In a recent Springer publication, Marcos Falcone proposed “Bringing the Austrian School into the 21st century” by embracing existing international institutions as a means of maximizing global liberty. Acknowledging that they are often justly criticized for being bureaucratic and ineffective, Falcone argues that they have historically contributed to economic growth and democratization and that all that is needed are two key reforms to strengthen freedom within the current international order: strict enforcement of the subsidiarity principle (where governance decisions occur at the most local level possible) and the acceptance of secession as a legitimate political process.
The article traces the theoretical justification for these reforms through the works of prominent Austrian economists, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Murray Rothbard. Falcone highlights how subsidiarity, when applied weakly (e.g., the European Union’s version), allows for overreach by centralized authorities and argues that a stricter application would ensure that power remains local, preventing unnecessary bureaucratic growth and inefficiency. Likewise, secession is framed as an extension of self-determination, enabling political communities to align more closely with their preferences.
Falcone uses Switzerland and the early United States as models for balancing subsidiarity and secession, arguing that their federal structures successfully limited centralized power while preserving diversity. Ultimately, Falcone argues that enforcing subsidiarity and embracing secession would strengthen rather than weaken international institutions by making them more accountable, flexible, and limited in scope. The reforms would foster competition between governments, improving policies and enhancing freedom.
While it should be clear that Falcone is right in citing Rothbard as a champion of secession as essential for individual liberty, he did so because he saw decentralization as a step toward full privatization of governance, not the better working of supranational institutions. A full Rothbardian critique would take issue with several fundamental premises of Falcone’s argument.
The Flaws in Falcone’s Premises
From a strict anarcho-capitalist and voluntarist perspective, the idea of “improving” international organizations rather than abolishing them is entirely misguided, as these organizations are inherently coercive, funded through taxation (theft), and serve the interests of political elites rather than individuals. What is desired is advancing true liberty, not advocating for a “better” form of statism.
1. International Organizations as Illegitimate Entities
In Nations by Consent, Rothbard rejects the idea that states (or international organizations) should have any monopoly over governance. Instead, he argues for a world of decentralized, voluntary associations without coercive taxation or state control. Falcone assumes that international institutions should be reformed to function more efficiently, but Rothbard would insist that they should be eliminated entirely, as they are unnatural constructs that exist solely to serve political elites, not individuals.
2. Subsidiarity is Insufficient – Only Privatization Ensures Freedom
The article argues that strict subsidiarity (where decision-making is pushed to the lowest level) is a means of increasing liberty. However, Rothbard would reject subsidiarity as an incomplete solution because it still assumes the existence of government power at any level.
- Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist vision goes beyond subsidiarity—he would argue that all governance functions should be privatized.
- Under subsidiarity, a local government may impose restrictive economic policies or violate property rights just as a national government would. Size of government is not the issue—its very existence is.
- Instead of subsidiarity, Rothbard would advocate for competing private security agencies, voluntary arbitration, and free-market legal structures.
3. Secession is Good – But Not Enough
The article correctly aligns with Rothbard’s strong support for secession as a fundamental right. However, Rothbard would likely push the logic further – secession should not stop at the nation-state level but continue down to the individual level.
- Rothbard argues that the ultimate goal of secession is not just breaking states into smaller states but eliminating the state entirely.
- In The Ethics of Liberty, he argues that secession is a form of voluntary association: If a neighborhood, city, or even a single person wants to secede, they should be allowed to do so.
- The article still envisions nation-states as inevitable, but Rothbard would argue that the real aim should be the disintegration of the state into purely voluntary associations.
4. No Need for “Stronger” International Organizations
The article assumes that international organizations could strengthen if they limit their scope and embrace secession. A Rothbardian critique would be that international organizations should not be strengthened at all – they should be abolished.
- Organizations like the UN, EU, and WTO exist only because of state coercion. Without taxation and political power, they would collapse.
- Rothbard would likely argue that instead of “strengthening” them, they should be replaced with voluntary networks of trade, arbitration, and private defense associations.
- The author treats international organizations as a given, but Rothbard would say they are artificial constructs that serve political elites, not free individuals.
5. The Market, Not Governments, Should Facilitate Trade and Cooperation
The article acknowledges that international trade has lifted billions out of poverty, but it credits international institutions like the WTO and NAFTA for facilitating this trade. Rothbard would argue that free markets, not governments or bureaucracies, are responsible for economic progress.
- Trade happens despite institutions like the WTO, not because of them. Governments create tariffs, regulations, and barriers that hinder free exchange.
- A Rothbardian view would reject managed trade agreements and instead support true free trade, meaning unilateral elimination of all trade barriers without reliance on international treaties.
Conclusion: Falcone’s “Better Statism” is Inadequate to the Austrian School’s Goals
While the article presents a vision for greater decentralization, Rothbard would find its underlying premise flawed: namely, that the current system can or should be improved within existing international structures. Instead, a Rothbardian critique would advocate for:
- Abolition of international organizations rather than their reform.
- Privatization over subsidiarity – decentralization is good, but private governance is the real goal.
- Radical secession – not just for states, but for individuals and voluntary communities.
- Free trade through voluntary association, not international agreements.
- Elimination of all coercive government entities in favor of private legal and defense systems.
Ultimately, from a Rothbardian perspective, the best way to maximize liberty is not through better governance but through the abolition of the state altogether. While Falcone’s article takes steps in the right direction by supporting subsidiarity and secession, it does not go far enough in fully dismantling state power and replacing it with a system based purely on individual consent and voluntary association. In this sense, Falcone’s effort is inadequate to the needs of “Bringing the Austrian School into the 21st Century” since the Austrian school – at least in its Rothbardian form – does not seek “better statism” but actual liberty.
