Libertarianism versus Libertarianism

Could a minimal state be possible? Would it automatically involve a central banking system or would worker’s co-operatives produce their own money and credit would be cheap enough for the unemployed to live off or set up their own businesses?

A libertarian critique of the State itself is that it would automatically involve some control over the economy, even if it professes to be a Minimal one.
According to Hayek (although hardly a libertarian) society should not be one large organisation. However, it is difficult to think of a stable society that isn’t a large organisation: Hayek didn’t seem to realise that we live in a world of states. It is also difficult to separate the State from the surplus that Capitalism provides to fund it.

A minimal conception of the state could possibly only involve a central government over a free federation of local municipalities. There is no unifying state as such, and it is up to each municipality to decide whether to enact laws passed by the government; they cannot be forced to do so. To be consistent, there are no corporations operating over more than one municipality either. Each municipality may also be free to produce its own currency (this was starting to sound like the EU!) Even so, centralising will always be at the backs of the minds of ministers and representatives, and the Free Association will likely act as a unified State towards foreign powers (The Culture, anyone?) Being doubtful that each municipality will be large enough to be economically self-sufficient, there will be pressure from the central government for national projects like dams and nuclear power stations over regional objections.

Strictly applying Libertarian/ Free Market ideas, central banks as we know them could not exist. By giving higher credit to certain individuals that are perceived to be better able to pay back and denying others any credit at all, current banks and banking systems operate a kind of “command economy”. In a Free Market, individuals should have equal opportunity to invest in enterprises that may or may not succeed, so equal credit should be given to anyone who isn’t a minor or insane. To be consistently “libertarian”, this should apply throughout a “Free Society.”

Also, any kind of health insurance, especially with regards to emergency or mental health care, could be perceived to be totalitarian, or be perceived as totalitarian to demand it from someone in immediate need of assistance (an argument Libertarians would probably use on Anarcho-Syndicalists). In this sense, emergency and mental health care at the very least should be a public good, free at the point of use in the Free Association.

So: Health insurance, central banks and national police and armed forces are Totalitarian. In a Free Association the first two would be non-compulsory at best while the last would be abolished entirely as “smothering the spontaneous ordering process of society by placing it in the hands of authority”. Of course, modern “Libertarians” are too obsessed with Capitalism to actually agree with any of this!

Assuming that this actually could be done and isn’t some libertarian pipe dream, each municipality would probably have an economy similar to that of Tucker’s or Hogskin’s. As stated, cheap credit and/or or maybe a municipality-provided free overdraft would provide relief for the unemployed with a generous pension at 65 and provision for those unable to work or in study. Of course, there would be some taxes, direct or indirect. Despite all this, there would always be some pressure from the central government for activities that would disrupt communities, international relations and the ecosystem.

If there is Government over Community, it will eventually intervene in the Economy of the Commnity.

So, libertarian: pensions or the environment? Or is communalism too totalitarian?

Anarchy is realism, anything else is Utopian.