time.

USS Enterprise Lab
* Libertarianism
1nc story shell (1/6)

Fe begin 5ith a thie3 5ho presents a .ictim 5ith a choice + pa) no5 or 5ait until the thie3 inHures them. 7his coerci.e manipulation allo5s the thie3 to 1rain o33 o3 societ).
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# (a$ing dealt with this id'll of harmonious and mutuall' beneficial e>changes, let us now introduce a discordant note% 4 thie3 now appears> ma ing his li$ing b' robbing and coerci.el) pre)ing on others0 Ehe robber obtains his income b' presenting the $ictim with a choice0 )our mone) or )our li3e (or, at least, 'our health=Jand the $ictim then 'ields his assets% Kr, to be more precise, the robber presents the .ictim 5ith a choice bet5een pa)ing imme1iatel) or 5aiting until the robber inHures him.5, In this situation both parties 1o not bene3itI instead, the robber bene3its precisel' at the e2pense o3 the .ictim% Instead of the consumerHs pa'ing, guiding, and being benefited b' the producerHs acti$it', the robber is benefiting from the $ictimHs pa'ment% Ehe robber benefits to the e>tent that the $ictim pa's and loses% Instea1 o3 helping e2pan1 the amount and degree o3 pro1uction in societ)> the robber is parasiticall) 1raining o33 that pro1uction. Fhereas an e2pan1e1 market encourages increases in pro1uction an1 suppl)> the3t 1iscourages pro1uction an1 contracts the market. It shoul1 be clear that the robber is not pro1ucing an) goo1s an1 ser.ices at all. In contrast to consumers 5ho purchase goo1s an1 ser.ices> or 5ho contribute .oluntaril) to a nonpro3it organization> no one is .oluntaril) purchasing 3rom or contributing to our criminals at all. If the' were, the criminals would not be criminal% In fact, what distinguishes a criminal group is that its income, in contrast to that of all other organiCations, is e>tracted b' the use of $iolence, against the wishes or consent of the $ictims% 7he criminals, then, are ?pro1ucing? nothing> e2cept their o5n income at the e2pense o3 others. It has been maintaine1 that the pa)ments b) the .ictims are ?reall)? .oluntar) because the .ictim 1eci1es to trans3er his 3un1s un1er penalt) o3 .iolence b) the robber. 7his kin1 o3 sophistr)> ho5e.er> 1estro)s the original> as 5ell as the common,sense> meaning o3 the term ?coercion? an1 ren1ers all actions 5hate.er ?.oluntar). B *ut if there is no such thing as coercion and all concei$able actions are $oluntar', then the distincti$e meaning of both terms is destro'ed% In this paper, we are defining B$oluntar'B and BcoercionB in a common6sense wa'0 that is, B$oluntar'B are all actions not ta en under the threat of coercionI and BcoercionB is the use of $iolence or threat of $iolence to compel actions of others% Robber' at gunpoint, then, is BcoercionBI the uni$ersal need to wor and produce is not%

USS Enterprise Lab
10 Libertarianism

7he thie3 tells the .ictim that the pa)ment 5ill be use1 to 1e3en1 them 3rom other thie.es> but these coerci.e tactics Hust allo5 the thie3 to manipulate the market in his o5n interest.
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# In a tri$ial sense, the $ictim agrees to be $ictimiCed rather than lose his lifeI but surel', to call such a choice or decision B$oluntar'B is a corruption of ordinar' language% In contrast to trul' $oluntar' decisions, where each person is better off than he was before the prospect of e>change came into $iew, the robber' $ictim is simpl' struggling to cut his losses, for, in an' case, he is worse off because of the entr' of the robber onto the scene than he was before% Just as the claim that the $ictimHs pa'ment to the thief is B$oluntar'B is patentl' sophistical, so it is absur1 to claim that the robber is ?pro1ucing? some ser.ice to the .ictim or an'one else% 7he 3act that the .ictim pai1 him re.enue pro.es no demonstrated preference or $alueI it pro$es onl' that the .ictim pre3ers the imposition to being shot. 7he robber ma) 5ell spin elaborate arguments for his producti$it' and for his alleged benefit to the $ictim% (e ma' claim that b) e2tracting mone) he is pro.i1ing the .ictim a 1e3ense 3rom other robbers. In attempting to achie.e an1 maintain his monopol) o3 loot> he ma) .er) 5ell act against other robbers tr)ing to muscle in on his territor). Iut this ?ser.ice? scarcel) 1emonstrates his pro1ucti.it) to the .ictims. Knl' if the $ictims pa' the robber $oluntaril' can an' case be made for a ne>us of pa'ment and benefit% Since pa)ments are no5 coerci.e instea1 o3 .oluntar)> since the consumer has no5 become the .ictim> all arguments o33ere1 b) the criminal an1 his apologists about 5h) the .ictim shoul1 ha.e been eager to pa) the criminal .oluntaril) are in .ain> 3or the stark an1 o.erri1ing 3act is that these pa)ments are compulsor). 7he robber takes the 3un1s e2tracte1 3rom the .ictims an1 spen1s them 3or his o5n consumption purposes. 7he total re.enue collecte1 b) the3t 5e ma) call tributeG the e2pen1itures o3 the robbers, apart from the small sums spent on burglarsH tools, weapons, planning, and so on, are consumption e2penses b) the robbers. In this 5a)> Hust as income an1 assets are 1i.erte1 3rom the pro1ucti.e sector to the robbers> so the robbers are able to use that mone) in their purchasing# to e2tract pro1ucti.e resources 3rom the market. Ge conclude, then, that the acti$ities of thie.es are most emphaticall' not neutral to the market% In fact, the robbers 1i.ert income and resources 3rom the market b) the use o3 coerci.e .iolence> an1 thereb) ske5 an1 1istort pro1uction> income> an1 resources 3rom 5hat the) 5oul1 ha.e been in the absence o3 coercion% If, on the contrar', we adhere to the $iew that theft is $oluntar' and criminals producti$e, then criminal acti$ities, too, would be neutral to the mar et, in which case the entire problem of neutralit' would disappear b' semantic legerdemain, and e$er'thing b' definition would be neutral to the mar et because the rubric of the mar et would encompass all concei$able acti$ities of man% In that case, nothing could be called Binter$entionB into the mar et% I) labeling aggressi.e .iolence as ?coercion? an1 as an inter3erence into the market> 5e a.oi1 this kin1 o3 absur1 trap, and we clea$e closel' to the commonsense $iew of such concepts as Bcoercion, B B$oluntar', B Bmar et,B and Binter$ention% B

USS Enterprise Lab
11 Libertarianism

7his thie3 is the state + it6s a s)stem o3 .iolence using coercion to gather ta2ation 3or the a33irmati.e plan.

USS Enterprise Lab
12 Libertarianism

7a2pa)ers ha.e a moral right to their income + the state can6t i1enti3) social goo1s that coul1 reimburse income> an) social goo1s i1enti3ie1 are 1eli.ere1 ine33icientl)> ta2ation 1estro)s social goo1s an)5a)s> an1 their e.i1ence is biase1 to5ar1s e2pan1e1 go.ernment.


USS Enterprise Lab
1% Libertarianism



USS Enterprise Lab
1$ Libertarianism


USS Enterprise Lab
1" Libertarianism
1nc link - voluntary pay ent ! coercion

7here6s no 1i33erence bet5een -.oluntar)/ contribution an1 coercion
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# (a$ing dealt with this id'll of harmonious and mutuall' beneficial e>changes, let us now introduce a discordant note% 4 thie3 now appears> ma ing his li$ing b' robbing and coerci.el) pre)ing on others0 Ehe robber obtains his income b' presenting the $ictim with a choice0 )our mone) or )our li3e (or, at least, 'our health=Jand the $ictim then 'ields his assets% Kr, to be more precise, the robber presents the .ictim 5ith a choice bet5een pa)ing imme1iatel) or 5aiting until the robber inHures him.5, In this situation both parties 1o not bene3itI instead, the robber bene3its precisel' at the e2pense o3 the .ictim% Instead of the consumerHs pa'ing, guiding, and being benefited b' the producerHs acti$it', the robber is benefiting from the $ictimHs pa'ment% Ehe robber benefits to the e>tent that the $ictim pa's and loses% Instea1 o3 helping e2pan1 the amount and degree o3 pro1uction in societ)> the robber is parasiticall) 1raining o33 that pro1uction. Fhereas an e2pan1e1 market encourages increases in pro1uction an1 suppl)> the3t 1iscourages pro1uction an1 contracts the market. It shoul1 be clear that the robber is not pro1ucing an) goo1s an1 ser.ices at all. In contrast to consumers 5ho purchase goo1s an1 ser.ices> or 5ho contribute .oluntaril) to a nonpro3it organization> no one is .oluntaril) purchasing 3rom or contributing to our criminals at all. If the' were, the criminals would not be criminal% In fact, what distinguishes a criminal group is that its income, in contrast to that of all other organiCations, is e>tracted b' the use of $iolence, against the wishes or consent of the $ictims% 7he criminals, then, are ?pro1ucing? nothing> e2cept their o5n income at the e2pense o3 others. It has been maintaine1 that the pa)ments b) the .ictims are ?reall)? .oluntar) because the .ictim 1eci1es to trans3er his 3un1s un1er penalt) o3 .iolence b) the robber. 7his kin1 o3 sophistr)> ho5e.er> 1estro)s the original> as 5ell as the common,sense> meaning o3 the term ?coercion? an1 ren1ers all actions 5hate.er ?.oluntar). B *ut if there is no such thing as coercion and all concei$able actions are $oluntar', then the distincti$e meaning of both terms is destro'ed% In this paper, we are defining B$oluntar'B and BcoercionB in a common6sense wa'0 that is, B$oluntar'B are all actions not ta en under the threat of coercionI and BcoercionB is the use of $iolence or threat of $iolence to compel actions of others% Robber' at gunpoint, then, is BcoercionBI the uni$ersal need to wor and produce is not%

USS Enterprise Lab
1& Libertarianism
1nc link - coercion "isrupts the
arket
Don6t let the a33 Husti3) ta2ation 5ith their a1.antages8 at the en1 o3 the 1a)> it6s still coercion that 1isrupts the 3ree market
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# In a tri$ial sense, the $ictim agrees to be $ictimiCed rather than lose his lifeI but surel', to call such a choice or decision B$oluntar'B is a corruption of ordinar' language% In contrast to trul' $oluntar' decisions, where each person is better off than he was before the prospect of e>change came into $iew, the robber' $ictim is simpl' struggling to cut his losses, for, in an' case, he is worse off because of the entr' of the robber onto the scene than he was before% Just as the claim that the $ictimHs pa'ment to the thief is B$oluntar'B is patentl' sophistical, so it is absur1 to claim that the robber is ?pro1ucing? some ser.ice to the .ictim or an'one else% 7he 3act that the .ictim pai1 him re.enue pro.es no demonstrated preference or $alueI it pro$es onl' that the .ictim pre3ers the imposition to being shot. 7he robber ma) 5ell spin elaborate arguments for his producti$it' and for his alleged benefit to the $ictim% (e ma' claim that b) e2tracting mone) he is pro.i1ing the .ictim a 1e3ense 3rom other robbers. In attempting to achie.e an1 maintain his monopol) o3 loot> he ma) .er) 5ell act against other robbers tr)ing to muscle in on his territor). Iut this ?ser.ice? scarcel) 1emonstrates his pro1ucti.it) to the .ictims. Knl' if the $ictims pa' the robber $oluntaril' can an' case be made for a ne>us of pa'ment and benefit% Since pa)ments are no5 coerci.e instea1 o3 .oluntar)> since the consumer has no5 become the .ictim> all arguments o33ere1 b) the criminal an1 his apologists about 5h) the .ictim shoul1 ha.e been eager to pa) the criminal .oluntaril) are in .ain> 3or the stark an1 o.erri1ing 3act is that these pa)ments are compulsor). 7he robber takes the 3un1s e2tracte1 3rom the .ictims an1 spen1s them 3or his o5n consumption purposes. 7he total re.enue collecte1 b) the3t 5e ma) call tributeG the e2pen1itures o3 the robbers, apart from the small sums spent on burglarsH tools, weapons, planning, and so on, are consumption e2penses b) the robbers. In this 5a)> Hust as income an1 assets are 1i.erte1 3rom the pro1ucti.e sector to the robbers> so the robbers are able to use that mone) in their purchasing# to e2tract pro1ucti.e resources 3rom the market. Ge conclude, then, that the acti$ities of thie.es are most emphaticall' not neutral to the market% In fact, the robbers 1i.ert income and resources 3rom the market b) the use o3 coerci.e .iolence> an1 thereb) ske5 an1 1istort pro1uction> income> an1 resources 3rom 5hat the) 5oul1 ha.e been in the absence o3 coercion% If, on the contrar', we adhere to the $iew that theft is $oluntar' and criminals producti$e, then criminal acti$ities, too, would be neutral to the mar et, in which case the entire problem of neutralit' would disappear b' semantic legerdemain, and e$er'thing b' definition would be neutral to the mar et because the rubric of the mar et would encompass all concei$able acti$ities of man% In that case, nothing could be called Binter$entionB into the mar et% I) labeling aggressi.e .iolence as ?coercion? an1 as an inter3erence into the market> 5e a.oi1 this kin1 o3 absur1 trap, and we clea$e closel' to the commonsense $iew of such concepts as Bcoercion, B B$oluntar', B Bmar et,B and Binter$ention% B

USS Enterprise Lab
1' Libertarianism
1nc internal link - state ! coercive

7he state is a coerci.e criminal organization.

USS Enterprise Lab
1( Libertarianism
1nc link/i pact - ta#ation ! i
oral an" $ails
7a2pa)ers ha.e a moral right to their income + the state can6t i1enti3) social goo1s that coul1 reimburse income> an) social goo1s i1enti3ie1 are 1eli.ere1 ine33icientl)> ta2ation 1estro)s social goo1s an)5a)s> an1 their e.i1ence is biase1 to5ar1s e2pan1e1 go.ernment.


USS Enterprise Lab
1* Libertarianism
1nc i pact coercion causes violence/li%ertarian peace theory

Boerci.e societies cause .iolence + the) polarize social 3orces> re1uce multi, 1imensional 3iel1s> 1e,emphasize peace3ul e2change> an1 make citizens pa) in bloo1 an1 ta2es.
Eummel (" (R% J%, "rofessor Emeritus in the "olitical #cience &epartment at the )ni$ersit' of
(awaii, Ehe Journal of Conflict Resolution, Aibertarian "ropositions on /iolence within and between ?ations0 D Eest against "ublished Research Results, #eptember 5.98, /olume ,. ?umber 3 6 http0++www%jstor%org+stable+pdfplus+543.77%pdf, #"= Ehe basic principle is that socioeconomic an1 political 3ree1om> the hallmark o3 a libertarian societ)> minimizes .iolence% Ds the theoretical understanding of this has been de$eloped elsewhere (Rummel, 5.486 5.95, 5.93a, 5.97=,H I need onl' point out that such a societ) is a multi, 1imensional 3iel1 o3 1i.erse social 3orces,some intersecting> some opposing> some o.erlapping. 7he net e33ect is to cross,pressure interests> to cross,cut status an1 classes> an1 thus inhibit the gro5th o3 societ)5i1e .iolence. 4s a societ) becomes more authoritarian or coerci.e> ho5e.er> the spontaneit) o3 a social 3iel1 1eclines> social 3orces become polarize1> the multi1imensionalit) o3 interests is re1uce1. Interests an1 issues begin to re.ol.e aroun1 a single 1imension8 one@s political po5er. 7he 1i.i1ing line bet5een the ?ins? an1 ?outs? becomes a con3lict 3ront across societ) along 5hich e2treme .iolence can occur. Dt this theoretical le$el, then, the e' ideas are that of a social field, cross6pressures, and polariCation% Dt a less abstract le$el, there are the e2planations common to liberal scholars8 the aggregating an1 compromising> an1 there3ore con3lict, re1ucing> e33ects o3 competiti.e part) s)stemsG the institutionalization o3 societ)5i1e con3lict resolution through competiti.e politics an1 the ballot (Bthe ballot replaces the bulletB=I the 3ormalization an1 regulation o3 con3lict an1 .iolence (e%g%, labor6 management collecti$e bargaining laws=I the 1emocratic emphasis on e2change instea1 o3 authorit) an1 coercionG the un5illingness o3 1emocratic maHorities to pa) in bloo1 an1 ta2es 3or the 3oreign a1.entures o3 a political elite.

USS Enterprise Lab
20 Libertarianism
1nc i pact $ree"o
"ecision rule


USS Enterprise Lab
21 Libertarianism
1nc alternative - "ay-to-"ay resistance


USS Enterprise Lab
22 Libertarianism
2nc link - state ! coercive

Go.ernment programs 1epen1s on a coercion,base1 ta2ation s)stem 5hich simulates a criminal organization
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# *ut if ta2ation is coerci.e an1 a s)stem o3 organize1 the3t> then an) ?ser.ices? that the go.ernment ma) suppl) to its subHects are besi1e the point> for the) 1o not establish the go.ernment as .oluntar) or as part of the mar et an) more than a criminal ban1@s pro.i1ing the ?ser.ice? o3 1e3en1ing its .ictims 3rom competing ban1s establishes that its ser.ices are .oluntaril) pai1 3or. 7hese ser.ices are not .oluntaril) pai1 3or b) the ta2pa)ers> an1 5e there3ore cannot sa) that the ta2es measure or re3lect an) sort o3 bene3it. In the case of $oluntar' purchase on the mar et, as we ha$e seen, the consumer demonstrates b' his purchase that he $alues the good or ser$ice he bu's more than the price he pa'sI but in pa)ing ta2es he 1emonstrates no such thingJonl) the 1esire not to be the recipient o3 3urther .iolence b) the State% Ge ha$e no idea how much the ta>pa'ers would $alue these ser$ices, if indeed the' $alued them at all% For e>ample, suppose that the go$ernment le$ies a ta> of L dollars on D, *, C, and so on, for police protectionJfor protection, that is, against irregular, competing looters and not against itself% Ehe fact that D is forced to pa' M5,--- is no indication that M5,--- in an' sense gauges the $alue to D of police protection% It is possible that he $alues it $er' little, and would $alue it less if he could turn to competing defense agencies% Moreo$er, D ma' be a pacifistI so he ma' consider the #tateHs police protection a net harm rather than a benefit% *ut one thing we do now0 If these pa'ments to go$ernment were $oluntar', we can be sure that the' would be substantiall' less than present total ta> re$enue% Gh'1 *ecause i3 people 5ere 5illing to pa) .oluntaril)> then there 5oul1 be no nee1 3or the apparatus o3 coercion so intimatel) 5rappe1 up in ta2ation.

