Government is Anarchy

Economics Political Theory
1

Minarchists argue that society without government would be chaos. But the arguments they give against anarchy seem to apply with equal force against government.

For instance, minarchists claim that without government to enforce rules and regulations over citizens, people would have incentives to defect and hence social cooperation would be impossible.

But this argument also applies to government: after all, there is no government to enforce rules and regulations over politicians within the government. In other words, government itself is a society without government. So if the minarchist argument works, it would also show that politicians would be in a war of all against all, and hence government would fall into chaos.

Another minarchist argument is that without a government, private protection agencies would battle, and society would degenerate into gang warfare.

But how is government a solution? After all, there is no government to prevent warfare between the police and the military. Since government itself is an anarchy, the minarchist argument entails that the police and military must be in constant conflict, and that government too would degenerate into gang warfare.

Minarchists also claim that without government, there is no final arbiter to ensure that disputes are settled, and hence few disputes would ever get resolved, leading to endless conflict over rights, crimes, property titles, etc.

But this objection also applies to government. After all, there is no governmental final arbiter to adjudicate disputes among bureaucrats and politicians. According to the minarchist, bureaucrats and politicians will be in constant litigation, and couldn’t perform their task of protecting rights.

Thus, any argument against anarchy also counts as an argument against government, because government is an anarchy.

For more, see Cuzan and Long.

2

Perhaps a better statement would be ‘Government is disorder’ from Anselme Bellegarrigue’s work The World’s First Anarchist Manifesto. If you align anarchy with the incorrect premise that it is chaos then you will have individuals simply say ‘Ok then it is a question of which chaos I prefer. I like government chaos rather than anarchic chaos’

3

This is true. Within the government it is really panarchy. Try getting bullets from the supply sgt. after a firefight. You better be ready to trade those stolen resources and wield your influence.

You: I need ammo we got in a fight and shot up 506 rounds.

Supply Sgt: I can’t release those rounds without O5 approval.

You: I got a case of gatorade.

Suplly Sgt: Here’s a box of 840 rds.

4

Ah yes, the quartermaster. The black market dealer of the military. Where you in the air force or navy? We called our guy the S-5

5

Yeah. The point is that the simplistic Hobbesian view that social cooperation is impossible without government is blatantly wrong. The question now is not whether ordered anarchy is possible, but whether it is desirable. And once the question is put in terms of comparative institutions, anarchy looks promising: the incentives of market democracy are more reliable than those of political democracy.

6

If a bureaucrat attacks another bureaucrat, the same police and courts that would try normal citizens don’t get involved? At least to some extent? And isn’t there a hierarchy of command? Checks and balances? I’m not following the main thrust of this argument.

How about if we narrow it just to Congress? All their little committees and majority leaders and whips or whatever they’re called. Still, if one rep attacks another rep, doesn’t it go to trial (at least sometimes)?

7

The point is that they’re cooperating under anarchy, which is what minarchists (and other statists) claim is impossible.

So if checks and balances and reputational effects can secure social order under governmental anarchy, why can’t they do the same under market anarchy?

8

Well, how is it anarchy if there is still one final arbiter for disputes (the courts in the case of a fight between congress-critters)?

9

The ability of the government to prevent rogue elements from dishing out their own justice is limited by the government’s own pretense of being a monopoly, hence the survival of “organized crime” throughout history, and even more so the more repressive the government’s attempt to control them.

There’s always someone else to turn to.

10

Thanks. I’m not fully sure I understand what you mean. Where can I learn more about this? (Read the Cuzan, skimmed the Long, still wondering - what about the pluralism that we supposedly have in the US?)

11

I was a sapper. U.S Army.

12

There is no final arbiter, in the sense of an arbiter that is imposed on the politicians. If you say that the army forces them into court, then what about disputes between generals? Ultimately you have to get to some point where people cooperate voluntarily, without a government forcing them too.

Again, the point is that if cooperation is possible under governmental anarchy, it’s possible under market anarchy.

13

From Congress to the army, to the generals, to the commander-in-chief, right? It seems there is still a hierarchical system with a final arbiter in that case, at least ostensibly. In terms of “anarchy = no monopoly” government doesn’t seem an anarchy, except for maybe certain parts of it vis a vis certain other parts (but which?). Perhaps the idea in the OP is premised on a slightly different definition?

14

The system is too big. It is heavily decentralized as far as functioning is concerned. The various agents within the apparatus of government operate on a market anarchy principle, they just use stolen goods. Cooperation is key to advancing wealth within the confines of the treasury. The reason it can be considered an anarchy is because most government agents are immune to the laws they break, and if not can easily get a judge to grant the immunity. They are allowed market freedom to distribute the goods they have confiscated amongst themselves.

15

Well I believe they are immune to certain laws, but all laws? A treasury department bureaucrat may be able to get away with embezzlement, but if he were to murder another bureaucrat there would be jail time I assume (although we’ll probably find some exceptions, coverups, etc.).

16

well if you are on the “inside” you probably could get away with murder. from what I understand, for instance, the emails hacked at the climate center are still being propagandized by the media as something not affirmed to have actually happened. meanwhile the scientists at the center have come out and stated they were hacked and somebody took their emails. the propaganda war. which side will win in the battle of ideas. 1984’s war is peace or A is A.

17

Who arrests him and who puts him in jail? The police arrest him and bring him to trial - now, if spontaneous order can’t exist, why do they bring him to trial? The law says they have to - so what? There’s no one to make them follow the law - they are the arm of the law. Why don’t they just take the arrested people home as slaves?

Now, maybe there really is no such thing as spontaneous order, and such things do happen more often than we’re led to believe. In that case, the case for anarchy is apparently undermined, until you ask the obvious question - how does having a government fix that problem?

If a person is found not guilty, 99% of the time they go away and go home. Why do the jailers listen to the judges? The judge can be said to be an arbiter, but what if they disagree with the judge? By the way, there are examples where this fails - Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. What happened there? The marshals refused orders from their boss because they willingly held that judge’s decisions should be followed. This is spontaneous order.

Cheney shoots lawyers, we know that. Still, soldiers do not fail to do whatever they want because they think Dick Cheney will shoot them. The question is not who says what should be done, but what makes it actually happen.

Now, you can say that in all of these cases, we’ll just call in the military. Why does it come when called?

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
18

My brain exploded

19

lol this may be helpful… makes the same point I believe.

20

when the government is understood as being individuals like everyone else, then it boils down to how those individuals act and they are a sophiscated aggressive bunch those government thugs.