Pirates as Proto‐Governments? You Bet!
I have to confess I don't understand why Roger Pilon and Ilya Shapiro are criticizing our colleagues Ben Friedman and Peter Van Doren below. At the risk of being cast as yet another cog in the insidious piratofascist fifth column, I'd like to defend Ben and Peter.
Roger and Ilya reproach Ben and Peter for likening pirates to "pseudo-governments" and mount an impassioned defense of the nation-state as deserving a place in a different category from pirates.
On the distinction between the two, they write: "A tax, at least in principle, and most often in practice, is a charge for a service rendered –- not necessarily a wanted or an evenly distributed service, to be sure..." To be sure, indeed! There's a term for charging people for an unevenly distributed and unwanted service. It's called racketeering. Their description of taxation could apply quite well to a mafia.
Roger and Ilya would prefer to keep pirates and governments in two discrete categories but provide little reason why other than the above. But if they dislike the analogy, their problem is not with Ben or Peter or Noam Chomsky or St. Augustine, but rather with a body of well-developed academic literature. In particular, one of the preeminent scholars of the formation of national states, the late Charles Tilly, wrote a famous book titled Coercion, Capital, and European States that would help color in the gaps for them. The short version is that European elites came to form national states as a means for protecting their fiefdoms from other proto-states, which frequently had predatory aims, and that this process sometimes had the incidental effect of protecting the populaces that lived under state jurisdiction and could be used as means for making war against the neighbors.
Tilly also wrote a well-known essay titled "War Making and State Making As Organized Crime" that makes the following claim: "Banditry, piracy, gangland rivalry, policing, and war making all belong on the same continuum." Tilly went on:
In retrospect, the pacification, cooptation, or elimination of fractious rivals to the sovereign seems an awesome, noble, prescient enterprise, destined to bring peace to a people; yet it followed almost ineluctably from the logic of expanding power. If a power holder was to gain from the provision of protection, his competitors had to yield. As economic historian Frederic Lane put it twenty-five years ago, governments are in the business of selling protection ... whether people want it or not.
Governments and pirates both "put the victim to a choice between two of his entitlements -- his freedom and his property." In the literature on state formation, this isn't a controversial point. I'm really surprised to see that it is for two libertarians.
