The Paradox of Government Coercion

Libertarians hold two positions which, at first glance, might seem to be contradictory: First, that government is coercive and involuntary, and second, that the power of government rests ultimately on public opinion rather than coercion.

The first point is stated brilliantly by Mises:

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

In other words, all government edicts, taxes, regulations, etc. are enforced by the threat and application of violence.

The second point was originally expounded by Boétie and Hume. As Boétie writes in his Politics of Obedience:

[The tyrant has] nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?

He concludes:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

And as Hume put it in his "First Principles of Government”:

Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

Thus government, as a minority of the population, does not have the power to control the entire population through force alone, but must rely on widespread support in the form of public opinion.

But, one might object, if government requires widespread support from its citizens, how can it also be coercive and involuntary?

First, notice that government can be coercive and yet draw its power from something other than its coerciveness (e.g. public opinion.) Just because government does not derive its power from its coerciveness, it doesn't follow that government isn't coercive.

Let's investigate more closely. The government decrees what its citizens may and may not do, and threatens violence against recalcitrant individuals who disobey. The citizens acquiesce to government rule, but they do so under duress. This point is crucial: the citizens are acquiescing under the threat of coercion. In other words, the majority of people, under the threat of coercion, do comply with the government's dictates, while recalcitrant individuals are directly coerced. Thus, government is coercive.

But if the government is vastly outnumbered by its citizens, why do they put up with its coercive dictates? Why don't they rise up and overthrow it? The answer is public opinion: the citizens, steeped in statist ideology, believe that government is just and necessary, and hence refrain from revolting. More specifically, public opinion creates a collective action problem.  If most people believe in statism, then one individual's resistance to government will achieve nothing except martyrdom. The government can dispose of one lone resister. If most people believe in anarchism, however, then their combined resistance will be sufficient to topple the government. The government's existence depends on what the public believes. The difficulty lies in coordinating simultaneous and effective resistance. Thus, the power of government rests on public opinion.

(So Boétie is incorrect to say that "It is... the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude." It's true that their coordinated resistance would bring down the government. But it's wrong to say that their servitude is voluntary or consensual, because as we've seen, the government threatens them with coercion. It might be the case that governments are more or less coercive depending on the credibility of their threats.)

(Also, his statement "I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer" needs clarifying. It's not that people just have to withdraw their "consent". Rather, they have to disobey the government and make it carry out it's threat of coercion; they have to call the government's bluff. So "removing your support" means potentially incurring the wrath of the state.)

Thus, there is no paradox at all. Government is coercive and draws its power from public opinion. But this raises the question: if coercion is not the base of government's power, then is it a necessary feature of government? The answer must be yes; government just is a coercively maintained territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction.

This raises the following question: if coercion is not the base of government's power, then is government a necessary feature of society? This question is the driving force of market anarchism. As Long writes: "if governmental force is impotent except insofar as it accords with public opinion, then ... it is public opinion, not governmental force, that actually maintains social order, in which case we can safely dispense with governmental force and rest social order on public opinion alone."

Good stuff Sage. You've been making some good topics lately.

This culminates in what appears to be quite a nice panarchist/voluntarist argument.

Sage:

If most people believe in anarchism, however, then their combined resistance will be sufficient to topple the government.

I would maintain a small fraction of society (at most 5%) would need to stop obeying for the government to fall apart.  It would either imprison all of them, and go broke doing so and be stuck with a public relations nightmare, or it would have to not punish the disobedient, and the rest of the population would stop obeying too, resulting in the government losing all funding and all appearances of legitimate authority.

Regardless, I think it is a great article.

Spideynw:

I would maintain a small fraction of society (at most 5%) would need to stop obeying for the government to fall apart.

In his article "Secession and the Production of Defense" (in Myth of National Defense) Guido Hülsmann argues that the number of people needed to overthrow the government is equal to the number of people needed to sustain guerrilla warfare:

Guerrilla warfare being essentially private warfare on a small scale, it follows that the conditions for successful libertarian secession are the very same conditions that must be given for successful guerrilla warfare. Libertarian secession presupposes that a great number of inhabitants of a territory desire to establish a private-property order and to rid themselves of the present rulers. These persons provide the guerrillas with the civil network that enables them to wage their war, and to wage it successfully. We can thus give a more specific description of the “majority” required by Boétie’s Law: it must be a number of persons sufficient to sustain guerrilla warfare. (p.401)

I think only a very small fraction needs to actively revolt, but you'd need a larger fraction in order to control public opinion.

Spideynw:

I would maintain a small fraction of society (at most 5%) would need to stop obeying for the government to fall apart.  It would either imprison all of them, and go broke doing so and be stuck with a public relations nightmare, or it would have to not punish the disobedient, and the rest of the population would stop obeying too, resulting in the government losing all funding and all appearances of legitimate authority.

This goes back to what Molyneux talks about.  When you can show the inhumanity of the state, people will turn away from it.  You have to expose the humanity (victims) of state policy.