USS Enterprise Lab
2% Libertarianism
2nc link - &'' ta#ation ! coercive

4ll ta2ation is coercion. 7he State> like the robber> attempts to trick ta2pa)ers into pa)ing 3or the go.ernment.
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# D second important point is that, in contrast to the mar et, where consumers pa' for recei$ed benefits (or, in nonprofit organiCations, where members pa' for ps'chic benefits=, the State> like the robber> creates a total 1isHunction bet5een bene3it an1 pa)ment. 7he ta2pa)er pa)sG the bene3its are recei.e1> 3irst an1 3oremost> b) the go.ernment itsel3> and secondaril', b' those who recei$e the largess of go$ernment e>penditures% *ut i3> un1er coerci.e ta2ation> ta2 pa)ments 3ar e2cee1 bene3its to the .ictim> an1 i3 bene3its accrue to the go.ernment itsel3 an1 to the recipients o3 its e2pen1itures at the e2pense o3 ta2pa)ers> then it shoul1 be =uite clear that it is impossible 3or ta2es e.er to be neutral to the market. 7a2ation> 5hate.er its size or inci1ence, must distort mar et processes, must alter the allocation and 1istribution o3 assets> incomes> an1 resources.

USS Enterprise Lab
2$ Libertarianism
2nc link ta#ation ! o(nership

Succumbing into ta2ation is the e=ui.alent o3 go.ernment o5nership
;ozick '' (Robert "rofessor of "hilosoph' N (ar$ard )ni$ersit' Dnarch', #tate, and )topia
*asic *oo s ?o$ember 55, 5.44= Fhether it is 1one through ta2ation on wages or on wages o$er a certain amount, or through seizure o3 pro3its, or through there being a big racial pot so that itHs not clear whatHs coming from where and whatHs going where, patterned principles o3 1istributi.e Hustice in.ol.e appropriating the actions o3 other persons. #eiCing the results of someoneHs labor is e@ui$alent to seiCing hours from him and directing him to carr' on $arious acti$ities% If people force 'ou to do certain wor , or unrewarded wor , for a certain period of time, the' decide what 'ou are to do and what purposes 'our wor is to ser$e apart from 'our decisions% 7his process whereb' the' ta e this decision from 'ou makes them a part,o5ner o3 )ouG it gi.es them a propert) right in )ou. Hust as ha.ing such partial control and power of decision, b' right, o.er an animal or inanimate obHect would be to ha$e a propert' right in it% End6state an1 most patterne1 principles to 1istributi.e Hustice institute (partial= o5nership b) others of people an1 their actions an1 labor. Ehese principles in$ol$e a shift from the classical liberals notion of self6ownership to a notion of (partial= propert' rights in other people% Considerations such as these confront end6state and other patterned conceptions of justice with the @uestion of whether the actions necessar' to achie$e the selected pattern donHt themsel$es $iolate moral side constraints% Dn' $iew holding that there are moral side constraints on actions, that not all moral considerations can be built into end states that are to be achie$ed (see Chapter 3, pp% ,96 3-=, must face the possibilit' that some of its goals are not achie$able b' an' morall' permissible a$ailable means% Dn entitlement theorist will face such conflicts in a societ' that de$iates from the principles of justice for the generation of holdings%

USS Enterprise Lab
2" Libertarianism
2nc link linear coercion

Go.ernment 3un1ing relies on coerci.e ta2ation
Io.ar1 11 (James, author and polic' ad$isor to Ehe Future of Freedom Foundation, O&efining
Coercion &ownP 3+59+,-55 http0++www%fff%org+freedom+fd5-5,c%asp= Boercion is the essence o3 go.ernment in the same 5a) that pro3it is the essence o3 pri.ate businesses% 7he state can impose ne5 prohibitions an1 restrictions> create ne5 penalties> or impose ta2es in or1er to 3inance bene3its% It is misleading to concei$e of politicians as offering both carrots and stic s0 Fo$ernment must first use a stic to commandeer the mone' to pa' for the carrot% E.er) increase in the size o3 go.ernment means an increase in coercion J either an increase in the amount of a personQs pa'chec that go$ernment seiCes or an increase in the number of t'pes of beha$ior for which a go$ernment can jail, imprison, or fine a citiCen% E.er) increase in go.ernment spen1ing means an increase in political po5er C an1 a ne5 prete2t to seize pri.ate pa)checks%In order to understand the contemporar' concept of the state, it is important to recogniCe the radical changes in the concept of coercion that ha$e occurred o$er the past centur' in federal courts% 7he common use o3 the 5or1 -sla.er)/ in the 1isputes o3 the Ee.olutionar) perio1 capture1 colonists6 hatre1 o3 the arbitrar) coerci.e po5er $ested in *ritish go$ernment officials and "arliament members% E.en i3 that po5er 5as not use1 b) e.er) Iritish colonial o33icial on a 1ail) basis> the mere 3act that po5er e2iste1 in the statute books 3atall) compromise1 the colonists6 3ree1om% In the mid 59--s, #outhernersQ habit of referring to sla$er' as Othe peculiar institutionP indicated their s@ueamishness about admitting the degree of coerci$e power that that institution re@uired% In modern times, we ha$e a new Opeculiar institutionP0 go$ernment coercion% Jan) political thinkers6 3i2ation on go.ernment bene.olence obscures the realit) o3 the gro5ing subHugation o3 4merican citizens to go.ernment emplo)ees. Ke1eral agencies ha.e been able to seize 3ar more po5er o.er citizens in part because Hu1ges an1 others ha.e re1e3ine1 man) 3orms o3 go.ernment coercion out o3 e2istence.

USS Enterprise Lab
2& Libertarianism
2nc link a$$ "oesn)t use co petition

7he go.ernment onl) e2ists to protect 3rom 3oreign in.asion> establish la5s> an1 implement 3unctions that in1i.i1uals can6t Husti3) economicall) through a lens o3 market competition + the a33 plan is a clear,cut link an1 collecti.ist i1eologies 3ail.
Rutgers *usiness #chool, International Journal of &isclosure and Fo$ernance, Classical libertarianism: The economic !ers!ecti"es of Milton #riedman including his li$ely "ie%s on the &!ro!er' role of go"ernment in the sub!rime mortgage debacle, ,--., /olume : Issue 5 6 http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid28,8,cd4e6-9a:6777c6a4:96 :7b:5efc4de3;7-sessionmgr58<$id27<hid259, #"= Bollecti.ist a1.ocates (that is, communists and socialists= ha.e 3oun1ations that are inherentl) inconsistent an1 contra1ictor) 5ith their o5n recommen1e1 economic allocation mechanism. Speci3icall)> their a1.ocate1 i1eas o3 3ree1om an1 organisational market structure an1 5hich translate into 1# 3ree1om o3 in1i.i1ual economic choice an1 2# central planning o3 resource allocation are inherentl) inconsistent an1 contra1ictor). 7his is because economic 3ree1om re=uires competiti.e markets an1 propert) rights 5hereas central planning is premise1 on the absence o3 both competiti.e markets an1 in1i.i1ual propert) rights. More specificall', socialism promise1 a ne5 economic or1er> 5hich> in essence> 5as an economic utopia 5herein people li.e1 5ithout 5ant. Gi.en socialism6s 3un1amental 3la5s an1 limitations in achie.ing 3irm economic resource e33icienc)> it is not surprising that in 1ue course> there 5as the 1emise o3 socialism. #imilarl', the 1emise o3 communism 5as also 1ue to its resource allocation 3ailure an1 negati.e impact on both the income o3 the citizenr) an1 the Gross Domestic <ro1uct (that is, the $alue of all the goods and ser$ices produced b' the econom'=% Ddam #mith felt that there 5as a 1e3inite but limite1 role 3or go.ernment. Indeed, #mith felt that there 5ere onl) three appropriate ! legitimate 3unctions o3 go.ernment. 7he) 5ere 1# ha.ing a militar) to protect the countr) against 3oreign in.asion> 2# the establishment o3 institutions o3 la5 an1 Hustice an1 %# the implementation an1 establishment o3 selecte1 public ser.ice functions that indi$iduals cannot justif' on an economic basis. Ao5e.er> it is important to note that the go$ernment functions 2# an1 %# o3 41am Smith should be implemented with a focus on indi$idual self6interest and in an en$ironment of mar et competition% 3, R 37

USS Enterprise Lab
2' Libertarianism
2nc &*+ per utation

<erm 3ails. Using the state 1estro)s the consistenc) 5hich is ke) to begin sol.enc).
Konkin in (0% (prominent libertarian acti$ist, Soman "ublishing, Ehe new Aibertarian
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= 7he basic principle 5hich lea1s a libertarian 3rom statism to his 3ree societ) is the same 5hich the 3oun1ers o3 libertarianism use1 to 1isco.er the theor) itsel3. 7hat principle is consistenc). 7hus> the consistent application o3 the theor) o3 libertarianism to e.er) action the in1i.i1ual libertarian takes creates the libertarian societ). Jan) thinkers ha.e e2presse1 the nee1 3or consistenc) bet5een means an1 en1s an1 not all 5ere libertarians. Ironicall)> man) statists ha.e claime1 inconsistenc) bet5een lau1able en1s an1 contemptible meansG )et 5hen their true en1s o3 greater po5er an1 oppression 5ere un1erstoo1> their means are 3oun1 to be =uite consistent. It is part o3 the statist m)sti=ue to con3use the necessit) o3 en1s,means consistenc)G it is thus the most crucial acti.it) o3 the libertarian theorist to e2pose inconsistencies. Jan) theorists ha.e 1one to a1mirabl)G but 5e ha.e attempte1 an1 most 3aile1 to 1escribe the consistent means an1 en1s combination o3 libertarianism

USS Enterprise Lab
2( Libertarianism
2nc &*+ per utation

Using the state causes .ulnerabilit) to counter attacks that cause 3ailure o3 the mo.ement. Lnl) the 4lt alone can sol.e.
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= Ehe #tateHs (igher Circles were not about to 'ield their plunder and restore propert' to their $ictims at the first sign of opposition% 7he 3irst counter, attack came 3rom anti,principles alrea1) plante1 b) the corrupt Intellectual Baste8 De3eatism> Eetreatism> Jinarch)> Bollaborationism> Gra1ualism> Jonocentris an1 Ee3ormism inclu1ing accepting State o33ice to ?impro.e? StatismT Dll of these anti6principles (de$iations, heresies, self6destructi$e contradictor' tenets, etc%= will be dealt with later% Forst o3 all is <art)arch)> the anti,concept o3 pursuing libertarian en1s through statist means> especiall) political parties. 4 ?Libertarian? <art) 5as the secon1 counter,attack o3 the State unlease1 on the 3le1gling Libertarians, first as a ludicrous o>'moron [5-!, then as an in.a1ing arm). [55! 7he thir1 counter,attack 5as an attempt b) one o3 the ten richest capitalists in the Unite1 States to bu) the maHor Libertarian institutions , not Hust the <art) , an1 run the mo.ement as other plutocrats run all the other political parties in capitalist states. 912: 7he 1egree o3 success those statist counter,attacks ha1 in corrupting libertarianism le1 to a splintering o3 the Jo.ement@s ?Le3t? an1 the 1espairing paral)zation o3 others. 4s 1isillusionment gre5 5ith ?Libertarianism>? the 1isillusione1 sought ans5ers to this ne5 problem8 the State 5ithin as 5ell as the State 5ithout. Ao5 1o 5e a.oi1 being use1 b) the State an1 its po5er elite1 Ehat is, the' as ed, how can we a$oid de$iations from the path of libert' when we now there are more than one1 7he market has man) paths to pro1uction an1 consumption o3 a pro1uct> an1 none are per3ectl) pre1ictable. So e.en i3 one tells us ho5 to get 3rom here statism# to there libert)#> ho5 1o 5e kno5 that@s the best 5a)D4lrea1) some are 1re1ging up the ol1 strategies o3 mo.ements long 1ea1 5ith other goals. ;e5 paths are in1ee1 being o33ere1 , back to the State. 91%: Ietra)al> ina1.ertent or planne1> continues. It nee1 not

USS Enterprise Lab
2* Libertarianism
2nc i pact - li%ertarianis
causes peace
Libertarian societies are less likel) to engage in .iolence + un5illing ta2ation> strong propert) e2pectations> 1islike o3 3oreign a1.enturism> true 3ree1om o3 in1i.i1uals> an1 the ten1enc) to sel3,regulate con3licts.
Eummel (% (R% J%, "rofessor Emeritus in the "olitical #cience &epartment at the )ni$ersit' of
(awaii, Ehe Journal of Conflict Resolution, Libertarianism and International (iolence, March 5.93, /olume ,4 ?umber 5 6 http0++www%jstor%org+stable+pdfplus+54397,%pdf1acceptEC2true, #"= "ut simpl', the theor' is that in libertarian states those emphasizing in1i.i1ual 3ree1om an1 ci.il liberties an1 the rights associate1 5ith a competiti.e an1 open election o3 lea1ers# e2ist multiple> o3ten con3licting> elites> 5hose interests are 1i.ergent an1 segmente1> checke1 an1 balance1. 4lthough perhaps 3ormall) centralize1> as in Great Iritain an1 Krance> in practice political po5er is relati.el) 1ecentralize1 an1 1i33use. Moreo$er, political elites are 1epen1ent on the support o3 a public un5illing to bear the cost in ta2es> propert)> an1 bloo1 o3 3oreign a1.entures an1 inter.ention unless the) are arouse1 b) an emotionall) uni3)ing issue. E.en then the public cannot be truste1 to pa) the price o3 3oreign .iolence 3or long an1 ma) turn on those responsible e.en in the mi1st o3 5ar. Kf course, an emotional and patrioticall' aroused people can itself be a force for war% *ut this is to underline that the essential 1i.ersit) o3 interests an1 .alues o3 3ree people must be o.ercome> a su33icientl) uni3)ing national stake or .alue must be at issue> be3ore elites can risk 3oreign .iolence. 7his is not true 3or states 5hose political elites are unrestraine1 b) a 3ree press an1 conten1ing centers o3 po5er an1 5hich are unaccountable through 3ree elections. Kor these reasons> the 3reer the people o3 a state> the more non.iolent its elite@s e2pectations an1 perceptions> an1 the less likel) the) are to commit o33icial .iolence against other states. 7his is not to 1en) such .iolence 1oes occur (witness the /ietnam Gar and the Fal land Islands conflict, among others=, but onl) that 3ree states are least prone to international .iolence an1 5ar. 4t a more basic theoretical le.el> libertarian states comprise social 3iel1s in 5hich the actions o3 groups an1 in1i.i1uals respon1 to man) 1i.ergent an1 opposing social an1 ps)chological 3orces. 7hese 3orces spontaneousl) resol.e into interlocking an1 neste1 balances o3 po5ers an1 associate1 structures o3 e2pectations. Ehese define the social order% Such s)stems (li e the free mar et= ten1 to be sel3,regulating an1 to isolate an1 inhibit con3licts an1 .iolence 5hen the) occur. 7he) ten1 to encourage e2change> rather than coerci.e an1 .iolent solutions> in con3lict bet5een groups an1 in1i.i1uals. Libertarian states are b) theor) not onl) less .iolence prone> but 5hen 3oreign relations inclu1es the perception o3 other libertarian states> this inhibition becomes a mutual barrier to .iolence. 7heir mutual 1omestic 1i.ersit) an1 pluralism> their 3ree an1 competiti.e press> their people,to,people an1 elite,to,elite bon1s an1 relationships> an1 their mutual i1enti3ication an1 s)mpath) 5ill 3oreclose on an) e2pectation or occurrence o3 5ar bet5een themG $iolence ma' occur onl' in the most e>traordinar' and unusual circumstances%

USS Enterprise Lab
%0 Libertarianism
2nc - &*+ li%ertarian peace theory $la(e" ,"ataData support the theoretical 5arrants behin1 the libertarian peace theor) an1 contiguous bor1ers 1on6t a33ect it.
Eummel (% (R% J%, "rofessor Emeritus in the "olitical #cience &epartment at the )ni$ersit' of
(awaii, Ehe Journal of Conflict Resolution, Libertarianism and International (iolence, March 5.93, /olume ,4 ?umber 5 6 http0++www%jstor%org+stable+pdfplus+54397,%pdf1acceptEC2true, #"= 7he 1irect an1 in1irect tests gi.en here pro.i1e strong> positi.e support 3or the three h)potheses an1 thereb) 3or the Moint Kree1om an1 Kree1om <ropositions> an1 thus rein3orce the conclusion of m' )nderstanding Conflict and Gar% 4 necessar) con1ition o3 .iolence bet5een t5o states is that at least one o3 them be partiall) or completel) nonlibertarian. Lr> to turn this aroun1> .iolence 1oes not occur bet5een libertarian states. Joreo.er> 5hether states are consi1ere1 in1i.i1uall) or 1)a1icall)> the less 3ree ,libertarian, a state> the more .iolence it engages in. Bontiguit) is not an inter.ening .ariable8 Bontiguous or not> libertarian states 1o not e2ert .iolence on each otherG an1 5hether ha.ing common bor1ers or not> the less 3ree1om in states> the more .iolence bet5een them. Fhether libertarian is 1e3ine1 b) political 3ree1om or 3ree1om> the 1ata are highl) supporti.e of the propositions% (owe$er, 5hile economic 3ree1om 1oes not signi3icantl) 1etract 3rom the Moint Kree1om <roposition> it is clearl) important 3or the Kree1om one. 7o a11 economic 3ree1om to ci.il liberties an1 political rights is to re1uce signi3icantl) the le.el o3 .iolence 3or a state o.erall> or bet5een particular states. Kor the Kree1om <roposition> the libertarian@s (or classical liberalHs= 3aith in the peace3ul e33ects o3 economic 3ree1om appears, according to these data, 5ell Husti3ie1%

