The Unfashionably Dismal Carl Menger
C.J. Maloney extols the glories of the Mengerian approach to economics. "Unlike many a current economics text I've read, Menger and the Austrians write about actual human beings. They are gentlemen enough to leave us intact; we are not crushed, divided, nor logarithmed into numbered blobs of aggregate demand, regression analysis, t-scores, or such like. Actual humans appear unmolested on most every page. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (35)
Once again the uxe of "the dismal science" terminology is taken out of its original context - economics wasn't called dismal by Carlyle because it was either boring or gloomy, but because economists accepted the Smith-Whately doctrine of fundamental human equality - what Carlyle thought was an abomination given his reactionary views on slavery and feudalism. See Peart and Levy's Secret History of the Dismal Science @ http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html
Published: February 13, 2006 9:14 AM
Yes, this is well known. But there is nothing wrong with employing a word in its popular and contemporary context.
Published: February 13, 2006 9:30 AM
Let us hope we hear MORE AND MORE from C.J. Maloney extolling the glories of the Mengerian/ Misean approach to economics -- preferably on a monthly basis. Greedily, I want to say on a daily basis, but I know that is impossible.
Published: February 13, 2006 11:11 AM
I'd be interested in hearing peoples' opinions on Menger's claim that government is the best safeguard of a metallic monies' purity, either in theory or in practice.
Published: February 13, 2006 11:27 AM
Jeff-But then we just compound the stereotypical use. Don't you think at least some of our effort ought to be applied to fighting battles to reclaim original meanings? Regards
Published: February 13, 2006 11:55 AM
Very interesting! Just adds testimony to the fact that a majority vote does not determine Truth. Truth is often ignored in favor of convenience and utopias.
However, I'd like to see Austrians warm up to econometrics just a little for several reasons. I was taught in econometrics to use theory first and statistics as support and to add specificityj, but never to try to derive theory from the equations. That approach fits well with the Austrian method. After all, what Austrians do with theory is what one colleague calls "poor man's regression," in which you look at results and try to determine causes. Once you arrive at causes via a priori reasoning, you are able to make predictions about the results of behavior. All econometrics does is put numbers to that reasoning.
Can I quantify how much I love my wife? No. But I can quantify that in expressing our love, our collective demand for diamonds increases when the price of diamonds falls. I can then put numbers to that thought and create a regression that helps me predict how many diamonds people will purchase with a specific price reduction. The number won't be exact, because people are different, but the responses will follow a particular distribution, because most people behave in predictable ways. Austrians can develop theory and make predictions because most people respond in similar ways to similar stimuli.
I'm confident that the main ideas that distinguish Austrian econ from neo-Classical can be expressed and reinforced by simple econometric equations, which in turn will help persuade the math oriented of its validity.
Published: February 13, 2006 11:58 AM
Mikey,
That Menger held that government can theoretically, give "the best guarantee of the full weight and assured fineness" is testament to Rothbard’s observation that “however great they may have been, any thinkers can slip into error and inconsistency, and even write gibberish on occasion.�
Even Mises believed that the government could provide certain services better than the free market. It all shows that there always remains room for improvement in our application of knowledge. Each step of the way, we need to continue to strive for a consistent application of the truths that have been revealed to us. It isn’t always easy to see how an indisputable truth implies a refutation of something one has uncritically held to be true for a long time.
Published: February 13, 2006 12:31 PM
You may quibble over historical definitions if you wish, but I will say this with no fear of contradiciton: Economics will never be (completely) dismal so long as there are folks like CJ Maloney around! Informative and entertaining!
BTW, Mikey, I'd have to go back and check, but I don't think Menger said government was the best way to guarantee money. He merely said that this was one valid service it could provide. He also observed that government routinely abused this power. I think this is another case of a great thinker simply not being intellectualy prepared to follow his line of thinking to its more radical conclusions. Even giants are of finite height; so much more so we ordinary folk.
Published: February 13, 2006 12:37 PM
On the strength of this review alone, I intend to read Menger's Principles. I would strongly suggest putting this review on Amazon in the hope that it will reach a wider audience. Of course, it seems likely that the majority of readers seeking out this book will have already heard of Mises, Hayek and/or Rothbard. Hence, it is not inconceivable that they would already have ventured here.
