Libertarianism and the question of Liberty and (Market) Security

Review Essay

Libertarianism and the question of Liberty and (Market) Security

David Friedman,TheMachinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism,Second Edition, Open Court:Chicago and La Salle, Illinois, 1989

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (ed.),The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production, Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn, Alabama, 2003

Introduction

David D. Friedman is one of the most prominent supporters of the philosophy/ideology of Libertarianism, [1] that is especially well-known in the United States. The book under consideration is his most famous statement of the libertarian worldview and its tenets, centred on the function of Free Market, on anti-statism and on the belief in the absolute and unconstrained political and economic liberty of the individual.

The issue of liberty, as advanced by Libertarianism, and security, has not occupied a prominent place in libertarian thought, though it has been dealt with in the context of general statements of Libertarianism. The recent rise in terrorism-related concerns and the development of security policies has provoked scholarly interest from the libertarian standpoint. Thus, the volume edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a well-known libertarian, with the characteristic title The Myth of National Defense, provides an interesting supplement to the classical work by Friedman. [2] Accordingly, the overall conceptual framework could well be used for a comparison with contemporary European thought and actual (security) practices; for this purpose, this review essay provides a starting point.

The Concept of Liberty in Libertarianism

The initial phrase in Friedman’s book provides a clear statement of the value attributed to the idea of liberty: «The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish». [3] Given that Friedman’s work is not strictly scholarly however, the definition given by another prominent libertarian broadly covers Friedman’s perception of the concept: thus, according to Narveson, liberty, according to the libertarian worldview, should be understood as «the absence of impositions by other people». [4]

The vagueness of the definition, however, demands further elaboration of the concept of liberty. In this respect, Friedman’s thought is characteristic of the so-called «Right-libertarianism», [5] with its excessive emphasis on the right to private property. That is the reason Friedman dedicates the first part of his book, titled «In Defence of Property», to confirming the necessity of property institutions.

More specifically, it is suggested that systems of private property are fundamentally more important than those of public property, because of the function of the former within an –absolutely- free market. The conclusion flowing from this assertion is that government has no functions proper to itself and a system of institutions that would be entirely private is envisaged –what is sometimes called anarcho-capitalism, or libertarian anarchy. [6] This typically American stance involves an outright rejection of the State’s redistributive role and of the welfare state. Further, even monopolies, as a potential dysfunction of the workings of the free market, are regarded as resulting, in their majority, from the use of government power, without which most monopolies could not have existed in the first place. [7]

Without going into further details, suffice it to say that Friedman, in the following chapters, presents a complex picture of his view of a libertarian society. It is clear that he is much more inclined to see some of the aspects of such a society being applied in practice, rather than merely presenting a strictly academic work. This is the reason he uses such chapter titles as «sell the schools», «sell the streets», «if you want it, buy it», and the like, to elaborate a picture of how libertarianism would work in practice.

Of course, Friedman admits that not everything in the libertarian view is straightforward. Indeed, there are some problems that a simple endorsement of libertarian principles cannot solve. [8] This is also relevant for the provision of security in libertarian societies, or in societies that apply certain aspects of the libertarian position, including Western liberal regimes at a desirable –for libertarians-next stage of their evolution.

Libertarianism and the question of Security

Provision of security as a fundamental need for human societies is not an easy question for Libertarianism. Indeed, it is almost universally accepted that security and its provision/production are the primary or the most fundamental function of government, from which it derives the greatest part of its legitimacy.

Though the standard treatment of Libertarianism by Friedman does pay attention to this issue –in Part 3, titled «Anarchy is not Chaos»- it is more recently that an interesting collection of essays has specifically dealt with it, though some questions remain still unanswered. It is interesting to note that no explicit use of the term «security» is made by Friedman; instead, he speaks, in a series of chapters, about courts and laws, police and national defense. On the other hand, in the introduction to the volume under consideration, Hoppe defines «security» in what he thinks is a «wide sense», i.e. as «the protection of life, property (liberty), and the pursuit of happiness from domestic violence (crime) as well as external (foreign) aggression (war)». [9] Both Hoppe, the editor of the volume, and Friedman, strongly assert that the performance of (Nation-) States as providers of security has been «dismal» and that, just like every monopoly, the price is high and the quality low. The first important declaration of the failure of the State, based on the principles of political economy, was made in the 19th century, by Gustave de Molinari. [10] Overall, in both works, it is argued that security arrangements should be private and voluntary (market-produced), for reasons broadly pertaining to the stability that would spontaneously grow from the free market. Several details are given by Friedman about how private protection agencies could work and provide security to the citizens of a libertarian society. [11] Problems such as the conflicts between these agencies and their resolution, or the potential acquisition of excessive power by these agencies are dealt with; the answers given are reassuring, since, it is argued, the function of the free market will ultimately resolve all of the dysfunctions of the so-called «agoric» institutions. The division between internal and external security persists in this analysis, with national defense being separately considered as a difficult issue, though also potentially subject to voluntary provision. [12] As far as the volume edited by Hoppe is concerned, the contributors also deal with a range of relevant issues, even including the role of mercenaries, guerillas and militias, and the question of secession.

Conclusions: Libertarianism and the relationship between Liberty and Security

This short review has attempted to sketch, by means of reviewing a general work and a more specific contribution, the position of Libertarianism, a widespread tradition in the United States, on the issues of Liberty and Security. There are some questions that remain obscurely unanswered, however, either because they have not been asked in the first place or because libertarians cannot provide an unambiguous answer.

The most important question pertains to the crucial relationship between liberty and security. Nowhere in the two works is the issue considered in detail and in its implications. That is to say, there is no treatment of the relationship as a trade-off or otherwise. If one strictly follows libertarian principles, there is no way to determine a priori the specific terms of this relationship or whether it should be left to the free market to decide upon these terms.

What is more, the issue of market security, i.e. the security of the market, and its growing importance in academic and policy circles in Europe, is not examined by Libertarianism. It is no accident that, when one refers to market security in the libertarian context, what is meant is security produced by the market, i.e. by private, «agoric» actors. This issue should also provide a different and illuminating perspective on recent developments concerning the relationship between liberty and security. Does liberty have absolute value or should priority be given to the market in any case? These are the problems Friedman implies to be difficult for a libertarian, and admits that no simple answers can be given. Furthermore, the application of economic theory he uses, in the form of the economic analysis of law, «to discover what rules maximize human happiness» [13] can only give some abstract answers. Explicit treatment of these issues has not yet been made. It appears, therefore, that Libertarianism has not sufficiently dealt with these questions, despite their urgency, though interesting conclusions could be reached by means of the cautious and qualified application of libertarian principles.