By Mike Tront

The Grenfell Tower Fire in London was a horrendous and preventable disaster that, as of this writing, has claimed 79 lives. In a libertarian free market based society, this tragedy would have been avoided.

From what we know, a small fire broke out in one of the apartment units and spread rapidly. The rapid spread of the fire appeared to be fueled by a recent renovation that left the building with sub-par cladding. This cladding apparently was not fire resistant and may have even been quite combustible. This, along with the complete lack of a sprinkler system in the individual units, doomed the building and its unfortunate inhabitants to suffer the tragic consequences we all witnessed.

Whenever something like this happens, especially when it claims innocent human lives, my thought goes to “Could this have been avoided?” My second thought is usually “Would the outcome have been any better in a libertarian free market society?”

After looking into what we know so far, it’s clear that government incentivized the neglect necessary for this terrible event to happen. Here are four reasons why this would not have happened in a libertarian free market society.

1: The Grenfell Tower Was Government Owned

In a totally free market, there are no government owned assets. When the government owns something, no one is directly responsible for its proper or safe use. There are people who oversee its use, of course. And in the case of The Grenfell Tower, a government funded non-profit property management group known as KCTMO was tasked to oversee the everyday operations of the Tower. But the buck doesn’t stop anywhere.

With government owned housing, no one put up their personal wealth to build it.  No one stands to lose money or clients if a building is managed poorly or engulfed in a preventable fire. No one is held accountable. Worst case scenario for the government is that someone loses their job. Even then, they could easily use their contacts and friendships within government to get another cushy gig.

In most cases, citizens aren’t even allowed to sue the government in these situations. And if they do end up getting some kind of settlement, it’s not coming out of the pockets of the people responsible for the mismanagement and negligence, it’s coming from the taxpayers.

This overall lack of accountability incentivizes negligence, corner-cutting, favoritism, and bribes.

In a free market, whoever built such a building would have to risk their own money, credit, assets, and reputation. If their building is unsafe or is ran negligently, they stand to lose the millions of dollars they invested. They could also be sued. Their reputation could also be tarnished to the point of being put out of business permanently. In a free market, incentives are in place to insure that people build safe buildings.

In spite of all these incentives to do right in a free market, what if someone does want to build an unsafe building?

2. Insurance

Insurance companies would be a huge problem for the perspective builder of unsafe buildings. In a free market, insurance companies would have a lot more latitude than they have today in deciding who they choose to insure and under what terms.

With that in mind, can you imagine an insurance company risking potentially tens of millions of dollars without sending a team of inspectors to assess the safety of a building? Not just for fire risks, but any number of risks that could cause harm to customers which could lead to lawsuits that the insurance company would have to cover.

I view this as the biggest check and balance against unsafe building in a free market society. Any insurance company that insures unsafe buildings would quickly be bankrupted with claims. And with no government to bail them out, they wouldn’t be able to stay in business to continue insuring unsafe buildings.

3. Inspections

When people think about a world without government, one horror they imagine is a world without building codes and inspectors. They imagine people and companies cutting corners in their construction in order to save money. However, I see the opposite happening.

Today, government has a monopoly on building codes. If their department puts their stamp of approval on a building, we assume it’s safe. But because it’s a government monopoly, it can’t go out of business. If they employ a building inspector that is incompetent, or lazy, or just going through motions and passing buildings that are unsafe, we’re stuck with it. Same goes for cases of bribery or favors to friends of those in power.

In a free market, building inspectors would face competition and would be judged on their track record. For example, if a building inspection company gave The Grenfell Tower a passing grade on fire safety, chances are they’d be out of business right now. Not only that, but since they are obviously incompetent and/or untrustworthy, all their former clients would have to get re-inspections immediately from a more reputable company in order to satisfy their customers. After all, if my building had a seal of approval from the same company that gave The Grenfell Tower a seal of approval, I’d be demanding a new inspection immediately or threatening to move out. Wouldn’t you? Today, we don’t have that luxury. Some government agency signed off on The Grenfell Tower at some point, and that same agency is out right now signing off on another building.

But if the government isn’t there to force buildings to be inspected, why would greedy owners pay money out of their own pocket to get them inspected, you ask?

