An Argument Against a Protectorate

Recently I was able to listen to G. Edward Griffin speak on “This Thing Called Government” at Anarchapulco. His session focused on defining the term government and explored whether tyranny is the unavoidable end state of a state – no matter the flavor. Ultimately he concluded that some level of the state is required for society to ensure the security of the people. However, that state should not be a government but instead should be modeled to be a protectorate. The idea is that we do not need or want to be governed but we do need and want to be protected. And, we can achieve this by fixing the issues with the US Constitution – it was just a “beta” effort after all.

Specifically, I wanted to take a moment to address two things that came up during his speech: 

1. The US Constitution worked for the first hundred years or so and if we learn from those mistakes we can craft an even better one next time.
2. Even in an anarchic society, you have a state to provide protection, it just goes by a different name – perhaps a private corporation. But, it is effectively still a state and comes with all of the associated issues. So, let's just build upon that to create a state that doesn’t have the same issues that our current iterations have (see #1 for how that is accomplished)

Those are, of course, paraphrased in my words. But, I believe I got the gist of the two ideas. While I want to address these two topics, I also want to keep it pretty brief. So, if you’d like me to expand on anything, please let me know.

The Constitution Worked.. Until It Didn’t

It is easy to romanticize and be nostalgic about the Constitution, especially as an American. It is the foundation of much of our indoctrination. Even for those that have begun to see the folly of the state, it can be an easy trap to believe that the Constitution could work if only… Maybe if we just changed a few things it would be better next time. Besides, it was working so well if it were not for the ambiguity or the lack of some – insert here – well-meaning idea the US would not have devolved into such a mess! The thing is, I’m not sure that it ever really worked. 

From the moment of the very first presidency, we have what could be classified as constitutional violations. If it cannot even survive the first term how can it be classified as working? Granted, in terms of scale, these initial constitutional violations are pretty minor compared to the current state. However, most of them are the cracks that created the giant fissures we live with today.

Additionally, the “mostly” working nature of the Constitution created something dangerous. It created a situation that generated massive wealth along with a perception of freedom. Don’t get me wrong, the wealth and freedom are not the issues. It is the “perception” part of my statement. It created a situation where it was easy to ignore the small attacks on freedom that were occurring – well at least until you can no longer ignore them. This is how a government that was designed to be the smallest the world had ever seen ended up being the largest. If you start that experiment again you just risk building an even larger totalitarian result. This does not mean that we should not try to change things. But, I do believe that it is a mistake to believe that we can do it within any statist construct. The results will be the same and quite possibly much worse.

But We Need to be Protected...

I don’t know what the world would look like in a voluntary society. And, I do not argue that there is a need to have protection. I do, however, argue that we do not need a state to provide such protection. Protection is a service. Like any other service, the market can provide a solution. So, if there is a business providing this service how is that different than a state? Competition is the simple answer. The implication of Griffin’s speech is that there would be one of these entities - at least per country or geographic region. And, even if you own shares in the entity and have some level of voting right, the entity is essentially acting like a quasi-state. But, I ask, why would we need a monopoly for defense? 

Think of it this way: we have a need for plumbing. I, as an individual, could provide my own plumbing services. That is perfectly reasonable. But, for most, this doesn’t fall into a category that they are willing or capable of doing. Defense is similar. I can defend myself. I could obtain my own weapons and training. But, again, for most this may not be something they would want to pursue. So, in the case of plumbing, we have plumbers. We do not, however, typically just have one plumber. It isn't really feasible for the market to develop such a monopoly. We want choice and we want options. Why would this be different for defense? It wouldn't be.

We do not need a protectorate. We do not need a state under any name. We need plumbers. We need choice. And, we need the freedom to make it so.