Published: February 13, 2006 1:02 PM
Allen, your point is a good one. I still can't get over the loss of the word "liberal" and, in fact, many of us refuse to give in on this point. Much seems at stake in this battle of the word liberal. The same is true of the word inflation. Principles really are at stake; this isn't merely a matter of definition. However, the question of "dismal" seems different to me. It is of historical interest--and it is very interesting--that the term dismal was flung around against economists for their rejection of old-world legal inequalities. But these days, it is just just not used in that same way, which is why the Peart-Levy analysis is interesting. I'm just not sure that there is an important drama tied up with the way the term is used, at least not enough of one to pester excellent thinkers and writers like Mr. Mahoney with arguments over etymology.
Published: February 13, 2006 1:19 PM
It looks like Mr. Maloney will be eating his copy of Menger's Principles. I think it is quite clear that one out of one thousand American economists have heard of Menger and even read him. The AEA has a little less than 19,000 members.
The problem is that most economists don't think Menger's insights go beyond the marginal revolution and thus he is lumped in with Jevons and Walras and never given more thought. Mr. Maloney has written a good article, but has vastly overstated how much Menger has been "marginalized."
I wonder if mises.org will videocast Mr. Maloney eating his copy "one lovingly highlighted page at a time." If so, economics will never be "dismal" again.
Published: February 13, 2006 1:19 PM
The other very odd thing about this article is that it suggests students of Austrian Economics are on par with India's Untouchables, lepers, or some other such group of social outcasts. There is no way that an "adherent of the Austrian school of economic thought stands out in present day America as would David Duke at a Nation of Islam picnic." Or that economists have the same feeling for Austrians as the population has for Scott Peterson.
I highly doubt this is Mr. Maloney's experience or that of the majority of Austrian economists.If it is, I would suggest it is because of a some other defect of character rather than due to reading a book by an author from Galicia.
Yes, Mr. Maloney may be trying to be cute, but it is absurd and a misrepresentation that serves no puropse.
There is no need to go into detail on the successful and distinguished lives that have been led by students of Austrian economics. Suffice it to say they have been and continue to be leaders in business, academia as well as principled and dignified members of civilization.
Published: February 13, 2006 1:56 PM
I agree with dehomogenized--"cutesy" has its place, but not in an article that seemingly promotes to victimhood Austrian economists!
Published: February 13, 2006 3:39 PM
As a side-note, did Thomas Kuhn ever write something about the science of economics?
Published: February 13, 2006 4:57 PM
“I think it is quite clear that one out of one thousand American economists have heard of Menger and even read him. The AEA has a little less than 19,000 members.�
Is this to say that at least these (little less than) 19,000 economists have definitely heard of (and even read) Menger? This is stretching my imagination.
If an economist from the establishment schools has heard of Menger, and if the name even registered with them, the impression they probably got was that his approach to economics never led anywhere of value, which is why they’ve never really heard of him before and why they’ll never hear of him again.
Published: February 13, 2006 6:30 PM
I like punk-rock and the Simpsons (perhaps "liked" would be a better word) as next as the next guy, but I can do without them at Mises. I implore C.J not to quit his day job at Wall Street for a career in humor. And leave the crazy hyperbole side of libertarianism for lewrockwell.com. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke, which hampers its effectiveness for use as bogeyman. Finally, Austrian economics is not right by virtue of its unpopularity or underappreciated nature, but due to the rightness of its teachings.
Published: February 13, 2006 6:51 PM
Paul, I think the idea is that using AEA membership as the criteria for "American economists," only 19 of them have to have heard of, not even read, Menger in order for CJ Maloney to have to eat his copy of Menger's Principles of Economics page by page as he stated he would in the article.
Published: February 13, 2006 7:18 PM
Like Mr. Maloney, I did not find Menger's prose difficult. Perhaps this is the result of Hoselitz and Dingwall, the translators. If Menger's original prose is as bad as Hayek says, then Hoselitz and Dingwall have not only given us an improved, non-literary translation; they have given us an edited, revised edition of great value. There are Germans who read Kant in English so they can understand him! Can the same be said for Menger's readers?
I suspect not. I suspect that people are just not used to this kind of treatise. But not having read the original German-language edition, I can't say for sure.