First, we go back to insurance companies. In order to get the best possible premium, insurance companies could offer discounts based on how often buildings got inspected by trusted inspection companies. Plus, it’s safe to assume that insurance companies would have their own inspectors on staff doing their own due diligence. And if a building owner refused to get inspections, how many insurance companies do you think would insure them?  My guess in none, unless the owners are willing to pay outrageous premiums, which would defeat the entire purpose of cutting corners in order to save money.

Second, to attract customers. If you’re looking for an apartment and you find several that are similarly priced, but some have a very recent seal of approval from a reputable inspection company, and others have no seal of approval or approvals from ten years ago, which building would you want to live in? Or one may have a seal of approval from a reputable company, and another from a company that just got caught taking bribes and approving unsafe buildings. Again, which would you trust? Apartment buildings would compete with one another to prove how safe they are to you.

4. Personal Liability

For centuries, wealthy businessmen have been finding ways to use the coercive power of government to protect their assets and businesses.  Perhaps one of the most effective policies they’ve managed to put in place is the idea of limited liability.  This means that when someone goes into business as a corporation, they are now personally off the hook for any losses, debts, lawsuits, and any other possible negative consequences from the action of their business.

So if a wealthy person had owned The Grenfell Tower, the victims of his neglectful business practices couldn’t sue him personally.  They could only sue the actual corporation that owned the Tower.  And if the corporation’s assets were limited to the Tower and the land it sat on, the victims would be fighting over scraps while the owner’s other assets would be shielded from lawsuits. This lack of personal liability makes it easier for an already wealthy business owner to engage in potentially risky and negligent business practices.  Practices they would never imagine engaging in if they were personally on the hook for any harm that these practices caused to innocent people and property.

In a libertarian free market society, there is no government to shield business owners from liability.  If your negligence causes great harm to other persons and property, you are responsible.  It doesn’t matter if you do it as an individual or as a business owner.

Fear is a wonderful motivator.  If business owners were afraid that their actions as a business owner could possibly harm their personal assets, we can easily see that that business owners would take greater care in running their businesses.

But Couldn’t It Still Happen?

We can never say for sure that something wouldn’t happen under different circumstances.  All we can do is speculate on how people would act given different incentives.  We can clearly see that a free market would greatly disincentivize the type of negligence that was necessary for a Grenfell Tower type of tragedy to take place.  And if someone did happen to build such a building, they and everyone involved in building, insuring, and inspecting this building would be quickly put out of business and their personal fortunes would be subject to lawsuits from the victims of their negligence.  Nothing can bring someone back from the dead, but at least in a market based society there wouldn’t be a government to stop victims from seeking full restitution and there wouldn’t be government monopolies that prevent bad actors from going out of business.

 

You can support Mike on Patreon, or

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site.

 

You may also like:

10-7-2016 The EPA Causes Pollution; Only Freedom Can Eliminate Pollution

By Mike Tront

Since the rise of the Trump Movement and the Alt Right, some in the libertarian community are rethinking their stance on borders and immigration.  Traditionally, libertarians believe that the government has no right to restrict people from traveling.  Today many are abandoning that stance in favor of government controlled borders.  Specifically, Trump’s plan to build a massive wall is somehow seen as a legitimate government action.

So how do libertarians morally justify a massive, centralized government border-industrial-complex?  There are two major arguments libertarians typically use to justify themselves here.  The first boils down to “the ends justify the means”.  Higher levels of immigration will equal bigger government, they claim.  Therefore, supporting an endlessly costly big government program and the inevitable Liberties it will trample on is worth it because it will actually REDUCE the size and scope of government.

This seems to be the most popular argument among closed-border libertarians, but that’s not the argument I’m tackling today.  Most of the holes in this stance are tackled very well in this Reason Magazine piece if you’re interested in reading that counter argument.

The other argument, which is the one that I find most compelling, is what I’m tackling today.  It’s the claim that since a world without government would have private borders, it’s not necessarily anti-libertarian to advocate for government controlled borders in the meantime.

Why It’s Compelling

An interesting analogy to the border situation is the fact that even the most hardcore libertarian doesn’t object when the government prosecutes murderers, rapists, and thieves.  The government has a monopoly on criminal prosecution, thereby preventing private actors from legitimately prosecuting criminals and extracting restitution.  Since they are actively preventing private solutions, we have no choice but to at least begrudgingly advocate for the government to do what it can to prosecute these criminals.  We may prefer a private option, but in the meantime we can’t just let these violent criminals run free.