USS Enterprise Lab
%1 Libertarianism
2nc i pact value to li$e

Lnl) an autonomous li3e 3ree 3rom coercion is 5orth li.ing.
Joraro ( ("iero, MasterQs &egree from the Aondon #chool of Economics in "hilosoph' and
"ublic "olic', and a *D from the )ni$ersit' of *ologna, Ital'% ODutonom' and Dutonom'6based &uties0 an argument for disobedience1P= RaC identifies three Uconditions of autonom'Q that must be fulfilled for the agent to be able to lead an autonomous life0 (a= appropriate mental abilities, (b= ade@uate range of options, and (c= independence% *' (a= RaC means that the autonomous agent must be in possession of a minimum of rationalit', i%e% the mental faculties to set oneQs own goals, the abilit' to comprehend the means re@uired to realiCe them, etc% More interesting in (Eaz6s account is b=0 the i1ea that Nautonom)6 re=uires the a.ailabilit) o3 an a1e=uate range o3 options to choose 3rom% In order to understand this point, we should ha$e a glimpse at RaCQs notion of well6being0 a person6s 5ell,being 1epen1s on her being the maker or the author o3 her o5n li3e> an1 on the a.ailabilit) to her o3 a multiplicit) o3 .aluable options 7here is a 1irect connection> there3ore> bet5een ha.ing a .aluable li3e an1 being autonomous% 4 li3e in 5hich an agent is not in the con1ition to choose 5oul1 be much less .aluable than one in 5hich s!he is% 7o be autonomous a person must not onl) be gi.en a choice> but s!he must be gi.en an a1e=uate range o3 choices. Someone 5hose 1ecisions are e2tracte1 3rom him!her through coercion is not acting autonomousl)0 e@uall', someone who is paral'sed and cannot ta e ad$antage of the options a$ailable to him+her lac s autonom'% If the autonomous li3e is about choosing> then> guaranteeing someone6s autonom) entails pro.i1ing the in1i.i1ual 5ith an a1e=uate range o3 options 3rom 5hich to choose% I) Na1e=uate6 Eaz emphasizes not the Nnumber6> but rather the N.ariet)68 O[a! choice between hundreds of identical and identicall' situated houses is no choice, compared with a choice between a town flat and a suburban houseP% Furthermore, U$ariet'Q in the strict sense is not enough either0 choosing between a $ariet' of morall' repugnant actions does not @ualif' as Uautonomous choiceQ% If I am faced with a choice between appl'ing for a "h& at the uni$ersit', or illing someone, then I am not autonomousl' choosing what to do0 for RaC, the choice between good and e$il is no choice at all%

USS Enterprise Lab
%2 Libertarianism
2nc i pact - (ar

4 philosoph) o3 in1i.i1ual rights pre.ents 5ar.
Ean1 && (D'n, author and lecturer on Kbjecti$ist philosoph', Capitalism0 Ehe )n nown Ideal
p% 39, 7,= Laissez,3aire capitalism is the onl) social s)stem base1 on the recognition o3 in1i.i1ual rights an1> there3ore> the onl) s)stem that bans 3orce 3rom social relationships. I) the nature o3 its basic principles an1 interests> it is the onl) s)stem 3un1amentall) oppose1 to 5ar. Jen 5ho are 3ree to pro1uce> ha$e no incenti$e to lootI the' ha.e nothing to gain 3rom 5ar an1 a great 1eal to lose% Ideologicall', the principle o3 in1i.i1ual rights 1oes not permit a man to seek his o5n li.elihoo1 at the point o3 a gun> insi1e or outsi1e his countr). Economicall)> 5ars cost mone)G in a 3ree econom)> 5here 5ealth is pri.atel) o5ne1> the costs o3 5ar come out o3 the income o3 pri.ate citizensJthere is no o$erblown public treasur' to hide that factJand a citiCen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as ta>es or business dislocations or propert' destruction= b' winning the war% Ehus his own economic interests are on the si1e o3 peace. I3 men 5ant to oppose 5ar, it is statism that the' must oppose% So long as the) hol1 the tribal notion that the in1i.i1ual is sacri3icial 3o11er 3or the collecti.e> that some men ha.e the right to rule others b) 3orce> an1 that some an)# allege1 -goo1/ can Husti3) itCthere can be no peace 5ithin a nation an1 no peace among nations.

USS Enterprise Lab
%% Libertarianism
2nc i pact value to li$e/"ecision rule

Boercion kills .alue to li3e + 5e must lea.e the moral relations bet5een people un1isturbe1.
Jachan, "rofessor of philosoph', Duburn )ni$ersit', *" VEibor, "RI/DEE RIF(E# D?&
")*AIC IAA)#IK?#, p% :96.W 4ll go.ernmental action that 1oes not ser.e to repel or retaliate against coercion is antithetical to an) respect 3or human 1ignit). Ghile it is true that some people should gi$e to others to assist them in reaching their goals, forcing indi$iduals to do so plainl' robs them of their dignit'% 7here is nothing morall) 5orth5hile in 3orce1 gi.ing% Fenerall', 3or a societ) to respect human 1ignit)> the special moral relations bet5een people shoul1 be le3t un1isturbe1. Go.ernment shoul1 con3ine itsel3 to making sure that this .oluntarism is not abri1ge1> no matter ho5 tempting it might be to use its coerci.e po5ers to attain some 5orth) goal.

USS Enterprise Lab
%$ Libertarianism
2nc i pact "ecision rule

7a2ation is al5a)s ba1 + 5e must aban1on it.
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# Much the same thing has happened to the noble concept of neutral ta>ation% Ehe idea that ta>ation, and therefore go$ernmentHs fiscal operation, should be neutral to the mar etJshould not disturb the operations of the mar et nor di$ert it from its free courseJis a noble but impossible one% Ds we ha$e seen here, ta2ation can ne.er be neutral to the market> and the impossibilit) of this dream is roote1 in the .er) nature o3 ta2ation an1 go.ernment. ?eutral ta>ation is merel' a chimera% It is perhaps because o3 this impossibilit) that this concept, in the hands of the modern public6choice theorists and others, has so @uic l' become )et another 1e.ice 3or rati3)ing the status =uo o3 State po5er. Ge are forced, then, to the realiCation of crucial points from which free6mar et economists seem to ha$e been fleeing as from the $er' plague% Ehat neutral ta2ation is an o2)moronG that the 3ree market an1 ta2ation are inherentl) incompatibleI and therefore either the goal o3 neutralit) must be 3orsaken> or else 5e must aban1on the institution o3 ta2ation itsel3.

USS Enterprise Lab
%" Libertarianism
2nc i pact
oral o%ligation (1/2)
4 market 3ree 3rom go.ernment inter.ention is morall) superior because it is base1 in in1i.i1ual choice rather than coercion.
Filliams *" (Galter, "rof of Economics N Feorge Mason ), OEhe Drgument For Free
Mar ets0 Moralit' /#% Efficienc'P Cato Journal, /ol% 58, ?os% ,63= Kree1om@s 3irst principle is8 Each person o5ns himsel3% Ehe transition from socialism to capitalism and the preser$ation of capitalism re=uire what philosopher &a$id Selle' calls the entrepreneurial outlook on li3e, which he describes, in part, as ?a sense o3 sel3,o5nership> a con.iction that one@s li3e is one@s o5n> not something 3or 5hich one must ans5er to some higher po5er@@ (Selle' 5..70 7=% Lnce 5e accept sel3,o5nership as a 3irst principle> 5e rea1il) 1isco.er 5hat constitutes Hust an1 unHust con1uct% UnHust con1uct is simpl) an) con1uct that .iolates an in1i.i1ual@s propert) rights in himsel3 5hen he himsel3 has not in3ringe1 upon the propert) rights o3 others. 7here3ore> acts like mur1er> rape> an1 the3t> 5hether 1one pri.atel) or collecti.el)> are unHust because the) .iolate pri.ate propert). 7here is broa1 consensus that go.ernment,sponsore1 mur1er an1 rape are unHustG ho5e.er> not as much consensus is reache1 regar1ing the3t% Eheft being defined as forcibl' ta ing the rightful propert' of one person for the benefit of another% Kor in1i.i1ual 3ree1om to be .iable, it must be a part of the shared $alues of a societ', and there must be an institutional 3rame5ork to preser.e it against encroachments b) maHoritarian or go.ernment 5ill% Bonstitutions an1 la5s alone cannot guarantee the sur.i.al o3 personal 3ree1om as is apparent 5here Festern,st)le constitutions an1 la5s ha.e been e2porte1 to countries not ha.ing a tra1ition o3 in1i.i1ual 3ree1om% )%#% articulation of the right to indi$idual autonom' is enunciated in our &eclaration of Independence0 Ge hold these truths to be self6e$ident, that all men are created e@ual, that the' are endowed b' the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, libert' and the pursuit of happiness% Ehat statement, which pla'ed such an important role in the rebellion against England and in the establishment of the )%#% Constitution, was the outgrowth of libertarian ideas of such thin ers as John Aoc e, Montes@uieu, and #ir Gilliam *lac stone% [Gilliams .8 continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
%& Libertarianism
2nc i pact
[Gilliams .8 continued!
oral o%ligation (2/2)
E.en in societies 5ith a tra1ition o3 3ree1om> such as the Unite1 States> the .alues supporting that 3ree1om ha.e su33ere1 erosion an1 ha.e pro.en an insu33icient sa3eguar1 against encroachment b) the state. 4s is so o3ten the case> political libert) (democrac'= has been use1 to re1istribute income an1 5ealth. 7he re1istributi.e state> in turn> has ha1 a sti3ling e33ect on economic libert) an1 has re1uce1 in1i.i1ual 3ree1om. Dll too often defenders of free6mar et capitalism base their defense on the demonstration that capitalism is more efficient in terms of resource allocation and, hence, leads to a larger bundle of goods than socialism and other forms of statism% (owe$er, as Milton Friedman fre@uentl' points out, economic efficienc' and greater wealth should be promoted as simpl' a side6benefit of free mar ets% Ehe intellectual defense of 3ree,market capitalism should focus on its moral superiorit'. In other words, e$en if free enterprise were not more efficient than other forms of human organiCation, it is morall) superior because it is roote1 in .oluntar) relationships rather than 3orce an1 coercion> an1 it respects the sanctit) o3 the in1i.i1ual. 7he struggle to e2ten1 an1 preser.e 3ree markets must ha.e as its primar) 3ocus the moral argument. State inter.entionists stan1 nake1 be3ore 5ell,thought,out moral arguments 3or pri.ate o5nership o3 propert)> .oluntar) e2change> an1 the parit) o3 markets. <eople rea1il) un1erstan1 moral arguments on a pri.ate basis66for e>ample, one person does not ha$e the right to use force against another to ser$e his own purposes% Ao5e.er> people o3ten see go.ernment re1istribution as an acceptable use o3 3orce% In a democratic welfare state that coercion is gi.en an aura o3 legitimac). 7he challenge is to con.ince people that a maHorit) .ote 1oes not establish moralit) an1 that 3ree markets are morall) superior to other 3orms o3 human organization.

USS Enterprise Lab
%' Libertarianism
2nc no a$$ i pact - ta#ation/the state $ails

7he State is ne.er pro1ucti.e 5ith ta2es8 1on6t trust their tra1itional economics authors
Myth of Neutral Ta ation Fall, 5.95, pp% 85.68:7= E# &espite the fact that go$ernment and ta>ation are patentl' coerci$e, economists ha$e de$oted considerable energ', in numerous wa's, to maintaining the contrar'% If go$ernment and ta>ation were trul' $oluntar', then ta>ation would be a in to a mar et pa'ment, and go$ernment could be deemed a part of, and therefore neutral to, the mar et% I) lumping go.ernment along 5ith pri.ate e2pen1itures as a gauge o3 the output o3 the econom)> the con.entional national income statisticians are implicitl' assuming that go.ernment is neutral to the market because go.ernment pro.i1es those ?ser.ices? that ?societ)? 1esires it to suppl). Fo$ernment Boutput B is e@uated to the salaries paid to the bureaucrac'% I) emplo)ing the seemingl' precise method of segregating some go$ernment e>penses as mere Btrans3er pa)ments?Jthe ta>ing of "eter to pa' "aulJrather than producti$e purchases of goods and ser$ices, the national income statisticians are in realit) making an unsupportable i1eological Hu1gment. Kor in 5hat sense 1oes the hiring o3 bureaucrats> or the purchasing o3 paper clips> a11 to the pro1uction o3 the econom) an1 there3ore become someho5 .oluntar)> 5hile trans3er pa)ments are 3rankl) ta2ing one group to subsi1ize another1 Ds we shall see further below, all ta2ation necessaril) in.ol.es taking 3rom one group to subsi1ize anotherG there3ore all go.ernment e2pen1itures, ta en together, constitute one giant trans3er pa)ment.

USS Enterprise Lab
%( Libertarianism
2nc i pact - turns the case (1/2)

Libertarianism is the onl) 5a) to sol.e the plan + e33icienc) an1 e33ecti.eness 1ue to enhance1 caution> more inno.ati.e acti.it) through competition> an1 better allocation o3 resources 1ue to 1eregulation.
Rutgers *usiness #chool, International Journal of &isclosure and Fo$ernance, Classical libertarianism: The economic !ers!ecti"es of Milton #riedman including his li$ely "ie%s on the &!ro!er' role of go"ernment in the sub!rime mortgage debacle, ,--., /olume : Issue 5 6 http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid28,8,cd4e6-9a:6777c6a4:96 :7b:5efc4de3;7-sessionmgr58<$id27<hid259, #"= Krie1man 1escribes the essence o3 libertarianism as N 3ree pri.ate propert) capitalism 6 . Gith regard to pri$ate propert', Friedrich D% (a'e is of the opinion that U pri.ate propert) 6 is the most important guarantee o3 3ree1om. Kurther> Jilton Krie1man has state1> N )ou can 6 t ha.e a 3ree societ) 5ithout pri.ate propert) 6 . Eranslated> Krie1man 6 s libertarian 3rame5ork is that economic an1 political 3ree1oms are best an1> perhaps> can onl) be achie.e1 .ia institutions an1 markets that ma2imise the 5el3are o3 each in1i.i1ual part) to the transaction> as Hu1ge1 b) each in1i.i1ual part) to the transaction an1 the transaction taking place in competiti.e markets 5here there is in1i.i1ual o5nership o3 propert) rights. ?ote that much of the rationale for emphasising indi$idual decision ma ing in a pri$ate propert' econom' is captured in Milton Friedman Q s $iew that U ;obo1) spen1s somebo1) else 6 s resources as care3ull) as he uses his o5n. So i3 )ou 5ant e33icienc) an1 e33ecti.eness> i3 )ou 5ant kno5le1ge to be properl) utilise1> )ou ha.e to 1o it through the means o3 pri.ate propert) 6 . Ehis means, as Friedman states, that U the organization o3 the bulk o3 economic acti.it) through pri.ate enterprise operating in a 3ree market promotes economic 5el3are an1 political 3ree1om 6 . 7he primar) en1 results o3 competiti.e markets 1ominate1 b) sel3,intereste1 in1i.i1uals are enhance1 e33icient resource allocation at the le.el o3 both the 3irm an1 the househol1> an1 the enhancement o3 the real gro5th o3 the econom). 5:,54 Ehis reasoning goes bac to Ddam #mith Q s seminal Gealth of ?ations (544:=, where #mith argued that the in$isible hand of self6interested indi$iduals promoted what was best for societ'% 59,5. #pecificall', Ddam #mith stated that U he intends onl' his own gain, and he is in this as in man' other cases led b' an in$isible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention Q % [*ic sler . continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
%* Libertarianism
2nc i pact turns the case (1/2)
[*ic sler . continued!
Ehat is, N It is not 3rom the bene.olence o3 the butcher> the bre5er> or the baker> that 5e e2pect our 1inner> but 3rom their regar1 to their o5n interest 6 . Dlternati$el' stated, the essence o3 all o3 Jilton Krie1man 6 s public polic) prescriptions 5as the 1emonstration .ia arguments o3 price theor) that i3 there is an e33icient allocation o3 resources at the 3irm le.el> it results in lo5er market clearing prices in competiti.e markets an1 these gains accrue to the bene3it o3 in1i.i1uals. Further, competiti.e markets encourage entrepreneurial an1 inno.ati.e acti.it) 5hich results in an e2pan1e1 opportunit) set o3 choices 3or consumers 5hich again is a gain 3or societ). 7his means that> in general> pri.ate markets are to be pre3erre1 to go.ernmental regulate1 markets because the) ha.e superiorit) in allocating scarce resources. Certainl', pri.ate markets> i3 the) are competiti.e mar ets, are to be pre3erre1> 5ithout e2ception> to go.ernmental regulate1 markets because the) ha.e superiorit) in allocating scarce resources. ,, R ,: Ddam #mith Q s $iewpoint of self6interested indi$iduals operating in competiti$e mar ets, leading to enhanced resources allocation and societal economic gains differs mar edl' from the then pre$ailing mercantilistic structure of the econom'% ,4 In mercantilism> there is a go.ernment + monarch' that 3ocuses on a nation 6 s economic goals> particularl) on e2port,balance o3 pa)ment goals> an1 5here there is zero 3ocus an1 emphasis on enhancing opportunities 3or in1i.i1uals an1 on in1i.i1ual sel3,interest.