I realize Sage might not be down with the moral argument, but as a subjective ethicist, it is really the only argument that can be made.

Absolutly awesome piece.
Bravo

liberty student:

I realize Sage might not be down with the moral argument, but as a subjective ethicist, it is really the only argument that can be made.

I do think the rights argument is the strongest case for anarchy, but I also think consequences matter (just not as much).

The Late Andrew Ryan:

Absolutly awesome piece.

Bravo

Thanks!

Sage:

Libertarians hold two positions which, at first glance, might seem to be contradictory: First, that government is coercive and involuntary, and second, that the power of government rests ultimately on public opinion rather than coercion.

1) "Libertarians hold... ". False. Some libertarians may hold that. Others don't.
2) Government rest on the 'opinion' that if you don't follow orders you'll be jailed and killed. That's called COERCION.

Finally, yours is a ridiculous generalization. Different people have different ideas. Some think that government is great. Some tolerate it because they fear it. Some don't care. Some maybe never considered the problem, et cetera.

Juan:

Some libertarians may hold that. Others don't.

Link? I'd be interested in seeing how they explain the State without Boétie's Law.

Juan:

Different people have different ideas. Some think that government is great. Some tolerate it because they fear it. Some don't care. Some maybe never considered the problem, et cetera.

I think fear, tradition, apathy, etc. play a role, but public opinion is the dominant factor.

Link? I'd be interested in seeing how they explain the State without Boétie's Law.

Link to what ? You never read a libertarian stating that the government is a criminal organization which controls a territory and the people in it, using force ?

I think fear, tradition, apathy, etc. play a role, but public opinion is the dominant factor.

Fear, tradition, apathy, are parts of public opinion, just like the correct belief that the government KILLS dissidents is 'public opinion'. Look, if people believe government is legitimate - so called 'public opinion' - then they are not being coerced and the whole libertarian program is nonsense. Either that is true, or at least some people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, and that is usually called coercion.

By the way, I think people misread La Boétie. La Boétie is a 'terrist' trying to stir up trouble. He points out that if enough people decided to fight back, the government would be overpowered, which is probably true, yet that doesn't 'prove' that the power of government rests on 'public opinion'.

Juan:

yet that doesn't 'prove' that the power of government rests on 'public opinion'.

But it does.  It rests on manufactured consent.  Manufactured  through threats, violence, lies, bribes etc.  Without consent, there can be no state.

Slavery didn't end with armed rebellion or the collapse of the economic viability of a slave economy.  Slavery ended when opinion changed.  When the humanity of the slaves was realized.  Women did not gain more freedom until the humanity of their sex was recognized.

The name of the game is consent.

Juan:

Look, if people believe government is legitimate - so called 'public opinion' - then they are not being coerced and the whole libertarian program is nonsense. Either that is true, or at least some people are being forced to do things they don't want to do, and that is usually called coercion.

Did you read the OP? My whole argument was that government is coercive and yet draws its power from public opinion.

Juan:

He points out that if enough people decided to fight back, the government would be overpowered, which is probably true, yet that doesn't 'prove' that the power of government rests on 'public opinion'.

Why not? If government can only exist when public opinion supports it, and would be overthrown if public opinion opposes it, then it seems reasonable to conclude that government's existence (i.e. power) depends on public opinion.

If you reject this, then what's your explanation for how government, a tiny minority, can impose its will on the rest of the population? Force cannot be the answer, because as Hume pointed out, "force is always on the side of the governed". If government could rule by force alone, the Soviets would still be in Afghanistan.

If you reject this, then what's your explanation for how government, a tiny minority,

A tiny minority ? How many people are there in the police and the military ? How violent and deranged are they ? Do we live in the same planet ?

How many millions of people 'work' for western governments ?

Oh, it's just public opinion. Hm, nice avatar you have =] Maybe you should replace the rifle with a picture of a newspaper ?

Juan:

A tiny minority ?

The rulers are, the sycophants are their life support system.

The government is not 'the rulers'.

Point taken.  The heads of government are then.  That's all I was trying to say.

Sage:

 

I do think the rights argument is the strongest case for anarchy, but I also think consequences matter (just not as much).

So a deontologist who recognizes the positive consequences that come about from such a position. If that is what you are then I would have to say I am the same.

One can argue that different government programs have support from different groups, say, the war on drugs is partially supported by right wing puritans who 'benefit' from it because they want to see sinners put in jail. Left wingers support the state because they like the welfare state. And so on and so forth. So government does have public support, but again it's not just 'public opinion' but the fact that people get real 'benefits' from government.

Juan:

So government does have public support, but again it's not just 'public opinion' but the fact that people get real 'benefits' from government.

All of these individual groups you seem of are unified in the belief that only the state can solve the problem. Thus the public opinion that the state is necessary is applicable. What the state is necessary for varies in degree and scope but not the fact that it is supposedly needed.