For the sake of argument, let us assume that the initiation of force is the highest evil, that no social cause, be it feeding the poor or protecting an endangered species, can justify the initiation of force.

Does this assumption lead to a moral requirement for anarchy? Is all taxation forbidden?

The answer is no! Abolish a government and the most likely scenario is war.

1. War is wrong.
2. Abolition of taxation would lead to war.
3. Therefore taxation is not immoral.

The key is the second premise. Why is it that if a mass-movement of libertarianism developed, with millions of people coming to repudiate the initiation of force, concluding that taxes should be abolished, and electing legislators who abolished all taxes and replaced them with user fees, which resulted in competitive and wholly privatized welfare, education, and defense industries, that war would result? Who would initiate the attack? Why would competitive defense industries not deter this attack? Why would competitive defense industries not end the attack quickly?

Abolition of taxation would, by definition, result in the abolition of "the State," because the State is, by definition, the institution which claims a monopoly on the initiation of force to collect revenue. But abolition of  taxation, while it would end The Department of Health and Human Services, would not end all health and human services. While it would end The Department of Education, it would not end all education. And while it would end The Department of Defense, it would not end defense. And what we know about capitalism and socialism suggests that there would be more health, more charity, more education, and more defense in the absence of the State.

This is a net increase in the amount of force used.

Recorded history has shown this time after time. When a government collapses, either the people resort to tribalism, with every able-bodied male a soldier; the rich use their personal bodyguards to become feudal lords; neighboring peoples send in raiders to pillage, loot, and capture slaves; other governments conquer the region; and/or warlords within the region fight civil wars until a new government is established. None of these outcomes are pleasant.

All of them are less libertarian than a modern welfare state.

Yes, there are some rare cases in recorded civilized history where people have prospered without government as we know it. But these were the aberrations, not the norm. And they happened in isolated areas and/or among peoples who had shared traditions and religion.

These conditions do not apply to the United States of the 21st Century. The idea that well-behaved private protection services will peacefully fill the power vacuum is highly speculative, unsupported by experiment. Modern experimentation with zero government is best tried with a small isolated country — not a huge superpower.

We can have a well-ordered grocery industry, a well-behaved computer industry, and a peaceful education industry, without the initiation of force which "the government" represents. The existence of a "huge superpower" presupposes the existence of a strong centralized federal government. Abolish the federal government and America would be a number of emerging or evolving regions linked together by commerce, not by the initiation of force.

To abolish government in the U.S. would be an incredibly dangerous experiment, likely leading to more tyranny, not liberty.

Most freedom lovers favor some government, even though that means supporting some taxation and regulation. For this reason, most freedom lovers reject the Libertarian Party as it currently stands.

The current LP membership pledge does not allow for limited government. Some initiation of force is required for a government to do its job.

Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited!  Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God....What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be.. John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.

To obey the LP membership pledge requires calling for the effective abolition of government. And many of the provisions in our current platform reflect this mandate, especially our call for the "repeal of all taxation."

There is a moral libertarian case for some government.

Never before had I heard the authority of kings called in question. I had been taught to consider them nearly as essential to political order as the sun is to the order of our solar system.
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, upon first hearing of Locke's rejection of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

The best we can do is minimize the initiation of force, and the overwhelming historical evidence indicates that this minimum requires some government — with some war, police and taxation authority.

Should we succeed in implementing the current LP platform, our nation will be at great risk of conquest and civil war.

But we won't succeed, because most libertarians — and virtually all Americans — refuse to support such a risky experiment. Most libertarians understand the need for some government, for some taxation. This is a major reason why our vote totals are so small. At present, we are not a libertarian party, we are an anarchist party.

It is time to decide: If we want to continue being an anarchist party, we should practice truth in advertising, and change the name to Anarchist Party. Or, if we want to be a truly libertarian party, we need to either change or eliminate the membership pledge.

We also need to update the platform to allow for that minimal state that maximizes liberty.

Which will it be?

-- About the author: Dr. Carl S. Milsted, Jr., of Asheville, N.C., is a member of the LP's 2006 Bylaws Committee, a former LNC alternate representative, and Webmaster for the Libertarian Reform Caucus.