To a libertarian, much of what the state does looks like providing crutches or shackles. To an anarchist, I suppose everything the state does looks like that.
So we want to remove most or all crutches and shed most or all shackles, depending on how, for lack of a better term, anarchistic we are. But which shackles and which crutches when? The “liberal” “libertarian” answer is: first take the crutches from those best able to bear their own weight, and remove the shackles from the weak before the strong.
Most libertarians would agree that it’s a messed-up state that:
But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, “Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!”
- Creates a massive crime problem in poor minority neighborhoods with a futile, vicious and every more far-reaching attempt to prevent commerce in popular, highly portable intoxicants that leaves absurd numbers of young men with felony records, making them marginally employable.
- Fails to provide adequate policing for such neighborhoods.
- Fails to provide effective education in such neighborhoods after installing itself as the educator of first resort.
- Uses regulatory power to sharply curtail entry into lines of business from hair-care to ride provision, further limiting the employment options of people in such neighborhoods.
- Has in the past actively fostered the oppression of said minority, up to and including spending state money and time in keeping its members in bondage.
- To make up for all of the above, provides a nominal amount of tax-financed welfare for the afflicted.