← Articles · Dissection, Objectivism, Minarchism, Statism, Anarchism, Rothbardianism
Dissecting Harry Binswanger’s Attempt to Justify a State v1.0
By ProjectAncap ·
To begin with I will say that Binswanger successfully refutes the non-Rothbardian ‘anarchists’, but he does not refute Rothbardians. Nor does he even sufficiently answer the question he is supposed to be answering, namely:
```
“What is the answer to the “libertarian” anarchists who
claim that to maintain this monopoly a government must
initiate force in violation of the rights of those who
wish to defend their own rights or to compete with the
government by setting up private agencies to do so?”
```
Throughout his entire “answer” he will never once give an explanation on how to establish a monopoly on force without initiating force. Instead he tries (and fails) to attack anarchism, ending his “answer” without an actual answer. The most common attacks he makes are against the “objectivity” of the anarchist position, simply misrepresenting the anarchist position, or making a claim that is perfectly compatible with the anarchist viewpoint while claiming it isn’t. For most of this I will go paragraph by paragraph, not responding to redundancies or unfounded assertions or accusations. I will not be making the positive case for anarchism, whether it is true, or “works” or not, simply defending anarchism when necessary, and pointing out holes in binswanger’s line of reasoning.
---
“A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework [...] Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a “right” to “compete” with the government”
This is a clear absurdity, indeed, there is no “right to compete”, competition is, defined by Ayn Rand: the activity of separate, independent individuals owning and exchanging private property in the pursuit of their self-interest. It arises when two or more such individuals become rivals for the same trade.
What idea is binswanger attacking? If he is attacking the notion of a “positive right” to competition, then we anarchists can ignore it, as it’s not our position. If he is attacking the idea of individuals owning and exchanging private property in the pursuit of their self-interest, then it seems clear his position is fundamentally immoral. I suspect he is attacking the latter, as the randian minarchist magically considers forestallment to not be an initiation of force, despite the fact it necessitates it.
---
“The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat.”
Here Binswanger has not actually justified the government's necessarily aggressive creation. Instead he attempts to justify its aggressions after its creation, which he hasn’t even done, merely asserting it to be the case.
“The government does not ban private guards; but it does, properly, bring private guards under its supervision by licensing them, and does not grant them any special rights or immunities: they remain subject to the government’s authority and legal procedures.”
Again, binswanger has not actually justified the creation of this government, nor does he justify its aggressions after its creation, merely stating it be the case, as if we do not reject it.
---
“The attempt to invoke individual rights to justify “competing” with the government collapses at the first attempt to concretize what it would mean in reality. Picture a band of strangers marching down Main Street, submachine guns at the ready. When confronted by the police, the leader of the band announces: “Me and the boys are only here to see that justice is done, so you have no right to interfere with us.” According to the “libertarian” anarchists, in such a confrontation the police are morally bound to withdraw, on pain of betraying the rights of self-defense and free trade.”
This concretization is indeed very silly, especially since it supposes socialised roads and police. We reject this and his concretization falls apart. The anarcho-capitalist does not believe in public property, as such if one does not wish to have gangs roaming down their street then one may simply remove them for trespassing, private police are perfectly capable to take up this task.
“Regarding the purported betrayal, one can only respond: if this be treason, make the most of it.”
This purported betrayal isn’t even the anarchist’s position, in fact, as mentioned above we can reject this, yet for some reason Binswanger’s response is simply “so what?” He has accepted an accusation that we have not even accused him of.
---
“In fact, of course, there is no conflict between individual rights and outlawing private force: there is no right to the arbitrary use of force. No political or moral principle could require the police to stand by helplessly while others use force arbitrarily—i.e., according to whatever private notions of justice they happen to hold.”
Indeed, we agree entirely with Binswanger here, *there is no right to the arbitrary use of force, and No political or moral principle could require the police to stand by helplessly while others use force arbitrarily, it is in consistently applying these beliefs that we are Rothbardians. He is now attempting to accuse us of accepting non retaliatory force, when this was the very accusation levied at him that he has yet to answer. At the same time he sneaks in the assertion that this implies monopolization is legitimate.
“The basic questions that the anti-philosophical “libertarians” ignore or evade are: what is the nature and source of individual rights, and how are these rights to be implemented? Only by answering these questions can one proceed to consider what is or is not proper self-defense in concrete cases.”
For the Rothbardians but especially the objectivist anarchists, who agree not only to a natural law and rights framework but arrive at it directly from rational egoism, this attack is moot. Either Binswanger is wholly ignorant of our philosophy, or he intentionally slanders us.
---
“The “libertarians” take a short-cut: they plagiarize Ayn Rand’s principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute. This one principle, deprived of its philosophical base, is expected to replace jurisprudence, constitutions, legislatures, and courts. Then they imagine that the rest of us are obligated to accept, on faith, any gang’s promise that their use of force will be “retaliatory.”
Such an accusation as levied here is completely ridiculous, to the point that I was going to ignore it, but figured I would leave it in to point out the absolutely absurd level of intellectual dishonesty that Binswanger is engaging in. I have omitted others as well, if you wish to read his entire paper you will see what I mean.
---
“Bear in mind that, in fact, those who would be granted the right to enforce their own notions of just retaliation include leftists who consider government intervention in the economy to be retaliation against business activities that the leftists view as “economic force.”
Binswanger’s argument here is, for an objectivist, utterly absurd. His argument is that of a subjectivist, tantamount to simply throwing one's hands up in the air and proclaiming objective law cannot exist since people may disagree. Worse, his only solution to this subjectivist non-problem is to simply grant the state the sole ability to decide what the law should be. All of a sudden his “objective law” has been reduced to the subjective whims of the statists.
“Then there are the terrorist groups who claim that random slaughter is “retaliation” against “Zionist imperialism [...] One wing of the “libertarians” holds abortion to be murder; in their view, force against women who have abortions is retaliation in defense of the right to life. Another wing welcomed the New Left rioters of the 1960’s”
Again, absurd subjectivism, one that can easily be turned on at him by saying one wing of “objectivists” holds statism to require the initiation of force. By his standards it would now seem the NIFP is a “mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute” that is “in a philosophical vacuum.”
---
“The issue, then is: how are political and legal disputes to be settled: by might or by right—by street fighting or by the application of objective, philosophically validated procedures?”
By the application of objective, philosophically validated procedures. Again, Binswanger’s attack is worthless against Rothbardians since we hold the same position, consistently apply it, and arrive at anarchism.
“The most twisted evasion of the “libertarian” anarchists in this context is their view that disputes concerning rights could be settled by “competition” among private force-wielders on the “free market.” This claim represents a staggering stolen concept: there is no free market until after force has been excluded. Their approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.”
There's 2 main parts to his argument, one is valid, but applies to the Friedmanite “anarchists” and not to Rothbardians. The second part however reaches a conclusion not actually favorable to a monopoly on force.
The first part is a correct rejection of subjective law and rights, the Friedmanite view of “rights” and “law” being discovered on the market is indeed a stolen concept, but again, is not the Rothbardian position. The second part, the idea that “there is no free market until after force has been excluded” conflates the potentiality of force with the initiation of it, and in fact damns his monopolization of force. Which, now halfway through the paper, he still has not justified.
---
“By their talk of “competition” in the context of government, these “libertarian” anarchists endorse the statists’ equation of production and force [...] “Competition” is an economic, not a political, concept; it refers to the voluntary exchange of values, not to the exchange of gunfire.”
This is the first decent criticism of Rothbardian anarchism, but ultimately it falls apart as it confuses exactly what is being produced and how it is used. The randian minarchist has no problem with competition in gun manufacturers, jiu jitsu instructors, and other such goods and services as these are productive. If force is inherently anti-productive then surely all goods and services surrounding the use of force, defense or not, should be considered as such and outlawed. Binswanger tries to get around this by conflating the production and subsequent purchase of the arbitrary use of force, acting as if production and purchase necessitates the latter. Furthermore even taking for granted this view of value, his position still falls apart as it confuses what economics is, which austrianism gives the correct answer to with praxeology. Binswanger tries to give a slightly stronger and more fleshed out version of this argument in a different article, but David Gordon does more than a good enough job of refuting it so I won’t bother with criticizing it myself.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/binswanger-anarchism
---
“Behind the puerile fantasies of “market solutions” to political and legal disputes lies the collectivist notion that the ideas of the individual are determined by social institutions, so that once the “proper” social institutions have been established, “the people” will automatically agree on political and legal issues, and government will no longer be necessary. [...] In the “libertarian” version [of anarchism], once a capitalist economy has been established, rational selfishness will become automatic, and “the market” will act to resolve whatever short-lived disputes still arise.”
I’m not sure exactly what he is trying to criticise here, I believe he is attempting to criticise Friedmanite ‘anarchism’, but even they don’t claim that “rational selfishness will become automatic and “the market” will act to resolve whatever short-lived disputes still arise.” In fact, they believe in market failure. Rothbardians don’t believe in either.
We are approaching the end of the paper and he still has not answered the original question.
---
“In any irreconcilable dispute, at least one party will find that its view of justice is stymied. Even under anarchy, only one side will be able to enforce its ideas of where the right lies. But it does not occur to the anarchists that when one of their private “defense agencies” uses force, it is acting as a “monopolist” over whomever it coerces. It does not occur to them that private, anarchistic force is still force—i.e., the “monopolistic” subjection of another’s will to one’s own. They are aware of and object to the forcible negation of “competing” viewpoints only when it is done by a government.”
Here binswanger alters the definition of monopolist it is not "acted as" but is, as well he continues to ignore the anarchist objection to the state's monopoly on force, in that it requires forestallment, thus the initiation of force. Furthermore he again seems to be dipping in subjectivism as neither of us care if the one side got miffed.
“Thus, their actual objection to government is not to its “monopolistic” character, but to the fact that “A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.” The real target of the anarchist’s attack is objectivity. Objectivity requires one to prove that one is acting within one’s rights; they do not want to be held accountable to anyone for anything—not even regarding their use of physical force. They damn governmental retaliation because it is objective; they demand to be “free” to use force on whim.”
This is not the Rothbardian objection, nor the one initially raised, which is still unanswered: “how does one create a state without initiating force via forestallment?” Binswanger has spent his entire “answer” attacking anarchism unsuccessfully, instead of defending statism. He has not proven why a monopoly on force necessarily follows from objective law, nor how one may establish a monopoly either without forestallment.
---
END OF ORIGINAL PAPER
---
That was the end of the original “answer” from August 1981. Having never actually answered the question: “What is the answer to the 'libertarian' anarchists who claim that to maintain this monopoly a government must initiate force in violation of the rights of those who wish to defend their own rights”
---
He also has an extra section of this paper which I've already gone over but need to finalize, it does not add any good criticism, but I will add my criticism of that likely tomorrow.