There's an interesting online debate going on, between Robert Bidinotto and Roderick T. Long, on the subject of anarchism versus the minimal state. Long provides the relevant links in this post at the Liberty & Power" group blog.
Yes, I know some are bored with this one by now. I'm not. I'm not an agnostic on this subject, although I do lean toward anarchism...but I haven't quite made up my mind. Perhaps I'm a bit of a conservative, but I wonder how an anarchistic society would be defended against predatory states--and they do exist: I was never sympathetic, for example, to Murray Rothbard's assertion that the USSR was less of a threat to world peace than the USA. But there's the rub: all states are predatory.
On the other hand, I was in Beirut, Lebanon when that city was the hottest place in the world. "Competing defense agencies," indeed.
So far, I think the anarchists have the moral high ground, especially in terms of Ayn Rand's statement that there can be no such thing as an unchosen obligation. And it is easy to see that all actual services of value to users can be provided by actors in the private sector. But I wonder: where does that leave such cherished notions as equal protection under the law?
Posted by Craig Ceely at January 4, 2004 07:47 PM