The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government

Worthless. The guy begins by smuggling in an assumption as if it were plain, unquestionable fact; namely, that the absence of a state is tantamount to lawlessness, that statism is necessary for the equal protection of life, liberty and property rights.

In fact, I'd say this is worse than a baseless assumption, considering that human history (as well as an objective consideration of base human nature) shows that the institution of "government" is not only plainly incapable of preserving and protecting basic inherent rights of the individual, it is indeed a veritable certainty that government will prove dangerous and downright destructive of the rights of individuals.

So long as we uncritically and unquestioningly accept the notion that a monopolist-state is a necessary and indispensable institution to establish and preserve the rule of law, then we will continually find ourselves suffering the burdens of tyranny, plunder, injustice and oppression.
Justice, protection of person and property, dispute arbitration and criminal adjudication, education, fire fighting -- all of these services could, and should, be provided on the same basis and on the same terms as and and every other product or service is provided in a free society: by way of mutually-voluntary, contractual agreement between pertinent individuals.

The man who created the Cato Institute, the late great Professor Murray Rothbard, understood all this, and wrote some of the most brilliant and devastating refutations of the principles of statism/collectivism, in defense of the ideals of free markets and free people.
The present-day Cato Institute, by choosing the watered-down, establishment-friendly "conservative" approach, have become nothing more than defenders of the status quo.

How would "dispute arbitration and criminal adjudication" be solved "by way of mutually-voluntary, contractual agreement between pertinent individuals"?

Rothbard was a great economist, I don't run into many people that have heard of him.

<<How would "dispute arbitration and criminal adjudication" be solved "by way of mutually-voluntary, contractual agreement between pertinent individuals"?>>

By private, market-based firms that would specialize in those services. If there were no state to rule over us, that doesn't mean that people would suddenly stop caring about criminal justice and fair settlement of peaceful disputes, etc. I think its a safe bet that police protection, and courts of justice, would still be services in high demand. In a market society, if a given commodity or service is in high demand, then enterprising entrepreneurs will step up to satisfy it. And those who do so in a way which most pleases the most people, are the ones who will be successful, and prosper and grow.

I know the question is probably coming: If there is no institution of "government," then how do the police know what laws they are to enforce? how do courts decide if a person is guilty of a crime or not, if there is no state to determine what is and what is not a crime?

The answer is basically simple. No one has a right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of anyone else. If there is coercive force (or fraud) imposed upon some person(s), or upon the property of some person(s), then a crime has been committed, and the victim of initiatory coercion has a right first to defend themselves and their property, or (after the fact) to retrieve just compensation for the losses imposed upon them.
Private police and courts would do only that which every individual is perfectly within their rights to do individually.
Oh hell, there's a lot involved with these explanations. Maybe it would be easier for you to go to mises.org and look up Rothbard's "For a New Liberty," or "The Ethics of Liberty."

"Rothbard was a great economist, I don't run into many people that have heard of him."

The greatest there's been yet! And it stands to reason that not many people have heard of him. If schools exposed young minds to Rothbard's writings, then it wouldn't take long for a generation to come of age and dismantle the whole rotten system, as it's badly in need of.

Very interesting. Would there be any government at all in what you are discussing? I suppose not.

Sounds like you rank Rothbard above Mises and Hayek? I have not read much of their works yet- for me Tom Woods and Peter Schiff have been more readable, at least as an introduction to Austrian economics.

There would be law. The point is that there's no more legitimate reason for one group of people to have an exclusive monopoly franchise on the establishment and enforcement of law, than there is for one group of people to claim authority to exercise a compulsory monopoly in the field of medical treatment, or auto assembly, or the production and distribution of canned peaches.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it may help if you consider that in a society where the equal rights of all individuals are held as inalienable, there would be no such thing as "lawmaking" (and consequently, no need for, nor any place for, so-called "lawmakers").
This is because in such a society, there is one law only: no person or group of people may initiate force or fraud against the person or property of any others.
Any compulsions or restrictions which a group of people may see fit to impose on others, beyond this one basic, simple law of equal justice, are necessarily void of any authority or obligation. They are just the arbitrary commands and decrees of glorified tyrants, thieves and murderers, calling themselves "government."

To say that one man, or a group of men, have some legitimate claim to authority to compel others to obey the (so-called) laws of their own making, is to say that we have no rights at all; that we are their servants, slaves, and pawns.

re Rothbard; There's very few writers who I personally put in the same league as Rothbard. Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, and Herbert Spencer come to mind. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is a great book, but I have an entire bookcase full of works by Murray Rothbard that I would recommend in its place anyday.
As far as economics goes, Mises and Hayek were both top-notch. But Rothbard was also a great teacher of economics.
Mises' Human Action doesn't exactly digest well, if you ask me. But Rothbard's Man, Economy, & State lays out the entire body of praxeological science in a way that's easy to take in and understand.
In all honesty, I could hardly put it down. It made learning and grasping economics so easy, I became fascinated and couldn't get enough.

I guess you just have to read it, and you'll see what I mean. There are a lot of good smaller, more introductory-type works out there; you can find dozens at mises.org, read the e-books for free and all. But nothing compares to Rothbard's masterpiece, even for beginners.

You've got me curious, I may have to get a copy of Man, Economy, & State. Thanks.