Monopolization of Force and the State

Although all libertarians generally agree that the burden of the State should be drastically reduced, or else suffer the consequences of economic stagnation and the loss of liberty, most disagree in regards to what the State should do.  The majority of libertarians are probably in some way minarchists, where they believe that the least the State should do is protect the private property rights of the individual.  Although such a State would be ideal in the case that it was checked in its ability to grow, there is no way to provide that check.  A State with the ability to protect private property automatically has a legal monopoly on force.  This monopolization may, at first, provide protection service to the States’ citizens, but ultimately an entity which monopolizes the power to protect also monopolizes the power to take away.  Therefore, regardless of the size of the State, it always possesses a threat to its citizen’s freedoms, because there is really no method by which the citizens can defend themselves from the only entity with the legal ability to use force.

As such, the growth of the State is inevitable.  Economist Robert Higgs refers to it as the “ratchet effect”, in which government uses some sort of catastrophe to justify its growth, providing security in exchange for protection from this catastrophe to its citizens.  Government does not necessarily require a catastrophe, given that a complete tyrannical government can do what it wants as long as it is sustainable in regards to the health of the State and of the regime.  Minarchism, or “minimum government”, is doomed to failure, because even a minimum government must have a monopoly on the use of force—otherwise they would have no utility—and therefore has the ability to coerce its citizens into allowing it to grow.  As aforementioned, an agency set-up to protect also has the ability take away, and in the case of the State is monopolizes that ability, disallowing citizens from defending themselves.

A more sensible solution to the threat posed by the State is anarchism: the complete dissolution of government.  You ask, “Who will provide protection of private property?”  In a free market, it depends.  In a small rural community it may be possible that each individual farmer would be responsible for protecting his or her own land.  Or, these same farmers can come together and protect their property in a private militia.  In large urban sprawls it is more likely that protection would be provided by private security companies.  These already exist, and in many ways are far more efficient than public police departments.  If this was not true then there would be no reason that families would opt for a home security system, or that some neighborhoods would hire private security guards.  Of course, these examples are limited to enhancing the efficiency of the police, because the State has the legal use of force.  In an anarchic society, where there is no State to monopolize force, private security companies would be able to provide these services at an obviously much higher efficiency.

To a free society’s advantage, the security industry in the free market would suffer from heavy competition.  Given that one company would not be given legal authority for the use of force, there would be nothing stopping other providers from entering the market.  In the case that a company decided to coerce its client into giving up his or her property for whatever reason—maybe the promise of indefinite protection “free of cost”, as long as that client now worked that property for the profit of the company—or decided to use force to extort more tribute from its clients, there would be a multitude of rivaling companies willing to take a contract to protect the client from the predatory nature of the original contractor.  In a completely free society the client would not be threatened by a provider of force, because that good has not been monopolized by the provider.

It should now be easier to see the relationship between the State, the use of force and tyranny.  Currently, in the United States, there have been arguments on the topic of the Constitution and to what degree government has grown past the bounds of the original Constitution.  To be fair, this growth is not a 20^th century phenomenon.  There were similar debates during both the 18^th and 19^th centuries.  But, these debates are more often than not on the wrong topic.  Whether or not a government has expanded beyond its original role is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that the State’s power has grown and there is nothing debate is going to do about it.  The question which should be asked is, “How did this happen?”  The answer to this question is the only way of finding a solution to the problem of the ever-growing State.  The answer is the monopolization of force.  The original U.S. government was tasked with the role of defending the United States from foreign predators, such as the British Empire, in an effort to protect its citizens’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Just as it was given the task to protect, immediately crowding out other alternatives which would have provided the same service, it was awarded the ability to take away, because the Constitution virtually disallowed a check to this possibility.  And, any document which sets up a government to provide the service of protection is doomed to failure in the long-run.

When libertarians say, “We need less government,” they are making the mistake of assuming that there is something inherent in the nature of the State which would make this reduction of power permanent.  History has proven otherwise.  A State which has had its powers rescinded is a not a State that has been neutralized.  It is akin to the “wounded tiger”.  Except that unlike the tiger, the State is largely viewed as a necessity, and therefore is generally considered innocent in its infancy.  Using this to its advantage, the State will always be a threat to liberty as it slowly grows.  The only permanent solution is the abolishment of government.  The only good state is the lack of State.