A  few days ago, Jacob Hornberger posted this quote from Robert Anderson on his blog:
 

The philosophical framework of the capitalist society requires a system of laws—a government—to assure that the life and property of individuals are safeguarded. The role of government in a capitalist society is to establish and execute laws designed to keep the peace. As Mill observed, attempts by any to deprive others of their freedom must be prevented, and the force of law is essential to this end. Government in the capitalist society is symbolized by the blindfolded goddess of justice. The rule of law equally protecting life and property is fundamental to the development of a capitalist society.

 
I have a number of problems with this quote:
 

  1. Is a system of laws the same as a government?
  2. Is the role of government in a capitalist (or any other) society to establish and execute laws designed to keep the peace?
  3. Are attempts by any to deprive others of their freedom to be prevented, and is the force of law essential to this end?

 
The first problem is crucial to the entire discussion because of the meaning of the word, "government". It is not an innocuous word. If you look at the definition(s) on the Dictionary.com web site, you will see this:
 

1. the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society .
 
4. a branch or service of the supreme authority of a state or nation, taken as representing the whole: a dam built by the government .
 
6. direction; control; management; rule: the government of one’s conduct .

 
The words that stand out are: direction, control over the actions of members, etc., supreme authority, management, rule. In short, government means controlling the behavior of individuals. If that is correct, then a system of laws is totally unnecessary for a government. All it needs is overwhelming force. In fact, that is what government usually means — force. If you look at the US, we have hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. Are they a system? Not really. They are a hodge-podge, a collection of mostly unrelated edicts and prohibitions promulgated by thousands of officials, judges and bureaucrats. It is truly unfortunate that the Founding Failures created an agency of the sovereign states by means of the Constitution and then chose to call it a government. In most people’s minds, this choice meant that the United States was supposed to govern us, to direct us, to control us, to manage us, to rule us. In my view, that choice was a major and entirely unnoticed event that helped send us down the road to democracy and collectivist tyranny. It set the intellectual/political background such that very few people ever asked why we needed to be ruled.

The second problem concerns the role of government in peacekeeping through laws. To be brief, laws do not make people peaceful and do not create peace. They only define the penalties administered by the government in the event that one is convicted of breaking the peace. And it’s the government that gets to decide what behaviors break the peace. Exercise of your right to speak freely, for example, can be defined as breaking the peace and get you executed. How’s that for peacekeeping?

The third problem is that the force of law is said to be essential to prevent attempts to deprive others of their freedom. This depends on who defines an action as an attempt to deprive someone else of his freedom. If government declares that you have a right to medical care and a doctor refuses to administer such care, can that refusal not be construed as an attempt to deprive you of your freedom to exercise your right to obtain care? If government defines freedom and makes laws concerning your freedom to get certain things from others, where is the freedom for the providers of those things or services?

In view of the above, it seems to me that government is not required for "the philosophical framework of the capitalist society". In fact, government is highly likely to be the enemy of a free market or capitalist society. We could create all kinds of supposedly free societies. The only one that would be truly free is an anarchistic society, one based on consent and consensus, and in which government does not create a system of laws ex cathedra .