Legislation and Government Monopoly

Sometimes people accuse anarcho-capitalists of dreaming of a world of "liberty without law" as if liberty comes from the legislative powers of government. There is no reason to think that there would not be law in a market anarchist world, and, in fact, as law is so fundamental to human affairs, it would probably be of central focus in such a society. The demand for a means of arbitration between disputes will exist in the absence of government and that demand is a big reason why we put up with this thing called government in the first place.

Take, for example, medieval Iceland. Here is a quote from Rockerick T. Long's article:

"The fact that the provision of 'governmental' services was a competitive rather than a monopolistic enterprise was arguably one of the Free State’s greatest strengths; just as in any other market, the competitive discipline imposed by the fear of losing clients to rival service providers served as a check on inefficiency and abuse of power. Icelandic law owed its resilience and flexibility to this decoupling of authority from geography."

Government has to be viewed in economic terms to understand its true effect on society. The whole legitimacy of government rests on the widespread myth that the State must exclusively provide for certain "services" that would otherwise be absent, or that should exclusively be carried out by people chosen through a mechanism that ignores demand, competition, or the plight of the customer. If there is a demand for these services there will be a reaction in the market and those voids will be filled with competitive solutions.

With respect to law, government has both the power to legislate and to enforce those decrees. The combination of a monopoly on law and on enforcement has bred something ugly. Without a competitive market, government has no incentive to improve its "services", and in fact may even find it beneficial to lie and deceive in order to expand their powers of force and theft. And that makes you wonder about anti-trust laws. Laws against monopolies created and enforced through a monopoly? Bureaucrats, even the most sincere (although these are total anomalies in nature), are part of a cartel, a monopoly, a cabal of people who have the sole privilege of being above any common sense moral conventions.

And this is exactly what we see from politicians. McCain loves "spreading democracy" but supports perpetual war. Al Gore hates carbon but loves private jets. Bush fears terrorism but loves open borders. The system breeds a labyrinth of interconnected liars, thieves, hypocrites, and total leeches who work together to deceive, plunder, and in some cases murder anyone they please. What would you think if a private band of thieves broke onto private property and kidnapped hundreds of children, moved them into unbearable conditions, and then decided whether or not they were going to keep them from their mothers indefinitely? Your common sense would tell you that this is absolutely outrageous. But the State can do it with impunity? I never understand the people who whine about making profit as being "cold" and "inhumane." The the result of government is total confusion and chaos, theft and violence. I'd say that is far more cold and inhumane. True order can only be created spontaneously from the market.

Bearing all this is mind, look at how ridiculous legislation is. Bureaucrats simply make decrees as though words translate into the proper action. There are several barriers to prevent this from ever occurring.

Firstly, even if the politicians are sincere, legislation either seeks to alter or regulate a certain form of human action that is already occurring or one that they believe should occur which otherwise would not. We can already eliminate the latter case as ever being beneficial just upon face value. If this sort of action would not otherwise be enacted through a market system then it is arbitrary because it occurs in the absence of demand. In the former case, if the legislation regulates some sort of action already occurring, the theory is that words will seamlessly translate into the desired effect that the words imply. In reality, the exact opposite generally occurs.

The media will paint success stories of government legislation, but they never mention that those successes occur in a background of massive failures. Ever hear the phrase, "broken watch that's right twice a day?" Intervention from the power of a monopoly on force results in disorder.

Secondly, there is absolutely no feedback mechanism for creating effectiveness, respect for demand, or overall benefit. Without the wonderful market forces, legislators are completely lost, manifesting arbitrary social experiments like mad scientists.

Thirdly, the politicians are generally not the law abiding Christian public servants that the media makes them out to be. The laws oftentimes are legislated for political reasons, to award a special interest, or to enhance the politicians' power to manipulate people. In a libertarian society, there is no institutionalized arbitrary coercive force used to carry out the decrees of such a group.

Fourthly, how often do people follow the positivist laws (positivist as in those beyond what a pure market system of law would see)? People still do drugs, people still use prostitution services (I hear that industry is booming in DC), fat kids in school still obtain illegal candy from the black market. And those that do follow the laws are generally disadvantaged: only the law abiders are affected by gun laws, IDs, regulations in businesses, etc.

From a strictly economic viewpoint you can really get a good view on the true nature of government. Here is a quote from Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State,

"There are no such things as ends of actions by 'groups,' 'collectives,' or 'States,' which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals. 'Societies' or 'groups' have no independent existence aside from the actions of their individual members. Thus, to say that 'governments' act is merely a metaphor; actually, certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and the other individuals recognize as 'governmental.'"

The government cannot be said to be separate from the market. The government exists well within the marketplace of human action and is merely a massive distortion which causes malinvestment, inefficiency, and overall disorder. Free market law is not only possible, but would be highly preferable to the State's monopoly.