Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

course, argue that his entire system -- the legislature
plus fee-for-service courts and the private police agencies
-- constitutes a "state."
But however one may resolve such definitional problems
this still leaves open the really crucial question
of how, if the use of force is to be left up to private
police agencies, could the Hosperian proviso that these
agencies must only enforce the legislature's statutory
laws be enforced? What would happen if one, or two or a
d 0 zen e n for c ementage nc i esstart edenfor c i ng norms t hat
confl icted wi th the laws enacted by the legislature?
There are, so far as I can see, two possible scenarios.
Fir s t, H0 s per s mig h t con tend t hat sinc e thesernaverick
agencies would clearly be acting illegally either they
would not receive public patronage and so go out of
business. or other police agencies, perceiving the
threat of the illegals, would join forces to crush them.
But since these are exactly the same measures Rothbardian
anarchists rely on to insure the enforcement of
the i r comm0 n I a w, H0 s pers' u I t ram ina r chi s m beeomesal I
but i n dis tin g u ish a b I e from Ro t hbar d ian a narchism• But
Hospers might argue for a second course, that of permitting
the pUblic legislature to diversify into the provision
of police services. The public agency might then
not only enact laws but have enough force at its disposal
to punish or crush any maverick agency. But since
Hospers admits that private agencies are much more efficient
than pUblic ones it is difficult to see why anyone
wou I d pu r cha se protect ion from the la t ter. Consequent­
I y, the 0 n 1 y way s the pub 1 i c age n c y cou I d r ema i n i n
business would be either by outlawing not just maverick,
but all, private police agencies, or by charging every
pol ice agency a fee sufficiently high to cover the pub­
I i c age n c y 's los s e s • Sinc e the pub 1 i c agenc y wo u 1d now
hold an effective monopoly on the use of force it would
meet the criteria for a state, although if it continued
to operate on a fee-for-service basis it would remain a
less than minimal state. But, it must be noted, neither
oft he s e 0 p t ion s can be r e con c i led wit h 1 i be r tar ian
principles. The outlawing of all private agencies would
·constitute a restriction on peaceful activities, while
the fee charged every agency would be neither voluntary(71)
nor paid in exchange for services rendered. It
would therefore be a tax in the full sense of that word.
Ins h 0 r t, H0 s persis PI acedin a d i 1emma: e i the r he
must accede in some restriction on peaceful activities
and/or taxat ion, thereby violating his libertarianism,
o r hem u s t reI y for the en for cern e n t 0 f his n s tat utor y
21