A Positive Libertarian View of Government

            Success makes you a target.

            As libertarians make headway in getting their ideas aired and published, both liberals and conservatives have been taking potshots at the libertarian conception of government.[i]

            Conservatives Bill Kristol and David Frum have been especially eager to denigrate a libertarian idea of a government with properly circumscribed powers and scope. They complain that such a view is insufficiently "inspiring"—that citizens cannot rally around a conception of society in which government plays a strictly restricted role. They wonder how such a society would fare in the face of foreign enemies and how it could function as a world power. Governments must generate enough devotion, reverence and respect to garner the support needed to govern, they argue. They believe that a minimalist government, set forth as "a necessary evil" at best, cannot earn this reverence and thus has no chance of survival, let alone flourishing.

            But these critics lack a clear understanding, let alone full appreciation, of the libertarian view of government. In fact, libertarianism does have a positive, upbeat and frankly demanding view of government.

            The function of a proper government is to secure certain individual rights, among them the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it is to safeguard these rights that governments are "instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That is the libertarian view of government. It is also the view of the American Founders, and there can be no more venerable or inspiring heritage.[ii]

            The just powers of government are whatever powers are needed to secure the rights in question without their violation in the process. 

            Libertarians would do well to invoke the Declaration of Independence as their rallying cry against paternalistic conservatives who have no idea what they wish to conserve in the American political tradition. It is libertarians who want to preserve the Declaration's positive vision of government as the great, honorable, and properly understood guardian of our rights. The moral virtues of such a government are vigilance, valor, honor, and integrity. If politicians actually possessed these moral virtues in our time, would that not be inspiring? Would it not earn the respect of the people at large—perhaps even of Mr. Kristol and Mr. Frumm? Certainly the chances are greater that such a government could earn legitimate respect than could a government which meddles constantly in all of our affairs, with all the attendant mishaps that provoke so much contempt from the public, and all the corruption that comes with having embarked upon unjustified public policies. What many people hate about government is not its virtues but its vices. These vices arise from its lack of integrity, its failure to fulfill and stick to its appropriate duties.

            So-called "libertarian anarchists" insist that even such limited government amounts to a kind of tyranny. They reason that because even a limited government functions by law as the only agency of rights protection and adjudication within a given jurisdictional region, it amounts to a coercive monopoly. But a government that keeps to its role as rights protector within a given jurisdiction region is no more a coercive monopoly than is a department store that must be exited so as to reach its competitors. Within its own territory, the department store is a "monopoly," just like millions of other businesses. But since they do not prohibit either departure or the nearby presence of a competing store, they are not a coercive monopoly.[iii]

            Governments operate within particular spheres—"countries"—whose owners have consented at least implicitly to be governed by these institutions. Just across the border, another country with another government is free to exist as well; so long as emigration is possible, no coercive monopoly is involved. It is all akin to gated communities which one may leave at will, and the benefits of which one may enjoy so long as one pays one's way; although one would not, of course, be justified in demanding that one's home there be serviced by the owners of another gated community.

            So, then, does the libertarian provide us with an inspiring vision of a legal system?

            One should note, first of all, that it is reductionist to charge political thought with the mandate of forging a vision for all of society. Society is a huge and diverse group of individuals intertwined in innumerable complicated ways. These various individuals have diverse purposes; in their innumerable interactions they are united, optimally, by a common sense of civility, of respect for the rights of everyone. It is imperialistic to attempt to generalize the goals of one individual or group to others apart from the very general purposes of seeking to live a fulfilled, happy, honorable life in peaceful coexistence with others. That it acts to secure the right of its citizenry to do just this is part of what makes government an honorable institution, when clearly understood and uncorrupted.[iv]

            It seems to me that even libertarians who reject the very idea of government can support the limited conception of it I have outlined. After all, every libertarian is committed to some sort of institutional defense of individual rights, whether in the form of a "competing government," a defense agency, a justice agency or some other rights-protecting "firm." For most of us, this limited conception means some version of government as an institution dedicated to conscientiously guarding individual rights. 
            How could anyone seriously believe that a government that resists becoming coercive and that carries out its job in accordance with due process—the requirements of justice—cannot inspire the citizenry of the society in which it operates? Only those who mistakenly expect government to be something it should never become—a parental authority—could chastise advocates of limited government for failing to endorse a regime that functions more as nanny than protector of individual rights. The kind of respect and honor governments ought to expect from their citizens are probably akin to the respect and honor that referees or umpires would expect from everyone concerned with how a game is guided by its rule-keepers. What matters is honesty, integrity, professionalism, and dedication to outstanding service. Beyond this governments do not deserved to be cherished and, especially, subservience, which is what we may suspect Misters Kristol and Frumm are really hoping for.

There ought to have been term limits for all Congressmen.

Why is the same crap brought up time after time and how is it allowed to be posted on this forum as an article? It's like debating whether god exists to a bunch of theists on an atheist forum.

That is incorrect. Anyone who is on the anarcho-capitalist side of the divide is not an Objectivist. That does not mean they are a defective nor inferior mind. That does not mean they are morally flawed. It means that, in political philosophy, theirs is not the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Ok I understand what you mean now. But you misunderstand what I was trying to convey. Yes both systems are not zero-sum, but you must make a comparative analysis to the two. The Economist that I am always looks at life as what is the alternative? Which choice produces the best results? Both are not equal to success or establishing justice. It is intellectually dishonest therefore when an anarcho-capitalist points to imperfections on how justice is administered as reason for destroying the entire system. It's not a reasoned argument because justice and freedom is not a zero-sum game. It's a matter of alternatives, what are the choices and what system would better yield justice, peace and tranquility?

The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders

I think you are missing the point that Browne was making (which is easy to do since the quote was provided out of context). The coercion that Browne is speaking of is taxation, coercive funding if you will. How would this ideal Objectivist government be funded? Almost every Objectivist I know, Rand included, held that government funding had to be voluntary.

Almost every Objectivist I know, Rand included, held that government funding had to be voluntary. Therefore, by this definition, it's not really a government.

One suggestion I've heard is that the government be funded by user fees, i.e. if you need a service that government provides, you pay for it. How is this different from free-market anarchism? I don't see that it is.

Government could not stop the civil war that raged through this country in the 1860's

A constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper. It cannot stop anyone from doing anything. It's power and success lie in the fact that the vast majority of people believe in the ideas that are on that piece of paper.

Tell me, why do you think that people would abandon those ideas if there wasn't a piece of paper that "claimed" to guarantee this right or that (although it can't)?

But if taxation is for the protection of individual rights, and as long as there is representation with this taxation, I don't see how this is coercion.