In a private comment on my Regulation review of Acemoglu and Robinson’s The Narrow Corridor, George Mason University professor Daniel Klein challenges the continuity I see between (classical) liberalism and anarchism. The contentious point was summarized in the last paragraph of my review:
An improved and more useful study of the narrow corridor would, in my opinion, switch the normative positions of anarchy and the state. Instead of looking at how the state can protect “society” against anarchy, it would ask how the state can protect feasible anarchy—that is, whatever level of anarchy is possible. The normative primacy should go to anarchy, not to Leviathan.
Dan wrote to me (and allowed me to share it):
I think that we ought to be talking up liberalism, and contending over its meaning. I don’t see the anarchy talk as useful.
This is certainly an objection to be considered but the idea I was expressing is not foreign to liberal thinking. In his 1969 book Éloge de la société de consommation (“In Praise of the Consumer Society”), French philosopher Raymond Ruyer wrote that
real anarchism, feasible and actually realized, as opposed to mere sentimental talk, is simply the [classical] liberal economy and everything it brings with it: political democracy, civil (and not only civic) liberty, free, unsubsidized, and unplanned culture. Only the liberal economy can promote the “withering away of the state” and of politics, their withering away or at least their limitation; centralizing socialism cannot do that.
[French original:] l’anarchisme véritable, réalisable et réalisé, et non resté à l’état de déclaration sentimentale, c’est tout simplement l’économie libérale, avec tout ce qu’elle entraîne : démocratie politique, liberté civile (et non simplement civique), culture libre, et non subventionnée et dirigée. C’est l’économie libérale qui, seule, peut favoriser le “dépérissement de l’État” et de la politique—le dépérissement ou du moins la limitation—ce n’est pas le socialisme centralisateur.
In the same vein, Émile Faguet, a liberal who was elected to the Académie française in 1900 (the featured picture of this post is a portrait of him from that year), wrote in his Politiques et moralistes du dix-neuvième siècle (“Political and Moral Theorists of the Nineteenth Century”—Lecène, Oudin et Cie, 1891):
A coherent liberal is an anarchist who does not really dare his opinion; an anarchist is an uncompromising liberal.
Un libéral systématique est un anarchiste qui n’a pas tout le courage de son opinion ; un anarchiste est un libéral intransigeant.
James Buchanan, who called himself a liberal, defended “ordered anarchy.” Anthony de Jasay defined himself as both a liberal à la Hume and an anarchist.
One objection to the view of a continuum between liberalism and anarchism is that other major political philosophies also have anarchist extensions. It is certainly true for socialism in some important Marxist interpretations (see Vladimir Lenin, The State and the Revolution [1917], who defends the “withering away of the state” that Ruyer was quoting). It is unfortunate that Marxism has long colonized the anarchist ideal. In the old European conservatism, anarchism may not have often been popular but it was arguably realized in primitive stateless societies. That, in these societies, conservatism and socialism are difficult to distinguish point to perennial similarities between the two ideologies.
William Graham Sumner, the Yale professor of the late 19th and early 20th century, had strong liberal beliefs as the story reported by his student Irving Fisher illustrates (Irving Fisher before the Yale Socialist Club in 1941, as quoted in Irving Norton Fisher, My Father Irving Fisher (New York: Comet Press Book, 1956), p. 44; also quoted in Mark Thorton, The Economics of Prohibition [University of Utah Press, 1991], p. 17):
I believe [William Graham] Sumner was one of the greatest professor we ever had at Yale, but I have drawn far away from his point of view, that of the old laissez faire doctrinaire.
I remember he said in his classroom: “Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes I am an Anarchist.”
That amused his class very much, for he was as far from a revolutionary as you could expect.
It seems clear that only classical liberalism can seriously claim to be “real anarchism, feasible and actually realized” as well as the only major political philosophy consistent with “ordered anarchy” cum individual liberty. Whether, in this ideal, one wishes to emphasize liberalism or anarchism may be a matter of personal sensibility or strategy, rather than substance.
