On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part VIII: Authority and Elite
By Insula Qui
Author’s note: The main themes of this series are further expounded upon in my book Anarcho-Monarchism, which you can buy here.
Introduction
Having established thus far that an entire field of libertarian inquiry exists by using statecraft for the maximization of profit within a libertarian system, we can now start looking at the problems that arise from certain systems. The most problematic political system that could arise from libertarian statecraft is a totalitarian system. This is any system in which superficially libertarian contracts could lead to a complete abandonment of all rights. We must now determine whether this is a problem for libertarians, and if so, whether voluntary totalitarianism must be fought.
Totalitarianism and Profit
It is possible to form a seemingly totalitarian society within the libertarian framework. One can imagine a contract that requires signing away all rights and joining a totalitarian government. However, this is a very poor value proposition. If this sort of totalitarianism helped maximize the personal collection of profit, then it could be a thriving system under libertarianism. However, this leaves one’s property liable for resale and is thus infinitely unprofitable due to regime uncertainty.
One must keep in mind the propertarian concept that property is not only the material well-being of each individual, but their own lives and social interactions as well. A totalitarian government places itself in a position of being an effective state through the impact that it has on society. Totalitarianism is the only way that one can have one’s property resold in a libertarian framework. However, this serves as a powerful condemnation of statism and argument for libertarianism, in that only the absolute worst result of libertarianism is comparable to the state.
Libertarian Absolutism
A totalitarian system within a libertarian framework would remove the ability to revoke consent, and is thus a horrible strategy for maximizing profit. However, there could be a system which allows people the right to exit yet otherwise gives the voluntary government absolute power, so absolutism can exist within a libertarian framework. As long as property is not liable for resale, this form of absolutism is not contrary to libertarianism.
Absolutism as a strategy would also be profit-maximizing if there was an incredibly wide gap of knowledge and ability between the governing class and other private individuals. If the governing class always makes better decisions than private individuals, then it is profit-maximizing to have absolutism. And when interests do not conflict, absolutism still allows for freedom. If members of the governing class have such a degree of wisdom that all conflicting desires should be resolved on the side of the government, then there is nothing wrong with absolutism. Even without reserving any individual rights and even whilst voluntarily giving up all power, libertarianism can accommodate this theoretical possibility. All arguments for technocracy and absolutism are replicable within libertarianism if the technocrats can demonstrate their own value and refrain from aggressive violence.
Conversely, if absolutism is regarded as a subsidy for the political class, then there can be no absolutism within a libertarian framework. If absolutism did not maximize individual profit, then it would be contrary to individual goals and thus would be abandoned as a viable strategy by the property owners employing the government. If a strategy of government organization becomes unprofitable, then that strategy cannot maintain itself as the government has no popular consent. If it was understood that withdrawing consent from government was possible, no person would have the capacity to sustain that government. Coercively seeking subsidy without popular agreement is impossible; such interactions become a matter of either war or trade. There is no parasitism in a libertarian social order; as such any non-parasitic system can flourish without that burden.
The Parasitic Elite
If there is a group of people who aim to seek subsidy at the cost of society and successfully integrate themselves into libertarianism, they can become a parasitic elite. The people who would use demagoguery and trickery to fraudulently seize power are the enemies of liberty. Libertarians must be able to stop a potential parasitic elite if there is ever to be a libertarian society. We cannot ignore the problem of power-hunger within libertarianism, as a libertarian society stops being mechanical the moment it includes statecraft. (And libertarianism needs to stop being mechanical if it will ever move beyond a philosophy created by damaged and trustless people.) If libertarianism is not a mechanical system, then the problems of social organization become relevant to libertarianism. This is not contrary to property, but rather categorizes and seeks the solutions to classes of problems. This is the same problem we see in statist politics, in which the worst can get on top and exploit their host society. If profit-maximizing systems are replaced by parasitic schemes, then there is no innate reason to adopt libertarianism.
The Natural Elite
The most functional way to combat a parasitic elite is domination of the natural elite. Those who are best fit to govern are most suited to prevent kakistocracy. The profit from proper governance is also most aptly collected by the natural elite. This renders the spontaneous aristocracy the best suited and most motivated when it comes to dealing with the problem of parasites as elites. But how can this be done? If the parasites have the population under their own control and have the capacity to reduce social profit, what can the aristocracy do? The most relevant and obvious strategy is to simply out-compete the parasites by establishing parallel institutions and creating a profit-maximizing system. They will face conflict from the parasites, but eventually will take control away from them.