USS Enterprise Lab
$0 Libertarianism
2nc alternative agoris
(1/2)
4gorism sol.es. Lnce a mo.ement to5ar1s algorism is complete> people see the bene3its o3 3ree1om. E.en i3 there are a 3e5 remaining Statists> the) 5ill be mainl) o.errun b) the agorists.
Konkin in (0. (prominent libertarian acti$ist, Soman "ublishing, Ehe new Aibertarian
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= Fith a State tainting e.er) act an1 be3ouling our min1s 5ith unearne1 guilt> it becomes e2tremel) important to un1erstan1 the social conse=uences o3 our acts. Kor e2ample> i3 5e 3ail to pa) at ta2 an1 get a5a) 5ith it> 5ho is hurt8 usD 7he StateD InnocentsD Libertarian anal)sis sho5s us that the State is responsible 3or an) 1amage to innocents it alleges the ?sel3ish ta2,e.a1er? has incurre1G an1 the ?ser.ices? the State ?pro.i1es? us are illusor). *ut e$en so, there must be more than lonel' resistance cle$erl' concealed or Bdropping out1B I3 a political part) or re.olutionar) arm) is inappropriate an1 sel3,1e3eating 3or libertarian goals> 5hat collecti.e action 5orks1 Ehe answer is agorism% It is possible> practical> an1 e.en pro3itable to entrepreneur large collections o3 humanit) 3rom statist societ) to the agora. 7his is> in the 1eepest sense> true re.olutionar) acti.it) an1 5ill be co.ere1 in the ne2t chapter. Iut to un1erstan1 this macro ans5er> 5e must 3irst outline the micro ans5er% [5! 7he 3unction o3 the pseu1o,science of Establishment economics, e$en more than ma ing predictions (li e the Imperial Roman augurers# 3or the ruling class> is to m)sti3) an1 con3use the rule1 class as to 5here their 5ealth is going an1 ho5 it is taken. 4n e2planation o3 ho5 people keep their 5ealth an1 propert) 3rom the State is then Bounter,Establishment economics> or Bounter, Economics 92: 3or short% Ehe actual practice of human actions that e$ade, a$oid and def' the #tate is countereconomic acti$it', but in the same slopp' wa' BeconomicsB refers to both the science and what it studies, Counter6 Economics will undoubtedl' be used. Since this 5riting is Bounter,Economic theor) itsel3> 5hat 5ill be re3erre1 to as Bounter,Economics is the practice. Japping an1 1escribing all or e.en a signi3icantl) use3ul part o3 Bounter, Economics 5ill re=uire at least a 3ull .olume itsel3. 9%: Must enough 5ill be sketche1 here to pro.i1e un1erstan1ing 3or the rest o3 the mani3esto. Going 3rom an agorist societ) to a statist one shoul1 be uphill 5ork> e=ui.alent to a path o3 high negati.e entrop) in ph)sics% Dfter all> once one is li.ing in and understanding a 5ell,run 3ree societ)> 5h) 5oul1 one 5ish to return to s)stematic coercion> plun1er> an1 an2iet)1 Sprea1ing ignorance an1 irrationalit) among the kno5le1geable an1 rational is 1i33icultG m)sti3)ing that 5hich is alrea1) clearl) un1erstoo1 is nearl) impossible. 7he agorist societ) shoul1 be 3airl) stable relati.e to 1eca1ence> though highl) open to impro.ement. Let us run back5ar1s in time> like running a 3ilm back5ar1> 3rom the agorist societ) to the present statist societ)% Ghat would 5e e2pect to seeD <ockets o3 statism, mostl' contiguous in territor', since the #tate re@uires regional monopolies, would first appear%
[Son in 9- continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
$1 Libertarianism

[Son in 9- continued!
(2/2)
7he remaining .ictims are becoming more an1 more a5are o3 the 5on1er3ul 3ree 5orl1 aroun1 them an1 ?e.aporating? 3rom these pockets% Aarge s'ndicates of mar et protection agencies are containing the #tate b' defending those who ha$e signed up for protection6 insurance% Jost importantl)> those outsi1e the statist pockets or sub, societies are enHo)ing an agorist societ) sa.e 3or a higher cost o3 insurance premiums an1 some care as to 5here the) tra.el. 7he agorists coul1 co,e2ist 5ith statists at this point> maintaining an isolationist ?3oreign polic)? since the costs o3 in.asion o3 statist sub,societies an1 liberation 5oul1 be higher than imme1iate returns (unless the #tate launches an all6out last aggression=, but there is no real reason to imagine the remaining $ictims will choose to remain oppressed when the libertarian alternati$e is so $isible and accessible% Ehe #tateHs areas are li e a super6saturated solution read' to precipitate anarch'% Eun back5ar1 another step an1 5e 3in1 the situation re.erse1. Fe 3in1 larger sectors o3 societ) un1er Statism an1 smaller ones li.ing as agoricall) as possible. Ao5e.er> there is one .isible 1i33erence8 the agorists nee1 not be territoriall) contiguous. 7he) can li.e an)5here> though the) 5ill ten1 to associate 5ith their 3ello5 agorists not onl) 3or social rein3orcement but 3or ease an1 pro3itabilit) o3 tra1e. It@s al5a)s sa3er an1 more pro3itable to 1eal 5ith more trust5orth) customers an1 suppliers% Ehe tendenc' is for greater association among more agorist indi$iduals and for dissociation with more statist elements% (Ehis tendenc' is not onl' theoreticall' strongI it alread' e>ists in embr'onic practice toda'%= #ome easil' defendable territories, perhaps in space or islands in the ocean (or under the ocean= or big6cit' BghettosB ma' be almost entirel' agorist, where the #tate is impotent to crush them. Iut most agorists 5ill li.e 5ithin statist,claime1 areas. 7here 5ill be a spectrum o3 the 1egree o3 agorism in most in1i.i1uals> as there is to1a)> 5ith a 3e5 bene3iting 3rom the State being highl) statist> a 3e5 3ull) conscious o3 the agorist alternati.e an1 competent as li.ing 3ree to the hilt> an1 the rest in the mi11le 5ith .ar)ing 1egrees o3 con3usion. Finall', we step bac to where onl' a handful understand agorism, the $ast majorit' percei$ing illusor' gains from the e>istence of the #tate or unable to percei$e an alternati$e, and the statists themsel$es0 the go$ernment apparatus and the class defined b' recei$ing a new gain from the #tateHs inter$ention in the Mar et% [

USS Enterprise Lab
$2 Libertarianism
this roun" is key
Fe must recruit an1 e1ucate agorists 5ithin the 1ebate roun1.
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= Ehe ?ew Aibertarian acti$ist must keep in min1 that actual 1e3ense against the State is impossible until the counter,econom) has generate1 the s)n1icates o3 protection agencies su33icientl) large to 1e3en1 against the remnant of the State% Ehis will occur onl' at the Bphase transitionB between the third and fourth steps leading bac from our statism to agorism (Chapter 3=% Each step from statism to agorism re@uires a different strateg'I tactics will differ e$en within each step% Ehere are some rules which will appl' in all stages% Un1er all circumstances> one recruits an1 e1ucates. Gi.en t)picall) con3use1 in1i.i1ual ac=uaintances 5ho consi1er a counter,economic act> encourage them to 1o it. I3 the) are intelligent enough an1 not likel) to turn on )ou> e2plain risks in.ol.e1 an1 return e2pecte1. Jost o3 all> e1ucate them b) )our e2ample to the e2tent )ou can let them kno5. 4ll ?Librar) Libertarians? )ou kno5> those 5ho pro3ess some theoretical .ariant o3 libertarianism but esche5 practice> shoul1 be encourage1 to practice 5hat the) preach. Scorn their inaction> praise their 3irst halting steps to5ar1s countereconomics. Interact 5ith them more an1 more as trust gro5s 5ith their competence an1 e2perience. Ehose alread' in counter6economics whom 'ou meet can be Blet in onB the libertarian philosoph' that 'ou hold, that m'sterious belief 'ou hold which eeps 'ou so happ'and free of guilt% &rop it nonchalantl' if the' feign lac of interest0 wa> enthusiastic as the' grow more curious and eager to learn% Sel3 agorism b) e2ample an1 argument. Bontrol an1 program )our emotional reactions to e2hibit hostilit) at statism an1 1e.iationism> an1 to e2hibit enthusiasm an1 Ho) at agorist acts an1 the State@s setbacks. Jost o3 these tactics 5ill come 5ith routine but )ou can check )oursel3 to polish a 3e5 things. Kinall)> co,or1inate )our acti.ities 5ith other ;e5 Libertarian acti.ists. 4t this point> 5e arri.e at the nee1 3or group tactics an1 organization.

USS Enterprise Lab
$% Libertarianism
2nc alternative a%an"oning ta#ation solves

7he state m)sti3ies itsel3 b) controlling e1ucation an1 kno5le1ge. I3 5e 5ere to cut o33 its6 suppl) o3 mone) it 5oul1 3all.
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= Ghat e>ists e$er'where on Earth allowing the #tate to continue is the sanction of the $ictim% [4! E.er) .ictim o3 statism has internalize1 the State to some 1egree. 7he IES@s annual proclamation that the income ta2 1epen1s on ?.oluntar) compliance? is ironicall) true. Shoul1 the ta2pa)ers completel) cut o33 the bloo1 suppl)> the .ampire State 5oul1 helplessl) perish> its unpai1 police an1 arm) 1eserting almost imme1iatel)> 1e3anging the Jonster. I3 e.er)one aban1one1 ?legal ten1er? 3or gol1 an1 goods in contracts and other e>changes> it is 1oubt3ul that e.en ta2ation coul1 sustain the mo1ern State% [9! 7his is 5here the State@s control o3 e1ucation an1 the in3ormation me1ia> either 1irectl) or through ruling,class o5nership> becomes crucial. In earlier 1a)s> the establishe1 priesthoo1 ser.e1 the 3unction to sancti3) the king an1 aristocrac)> m)sti3) the relations o3 oppression> an1 in1uce guilt in e.a1ers an1 resisters. 7he 1isestablishment o3 religion has put this bur1en on the ne5 intellectual class (what the Russians called the intelligentsia=% Some intellectuals> hol1ing truth as their highest .alue (as did earlier dissenting theologians and clerics=, 1o 5ork at clari3)ing rather than m)sti3)ing> but the) are 1ismisse1 or re.ile1 an1 kept a5a) 3rom State an1 3oun1ation,controlle1 income. 7hus is the phenomenon o3 1issi1ence an1 re.isionism create1G an1 thus is the attitu1e o3 anti,intellectualism generate1 among the populace 5ho suspect or incompletel) un1erstan1 the 3unction o3 the Bourt Intellectual.

USS Enterprise Lab
$$ Libertarianism
2nc - &*+ collectivis
goo"/in"ivi"ualis
%a"
Bollecti.ism is illogical. In1i.i1ualism comes 3irst because collecti.es consist o3 in1i.i1uals.
Eeisman & (Feorge, "rof Emeritus of Econ N "epperdine ), OCollecti$ism, Climate Change,
and Economic FreedomP 3+,:+: http0++blog%mises%org+797,+collecti$ism6climate6change6and6 economic6freedom+= Clearl', there is something .er) 5rong here% Ghat is wrong is the in3luence o3 the philosoph' of collecti.ism% Bollecti.ism consi1ers the group XYP the collecti.e XYP to be the primar) unit o3 social realit). It .ie5s the collecti.e as ha.ing real e2istence, separate from and superior to that of its members, and as thin ing and acting, and as the source of $alue% Dt the same time, it regar1s the in1i.i1ual as an essentiall) inconse=uential cell in the superior, li$ing collecti.e organism% It is on this basis that the loss o3 an in1i.i1ual6s li3e is consi1ere1 to be o3 no great conse=uence, with the result that whate$er the iller of an indi$idual might be guilt' of, it is $iewed as not all that serious in the first place% Dnd then, the illerQs actions, it is held, do not emanate from within himself but from the collecti$el' determined circumstances in which he li$es% *' the same to en, i3 the collecti.e, consisting of billions of indi$iduals consuming fossil fuels o$er two centuries or more, is responsible 3or releasing enough carbon 1io2i1e and other gases into the atmosphere to raise the a.erage surface temperature o3 the Earth> then each an1 e.er) in1i.i1ual no5 ali.e an1 5ho consumes 3ossil 3uels is hel1 to be responsible 3or the phenomenon> because no 1istinction is ma1e bet5een the in1i.i1ual an1 the collecti.e% Ehis is the basis on which the owner of the appliances and $ehicle is held to be Oguilt'%P (is indi$idual emissions of carbon dio>ide are seen as part and parcel of the emissions of carbon dio>ide b' all the members of the carbon6dio>ide emitting collecti$e ta en together and as responsible for their effect% 7here is a 1i33erent> 1iametricall) oppose1 philosoph)> which has all but been forgotten% It is rarel', if e$er, taught in our Oculturall' di$erseP educational s'stem, whose di$ersit' consists in the teaching of numerous $arieties of collecti$ism and the emplo'ment of man' $arieties of collecti$ists, all the while almost totall' e>cluding this fundamentall' different point of $iew% Ehe name of this different philosoph' is in1i.i1ualism% Its most important ad$ocates are Audwig $on Mises and D'n Rand% 4ccor1ing to in1i.i1ualism> onl) in1i.i1uals e2istG collecti.es consist o3 nothing but in1i.i1uals. Lnl) the in1i.i1ual thinksG onl) the in1i.i1ual actsG onl) the li3e o3 the in1i.i1ual has .alue an1 is important. 4ll rights are rights o3 in1i.i1uals%

USS Enterprise Lab
$" Libertarianism
2nc - &* + li%ertarianis
%a"/li%ertarianis
$la(e" - ,ignorance-
Britics 1on6t e.en kno5 5hat libertarianism is + the) con3late e.er)thing the) 1islike into one static concept.

Research Fellow and Managing Editor at Cato Unbound [an intellectual thin tan publication!, prior "roduction Manager at the Congressional Research #er$ice, "h%&% in histor' from Johns (op ins )ni$ersit', Cato Journal, *oo re$iew of The Libertarian Illusion: Ideology, Public Policy, and the Assault on the Common Good, #pring+#ummer ,--., /olume ,. Issue ,, http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid2-de.34,563-a767853694f56 84bf5:a9aa8e;7-sessionmgr53<$id2,<hid25,, #"= It is daunting to re$iew a boo claiming that e$er'thing 'ou belie$e is wrong% Fortunatel', Gilliam (udsonHs 7he Libertarian Illusion also attacks man) things that neither I nor .er) man) other libertarians belie.e. 7his gi.es courage 3or the rest. (udson, a professor in the political science department at "ro$idence College, is a communitarian% Gere I to judge b' his boo alone, communitarianism appears to mean support for e$er'thing that go$ernment planners would li e to do, pro$ided onl' that a democratic majorit' belie$es such policies constitute the common good% In his first substanti$e chapter, (udson also defends higher ta>es to pa' for these state6supplied goods and ser$ices% Ehis stance is unli el' to endear him to the majorit', but itQs refreshingl' honest% Au1son also appears to ha.e 3oun1 a 5or1 3or an)thing he 1isagrees 5ith8 ?libertarian.? Ae ben1s it to suit his nee1s. 7hus Gro.er ;or=uist> 5ho proposes ta2 cuts because the) 5ill lo5er go.ernment re.enue> is a Libertarian. Iut so too is 4rt La33er> 5ho proposes ta2 cuts because the) 5ill raise go.ernment re.enue. Blearl)> 3or an) change in ta2 rates> at least one o3 them must be 5rong. Oet neither .ie5> i3 taken in isolation> o33ers a particularl) strong e2ample o3 Libertarianism. 4 libertarian 5oul1 lo5er ta2es not to reach some 1esire1 le.el o3 go.ernment re.enue> but because respect 3or the ta2pa)er 1eman1s it.

