The Libertarian view of government

Basically, the Libertarian theory misses the point.

Limited government is a legitimate moral ideal. However, as a libertarian, do not be so quick to claim that government's uniqueness is its ability to achieve compliance using physical force. Non-libertarians are likely to respond to this dogma with a look of incomprehension. And they are right.

If you're not a Libertarian, you're probably sharing this look of incomprehension. Here's the back story:

For libertarians, one moral trump card against government is that government action is coercive. In the private sector, individuals deal with one with one another voluntarily. When you deal with government, ultimately government holds a gun to your head.

However, even the most laissez-faire society needs a final authority to resolve disputes in the private sector, and to enforce these resolutions. (For an interesting take, read Larry Niven's "Cloak of Anarchy"). Kling gives three examples where both Libertopia and Paternofascista produce results that are, to all intents and purposes, identical. So the real difference between government coercion and free-market coercion?

Government policies take away more liberty than equivalent private policies. The reason is not that government policies are backed by physical force. The reason is that government has broader jurisdiction. With private policies, when I am adversely affected by a policy, I can choose an alternative service provider at relatively low cost. With government, because its jurisdiction is so extensive, the cost to me of escaping adverse policies is much higher. It is not the armed force that makes government feel more like tyranny. It is the absence of competition.