What can I say for sure? I love this book. It is my favorite text of economic theory, right up there in clarity with Senior's Outline -- only better, because THOROUGHLY marginalist and subjectivist. I prefer it to all other treatments by Austrians, even if imperfect by modern standards. I think Mises is a poorer writer than Menger/Dingwall/Hoselitz, and his expositions of basic theory not as careful. I understood value and price after reading Menger. Other treatments did not explain it thoroughly enough for me. (I have to say that reading Menger's book alongside Rothbard's "Towards a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics" is a helpful way of coming to grips with Austrian economics. My second reading of Menger was in tandem with this Rothbard essay. Most helpful. Clarifying. Even if I don't completely agree with Rothbard.)
Menger starts simple, and adds complexity. This is the way a Principles should be done. Wieser's work strikes me as much harder to follow, for instance, and surely his prose is as bad as Menger's! William Smart's translations of Wieser are by no means easier to follow than the Dingwall/Hoselitz edition of Menger.
I really appreciate mises.org offering Menger for free, as well as for sale in book-form. I also am glad that they printed Mr. Maloney's encomium. It's a fun little take on Menger and modern economics readership. Don't read too much into it. It's playful. No harm in that.
But remember: Menger is not playful. He lays out, in dignified prose, the fundamental ideas of economics, as Austrian understand it. It's the book to BEGIN with. Mises said it made an economist out of him. It certainly helped me "put economics together," as a science. And as a way of thinking.
Still, after all these years, I don't think there's a better introduction to the science. The only thing dismal about that is no one has been able to improve on Menger's treatment in over 130 years!
Published: February 13, 2006 7:53 PM
To All - I thank you for all the posts, both pro and con. I assure you I am aware that more than one in one thousand American economists have heard of Menger, aware that Jehovah Witnesses drink beer, and also believe that David Duke would never, ever get invited to a Nation of Islam picnic. But thank you for pointing it out. In my defense for these shameless exaggerations, I offer the great Eric Hoffer. "Thought is a process of exaggeration. The refusal to exaggerate is not infrequently an alibi for the disinclination to think or praise.� Who am I to quibble with an unschooled longshoreman?
If you hate my style of writing, that’s perfectly fine. Some people like their economics served in a different manner than I give. Wirkman Virkkala, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head, writing “Mr. Maloney's encomium. It's a fun little take on Menger and modern economics readership. Don't read too much into it. It's playful. No harm in that.�
Wirkman, if I were Willie Wonka, you’d be the proud owner of a chocolate factory.
Published: February 13, 2006 9:54 PM
Roger M: About econometrics, you can run any regression you want and obtain any result you want, what you'll have is a historical fact that could change at any time. The science of economics is interested in discovering universal laws that apply at any time, in any place. Econometrics is useless for this purpose.
Not that econometrics is entirely useless. It is really quite useful for the purposes of market research, but it is not science.
Published: February 14, 2006 12:15 AM
it's gordian knot, not gideon knot. better fix it.
Published: February 14, 2006 12:42 AM
What I really love about this Menger fellow is that it seems he keeps things quite "simple", which is what I've always thought economics should be.
I was always a bit confused as to why others feel the need to make a subject more complex. Is it an attempt to make themselves look smarter than others so they are listened to more...their books purchased by more folks...their ideas adopted more readily by the public and/or politicians?
I think what's needed is more "Walter Williams" type of economic discussions, which seems to be similar in its simplicity to Menger. Walter Williams always seems to speak of economics, even complex ideas, in a "simple" way...that makes sense! And just about everyone can understand the information he discusses! It's quite brilliant, really.
Cheers to a great article...and a great economic thinking being.
Published: February 14, 2006 7:47 AM
Econometrics is useful for entrepreneurs, the finance profession, and marketing. It is used as a tool. It is a science, but a different science than economics (praxeology). It is the science of finding relationships that existed in the past, or of extracting summaries of the past. That part is science. The beliefs about whether or not various patterns of human preference will continue to hold in the future, to what degree, and for how long, can only be described as entrepreneurship in one form or another. It is an art, not a science.
Published: February 14, 2006 9:05 AM
I loved the article.