USS Enterprise Lab
$& Libertarianism
2nc &*+ li%ertarianis
$la(e" ,hu an nature- (1/2)
Libertarianism is groun1e1 in human nature an1 Husti3ie1 + in1i.i1ual autonom) is a .alue that simultaneousl) promotes cooperation an1 con1emns aggressi.e coercion.
Epstein et. al $ (Richard, James "ar er (all &istinguished #er$ice "rofessor of Aaw,
)ni$ersit' of Chicago, Rand' *arnett, Dustin *% Fletcher "rofessor, *oston )ni$ersit' #chool of Aaw, &a$id Friedman, "rofessor, law school and the economics department of #anta Clara )ni$ersit', and James "% "in erton, Fellow, ?ew Dmerica Foundation, Gashington, &%C%, Reason, Coercion "s) Consent, March ,--7, /olume 38 Issue 5- 6 http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+detail1$id29<hid2555<sid2..7d.5876b.9:67c7c6a9456 eb-dae-5:fe4;7-sessionmgr557<bdata2Jn?pdF).ZGh$c3[tbFl,Z[;3d ;3d\db2a.h<D?25,,599-4, #"= "ER(D"# E(E MK#E fundamental @uestion we face is how to thin about libert'% Some libertarians stress the 3ormal po5er o3 logic to resol.e har1 =uestions. 7he) insist that all rights an1 1uties 3lo5 3rom a necessar) conception o3 in1i.i1ual autonom) or sel3,rule that allo5s all in1i.i1uals to 1o 5hate.er the) 5ish 5ith their o5n li.es so long as the) 1o not inter3ere 5ith the like liberties o3 other in1i.i1uals. ;o person ma) use 3orce or 1eception against other people> either 3or his o5n a1.antage or 3or the a1.antage o3 thir1 persons. 7his moral imperati.e hol1s seemingl) 5ithout regar1 3or its social an1 economic conse=uences. "olitical organiCations should adapt to this strong conception of rights and duties, the argument goes, and not 'ield to whim or fashion% Fi$en this simple premise, in1i.i1uals ma) use their o5n labor to ac=uire propert)> to e2change their labor or propert) 5ith others> or to 3orm comple2 business> social> an1 charitable organizations. 7his strong intuiti.e conception o3 rights an1 1uties tightl) correspon1s to our or1inar) concept o3 right an1 5rong beha.ior. Most people do not see to order their dail' li$es b' discerning the origins of propert' in the mists of histor'I nor do the' t'picall' ponder the larger @uestions of public finance and political organiCation% Iut the) are taught 3rom birth to be neither bullies nor cheats. In 1ealing 5ith li3e,size e.ents> the) a1here uns5er.ingl) to these simple basic principles. Fh) then resist their uni.ersal applicationD 7he content o3 the rules is clear> an1 an) e33ort to s5itch to some calculus that 5eighs conse=uences case b) case 5oul1 at best )iel1 in1eterminate results> 5hich 5oul1 in mm heighten o.erall social insecurit). *etter not to scratch beneath the surface% E$en if these rules are not necessar' truths, we should still treat them as such% &educti$e principles order practical affairs well% )nfortunatel', this principle of personal guidance does not suppl' us with a comprehensi$e theor' of social organiCation% First, there is the @uestion of philosophical foundations% Can we reall' support an' ind of political order that pa's no conscious attention to the conse@uences it generates1 Kn this point, the ostensibl' deducti$e $iew is right to shun judging indi$idual actions one case at a time% *ut this detached form of anal'sis reall' should be regarded as a form of closet conse@uentialism% #etting up public institutions to pass on all indi$idual actions becomes so costl' and intrusi$e that it flun s the standard of good go$ernment in just those conse@uentalist terms% [Epstein et% al 7 continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
$' Libertarianism
2nc &*+ li%ertarianis

[Epstein et% al 7 continued!
$la(e" ,hu an nature- (2/2)
*ut it is possible to moor this Hu1gment o3 political structure in a keen appreciation o3 the mainsprings o3 human nature> 5hich )iel1s a 1eci1e1l) mi2e1 picture o3 the best an1 5orst in human beha.ior. Fe start 5ith the biological obser.ation that no in1i.i1ual coul1 sur.i.e in a 5orl1 o3 scarce resources 5ithout a strong measure o3 sel3,interest, one that includes at the $er' least his own famil' and close associates% 7hat sel3,interest can mani3est itsel3 in one o3 t5o 5a)s 5hen 1ealing 5ith strangersG through either aggression or cooperation. 7he o.erall social conse=uences o3 these t5o approaches are massi.el) 1i33erent. Fith 3orce> one person 5ins 5hile the other person loses. Fith cooperation> both persons 5in. 7his simple obser.ation un1erlies the conse=uentialist e2planation 3or the libertarian pre3erence 3or agreement o.er coercion8 7ake that arrangement that lea.es both parties better o33 than the) are un1er the alternati.e legal or1er. Bontracts result in Hoint impro.ements, such that the greater the ease of contracting, the greater the gains from cooperation% Boercion creates at least one loser 3or e.er) 5inner> 5here the losses (e%g%, death, rape, or theft= can be huge relati.e to the gains on an) intuiti.e interpersonal comparison o3 utilit). Fhen the o11s are right> an) in1i.i1ual ma) 3in1 it in his interest to use 3orce or 1eception> but 3rom a social point o3 .ie5 this con1uct merits strong con1emnation. Ehe basic libertarian imperati.es are 5ell, groun1e1 in human nature.

USS Enterprise Lab
$( Libertarianism
2nc &*+ li%ertarianis /privati.ation causes coercion

7he state is coerci.e but corporations aren6t.
Fol3 2 (Martin, chief economics commentator N Ehe Financial Eimes, OCountries still rule the
world0 Ehe notion that corporations wield more power than go$ernments rests on flawed calculations and conceptual confusionP Financial EimesI Feb :, ,--,= L3 the largest economies in the 5orl1> "1 are corporationsG onl) $* are countries. Britics o3 ?corporate globalisationB, some of whom protested against the annual meeting of the Gorld Economic Forum in ?ew ]or , rel) on this suppose1 3act to Husti3) their .ie5 that go.ernments lie prostrate be3ore unbri1le1 corporate po5er. 7heirs is a paranoi1 1elusion. 7he calculations on the relati.e size o3 corporations on 5hich so man) critics o3 globalisation 1epen1 come 3rom the le3t,o3,centre Institute 3or <olic) Stu1ies in Fashington> DB.P Iut the) rest on an elementar) ho5ler. 7he authors> Sarah 4n1erson an1 Mohn Ba.anagh> compute the size o3 corporations b) sales but that o3 national economies b) gross 1omestic pro1uct. Oet GD< is a measure o3 .alue a11e1> not sales. I3 one 5ere to compute total sales in a countr) one 5oul1 en1 up 5ith a number 3ar bigger than GD<. Kne would also be double6, triple6 or @uadruple6counting% Iut the 3la5 in such claims is not Hust 3actual but also conceptual> since countries an1 companies are ra1icall) 1i33erent. 4 countr) has coerci.e control o.er its people an1 its territor). E.en the 5eakest state can 3orce millions o3 people to 1o things most o3 them 5oul1 3ar rather not 1o8 pa) ta2es> 3or e2ample> or 1o militar) ser.ice. Bompanies are =uite another matter. 7he) are ci.ilian organisations that must 5in the resources the) nee1 in 3ree markets. 7he) rel) not on coercion but on competiti.eness% Does an)bo1) 1oubt that the US legal s)stem coul1 break up Jicroso3t i3 it 5ante1 to 1o soD Lr that Jicroso3t 5oul1 itsel3 1isappear i3 it cease1 making pro1ucts its customers 5ante1D E.en the propert) rights o3 companies 1epen1 on the coerci.e po5er o3 states. In the 5.4-s, for e>ample, the strongest oil companies were unable to resist nationalisation of their assets b' some wea de$eloping countries% Grong numbers, incorrect understanding of trends and, abo$e all, a misleading anal'tical framewor 6 the critics are guilt' of all these% *ut the worst of these is the last% I) comparing the abilit) o3 companies to gro5 b) satis3)ing customers> pa)ing emplo)ees an1 re5ar1ing in.estors 5ith the abilit) o3 go.ernments to e2ert coerci.e po5er> the) are guilt) o3> at best> con3usion an1> at 5orst> 1eliberate misrepresentation. Bompanies are not comparable 5ith states. E.en i3 the) 5ere 3ar bigger> the) 5oul1 still not be. &oes this mean there is nothing to the criti@ue of corporate power1 ?ot @uite% Ewo points are correct% First, open bor1ers increase the choices open to citizens> particularl) to o5ners o3 mobile 3actors o3 pro1uction. 7his limits the coerci.e po5er o3 states. Eo critics, this represents an erosion of democrac'% Eo supporters, it represents an increase in in1i.i1ual 3ree1om% *oth are correct, in their own terms, though the impact is not of corporations but of mar ets%

USS Enterprise Lab
$* Libertarianism
2nc $ra e(ork i pact turn state coercion %a"

Fe6ll impact turn )our 3rame5ork + political propagan1a has pro1uce1 3alse e1ucation an1 an institution o3 immoral coercion has rigge1 the game o3 3airness. 7he state has mur1ere1 more people than e.er an1 ta2es ha.e stolen more than e.er.
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= #uch an institution o3 coercion> centralizing immoralit)> 1irecting the3t an1 mur1er> an1 co,or1inating oppression on a scale inconcei.able b) ran1om criminalit) e2ists. It is the Job o3 mobs> Gang o3 gangs> Bonspirac) o3 conspiracies. It has mur1ere1 more people in a 3e5 recent )ears than all the 1eaths in histor) be3ore that timeG it has stolen in a 3e5 recent )ears more than all the 5ealth pro1uce1 in histor) to that timeG it has 1elu1e1 , 3or its sur.i.al , more min1s in a 3e5 recent )ears than all the irrationalit) o3 histor) to that time. Lur Enem)> 7he State. [,! In the 20th Bentur) alone> 5ar has mur1ere1 more than all pre.ious 1eathsG ta2es an1 in3lation ha.e stolen more than all 5ealth pre.iousl) pro1uce1G an1 the political lies> propagan1a> an1 abo.e all> ?E1ucation? ha.e t5iste1 more min1s than all the superstition priorG )et through all the 1eliberate con3usion an1 ob3uscation> the threa1 o3 reason has 1e.elope1 3ibers o3 resistance to be 5o.en into the rope o3 e2ecution 3or the State8 Libertarianism.

USS Enterprise Lab
"0 Libertarianism
'i%ertarianis
&$$ &ns(ers

USS Enterprise Lab
"1 Libertarianism
/o link govern ent services ! consu er "esires

Despite coercion> go.ernment ser.ices are 3or actual public 1esires
Aicks '0 (John R% (ic s, ?obel "riCe in Economic #ciences% Three *acred Co%s of
+conomics (?ew ]or 0 *arnes and ?oble, 5.4-=, p% 87% = E# I can see no alternati.e but to assume that the public ser.ices are 5orth to societ) in general at least 5hat the) cost%%%% Kne ma' feel considerable @ualms about such an assumptionJit is ob.ious that the go.ernment spen1s 3ar too much on this> 3ar too little on that8 but i3 5e accept the actual choices o3 the in1i.i1ual consumer as re3lecting his pre3erences... then I 1o not see that 5e ha.e an) choice but to accept the actual choices o3 the go.ernment> e.en i3 the) are e2presse1 through a ;ero or a Eobespierre> as representing the actual 5ants o3 societ).

USS Enterprise Lab
"2 Libertarianism
0er + "o %oth li%ertarian co
unis
(1/2)
<erm8 1o both sol.es + Krance pro.es that libertarian communism becomes a 1i.erse mo.ement that 5orks together to spark re.olutions an1 engage in sociopolitical acti.ism.
Ierr) ( (&a$id, #enior Aecturer in European #tudies in the &epartment of "olitics, (istor',
and International Relations at Aoughborough )ni$ersit', interdisciplinar' masters in French studies at #usse>, "h%&% in "hilosoph' in French Aabour #tudies at #usse>, Journal of Contemporar' European #tudies, Change the ,orld ,ithout Ta$ing Po%er- The Libertarian Communist Tradition in #rance Today, Dpril ,--9, /olume 5: Issue 5 6 http0++web%ebscohost%com+ehost+pdf$iewer+pdf$iewer1sid2,ff7b.4:63.:-67d:569.7e6 3,a-ab,8b:94;7-sessionmgr7<$id2,<hid259, #"= In ,--, the left6wing journal Contretemps organiCed a conference in "aris on the theme0 UChange the world without ta ing power1 ?ew libertarians, new communistsQ (Corcuff < Aow', ,--3a=%5 7he starting point 5as not Hust the cohabitation o3 Jar2ists an1 anarchists in the present,1a) Nalterglobalisation6 or anti,capitalist mo.ement> but also the 3act that the) seem to some e2tent to be e2erting a mutual in3luence o.er each other an1 that numerous thematic cross,o.ers are 1iscernible. Ehe most prominent e>amples cited (Corcuff < Aow', ,--3b= are associated with different forms of autonomist Mar>ism (the $ariant of Mar>ism most often regarded as being closest to anarchism=0 the Zapatistas, (ollowa'Qs (,--8a= ideas on Uchanging the world without ta ing powerQ and the notion of Ucounter6powerQ or Uanti6powerQ discussed in different wa's b' (ollowa', (ardt < ?egri (,---= and *ensa'ag < #Ctulwar (,---=%, 7he e1itors o3 Bontretemps share the Bohn,Ien1it brothers6 impatience 5ith those 5ho 15ell on the N3alse an1 uninteresting con3lict6 bet5een Jar2 an1 Iakunin (and their heirs= (Cohn6*endit < Cohn6*endit, 5.:9, p% 59= an1 e2press the 5ish to go be)on1 it> looking back on the Kirst International not> as most historians ha.e 1one> as an e2ample o3 con3lict bet5een the t5o 1ominant currents in Fest European labour mo.ements but as a positi.e e2ample o3 3ruit3ul cooperation8 D democratic, multiple, di$erse, internationalist mo$ement, where distinct if not opposed political options came together in a process of reflection and action o$er a period of se$eral 'ears, pla'ing a d'namic role in the first great modern proletarian re$olution% Dn International where libertarians and mar>ists were ableJdespite conflictsJto wor together and to ta e part in joint actions% (Corcuff < Aow', ,--3b, p% .=%
[*err' 9 continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
"% Libertarianism
0er + "o %oth li%ertarian co

[*err' 9 continued!
unis
(2/2)
7he 3ocus o3 this article is thus 5hat has come to be kno5n as the Nlibertarian communist6 tra1ition in Krance> an1 in particular the organization N4lternati.e Libertaire6 4L#. Dn introductor' section traces the historical de$elopment of this ideological current and argues that in France it has two roots0 firstl', a tendenc' within the historic anarchist mo$ement which attempted to sha e off the negati$e stereot'pes associated with anarchismI secondl', $arious post6war, critical or non6Aeninist Mar>ist groups and indi$iduals (notabl' &aniel Fuerin= who were tr'ing to grapple with the percei$ed ideological and political shortcomings of classical Mar>ism% 7he paper looks at the con3luence o3 these t5o tra1itions 1uring the 1*'0s an1 1*(0s an1 the creation in 1**1 o3 4L. Aa.ing establishe1 the i1eological nature an1 strategic aims o3 4L an1 1etermine1 5hat 1istinguishes it 3rom other anarchisms an1 socialisms> the paper e2amines the group6s in.ol.ement since its creation in Nthe social mo.ement6 (i%e% the plethora of new social mo$ements and single issue campaigns of $arious inds as well as trade union organiCations, especiall' #olidaire, )nitaire, &emocrati@ue (#)&=% In attempting to ans5er the three =uestions raise1 abo.e the paper anal)ses 4L6s conception o3 Nre.olution6 in the 21st centur) (one which rejects both the insurrectionar' m'ths of the past and the slide into social democratic reformism= an1 4L6s claims that Ulibertarian communismQ offers an original ideological framewor and a distincti$e approach to sociopolitical acti$ism%

USS Enterprise Lab
"$ Libertarianism
/o link/i pact li%ertarian intellectuals "isagree

7he negati.e6s representation o3 Libertarianism is not all,encompassing + libertarian intellectuals 1isagree.
Keser 2000 (E&GDR& Dssociate "rofessor of "hilosoph' at "asadena Cit' College% Ehe
Independent Re$iew, $%/, n%, Ta ation, #orced Labor, and Theft, pp% ,5.R,38 Fall ,---= E# 7he inHustice o3 ta2ationJof ta>ation per se, not merel' of this or that particular ta> polic' or of especiall' high le$els of ta>ationJis a 3amiliar theme o3 popular libertarian rhetoric. Curiousl', it is less e.i1ent in the more sophisticated statements of libertarianism emanating from libertarian political philosophers an1 economists> who tend to base their arguments on appeals to more abstruse considerations of utilit' ma>imiCation, rights theor', and the li e% Eo be sure, a criti=ue o3 current ta2 policies> perhaps e.en o3 most ta2ation as such> ma) o3ten 3ollo5 3rom some o3 those more 3un1amental consi1erationsG but e.en so> the connection o3ten has the appearance o3 an a3terthought> something to be passed o$er @uic l' on the wa' to treating more pressing matters% Lne simpl) 1oes not 3in1 man) libertarian intellectualsJcertainl' not man' libertarian academicsJinsisting that the institution o3 ta2ation that sustains the Le.iathan state the) oppose is clearl) an1 3un1amentall) illegitimate8 illegitimate not merel' as currentl' administered, nor onl' for reasons that are inconclusi$e and in an' case highl' deri$ati$e from other considerations onl' slightl' less inconclusi$eI but illegitimate 3or reasons that 1o not re=uire a great 1eal o3 argumentation an1 are 1i33icult in goo1 3aith to a.oi1 recognizingJillegitimate for the same sorts of reasons that sla$er' is illegitimate%

USS Enterprise Lab
"" Libertarianism
1 pact turn li%ertarianis
%a" a(eso e car" (1/4)
Libertarianism repro1uces its o5n errors in the guise o3 political re.olution + it kills the econom)> it 1oesn6t create -3ree1om o3 choice/> it stops social goo1s> it homogenizes people rather than embracing 1i33erence> it 1oesn6t stop ta2ation> an1 it 1ehumanizes the subHects o3 the nation. 7he onl) 5a) to sol.e is to mo.e a5a) 3rom the apolitical s)stem it pro1uces + ;e5 Qealan1 pro.es.
Kelse) ** (Jane, Dssociate "rofessor of Aaw, Ehe )ni$ersit' of Duc land, ?ew Zealand, Ne%
.ealand /e !eriment/ a colossal failure, Jul' . 5..., http0++www%con$erge%org%nC+pma+apfail%htm, #"= ;e5 Qealan1 used to claim credit for being the birthplace of the welfare state, for being the first countr' to gi$e women the $ote, and for building a harmonious multi6racial societ'% Eoda', howe$er, it is becoming in3amous 3or 5hat is kno5n as the ?;e5 Qealan1 e2periment.? Economic theories 5hich ha1 ne.er been trie1> let alone pro.e1> an)5here else in the 5orl1 became ;e5 Qealan1 go.ernment polic),,3irst at the han1s o3 a Labour go.ernment 3rom 1*($ to 1**0> an1 then continue1 5ith e=ual> i3 not greater> 3er.or b) its ;ational go.ernment successor. 7he ?3un1amentals?,,market liberalization an1 3ree tra1e> limite1 go.ernment> a narro5 monetarist polic)> a 1eregulate1 labour market> an1 3iscal restraint,,5ere taken as ?gi.en>? base1 on common sense an1 be)on1 challenge. 7hese ra1ical policies 5ere s)stematicall) embe11e1 against change. Ehis was a classic structural adjustment program of the ind traditionall' imposed on poorer countries of the Ehird Gorld b' the International Monetar' Fund and the Gorld *an % ;e5 Qealan1 1i1 it .oluntaril). 7he result is being promote1 in ;e5 Qealan1 an1 o.erseas as a mo1el 3or the 1e.elope1 countries o3 the LEBD. Iut those go.ernments an1 their peoples nee1 to look be)on1 the ?goo1 ne5s machine? an1 learn the real lessons o3 our last ten )ears. Ehe economic deficit 7his 5as no success stor). Kor most o3 the 1eca1e ;e5 Qealan1@s econom) has 3ace1 stagnation or recession. Iet5een 1*(" an1 1**2> LEBD economies gre5 b) an a.erage 20R> 5hile ;e5 Qealan1@s econom) shrank b) 1R o.er the same perio1. Kther objecti$e indicators show that, between 5.97 and 5..3, pro1ucti.it) gro5th a.erage1 aroun1 0.*R a )ear> 1ue mainl) to labour cutbacks. In3lation a.erage1 aroun1 *R a )ear. Eeal interest rates remaine1 e2cessi.el) high. Unemplo)ment rose to unprece1ente1 le.els. ;et migration 3lo5s 5ere negati.e. Koreign 1ebt =ua1ruple1. ;e5 Qealan1@s cre1it rating 5as 1o5ngra1e1 t5ice. In.estment as a percentage o3 GD< hal.e1> an1 spen1ing on research an1 1e.elopment 3ell to hal3 the LEBD a.erage. Ghen ?ew Zealand finall' showed some signs of economic growth in 5..3, its ?turnaroun1 econom)? became the toast o3 the global economic communit). Oet three )ears into this much,heral1e1 reco.er)> some o3 the ke) in1icators> such as public 1ebt> are Hust returning to their pre,1*($ le.els.
[Selse' .. continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
"& Libertarianism