Similarly, the government monopolizes the control of the border.  It owns large swaths of land that border other countries, it owns the roads, and it exercises tremendous control over airports and seaports.  The closed-border libertarians theorize that without government, these points of entry would all be privately owned and therefore owners would be able to restrict and prevent people from entering.  Private land owners would take measures to prevent trespassing.  Airport owners and seaport owners could put whatever restrictions on who can use their service that they like.  And road owners could similarly prevent access to their roads to anyone they please.  Since these owners could restrict who would be able use their property in a free market, closed-border libertarians claim that it’s completely legitimate to advocate for government to enforce similar restrictions in the meantime.

Since we’re willing to accept and even advocate for the government to be involved with prosecuting violent criminals, we should also accept the government exercising control over the borders, the closed-border libertarian could claim.

Where It Falls Apart

While it’s true that private property owners could prevent people from using or traveling on their property in a free market setting, there’s no clear evidence that all owners would want to stop people from certain geographical regions from using their services.  There’s no clear evidence that even a majority of these owners would be so restrictive.  In fact, the more restrictive a firm is, the less money it will make.

Take private airports for example.  On the surface, you would think it’d be easy and cheap to prevent immigration.  An airport could just simply refuse to accept airplanes from certain countries.  Boom.  Problem solved.  Except that someone from a “bad” geographical region could just move to a “good” geographical region and enter the country through their airline.  So the airport would either have to accept that a few “bad” immigrants would get in, or they’d have to spend huge amounts of money to do extensive background/litmus tests on every person coming in from an International flight.  I can’t imagine that they’d opt for the latter solution, especially since they’d have to pass the expense to their customers.

But let’s say, for some reason, the majority of airport owners decide that they don’t like making as much money as possible and they do whatever it takes to stop “bad” immigrants from using their services.  The only thing they will accomplish is raising the profits of their competitors that still allow these people to use their service.  And even if ALL the current airports in the land decide to form some kind of cartel with the intention to heavily restrict foreign flights, this will only embolden some profit-seeking entrepreneur to build a new airport outside of the cartel to take all the previously unwanted business.  And since they’re the only game in town, they’d make tremendous profits.  These huge profits would incentivize other people to build similar airports, or it would incentivize current airports to buck the cartel and start loosening their restrictions.  In a free market, discrimination can be costly.

The same goes for roads.  Yes, some road owners could have some sort of litmus test that they force all their customers to take before using their road, but that can get costly and intrusive for their customers.  The increased costs and intrusive paperwork will restrict the “bad” immigrants, but it will also drive away large amounts of “good” Americans who just want to travel without paying big fees and filling out intrusive paperwork.  Plus, entrepreneurs who are seeking profit are always there to pick up the slack from businesses who refuse or alienate potential customers.

The Wall

But surly The Wall is feasible in a free market, right?  Today we see many examples of gated communities and corporate buildings with walls, fences, tight security, etc.  There are already numerous examples of private walls to protect property, so wouldn’t the invisible hand of the free market lead entrepreneurs to build a wall along a border with a government controlled territory in order to stop its people from trespassing?  No.

The first problem is money.  Private walls are only built, maintained, and guarded in order to protect property that has significant value.  It wouldn’t make sense for someone to build, maintain, and guard a wall if this wall costs more than what the actual property is worth!

We could hypothetically say that a network of walls could happen if the entire border is populated with wealthy, thriving neighborhoods and valuable companies on the “good” side.  These communities could be gated as many are today.  However, any wealthy and thriving community is constantly in need of customers and workers.  The people on the “bad” side could end up being both.  In this case it would be in the best interest of the businesses of the communities to allow access to its services to as many people as possible.  More people also means a wider potential employee pool, which could ensure better employees and better services and prices for members of the communities.  Someone also has to mow the lawns, clean the pools, pick up the trash, and perform any number of menial low-paying jobs.  The homeowners who live in these expensive, gated communities probably aren’t garbagemen and pool cleaners.  Even in this hypothetical world, any private borders that are built would have to be rather porous.  No wall will overcome the demands of commerce.

The other problem is the lack of monopoly.  Unless we’re talking about a very small border, odds are at least some of the property owners on the border won’t erect any barriers.  In fact, just the opposite would happen.  Since this is a free market, if there is a demand for people to travel, entrepreneurs will work to satisfy that demand.  Without a government monopoly, who’s to stop someone from buying land on a border and building roads that charge potential immigrants for using them?  Right now potential immigrants pay thousands of dollars to smugglers, called Coyotaje’s, to get them across the Mexico/U.S. border.  With this much market demand, I can’t imagine entrepreneurs NOT building roads to make profits off people who are in the market to escape their oppressive territory.  The only way to stop private individuals and firms from doing this is if there is a centralized government that has a monopoly on the border.

