Brad Spangler provides us with a short and straightforward definition of the (allegedly) "true State". Since its publication more than a year ago it has been cited frequently, especially by
Kevin Carson. Although it provides libertarians with a somehow fresh view of the State, I believe it to be oversimplified.
Let me try to make my point with another analogy
—and forgive me if it's scientifically incorrect.
Imagine a diabetic who needs a shot of insulin each day. Because her supplier lives far away from her, she always stores enough insulin for one month.
One day, a burglar steals all of her insulin. As a result, the diabetic's marginal utility of one shot of insulin increases tremendously. She is willing to pay far more for one shot than she would be if she had a full stock. Fortunately, someone comes along and offers to sell her a shot
—at an extremely high price though. She thankfully accepts the offer.
Now, how should we view the seller if we believe that the non-aggression principle should rule over human interactions?
First of all, let us assume that the seller is in no way affiliated with the burglar
—neither did he pay or encourage the burglar to steal the insulin nor did he buy the insulin from him. Is the seller guilty of a crime? Certainly not. Does he improve the life of the diabetic? Certainly. Is he—in conventional terms—a bad person who exploits the needs of the diabetic? Would he be a better person if he offered the insulin for the regular price or even for free? Yes, to some degree.
However, whenever voluntary trade takes place, the two parties involved in the trade are exploiting each others needs. This is even true when someone "trades" a material object at no price in exchange for the resulting good feeling (either for its own sake or due to the belief that that giving the gift will "pay off" in the future). Or to phrase it a bit less theoretically, when I sell you insulin at the regular market price, I exploit your need for insulin and you exploit my need for cash.
Can we then draw a line which indicates us at which price the sale of insulin becomes something bad? No, all we can say is that the seller in the example above would be a better person if he gave the insulin for free but we should not condemn the seller for charging a high price. Or is it legitimate for a beggar to condemn someone who gives only ten cents?
Two objections could be made here. It could be stated that the trade in the example above is not voluntary. This, however, leads us straight back to the question of where to draw the line. Surely, the theft was not voluntary, but under what conditions does a trade become unvoluntary if both parties can choose not to engage in it? There is no way to tell.
One could also ask if the seller has an obligation to find the burglar and restore the stolen property. This would certainly be a cynical thing to ask for when the diabetic is threatened with immediate death. And every other aspect of this question faces the same problem of where to draw the line.
Therefore, Spangler's bagman turns out to be completely seperate from his gunman in my example. He only becomes a part of the gunman's aggressive State if he actively collaborates with the gunman. There is no reason for us to condemn the bagman as long as he peacefully exploits the post-robbery situation for his own needs.
However, one inconvenient consequence of this analysis among many is that some owners of sweatshops in which people work under terrible conditions can't be condemned per se anymore. We can say that we would prefer it if the companies running the sweatshops paid higher wages, increased the working conditions and helped the local workers to reclaim their legitimate land. However, we must never forget to focus on addressing the root of the whole mess—past aggression which is in almost every case connected with the State. It is obvious that sweatshop owners have a great incentive to make the local government continue to aggress against the local people but as long as the owner acts peacefully our main focus should be the State.
If this means losing sympathies by people from the traditional Left then so be it. Unfortunately, in the long run, problems are not solved by "hacking at the branches of evil" but by "striking at the root."
Nevertheless, Spangler's bagman is of course very often directly involved in the gunman's activities in today's state capitalist society and we must condemn the "private" side of it just as heavily as we condemn the "public" one because they truly are just two sides of the same statist coin.
P.S. The latest product of Spangler's untiring and admirable committment to the Movement of the Libertarian Left is the public launch of MLL Online. Please visit it. I will explore the many gimmicks of the site when I find time for it.
Tags: Exploitation, free market, left-libertarianism, Movement of the Libertarian Left