As to why econ has become so 'complexified', I think it has a lot to do with the Emperor's New Clothes effect. The subject is made to appear complex in order to make it difficult to understand and critique. The simple truth would be the death knell to the current reigning system of central banks and intriniscally worthless fiat currencies, by means of which system, wealth is covertly and ingeniously transferred from the sellers of labor and those whose other wealth, if any, besides their labor,is denominated in the fiat currency, to the buyers of labor and those whose wealth is denominated in tangibles. From Labor, to Capital, broadly and roughly speaking. (The value of the fiat currency is constantly being shifted downward by the central bank, the 'inflation engine,' ditto the value of labor on the market, as wages, especially of the low end laborers, are not increased at a rate commensurate with the increased 'cost of living.') That wealth transfer, I believe, is the primary purpose of the current system and it is performing its purpose quite effectively. Current economic 'theory' is smoke and mirrors to hide that fact.
A similar situation prevails in the medical world, where information and non-toxic, non-invasive treatment modalities beneficial to the people and harmful to the medical and pharmaceutical industries are suppressed, and basic common sense information about health and healing of degenerative illness is buried under a body of intimidatingly complex theory.
Government, which should regulate banking and commerce in the public interest, has been turned into a tool of the big boys in commerce and banking, the very interests govt. is supposed to regulate. Any ideas on how this corruption could be prevented? It seems to happen over and over and over throughout history.
Published: February 14, 2006 12:56 PM
I like this quote on exaggeration:
"To exaggerate is to weaken." ~ Jean François de La Harpe, Melanie, 1770
Published: February 14, 2006 7:31 PM
"Any ideas on how this corruption could be prevented? It seems to happen over and over and over throughout history."
There's only one way. Abolish the monopoly on government. Monopoly is the problem.
Published: February 14, 2006 7:50 PM
The problem is not the governments per se, but the thought contagion - the secular religion of collectivism - which causes people to throw away their freedom and a chance for prosperity as soon as they're given it.
The sheepie starts to bleat for a shepherd to come the very next moment afrter the old one's taken down.
Published: February 14, 2006 8:36 PM
We the sheeple are controlled by our weaknesses, our foibles, I agree to that. I have about given up on the common man. He participates too readily in his own enslavement. Problem is, he drags the thinking few down with him. Better not get me started as I sound like an elitist. I am not, because I believe those of superior ability 'should' act as stewards rather than victimizers of those of lesser abilities. But 'should' has no place in the science of human behavior (if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, etc.), and the patterns are there for all to see. Wolves and sheep. So why don't we just give up, and go to work for the wolves, like the other 99% of the clever few? (Not a rhetorical question.)
Published: February 15, 2006 1:34 AM
How does one abolish the monopoly on govt.? Is there a government pamphlet on this? I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee... in triplicate... My idea is that small is beautiful. The thrust should be the opposite of what it is now, the fragmentation rather than the consolidation of power. No political entity can grow beyond a certain size/population (if it does it has to split into two); and alliances/ confederations of different states are forbidden by international law. And - the most severely punished crime of all, perhaps the only capital crime, is using public office for personal gain.
Published: February 15, 2006 1:45 AM
> How does one abolish the monopoly on govt.?
By convincing people that they really really have no use for the government. There's even no need to use force to overthrow governments - the head honchos simply run away (leaving subordinates in confusion and disarray and often defecting from their posts) when a large portion of people show disobedience.
So far this approach only worked against specific governments (USSR, Eastern European countries, Ukraine, Georgia, etc - the "colorful" peaceful revolutions), and people who demanded removal of existing governments immediately consented to establishment of new ones (which all too often turned out to be only worse than previous).
Of course, weakening government through use of democratic voting (strictly against any new expenditures, for curbing taxes and reducing government spending - and strictly for politicans who promise that and deliver on promises) is a good idea, too, but so far it isn't effective: the power of the public office to corrupt is just too great. But, theoretically, voting the government out of existance is a possibility.
There's always an option of armed revolt - but the leaders of such revolts are nearly always violent thugs and pathological liars wanting the power for themselves. I'm very stronly against using force for anything but immediate self-defense.
On the other hand, obtaining and keeping guns and learning to use them makes people in the offices of power nervous and more likely to bolt when faced with public disfavor. I strongly suspect that the main reason why US didn't turn into a full-blown fascist regime after WWII was the silent presense of a large number of armed and battle-trained ex-soldiers who wouldn't take trampling on their freedoms lightly.
