Many people who are sympathetic to the notion of minimizing institutionalized coercion are still skeptical about how, or even if, the world would work without government. Who, they ask, would build the roads and run the schools? Who would keep order in society and protect it from predators?
Some of these questions reflect beliefs as quaint and silly as those of inner-city children who believe that milk naturally comes from cartons. But since much of all news concerns the doings of government, and since various levels of government control close to half the economy, it’s understandable how Americans have come to see the state as a permanent fixture in the cosmic firmament, “naturally” and “necessarily” responsible for almost everything. Americans have become almost as myopic as the Soviets were in that regard. Some believe that if the government didn’t build the roads, we would still have no industrialization or infrastructure. Similarly, some Soviets had a hard time figuring out who would build cars, if not their government.
Actually, an inability to understand how the world would work without government shows an inability to understand how it works right now. What holds society together isn’t the coercive power of the state – it’s peer pressure, social opprobrium, moral approbation, and, especially, self interest. Few people would argue that the reason diners pay their restaurant checks is fear of the police, just as few would argue that the only reason diners do not stand on table tops, disrobe and create a scene is because of some ordinance prohibiting it. The coercive power of the state has almost no part in forming the glue holding society together.
Does government have any rightful place in society? One argument is that, since the state holds a monopoly on the legal use of force, its logical function is to protect individuals from force. That implies a defensive military to protect you from force originating outside the government’s jurisdiction – a police force to protect you from inside its jurisdiction and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force.
But only a small and decreasing fraction of government resources actually go toward these legitimate goals, and it is spent with pathetic inefficiency. The military is a gigantic pork-barrel program, the police harass as much as they protect and, even if you can afford it, it is nearly impossible to get into court and equally difficult to get out once you are in.
In fact, an excellent case can be made that defense, police and courts are far too critical to the smooth functioning of society to be left to the type of person predisposed to working for the government. When it comes to the police, I’d prefer a Mike Hammer or Thomas Magnum trying to solve a crime rather than the typical cop, whose main skill is writing his quota of traffic tickets.
Private arbitration agencies, who would have to compete based on the fairness and cost-effectiveness of their decisions, would be a big improvement over often corrupt, glacier-like and politically-motivated courts, who must decide cases based on arbitrary statute law.
How would criminals be tried in the absence of statute law and punished without government prisons? For one thing, there would be a lot less illegal activity if victimless crime were abolished. For another, the first concern of a justice system should be making the victim whole, not arbitrarily punishing the miscreant. Sentences should therefore, be meted out in terms of monetary damages to the victim – plus the costs of apprehension, trial and supervision on whatever level appropriate. Felons would have an incentive to become productive, in order to regain their freedom. And victims would not be doubly penalized by having to pay taxes to incarcerate those who had already harmed them.
In general, government judicial systems are far more concerned about crimes against the state than crimes against the individual. In China, as the Tiananmen Square revolt demonstrated, the gravest crime consists of agitation for democracy – in the United States, it consists of nonsupport of the government by refusing to pay taxes or obey regulations. And in all cases, a show of humility, a respectful attitude and the renunciation of politically-incorrect ideas are required.
The sentencing of the Chinese students who incited the Tiananmen riots in 1989 was based mainly on their attitudes. One leader, Ren Wanding, was given the longest sentence because he hung tough, refused to apologize and showed no regret. Others, guilty of more serious “crimes,” received shorter sentences because they played the game of “self and mutual criticism.”
Everyone in the United States claimed to be outraged at what happened to the students, especially Ren. But few acknowledged the extent to which punishment disproportionate to the crime committed is routinely imposed here in the United States. Tax protesters regularly get more hard time than violent criminals.
Some would say that a few abuses are a small price to pay for having a national defense. That, too, is questionable. The U.S. government actually created much of the danger the USSR once presented. As pathological as it was, the USSR would have had no reason to attack North America if it were just a grouping of 250 million individuals, entirely apart from the fact it would have been 1,000 times more costly than their ill-fated adventure in Afghanistan. How could they possibly invade a country where they would have to conquer each citizen as an individual? It is a different matter entirely if they need only force another government to surrender. In any event, the Soviets would have collapsed long before they did, had not the U.S. government funneled billions in aid and loans to them.
Although even these “natural monopolies” of government do not really exist, it might be acceptable if government was strictly limited to ensuring national and domestic safety and to adjudicating disputes. Without a legislature, regulatory agencies and the taxes it takes to enforce their dictates, the economy would really blossom. In a decade, the U.S. would be as far ahead of, say, Japan, as Japan is ahead of Romania. Anything that needs to be done can and would be done more efficiently by entrepreneurs – at a profit.
In the perverse “real world” of today, however, the police, courts and the military are among the least significant parts of government – moreover, government fails to produce quality products in any other worthwhile area it pursues, such as education. Indeed, its main products are taxation, regulation, inflation and wealth redistribution, which all eventually destroy their supposed beneficiaries as surely as they do those who are taxed overtly.
