« Do Markets Need Government? | Main | The Fantasy and the Reality of Politics» Don Boudreaux
August 29, 2008
Your Dog Does Not Own Your House
Don Boudreaux
If the state does nothing more than serve as a specialist in protecting citizens from violence, as well as, perhaps, in supplying some dispute-resolution services, then it could be credited with contributing positively to society. But the state here would be due no more credit than any other producer (or group of producers). Sure, protection against violence, as well as dispute-resolution procedures, are necessary for the creation of a great society, but they are far from sufficient. (And as made clear by the Leeson article highlighted in the previous post, a solid argument can be made that the state is not necessary to supply these services.)
Even if we stipulate, for purposes of argument, that the state is the only possible, or the best possible, supplier of protection against violence and the best possible supplier of dispute-resolution services, society as we know it would nevertheless collapse were it not for farmers, tailors, home-builders, physicians, lawyers, stockbrokers, engineers,..... the list is long.
Get rid of any of these producer groups and people die by the millions. And yet, no one proclaims that "Justice is whatever farmers claim it to be" or "Because society cannot exist if people aren't clothed, then weavers and tailors are the foundation of society."
One of the beautiful facts about a great society such as ours is that no group of persons, no particular group of specialisst, plays a role that alone creates society. Each of many groups of specialists is necessary for society to exist; no single group of specialists -- not even that group specializing in protecting people from violence -- is sufficient.
This insightful article by Anthony de Jasay explains further.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Complexity and Emergence, Law, Myths and Fallacies | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e554c567678834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Your Dog Does Not Own Your House:
Comments
Excellent piece.
As for the comparison to yesterday's question, think of yesterday's question along the lines of: Does a house need a fire? And the answer is: Yes, if it's in the fireplace.
Posted by: cpurick | Aug 29, 2008 8:36:09 AM
So, you contemplate a system of private arbitration and private brute squads to enforce it? It sounds a bit like Chicago gangsters during prohibition, which turned out to be a very unstable system.
It may be that a system such as you propose could, in theory, be constructed. But, if so, why are there so few? World history is full of governments coming into being. It seems that the natural order is for those private forces to group together and become the "government" for a region. If a government-less system were stable, why do we have so many governments?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . ."
Posted by: Chris | Aug 29, 2008 9:15:37 AM
Chris,
You commit the naturalistic fallacy that David Hume warned against: Beware of deriving 'ought' from 'is.'
More importantly, though, your comment here would be better placed in the Comments section of my previous post rather than for this post, for in this post I stipulate that government is an appropriate supplier of protection against violence and of dispute-resolution services.
Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Aug 29, 2008 9:32:09 AM
Very strong piece.
And very, very Hayekian.
Posted by: dave smith | Aug 29, 2008 9:48:29 AM
I suspect when one posits that human prosperity (or, more minimally, survival) depend on certain "industries", it is mere semantics whether the necessity of those industries places them in a vertical or horizontal relationship with the rest of the economy. Let's simply examine whether government is "necessary" or "most efficient" -- or neither.
My suspicion is that government plays a critical role not simply in efficient provision of enforcement services, but also in provision of property definition. Before one may own and trade property, the property must be defined. Although this is a universal requirement, and relatively simple for property such as parcels of land in many instances, it is in no way so simple for many other forms of property -- for instance, intellectual property.
Why, for instance, do patent rights persist 20 years and no longer? Government decision. Could it be otherwise? I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question. If the answer is "no", then property definition is, in effect, inherently a government policy, and one may look to influence government to modify property definitions in pursuit of self-interest (no radical insight there), or to promote or analyze optimal policy. Perhaps extending or modifying property rights in, say, any invention of a revolutionary new vehicle energy system free of hydrocarbons would offer more optimal social incentives. That is, the one-size-fits-all 20 year patent duration could be improved on.
These kind of questions arise because of a role that government plays in facilitating markets. Could it be otherwise?
Posted by: Richard Boltuck | Aug 29, 2008 10:34:17 AM
I expect that property rights in law are merely codifications of human custom.
Property rights developed around possession.
I suggest that the near universality of support for the state is indicative of support for social order which many mistake for social harmony.
Given that almost everyone desires social order/harmony, then the perceived need for imposition from above is based on the mistaken notion that others do not desire harmony.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Aug 29, 2008 12:09:06 PM
If social order is an emergent process, as a great deal of evidence suggests, where types of organization develop and adapt to circumstances over historical time, then we should expect to find aggregation that varies in size and type-- with individuals, individuals clustering together in small groups, all the way to massive unifying mega-organizations. We should also see emergent properties like some types of organization thriving because aggregation better serves the needs of many individuals better than simple individual existence. Other organizations will die out based on any number of external and internal structural problems.
