Debate the State
The inaugural issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, in 1977, was devoted to a symposium on Robert Nozick’s attempt, in his landmark work Anarchy, State, and Utopia, to justify the minimal state against the case, by Murray Rothbard and others, for free-market anarchy. In the years since, the debate among libertarians as to the necessity and desirability of the state has continued. Inasmuch as 2007 marks the 30th anniversary of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, it seems appropriate to commemorate the date by devoting a symposium issue, 21.1, to the anarchist/minarchist controversy.
- Nozick had argued that in a free-market anarchy, a dominant protection agency (DPA) would be justified in using force to ban its competitors (thereby evolving into a justified monopoly state) in order to protect its customers from risky judicial procedures, so long as “independents” – those who wished to engage in rights-enforcement without the DPA’s involvement – are compensated. In “Nozick’s Failed Defense of the Just State,” Eric Roark maintains that Nozick has not shown that a ban on risky procedures could justly be extended to all independents, and also argues against the existence of the procedural rights on which Nozick’s case depends.
In a previous exchange, Randall Holcombe had argued that government, however undesirable it may be, is inevitable, since any stateless region is likely to be swiftly conquered by either an existing or a newly arising state; hence, rather than fighting the state, we should be working to construct the best state we can, lest a worse one be imposed on us by others. Walter Block had replied that government cannot be inevitable since it has not prevailed everywhere, and had taken issue with some of Holcombe’s examples. Now in “Is Government Really Inevitable?,” Holcombe responds that Block has mistakenly read Holcombe as arguing for the logical inevitability of government, whereas Holcombe meant only that government was inevitable given prevailing human characteristics and motivations; he also defends his examples, arguing that in any case government is more prevalent than Block recognizes. In “Rejoinder to Holcombe on the Inevitability of Government,” Block charges that Holcombe has retreated to a less interesting thesis, and adds that in any case government would still be worth combating even if it were inevitable.- Tibor Machan has argued previously (abstract here) that the disagreement between anarchists and minarchists is merely verbal, since the sorts of private protection agencies that market anarchists favor would necessarily have to enjoy the same sort of territorial monopoly that minarchists claim for the state. In “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Walter Block retorts that anarchism and minarchism are essentially incompatible, and denies that any territorial monopoly is necessary in the provision of legal services; in “Defining Government, Begging the Question: An Answer to Walter Block’s Reply,” Machan maintains that Block fails to answer Machan’s case for territorial monopoly, and charges Block with begging the question against Machan by defining government as essentially coercive.
- In “Contra Anarcho-Capitalism,” a critique of several market anarchist pieces including one of mine, Jordan Schneider argues that market-based law is impracticable because markets cannot provide either objectivity or a final arbiter, and also because firms will have an incentive to become abusive. “Anarchy Defended: Reply to Schneider,” I maintain that markets can provide objectivity, do not need to provide a final arbiter, and constitute a checks-and-balances restraint on incentives to abuse power.
Comments (26)
Always Freedom and Markets. Coercion, never.
I think Mises said it best:
"There cannot be too much of a correct theory."
The only stateless society that could be maintained is one based on property rights. The idea of a common ownership anarchy is unworkable because it would never be able to prevent the formation of governments. A society built on property and voluntary exchange would quickly identify any form of taxation, the root of government, as crime.
In Anarcho-Capitalism institutions that behave in a way similar to governments today might exist, but they would depend on voluntary residence. They could be enforced through lease contracts. Breaking laws might result in banishment and instead of a "tax", you would be charged "rent".
Think Disney does government.
Published: June 4, 2007 12:02 AM
Is a better term for 'Anarchist' society be rather 'private' society? The models proposed for society with no government still has various forms of hierarchies. Since there are still '-archies' it's not really Anarchy as such. Similarly since a Monarch is simply a private landowner with farmer-tenants and police and soldiers to protect their private land from criminal insiders and outsiders, isn't this the natural state of humanity then? As long as you can pick up your gear and go to the land of another Monarch, settle down and start paying new rent then Libertopia has been achieved. No?
Published: June 4, 2007 12:36 AM
No.
First, why does the King own the land? That has to justified. Obviously, every monarch in recent history got it by stealing.
You are assuming the King is a rightful owner as part of your argument that the King is the rightful owner to work.
The US government does not own my house, and doesn't even claim to, so your argument is only valid in your imagination.
