Order in the jungle social interaction without the state.

• Author: Coyne, Christopher J.

Any society of force--whether ruled by criminal bands or by an organized State--fundamentally means the rule of the jungle, or economic chaos.

--Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy

Social order is perhaps the most enduring issue in the social sciences. Thirty years ago Gordon Tullock analyzed this problem in "The Edge of the Jungle" (1972), an essay in which he explores social interaction without the state as well as the evolution of the state as a necessity for the facilitation of social interaction.

Tullock begins by accepting Winston Bush's (i972) postulate that in "genuine anarchy" two patterns of individual behavior may arise. One possibility is the Hobbesian jungle in which, without a central authority, individuals can either expend their energy on the production of goods or simply take goods from others by force. The second possibility reflects the Proudhonian notion that in the absence of social rules, individuals will develop their natural talents and live in harmony. Besides accepting these notions of anarchy, Tullock makes several modifications. He acknowledges the possibility of "cooperative organizations" that may engage either in peaceful interaction or in fighting with other groups or individuals. Moreover, he postulates that individuals or groups will not trade when the stronger can simply take from the weaker.

In this article, I first clarify the meaning of anarchy. I then argue that Tullock's concept of anarchy is flawed and that it leads to an inaccurate analysis of law without the state. Next, I reassess Tullock's analysis of the interaction of individuals and groups in a social setting with no central authority as well as his conclusion that the state is a necessary institution. Finally, I explore the facilitation of social order and interaction in anarchy. In passing through this discussion, we will come to realize that Tullock's entire critique of anarchy applies equally to any notion of the state.

Anarchy Defined and the Development of Law Without the State

To begin, let us develop a clear understanding of the meaning of genuine anarchy And of the basic postulates of anarchist theory. Tullock presents the concept of anarchy as one of two extremes. We have either a Hobbesian jungle, in which individuals must rely on their natural talents to produce, take goods by force, and protect their own lives and property, or we have a Proudhonian utopia, in which individuals focus on developing their natural talents, conflict is absent, and all exist in harmony. Does Tullock's binary conception adequately express the concept of anarchy?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, anarchy is defined as "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable." Clearly, anarchists may believe in the importance of social norms, rules, laws, and controls. What anarchists oppose is the provision and enforcement of such social constraints by a central, compulsive, state monopoly. Anarchists argue that the government's ability to alter laws as it sees fit corrupts and violates the true rule of law (Osterfeld 1989).

Must a central authority create the laws? If not, who or what will develop them? Anarchists maintain that the laws need not be imposed by a central authority--that is, laid down as authoritative law--but can and do arise through customary arrangements and understandings that evolve over time. Customs serve as signposts that guide the actions of individuals in their interactions with others. As customs prove successful and gain acceptance, people gain the ability to anticipate others' actions and reactions (Hayek 1973). (1)

Authoritative law requires the use of extensive force for both implementation and enforcement, in contrast to customary law, which arises through social interaction. Juxtaposing customary and authoritative law, Bruce Benson has observed, "if a minority coercively imposes law from above, then that law will require much more force to maintain social order than is required when law develops from the bottom through mutual recognition and acceptance" (1990b, 12). The coercive state evidently is not a prerequisite for the development of social norms, rules, and laws. (2)

Anarchists are not under the illusion that in the absence of a compulsive state no social conflict will occur. Rather, they presume that the market will provide the means to facilitate and maintain social order and interaction, including the development of rules and laws as well as their enforcement (Stringham 1999). The choice is not between having social rules enforced by a compulsive state and not having social rules at all. What is really at stake is the means by which the development and enforcement of such rules takes place; the root issue is state versus private provision. Tullock not only fails to consider customary law but also neglects the possibility of the private provision of enforcement.

Anarchists argue that the state is not necessary to resolve disputes or to enforce laws. They claim that individuals will have strong incentives to form mutual support groups with others to deal with conflicts and legal problems (Benson 1990b). (3)

Having clarified the concept of anarchism and the development and enforcement of rules and laws in the absence of the state, we can understand better how various flaws in Tullock's analysis arise. The error lies not in semantics, but in a fundamental misconception of what the notion of anarchy entails. If we consider only two choices, both of which exclude the possibility of market provisions--total chaos where life is nasty, brutish, and short, or total harmony in the absence of conflict--we easily reach the conclusion that a compulsive state is needed as an effective enforcement mechanism. The former choice is dismissed on the grounds of continued violence and conflict, and the latter is rejected because a conflict-free society is impossible to imagine. Once the possibility of the market provision of rules, laws, and enforcement mechanisms is admitted, however, the conclusion that the state is the necessary and only source of order is exposed as a...