I once saw a guy described by the newspaper as “the head of the local anarchist group,” which should tell you everything you need to know about the anarchy’s feasibility as a theory of government. At some point even the anarchists seem to look for leadership.

Anyway, here’s Tom McNaughton explaining that the misbehavior of corporations is aided and abetted by a strong central government:

A few years ago, I watched a stupid left-wing documentary that compared corporations to sociopaths. As an example, the filmmakers showed how a company that builds water systems moved into a small country and then (according to their narrative) made it illegal for people to collect their own water. This prompted me to scream at the TV, “How the @#$% can a corporation make anything illegal?! Corporations can’t pass laws! The @#$%ing government passed the law! The @#$%ing government enforced the law!” Raw Milk gets Another Raw Deal

McNaughton’s solution is less government: “If [government officials] have the power to outlaw products you don’t like, they also have the power to outlaw products you do like,” he says. So, you know, knock them down a peg.

But what steps into the void? If McNaughton thinks a corporation needs government to enforce its will, he’s not thinking creatively enough. He should probably spend some more time with Philip K. Dick and Max Barry.

If there was no government business would have to invent it. But weaken government too much and you don’t get an innovative, libertarian garden of eden. You get violent, brutal societies where rich and powerful warlords rule through force of arms. Between those two extremes there are lots of opportunities for the powerful and innovative to create their own micro-governments.

We can see that in Pakistan and Afghanistan now. But also in the old South. Arguably that’s what the Southern states resented to much about Northern meddling — “regulating” slavery meant disassembling the fuedal societies southern slave owners had created for themselves. We can even see that in online societies tried to be libertarian and ended up being authoritarian instead.

It is certainly true that government restricts our freedom, sometimes in ways — like the ability to buy raw milk — that it probably shouldn’t. But weakening or getting rid of government won’t make us more free; it just creates the opportunity for other people to force their priorities on us. We have a beaurocratic, democratic government. But we could also have a despotic government (like North Korea), a fuedal government, or an authoritarian government.

What we could not have is no government. Nor can we have a government too weak to regulate behavior, which amounts to the same thing as no government. Someone will always find a way to take charge. Government is a natural consequence of living in groups. It is inevitable.