[Selse' .. continued!
Kthers, such as unemplo'ment, are nowhere near that% Bontrol o3 the countr)@s .ital 3inancial> energ)> transport an1 communications in3rastructure> an1 much o3 its natural resource base> is no5 in 3oreign or transnational han1s. Fhile in1icators like in3lation an1 bu1get balance ha.e impro.e1> man) commentators belie.e the countr) is signi3icantl) 5orse o33 than it 5oul1 ha.e been un1er a 1i33erent economic approach. Joreo.er> a sustainable econom) is 3ar 3rom guarantee1. In late 5..8, there were signs that the econom' was wea ening once more. Mob gro5th has slo5e1> real 5ages continue to 3all> the balance o3 pa)ments 1e3icit has gro5n> an1 economic gro5th has been 3orce1 back 1o5n to bring ?un1erl)ing? in3lation 5ithin the Eser.e Iank@s goal. Ehe social deficit Fhate.er the economic outcomes> the countr) an1 man) o3 its people are a great 1eal 5orse o33. Unemplo)ment an1 po.ert) ha.e become structural 3eatures o3 ;e5 Qealan1 li3e% Ehe Aabour go$ernment was responsible for the earl' decline, with rising unemplo'ment, failure to eep benefit and famil' assistance in line with inflation, and fa$ourable ta> treatment for the rich at the e>pense of the poor% Its ;ational successor 3uelle1 unemplo)ment an1 1eregulate1 the labour market to 3orce 5age rates 1o5n. It slashe1 bene3it le.els an1 tightene1 eligibilit) criteria> impose1 ne5 user charges> an1 suspen1e1 in3lation, in1e2ing 3or 3amil) assistance an1 income support. Ehere is no doubt that po.ert) an1 ine=ualit) ha.e increase1% Ehe number of ?ew Zealanders estimated to be li$ing in po$ert' grew b' at least 38; between 5.9. and 5..,, so that, b' 5..3, one in si> ?ew Zealanders was considered to be li$ing in po$ert'% E.en i3 unemplo)ment returns to the le.el o3 the mi1, 1*(0s,,still .er) high b) ;e5 Qealan1@s historical stan1ar1s,,po.ert) an1 har1ship are e2pecte1 to remain about the same% Ehis doesnHt seem to concern the go$ernment% Cabinet Minister *ill *irch admitted that income disparities Bare widening, and the' will widen much more% Ehat doesnHt worr' me%B ;e5 Qealan1 is no5 a 1eepl) 1i.i1e1 societ). Aun1re1s o3 thousan1s o3 in1i.i1uals> their 3amilies an1 communities ha.e en1ure1 a 1eca1e o3 unrelenting har1ship. 7he bur1en 3ell most hea.il) on those 5ho alrea1) ha1 the least8 the Maori, the poor, the sic , women with children, and the unemplo'ed% 7heir ?3ree1om o3 choice? 5as 5hether to use their scarce resources to bu) housing> health an1 e1ucation> or other essentials such as 3oo1,,an1 5hich o3 these essentials to go 5ithout. 7he go.ernment an1 its a33luent supporters talke1 constantl) o3 the nee1 3or stabilit),,but al5a)s in terms o3 the econom)> ne.er o3 people@s li.es. 7he strain o3 constant change 3ostere1 uncertaint) an1 insecurit)> an1 ma1e it impossible 3or people to plan ahea1. ?Labour market 3le2ibilit)? meant going to be1 not kno5ing i3 )ou 5oul1 ha.e a Hob the ne2t 1a). ?<rice stabilit)? meant su11en hikes in )our interest on mortgages an1 loans> an1 suppression o3 gro5th b) the Eeser.e Iank (the countr'Hs central ban =%
[Selse' .. continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
"' Libertarianism

?Kiscal responsibilit)? meant continual cuts in income support> bene3its an1 social ser.ices. <ri.atize1 state ser.ices meant ha.ing to choose 5hich essential ser.ice to keep> 5ith no one being hel1 to account. Bonstant polic) 3ailure meant re.isions an1 re.ersals as ne5 .ersions o3 the e2periment trie1 to reme1) the 1isasters o3 the ol1. In this decade of greed, talk o3 ?short,term pain 3or long,term gain? meant pain 3or the poor to achie.e gain 3or the rich. Social polic) no longer promote1 the right o3 people to participate in an1 belong to their communit). It promise1 instea1 to ?maintain in1i.i1uals in the 1ail) essentials o3 3oo1> clothing an1 housing at a 1ecent le.el.B *' the mid65..-s, howe$er, the go$ernment was no longer pro$iding e$en these minimum benefits for man' citiCens% 7he .ictims o3 the market 5ere 3orce1 to 1epen1 on a shrinking 5el3are sa3et) net or on pri.ate charit). Fhat 5ere once basic priorities,,collecti.e responsibilit)> re1istribution o3 resources an1 po5er> social stabilit)> 1emocratic participation> an1 the belie3 that human beings 5ere entitle1 to li.e an1 5ork in securit) an1 1ignit),,seeme1 to ha.e been le3t 3ar behin1. <o.ert)> 1i.ision an1 alienation ha1 become permanent 3eatures o3 ;e5 Qealan1@s social lan1scape. Ehe political deficit 7he political .er1ict 5as e=uall) 1amning. Jost .oters 3elt paral)ze1 b) the pace o3 change> con3use1 b) the Labour go.ernment@s role a3ter 1*($> an1 trappe1 in nostalgia 3or an inter.entionist 5el3are state 5hich 5as 1isappearing be3ore their e)es. Fhile the) 3elt uneas)> most remaine1 isolate1> insecure> unorganize1> an1 politicall) inert. Britics o3 the right,5ing ?e2periment? 5ere 1ismisse1 as 1inosaurs or .este1 interest lobb) groups tr)ing to protect their o5n interests. 7oo o3ten the me1ia aban1one1 their in.estigati.e role an1 became se1uce1 b) the market h)pe. Meanwhile, the Bchange agentsB stac ed the dec with fellow6tra$ellers who would defend the new regime against all challenges and criti@ues% <olitical choice thus became increasingl) sterile. Dside from labour mar et deregulation and more o$ert attac s on the welfare state, structural a1Hustment 3ollo5e1 the same neo,liberal course 5hiche.er part) 5as in po5er. Ehe fortunes of both the Aabour and ?ational parties see6sawed throughout the decade% Depri.e1 o3 real political choice> a maHorit) .ote1 the electoral s)stem 1o5n an1 opte1 3or MM" (a form of proportional representation#. Jan) assume1 it 5oul1 make the political s)stem more accountable an1 representati.e> an1 5oul1 ser.e to mo1erate> i3 not re.erse> the pace o3 change. Iut their e2pectations 5ere in3late1. I) 1**"> it appeare1 that the) coul1 e2pect more o3 the same. Ehe cultural deficit Fithin a 1eca1e> the countr) an1 the li.es o3 its people 5ere turne1 upsi1e 1o5n. 7his right,5ing re.olution,,bloo1less> but 1e.astating 3or those 5ho became its .ictims,,ha1 been prosecute1 in the name o3 ?the nation as a 5hole.? Bonstant re3erences to national 5ealth> national 5ell,being> an1 national sel3, interest sought to submerge 1eep ine=ualities into an amorphous 5hole. [Selse' .. continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
"( Libertarianism

Dlong the wa', the nation in 5hose name the e2periment 5as carrie1 out 5as irre.ersibl) change1> raising .ital concerns about i1entit)> so.ereignt)> an1 3oreign control. 7he ethos o3 the market per.a1e1 e.er)1a) li3e. E.en the language 5as capture1> 1ehumanizing the people an1 communities it a33ecte1. It became acceptable to talk o3 ?she11ing 5orkers>? as i3 the) 5ere so much 1ea1 skin. ?Incenti.es? meant cutting bene3its to 3orce people into lo5,pa)ing Hobs. ?Iroa1ening the ta2 base? meant shi3ting the ta2 bur1en 3rom the rich to the poor. ?Freeing up the mar etB meant remo$ing all impediments to profit6ma ing% ?Deinstitutionalization? meant closing state institutions an1 shi3ting responsibilit) 3or their occupants to poor 3amilies an1 communities. ?4n open econom)? meant 5elcoming 3oreign purchasers o3 the countr)@s assets an1 resources. BInternational competiti$enessB meant competing with countries whose economies are based on prison and child labour, grinding po$ert', and en$ironmental degradation% Ehere are alternati$es Ehe message is $er' clear0 E.en i3 the ;e5 Qealan1 econom) has sho5n signs o3 reco.ering> man) o3 the people ha.e not. Oet the ;e5 Qealan1 e2periment is no5 being haile1 b) the Forl1 Iank> the LEBD> an1 other like,min1e1 guar1ians o3 the global econom) as a ?success stor)? an1 a mo1el 3or the rest o3 the 5orl1. Fhat the) are reall) applau1ing> ho5e.er> is the unimpe1e1 imposition o3 an i1eological mo1el to 5hich the) a1here,,regar1less o3 its social an1 economic conse=uences. Few would disagree that ?ew ZealandHs econom' in 5.97 needed attention% 7he claim that ?there 5as no alternati.e? to the right,5ing re.olution has> b) sheer repetition> become accepte1 truth. Iut in 3act this 5as not the onl) option a.ailable to the ;e5 Qealan1 go.ernment. It 5as simpl) the onl) option that ha1 been concei.e1 an1 promote1 at the time,,the option that enHo)e1 the patronage o3 the political> bureaucratic an1 business elites. 7hose responsible 5ere 1etermine1 to initiate an1 entrench the ?right? policies> not to secure sociall) acceptable outcomes. Dccording to their theories, the two would ultimatel' coincide% In the process, the) rationalize1 the costs to in1i.i1uals> 3amilies an1 communities as ine.itable an1 short,term. 7he) Husti3ie1 anti,1emocratic practices an1 the pri.atization o3 po5er as being ?in the national goo1.? 7he) ignore1 the gap bet5een pre.ailing social .alues an1 those 5hich the) 1ogmaticall) pursue1. 7he) aban1one1 the commitment to sustaining a communit) that cares an1 shares. Ehe' are now beginning to reap the conse@uences as increasing numbers of $ictims, especiall' Maori, fight bac % D decade into this e>periment, it is a 3ruitless e2ercise to speculate on ?5hat might ha.e been.? It is an historical an1 irre.ersible 3act that the structural a1Hustment program 5as impose1 b) 1e3ault. ;e5 Qealan1ers 3eel the) are losing control o3 their i1entit)> their econom)> their countr)> e.en their li.es. Ehe' now face the @uestion of where realisticall' to mo$e from here% 7he) still ha.e channels 3or inno.ation an1 struggle. 7he) still ha.e a choice. 7he) can 3all into line an1 remain .ictims o3 the global market 5ithin a 1i.i1e1 an1 polarize1 societ)G or the) can seek out ne5 i1entities> ne5 economic strategies> an1 ne5 3orms o3 politics that 5ill respon1 creati.el) to a rapi1l) changing 5orl1. )ltimatel', the people of ?ew Zealand ha$e to decide what ind of societ' the' wish to li$e in, and wor together to create it% In the meantime, other countries, go$ernments and peoples 5ho are being tol1 that the) too ha.e no alternati.e to the corporate agen1a shoul1 learn 3rom ;e5 Qealan1@s tragic mistake.

USS Enterprise Lab
"* Libertarianism
1 pact turn ta#ation is goo" (1/2)

7a2ing isn6t e.il> 1oesn6t a33ect people massi.el) an1 is actuall) prett) 3reaking a5esome.
Aarriss in '$% (C% Aowell, "rof% economics N Columbia, Ehe Dmerican Journal of Economics
and #ociolog', Pro!erty ta ation: ,hat's Good and ,hat's 0ad about it, Jan 5.47, http0++www%jstor%org+stable+pdfplus+379887:%pdf, &E= 5% Siabilit) o3 Local Go.ernment% Ehe ta2 no5 helps to 3inance local acti.it)> enough to make local go.ernment as meaning3ul an1 as .iable as it remains. Bities> to5ns> counties> an1 school 1istricts 1o at times 3ail to meet our aspirations 3or goo1 go.ernment. 4n1 state an1 national go.ernment are also less than per3ectG so is the 5orl1 o3 business an1 o3 non,pro3it organizations. Ie realit) as it ma)> the use o3 localities> as 1istinguishe1 3rom state an1 nation> to get some of the things 5e e2pect 3rom collecti$e (go.ernmental, political= action has merit% "ropert' ta2ation o33ers people in 1i33erent localities an instrument b) 5hich the) can make trul) local choices signi3icant. <eople in one localit) are not 3orestalle1> ine2orabl)> b) the 1ecisions o3 .oters else5here. Fho among us 5oul1 5ant to limit his chil1ren to a le.el o3 e1ucation 5hich might satis3), sa'> a maHorit) o3 .oters in a state1 Ehis ta2 helps to pro.i1e 3ree1om an1 opportunit) to 1o things 1i33erentl),not to be hel1 1o5n to a le.el set b) others 5ho ma) li.e in areas 5hich are =uite 1i33erent% 2. Soter In3luence on Ais 7a2es,an1 Go.ernment Spen1ing. Either an increase in assesse1 .aluation or a boost in the ta2 rate re=uires a positi.e act% #uch ta>6raising action can lead to more $oter resistance than will an automatic rise in income ta> from established rates which appl' to growing income% Soters ha.e an opportunit) to relate a= bu1get proposals 5hich 5ill re=uire higher ta2es, b= to the 1esirabilit) of more go$ernment spending% Is not the abilit' to reject more spending and ta>es a desirable element of Bthe good societ'1B %. Iene3it an1 Mustice. 7he e=uit) 5hich 5e seek in public 3inance consists o3 .arious 3orms. Lne 3eature associates costs 5ith bene3its (in the ma ing of decisions and in the results=% Kairness of this t'pe is e.i1ent as propert) ta2ation 1oes a1Hust the pa)ments 3or 1i33erent =uantities o3 ser.ices 3rom one communit) to another to local bur1ens. Generall)> the localities in 5hich bur1ens are highest are those pro.i1ing resi1ents the most ser.ices. (ere is an element of justice in a basic sense, a @uid pro @uo% Githin communities the relation of benefits recei$ed per famil' to ta> paid will be crude% Families with relati$el' large propert' holdings pa' more ta> than others who get e@ual ser$ices% ]et the intercommunit' aspect commands respect%
[(arriss 47 continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
&0 Libertarianism
1 pact turn ta#ation is goo" (2/2)
[(arriss 47 continued!
$. Kairness,Capturing #ome o3 Sociall' Created Salues0 B)nearned Increments%? Sociall) create1 increments in propert) .alues are sometimes substantial. 7he propert) ta2 can capture a portion 3or 3inancing go.ernment. Bonsi1erable propert) .alue increases (abo$e general inflation= ha$e appeared in the last two decades% ;ation5i1e> lan1 prices ha.e probabl) risen b) at least hal3 a trillion 1ollars in 20 )ears or so. In m) .ie5> more o3 the increment 5oul1 better ha.e gone to local go.ernment treasuries. <ropert) ta2ation coul1 capture more o3 .alues 1ue a# to social gro5th an1 b# local go.ernment spen1ing 3or 3inancing local ser.ices. Is this not almost the epitome o3 3airness in ta2ationD I shall sa) more about this potential,one 5hich makes propert) ta2ation the .er) opposite o3 the customar) assertion that it is the most un3air ta2. Eo some e>tent, I submit, it can be a Bmost fairB ta>% 8% E@uit'6?ew Measures (BCircuit *rea ersB= to Relie$e (#ome of= the "oor% Gith rapidit' unusual in ta> polic', states ha$e enacted pro$isions for granting propert' ta> relief for the aged poor and some other groups% E>perience indicates that this one defect can be largel' eliminated without undue loss of re$enue% I sa' more latel' about this widel' acclaimed de6 $ice for impro$ing the e@uit' of propert' ta>ation% :% Goo1 Eesults o3 4ge. ?4n ol1 ta2 is a goo1 ta2?I this is an ancient pro$erb, and it is not completel' true, of course% ?e$ertheless, propert) ta2ation has 5orke1 its 5a) through the econom)> especiall) the portion represente1 b) rates other than the most recent increases. Some elements ha.e been capitalize1> an1 other a1Hustments ha.e been ma1e as o5ners an1 users ha.e taken the ta2 into account. Ine=ualities an1 cru1ities lose some o3 their sting as men a1Hust o.er the )ears% .5 ., the Dmerican Journal of Economics and #ociolog' 4% #ome of the 7a2 is ;o Eeal Iur1en% "art of the ta2 is no current bur1en on the present o5ner or user. In man) communities probabl' 1" to 20 per cent o3 the propert) ta2 represents a# ta2 on lan1 .alues b# at rates 5hich ha.e e2iste1 3or such a long time that most present o5ners allo5e1 3or it in the price the) pai1. 7he annual pa)ment o3 this portion constitutes no true bur1en on the user. <art o3 5hat the o5ner pa)s o.er to the local treasur) each )ear 1oes not reall) lea.e him 5orse o33> compare1 5ith 5hat 5oul1 ha.e been his situation i3 the ta2 ha1 not applie1 5hen he bought the propert)

