I once owned a cook book by Jonathan Cainer. It consisted of recipes like, "Open can. Put beans on plate. Serve." and some strange gubbins about how vegetarianism was an affirmation of life. He's a man of many talents! If only he used some of them.

[Raak] You're dismissing Belle Waring's arguments because she uses "libertarian utopia" as a tongue-in-cheek description of the kind of society that Epstein, Barnett and Friedman are discussing. But leave that phrase aside if you like: I think her one paragraph synopses of their arguments is pretty close to the money.

As an economist, I am sympathetic to the view that we should encourage the value-creating possibilities of private contracting between individuals, and as a social liberal, I am sympathetic to the view that we should limit government intrusion into private decisions. Those are positions that loosely ally with libertarianism. But I am also aware that, in the real world, private transactions frequently have significant consequences beyond the transactors, and libertarian arguments start crumbling rapidly one you take this seriously. (Epstein recognizes this in his contribution, and so ends up advocating a form of state that is not really that different from what we already have; he would simply like to see less government regulation.) The key paragraph from Belle Waring's argument is surely this, though:

Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?

I am completely with her here: it is at this point that I think libertarianism utterly loses touch with reality. Private contracting without some institution to enforce contracts is infeasible, and private provision of contract enforcement strikes me as much scarier than enforcement by a democratically elected government. (Perhaps that's what comes of visiting countries where ordinary restaurants are guarded by men with sub-machine guns.)

Oh, and you are completely misreading Brad DeLong. He is not saying that Smith, Hume, Hobbes, et al. couldn't imagine a world without government; he is saying the exact opposite. He is saying that they know it to be a crazy idea because they can imagine it all too well.

I haven't thought about this too much, or read any of the references (hmmm - pursuing as ever the highest standards of academic rigour...). However my immediate reaction to the concept of "no government" is a feeling that such a thing would in fact be unstable. For without government, it is surely then impossible to have an army. Without an army, you leave yourself open to invasion from a power that does have an army, and you're back to having a government. If there were no governments, as there once weren't, a nucleation event would surely propagate. Or am I being too simplistic?

[CdM] On the last point, I don't think I am misreading: the hypothetical responses of Smith et al are those of people unable to imagine the alternatives. (As a digression, I would not be surprised -- except by my living so long -- to see in a century's time the relationship of "employment" being regarded as as degrading as "keeping a servant" is regarded by many people today.)
       Having just read the Reason article that Belle Waring had such fun with, her summary of Friedman is way off. There is no wishful thinking in Friedman. Speculation, certainly. Waring is speculating as well, speculating about a world in which the governmental restraints on people that we see around us are absent, but ignoring all of the proposals for what might replace them. Let's wish for no-one to have a pony!
       The fundamental problem of having a government to secure public goods is this: how do you restrict the government to doing only that? Looking around at the world, it seems clear to me that nobody has found a solution to that problem. The thing that governments are most effective at is securing and extending their own power.
       [rab] The idea is that there are other institutions instead, ones that do not take the form of a small group of people (elected or otherwise) telling everyone else what to do. As you point out, the original state of institutionless nature was in fact followed by governments.

[Raak] How do you restrict anyone to securing public goods? Whether they are government in name or (part of) government by fact? Constitutions, bills of rights, checks and balances all seem like a good start to me.