When it comes to socialism, what comes to mind usually are totalitarian regimes. But if we go deeper into the definition, we come to the conclusion that socialism should not be limited only to totalitarian regimes or social democrats, but also to any social order that has state, however small.
Socialism is characterized by socialization and collectivization of the means of production and goods on behalf of a society more "fair" and "equitable". For a socialist, capitalism goes against this, since, they argue, the capital is concentrated in a few hands and prevents others from rising opportunity. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that the socialist necessarily ends up defending aggressions against those who produce to give equal opportunity to those who do not produce. It is the ideology of envy.
Socialism, first of all, as we see above, denies private property, a normative concept that becomes necessary when there is a shortage of resources. The state, in this case, not only power shortages, but also monopolizes resources. When defending the state, fatally denies the scarcity, as inevitably something will be monopolized and its socialized cost.
With this, we can define socialism as a social system based on the following three assumptions: 1) the denial of private property, 2) the socialization of goods and services so that they are accessible to society and 3) the denial of some kind or total shortage. Any state will inevitably deny private property, as there will be theft (taxes), socialization of goods and services, there will always be some kind of public space and monopolization of the judiciary and security services.
The state depends on the existence of taxes to exist. From the moment that the state exists, taxes will also exist. There's no way the state have voluntary taxes. As well said Rothbard:
“It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to formulate a definition of tax that also did not include theft. As the thief, the state requires money equivalent to the sight of a gun; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he resist this plunder, he will be arrested or will be shot if they continue to resist. It is true that the apologists of state maintain that the tax is 'actually' voluntary; a simple but instructive refutation of this claim is to ponder what would happen if the government abolished the tax and was limited to simply ask for voluntary contributions. Does anyone really believe that anything comparable to the huge current state income would continue to flow into its coffers? It is likely that even those theorists who claim that punishment never has the action would retreat before such a claim.”
Collect taxes is violating private property, which is our natural right, a right that can be confirmed by argumentative ethics. We have the right to self-ownership and thus the right to private property also exists. The state will always depend on it and to justify its existence, it will always use in your favor the argument of the monopoly on the use of force. Therefore, it is wise to say that even with a minimum state the right to property may exist in its entirety as part of the income of people will have to be stolen to finance it.
“Statism is something contrary to human nature, it is the systematic, monopolistic exercise of coercion. In all areas such coercion occurs (including those which meet the definition of the law and the maintenance of public order), there is a blockage of creativity and entrepreneurial coordination which are precisely the most typical and essential manifestations of human nature.”
From this passage we can see why the state is something contrary to human nature and that only anarcho-capitalism is conducive to it. However, it is just not so. As shown above, the state is necessarily violator of private property, as it denies the shortage and feeds taxes. Moreover, it goes against our natural right to private property, which also implies the violation of our right to self-ownership, for all that we acquire voluntarily is the work of our body or body of someone else's work that made voluntarily. This means that the state steals part of our work to fund what we usually do not pay. The statist may even say that inevitably we will one day pay for jurisdiction cost of services if we need them to resolve a conflict that involves us. But he never respond convincingly why these services have to be necessarily coercively monopolized by the state.
But it is not only the taxes that the state goes against our nature. Their predatory nature also makes him practice interventions that hinder voluntary exchange. Rothbard identifies three types: autistic, binary, and triangular. Autistic intervention occurs when the state interferes in the person's property without any form of exchange or involved property title transfer. Rothbard cites as examples murder, physical assault and obligation or prohibition of any greeting, speech or religious observance. Binary is the type of intervention (aggression) that involves two parts. So has that name. Among the examples, we can mention the aforementioned taxes, as well as assaults, thefts, voting and military service, among others. The triangular in turn, involves three parts. Are interventions that involve two parties to benefit a third. It is for example when the individual A and B are prohibited from carrying out an exchange for that C is received. Usually economists "liberal" only recognize the triangular intervention, such as rent seeking and price controls.
We can see that practice these interventions is not unique to the state. Any criminal or group of criminals can practice them. But when an individual practice some of these interventions, the state classifies as a crime and we all know that crimes are acts that go against our nature. But if the state is necessarily criminal, as we saw earlier, because would not it also an entity that goes against our nature?
The state, therefore, is not part of our nature. People who have been indoctrinated to think that the crimes the state can prevent other crimes.
Jesús Huerta de Soto has shown that it has no way to control the state's size, as Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty. The complaint is the same: the minimal state will always tend to the maximum state. There is no way to control their growth due to its predatory nature. Even if it is the desire of minarquistas the minimum state remains minimal, the fact that what they advocate is something that sooner or later will become a tyranny.
The most famous example of an almost minimal state that turned into a maximum state is the US, which previously had a well deregulated domestic market (or income tax had) and now has the most powerful state, invasive and despotic that mankind has ever seen. Hoppe explained as follows:
“Every minimal state has tendênciainerente to become a maximum state, since to allow yourself to an agency collect any tax, no matter how small or for any purpose, this will naturally tend to apply the proceeds of your current tax in the collection future even higher taxes, for the same and / or other purposes. Similarly, once an agency has any legal monopoly, it will naturally tend to make use of its privileged position for further expansion of its area of jurisdiction. Constitutions, in the end, are state constitutions, and any limitations that may contain - what is or is not constitutional - are judged by the courts and state judges. Therefore, there is no other possible way to limit the power of the state not to be eliminating the state altogether and, in accordance with the law and the teachings of economics, establishing a free market protection and security services.”
Statists can still argue that the minimum state leads to a maximum state, which prevents a state from appearing on anarcho-capitalism?
The answer is simpler than you think. First, the obvious: it is much harder a zero sunrise state than the minimum state grow, which is sure to happen in the latter case. Second, anarcho-capitalism is totally inherent in human nature. It praxeologically viable because it gives people the options when choosing the safety and security, unlike the state that has a monopoly on them. Another factor, which is the most important, is that even though the state of emergence is right, it is ethically illegitimate. Therefore, regardless of the possible results of anarcho-capitalism, it is essential to note that in defending the state - is there which size is - is inevitably defending a criminal and monopolistic institution. It is the denial of ethical principles and the right to private property.
It is not difficult now to understand the reasons why we can conclude that statism in any degree is socialism. State monopolies always imply that imply socialized costs, involving violation of private property and self-ownership. If there are violations of the right to private property, it is correct to say that statism in any degree is also the denial of the right to them. Deny private property is the basis of socialism, as well as "accessibility" social goods and services. Therefore, every form of state also implies income distribution. Taxes to ensure access to socialized security is ultimately a form of income distribution. The state is therefore synonymous with socialism and antonym market and ethics. So anarcho-capitalism is the only form of natural order that is not socialism. And so, all your opponent is a socialist.