Published: June 4, 2007 12:43 AM
How do know a Monarch stole to get where they were just because some did? I'm using the term 'Monarch' as meaning a person with large land-holdings and who happens to be an employer and/or landlord. I never said anything about continuous wars where winner takes all. A dynasty of Monarchs I'm thinking could evolve from a self-empolyed farming family who get wealthier as they become more successful which they reinvest via buying more land (or laying claim to unowned land?), which they may just happen to get in a firesale from a unsuccessful farmer who has to sell his land to try and pay off his debts or then again just buy the standard market rate from someone who feels they have too much land, employ farmhands, get more successful, buys more land, hires a security force as they can't defend all the land any one time, and so forth until the family owns a great deal of land, has many farm workers, a strong security force and lives happily ever after perhaps?
Published: June 4, 2007 1:18 AM
Jonathan Bostwick said: "The US government does not own my house, and doesn't even claim to"
No. Your municipal or county government does.
Published: June 4, 2007 2:18 PM
TLWP,
What you're describing is one variation of the pseudo-governments I talked about.
Of course its possible that would exist, no one knows the future.
But that pseudo-government would not be above the law, in fact, it would be very careful to not violate its contract. With so many eyes watching it and so much property to lose, it would be the Jeffersonian dream of the (pseudo) government being afraid of the people.
Of course, its almost unthinkable that the market would cover the entire globe with these amusement park style governments, "anarchists"(to coin a word) would certainly settle together and create pockets of territory of mixed ownership.
The people will ultimately get what they want. There is no guarantee that governments would not be formed. But thats no excuse to make one on purpose. That would be using the possibility of failure as an excuse to ensure failure.
Published: June 4, 2007 5:40 PM
Huh J. Bostwick?
'would not be above the law'?
Who/What is this higher law-giver that creates this higher law? Governments? Tenants? The point of being a private property owner is to control your own property. I'm sure many people here get rather grumpy when they hear the terms 'landholder' and 'trade union'. Surely a landowner takes no order from above or below?
'violates its contract'?
Do you mean a Social Contract? One of the many evil phrases from Lefties? Or a contract with tenants? If common decency says that tenants who don't like one landowner's terms can freely find another landowner to deal with then so what? A rude landowner doens't get much, if any, tenants and goes broke, big whoop?
'pseudo-government'?
How is a large landowner with paying tenants a government? Even if a landowner lays down ground rules for tenants, both sides are engaging in free-market transactions. If there just happens to be easy entry/exit ability and choice between different land owners and different tenants how is this anything but a complete free-market scenario? Similarly why should a Libertarian be solely consisted of everyone having their own plot of land and be self-employed? Or that businesses and farms stays small and can't be large?
Published: June 5, 2007 12:47 AM
"Similarly since a Monarch is simply a private landowner with farmer-tenants and police and soldiers to protect their private land from criminal insiders and outsiders, isn't this the natural state of humanity then?"
As was pointed out by another above, a monarch is no such thing, because the property is stolen. The notion of a king as rightful owner is to ignore that the king achieved the property by stealing it. The king, just like any other government, is claiming ownership over an entire geographical location that they have not homesteaded or exchanged for themselves.
Because of the complications and absurdity of claiming ownership of unused, unhomesteaded land, and because of the multitude of different owners and competition, it is practically impossible for a single landowner to obtain ownership over an entire country-sized territory.
Published: June 5, 2007 1:20 AM
Who's talking of a continent being ruled by an imperialist absolute dictator? I'm simply talking of a landowner in a way similar to that someone who owns an apartment building with tenants in competition with other apartment building owners. Maybe 'Monarch' is too strong a word to some to be used perhaps?
Published: June 5, 2007 2:43 AM
That's it! This issue I must have! Subscription, here I come!
Published: June 5, 2007 8:47 AM
TLWP,
"Surely a landowner takes no order from above or below?"
They take orders from below when they become an landlord to a renter.
"Or a contract with tenants?"
Of course, who would rent property without a contract?
"'pseudo-government'?
How is a large landowner with paying tenants a government? Even if a landowner lays down ground rules for tenants, both sides are engaging in free-market transactions. If there just happens to be easy entry/exit ability and choice between different land owners and different tenants how is this anything but a complete free-market scenario? Similarly why should a Libertarian be solely consisted of everyone having their own plot of land and be self-employed? Or that businesses and farms stays small and can't be large?"
