In anarchism is so great, how did governments ever start up?

Ronin Truth

Banned
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
22,510
In anarchism is so great, how did governments ever start up?

Walter E. Block

From: D

Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 1:01 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Basic questions regarding anarcho-capitalism arguments

Dear Prof. Block,

My name is D, from Brazil. First, allow me to say that I am a huge fan of your work. Your work has, indeed, been instrumental in “converting” me into an anarcho-capitalist and providing me argumentative tools when occasionally debating the principles of a free society. I am not an economics specialist, nor a philosopher, or anything like that. I really do not know how a legal system would work in a stateless society and I think the market process would find the best solution. The one argument that was definitive into my “conversion” was this: Human beings are, indeed, imperfect. One person or group of people cannot have all knowledge. Why, then, is it acceptable to elect a select group of people to run every aspect of our lives? Why is this group of people better at creating law and providing defense? Why would it make sense that a group of people with no “market feedback loop” (not subject to the profit and price system), and no fear of going out of business can do a better job than the market?

Anyway, I am constantly seeking more knowledge on the subject and more arguments. I have one question that I think you will easily answer. Well, one common argument against a stateless society is “how can you be sure that a group of people wouldn’t get together and create a state again?”. I accept that that might not occur, and if it does, people would be free to simply flee from the region under this state’s influence, or even hire private security companies to protect them. I believe there are many other arguments. But my question is more or less regarding history and how the first states came to be. Well, we can assume that “anarchism” was the natural state of things, back in the times of the primitive men. There were tribes, groups of people.

Eventually communities. Well, if this is the case – that there was a time when there was no state – how is it that people got together and created the first states? Was a state a “natural” thing to happen in primitive societies? If that is the case, can we say that if we moved to a stateless society today people would be more intellectually prepared to accept this? Are we more evolved in our ethics and morals to better accept markets? If we are not, do you think we will, some time in a distant future, be? Thank you, professor! Best

regards, D



Dear D:

You ask a very important question. My thought is that there is something in human biology, socio-biology, that leads us toward statism. Perhaps, millions of years ago when we were in caves or trees, there was some survival mechanism in favor of choosing a “leader” or allowing one (perhaps the biggest and strongest member of the community) to arise. This might have conferred benefits on small groups of early **** sapiens, compared to the ones that did not experience this. On the other hand, this tendency toward statism is not overwhelming; there must be other forces, counteracting this, in operation. Otherwise, we would now have a world government. And/or the UN would be much more powerful than it is. In other words, if there are centrifugal forces out there, there are also centripetal ones.

Here is my biblio on this sort of thing. I would first focus you attention on the one by Bob Murphy, where he writes about warlords taking over:

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007, 2010, 2011; Casey, 2010; DiLorenzo, 2010; Gregory, 2011; Guillory & Tinsley, 2009; Hasnas, 1995; Heinrich, 2010; Higgs, 2009, 2012; Hoppe, 2008, 2011; Huebert, 2010; King, 2010; Kinsella, 2009; Long, 2004; McConkey, 2013; Molyneux, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Paul, undated; Rockwell, 2013; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1998; Spooner, 1870; Stringham, 2007; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wenzel, 2013; Woods, 2014.
Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf
Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf
Block, Walter. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2011. “Governmental inevitability: reply to Holcombe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp. 667-688; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_34.pdf
Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html
Casey, Doug. 2010. “Doug Casey on Anarchy.” March 31; http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-anarchy
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2010. “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.” The Independent Review, v. 15, n. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 227–239; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html
Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/1...rol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard. May 6; http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for-all-without-the-state/
Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.” August 20; http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html
Higgs, Robert. 2012. “What is the point of my libertarian anarchism?” January 16;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs180.html
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html
Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger
King, Seth. 2010. “Daily Anarchist Interviews Walter E. Block ,” September 9;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html
Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20; http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009...-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/
Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
McConkey, Michael. 2013. “Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State of Exception: Schmitt’s Challenge.” The Independent Review, v. 17, n. 3, Winter, pp. 415–428. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_03_05_mcconkey.pdf
Molyneux, Stefan. 2008. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02056.html
Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
Paul, Ron. Undated. “Anarchism.” http://libertyupward.com/ron-paul-religious-icon/
Rockwell, Lew. 2013. “What Would We Do Without the State?” March 31;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134782.html
Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
In the view of Rothbard (1973, emphasis added by present author) “For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as ‘members of the government’) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it ‘war’; then ennobled the mass slaughter that ‘war’ involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it ‘conscription’ in the ‘national service.’ For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it ‘taxation.’ In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”
Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Do you hate the state?” The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
“…there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.”
“The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.”
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Paul, Ron. Undated. “Anarchism.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4k...68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4
Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm
vv

