But I think the assumption here is that - in the production of security - scale is always the deciding factor. In other words, 100 always beats 90 always beats 80 and so on. I strongly doubt that this is true and, if it is not true, then the production of security is more complicated than just having the largest gang of tough guys. That means that the division-of-labor (specialization) in the production of security should be expected to have the same effect on security producers that it has on producers of any other good or service (that is, the market constantly drives producers to the right scale, not too large, not to small). But we clearly observe that this is not the case with the State - it always grows bigger. If people are not inherently exploitable, then there is no reason to believe that they wouldn’t rationally calculate their losses as serfs and pool their money together in order to hire enough tough guys to defend themselves from the established tough guys well enough until they can build their own “anarcho-capitalist” society which - if the body of economics is correct - should be vastly more efficient and prosperous than the centrally-controlled serf-society of the old school syndicate. I am tempted to say this is the American experiment. But the outcome of at least the American experiment is clear: the old syndicate still manages to move in and seize control of the fledgling “free market” country and subjugate it to the same Old World model. I keep seeing exploitability (incorrect calculation of the benefits of tolerating a State) as the primary explanation.
Merlin used to have an old thread on this subject, (How the State has outdone Anarchy (until now)) but I can’t seem to find the link to it. Basically, his theory is that States enslave people and in the process force the entire population to become more production-oriented (over generations). That is, people have to work harder to satisfy their taskmasters but the most successful ones end up passing on their genetic disposition for workaholism. Because of the productive potential of technology, older social systems and genetic dispositions that are too lackadaisical end up being subjugated by the societies which have been subjected to this process for a longer time and then begin the same process of selection and being driven to a greater disposition towards productivity. Merlin sees this process as eventually coming to an end as the species is essentially (and unwittingly) becoming more and more capitalist/production-oriented through this process. As a result, it is becoming harder and harder for the State to maintain the population in a condition of enslavement as the marginal productivity of the State’s process of enslavement over the new, naturally higher productivity of individuals is constantly decreasing.
It’s a very stark point of view but I find it to be difficult to refute.
Clayton -