Sciabarra et al. on Anarchism and Dualism

A long and fascinating series of exchanges on Chris Sciabarra's argument in Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism that Murray Rothbard's anarchism assumed a dualism between state and market. Geoffrey Allan Plauche, in response, attempted a non-dualistic basis for anarchism at Libertas, based on 1) Alfred Cuzan's argument that we're still in anarchy; and 2) Nock's distinction between government and the State ("Is Anarchism Inherently Dualistic?"). Sciabarra rejoined with "Anarchism and Dualism," in which he pointed out that he had as many problems with minarchy as with anarchy, and held out some hope for a non-dualistic anarchism. Then William J. Beck jumped into the fracas with "Dualing." Beck took issue with Plauche's statement that "[a] government that must rely solely on voluntary contributions... would be one very unlike anything with which we are familiar," and responded that it would be very like something we're currently familiar with: business. In "Anarchy and Dualism Revisited," Plauche took Beck to task for making the capitalist business enterprise a paradigm for all forms of voluntary association:

I think the assumption that in a libertarian-anarchist society all previously "governmental" functions would be run like businesses is too hasty and most probably mistaken. It is conceivable that there might be many services that might be better provided or only provided by non-business institutions, perhaps in some cases instead of but also quite possibly alongside businesses. Take, for instance, unemployment "insurance." Now, strictly speaking unemployment is not insurable.... However, institutions like the family, the extended family, fraternal societies (like America had in the 19th century; see here), clubs, churches, neighborhood communities, and so forth, could provide support for the temporarily and unexpectedly unemployed while having the close proximity and knowledge of time and place necessary to prevent or minimize abuse of the service. Similarly for other services. Even security production need not be exclusively provided by businesses. In no way, however, do we need the State to provide all of these services and, indeed, it invariably does a poor job of providing them (not to speak of the other accompanying negatives).

Finally, Sciabarra brings the discussion full circle with a couple more posts: "Anarchy and Dualism, Revisited," in which he reiterates his earlier acknowledgement that from the Rothbardian perspective it is the state whose coercion creates a dualism vis-a-vis the rest of society; and "Dualism: a Difference with Distinction," in which he defends his use of the term "dualism" against Beck's critique that it was a mere "difference."

Whew! Just writing this half-assed summary of the whole thing wore me out. But it's all well worth reading for yourself. If you like abstruse, involved philosophical debate, then (as Lincoln said) this is the sort of thing you'll like.