Freedom of Association

When all else fails, the closed-border libertarian often falls back on the freedom of association.  No one has a right to force them to associate with people’s that they don’t wish to associate with.  They are correct, but that only works on their own private property.  Once you leave your property, and enter someone else’s property, they choose who they would like to associate with.  Freedom of association works both ways.  You get to choose who you’d like to associate with on your property, but you don’t get to dictate to someone else on their property who they get to associate with.  And in a free market setting, whether the closed-border libertarian likes it or not, businesses are incentivized by profit to associate with as many people as possible from as many lands as possible in order to get the most customers and the best employees.  Only a government monopoly can build barriers and walls to stop the movement of people.

You can support Mike on Patreon, or

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

You may also like:

By Mike Tront

Beltway libertarianism, or plain vanilla libertarianism (as Tom Woods puts it) often gets a bad rap among many in the libertarian community.  Organizations like the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine, and even the Libertarian Party itself get accused of not being libertarian enough.  Being too centrist.  Pandering to people in power.  Or just flat out not hating government enough.

Recently this disdain for beltway libertarian organizations is illustrated in Episode 870 of the Tom Woods Show.  Tom and his guest Lew Rockwell, of lewrockwell.com, wondered why “plain vanilla” libertarian websites are not considered fake news while Tom’s and Lew’s websites are.  They are referencing a list of websites compiled by a professor and her class from Merrimack College.  This list displays a number of news sites and labels these sites based on their level of bias and fakeness.  This list has been out for months, but it is back in the news now that the Harvard Library put out a guide on how to identify fake news, and linked to this list as a handy reference.

On this list, tomwoods.com and lewrockwell.com aren’t actually labeled “fake news”, they are labeled “unreliable”.  “Unreliable” meaning:

“Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification or to be read in conjunction with other sources.”

Not as bad of a distinction as the “fake news” sites, but still ridiculous that they’re even on this list to begin with.  Tom and Lew don’t claim to be news organizations and they simply offer quality, consistent, truthful libertarian content.

Also on the list is The Cato Institute.  Cato is a mainstream, Washington D.C. based think tank that offers libertarian leaning solutions in government.  They generally strive for limited government policies, but fall far short of the “tear it all down” type of solutions that many of us desire to see.  Think of them as the Gary Johnson of the think tank world.  Not surprisingly, Cato is labeled “Credible” on this fake news list.  “Credible”, according to this list, means:

“Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism”.

This leads to a discussion between Woods and Rockwell, in the above mentioned Podcast, about why “plain vanilla” libertarian organizations aren’t feared by the mainstream like Woods and Rockwell are.  Rockwell states:

“These people are not exactly a threat to the regime.  In fact, they’re a part of the regime.  They play their role, just as [George] Soros plays his role with another hat on, but that’s what’s wrong with plain vanilla libertarianism”

Before I go on, I’d like to say that I have nothing but love and respect for Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell.  These guys do more for the advancement of libertarianism on a slow Tuesday than most of us will do our entire lives!  Hell, I wouldn’t have even known about this conversation if I wasn’t a Tom Woods listener!  However, no two libertarians agree with each other 100%.  When Lew and Tom downplay the importance that beltway libertarians have in the movement, I’ll wholeheartedly disagree.

My Path

Most of us aren’t born libertarians.  From the time that we’re conscience of the outside world we’re taught from schools, parents, religion, and media that government is a positive force in our life.  Everything we know and love is either given to us by government, or protected by government from the scary bad guys.  At some point, however, we libertarians start to doubt this narrative.

Once we begin to question this narrative, especially after decades of conditioning, it’s important to have many different resources we can use to move us along the path to libertarianism.  Not all of us are able or willing to jump in head first.

I don’t exactly remember what lead me to discover libertarianism.  My earliest memories were in High School. For some reason I stumbled upon Harry Browne’s campaign website for President in 2000.  I also remember being in a debate class in High School, and for some reason only one resource seemed to line up with my personal opinion on the subject I was debating.  It was the Cato Institute.  In that class, they would give you a resolution and lists of resources to use for your arguments.  You could only use arguments and stats that were acquired from any number of credible resources that were provided.  Cato was one of them.

