Statecraft as a Service: Who would take up the state’s job if it disappeared?

by Gravelord

Years pass and the main reason people reject libertarianism stays the same: they can’t understand that everything the State does could be done better without it. This is by design, obviously. The State relies on people’s dependency in order to maintain itself. While taxation is ultimately coercive, the population almost unanimously pays it without question explicitly because contemporary governments are built to emphasize the little services they provide and cover up the fortune they cost. While most of what the government does is completely unnecessary, some of it is crucial.

So, the question is posed: if not the State, then who? It honestly couldn’t have a simpler answer: Anyone else. Yet, while the answer itself is obvious, the reasoning may not be…

Let’s start from the beginning; what the hell is statecraft?

Statecraft is the handling of both internal and external affairs of a political body. It is important to understand that statecraft is not a single service which can be provided by a single individual (albeit it can be coordinated by one, more on this later), but rather a set of services offered by the political body (or “government”) to facilitate the maintenance and utilization of property.

(Note: A political body is not necessarily equivalent to a state, but rather any group of individuals organized under an authority).

Why is it necessary?

Property is a liability. A burden of sorts that requires time, money, and personal investment. Contrary to the unfortunately widespread socialist belief that it is inherently beneficial or lucrative, property ownership is constrained by many things, primarily costs, liabilities, and responsibilities. Whether it is a household or a multinational corporation, statecraft is necessary as a means to lessen that burden. This can be manifested in numerous ways, from simple and concrete concepts like organized law enforcement to complex and abstract ones like international trade agreements. These are the things the state provides now as part of everyday life and we have no reasonable expectation that these functions would cease to exist.

Who would provide it?

“Any person who fully owns property in a libertarian social order has the responsibility of an absolute monarch. He would have to uphold all control over legislation, arbitration, and upkeep when it comes to his property. The only way to alleviate this burden is to outsource part of it to someone who is more capable of managing the property…The abolition of the state does not imply an abolition of governance; quite the opposite. The proliferation of individual sovereignty will bring about an increase of governance and statecraft.”

-Insula Qui

I couldn’t have said it any better. What this means is that, in the absence of a centralized State, the services it provides would be taken up by a plurality of organizations. These organizations would be structured similarly to some governments, the key difference being that, in the absence of taxation, these organizations would necessarily have to generate revenue in order to be maintained. And by that, I mean their income is a byproduct of their ability to efficiently provide services (just like anything else privately owned), and not the inverse in which the state simply taxes property owners more to make up for a lack of efficient production.

This could be, again, organized in countless ways ranging from various degrees of centralization. The most common “anarchist” solution would be the delegation of all statecraft to various competing privately-owned companies, but I would disagree with this being the most adequate approach, as some of these services are too crucial to be left to unorganized competitors. Instead, I believe statecraft should be delegated to a local authority, which would behave much like a feudal lord, responsible for organizing (not directly providing) all services demanded by the people under his care. What differs in this from conventional governing systems is that the authority does not stem from the people, God, or coercion, but rather from property and the legitimate ownership thereof. With the substitution of taxation for fees, this “private kingdom” (for a lack of a better term) would also have to be value-productive in order to be maintained, ensuring that statecraft is always provided, and done so efficiently.

In conclusion, given the constraints associated with property ownership, there would absolutely be a demand for statecraft in the absence of a centralized state, which would allow for it to be provided as a service. In order to ensure its orderly and continuous provision, it should be delegated to an authority which would operate much like any private service provider, meaning its earnings are dependent on its ability to provide services efficiently, ensuring that the political body does not have the power to infringe on property owners.