USS Enterprise Lab
&1 Libertarianism
1 pact turn only govern ent can provi"e social goo"s

7he Libertarian obsession 5ith pri.atization Husti3ies ri1iculous o5nership> onl) go.ernment control sol.es
<artri1ge 0$ Ernest Research Dssociate in "hilosoph' at the )ni$ersit' of California,

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% 7he libertarian@s error resi1es in their proposal that pri.atization> which is clearl' the correct solution for some commons problems> is to be prescribe1 3or all commons problems. Ai e MaslowHs carpenter> libertarians belie.e that all commons problems can be 3i2e1 5ith the ?hammer? o3 pri.atization. 4ccor1ingl)> the) propose the abolition o3 all national parks> an1 the pri.atization o3 all public lan1s an1 utilities> inclu1ing roa1s an1 airports ,6 e$er'thing, that is, e>cept the militar', the police and the courts% <resumabl)> this means that such uni.ersal ?commonses? as the atmosphere an1 the oceans are to be car.e1 up an1 sol1 to the highest bi11er. ;ot e.en 5il1li3e is to be allo5e1 to remain 3ree an1 uno5ne1. Is this an unfair caricature of the libertarian position1 Consider the argument of Robert J% #mith who suggests that the absence of pri$atiCation e>plains Bwh' the buffalo nearl' $anished, but not the (erefordI %%% wh' the common salmon fisheries of the )nited #tates are o$erfished, but not the pri$ate salmon streams of Europe%B (3,= (is solution1 BGe should e>plore the possibilities of e>tending ownership of nati$e game animals and wildlife to propert' owners%B (74=% Critics of libertarianism find no end of amusement pointing out the inade@uacies of the libertariansH Bhammer%B Ao5> for e>ample, are 5e to ?pri.atize? the 5haling in1ustr)D Dre we to BbrandB the whales, to $alidate the ownership of each1 Dnd what if Bm' whaleB feeds on B'our rill,P which 'ou purchased (from whom1= to feed B'our whalesP1 Ghat courts must we set up to assess damages1 Ghat agenc' will be set up to collect the facts germane to the case, and how is it to be financed1 Furthermore> the pri.atization o3 oceanic resources suggests that ?territories? o3 ocean 5ill ha.e to be establishe1, which means the end of the centuries6old con$ention of non6so$ereignt' of the seas% Ghat countr' will be the first to claim the ?orth Dtlantic, along with the Fulf #tream1 If the )nited #tates, will Freat *ritain and #candina$ia then ha$e to pa' the )# for the use of the Fulf #treamHs climatic ser$ices1 Fill the nations o3 the 5orl1 acce1e to this ?sea grab? 5ithout protestD 7he militar) implications are a5esome. If we pri$atiCe wildlife, then will the owner of the wild insects that pollinate m' orchard be entitled to charge me for this ser$ice1 If someoneHs floc of migrating birds soils m' clothing or pollutes m' swimming pool, how am I to locate the responsible owner1 Ehe mind boggles% Ehere is worse to come8 can 5e concei.abl) ?pri.atize? the atmosphere> and with it the h'drological c'cleD I3 so> then 5ho is liable 3or El ;ino or Aurricane KatrinaD I3 I o5n a ?piece? o3 the atmosphere> is this a 1e3ine1 space> or is it the migrating clou1s an1 molecules 5ithin. Ao5 is the ?o5ner? to make his claimD Eotal pri.atization of the earth is a 3antas) ,, a reductio ad absurdum, charitabl' supplie1 to the critics b) the libertarians themsel.es. Ehe atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological ser$ices both nown and undisco$ered, are now and will fore$er be the Bcommon propert'B of man ind, not to mention the other species of the earth% Dnd since Bpri$atiCationB of land and resources can ne$er be the total and final solution to the commons problem, there remains the libertariansH alternati$e proposal0 legal compensation for in$asion of propert'% If that is found to fail, then go$ernmental regulation, endorsed b' the liberals and detested b' the libertarians, ma' be the onl' remaining solution to Bthe traged' of the commons%B

USS Enterprise Lab
&2 Libertarianism
%a"/govern ent goo" (1/2)
Libertarianism repro1uces the errors that it seeks to sol.e + it increases crime> 1isrupts the econom)> gi.es the 5ealth) more mone)> an1 creates unemplo)ment + onl) the go.ernment can sol.e the social goo1s 1epri.e1 through the alternati.e6s blin1 i1eological commitment + ;e5 Qealan1 econom) pro.es.
Dobbin 00 (Murra', author and writer based in /ancou$er, Ehe ?ational "ost, Ne% .ealand's
(aunted Pri"ati1ation Push 2e"astated Their Country, 3ather Than *a"ing It, Dugust 58 ,---, http0++www%commondreams%org+$iews+-958--65-:%htm, #"= It has been so long since an)one in the business press has praise1 the ;e5 Qealan1 ?miracle>? it@s almost as i3 5e imagine1 the 5hole thing. *ut, of course> the current silence is reall) no m)ster). 7he 1",)ear 3ree market e2periment has been an unmitigate1 1isaster. 7he su33ering cause1 among or1inar) ;e5 Qealan1ers is 5ell kno5n8 the highest )outh suici1e rate in the 1e.elope1 5orl1G the proli3eration o3 3oo1 banksG huge increases in .iolent an1 other crimeG the bankruptc) o3 hal3 the 3arms in the countr)G the economic 1isruption o3 hun1re1s o3 thousan1s o3 li.esG health care> e1ucation an1 other social ser.ices 1e.astate1 b) the ma1 marketplace scientists. *ut, of course, neo,liberal i1eologues 1on@t hol1 much truck 5ith the human conse=uences o3 their e2periments. So let@s e2amine those things the) 1o care about. 7he re.olutionaries promise1 to tear 1o5n the ?1ebt 5all>? unleash spectacular economic gro5th> spur 3oreign in.estment an1 pro1ucti.it)> create enormous ne5 5ealth an1 ne5 an1 better Hobs. 7he) 3aile1 on e.er) count. Instea1 o3 a bra.e ne5 econom)> the) 1eli.ere1 an economic .ersion o3 Krankenstein@s monster. 7he initial 5a.e o3 changes ,, 1eregulation> pri.atization> tari33 elimination ,, 5as Husti3ie1 b) the in3amous 1ebt crisis. 7his 5as a ruse all along% E$en #ir Roger &ouglas admitted this when I inter$iewed him in 5..,% 7he ?crisis? ;e5 Qealan1 3ace1 post,election in 1*($ 5as a currenc) crisis brought on b) Jr. Douglas himsel3. 4s 3or the 1ebt in 1*($> it 5as ;QT22,billion> but a3ter 10 )ears o3 e2perimenting> it ha1 1ouble1 to ;QT$",billion ,, in spite o3 the sell,o33 o3 ;QT1&,billion in state enterprises. Eoda', it has finall' returned to 5.97 le$els, but onl' through more Crown asset sales% 4n1 economic gro5thD In the )ears 1*(",*2> a.erage economic gro5th in the LEBD countries totalle1 20R> 5hile in ;e5 Qealan1 it 5as negati.e> at ,1R. 7he promise1 creation o3 enormous ne5 5ealth 5ent into re.erse8 Eeal GD< in 1**2> at "R> 5as belo5 the 1*(",(& le.el. 4 burst o3 gro5th from 5..3 to 5..8 petere1 out> an1 the econom) stea1il) 1ecline1 until it dipped into negati$e territor' in 5..9, posting the 3ourth,5orst gro5th in the LEBD. 7he trans3ormation o3 the econom) 5as suppose1 to spur 3oreign in.estment> but it mostl) meant a 3ee1ing 3renz) on 1omestic corporate assets% In 5..3, the proportion of F&" in in$estments was just 4-; of what it was in 5.97%
[&obbins ,--- continued on ne>t page!

USS Enterprise Lab
&% Libertarianism
%a"/govern ent goo" (2/2)
[&obbins ,--- continued!
7he restructuring o3 the econom) 3aile1 most 1ramaticall) on the unemplo)ment 3ront> an1 the countr) has ne.er manage1 to get back to an)5here near the 1*($ le.el o3 $R. 7he ?5orkless an1 5anting 5ork? 3igure peake1 at more than 1(R in 1**%. In 1***> that 3igure ha1 been reduced onl' to 55%,;% 7he ra1icals also promise1 increases in pro1ucti.it)> but again> the) 3aile1 to 1eli.er. 43ter eight )ears o3 restructuring an1 massi.e labour 1eregulation> ;e5 Qealan1@s pro1ucti.it) began a stea1) 1ecline in comparison 5ith its neighbour> 4ustralia. From 5.49 to 5..-, the rates had been similar% Ehe gap steadil' increased between 5..- and 5..9, with Dustralia posting a ,5%.; increase and ?ew Zealand just 8%,;% Lnl) the 5ealth) in ;e5 Qealan1 coul1 see an) bene3it 3rom this 1estructi.e e2ercise in social engineering. Iet5een 1*($ an1 1**&> the top 10R o3 income earners measurabl) increase1 their share o3 total income. 7he lo5est 10R lost 21.&R o3 their 1*($ income. Jore than "0R o3 the total 5orking population ha1 lo5er real income in 1**& than in 1*($. Ehere are lessons from ?ew Zealand, but the' do not in$ol$e adopting that tortured countr' as a model% 7he 3irst lesson is that the un3ettere1 application o3 i1eolog) is ine.itabl) 1estructi.e ,, not Hust to 1emocrac)> social peace an1 e=ualit) but to the econom). E.en as the re.olution continue1 to 1eli.er 1isastrous results> its promoters claime1 it 5as because it ha1 not gone 3ar enough. Ehe second lesson is that parliamentar) 1emocrac) 4nglo,Sa2on st)le has pro.en e2tremel) .ulnerable to the ra.ages o3 i1eolog). 4 .irtual e2ecuti.e 1ictatorship can implement policies that are ne.er e.en 1ebate1 1uring elections ,, as happene1 in ;e5 Qealan1 in 1*($. 7he onl) thing that stoppe1 the zealots 3rom going e.en 3urther 5as the intro1uction o3 proportional representation in the earl) 1**0s an1 the subse=uent election o3 minorit) go.ernments. Dnd that leads to the last lesson0 Globalization is not ine.itable> nor is it irre.ersible. 7he current ;e5 Qealan1 go.ernment (a coalition of a chastened Aabour part' and the left6wing Dlliance= is un3ortunatel) still committe1 to signing 3ree tra1e an1 in.estment agreements. Iut it is re.ersing man) o3 the most 1estructi.e policies. Inclu1e1 in this rethink are a re.ersal o3 the pri.atization o3 4cci1ent Bompensation InsuranceG an imme1iate rise in pensionsG a halt to the sale o3 public housing an1 a commitment to rebuil1ing the public housing stockG the appointment o3 a re.ie5 committee on electricit) pricingG the 3reezing o3 tari33s on clothing an1 3oot5earG an1 the re,recognition o3 unions. Ehe pit' is that ?ew Zealanders had to suffer through so much in the first place%

USS Enterprise Lab
&$ Libertarianism
1 pact turn coercion goo" key to survival an" general rights

Some go.ernment coercion can be necessar).
Fest> 10 (Ehomas, "rofessor of "olitics N )ni$ersit' of &allas,

9+3-,http0++www%heritage%org+Research+Reports+,-5-+-9+Ehe6Economic6"rinciples6of6Dmerica6s6 Founders6"ropert'6Rights6Free6Mar ets6and6#ound6Mone'= VEhis potential and sometimes actual conflict between natural rights was also ac nowledged during the Founding era% 7he propert) rights o3 the in1i.i1ual cannot al5a)s be respecte1 5hen the sur.i.al o3 the communit) is at stakeC3or e2ample> in a time o3 3oreign in.asion. In an 595- letter, Jefferson recalls e>amples of gra$e but necessar' go$ernment inroads on propert' rights during the Re$olutionar' Gar0 Ghen, in the battle of Fermantown, General Fashington6s arm) was anno'ed from ChewQs house, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, although the propert' of a citiCen% Ghen he besiege1 Oorkto5n> he le.ele1 the suburbs> 3eeling that the la5s o3 propert) must be postpone1 to the sa3et) o3 the nation.[5:!Gould the FoundersQ principles lead to the conclusion, then, that socialism or some other scheme of go$ernment redistribution of income could be the most just economic order1 Using go.ernment coercion to re1istribute propert) certainl) .iolates the natural right to possess propert)> but 5hat i3 this polic) is the best 5a) to enable e.er)one to e2ercise their right to ac=uire itD Foul1 that not be in greater con3ormit) 5ith natural right than the star.ation or 1epri.ation o3 the poorDU

USS Enterprise Lab
&" Libertarianism
causes plutocracy
Libertarianism creates a 3rame5ork o3 e2clusion 5here onl) the rich get to rule

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% 7he s)stem soun1s Hust 3ine 3or those 5ith a super,abun1ance o3 5ealth an1 po5er. Iut 5hat o3 all the others in societ)D ?ot to worr', sa' the libertarians% Citing Ddam #mith, the libertarian assures us that the enterprising entrepreneur who Bintends onl' his own gainB will, in the course of ma>imiCing his satisfactions, be Bled b' an in$isible hand to promote%%% the public interest%B (D% #mith, 7,3=% BEhe in$isible handB metaphor has familiar $ariants, such as Bthe rising tide that lifts all boatsB and Bthe tric le down effectB% (Ds noted abo$e, those who celebrate the Btric ling downB of wealth from the most to the least ad$antaged, seem disinclined to notice that wealth also Bpercolates upB from the labor of the less ad$antaged, and from public adherence to a Bwell orderedB s'stem of justice=% *' in$o ing, through Bthe in$isible handB and Bthe rising tide,B the ad$antage to all which accrues from the self6moti$ated search for pri$ate wealth b' each, the libertarian con$enientl' (if temporaril' and inconsistentl'= puts asi1e his ?social atomism? in 3a.or o3 an a1 hoc theor) o3 an integrate1 s)stem o3 societ). In response to Milton FriedmanHs celebration of the Bfreedom to choose,B one is immediatel' led to as 0 Bfreedom of whom to HchooseH 66 and at whose e>pense1B Gi.en the libertarian@s uncompromising fidelit' to propert' rights and his 3aith in the 3ree market> those 5ith propert) an1 5ith the 5ealth to enter the market ha.e the ?3ree1om to choose>? in 1irect proportion to their 5ealth. Dnd at 5hose e2penseD <resumabl)> those 5ithout the tic ets (i%e%, cash# to enter the marketplace or to o5n propert). 7his 5oul1 inclu1e the .er) )oung> the .er) poor> other species> ecos)stems> an1 3uture generations.. 7hus it 5oul1 appear that the libertarian moralit) embraces the c)nic@s .ersion o3 ?the gol1en rule8? ?7hose 5ith the gol1> get to rule.?
Libertarianism onl) protects the 5ealth) an1 po5er3ul

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% 7hus libertarianism 1oes not =uali3) as a Hust s)stem 3or all members o3 societ). Ln the contrar)> as we noted abo$e, it is a ;ietzschean ?master moralit)>? re3lecting the pre3erences an1 protecting the interests o3 the 5ealth) an1 po5er3ul. Complaints against Bbig go$ernmentB and Bo$er6regulation,B though often justified, also issue from the pri$ileged who are frustrated at finding that their @uest for still greater pri$ileges at the e>pense of their communit' are curtailed b' a go$ernment which, ideall', represents that communit'% "ure food and drug laws curtail profits and mandate tests as the' protect the general public% Dnd en$ironmental protection regulations BinternaliCeB the costs of pollution, thus properl' burdening the corporations and their in$estors as a direct result of these regulations relie$ing the unconsenting public of the pre$iousl' e>ternaliCed costs% 7he libertarian trust in ?the 5is1om o3 the 3ree market? is like5ise attracti.e to the 5ealth) an1 po5er3ul> since one@s in.ol.ement 5ith markets 66 the libertariansH preferred instrument of social adaptation and change 66 is proportional to one@s access to cash. 7he Gol1en Eule , ?those 5ith the gol1 get to rule? , is one o3 the 3irst principles o3 both ?the master moralit)? an1 o3 libertarianism.