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html
Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf
Wenzel, Robert. 2013. “Robert Ringer’s Strawman Anarchist.” February 2;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel211.html
Woods, Tom. 2014. “Four things the state is not.” July 29;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/4-things-the-state-is-not/
private police: private army:
Gregory, 2011; Guillory, & Tinsley. 2009; Hoppe, 2011; Huebert, 2010; Murphy, 2005; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1998 [1982]; Stringham, 2007; Tannehills[1970] 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wiśniewski, 2014; Wollstein, 1969; Woolridge, 1970.
Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html
Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/1...rol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html
Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger
Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over
Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html
Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf
Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar. 2014. “Defense as a private good in a competitive order” Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer, pp. 2-35;
http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N1/Jakub%20Bozydar%20Wisniewski.pdf
Wollstein, Jarret B. 1969. Society Without Coercion. In Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press
Woolridge, William C. 1970. Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House

1:08 pm on June 16, 2016
Email Walter E. Block

The Best of Walter E. Block


https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/anarchism-great-governments-ever-start/
 
Israel Demands a King
8 And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. 3 His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice. Corruption in the tribal common law system

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; 5 and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing was [a]displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 8 Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the [c]procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

Warning concerning a King
10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the [d]procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to [e]do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and [f]use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” desired a stronger military and monopoly legal construct 21 Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the Lord’s hearing. 22 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to their voice and [g]appoint them a king.” So Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”
 
Anarchism only works on a very small scale. As you get more and more people together, disputes will arise and governments will be formed to resolve those disputes.
 
Anarchism works, when fear is gone and the ego is dead, in all men.
 
Anarchism only works on a very small scale. As you get more and more people together, disputes will arise and governments will be formed to resolve those disputes.

How many disputes are resolved each day, without any government involvement, at all? How many more could be?
 
Meh. Anarchism is inefficient. All it really is, is voluntary socialism. Here is the problem with it. You end up with a bunch of "anarchists" mixed up with socialists in said voluntary socialist community, and, then, the socialists end up using force (generally at the barrel of a gun) to take property and wealth from those in the community who aren't really socialists in order to subsidize their program. That's the short and sweet of it. Although, it could be expanded on. I'm not expanding on it, though. To do so would equate to a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football.
 
Last edited:
Israel Demands a King
8 And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba. 3 His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice. Corruption in the tribal common law system

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; 5 and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing was [a]displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 8 Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. 9 Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the [c]procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

Warning concerning a King
10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the [d]procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to [e]do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and [f]use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” desired a stronger military and monopoly legal construct 21 Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the Lord’s hearing. 22 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to their voice and [g]appoint them a king.” So Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”


So obviously governments must have started some how, time and place quite a bit earlier than that. ;)
 
Yes, that's very well known. The question is why did anarchism fail the market test for defense.

Well for starters I'll SWAG the primitive triumph of the familial, tribal, sheeple, herd (flock) mentality, group think factors and the world really CAN be a very scary and dangerous place, especially at night. :eek:

Another idea, one dominant (family) tribe plundered, conquered and enslaved other neighboring tribes and then deified itself.

BTW, how does minarchy turn out in the defense market test?

"A nation of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenal
 
Last edited:
Well for starters I'll SWAG the primitive triumph of the familial, tribal, sheeple, herd (flock) mentality, group think factors and the world really CAN be a very scary and dangerous place, especially at night. :eek:

Another idea, one dominant (family) tribe plundered, conquered and enslaved other neighboring tribes and then deified itself.

BTW, how does minarchy turn out in the defense market test?

"A nation of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." -- Bertrand de Jouvenal

Minarchy has done pretty well, I'd say. Too well for its own good.
 
Problem -> reaction -> solution

A group split itself into two groups, then they staged a fight in which the winning side was ostensibly acting on behalf of the whole society.

In short, it was a false flag operation.

And as soon as we rid ourselves of all government, it'll happen all over again, the exact same way.

Minarchy has done pretty well, I'd say. Too well for its own good.