Emergent aggregation of individuals into groups and groups into communities etc. would also explain specialization of organizations based on rising complexity-- e.g. universities arising in societies that place value on information distribution and differentiation.
Governments are just one type of organization that arise from social aggregation-- social order-- and not the other way around.
Posted by: The other Eric | Aug 29, 2008 1:00:46 PM
The great thing about this thread is that it forced me to think differently about the "essential" services provided by an optimal government. Is traditional government the only way these services can be provided? It seems that in the absence of a government with absolute control, competing "pseudo-governments" are spontaneously organized- think gangs, organized crime, black markets, neighborhood watch groups, guardian angels, the Taliban. Ok, so some of these are not benign, but this is theoretical. In many ways, the nation-state (inherently based upon physical territory) is becoming obsolete, as capital is often largely free to "shop" for a nation-state providing the desired government services.
Posted by: heretic | Aug 29, 2008 2:27:35 PM
It is an interpretation of history to claim that 'the state' is the builder and defender of civilization.
Another interpretation is that 'the state' is a parasite on humanity and quite often a destroyer of civilization.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Aug 29, 2008 2:29:58 PM
"Your Dog Does Not Own Your House"
You have obviously never been to my home.
Posted by: Is | Aug 29, 2008 4:08:48 PM
A while ago, I bought (in the Staples' discount bin) a Despair.com mug that sums it up well: "Just because you're necessary, doesn't mean you're important."
Posted by: K. M. Hagen | Aug 30, 2008 1:23:34 PM
Sure, protection against violence, as well as dispute-resolution procedures, are necessary for the creation of a great society, but they are far from sufficient. (And as made clear by the Leeson article highlighted in the previous post, a solid argument can be made that the state is not necessary to supply these services.)
I'll believe this is possible when someone has convinced the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukraines, and the Balts that it is possible. Until then, I will continue to assume that all discussions of how we don't need a government of the people that has a monopoly on incarceration and/or death, are assuming an island with a homogeneous population of saints. Remember the truism, a lion can lay down with the lamb...but they will have to get a new lamb daily!
Posted by: Bob Smith | Aug 30, 2008 7:55:37 PM
I agree with Sam.
When Og went out across the valley and found a large fig tree with lush ripe fruit, he picked as much as he could carry home in his skin loincloth.
When he entered the family cave, his brother Mog reached to take one of Og's figs. Og slapped his hand and said, "Mine". Mog jerked his hand back and made no further attempts.
Property rights had been established and enforced.
Government wasn't even a gleam in the madman's eye at that time.
Government is at best a necessary evil and like horseshit it is good for certain functions. When used in the right amounts it can help things to blossom, but pile too much shit on and it just burns out everything.
Posted by: vidyohs | Aug 30, 2008 9:46:46 PM
Societies without institutions don't exist to my knowledge. The moment that a society imposes an institution is becomes a state. From the first group of cavemen who exacted lethal force for the stealing of food to the modern copyrights. Even Rothbardian law or minarchism is a state.
Property, capitalism, markets, etc would not exist without a state. Even Stephen Molyneux's DROs are de-facto states. Without a top down projection of law there could be no property beyond what you yourself could defend with force. The ideas of absentee property, money, markets, etc are institutions of society, social constructs in other words. If you remove the state another state will rise to take it's place. Society and the state cannot be separated.
In the state of nature, the state of human beings without civilization, there is no property beyond the edge of the sword. Businesses would have no reason to abide by fairplay if they could change the rules. Markets would be chaotic and transitory without a regulatory body.
Also, you are mistaken about the is-ought problem. Hume did not say you cannot derive an ought from an is, he said that any attempt to must address the problem of how it can be done. If we reject the non-physical and the non-natural then nature is the only source of oughts.
Posted by: Jimmy_D | Sep 2, 2008 2:52:17 PM
Can anyone tell me what [url=http://www.expressvoice.net/]voice broadcasting[/url] is?
Posted by: DialOne | Sep 3, 2008 12:51:41 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: dragorcv | Sep 3, 2008 3:17:47 PM
Can anyone tell me what [url=http://www.expressvoice.net/]voice broadcasting[/url] is?
Posted by: DialOne | Sep 4, 2008 12:44:27 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: dragorcv | Sep 4, 2008 2:06:38 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