USS Enterprise Lab
&& Libertarianism
causes (o en oppression
Libertarian ethics ensures 5omen oppression an1 se2ual binaries8 ine.itable 1epen1ence
Kitta) *( (E$a Feder% "rofessor of "hilosoph' at #tate )ni$ersit' of ?ew ]or , #ton' *roo
Ao$eHs Aabor0 Essa's on Gomen, E@ualit' and &ependenc' Routledge &ecember 54, 5..9= Ehe dependenc' criti@ue [of e@ualit'! is a feminist criti@ue of e@ualit' that asserts0 4 conception o3 societ) $iewed as an association o3 e=uals masks ine.itable 1epen1encies> those o3 in3anc) an1 chil1hoo1> ol1 age> illness an1 1isabilit). Fhile 5e are 1epen1ent> 5e are not well6positioned to enter a competition for the goods of social cooperation on e=ual terms. 4n1 those 5ho care 3or 1epen1ents> who must put their own interests aside to care for one who is entirel' $ulnerable to their actions, enter the competition 3or social goo1s 5ith a han1icap. /iewed from the perspecti$e of the dependenc' criti@ue we can sa'0 Kf course women ha$e not achie$ed e@ualit' on menQs side of the se>ual di$ide [in the public world of paid wor and politics! for how could women abandon those the' lea$e behind on that side of the di$ide1 Eheir children and their elderl' parents, their ill spouse or friend1 (>i=
Fomen oppression is ine.itable in the 5orl1 o3 Libertarianism
;ussbaum 2000 (Martha C% Ernst Freund &istinguished #er$ice "rofessor of Aaw and
Ethics N )ni$ersit' of Chicago Ehe Future of Feminist Aiberalism "roceedings and Dddresses of the Dmerican "hilosophical Dssociation, /ol% 47, ?o% ,, pp% 7464. ?o$%, ,---= Li3e> of course, is not like that. Eeal people begin their li.es as helpless in3ants> an1 remain in a state o3 e2treme> as)mmetrical 1epen1enc)> both ph'sical and mental, for an'where from ten to twent' 'ears% 4t the other en1 o3 li3e, those who are luc ' enough to li$e on into ol1 age are likel) to encounter another perio1 o3 e2treme 1epen1enc), either ph'sical or mental or both, which ma' itself continue in some form for as much as twent' 'ears% &uring the middle 'ears of life, man' of us encounter periods of e>treme dependenc', some of which in$ol$e our mental powers and some our bodil' powers onl', but all of which ma' put us in need of dail', e$en hourl', care b' others% Kinall) an1 centrall) there are man) citizens 5ho ne$er ha$e the ph'sical and+or mental powers re@uisite for independence% Ehese citiCens are 1epen1ent in 1i33erent 5a)s. #ome ha$e high intellectual capabilities but are unable to gi$e and recei$e lo$e and friendshipI some are capable of lo$e, but unable to learn basic intellectual s ills% #ome ha$e substantial emotional and intellectual capabilities, but in a form or at a le$el that re@uires special care% 7hese li3elong states o3 as)mmetrical 1epen1enc) are in man) respects isomorphic to the states o3 in3ants an1 the el1erl). In short> an) real societ) is a caregi.ing an1 care,recei.ing societ)> an1 must there3ore 1isco.er 5a)s o3 coping 5ith these facts of human neediness and 1epen1enc) that are compatible with the self6respect of the recipients and do not e>ploit the caregi$ers% 7his is a central issue 3or 3eminism since, in e$er' part of the world, 5omen 1o a large part o3 this 5ork> usuall) 5ithout pa)> an1 o3ten 5ithout recognition that it is 5ork. 7he) are o3ten thereb) han1icappe1 in other 3unctions o3 li3e.@

USS Enterprise Lab
&' Libertarianism
can)t solve environ ent
Libertarianism can6t sol.e en.ironmental issues.
<artri1ge $ Ernest Research Dssociate in "hilosoph' at the )ni$ersit' of California,

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% Ehe ps'chologist, Dbraham Maslow, once remar ed that Bto a carpenter, all problems can be sol$ed with a hammer%B 7o the Libertarian, that BhammerB is Bthe 3ree marketB combined with in$iolable Bpropert' rights%B In particular, the Aibertarian is con$inced that this is the ?hammer? best 1esigne1 to sol.e the problems o3 pollution> o3 lan1 1egra1ation> an1 o3 resource allocation> both 5ithin an1 among generations. Mar et incenti$es combined with an uncompromising protection of personal propert' rights will, the libertarian belie$es, 'ield the optimum solutions to our en$ironmental problems% ;either theor)> nor practice> nor histor) 5ill support this claim. En.ironmental problems must be met 5ith a ?kit o3 tools? 6 a $ariet' of rules, practices and objecti$es% Ehus, while the 3ree market and propert' rights are appropriate solutions to some en$ironmental problems, the' surel' 5ill not su33ice 3or all.

USS Enterprise Lab
&( Libertarianism
1 pact turn govern ent goo"

7he libertarian i1eolog) is base1 o33 o3 short term 3rustration. Go.ernment actuall) helps the entiret) o3 the population

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% Ghen, 1uring a 3ootball game> a re3eree makes a call against the home team> the 3ans are o3ten hear1 to shout8 ?Kill the Ee3V? ,, 3orgetting> 3or that moment> that 5ithout re3erees> the game coul1 not continue. Similarl)> ?abolish go.ernment? is another cr) that issues 3rom 3rustration. Githout a doubt, go$ernments can be damned nuisances% 7he) re=uire us to pa) ta2es> o3ten 3or ser.ices that 1o not bene3it us or 3or bene3its 5hich 5e take 3or grante1. Fo$ernments tell us that we canHt build homes and factories on public lands, that we canHt throw jun into the air and ri$ers, that we canHt dri$e at an' speed we wish, and that we canHt sell medicines without first testing their safet' and efficac'% 4ll this curtails the 3ree1om an1 the 5ealth o3 some. Iut at the same time> such ?go.ernment inter3erence? promotes the 5el3are o3 the others8 o3 consumers> tra.elers> or1inar) citizens an1> )es> propert) o5ners. Interestingl', among the liberal democracies, the constraints of Bbig go$ernmentB tend to burden the wealth' and powerful, while those same constraints protect the poor and the wea , all of whom, in a just polit', are e@ual citiCens before the law%

USS Enterprise Lab
&* Libertarianism
/o i pact/alternative - li%ertarianis
$la(e" "epen"ency e#ists
7he libertarian proHect 3ails8 assumes e.er)bo1) is a rational an1 in1epen1ent actors
Daskal 10 (#te$e Dssistant "rofessor of "hilosoph' N ?orthern Illinois )ni$ersit'% #ocial

Eheor' < "ractice /ol% 3: Issue 5, p,5673, ,3p Aibertarianism Aeft and Right, the Aoc ean "ro$iso, and the Reformed Gelfare #tate% Jan,-5-= E# Critics of libertarianism ha$e raised objections against each of these central features of the libertarian framewor % Eo begin with, the reliance on state6of6nature theoriCing renders libertarianism subject to the criticism that it illegitimatel) treats people as 3ull) in1epen1ent, or atomistic, agents. In what has come to be called the -1epen1enc) criti=ue>P feminist philosophers such as Martha ?ussbaum ha$e argue1 that liberal theorists in general tend to ignore the 3act that as a normal part of the course of human li3e one e2periences perio1s o3 e2treme 1epen1enc)> most notabl) as an in3ant or chil1. 9 *ecause libertarian theories are built on the presupposition that we can gain insight into the obligations owed between actual people in the real world b' e$aluating the actions of fictional agents in a state of nature, libertarianism is a prime target of this dependenc' criti@ue, particularl) gi.en that libertarians uni3orml) imagine the 3ictional agents in the state o3 nature to start out 3ull) in1epen1ent 3rom one another. Ds ?ussbaum and other feminist critics see it, the libertarian proHect is essentiall) a nonstarter> because e$en if we could determine the obligations owed between agents who are initiall' construed to be completel' independent of one another, that 5oul1 tell us nothing about the obligations o5e1 bet5een actual people 5ho 1o not Hust happen to be born an1 raise1 in a 3un1amentall) social en.ironment but b) their nature must begin their li.es in such an en.ironment

USS Enterprise Lab
'0 Libertarianism
&lternative $ails li%ertarianis
! li%eralis
vague "e$initions
Libertarianism is no 1i33erent 3rom liberalist theories an1 liberalism is ke) to a 3unctioning societ)

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% 7he Libertarian ?minimalist state>? 1esigne1 to protect fundamental rights of ?li3e> libert) an1 propert)>? ma) not be all that @minimalist.@ Eo the libertarians, the onl' legitimate function of go$ernment is to protect life, libert' and propert' 66 which is to sa', the onl) legitimate public institutions are the militar)> the police> an1 the courts. Iut the boun1aries o3 e.en these 3unctions are not clearl) 1e3ine1> nor 1o the 3ull implications o3 these ?rights? en1 5here the libertarians might e2pect. Drguabl', the maintenance o3 ?ci.ic 3rien1ship? an1 the ?5ell or1ere1 societ)>? promote1 b) such liberal contractarian theorists as John Ea5ls> 3alls un1er the libertarian criteria% For it ma' be the case that Blife, libert' and propert',B can be secured onl' if societ' is Bwell6ordered,B and Bci$ic friendshipB obtainsI that is, when the critical mass of citiCens recogniCe their common sta e in a Bshared fate,B when, in a word, the' ha$e a well6founded lo'alt' to their contract6state% *ut such a societ) must be a communit) as 1escribe1 b) liberal theor)> an1 not the aggregate o3 ?utilit) ma2imizing egoists? en.isione1 b) the 3ree,market libertarians. 4gain> 5e ask> ho5 secure are ?li3e> libert) an1 propert)? in the 3aile1 communities o3 Iosnia an1 UlsterD

USS Enterprise Lab
'1 Libertarianism
&lternative $ails coercion inevita%le

Eestriction o3 3ree1om is ine.itable> e.en un1er libertarian ethics. Kreeing o3 sla.es pro.es.
LaKollette '* ((ugh, Chair in Ethics N )ni$ersit' of #outh Florida,

http0++www%hughlafollette%com+papers+libertar%htm, 5.76,-:= Bonse=uentl)> e.er)one@s li3e is not> gi.en the presence o3 negati.e general rights an1 negati.e general 1uties> 3ree 3rom the inter3erence o3 others. 7he ?mere? presence o3 others imposes 1uties on each o3 us> it limits e.er)one@s 3ree1om. In fact, these restrictions are fre@uentl' e>tensi$e% For e>ample, in the pre$iousl' described case I could ha$e all of the goods I wantedI I could ta e what I wanted, when I wanted% Eo sa' that such actions are morall' or legall' impermissible significantl' limits m' freedom, and m' Bhappiness,B without m' consent% Kf course I am not sa'ing these restrictions are bad% Kb$iousl' the' arenHt% *ut it does show that the libertarian fails to achie$e his major objecti$e, namel', to insure that an indi$idualHs freedom cannot be limited without his consent% Ehe libertarianHs own moral constraints limit each personHs freedom without consent%'7his is e.en more .i.i1l) seen 5hen 5e look at an actual historical occurrence. In the nineteenth centur) 4merican sla.ehol1ers 5ere 3inall) legall) coerce1 into 1oing 5hat the) 5ere alrea1) morall) re=uire1 to 1o8 3ree their sla.es% In man' cases this led to the sla$e ownersH financial and social ruin0 the' lost their farms, their mone', and their power% L3 course the) 1i1n@t agree to their personal ruinG the) 1i1n@t agree to this restriction on their 3ree1om. Morall' the' didnHt ha$e to consentI it was a remed' long o$erdue% E$en the libertarian would agree% 7he sla.e hol1ers@ 3ree1om 5as Husti3iabl) restricte1 b) the presence o3 other peopleG the 3act that there 5ere other persons limite1 their acceptable alter nati.es. Iut that is e2actl) 5hat the libertarian 1enies% Freedom, he claims, cannot be justifiabl' restricted without consent% In short, the difficult' in this0 the libertarian talks as i3 there can be no legitimate non,consensual limitations on 3ree1om> )et his .er) theor) in.ol.es Hust such limitations% ?ot onl' does this appear to be blatantl' inconsistent, but e$en if he could a$oid this inconsistenc', there appears to be no principled wa' in which he can justif' onl' his theor'Hs non6consensual limitations on freedom%

USS Enterprise Lab
'2 Libertarianism
&lternative $ails any resi"ual links revert the revolution

4lt 3ails8 4ll it takes is a 3e5 people 5ho pre3er statism to re.ert back
Manifesto, Kctober 65.9-, http0++agorism%info+?ewAibertarianManifesto%pdf, &E= )ndoubtedl' the 3reest societ) 'et en$isioned is that of Robert AeFe$re% 4ll relations bet5een people are .oluntar) e2changes , a 3ree market. ;o one 5ill inHure another or trespass in an) 5a). L3 course> a lot more than statism 5oul1 be to be eliminate1 3rom in1i.i1ual consciousness 3or his societ) to e2ist. Jost 1amaging o3 all to this per3ectl) 3ree societ) is its lack o3 a mechanism o3 correction% [3! 4ll it takes is a han13ul o3 practitioners o3 coercion 5ho enHo) their ill,gotten plun1er in enough compan) to sustain them , an1 3ree1om is 1ea1. E.en i3 all are li.ing 3ree> one ?bite o3 the apple>? one thro5back> rea1ing ol1 histor) or re1isco.ering e.il on his o5n> 5ill ?un3ree? the per3ect societ)

USS Enterprise Lab
'% Libertarianism
&lternative $ails/plan solves the a$$ is a prere2uisite

7he a33 is a prere=uisite to libertarianism an1 the libertarian proHect is 3utile8 it ine.itabl) re.erts back to liberalism.

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% Fealth can be ac@uired and maintaine1 onl) in a s)stem 5herein the most an1 the least a1.antage1 share a communal lo)alt) in the social s)stem under which that wealth was ac@uired% Such a s)stem would presumabl' contain ?social sa3et) nets? to ensure a minimal amount of support and care for the least fortunate% In addition, the s)stem might be e2pecte1 to support e1ucation> art an1 culture, so that all citiCens might ac@uire a shared lo'alt' to communit' $alues% Lther5ise> the least a1.antage1 ma) no longer 3eel that the) ha.e a stake in the s)stem> 5hereupon the 5ealth o3 the a1.antage1 ma) become .ulnerable to re.olution% Ehus, Bthrough the bac doorB of enlightened self interest, returns the Bwelfare stateB that the libertarians belie$ed the' had e$icted through the front door% In short, it is not at all clear that the Bminimal stateB re@uired to secure the libertarian rights to life, libert' and propert' is all that Bminimal%B In fact, the liberal would insist, his acti$ist go$ernment agen1a must be a1opte1 i3 these libertarian rights are to be secure%

USS Enterprise Lab
'$ Libertarianism
&lternative $ails/plan solves the a$$ is %etter an" no clear alternative

Libertarianism ine.itabl) 3ails but the a33 can sol.e 5hat it attempts to achie.e.

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% In conclusion, we ha$e found that in numerous cases the libertarian 1octrines o3 social atomism> unfettered 3ree markets> an1 uncon3ine1 personal libert)> bear morall) atrocious an1 practicall) unmanageable implications. In contrast> these implications are a.oi1e1 b) the liberal assumptions8 a# that human beings are essentiall) social creatures> b# that moralit) an1 Hustice are in1epen1ent o3> an1 in1ee1 the 3oun1ations o3> i1eal market mechanisms> c# that in rea1il) i1enti3iable instances> a1.antages to each result in ruin 3or all> 1# that> con.ersel)> a1.antages to all e2act sacri3ices e.g. ta2es# upon each> an1 3inall) e# that> accor1ingl)> optimal social policies are assesse1 3rom -the moral point o3 .ie5/ + 3rom the perspecti.e o3 the -i1eal 1isintereste1 spectator./ (John RawlsQs OKriginal "ositionP=% Dccordingl', the liberal concludes, human e2cellence> social harmon) an1, 'es, personal libert) 3or all> can best be accomplishe1 through the agenc) o3 a go.ernment ans5erable to the people> an1 through the rule o3 la5> applie1 impartiall) an1 e=uall) to all. Ddmittedl', the liberal democrac' and regulated capitalism that I would recommend is not perfect 66 nor is an' human institution under the sun% *ut an anecdotal in$entor' of the shortcomings of public regulation does not, b' itself, constitute a repudiation of the e>isting s'stem. Fhat is re=uire1 is a clear an1 persuasi.e presentation o3 a better alternati.e. 7his the libertarians ha.e not o33ere1 us. ;or can the)> so long as an)one pa)s more than casual attention to human ps)cholog)> ecological necessities> an1 the lessons o3 histor).

USS Enterprise Lab
'" Libertarianism
&lternative $ails it)s too si plistic

Libertarianism 3ails8 multiple 5arrants

Ri$erside, and a lecturer6consultant in Dpplied Ethics and En$ironmental Ethics% ,ith Liberty for *ome En$ironmental "hilosoph' "rentice (all, ,--7=% In short> libertarianism 3ails, not because it is wrong, but because it is insu33icientl) an1 o.er,simplisticall) right. It correctl' celebrates the rights of life, libert' and propert', and then 3ails to e2amine the con3licts an1 para1o2es that issue 3rom these rights. Joreo.er> the libertarian 3ails to appreciate that a Hust s)stem o3 a1Hu1ication o3 these rights an1 claims o3 presumabl) e=ual citizens 5oul1 necessaril) restore much o3 the .er) go.ernmental structure that the libertarians 5oul1 abolish an1 that the liberals 1e3en1.

Gdi 2011 Libertarianism Kritik

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gdi 2011 Libertarianism Kritik

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

USS Enterprise Lab

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc regular shell (1/5)

Kuznicki * (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc regular shell (2/5)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc regular shell (3/5)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc regular shell (4/5)

<etro, Eoledo Aaw Re$iew, 5.'$ (#'l$ester, #pring, page 79-=

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc regular shell (5/5)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (1/6)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (2/6)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (3/6)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (4/6)

Kuznicki * (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (5/6)

<etro, Eoledo Aaw Re$iew, 5.'$ (#'l$ester, #pring, page 79-=

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc story shell (6/6)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc link - voluntary pay ent ! coercion

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc link - coercion "isrupts the

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc internal link - state ! coercive

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc link/i pact - ta#ation ! i

oral an" $ails

Kuznicki * (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc i pact coercion causes violence/li%ertarian peace theory

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc i pact $ree"o

In3ringements on libert) must be reHecte1 at all costs or 5e 3or3eit to totalitarianism.

<etro, Eoledo Aaw Re$iew, 5.'$ (#'l$ester, #pring, page 79-=

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

1nc alternative - "ay-to-"ay resistance

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc link - state ! coercive

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc link - &'' ta#ation ! coercive

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc link ta#ation ! o(nership

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc link linear coercion

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc link a$$ "oesn)t use co petition

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc &*+ per utation

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

2nc &*+ per utation

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011