I don’t remember if Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party came first, or discovering The Cato Institute came first, but once I started down this rabbit hole it was a done deal.  I was a living example of the old libertarian joke:  “What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?  About 6 months!”

Beltway Libertarianism IS a Threat

Lew Rockwell says these groups aren’t a threat to the regime.  In and of themselves, he is right.  They aren’t trying to tear it all down.  For the most part, they provide seemingly practical solutions to make government run more efficient and at a much lower cost to the taxpayers.  However, they also cast doubt on the necessity of government involvement in many aspects of our lives, both economically and socially.

While every other think tank and political organization is promising to use the enormous power of government to keep you safe and give you things, “plain vanilla” libertarians are the only people in Washington actually using the existing framework of government to get the message of smaller government out to the masses.

You and I both know that they have no shot at limiting government.  We also know that their message is often watered down and within the boundaries of political correctness.  However, it’s exactly because of this politically correct and watered down message that they’re considered “credible” and not scary by the establishment.  This gives them one important advantage and one important role in our movement.

Lao Tzu said “A Journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”  The “plain vanilla” libertarians are the first step.  If this politically correct and credible first step weren’t available, many of us would never have gone down the libertarian path at all.  In this respect, “plain vanilla” libertarian organizations could be one of the most important prongs in the fight for a libertarian world.  Without these mainstream organizations, I imagine many current listeners and readers would have never even discovered Tom Woods or Lew Rockwell.

Just like how some people consider marijuana a “gateway” drug, one where if someone consumes it they become more likely to consume more dangerous drugs, mainstream libertarian organizations are the gateway to the Tom Woods’, Lew Rockwell’s, and every other truly anti-state organization and person in the movement.  With that in mind, “plain vanilla libertarianism” is definitely a threat to the establishment.

You can support Mike on Patreon, or

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

By Mike Tront

Last year, President Obama’s administration issued guidance to public schools that said they must allow students to use the bathroom with the gender they identify with, regardless of their actual sex.

This year, the Trump administration reversed that order.  Now states and localities will be deciding what their transgender bathroom policies will be.

For libertarians, this is a complicated issue.  One the one hand, if there is to be a government, we’d like it to be as decentralized as possible.  So there’s definitely an argument in favor of state’s rights.  However, this particular issue deals with public property.  Since it’s public property, partially funded with federal dollars and overseen by a federal department, there’s an argument that the federal government has a duty to accommodate the needs of transgender students.

What should be the libertarian solution?  To paraphrase an old saying, “If you ask two libertarians their opinion on something, you’ll get three answers!” That quote couldn’t be more appropriate here.  Libertarians may argue over what the public school transgender bathroom policy should be, but we ultimately agree that the real solution is to privatize all schools and let the owners and customers decide.

Instead of each state or district or the entire country having a one-size-fits all policy, any school could have their own policy since they’d be privately owned.  That way no matter where you live, you’ll have options to choose from.  Just like we have many choices in grocery stores, we should have just as many options in education.

Why We’re Losing

In the sales world there’s an effective selling technique known as the Alternative Choice Close.  The idea is that you present your prospect with two choices, both of which end in them buying your product.  If you’ve ever bought a car at a dealership you’ve seen this technique in action.  When the salesperson is giving you an offer on a car, they’ll give you several different payment options and ask “Which option would you prefer?”  This technique increases the chances of a sale compared to asking the prospect a “Yes/No” question.  One where “No” is an easy option.  I.e. “Would you like to buy it at these terms?”

Or to relate it to the dating world, if you want to ask a girl out on a date it’s much more effective to say “Where would you like me to take you: Applebee’s or Chili’s?” Instead of “Do you want to go on date with me?”

On the public school bathroom issue, and many other issues, libertarians are being had by slick salesmanship from those in charge of the government.  Government presents us with a conservative and liberal choice on an issue, and we feel the need to pick the least bad side.  No matter what choice we get sold on, we’re buying a government solution.  The people in power don’t care what side ultimately wins out.  So long as they keep their control over the topic in question.  Same with the car salespeople.  They don’t care which payment you choose, just so long as you pick a payment and they get the sale!

