Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

"free" education for children; much disease could be
eliminated if the state would do such things as res
t ric t the "fr e e d om 0 f con t raet" i nor de r t 0 1 imit the
n umbe r 0 f h 0 u r s per wee k 1a bo r e r s cou I d wo r k, 0 res ­
tab lis h s a f e t y and h e a 1 t h s tandar dsin the wo r ks hop.
Since the power of the state can be used for such noble
ends, Green andh i s philosophical successors believe
that the state ought to so act. There are two crucial
assumptions in this position: [1] that in the absence
of state act ion such problems as poverty and disease
could not be ameliorated or eliminated, and [2] that
the.y can be successfully dealt with through state
action.
The i n d i v i d ua 1 i s tanarc his t, a s we have seen,
denies both assumptions. Not only does he believe that
such problems can be solved in a laissez faire society,
he also maintains that state action is likely to compound
and perpetuate them.
Briefly, the anarchist maintains that government
economic intervention not only usually occurs for the
benefIt of the "vested interests" but that.even when
des i g ned t 0 h e 1 p the p 0 0 r itis s elf - d e f eat i ng . Re ­
gar die s s 0 fin ten t ions, sueh programs as min i mum wa ge s
eliminate jobs for the very group, viz., the poor, they
we red e s i g ned t 0 h e 1 p, wh i leo the r programs suehas
tariffs, subsidies, and the like, tend to protect the
positions of the wealthy and politically powerful at
the expense of the poor. Further, a laissez faire society,
relieved of the debilitating effects of government
regUlations, would be extremely productive. This,
argues the anarchist, would have two significant consequences:
[1] it would reduce involuntary poverty to
those incapable of working, and [2] since, regardless
of the economic system, such people can be cared for
only with surplus production, the great productivity of
a I a iss e z f aire s y stem wo u I d ge neratern0 rethan s uf f i ­
cient means to provide for these 'people.
It must be pointed out, however, that in the absence
of government intervention there is no guarantee
that any of this surplUS will be channeled into the
care of the poor. But then it should also be pointed
out that charitites currently collect billions of
dollars each year, and there is no reason to believe
that this figure would be lower in a taxless society.
In fact, laissez fairists usually argue that with the
cogni t ion that the handicapped would receive no aid
from the state, coupled with the increasing standard of
389