Maybe too well for its own good, in that it created a republic which managed to make many of its citizens even fatter, intellectually lazier, and more hooked on bread and circuses than the ancient Romans. But in other respects, it did well enough to make the would-be tyrants crazy trying to discredit it so they can introduce totalitarian where minarchy once thrived.
 
Last edited:
My gut would say we didn't evolve out of anarchism, but rather evolving to it.

As in, when we were tromping about the forest, nearly starving regularly, being attacked by animals, and other groups, the most likely social structure would be a dictatorship. Alpha male runs shit, if you don't like it, kill the alpha, be killed trying, or get in line.

At present large sections of land ruled by a select number of masters, makes a bit of sense from a practical perspective. As in things like power grids need to interconnect over huge areas to work well, transport of food stuffs, etc... gain from their being a master class to make all the important decisions and forcing interconnection, thus we gain some efficiency. Also larger populations can provide more males to slaughter in war, so the area is less prone to invasion.

HOWEVER, in a short time frame, (less than a 100 years), it's virtually guaranteed we will no longer need a large multi state power grid to supply reliable energy. So, there is one less benefit for ceding power to the master class, as it's no longer necessary to take land and force the infrastructure for power. Money also no longer needs to be controlled by the government, there is no advantage to it. Even using Gold coins as the standard, would require tracking down counterfeits (cutting the gold content). Electronic systems can offer counterfeit free systems, and with a little effort can make theft of the electronic currency nearly impossible.

If we get better decentralized manufacturing processes/food production, there is little need for a government at all, highly possible in a 100 years.

Why would you want to invade an area, where all means of production are spread across the land, you've no central point of control, and everyone can manufacture guns, ammo, power/food. At that point the whole population would know they don't need a Master.

As far as disputes, not sure how to definitively resolve that for all time, but if there is no advantage in attempting to subjugate large swathes of land, then disputes should be of a local nature for the most part.
 
Meh. Anarchism is inefficient. All it really is, is voluntary socialism. Here is the problem with it. You end up with a bunch of "anarchists" mixed up with socialists in said voluntary socialist community, and, then, the socialists end up using force (generally at the barrel of a gun) to take property and wealth from those in the community who aren't really socialists in order to subsidize their program. That's the short and sweet of it. Although, it could be expanded on. I'm not expanding on it, though. To do so would equate to a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football.

Shit, it would be inefficient for me to purchase your property, so should I just take it? It would (hypothetically) be inefficient for me to spend the time to find a women who will say 'yes' to sex with me, so should 'no' stop me? From what I can tell, if you use anything other than morality to guide your philosophy you are susceptible to doing bad things and the final philosophical work, unless it is pure evil, will be inconsistent. Sometime good will be bad, sometimes bad will be good, and sometime positions will align where they should, if you follow logical progressions. That, to me, proves their in-correctness.
 
Anarchy is so great that it hides in plain sight, is totally taken for granted, while almost everyone lives it out (obliviously) almost all of the time.
 
Last edited:
Meh. Anarchism is inefficient. All it really is, is voluntary socialism. Here is the problem with it. You end up with a bunch of "anarchists" mixed up with socialists in said voluntary socialist community, and, then, the socialists end up using force (generally at the barrel of a gun) to take property and wealth from those in the community who aren't really socialists in order to subsidize their program. That's the short and sweet of it. Although, it could be expanded on. I'm not expanding on it, though. To do so would equate to a bunch of monkeys trying to hump a football.

And to look at the statement on its face, let me ask you rhetorically what is it that makes the marketplace continue to be 'better'? In my view, it is free association, the ability for the consumer to go where they wish to purchase what services or stuff they need or desire. That ability is what motivates the individual or businessman to provide better quality services or products, and to provide lower prices. Why does this, what I consider a bedrock principle, not translate to greater efficacy of government, when in all other areas or life (the market place, choosing a spouse, choosing a career) this freedom of choice makes things better? IMO it actually does, and this is one of those inconsistencies that I believe prove the lack of merits of some philosophies.
 
I posted in another thread about John Locke's take on this very subject.

Basically, men will want protection from those that do not respect their property rights. They will begin by grouping together and providing their own security - either in-house or contracted. But there's a cost to that and it must be borne by all under this group's protection. This is the basis for all governance. So until property rights are universally accepted, there will be some sort of government. The trick is to somehow limit it to its primary function. There's the rub.
 
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."
 
Back
Top