While libertarians instinctively abhor government action, a global pandemic, as the one the world finds itself in the midst of, seems to put those of us who want to leave everything to the voluntary cooperation of free individuals on the back foot. This is exactly the type of job that governments can be argued to be able to lift more effectively than a voluntary society, because it requires the sort of swift coordinated action that authoritarian power can deliver efficiently. To mobilise society against a significant foreign threat, like war or a deadly disease, governments can through force ensure a rapid and coordinated response such as conscripting an army for defence against enemy forces or locking down society to prevent spread of a virus.
The question, of course, is what level of threat does it require to justify government intervention? This is where much of the debate around the Covid response is focussed, with arguments around the effectiveness of lockdown and protests at the severity of the measures designed to contain the virus. These are important questions, no doubt, but the premise is, at a minimum, the minarchist model of society, where, given the acceptance of the existence of government, there is implicit acknowledgement that there are situations where that sort of powers can be assumed by the state. But where does it leave those of us who reject the state outright?
Anarchist critique of minarchism is first and foremost based in the philosophical principle that if property rights are indeed absolute, then the difference between a big state socialist and a libertarian minarchist comes down to a debate over which degree of violation of these rights is acceptable. There is no absolute standard whit which to judge this, so the anarchist dismisses it as trivial: once you’ve conceded that rights can justifiably be violated you have already, by implication, admitted the legitimacy of the state to assume control of your life. But there is another, utilitarian line of attack against the existence of even the “night watchman” state, namely that – even if it is conceded that a government can be an efficient (or at least convenient) way to organise some aspects of society, like judicial services and defence, for example – the consent to the existence of government implies relinquishment of the individual’s power to prevent government’s mandate from perpetually increasing. History bears this out, as all western democracies – even those with a constitution, like the United States’, that was designed to limit state power – have evolved in less than a century from low tax, small government societies to high tax, big government ones. Benjamin Franklin was right when he warned that “when the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” It seems to be an inevitability that the sphere of state influence increases over time in modern democratic states. This is why some ideological anarchists, the author included, who could in principle be persuaded to give up some rights for an easier life, ultimately remain committed to practical anarchism as well: we simply don’t believe the state can be contained.
This, then, brings us back to Covid-19 and the debate about when state intervention is justified. The answer is never – but that is not just because of our inalienable right not to be bossed around by government, however noble they may consider their cause. In fact, we may even concede that there are situations where draconian powers could be argued to be the most efficient method of lifting such mammoth tasks as containing a virus and prevent loss of life. But it leaves the grey area of agreeing what constitutes a crisis grave enough to warrant government intervention. Take the policy of choice to fight Coronavirus: lockdown. Most pandemics can’t be fought with lockdown, either because they are too mild for it to be worth it or too aggressive for it to work anyway – but who decides when it is a legitimate policy option? There is obvious risk of “mission creep,” as an ever-increasing set of circumstances are deemed worthy of authoritarian intervention.
If we concede that our rights are only for normal times but can be surrendered to government if only the situation we face is grave enough, then we have no rights. Even when it is to protect life in a deadly pandemic we must reject state intervention, because in order to have the option of it we must concede power to the state in the first place. And when we do that, we surrender your basic freedoms and head down a road that inevitably leads to the high tax, big government, welfare/warfare states we all live in. And that is a price too high to pay.