This is a practical libertarian and/or reactionary strategy within the modern world. The natural aristocracy needs to organize against the state itself and initiate this competition with the promise of eventually maximizing profits. The current elite in society is wholly parasitic, and purging this parasitic elite is the function of the natural aristocrat. The natural aristocrat is the only type of person capable of defeating the monstrous state and ought to be the nexus of libertarian and/or reactionary organization. This does not imply an elitist strategy, as the aristocrats cannot convince people to be libertarians. If we are to create the movement to spawn these aristocrats, we still need to work from the bottom up.
Furthermore, this profit maximization would spread into the society at large because social actions have consequences for the capacity of individuals to maximize their profits. This means that any parasitism in the social realm should be combated by the natural elite, but this is the only justifiable social question within libertarian inquiry. Society can only be framed within libertarianism insofar as it affects the ability of individuals to maximize the profits of their property. However, property in this sense must include all non-material personal values alongside materially owned property, as there are important non-economic values which are worth upholding for some loss of economic efficiency.
The Elite Authority
If the aristocracy serves to combat all parasitic elements in society, we can now further reinforce the notion that it is beneficial to have this form of authority. Whereas the authority of the aristocrat is what enables sustainable liberty, an aristocratic form of authoritarianism is the best enabler for libertarianism. In this sense, libertarianism and authoritarianism become complementary. What first may have seemed like conflicting sets of principles is now a harmonious whole. The authoritarian system protects property from being resold and defends the individual from potential parasitism. Enabling the rule of the aristocrats lets us exceed what would be possible if parasitism were allowed to exist within a libertarian society. When we can utilize authority for our own benefit, we can establish libertarianism as a much greater system than it was before.
By introducing statecraft into libertarianism, we introduce value production far beyond what the mechanical market could provide by itself. By including the aristocratic element of society that is conducive to value production in the free market, we strengthen the market and ultimately strengthen property rights. Thus, a partial abandonment of control over private property ends up reinforcing and furthering our control over our own property. We must concede that this is where minarchists are actually correct, even if most of them do not understand precisely how. However, this does not justify a violent and coercive state; it only requires us to view a libertarian society as a governed society.
State and Authority
By reintroducing authority, we do not reintroduce the state. States are parasitic entities and can never be expected to practice proper statecraft. The state is inherently partially totalitarian, as it is both the enforcer and creator of law, not subject to a superior authority. The sovereign in the form of the state is antithetical to the profit of any individual within society.
By reframing minarchist criticisms of anarchism, we can find a good critique of an unorganized system of full privatization. Without any implication that the solution is to reduce privatization, we can then introduce the solutions to supposed problems of full privatization into statelessness. We become able to constructively utilize all parts of minarchist theory that are valuable and effectively establish a superior form of minarchy.
But at this point, why should we even be against the state if we will simply reintroduce governance to the market? The answer is that if we do not abolish the state, the state can always resell our property and profit at our expense. The state will always expand, for this is its incentive and no force exists to stop it. There is no superior to the state, and it is always totalitarian to some extent. Statelessness serves to abolish this totalitarianism and to allow property to be used in the most efficient and profitable manner.
Even though authority is good and social organization ought to be practiced, a state can provide neither. The elite of the state will be a parasitic elite, and the state cannot properly organize society as it is in itself superior to society. By assuming a monopoly over violence and law, the state creates a special position for itself. The state removes itself from all cordial, practical, and beneficial relations by removing itself from the bounds of external morality. The state is unable to practice proper statecraft as it is necessarily antagonistic to the polity. Therefore, if we want good governance, we must oppose the state.
Conclusion
Now that we have spent eight articles establishing a theory for libertarian statecraft, we need to work on what form this statecraft would take. What are the principles of effective governance? How can we practice governance with our reframed view of libertarianism? What should elites do with the control they have over property? What burdens of property do individuals find hard to combat by themselves in libertarian societies? From Part IX onward, the series will shift from laying the groundwork for libertarian statecraft to laying out effective principles of libertarian statecraft.
<<On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part VII: Libertarian Philosophy and Social Contract
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++An Overview of Second-Order Logical Problems>>