On this issue in particular, too many libertarians are choosing to side with either the right or the left.  Perhaps some libertarians have bought into the fear-mongering involving transgender people.  Perhaps some libertarians are trying to curry favor with one side of the isle in the hopes of being seen as tolerant.  Perhaps some libertarians are just tired of being left out of the debate and want to feel like they’re being heard, even at the cost of choosing a lesser evil.  Whatever the excuse, by siding with the left or right, we’re dooming our ideology to a life of existing just outside of the Overton Window.

Unapologetic, Consistent Freedom

The two greatest salespeople for libertarianism in the last 100 years were Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.  No two people were responsible for more converts to our ideology in that span.  In spite of their extreme differences in how they lived their lives, they had one important thing in common.  They were unapologetic and consistent in their defense of human freedom.  Even when it took them to unpopular places.  Or in the case of Dr. Paul, even when it caused him to wallow in obscurity for decades before people started taking him seriously.  Ron Paul is a perfect example of the concept that it usually takes years of hard work to become an overnight success!

When it comes to the ongoing battle over transgender bathrooms and public schools, we can’t fall victim to the false narrative that it has to be one or the other.  Yes, I realize that eliminating public schools isn’t an option any time soon.  It may not be an option ever, at least politically.  Technology will most likely make public schools obsolete way before government gives up their control of education.

So why not pick a side if our solution isn’t even an option, you ask?  I see two big reason why we should stick to our seemingly hopeless guns.

First, this is how we win converts.  If we’re seen as nothing more than a centrist movement, where we take a little bit from the left and a little bit from the right, we’re not going to inspire anyone.  If we have no clear ideology on issues, or if we’re seen as being easy to throw away our ideology in order to settle for the lesser evil, we’ll always be thought of as the nerdy kid trying desperately to get into the cool kid party.

Second, we’re not going to sway the people in charge anyway!  Seriously, could you imagine a scenario where the government is deadlocked on an issue, so they come to the libertarians to make the call?  The idea is laughable!

This tyranny train is roaring full steam ahead with or without us.  Since we seem to be the only group of people on this train that can see we’re heading off a cliff, it’s our duty to ourselves and our fellow humans to do our best to point out the truth and offer the only moral solution.  Instead of advocating the conservative or liberal “solution”, we need to present the libertarian solution.  The fact that the libertarian solution isn’t even on the table for discussion isn’t an excuse to settle for the lesser evil.  In fact, that’s all the more reason to be presenting our solution far and wide, if only to move the Overton Window toward libertarian ideas.  In this case, unapologetic privatization of everything to do with education.

 

You can support Mike on Patreon, or

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

 

You may also like:

4/6/16 – Government is Turning College into High School

By Mike Tront

Physical removal, so to speak, is an idea popular in a particular segment of the libertarian population.  Specifically, libertarians who consider themselves right libertarians.  Those who may sympathize with the altright and those that may be motivated by their hatred of anyone who considers themselves politically left wing.  If you’re motivated by your hatred of leftists more than you’re motivated by your love of individual human liberty, you’re probably sympathetic to the idea of physical removal.

The general idea is that if there is ever to be a libertarian world, one where personal liberties and property rights are protected, it is morally justifiable to use force, up to and including deadly force, against “people” who are deemed unfit to live in a free society.  “People” who call themselves communists seem to be the number one target.

The word “people” is in quotation marks because according to the physical removal advocates, the people who they are using force against aren’t actually people.  That means they’re not violating anyone’s rights.  How convenient!

From the Father of Physical Removal, Hans Herman Hoppe, in his book Democracy: The God That Failed, page 173

A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person (a persona), but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest).

According to Hoppe, if you come across a “harmless” person who doesn’t understand economics, you have a right to domesticate them.  They may also be “enjoyed” as a “free good”.  Basically, you may treat them as a farm animal (slave).  Or, if you deem them to be “wild and dangerous” (presumably without due process), you may justifiably use violence against them.

I have no objection to fighting off someone who is actively harming you or your property, but Hoppe’s proposed treatment of non-violent people is impossible to reconcile with libertarianism.  To be fair, in any conversions I’ve had with the pro-physical removal crowd, I’ve never heard them bring up their perceived right to enslave a “harmless” person whose only crime is not understanding economics.  However, I’ve heard them say over and over again that communists aren’t people.  I’ve always took this as a joke.  How wrong I was.  I really shouldn’t even be surprised by this.  After all, if they claim to have a right to remove someone from their own legitimate property and/or murder someone who they deem to be unfit to live near them, why wouldn’t they also have the right to enslave them?

