Deleting the State: An Argument about Government.

• Author: Narveson, Jan

* Deleting the State: An Argument about Government By Aeon J. Skoble Chicago: Open Court, 2008. Pp. 160. $29.95 paperback.

Aeon Skoble presses the argument for anarchism in his short and readable book Deleting the State. In general, anarchists argue for their view by arguing against the legitimacy of the state--that is, against government in the usual sense of that term--which is hardly a surprise, given that anarchism is the view that society should not have a state. What is wrong with the state? It is, of course, a monopoly of the use of coercion in the sense that no one else is permitted to use coercion without the government's approval, and the government is permitted (so it thinks) to use coercion against all if they try to do anything it disapproves, including using coercion privately even when it is for purposes the state does approve.

Both the anarchist and the "minarchist"--the defender of the "minimal state"--accept that the government's only legitimate purpose, if indeed it has one, is the prevention of private coercion. So can the state be "deleted" or not? Skoble holds that if it can be, then, at least prima facie, it should be. The two sides agree that "coercion is something to be avoided where possible." As Skoble notes, however, with regard to the "where possible" condition (p. 20) the two camps part company.

Government does wrong, according to Skoble, simply by using coercion, which is "detrimental to human freedom, and freedom is to receive the highest priority among political values.... The anarchist criticism, then, is that given this view of coercion and state power, such a justification cannot be provided coherently" (p. 36). By this statement, he does not mean that coercion can never be justified. If A attacks B, B may defend himself by such force as necessary. B's wielding of defensive force may either be regarded as not coercive or be termed justified coercion. Skoble does not say clearly which view he takes on this matter. If we point a gun at a robber, and he concludes that he should desist from his plunder, have we not coerced him? Legitimate coercers would be those who coerce only persons who are guilty of the coercion of innocents. Such defenders may act either privately or on behalf of private organizations or as agents of states. If we agree that they are indeed coercing would-be robbers and murderers, then coercion can be justified, and the question is only whether any institution's monopoly of coercion is...