There's also a tactic of covert subversive activity aimed at derailing the workings of the government machine of expropriation and favor buying - ranging from sabotage of government everything to "repurposing" of the government funds to aid the liberation movement. Althiugh peaceful and non-violent, these activities carry great personal risks few people would want to take. (Although having the government to pay for anti-government propaganda and teaching is also a kind of subversion :)
Technology-aided subversion seems to be quite effective (and played a key role in most non-violent revolutions). That means learning potentially subversive technologies (such as cryptographic software and instant communications) and using them.
The main current task is proselitizing; educating people and getting them to see the reason; and shaming and discrediting collectivist mouthpieces.
Published: February 15, 2006 5:22 AM
Without govt. don't you have anarchy, which quickly evolves into another rule of the baddest and meanest?
Does history offer even a single example of a stable and orderly governmentless human community - more particularly a modern example of an industrialized community?
Plunder, overt or disguised, of the producing classes by the armed and dangerous power- and wealth-hungry few, however they style and cloak themselves, seems to be the common thread running through all of human society.
Is expecting that, and theorizing about how, this could be different anything at all besides wishin' and hopin' and dreamin' ... ?
Can a duck write a piano sonata?
Can the common man intelligently self-govern?
Is any plan of government that supposes he actually can, anything but a great big power-vacuum waiting to be exploited?
Published: February 15, 2006 9:21 AM
tawny,
>Without govt. don't you have anarchy,
Yup.
>which quickly evolves into another rule of the baddest and meanest?
Nope. Anarchy is what you have when the baddest and meanest are not given a territorially based monopoly on enforcement of decision making but instead are treated as criminals.
>Does history offer even a single example of a stable and orderly governmentless human community - more particularly a modern example of an industrialized community?
It does, but rather than mention them, I ask prior to the ascendancy of democracy, in the days of monarchs, did history seem to offer many examples of orderly democracies? To me, the question isn’t what have we had; it’s what is possible and optimal given the constraints of the nature of man. To me the answer is libertarian anarchy, regardless of what we have dabbled with up until now.
>Plunder, overt or disguised, of the producing classes by the armed and dangerous power- and wealth-hungry few, however they style and cloak themselves, seems to be the common thread running through all of human society.
It is the common thread running through all societies governed by coercively monopolistic states.
>Is expecting that, and theorizing about how, this could be different anything at all besides wishin' and hopin' and dreamin' ... ?
Can a duck write a piano sonata?
It’s more like arguing that based on human nature, anarchy would work best. It’s just an indisputable fact. That people are unaware of this fact is what keeps us in this sorry state of oppressor and oppressed. But no amount of ignorance changes the facts. 1 and 1 is 2, and anarchy is better than state coercion.
>Can the common man intelligently self-govern?
He does it every day and despite, not because of state intervention in his life. So many of our problems are either created or exacerbated by the state, it’s amazing we get by at all.
>Is any plan of government that supposes he actually can, anything but a great big power-vacuum waiting to be exploited?
I’m not convinced. For one thing, you’ll have a society of people of the mentality that they are responsible for their own defense. They will be armed, insured, and dangerous. And they will not have handed over a monopoly of force to one very unreliable set of liars and cheaters.
Published: February 15, 2006 11:29 AM
Who are these entities who will treat the baddest and meanest as the criminals they are and by what authority will they dispense their justice and administer and enforce their corrections/control? Will the baddest and meanest just meekly submit or will they resist? Who will risk life and limb against them and where will they get the money to wage their crusade, etc. Just how will this libertarian anarchy actually play out, how will it work and keep on working. Give me a plausible scenario.
Please give me the examples of modern stable and orderly governmentless societies.
You assert your position but I do not see any proof that what you claim will work, will work.
If it works, where are the instances of that in history?
Many if not most people are law-abiding because they fear the consequences (the law). They are law-abiding because of their fear of the consequences of bringing the law down upon themselves. I do not see where the order will come from in a situation of libertarian anarchy.
Published: February 15, 2006 6:12 PM
tawny,
“Who are these entities who will treat the baddest and meanest as the criminals they are and by what authority will they dispense their justice and administer and enforce their corrections/control?�
Private insurance companies and their cooperating private courts and enforcement arms or firms will provide this. They will derive their authority from their subscribers. Those who do not subscribe will be free not to but the problem is they do so without legal protection themselves. Those unwilling to subscribe to the requirements of civil behavior will not be forced to do so. Neither will they expect the economic and physical force of insurance companies to support their cause if they are the ones aggressed against.
