Does a Capitalist Market Require Government?Submitted by Allison Bricker on Sun, 01/26/2014 - 03:05
Forbes contributor and self-proclaimed Ayn Rand objectivist, Harry Binswanger published an article this Friday's past entitled, "Sorry Libertarian Anarchists, Capitalism Requires Government" in which he posits that the federal government is supreme all others including the several states are subordinate and that Washington must hold a monopoly on violence lest the market be overrun with terrorists, hoodlums, vigilantes, etc.
The genius of the American system is that it limited government, reining it in by a Constitution, with checks and balances and the provision that no law can be passed unless it is “necessary and proper” to the government’s sole purpose: to protect individual rights–to protect them against their violation by physical force.
Thus, even though he admits the US Constitution has failed, there is simply no other way to build a society without the government maintaining a monopoly on force.
Of course, this tired rehash of STATE necessity initiated a fierce conversation as to the substance of Mr. Binswanger, the sincerity of his bona fides, and the usual exchange of sharply tongued barbs.
Shortly thereafter, Gonzo journalist of the Liberty Movement, Christopher Cantwell offered his counter in his signature inflammatory style, "Sorry Fake Libertarians, Capitalism Requires Anarchy" in which he offers a blistering albeit abridged history of the American Republic summarized by stating:
So if your fabled “land of the free” begins with slavery, central banking, debt, insurrection, and jailing reporters, only to lead up to a bloody civil war and full on fiat currency, before moving on to the income tax and modern Federal Reserve system, I’m sorry, but you don’t even know what freedom means.
This divide amongst the various factions is one not likely to subside in the near future, but it does offer us a keen opportunity to reexamine those views, which we hold dear and prefer not to jostle for fear of upsetting our own understanding. My personal preference for engaging in the challenge of ideas and the BIG conversation tends to get the best of me and thus I welcome the debate as more often than not, the intellect emerges more refined from the undertaking.