When we talk of a free society, we are often countered by the irrational propositions of the importance of government. The truth is, nobody really needs a government, however; the majority of people fail to realize this fact because most of them are mentally incapable or unprepared to climb outside the close box of government?
Government is coercion, they know, government is immoral, they realize, government is violent, they understand, yet they cannot believe that they can survive without government. On the other hand, a few of them who prefer the idea of miniarchy as they are diehard fans of Ayn Rand, the libertarian tigress, believe that somehow, a limited government can be valid, moral, just, non-coercive and relevant.
This is a big confusion and in fact contradiction. If A is A, and government is coercive, how can limited government be just or non-coercive? Limited government can be a little limited coercive but it cannot be just or relevant or required because coercion is NOT required nor it is acceptable.
I remember Ayn Rand’s words
Evil requires the sanction of the victim.
Government is coercion, coercion is evil, by promoting the idea of miniarchy, Ayn Rand fans actually improvise the idea of victimizing themselves. Now when they accept a limited victimization or limited government, they also try to take the responsibility of keeping the government limited. This is impossible because of the simple fact that the good for the government is to keep trying to increase itself and the good of the government means corruption, coercion, fraud and extortion of the common man. Miniarchists may try to remain vigilant against a limited government but they cannot make it sure that a mini-government will not increase itself as a bubble of coercion. They cannot confirm this because the government represents a huge collectivist crowd and none can control collectivist crowd. Collectivism is evil as Ayn Rand stressed, and miniarchists sanction this evil by promoting limited-government and hence they fell victim to the increasing government which eats away all the possible liberties of common man in a limited government state.
Now if the issue of a free society or a libertarian society or an Anarchocapitalist society, Can such a free society sustain itself?
How can we provide for the same level of access to typically government-subsidized resources such as public libraries and public transportation in a libertarian society? How would these things work in a libertarian economy? Would they even exist?
Reality is, in a free society, such services will be available with much more efficiency and better working principles. Private enterprises love to provide social services at very reduced or free of cost because such social activities allow them to attain proper advertisement and good name.
Such private groups are active even now. Such social charities works good for entrepreneurs and industrialists to attain popularity for their brands. As for Example, the Tata Memorial Hospital in India “Nearly 60% of these cancer patients receive primary care at the Hospital of which over 70% are treated almost free of any charges.”1
Public transportation is a complete waste of time, money, and effort. If it was a profitable endeavor it would already be handled by the free market. In India, in my State Madhya Pradesh and in many other states, the public transportation system failed and government was forced to privatize Bus services and well these private services are better and efficient.
If there are many people who cannot afford private means of transportation, businesses would be more than happy to provide transportation services. Not only would they be cleaner & more efficient, they would cost less too due to competition; unlike the situation where the Government is the only service provider. Same argument for library – businesses would try to bring better & more informative books to attract customers or lower membership fees. We cannot exactly tell how it would work out; but logic tells us that most probably, it would be better than the current state of affairs.
In fact, in India there is a private Company which helps hand-rickshaw drivers to attain quality vehicles to provide public transportation in cities.2
Ultimately, it comes down to one thing: wherever there is a need, actors within the market fill it. Each need or want provides an opportunity for profit.
In the purest sense, there is no “public” because only individuals act, therefore; only individuals have wants that must be satisfied. These wants are widely varied so attempting to fill them under the guise of public good will always fall short, resulting in mediocre compromises that don’t satisfy anyone’s needs very well.
Just because government can steal money to use for funding large projects doesn’t mean that private funding is not available for profitable large projects. Since government decision makers suffer no losses, nor share no profits, their motivations are always quite different from the venture capitalist, usually leading to inefficient solutions.
The very fact that governments *do* have large amounts of money at their disposal is itself an invitation to waste and corruption.
You don’t have government subsidized resources in a libertarian society. Remember that all moneys the government has were taken originally by force (you can’t refuse without prison or worse) from the people. So in a libertarian society you wish to minimize what this entity with legalized ability to initiate force does to the bare minimum can only be done by government (if any). Subsidizing this and that does not fit well with that sort of thinking. So the proper question is not at all how to make sure the subsidies come to everyone. Access works itself out in a voluntary manner if the people want to do these things and provide access. If not, then not.