• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
543
The Independent Review,v. IX, n.4, Spring 2005, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright © 2005, pp. 543– 549.
543
CONTROVERSY 
Is Government Inevitable?
Comment on Holcombe’s Analysis 
——————
✦
——————
P
ETER 
T. L 
EESONAND
E
DWARD
P. S
TRINGHAM
R 
andall G. Holcombe’s article “Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable”(2004) offers excellent insights into the sustainability of anarchy and the cre-ation of government. Holcombe recognizes that “government was notcreated for the benefit of its citizens, it was created for the benefit of those who rule.” Although he agrees that government is unnecessary for the provision of public goods, hebelieves that libertarian anarchists ignore more practical questions about the sustainabil-ity of anarchy. He argues that because the stronger individuals will always get their way and form a government, the relevant debate among advocates of liberty should be abouthow weaker individuals can “create and sustain preemptively a liberty-preserving govern-ment.” The inevitability of the state forces society to decide between evils. Instead of advocating anarchy, Holcombe believes that libertarians should advocate the establish-ment of minimal governments that can prevent takeover by more tyrannical ones.Inspired by Holcombe’s discussion, we reconsider here some of his claims.Despite Holcombe’s interesting hypothesis, we believe that his argument fails on twocounts: he does not show, first, that anarchy must break down and, second, that lim-ited government will remain limited. The arguments he uses against the viability of anarchy can be applied to the viability of limited government, and the arguments heuses for the viability of limited government can be applied to the viability of anarchy.In this comment, we discuss the problems of Holcombe’s theoretical arguments andthe historical evidence that shows he cannot have his cake and eat it too. Holcombe,
Peter T. Leeson
is a graduate student in economics at George Mason University;
Edward P. Stringham
is an assistant professor of economics at San Jose State University.
 
1. Somalia may be a possible exception, although libertarians disagree.
T
HE
I
NDEPENDENT
R 
EVIEW 
544
✦
P
ETER 
T. L 
EESONAND
E
DWARD
P. S
TRINGHAM
 who might be considered a pessimistic anarchist, is in our opinion too pessimisticabout anarchy and too optimistic about government.
Some Observations Concerning theSustainability of Anarchy 
Building on earlier criticisms of anarchy (Tullock 1972, 1974; Nozick 1974; Cowen1992), Holcombe argues that government is inevitable. Conventional wisdom is thatstateless orders must be short-lived because of their susceptibility to outside forces. Theremay be truth in this claim, but we believe that the historical record calls it into question.The ubiquity of government today causes us to forget that many societies werestateless for most of their histories and that many remained so well into the twentiethcentury. The historical presence of long-standing, primitive, anarchic societies spansthe globe. Consider, for example, societies such as the Eskimo tribes of the North American Arctic, Pygmies in Zaire, the Yurok of North America, the Ifugao of thePhilippines, the Land Dyaks of Sarawak, the Kuikuru of South America, the KabyleBerbers of Algeria, the Massims of East Paupo-Melanesia, and the Santals of India—none of which had governments (Leeson forthcoming).Many stateless societies also populated precolonial Africa; a few encompassedsignificant numbers of people. Consider, for example, the Tiv, which included morethan one million individuals; the Nuer, whose population has been estimated at fourhundred thousand; or the Lugbara, with more than three hundred thousand mem-bers. In Africa, the Barabaig, Dinka, Jie, Karamojong, Turkana, Tiv, Lugbara,Konkomba, Plateau Tonga, and others long existed as stateless or near-anarchicorders as well. Today Somalia is essentially stateless and has remained effectively sosince its government dissolved in 1991 despite predictions that a new government would emerge immediately (Little 2003).More striking yet is that the world as a whole has operated and continues tooperate as international anarchy (Cuzan 1979, 156). The continuing presence of numerous sovereigns creates massive ungoverned interstices for many of the interac-tions between the inhabitants of different nations as well for the interactions betweensovereigns themselves (Stringham 1999). Many of the stateless orders mentioned ear-lier disappeared with the extension of colonial rule in the nineteenth century. How-ever, the international sphere remains anarchic and shows few signs of coming underthe rule of formal government soon.Holcombe is correct, however, that no modern nation has what can be consid-ered libertarian anarchy.
1
He believes that because anarchy is not practiced today, weshould expect that it never will be practiced. He writes, “Every place in the world isruled by government. The evidence shows that anarchy, no matter how desirable in
 
2. Rothbard (1977) and Childs (1977) question Nozick’s theories; Friedman (1994a) and Caplan andStringham (2003) question Cowen’s theories; and the contributors in Stringham forthcoming question thetheories in Tullock 1972, arguing that Nozick, Cowen, and other contributors to this volume do not offercompelling reasons why anarchy must break down. V 
OLUME
IX, N
UMBER 
4, S
PRING
2005
I
S
G
OVERNMENT
I
NEVITABLE
?
✦
545theory, is not a realistic alternative in practice” (2004, 333). But this evidence doesnot prove his point. Suppose that someone had used the same argument againstdemocracy in the year 1500: “Every place in the world is ruled by 
monarchy.
The evi-dence shows that
democracy,
no matter how desirable in theory, is not a realistic alter-native in practice.” Over the past few centuries, political systems have changed dra-matically. Just because monarchy was pervasive a half millennium ago does not meanthat it was inevitable, as Holcombe’s logic suggests. The rarity of democracy five hun-dred years ago does not “show” that democracy was “not realistic in practice.” Theevidence shows only that democracy was uncommon a half millennium ago and thatanarchy is uncommon today. To show that government is inevitable, Holcombe mustadvance a theory that explains why anarchy is impossible, as Nozick (1974), Cowen(1992), and the contributors in Gordon Tullock’s collection
Explorations in the The- ory of Anarchy 
(1972) have attempted to do.
2
Is Government Truly Inevitable?
Building on the arguments of his professors James Buchanan (1972) and GordonTullock (1972), Holcombe gives some theoretical reasons in support of his claim thatgovernment is inevitable. He maintains that stronger agents will be tempted to useforce against the weak and impose government on them. Because some agents arestronger than others, they will see that using force is cheaper than engaging in peace-ful interaction, such as trade. Although parts of the argument may ring true, they donot establish the state’s inevitability. Two special assumptions must be made if we areto arrive at Holcombe’s conclusion.First, strengths must be so disparate that the strong have little to lose by engag-ing in conflict with the weak. This assumption may be unrealistic. Imagine what would happen if everyone were of similar strengths. If one stood a 50 percent chanceof losing any fight, then as long as fighting entails costs, the use of force would not bethe income-maximizing strategy. Even if one has superior strength, the use of forcemay not be the income-maximizing strategy. As long as weaker parties can commit toinjuring the stronger party in the course of fights, the stronger party who consistently “wins” may still be worse off by engaging in fighting (Friedman 1994b).The critical question is not whether some are more powerful than others, but whether power is so lopsided that the strong face few risks by engaging in conflict.Consider again the state of global anarchy in which we find ourselves. Although somenations can win wars against others consistently, they would do so at significant cost.The use of guerilla warfare or terrorist tactics by others can make victory extremely 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...