In contrast, the libertarian is a better economist. From first to last he is in favor of private ownership. It is, in fact, the abuses of private ownership inflicted by government which arouse the most ardent libertarians.
If we take the “communist” anarchists, we are confronted with violence as a means to abolish private ownership with the abolition of government as the first step. If we take the “philosophic” anarchists, we are confronted with essays on individualism and the desire to do away with private ownership by means of the elimination of government.
The aim of the anarchist is to eliminate private ownership. The libertarian is dedicated to the perpetuation and the full enjoyment of private ownership.
Never could two doctrines be more in opposition.
The most constructive of the anarchists were, socially speaking, individualists, peaceful and harmless. The least constructive, socially speaking, were dedicated to the overthrow of force by counter force. But without exception, in the realm of economics, every anarchist comes unglazed.
In brief, let us define the anarchist as a political individualist and an economic socialist. In contrast, the libertarian can be defined as an individualist, both politically and economically.
As the libertarian approaches or hesitates at the fork in the road, one direction seems to him to indicate anarchy and the other, an advocacy of coercion in minor doses. But, on careful analysis, the branch which seems to carry the banner “anarchy” does no such thing.
The libertarian, however he mulls over this dilemma to his progress, is not concerned with government. His concern is with liberty. He is not opposed to government. He favors freedom. The libertarian wishes to preserve all human rights, among which and predominantly among them is the right to own property privately and to enjoy it fully.
The libertarian is a champion of individualism. He is an advocate of tools which can perform certain functions for him. He has no objection to the formation of any kind of tool that will assist him to protect his rights or his property. But he cannot brook the forceful compulsive tool which he is compelled to pay for when he has no use for it.
He has no objection to policemen whose function is solely that of protection. But he resists the supposition that others know better than he, how much protection he needs or can afford.