Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country?

[xara]

Une nouvelle anthologie sur le débat libertarien "anarchie vs. Etat" avec des contributeurs des deux camps:

Les infos suivantes viennent du site de l'éditeur:

It is well known that the radical libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick sharply distinguished his vision of the free society from egalitarian liberals such as John Rawls. Less remarked upon is the distinction he drew between the free society governed by a strictly limited government, commonly referred to as 'minarchism', and the society without any government at all – anarchism.

In this volume, the editors, Long – an anarchist – and Machan – a minarchist – have brought together a selection of specially commissioned essays from key theorists actively involved in this debate. Each tackles the question of whether or not a government forms a legitimate part of a free society or whether anarchy/minarchy is merely a distinction without a difference.

Contents

- Preface, Roderick T. Long and Tibor R. Machan

Part 1 Minarchism:

- Why the state needs a justification, Lester H. Hunt

- Libertarianism, limited government and anarchy, John Roger Lee

- Rationality, history and inductive politics, Adam Reed

- Objectivism against anarchy, William R. Thomas

- Reconciling anarchism and minarchism, Tibor R. Machan

Part 2 Anarchism:

- Radical freedom and social living, Aeon James Skoble

- The state: from minarchy to anarchy, Jan Narveson

- The obviousness of anarchy, John Hasnas

- Market anarchism as constitutionalism, Roderick T. Long

- Liberty, equality, solidarity: towards a dialectical anarchism, Charles Johnson

Reviews

'This volume is a much needed revival of a debate critical to Libertarians, but also of significance to political theorists generally. The issue itself goes to the heart of what it means to do political philosophy, and the contributions found here skillfully keep those basic concerns in sight. In addition, I found the writing lucid and fair minded--something often missing in scholarly debate anthologies. I have no doubt that this volume will become a standard reference source for those interested in this particular debate and among the sources one consults when considering the foundations of the state generally.'

Douglas J. Den Uyl, Liberty Fund, Inc., USA

The forceful philosophical and historical challenges to the state presented in this volume should be read not just by libertarians, but by everyone who believes that government is either necessary or legitimate.

Elaine Sternberg, London School of Economics, UK

About the Author/Editor

Roderick T. Long is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Auburn University, Alabama, USA. Tibor R. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics, Chapman University, Orange, CA.

[xara]

J'en profite pour rappeler qu'une autre anthologie de textes plus anciens et "classiques", est disponible depuis peu:

A noter qu'un des contributeurs du livre édité par Long et Machan, Aeon Skobles, a aussi un nouveau livre:

Chez l'éditeur, on a ceci à en dire:

Deleting the State

An Argument about Government

Aeon J. Skoble

Is the state a necessary evil? Or can it be avoided altogether? This book, in the tradition of Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia, sheds new light on persistent philosophical questions about the nature and justification of political authority.

Skoble’s discussion draws upon law, economics, and game theory, to examine limited-state and anarchist theories from the standpoint of liberty and human rights. It includes a careful elucidation of the nature of coercion, based on the analysis in F. A. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, and the extent to which it can realistically be minimized.

Analysis of various arguments for a state show that they tacitly or explicitly rest on what the author calls the "Hobbesian Worry": that a natural condition of mutual warfare would emerge in the absence of political authority. One embodiment of the Hobbesian Worry is the theory that social co-operation is menaced by Prisoner’s Dilemma-type situations. Yet game-theory research first by Robert Axelrod and later by Martin Nowak and Karl Sigmund indicates that if the Prisoner’s Dilemma situation is repeated, co-operation usually becomes the winning strategy; practices and norms of social co-operation tend to emerge spontaneously.

Skoble sets out the differences between libertarian and communitarian perspectives on the nature of society and the state, and finally compares the merits and demerits of violent and non-violent strategies for political change.

[A.B.]

Tant qu'à faire je rappelle l'excellent article de Roy A. Childs Jr sur l'anarchisme et l'objectivisme : http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/childs1.html