“Will the baddest and meanest just meekly submit or will they resist?�
Being, for the most part, the cowards that they are, they will meekly submit. Those who are intent on resisting will find themselves outside of the law and subject to a very expensive and tenuous existence; probably they will end up destitute or dead because they have squandered their wealth pursuing criminal undertakings that will result in retribution of which they will bear the complete costs for.
“Who will risk life and limb against them and where will they get the money to wage their crusade, etc.�
Police who work for the state today will work for better remuneration and treatment from private protection firms. Costs will be provided via insurance premiums and payments to cover costs extracted from the criminal.
“Just how will this libertarian anarchy actually play out, how will it work and keep on working. Give me a plausible scenario.�
Just as the private food and insurance industries have kept on working, so would private protection and court services persist. People will value protection, courts and insurance and will pay for it in a private setting. It will be better because there will be competition and better service and lower prices.
“Please give me the examples of modern stable and orderly governmentless societies.�
If I recall correctly, Ireland qualifies, parts of the US have been anarchies in the past, and I don’t recall, but perhaps Iceland also. In present day, I believe Somalia is currently without government and the markets are working there.
Now it’s your turn: please give me examples of successful democracies that existed prior to the days when monarchies prevailed.
History is not important to the question of what is possible. Theory, understanding and imagination are key.
“You assert your position but I do not see any proof that what you claim will work, will work.�
You need to do some googling in mises.org and lewrockwell.org for anarchy and private protection. You will get many hits and the papers you will read will do a better job of elaborating than I have space for here.
“If it works, where are the instances of that in history?�
See comment above. On the question of what is possible, reason overrules history.
“Many if not most people are law-abiding because they fear the consequences (the law). They are law-abiding because of their fear of the consequences of bringing the law down upon themselves. I do not see where the order will come from in a situation of libertarian anarchy.�
Anarchy is absence of the state, not absence of law and order. The state is absence of law and order.
Published: February 15, 2006 7:55 PM
tawny - give me proof that governments work, in a sense that they a) prevent (rather than cause) mass murder, b) protect (rather than rob and enslave) their citizens, and c) improve (rather then destroy) well-being of their citizens.
On a close analysis there was no government so far which could be called "working".
The baddest and meanest criminals are currently running the show.
> Many if not most people are law-abiding because
> they fear the consequences (the law).
This is a really nonsensical statement - if people are en mass afraid of the law and wish to start stealing and killing as soon as the law is removed, what prevents them from simply voting the law out? You either have to conclude that the voting doesn't change anything (and that we're really living in a dictatorship by Some Enlightened Superhumans, which seems to be the true heart's desire, if not wet dream, of most so-called "liberals"; and also that the democracy is one big lie), or that they simply vote their fellow criminals in, so that the most wily ones are above the law (and, indeed, make laws). The criminal gangs are known to go to the great lengths to suppress competition from other criminals on their territories.
If one gives a little thought to the fact that popular revolts by relatively small portions of populartion (5-10%) easily throw down governments (together with their laws), one has to conclude that the order and law are here because they are voluntarily supported by a large majority of people, who follow laws because of innate morality, and that criminals are a small minority.
Now, a community of moral people can easily defend itself from scattered criminals - the historical accounts of the "wild" West prove that conclusively. Defending against external criminals (such as other governments with their armies and goebbelses) is harder, but (given the lack of systematic robbery and destruction of wealth by the government) a free community is bound to be a lot wealthier, and, therefore able to afford a strong military protection, even if some members of the community won't consider it important enough to pay for it. Also bear in mind that military defense is a lot cheaper than offense, and the ability of armed population to wear down even the strongest occupying enemy is well-established.
So the order in the libertarian anarchy comes from exactly the same source as order in any other society: from the morality of people. And only irrational belief in the protective magic of State, rooted in the fear of non-existing enemies artfully instilled by the State's agents, makes them to cry for protection from exactly those who impose the worst burden of theft and slavery onto them.
If you really wish to understand how the protection can be organized in a libertarian society, you'd want to read "The Myth of National Defense" edited by Prof. Hoppe.
Published: February 15, 2006 8:10 PM