Peter Leeson’s article on “Efficient anarchy” from the Public Choice Journal Volume 130 puts an interesting spin on the analysis of an anarchist state.
Where does anarchy work?
He states in small governments and large governments.
There have been a groups of people that we have been able to study that have anarchy. That when the groups are small the costs outweigh the benefits of government. Now he goes on to say that these societies are small, all the people in them have the same productivity, all prefer the same things, they all make about the same amount of money, and they are close-knit. This is why Leeson believes that small groups work with anarchy.
Now what I really found interesting is that we technically have World Anarchy.
There is no governing body of the world. (please don’t even try to say the UN.) Now there have been attempts to make a international court and such but there is no government that puts the same laws on Japan as it does Chile.
This is because the costs are just to great to create a world government. Obviously, the internet and other telecommunications have lower that cost but it is still too high. Not to mention, that the people would be very diverse and have a different set of beliefs.Look at Europe, the European Union can’t even get along. Britain still has a completely different currency.
Leeson points out that whenever we do see a hint of government it is through international trade and most contracts have arbitration clauses. But the companies have been able to settle the disagreements without a court system or even a war.
This begs the question when does a anarchy become to big in the first case and two small in the second to form government?
I know what Professor Rustici would say…. as soon as someone would want to enslave workers to produce for them so they can relax on the porch…