[KyleRatliff]

Anarchists claim that the government constitutes a violation of rights by the fact it holds a monopoly on force. According to them, this monopoly “violates” the voluntary consent of individuals within the geographical limits of said government, as individuals who disagree with the government’s actions have no recourse against them. Instead of correcting this view by recognizing the necessity of government, they rationalize that a “marketplace of force” can replace the government by participants voluntarily consenting to terms set by members within a society.

There are many problems with this view that have been discussed at great length on this platform, though I am unsure if this particular issue I am raising has been discussed before. Another major epistemological violation anarchists commit is the fallacy of the stolen concept.

HB: Yep, I wrote a refutation of anarchism that featured that point, in 1981. After saying that the libertarian anarchists commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, I made this admittedly brilliant quip: “Their approach cannot be applied even to a baseball game, where it would mean that the rules of the game will be defined by whoever wins it.” (The Objectivist Forum, Aug. 1981, p. 13)

Theoretical anarchists propose a “marketplace of force” can exist the same way a marketplace exists under capitalism. When providers create solutions, the best solution rises to the top in a healthy market.

Anarchists observe this mechanism and then apply it to government itself. They think that since markets exist on a voluntary basis, as buyers consent to the terms set by providers, “force-providers” can also offer their services, and the most “just” service will win. Since “force-providers” will want to be the most fair, as that will increase their return for their services, the best, most fair provider will win. Likewise, buyers of “force-providers” will purchase the most “just” service, thus a mutually beneficial relationship can be made between buyers and sellers of these services, eliminating the need for government.

The problem with this view is that economic markets depend on governments so that these goods and services can be produced in the first place. Think of how layered and complex agreements between companies exchanging goods and services are in any modern economy. If any one of those agreements falls through, dependencies within the supply chain break down and those consequences must be dealt with legally, otherwise aggrieved producers accept the loss without recourse. The economic mechanism of the “best rising to the top” cannot be applied to government, as a monopoly on force is necessary to resolve disputes between aggrieved and offending parties.

The anarchist is stealing the concept of economic competition and illogically applying it to government. Their view denies the genetic roots upon which economic competition depend — a government that protects individual rights. Really, what the anarchist wants is to have all of the benefits of a productive society without the laws that such a society depends upon, both practically and ideologically. I stress ideologically because anarchists cannot justify their incoherent views, but recognize the need to do so. Their “trick” in doing so is to take advantage of people’s lack of understanding the hierarchical nature of concepts.

Fortunately, there are resolute refutations to these rationalizations, down to their fundamental, conceptual roots.

/sb

[KyleRatliff]

Re: Kyle Ratliff’s post 54749 of 5/24/25

Seems I have been beaten to the punch! Thanks for the citation as well.

*sb

[Author]

Posts