End-States or Process: Anarchism or Not?
By: James Peron
Tags: Politics, Classical Liberalism, Anarchism

One of the problems with classical economics was its failure to see the market as a process instead of an end-state. They argued markets failed because the much vaunted “equilibrium” in supply and demand was never met. Of course it wasn’t. While the tendency is toward equilibrium it is never obtained. Too many factors are constantly changing for that to happen. But the “process” makes it easier to adjust to those changes.

I have a similar theory where classical liberalism is more about the process than about an end-state position. Anarchism is all about the end-state, but not about the process. At least in the material I read anarchist argue for their ideal state but are incredibly vague about the process to get there.

I don’t think we should focus on end-states, ideal societies, utopia, or any perfect vision per se. If we want change we have to focus on the process, the means by which societies change.

Given a choice I’ll take the process over the end-state any day.

The former allows you to make moves that change things for the better. Too easily the latter is used to stifle any change — it’s often an all or nothing mentality.

I saw that in the debate on marriage equality where self-righteous anarchists demanded the “abolition of state marriage.” I had one, who was married himself, demand gays not be allowed to marry. When I pointed out he was married his reply was he knows that but at least in denying gays the right to marry it might create a lobby group to abolish marriage. In other words, he was happy to sacrifice others to his own principles. How noble of him.

One libertarian, who is rather well known, told me on the phone gays shouldn’t have the right to marry because no one should have that right. I pointed out she herself had married. Her excuse was it was necessary for her because her beau had to marry her in order to get a residency permit. Pointing out gays were in the same situation brought a brief moment of anger followed by the silent treatment. The hypocrisy of it sickened me.

Of course, one can lobby for lower taxes without abolition of taxes being on the table.

End-state visions tend to be utopian and tend to get in the way of reform measures that could actually improve the lives of people and advance liberty. This is especially true when they can’t even agree on the end-state itself among themselves.

In fact, we have the example of some cretinous types out of the center of “anarcho-capitalism” at the Mises Institute (Mises was opposed to anarchism himself) whose vision of anarchism is one where racists like Hoppe can exclude non-whites and where another Mises Institute clown, Gary North, can suggest in a free society the “community” will stone homosexuals to death! He argued stoning would build community spirit and praised it for being fiscally conservative as stones are free.

Roy Childs gave up his anarchism but never wrote why before he died. The most he said was the end result wouldn’t be what most anarchists imagine. I think him correct, but then again what passes as anarchism is often really radical devolution, where thousands of mini-state or city-states replace the nation state. That’s not really anarchism in my opinion, but that is what many anarcho-fundamentalist imagine when they use the term.

They argue those mini-states would set their own policies, which means there is a government after all, just over a small area. That’s what Hoppe wants so they can keep out non-whites, and that’s what North wants so he can kill the gays — don’t think his list of sinners of who should be stoned to death ends with the gays either. There’s a good chance you’re on the list!

Some of the end-state libertarians tell me these city-states wouldn’t have the “right” to violate the the individual rights of citizens. But, what’s to stop them? As Rand would say, “Blank out.” If other city-states intervene aren’t they merely expanding their own government to include other territory?

Others imagine a society where everyone in it is there voluntarily. Nonsense! Think about it for a minute. Where do people come from? I don’t mean what region or nation or city, but ultimately where do they come from? They are born. Being born is not a voluntary choice and any city-state with it’s own rules will have children born into it.

The city-state can rule no member of their society may leave. It can then rule ala Gary North all gay people be executed. So, most gays won’t move there but children will be born and some of them will be gay. So, is it “libertarian” to allow them to murder those kids? If not, who will stop them?

I would argue whoever is obligated to stop them, or does stop them, is the ultimate state in that area. All that has been done is have less devolution from one form of governance to another.

This is why I argue individual rights are the ultimate goal of libertarianism. Rights always act as the parameters within which liberty operates. You are not at liberty to violate the rights of others.

If you maximize “liberty” in the city-state concept then when Hoppe-ville forces all the non-whites out you turn a blind eye. You don’t want to violate their freedom to do as they wish. When Northburg starts stoning gay kids to death you pretend you don’t notice since any action might oppose their liberty to set up their own community with their own rules.

100% liberty does not mean 100% respect for rights. Quite the contrary in fact. It’s much like the Laffer Curve in economics. Laffer noted that 100% tax equals zero revenue and so did 0% tax. Higher tax rates can reduce the amount of revenue collected and lowering taxes would paradoxical increase revenue.

Ditto for rights and liberty. To respect the rights of individuals it means some liberty is curtailed—all that which violates the rights of others. You can have a picnic if you want, just not in my front yard. My property right limits your liberty to picnic. Rights act as boundaries to reduce conflict. Maximum protection of rights is found somewhere between 0% government and 100% government.

0% is the end-state theory as is 100% governance, but knowing it is somewhere between 0% and 100%, and it could fluctuate depending on external facts is more a process. What is the “right” price for apples? There is no one price, it fluctuates depending on external facts. It’s a process as well.

Facts indicate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 maximized individual rights in the South in a way local governments were unwilling to do. There was less liberty in one sense but more respect for rights and more liberty in another.

Most Southerners wouldn’t change it now, even if they were reluctant to embrace it in 1964. The Supreme Court ruling on sodomy laws increased the rights (and freedom) of Americans in regards to their personal sex lives. It did so by stopping local governments from violating rights. Ditto for the Loving v. Virginia decision allowing interracial marriage. Small changes in the distribution of government power lead to massive expansions of individual rights. The facts, not some theory, determine the result.

If you wish to support these columns donate on our page at Patreon.