I think it self-evident that people accept being governed (yes, by stationary bandits writ large, whatever their pretensions) is protection from criminals who are worse and other governments which are worse (which would otherwise conquer).
And on the record of those who have had their governments fail, whether in a primitive band or an ancient nation or a modern state, they're right: the alternative *is* worse.
That still leaves abundant room for the state to be *amazingly* bad.
I believe Rothman is right that people are (I would say “almost”) entirely mistaken in believing, as they usually do, the legitimacy myths of their respective governments.
I believe you are right that this does not reflect the influence of current intellectuals, or current officeholders; but Keynes may be right that long-dead intellectuals may have great influence, and that may also be true about half- or entirely legendary founders.
But mostly I think it’s a matter of human psychology. We want to belong to a group, and to love the group. The evolutionary roots of this are a great “just so story.”
Expanding on your point that 'In Western democracies, rulers and intellectuals rarely get rich off the public', I find that Rothbard often seems to anthropomorphize the state as an entity that is greedy or power-hungry in and of itself. Obviously this is just shorthand and not meant literally, but I think that kind of language obscures the incentives and ideological drivers of the actual people who make up governments.
Also, “government” Is not some free-standing thing - it’s a tool for collective organisation and action. Specifically, a society cannot put in mechanisms around Law and War that are in any sense scalable without ending up with something that looks & smells like “government”. Also, infrastructure & mega-projects are hard to achieve without “government” buy in.
If a society doesn’t create a locus of power it has none. If it does then this becomes attractive to those who like power. The choice is never “government” or “no government”. It’s “government, while trying to manage the trade offs”.
I think it self-evident that people accept being governed (yes, by stationary bandits writ large, whatever their pretensions) is protection from criminals who are worse and other governments which are worse (which would otherwise conquer).
And on the record of those who have had their governments fail, whether in a primitive band or an ancient nation or a modern state, they're right: the alternative *is* worse.
That still leaves abundant room for the state to be *amazingly* bad.
If that's the story, why do most humans express so much love for their countries - and so rarely distinguish their countries from their governments?
I believe Rothman is right that people are (I would say “almost”) entirely mistaken in believing, as they usually do, the legitimacy myths of their respective governments.
I believe you are right that this does not reflect the influence of current intellectuals, or current officeholders; but Keynes may be right that long-dead intellectuals may have great influence, and that may also be true about half- or entirely legendary founders.
But mostly I think it’s a matter of human psychology. We want to belong to a group, and to love the group. The evolutionary roots of this are a great “just so story.”
In the case of Somalia, the alternate possibility of government appears to have been even worse https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
Expanding on your point that 'In Western democracies, rulers and intellectuals rarely get rich off the public', I find that Rothbard often seems to anthropomorphize the state as an entity that is greedy or power-hungry in and of itself. Obviously this is just shorthand and not meant literally, but I think that kind of language obscures the incentives and ideological drivers of the actual people who make up governments.
Yes, though the idea that most people in government want more power for themselves explains a lot!
I know there has been a Public Choice model where bureaucracies try to maximize their size, but my understanding is that political scientists who look into it find otherwise https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/public-managers-dont-maximize-like-private-ones/
Also, “government” Is not some free-standing thing - it’s a tool for collective organisation and action. Specifically, a society cannot put in mechanisms around Law and War that are in any sense scalable without ending up with something that looks & smells like “government”. Also, infrastructure & mega-projects are hard to achieve without “government” buy in.
If a society doesn’t create a locus of power it has none. If it does then this becomes attractive to those who like power. The choice is never “government” or “no government”. It’s “government, while trying to manage the trade offs”.