What if Freedom and Justice wouldn't work so well?

We know that Liberty is not only the only justifiable state of things, but also a very practical state (the far most practical for those who don't have politicians as friends and business-partners). No State can be justified without violence (which again can't be justified if we admit the self-ownership of individuals). No coercion and aggressive attacks against individuals and their non-aggressive communities can be justified. No tax is justifiable. No forceful legislation can be justified. No non-aggressive actions of individuals can be outlawed.

But justifying is sometimes not enough. Sometimes you also need examples, especially when trying to convince the masses of the ideal of Liberty. Thankfully, examples are in plenty. Empirical data, flawed that it is, is overwhelming when it comes to show how Liberty is superior to the State and its applications. Free economies blossom while socialist economies fade into stagnation and decay. Taxes decrease wealth and prevent individuals from earning their way up in standard of living and well-being. Regulations hurt companies and growth and create unemployment and result in relatively lower incomes (average income can be high or on the rise in a socialist economy, but only compared to its own previous norms).

However, when it all comes down to it it's not about the number of examples and empirical proof. It's about Liberty and it's friend, Justice. It's about supporting a free society of free individuals and fighting for its creation (re-creation in relative terms). Because what if Liberty would create poverty and aggression? What if Liberty would have the same effects socialism has on society? Of course it could never, but a thought-experiment is perhaps worth the while. Would we sacrifice Justice and Liberty if they created poverty and aggression? We haven't when it comes to socialism, but would we in the case of Liberty?

In the end all the statistics and data doesn't matter when choosing right from wrong. Thankfully, Liberty and Justice have all the evidence on their side (besides the logic of course), but that is the wrong focus to put on things (although a very practical when arguing with the Left).

Can Justice combine with Reality?

The State is an entity of force and legalized violence. It cannot be justified without justifying violence and coercion, and that cannot be done if we admit the self-ownership of every man over his own body (only by denying such self-ownership can a person be logically consistent when justifying the State; no further details about that offered at this point).

So given that a person owns his or hers own body, how are we to accept the presence of the State? And if we don't, does it make sense in reality? Isn't State coercion necessary to keep the peace among individuals and groups of them?

One approach is to say: I don't accept the State as a justifiable entity, but I don't imagine we can live without it.

Conservative and minarchist-libertarian criticism of anarchy on the grounds that it won't "work" or is not "practical" is just confused. Anarchists don't (necessarily) predict anarchy will be achieved - I for one don't think it will. But that does not mean states are justified. (#)

Personally, I think is a short-cut to a peace of mind. If the State can't be justified, but we can't live without it or imagine we can achieve its absence, then there must be a flaw in the argumentation (if libertarianism is so logically consistent and correct, why would it not win in the long run?). But there is no flaw in the argumentation (given acceptance of the individual exclusive ownership of his own body), so the proposal that anarchy won't work is simply wrong.

And when it comes to achieving it, we must not forget that a few hundred years ago everyone was considered a property of kings and queens and everything else was considered unthinkable. How would modern times look like if all hope of improvements were considered impractical and impossible to achieve in the minds of early libertarians philosophers?

Another approach to "tackle" the problem of Justice versus Reality is to accept the argumentation for a no-State society as logically consistent, but deny its consequences and simply accept the State as a necessary practicality. Any injustice can be "argumented" for by using this kind of reasoning. The State could for example hire men to purposely cause car-crashes because that would force people to use seat-belts, which is a very practical thing to do. Violence is then used as a tool to force people to protect itself from it. Un-justifiable State is then used to show the practical necessity of the State. This is a ridicule.

The only consistent policy is to deny the presence of the State and go head-on with those who wish to uphold it. The practicality of this action is immense. We remove dictators and violent men from the streets without hesitations, and don't have any problems with dealing with the resulting relative freedom from violence. The same applies for the violence of State-coercion.

Difference in acceptance

We are so used to an incompetent State that we are more or less willing to accept whatever it does or does not do for us and to us. No-one really blames the State for its incompetence. It's simply accepted as a natural phenomenon.

A different story can be told about people's tolerance for private companies. People expect service and products at the wave of a hand. This is of course a very natural demand and the foundation for private companies to build increased productivity and service improvements on. Those who fail to meet the consumer's demands fade away into bankruptcy. Others blossom.

People accept a waiting period of months for an operation at a State-run hospital or a piece of paper from the local authorities and know there is nothing to do about it. High taxes have been paid, services have been promised, but no-one expects a reasonable waiting period or expedient service (let alone quality service at a reasonable price). But when it comes to ordering an internet-connection or the services from a bank the coin is flipped. All wait is too long. Any delay is met with angry phone calls to customer services. All price hikes are given skeptical response.

Violence is clearly acceptable when the State does the beating.