1. Although I am not in support of Anarchy even in the sense the word is used by An-Caps, I don't think that "Libertarian" is a proper word to be used while addressing an Anarcho-Capitalist like David Friedman, Adam Kokesh or Larken Rose since they do not have a pragmatic, workable solution on how to maximize the liberty for the individual. In the total absence of a government, which can be there for a very short period of time as like in case of French revolution, and is tremendously violent, the human society is bound to lead either to a Monarchy or a dictatorship, as happened with French revolution due to Napoleon Bonaparte, or a pure democracy i.e., majority rule, which is again a rule by people and not by principles. As the great Thomas Jefferson had.said long back, "If people had been angels, there would have been no need of a government. But since in reality, people are far from being angels, that's why we need a government." An-Caps(A pure Anarchist, who opposes the existence of a government of any kind, to any extent) merely imagine a utopia where all people are perfect and benevolent and no one is violating anyone else's rights to any extent. Same is the case with Anarcho-Communist utopia where, above all this, they imagine a perfect equality between all humanbeings. A constitutional republic, albeit being far from perfect, as envisaged by the founding fathers of the United States of America, had established a minimalist government, what we call today as a Minarchy, which is a government running on the principle of maximization of individual liberty,, and in order to safeguard this principle, the constitution, a parent law of all laws to be or can be passed afterwords, was written, which established the jurisdiction for passing such laws or implementing/enforcing them. By which they ensured that such a governemnt will not interfere in the day to day lives of its citizens to the extent of telling them what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies, but it will certainly intervene if an individual citizen' right to do whatever he wants with his own body is about to be or had been violated by another individual citizen or many other citizens, collectively. In this manner, it will maximize the individual's liberty by making it run on principles and not on the vagaries of people who, in their respective periods, holding the office of the governmental functionary. It will protect(infact, not violate or infringe upon a pre-existing right in the words of 2nd Amendment as written by founding fathers) to keep and bear arms for their own self-defence, but it will also provide the protection of government run protection agencies like police force or army, in case the individual's right of self-defence is under the threat of getting violated by a much bigger enemy like a mob in case of a riot or civil commotion or by a foreign army in case of foreign invasion. Whatever Ayn Rand may prefer to call herself, she had always been a die-hard individualist and she can certainly be called as a libertarian, in the sense the word libertarian is currently being used by well-known libertarians like Ron Paul, David Boaz etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *