Is government inevitable? Reply to Leeson and Stringham.

• Author: Holcombe, Randall G.
• Position: Controversy

I strongly support Peter Leeson and Edward Stringham's questioning of my conclusion that government is inevitable (Holcombe 2004), and I encourage others to raise similar questions. If government really is unnecessary (the first part of my argument, with which they agree), then as more people question its inevitability and legitimacy, the likelihood of its retrenchment--or maybe even its disappearance--will grow. As Leeson and Stringham note, following Hummel (2001), an ideological shift would be required, however, for libertarian anarchy to displace government. We need only discuss these issues with our colleagues and neighbors to appreciate how far away from any ideological shift to libertarian anarchy we are now. Most people do not take such arguments seriously, and a substantial share of citizens in the United States believe that government should be bigger, not smaller or nonexistent. Leeson and Stringham cite Somalia as the only present-day example of anarchy, but it is difficult to picture people in the United States saying, "Let's make our nation more like Somalia." (1) The argument in my original article questions Hummel, Leeson, and Stringham's conclusion that if most people shared a libertarian anarchist ideology, libertarian anarchy would be feasible. Even if they are right in theory, most people nevertheless accept government as legitimate, necessary, and even desirable, and--the writings of libertarian anarchists notwithstanding--the ideological shift to which Hummel, Leeson, and Stringham look toward will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Most people do not give serious thought to political ideas. Regardless of the merits of libertarian anarchist arguments, most people are not interested, and they have no good reason to be interested. As Anthony Downs (1957) noted, voters are rationally ignorant because they know that their one vote will not make a difference in an election and that government will remain the same regardless of what any one person thinks about it. Why should people worry about the oppressiveness of government, which they are powerless to affect, when they can instead spend their time looking at travel brochures to plan their next vacation or entertaining themselves by watching television? In developed nations today, people have a higher standard of living and a higher quality of life than anyone else has had anywhere at any time in history, including in the societies that Leeson and Stringham cite as historical examples of anarchistic societies. Citizens have no good reason to consider libertarian anarchists' arguments. To do so would be, for them, an intellectual exercise with no tangible payoff.

Even if the ideological shift for which Stringham and Leeson are hoping were to happen and government were somehow eliminated, the arguments in my original article still apply. Predators would remain and probably grow in strength, just as the Russian mafia has gained strength following the weakening of the government in Russia after the Soviet Union's collapse. Organizations such as the auto-theft rings now operating in the United States are the predatory building blocks from which more predatory organizations can be built. Unless people had a strong ideological commitment to libertarian anarchy--and the rational-ignorance argument shows why they do not--they would offer little resistance and might even welcome the offer when gangs of thieves evolved into mafias proceed to establish themselves as new governments and claim that they will protect citizens from the gangs of predators that will exist with or without...