Its not a government, "pseudo" means "false". It does however resemble a government. Tn the same way that Disneyland or the owners of an apartment complex do. What keeps them from not being governments is not how they act. The difference lies in choice.
But you seem to misunderstand, I'm not arguing against anarcho-capitalism. I'm explaining what it might look like, and how its likely that organizations(pseudo-government) would exist that would shame any minarchist's conception of the ideal (true) government.
Published: June 5, 2007 5:44 PM
Sounds like TLWP is assuming proprietary government (like Spencer Heath). Peter Leeson from austrianeconomists.typepad.com argues here against his frequent co-author Ed Stringham's advocacy of that kind of anarchy, saying it will degenerate into oppressive government and instead advocates multiple defense organizations operating within a single territory without any having a monopoly. Personally, I'm with Randall Holcombe. Government is inevitable, the least bad we see tend to be those that were captured by people intent on creating institutional limitations, even if not all those limitations held up at all times. Right now world government does not seem feasible, and as a decentralist (for lower exit costs and policy competition reasons) I don't want to have one. Technology has made larger governments possible and if it became sufficiently likely that world government would arise, I would support pre-emptively creating one with strict limitations for the purpose of preventing a more unrestrained government from takings its place. By then hopefully there will be other planets to escape to though.
Published: June 5, 2007 5:49 PM
Rereading I think we had intended to mean the same thing.
It was your comparison to feudalism that threw me. To liken freedom to feudalism is to misunderstand the reality of feudalism, and to do a great disservice to freedom.
Published: June 5, 2007 6:03 PM
TGGP,
If it was likely that a totalitarian government would be formed would then move to create a slightly less totalitarian state to protect yourself?
Published: June 5, 2007 6:10 PM
Should have read:
"would you then move"
Sorry
Published: June 5, 2007 6:11 PM
I would expect that a country could defend itself without being totalitarian. Perhaps it might be necessary to form an authoritarian (as much as I dislike neoconservatives, Jeane Kirkpatrick was right that there is a difference) government which deals harshly with threats to its hold on power but otherwise leaves people alone. I think if internal divisions were strong enough though, it might be best to divide the country so that the more totalitarian agitators had their own country to ruin while being kept away from a another country where more liberty is preserved.
Published: June 6, 2007 12:18 PM
i think that a country is more likely to be able to protect itself if totalitarian government is not a feature of said country. decentralized, private defense is clearly a better defense than the state monopolized version. this is evident in iraq, afganistan and lebanon where after the state military was soundly defeated (by another state military), private militias have been able to defeat the larger, better equipped military of the invading state. state monopolization of defense merely installs the least effective form of protection (coercive, centralized monopoly) over a specified area. it should be clear through academic study and real world example that monopoly is, by nature, ineffective and inefficient in providing goods and services. instituting this type of "solution" to perceived social problems is somewhat absurd.
Published: June 7, 2007 8:33 AM
zrated, the decentralized warlords of post-Soviet Afghanistan were defeated by the Taliban, and the Taliban driven out by a not-even-that-large U.S force. The current government of Afghanistan and the multinational forces there are actually quite popular and the Taliban has nowhere near the power to seize control. Watch Peter Bergen explain here and though it might not be all that relevant, read Who Is Responsible For the Taliban? for background history. In Iraq, a quasi-totalitarian dictator was able to crush the Kurds and Shiites despite their numerical superiority (Arab Sunnis are fewer on the ground than both groups) because totalitarian methods of control are effective. For all the talk about how terrible the insurgency in Iraq is, we are still there and cannot be driven out as long as Bush refuses to back down and when we do leave, it will be to let the Shiite dominated government (which we played no small part in creating) give the Arab Sunnis a taste of their own medicine. The best the Arab Sunnis can hope for is to get their own territory from some sort of partition, which will be dominated by ex-Baathists who will kill off the jihadists since they have such experience in doing just that. The Lebanese civil war was ended by Syria dominating the country. Syria at that time was led by a conniving bastard who had crushed al Qaeda's predecessor, the Muslim Brotherhood, by decimating Hama. al Qaeda teaches their operatives about the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and how it failed so they will know what moves they should make to succeed, which you read about in the Harmony Documents. Examples of historical "anarchy" (I'm not sure if I think a lot of them count as real anarchy) were utterly defeated by states when push came to shove whether old England (by Norman or Anglo-Saxon invaders, depending on which was upposed to have been "anarchy"), Ireland (by the English), native Americans and African tribes (by colonizing powers) or pirates (by naval powers that got sick of them). Everything at one time did not exist, including governments. Where is the area where anarchy outcompeted states that tried to move in? Examples Walter Block gives where anarchy exist are the oceans and Antarctica. He forgot to mention the moon or Mars where just like his examples THERE ARE NO PEOPLE!
Published: June 7, 2007 5:47 PM
i'm no expert on warlords, but the taliban was not only not driven out by the u.s. but is gaining ground lost in the initial entrenchment and i will go so far out on a limb as to predict that they will ultimately be successful in forcing withdrawal of u.s. forces. the statement that they do not have the power to seize control seems to be in conflict with the reality in the country at the moment with taliban forces in near complete control of southern afganistan. as a member of the military intelligence community, i feel qualified to comment on this (clearance ts-sci from 2005).
it is not my intent to suggest that a 10-man private defense force will be able to hold off the full force of the chinese army, but that, all things being equal, private forces will perform better than state forces. keep in mind that we are talking about national defense, not in-country, anti-government insurrection or rebellion. that is a totally different story. the examples in your post, respectfully, are largely inconsistent with that theme. yes, private defense can be beaten by much larger and more technologically advanced state forces, but, as stated, private forces will out-perform state forces, all things being equal. in refutation of this point i would like to see the economic theory that disproves the inherent inefficiency of monopoly. it can't be done.
Published: June 7, 2007 10:32 PM
The part about state forces being "larger and more technologically advanced" is part of their superiority (though the latter was frequently sufficient without the former in the age of colonialism).
You have made prediction that the Taliban will drive out U.S forces. Would you care to give a date by which this will occur?
Published: June 11, 2007 12:53 AM
of course i meant, "in the event of state forces being larger and more technologically advanced...". they are certainly not likely to be more technologically advanced (size, i can't speculate on), considering the stifling effects of monopoly on innovation (though, admittedly, it is not a pure monopoly in the sense that they must compete against foreign war machines). the market in which they compete simply lacks the intensity of the private sector.
i do believe that the taliban will be successful, but i can't guess a date (unless it's just for fun).
Published: June 12, 2007 7:19 AM
zrated, you assume that state forces will not be more technologically advanced, but I gave plenty examples in which they are and you have given none in which it is the other way around. States control everywhere there are settled human populations because states are prone to having the capability to do so. You can proclaim the superiority of non-state forces all you want, but the dominance of states speaks for itself.
Of course you can guess a date, unless you don't really believe it will happen. Just give your expected value of X, where X is years until the Taliban is successful. The word "successful" should be defined, so I would say being at the level of control they were on 9/11/01 which was not absolute (they were even then fighting the Northern Alliance) but could definitely be said to be the governing regime of Afghanistan. This would require, at minimum, driving the current regime out of Kabul.
Published: June 12, 2007 1:57 PM
i absolutely do not assume that states will not be technologically superior as stated in the post. i used the non-absolute phrase "not likely". states don't dominate because of their "superior" forces. again, the topic is private vs state defense. the internal societal workings that allow states to assume power is a topic you might could teach me something about. the fact is that the argument that coercive monopoly is more effective or efficient than the competitive market cannot be backed up by logic. case in point: the u.s. defense force actually lowers the security of the country by its actions abroad. in the competitive marketplace, this would not be upheld. asking a monopoly to satisfy the needs of consumers is slightly more absurd to asking santa claus to grant your christmas wishes.
my expected value of "X" is undetermined.
Published: June 12, 2007 4:20 PM
zrated, the U.S has not been invaded since 1812. Bush has done pretty much everything he could to piss off the "Arab Street" and al Qaeda still hasn't been able to attack us. Why is this? Because our defense forces are good enough that serious threats are very dim possibility and they can afford to spend their efforts dicking around.
Published: June 14, 2007 6:04 PM
Regarding how the state comes in power in the first place, I've only read the first chapter of Franz Oppenheimer's "The State", but it sounds like a pretty good explanation, better than the kind of stuff Jared Diamond says (not that I didn't enjoy GG&S). I don't know how people affiliated with LVMI can tout both Oppenheimer and Etienne la Boettie's account of the state, but maybe I have to read more of Der Staat.
Published: June 14, 2007 6:09 PM
i've made all the points i care to make. thanks for an entertaining discussion!
Published: June 15, 2007 2:00 PM