August, 2007

A Stock-Taking

by Peter T. Leeson

August 21st, 2007

I’d like to thank Bruce Benson, Dani Rodrik, and Randy Holcombe for participating in this discussion and for offering their insightful comments. By way of concluding, I will offer a few final remarks that I hope tie together several of the threads of commentary that followed my opening essay.
I want to highlight four major [...]

Read: A Stock-Taking

One More Try: Anarchical Policy Analysis

by Bruce L. Benson

August 21st, 2007

It seems that Randy is more confused than ever (and I have known him for over 30 years!). He writes: “I completely agree with everything Bruce said. So, what is the relevance of anarchy? Pete and Bruce hold it up as an ideal end point, and at that point all prison services would [...]

Read: One More Try: Anarchical Policy Analysis

The Relevance of Anarchy, Again

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 20th, 2007

I’ve read through Bruce’s and Pete’s responses to my comments — I admit I was trying to be provocative when I wrote them — and I agree with everything both of them had to say. But, here’s what I was getting at when I made those comments, and I think my points remain valid.
Bruce [...]

Read: The Relevance of Anarchy, Again

Clarifying Matters

by Peter T. Leeson

August 20th, 2007

Randy says that “that path” I “advocate toward anarchy sounds like Reagan Republicanism.” I must admit, I’m completely befuddled by this remark.
On the one hand, I don’t know what is “Reagan Republican” about saying that government should not exist. And on the other, I have not, at least to my knowledge, suggested any “path toward [...]

Read: Clarifying Matters

Privatization versus Contracting Out

by Bruce L. Benson

August 19th, 2007

It seems odd to be debating Randy in this way since, as he noted, his office is just one floor below mine. However, it is Saturday and we actually live a couple of miles from each other, making it costly to talk face-to-face. Furthermore, when we do talk face to face, I apparently [...]

Read: Privatization versus Contracting Out

The Road to Anarchy

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 19th, 2007

Pete says if he could do it today, he’d completely eliminate government in the United States, and that we’d be better off stateless than we are today. Then, in answer to how we get there from here he talks about shrinking the size of government, presumably continuing until it shrinks all the way to [...]

Read: The Road to Anarchy

Anarchy as a Policy Goal

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 18th, 2007

Bruce supports the academic study of anarchy by saying, “By knowing where you would like to end up, you are likely to be able to make better marginal decisions along the road, even if the destination is never reached.” Then he presents a policy example that, as I see it, does not support that [...]

Read: Anarchy as a Policy Goal

Anarchy Q & A

by Peter T. Leeson

August 18th, 2007

Randy poses a few interesting questions for me, as does Rodrik in his last remarks. I’ll do my best to answer them:
Q: Pete, do you think that if Somalia remains in its stateless condition that it will emerge from poverty to prosperity?
A: I think that the greatest sources of instability and retrogression Somalia has [...]

Read: Anarchy Q & A

Anarchical Policy Analysis

by Bruce L. Benson

August 17th, 2007

I want to offer a response to Randy’s last post. It really follows on an earlier post where he stated “many of our fellow citizens favor further state expansion. But, if Leeson and Benson want anarchy, how can they get there?” Starting with this question, Randy ends up concluding that “regardless of whether the [...]

Read: Anarchical Policy Analysis

The Relevance of Anarchy

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 17th, 2007

One interesting thing about this entire exchange is that it was nominally organized as a discussion about anarchy, proclaiming “anarchy unbound,” and yet from the beginning anarchy has had little to do with the discussion. Leeson’s opening essay discussed actual stateless situations in a few poor countries, and Dani Rodrik responded by noting, “There [...]

Read: The Relevance of Anarchy

The Crux of the Matter

by Dani Rodrik

August 17th, 2007

I find Leeson’s latest response very encouraging, because it actually shows that we largely agree on the underlying issues—even though we remain very far apart in the conclusions we draw.
Thus, Leeson accepts that self-enforcing agreements are imperfect, while I accept that governments are imperfect. We agree that national courts are inadequate in enforcing international [...]

Read: The Crux of the Matter

Polycentric Governance*

by Bruce L. Benson

August 16th, 2007

Dani Rodrik writes that “The problem with self-enforcing agreements is that they do not scale up.” I want to make a few interrelated points about this, as it often is the “market failure” argument given to justify a state when I confront people with evidence that what Pete Leeson has referred to as anarchy [...]

