Ghost of BanquoOnce in awhile it becomes necessary to write down little thoughts or conversations so as to remember them at later times. On other occasions an idea has entered my head and I find it necessary to reflect on them to either change my prospective or validate my own. One idea scarcely examined is the Classic Liberal idea that the legitimate task of government is to protect it’s citizens and their property –it is it's only task. While I am certainly in agreement with this idea, I find that a good deal of others are not. While I cannot find it within myself to force them into my ideal world, I wish not to be forced into theirs as well. Government should protect it's citizens and property. Does it?
The idea that seems persistently stuck in the minds of so many today is the belief that governments protect property. That without government there would be no definition of property and thus all property claimed would only be maintained by the strongest, richest, and best armed men –powerful mobs. If there were such a record of a “good” government instituted by “the weak” and that the duties of such a government were to help such poor souls, then no further examination need take place. However, the record shows quite the opposite; it shows that the State was born from conquest and confiscation and that it’s very survival depend on the ongoing theft of the peoples it now controls in it’s defined geographical region. The only property that can be said that is protected is the State's own institutions of exploitation. What develops is an ever expanding exploiting class, those who use the State for their own benefit at the expense of others, and a producing class of people who are the exploited. The nature of even the most limited State (such was the American State) is to grow in power and prestige until now it becomes only obvious after nearly all liberties are extinguished. How it can be said that government protects property when it does everything in it’s power to undermine one’s own body, land, labor, travel, or any happiness expressed outside the limits of what it has established is beyond me. The record of keeping the State limited has also been one of impossibility. Give me a Constitution and I’ll get a thousand lawyers to twist the meaning of what it explicitly denies the government and it quickly becomes something the government does to you.
The task is too great to leave private individuals to form their own security and it must be handled by the State, so goes the argument. It is a powerful justification for government, no doubt. If we were to apply no thoughts and experience in economics, the debate would end here. However, we need pass the thought of just what security is to be able to understand whether private individuals would voluntarily exchange money or time to protect themselves. It is clearly a service, a good, supplied to those who demand it. Furthermore, the opposition would have us forget the security we already employ for securing money (banks and safes) or our homes (security alarms, locks, fencing, gates, etc). But, perhaps the greatest argument was one that Hans Hermann Hoppe formulated in his book, “The Economics and Ethics of Private Property”, where he poignantly identifies that the argument, we are to believe, comes down to the battle between the Public goods theory and it’s counterpart of private goods. However, Hoppe says, “In order to recognize they never fall, once and for all, into either one or other category, one must only recall what makes something a good. For something to be a good it must be recognized and treated as scarce by someone”. Therefore, when we break down the argument as thus, it becomes obvious that when a good is scarce, as nearly all things considered goods are, then there is a market for it. The actions of entrepreneurs throughout history have been actions of filling a void in the marketplace and fulfilling the demands of the customers for profit. Many private security firms selling “security” exist now to serve their customers. Just as it has become painfully obvious that the Postal Service could easily be turned to private enterprise, so should the government’s monopoly of police and courts. Yet we are to believe the most vital institutions of the State cannot be left to the mix of volunteers or ever-innovating free market if society were to ever take it upon itself. Hoppe goes on to make another great point that what is considered a necessary function of government has in the past or another place today been competently handled outside of the tentacles of government.
The topic need not side step or ignore life's other great problems such as those of pollution, prisons, roads, or schools. Although not the specific task here, many theorist have examined these problems and have come to a conclusion that it is possible to live both free and secure. There is no doubt that contractual agreements, insurance, and voluntary cooperation would need to step up for such things to be possible. I am of the persuasion that if a people want to be free then they will find a way to be secure- necessity is the mother of invention.
What goes unnoticed in all of this is that government doesn’t really protect you any greater than would arming yourself or hiring a security firm and that after careful examination it is only the individual in either case who protects themselves from the aggression of others. Ultimately, the only thing that protects or defends from aggression is the actions taken by the individual or in preparation of the aggressor that “saves” the person from the aggression. Consider that you are held at gunpoint right now. Where is the government? Who is protecting you at this very moment? Who will save you from this act of aggression? To which the only applicable answer is that we, owners of our body and property, are responsible for our own security. There is no magical being known as “the government” who watches over us like an angel that swoops down to save us in our time of need. Even if another State should invade another State or Stateless society the effect is the same –protection against it ultimately rests in the hands of the individual (where was “the government” on 9/11 or when the Nazi’s invaded Poland?). Therefore, whether it strong or weak government, one’s security rests with one’s own ability to secure it. Often times it becomes necessary to defend oneself of the very government you find yourself a citizen of. Or even still, you may find yourself a part of retaliation and less secure due to the aggressive actions your government took in a foreign land.
One could argue that government at the very least gives the appearance of security. As such, it keeps the boogeyman away. I look at it from the perspective that millions of well protected and free people are fully capable of protecting themselves. As such, they are far more dangerous for the boogeyman than the millions who are under the spell that their security rests with agents of the State. After all, when the real boogeyman comes, what other choice do they have anyway? Unlike the illusory conditions and expectations that many hold in regard to their security, the student of civilization knows that of all the institutions created by mortal men, government is the most likely source of their misfortune and not the benefactor it always claims to be. Yet, for most, fear drives them to the flag. Those of independent and self reliant mind would do well to focus on preparations on securing themselves and less on the great ghost, government.