READER COMMENTS
echarles
Oct 11 2021 at 11:04am
On the practical/legal level, isn’t the essential difference between anarchism and liberalism (or minimal statism) one of tacit versus explicit consent? The Ruyer quote doesn’t seem to be useful since “unplanned culture” and “political democracy” are awfully vague and planned and undemocratic institutions could certainly exist under anarchism (HOA’s come to mind).
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 11 2021 at 12:10pm
echarles: By “unplanned” (“non dirigée”), Ruyer meant not-directed by the state. Planning by individuals and private organizations always exists in a spontaneous order, just as unplanned disorder pervades a planned society. Same for explicit and tacit consent, which are present in both a governed and an anarchic society. But you may want to elaborate on what you mean.
echarles
Oct 11 2021 at 10:39pm
Anarchism is defined “as belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion”.
The threshold normative question in my opinion that differentiates anarchism from classical liberalism is whether voluntary and cooperative relationships exist between individuals and institutions/firms. Are individuals free to patronize institutions that represent them, and just as important, allowed to withdraw peacefully? If so, this represents explicit consent and is morally justified (see David Friedman’s Anarchy and Efficient Law that is compatible with this view on a practical level). On the other hand, tacit consent (not morally justified) exists under classical liberalism and the result is coercive taxation that one cannot peacefully withdraw from.
Jose Pablo
Oct 11 2021 at 11:25am
“Two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want government to be everything”
Looking at this quote from Graham Sumner two things stand out very clearly:
First, he truly missed the “3rd way”: the “Christian democracy” that rules Europe (and the non-USA part of North America … although, arguably, not USA … yet). The power of the status quo and the “virtuous middle” can never be underestimated.
Although we sure are in a slow-motion socialism, which end game can only be government being “everything”. The anarchists are nowhere to be seen as a viable political option. There is no significant political party in USA supporting laissez faire and, even less, supporting “unplanned culture”.
They view that at the end there will be just “socialist of every political party “seems to represent our reality much better.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 11 2021 at 12:03pm
Jose: You’re right. Sumner could not imagine that there would be just one party, as is the case today. But we haven’t said our last word!
Roger McKinney
Oct 11 2021 at 2:51pm
True! I think Helmut Schoeck does the best explaining why.im his classic Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior. Envy powers socialism. Christianity suppressed envy enough to allow for innovation and economic growth. As Christianity has receded, envy has exploded and with it socialism. The muddled middle is too lazy to learn econ or history, so it merely splits the difference.
A corporate lawyer explained similar dynamics in civil cases like the one involving Roundup. He said juries can’t understand the details so they go to sleep then at the end wake up and split the difference.
Roger McKinney
Oct 11 2021 at 2:42pm
Anarchy is a good term since socialists have stolen the liberal label. For the perfect anarchy, read about the constitution God gave Israel in the Torah. As I point out in my book, God is a Capitalist: Markets from Moses to Marx, God gave Israel no human executive or legislature, not taxes or standing army. It had nothing but courts to adjudicate the civil laws among the 613 laws God gave Israel. The courts did not decide the moral or religious laws, leaving those to God to enforce. That government is very similar to Rothbard’s anarchy in which only courts exist to discover natural law and private companies handle law enforcement. Israel’s anarchy lasted 480 years by the best accounts.
steve
Oct 11 2021 at 7:12pm
1 Samuel 16
Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The Lord has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the Lord chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The Lord has not chosen these.” 11 So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.”
Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
12 So he sent for him and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features.
Then the Lord said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.”
13 So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
robc
Oct 12 2021 at 9:23am
I dont think you can skip 1 Samuel 8 if you are going to use that as an argument. Context matters.
1 Samuel 8:4-22 (NIV) [bolding mine]
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Basically, God was foreshadowing Mencken:
My other though on this is, “Can we go back to the King only taking 10%?”
Jose Pablo
Oct 12 2021 at 11:28am
Yeah! …10% plus the best of my cattle sounds like a great deal to me.
Let’s go back to that! … although I can see the ranchers’ lobby trying to interfere on that …
Juan Manuel Perez Porrua Perez
Oct 12 2021 at 1:15am
The problem with “ordered anarchy” is that it completely gives up on freedom for individuals and subjects them to the power of private groups, i.e. tribes or religions or feudal lords or home owners associations. I don’t mention business corporations, because such intitutions would be unworkable under “ordered anarchy”.
The oppposite would be to have public power (the State) take over everything, i.e. socialism. But liberals, in the Millian sense, understand the essential role of the State to make it possible for individuals to be free by both limiting what the state or private groups can do to individuals through law enacted by the State and administered by State officials according to established rules.
Jens
Oct 12 2021 at 4:13am
Correct. Lemieux ignores the individual by idolizing and lionizing some individuals. It’s the usual error or strategy you’ll see here.
Jon Murphy
Oct 12 2021 at 4:27pm
I’m afraid I am going to have to ask you to expand upon this point. Prima facie, it seems incorrect. In his essay “Moral Community, Moral Order, or Moral Anarchy,” Buchanan discusses ordered anarchy as “a setting where many persons adhere to the precepts and behavioral rules of a moral order. Each individual treats other persons as deserving of mutual respect and tolerance, even though there exists no necessary sense of belonging to a community or collectivity of shared values and loyalties. In this setting, individuals may be secure in their persons and property, social stability may exist, and the needs for governance may be minimized. Correspondingly, the liberties of the individual are maximized.” (pg 191 of Volume 17 of the Liberty Fund collection of his works). Further, in “Limits of Liberty,” he discusses how contracts are enforced under ordered anarchy, so I don’t see why commercial arrangements are excluded.
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 13 2021 at 10:06am
Both Ruyer and Faget would have agreed with you. They also understood what I argue in my post. As for Buchanan, I strongly recommend the reading of his The Limits of Liberty.
Phil H
Oct 12 2021 at 4:49am
“Instead of looking at how the state can protect “society” against anarchy, it would ask how the state can protect feasible anarchy”
I like this kind of flip in perspective a lot. It’s very clarifying. I’m not responding directly to anything else in the post here, but just mentioning a connected issue that I’ve run into a couple of times. I think all too often people forget about the role of chance or luck. If they talk about a world without markets/governments/whatever inequality-causing mechanism, then they seem to imagine that the world without that mechanism would be largely equal. That inequality is caused by identifiable mechanisms. So in this anarchist world, I fear people are imagining a world of rough equality, plus oppressive/violent mechanisms of inequity.
In fact, an anarchist world would be very unequal simply through the workings of chance, and then there would be lots of free/voluntary processes that even out/redistribute the effects of those chance inequalities.
Perhaps for the more sophisticated writers you’re engaging with here, this isn’t an assumption that they make, but when I talk to people around me, I quite often detect this assumption lurking in the background of their thinking: that the “natural state” of the world is very equal, and it’s only artificial disturbances that drive inequality.
robc
Oct 12 2021 at 9:28am
What I think is that artificial disturbances protect inequalities, freeze them in place.
I think people would be “more” equal under something approaching anarchy (I am an anti-anarchist myself, but would prefer a very, very, very tiny state), in that the extreme inequalities from rent-seeking wouldn’t exist. But plenty of inequalities would still exist both from innate abilities and from random chance.
Jose Pablo
Oct 12 2021 at 2:26pm
“that the “natural state” of the world is very equal, and it’s only artificial disturbances that drive inequality.”
This is, indeed, a widespread belief. And one that has been fed by very “sophisticated writers”. Rousseau in the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Among Men as just one example and Avatar (the movie) as a very recent (and powerful) one.
But this thesis is difficult to believe looking at the way primitive cultures, apes and largest mammals organize themselves.
But, in any case, why should “inequality” be relevant at all?
The questions to be asked are more: would be the anarchist society more prosperous? or in more general terms would be the individuals under this society freer? or, going down a slippery road, would they be “happier”?
The level of inequality is (or should be) totally irrelevant answering these questions. I find disheartening the possibility that avoiding inequality as a trigger of human envy is our road to a “happier” life. Although looking at Capitol Hill, maybe we are just such that pathetic big ape.
Comments are closed.