Read: Polycentric Governance*

Rebuttal to Rodrik

by Peter T. Leeson

August 16th, 2007

At the risk of sounding “doctrinaire” again, I would like to respond to Rodrik’s criticisms. In order of his points:
1. I am willing to admit that signaling is not perfect. Gains from trade can be left unexploited through this mechanism. However, (a) this does not mean that self-enforcing mechanisms cannot be scaled up, [...]

Read: Rebuttal to Rodrik

Scaling Up, International Trade, and Demand for Government

by Dani Rodrik

August 15th, 2007

Leeson makes three points in response to my critique.

In theory, self-enforcing agreements can indeed scale up, if they rely not on punishment in repeated play, but on signaling, whereby “honest” types separate themselves from “dishonest” types.
The large volume of international trade is evidence that self-enforcement without government is in fact possible.
The correlation between income per [...]

Read: Scaling Up, International Trade, and Demand for Government

Means and Ends in Our National Movement Toward Anarchy

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 15th, 2007

The title I have used here is tongue-in-cheek, because we’re not moving toward anarchy. As any anarchist will tell you, the state is expanding, both in expenditures and in its regulatory powers. And, as I said in my first essay, many of our fellow citizens favor further state expansion. But, if Leeson [...]

Read: Means and Ends in Our National Movement Toward Anarchy

The Most Significant Market Failure

by Bruce L. Benson

August 15th, 2007

I do not like the term “market failure” in general since the underpinnings of virtually everything that is labeled as a market failure (e.g., monopoly) are really institutional problems created by government. David Friedman pointed out to me that there is one serious market failure, however: markets have failed to prevent the concentration of [...]

Read: The Most Significant Market Failure

The Feasibility of Anarchy

by Peter T. Leeson

August 15th, 2007

I’m grateful to Bruce Benson, Dani Rodrik, and Randy Holcombe for responding to my initial essay and providing their insightful remarks. Here, I offer a brief response to some of the major comments from each. Like the arguments in my initial essay, owing to space constraints, these too are very much incomplete, but will hopefully [...]

Read: The Feasibility of Anarchy

Anarchy From a Policy Perspective

by Randall G. Holcombe

August 13th, 2007

Florida State University economist Randall Holcombe argues that even if Leeson is right about anarchy, it doesn’t much matter. “Regardless of its merits,” Holcombe writes, “anarchy has no prospect as an actual policy option.” The bottom line is that government is popular in developed nations. Furthermore, anarchy may not be a “stable equilibrium,” in which case it might “coalesce into governments … potentially more oppressive and more destructive than those we see in prosperous areas today.” According to Holcombe, if we’re going to get a government anyway, the best approach to policy is to “make it smaller, less intrusive, and more libertarian,” not to make it go away.

Read: Anarchy From a Policy Perspective

The Limits of Self-Enforcing Agreements

by Dani Rodrik

August 9th, 2007

Harvard economist Dani Rodrik is willing to accept a number of steps in Peter Leeson’s argument for anarchy, “but [Leeson's] bottom line … represents a huge leap of faith.” Citing the work of several important thinkers, Rodrik argues that “the problem with self-enforcing agreements is that they do not scale up.” Both theory and data show that complex, well-functioning social and economic systems require the enforcement of rules by government. “Those societies in which markets work best are the ones where the reach of the state is longer—not shorter.”

Read: The Limits of Self-Enforcing Agreements

Anarchy Bound: Why Self-Government Is Less Widespread than It Should Be

by Bruce L. Benson

August 7th, 2007

Bruce L. Benson, author of The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State, argues Peter Leeson’s defense of anarchy is too moderate. Governments in developed nations, Benson maintains, are not better than ordered anarchy. Drawing on Franz Oppenheimer’s classic account of the state as a protection racket, Benson argues that the state only seems necessary only because it offers “solutions” to problems the state itself creates. Benson claims that even well-constrained states are essentially parasitic, leading him to conclude that “even when a relatively ‘good’ government exists, there still is way too much government and not nearly enough anarchy.”

Read: Anarchy Bound: Why Self-Government Is Less Widespread than It Should Be

Anarchy Unbound, or: Why Self-Governance Works Better than You Think

by Peter T. Leeson

August 6th, 2007

Everybody seems to know we need government … But pirates didn’t! How did they manage without the state? In this issue’s thought-provoking lead essay, Peter T. Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University, explores what pirate “constitutions,” credit institutions among 19th century African bandit traders, and the well-being of Somalians after the collapse of the Somalian state have to tell us about the possibility of practical anarchy. It works better than you think, Leeson concludes. “As long as there are unrealized gains to realize, people will find ways to realize them” — state or no state.

Read: Anarchy Unbound, or: Why Self-Governance Works Better than You Think