When dealing with the warlord objection, we need to keep our comparisons fair. It won’t do to compare society A, which is filled with evil, ignorant savages who live under anarchy, with society B, which is populated by enlightened, law-abiding citizens who live under limited government. The anarchist doesn’t deny that life might be better in society B. What the anarchist
does claim is that,
for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse. The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society.
[...]
The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded. In those communities where such an outcome
would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help. Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government.
~ Robert Murphy, "
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?,"
Mises.org, July 7, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment