Inevitability of Government

A world without government is a dream of all anarcho-capitalists.  The ideal world would be one of complete anarchy, where each individual would be able to consume and produce at his or her own will.  There would be respect of private property, and ultimately the system would be beneficial to everyone.  This does not mean a world without poverty, but only a system in which the standard of living (dictated through purchasing power) would increase for everybody.  It is a pretty picture, and in theory in might even be the best “political system” for society.  However, there are many arguments which could be made against anarcho-capitalism, and without a doubt the topic is one of heated debate.  For example, what guarantee is there that private property will be respected?  I’m sure somebody has an answer, and someone else has a response for that answer.  My theory is not so much about the respect of private property between two or more individuals, but the tendency for human kind to turn towards another, more powerful being (whether in charisma, presence or wealth) in times of crisis.  If we look back to the beginning of human history, where there were no large governments, what led to the creation of government?  Were the causes of government reversible, or were they inevitable?  I tend to believe in the latter.

Robert Higgs advances a thesis, in his book Crisis and Leviathan, which is somewhat related.  It is restated in his book Resurgence of the Warfare State:

…[When] a crisis of major significance occurs—something as large-scale and pervasive as the Great Depression or the world wars—there’s an overwhelming public demand for government to act.

It is true that Robert Higgs, in his thesis, assumes that government already exists.  But, the fact of the matter is that this phenomenon does not require an existing government.  Unfortunately, I am not an expert in prehistoric human society.  However, this should provide an image of my point.  Imagine a prehistoric society, with no set government, of roughly eleven individuals.  Ten out of eleven do not know how to hunt.  Fortunately, one of the males does, because he managed to accidentally kill prey with a rock.  The other ten individuals have no idea how to hunt for food, and gathering berries only reaps a very small quantity of food to eat, because the area has been foraged bare.  It is only natural for these ten individuals to offer the hunter something in return for some of his killed prey.  The hunter has immediate leverage.  The goods offered by his fellow ten “neighbors” are not completely necessary to him, as he has been surviving without them for some time.  They are simply luxuries that he is being offered in return for food.  Indeed, those “purchasing” his food are in a much weaker position than he is, because they need his services to survive.

This is a simple example and does not illustrate any serious form of government.  But, it does go to show how one individual can gain power over others in times of crisis.  All that is necessary is for the example to be scaled up.  This happened with the creation of small villages and the beginning of major civilizations.  There were probably some better businessmen, and these naturally had some leverage over others.  In times of crises, for example floods, famine, violence, it was possible that an entire society could look up towards a select few, but powerful and wealthy individuals and ask for help.

Not to base myself off Lord of the Flies too much, but take for example a school of young boys.  There is no inherent government (except for the administration, but they are hardly relevant to the events to be discussed here).  There are only those boys which were born stronger than the rest.  These tend to take positions of leadership, because they can use their strength to coerce others.  Now, let us scale up the example to an entire society.  Farmer A owns a plot next to Farmer B.  Farmer A thinks it would be nice to own Farmer B’s land, but he can’t afford the price, and besides Farmer B is not interested in selling because the amount his land is worth on the market does not cover his cost of living over the remaining years of his life.  However, Farmer A does own a superior firearm to Farmer B, and Farmer A has more experience than Farmer B in firing guns.  And so, Farmer A decides to coerce Farmer B through violence into giving him his territory (either by forcing him off his land, or outright killing Farmer B).

I suppose that the common response is that Farmer A would be immediately isolated from his other neighbors.  Indeed, wary of his intentions they would form some sort of alliance with each other to protect their own property.  In essence, a militia of sorts would be formed.  But, who watches the militia?  Those who have been in the military may have a better understanding of how soldiers tend to look for leaders (and, indeed, any military—whether a private militia or not—needs leaders; non-commissioned officers and officers).  A military organization is a breeding ground for leadership and the power that comes with it.  What stops the militia from using its cohesion and the military power it wields from coercing those that do not form part of the militia to surrender their property?  Other militias?  Are these not the circumstances in which minor city-states are formed?

I am not claiming that the formation of government is as easy as I make it sound to be.  It took tens of thousands of years for government to go through this process.  But, regardless, it is evident that formation of government is largely inevitable, especially in times of crisis—famine and wars included (the first and second examples, respectively).  Ultimately, humans tend to gravitate towards leaders.  Leadership comes with power.  The power to get what you want at the expense of others is quite enticing—after all, the rational human being will do something when the marginal benefits outweigh the marginal costs.

Government is present at all levels of society.  It is not simply “big brother” in Washington, London, Madrid, or any other national capital.  Companies are built through a caste system, with team leaders, corporate executives, et cetera.  These are not governments per sé, but they operate in much the same way.  In the absence of government, what stops a corporation from extending its powers over its workers during a moment of crisis?  Of course, at the time, it is profitable for the worker to accept the contract—otherwise, the consequences could be deadly—but over the long-run this may not remain true.  This is, in essence, what happens during a crisis—the government extends its powers to offer its citizens the protection it was called on to perform, but when the crisis is over there is nothing forcing the government to surrender its new powers.

It is human nature to take advantage of those around you.  Trade is simply one individual offering his or her product for what this individual believes to be a better good in return—otherwise, the individual would not have made the trade, as it would not have increased the individual’s wealth.  That individual does not care about the wellbeing of the individual on the opposite side of the transaction.  It just happens to be that that other person is only making the trade because he or she believes that she is getting the better deal.  There is no condition that forces the first individual to give back what was taken if the second individual changes his or her mind.  And, that is the phenomenon which gave birth to government.