Government is force. Anyone who disagrees is invited to try peaceful noncompliance with government. Try not paying taxes, smoking cannabis, working for less than minimum wage, or do anything peaceful that’s against the government’s rules. If they find out and you continue to peacefully refuse to comply, they will eventually assault you and put you in a cage (euphemistically called arrest and imprisonment). If you go one step further and use self defense with a gun (the only realistic way to defend yourself against police), you’ll probably end up getting shot.

Government does things that would be considered criminal if done by ordinary people. It repeatedly takes your money with the threat of force (arrest, or death if you resist that) and calls it taxation. It forbids acts between consenting adults for their own good (any black market activity, any regulated activity). It murders people and calls it war. It prevents the free association of its subjects with other people in the name of restricting immigration. Practically everything it does would be considered criminal if done by an ordinary person.

Even the most minimal night-watchman state, funded by voluntary donations, would still be coercive. At the very least, it would have to prohibit any competing protection services. Otherwise it would risk being competed out of existence.

That government is evil shouldn’t be a controversial point. Economists justify government on the grounds that public goods cannot be produced voluntarily and hence coercive government measures are justified.

Philosophical anarchism is the position that government is a necessary evil, to be done away with if there were a viable alternative. This should be the default position on government, held by any decent person with an intact moral sense. (I go further and advocate market anarchism as a viable alternative.)

Government is force, and force should be used sparingly if it must be used at all. It seems to me that most people have forgotten this; they would prefer profligate use of government over sparing use. Thus, people need constant reminding that government rules are backed by coercive police power (and that markets are voluntary). In most cases, markets can solve whatever problems government is supposedly solving, and much more efficiently to boot. As such, we ought to be doubly reluctant to use government: for both moral and economic reasons.

 

Social decayDespite incredible advances in knowledge and technology over the past few decades, living standards have actually declined (also see here and here). [edit Aug 2010: In retrospect this statement was too strong, living standards are certainly higher today. It would be more accurate to say that the rate of increase has fallen.] Taken alone, this makes no sense—comparable advances in the past, such as the industrial revolution, have sparked enormous increases in prosperity. On top of falling living standards, civilization is crumbling: war, poverty, crime, debt, disease, social dysfunction, family breakdown, hedonism, etc. Why are so many things going wrong, despite unparalleled advances in knowledge and technology? This is the great unanswered question of our time. Keep reading...

 

Whenever I am arguing with someone over the merits and morality of anarchism versus the horrible tragedy of statism, I am almost always confronted with the inevitable question: “What about the poor?” These ignorant statists (I’ve yet to find one aware of economics) are operating under the assumption that the government helps the poor, and so a stateless society would therefore leave the poor worse off. This assumption is false.

First off, let’s be generous and assume that the government actually has the intention to help the poor. That is, the government is genuinely working to reduce poverty and not just padding the bank accounts of state-allied business (note that most politicians are also businessmen). However, we all know a certain road that is paved with good intentions. They key is to look at the effects of government programs, not just the intentions. Do they really help the poor? Keep reading...