[hmkpoker]

One of the most common and arguments against libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is the undeniable positive relation in this world between government and quality of life. In fact, if you were to be randomly assigned a country in this world to live in, you would be very relieved to hear that you were going to a country with a great amount of government rather than less; no one would choose Somalia over Sweden.

The ACists have been quick to explain that "correlation does not imply causation," and that our civilized nations have prospered because the market succeeded in spite of government. This sounds like a very weak, handwaving defense. The evidence is obvious: nations with more government are better, and nations with less government are worse, no matter what a priori deductions they come up with.

The recent online gambling ban provides an excellent example as to why this reasoning is flawed. We are now at a (frightening) point in time where we Americans will now no longer be able to connect to offshore bank accounts and deposit money into poker sites. Another thread suggested that there is a chance that the government will soon require background checks for online dating. These are clear, undeniable examples of the government taking away freedom, taking away choice.

Yet, if you were to compare today's freedoms with the freedoms of, say, 30 years ago, you'll note that back in the seventies people still weren't free to put their money into a poker site, or to connect to other singles on a dating site. Your options included a B&M cardroom and a singles bar; that was it. Even if these legislations are enacted today, we are still able to play freeroll games and bet on certain things like horseracing, and hook up online (albeit with some greater restrictions). There has been a net gain in freedom in these regards since the seventies.

Is the government responsible for this gain? Certainly not. It obviously stood in the way of it; had Frist's and Kyl's parents used protection, our net gain of choice would be greater. Assuming that civilization continues in the manner it's going, 100 years ago we will see a much better quality of life with more useful choices, and more restrictions. Why?

Because a choice must be created before it can be taken away. Markets created choice; governments take them away. That is their job. The government's purpose is to protect us from choice, from the evils of the free market run amok. Markets, on the other hand, are designed to create choice, out of nothing and at no cost to the consumer prior to the voluntary transaction, through pure innovation. A government cannot restrict choice until the market first creates it.

The American Revolution was fought over tax rates that are lower than the tax rates Libertarians are asking for; had the early Americans suffered our tax rates, they would have starved to death. They simply didn't have enough resources to support such phenomenal taxes. Neither does Somalia; tax them at the rate Sweden is taxed, and their economy will be worse than it already is. And when they manage to have a worthwhile quality of life and have some resources that they can actually afford to lose, the statists of that nation will explain why they must sacrifice their economic freedom, and big government will emerge.

So what exactly creates the correlation? Government is indicative of a nation's prosperity; not the cause of it.

Prosperous nations have more freedoms to take away.