So as far as Hoppe is concerned, enslaving these unfit, yet “harmless”, people would be just as justifiable as violently removing them.

In this particular case, I’m having a hard time believing any libertarian could possibly go along with Hoppe on this.  Imagine if you will, a 30-something year old man living in his Mom’s basement.  He likes to go online and post pro-communist stuff on Twitter, so now a gang of people have a right to burst into his house and drag him off?  Or to enslave him, just because he’s guilty of the “crime” of not understanding economics?

The very basis of libertarinism is that no one has a right to initiate aggression against a non-aggressor.  Simply believing in an idiotic philosophy doesn’t make one an aggressor.  Only if that 30-something year old basement dweller actually takes up arms to violate someone’s person or property, or poses an immediate and credible threat to do so, can he be legitimately met with force.

If we turn back the clock on the definition of a person, one can justify all forms of aggression and still claim to be advocates for liberty and justice.  After all, there was a time in America where one could enslave someone, viciously beat his children, rape a woman (as long as she wasn’t someone else’s wife, i.e. property), and kill an Indian and still not be thought of as a criminal in any way.  The reason for this is that the people he committed these horrendous crimes against weren’t considered people.

We don’t get to be liberty loving, non-aggression advocating libertarians simply by magically changing the definition of who counts as a person.

Physical Removal in a Private Community

Hoppe is way off base in his assessment of who he chooses to consider a person.  However, he later articulates a vision of a completely private community, governed by an owner who leases all land to everyone in the community.  Instead of you buying and owning your land, you’d join a community and pay a monthly fee to use a parcel of land and enjoy any and all benefits of living in said community.

In this specific example, physical removal is simply a matter of contract.  Just like today, if you sign a lease with an apartment complex, but you break the lease by violating any of its terms (not paying rent, being too noisy, threatening neighbors, subletting, etc), the apartment complex has every right to kick you out of the community.

In this example, physical removal is well within the bounds of libertarian ideals.  If you voluntarily join a community that has rules against certain types of political speech, even if you are doing no harm to anyone or their property, the owner can kick you out if you violate said rules.

How does Hoppe imagine this happening?  Here’s another passage from Democracy: The God That Failed page 218:

As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society. In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society.

In his example here, there’s one huge detail missing.  Due process.  From what Hoppe seems to be envisioning here, your right to stay on your land is completely at the whim of the “natural social elites” of the community.

Traditionally, before the owner of the apartment complex can kick you out, they must take you to court and prove their allegations.  If it turns out that they can’t prove that you’ve violated the terms of the lease, they have no right to kick you out.  If they kick you out anyway, they will be liable for damages from breaking their end of the contract.

Now there could be a voluntary community that has a stipulation that the owner, or the “natural social elites”, can remove anyone at anytime without due process, but I’m having a hard time imagining anyone, let alone a libertarian, agreeing to such an arrangement.

Oppressive Liberty

Finishing up the above quote from Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed page 218:

Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.

Hoppe’s vision of a libertarian future is a bleak one.  It appears no less totalitarian than the world we live in today.  We’re simply trading one set of rulers for another.  Instead of a government telling us what to do with our property and how to act in our personal lives, we’ll have the covenant owner dictating this with little or no recourse.

I have no problem with someone voluntarily wanting to live in such a community.  Amish communities today are very similar.  There’s very little room for individual expression or alternative lifestyles, and if one does not conform they are shunned and kicked out of their private, Amish communities.  However, if the only way to achieve a libertarian society is to violently remove single parents, homosexuals, nature lovers, and pretty much anyone who Hoppe deems is living an “alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyle” from their legitimately owned property, then we’ve accomplished nothing.

The essence of libertarianism is individual rights, not collective rights.  The individual is to be judged solely on their own actions.  If that individual does not initiate force against anyone’s person or property, then it is never right to use force against them, even if you think their lifestyle choices or personal views are bad for your “social order”.  “The ends justify the means” is the mantra of collectivists and should never be uttered by anyone who considers themselves libertarian.

 

You can support Mike on Patreon, or

Please subscribe for free!  I hate spam and will never sell, trade, or give your email address to anyone.  We’ll send you the latest blog posts as well as content and humor that you can’t get from the site, including This Week in Hypocrisy

You may also like: