So, in your view, is the State inevitable because even natural elites will ultimately exert coercive control over any market-based system of adjudication?
Discussion
In Elite Theory, a “state” is inevitable. Depending on how you setup your state it would hopefully be security forces you control to the ends you intend.
But in the absence of your security forces providing direction, someone will give cause for that security state to exist. Without explicit direction they’ll align around black markets and help facilitate them. Myanmar is a great example here.
If black markets are prohibited, they’ll legitimately work to funnel money from A to B regardless. People will get around the rules if it’s financially worth it for them.
“The state” isnt inevitable. But someone controlling business flows is. Sometimes we get to decide who that is; sometimes we don’t.
That’s the hard part; when do you accept it, and when do you hang them?!
But if you recognise their right to do it; you’d better have an answer for hangings because the lack thereof got us here
I’d push back a bit on “the state is inevitable.” Elites are inevitable—people who coordinate resources, influence flows of trade, and maintain order in some sphere. But “the state” is a specific thing: a monopoly on law and enforcement backed by coercion, insulated from competition.
What you’re describing—someone controlling business flows—doesn’t have to be a state in the political sense. In a free order, those flows could be managed by competing firms, insurers, or defense agencies, all constrained by reputation and the ability of customers to walk away. The difference is between natural elites (earned influence, voluntary dealings) and political elites (imposed influence, involuntary dealings).
Black markets are just markets where the state says, “we forbid this”—but if the good or service is valued enough, people will find ways to trade. The question isn’t whether someone will facilitate the flow—it’s whether they do it under competitive discipline or with monopoly power.
As for “when do you accept it and when do you hang them?”—in a truly voluntary order, you don’t need gallows to keep elites in check; you need the freedom to exit their service. That’s the ultimate discipline. The moment you can’t walk away is the moment you’re no longer dealing with a market elite—you’re under a state, whether it flies a flag or not.
Yes and if elites are inevitable, then it follows that inevitably they will organise themselves to (A) protect their elite status and (B) benefit from their elite status.
Thus the distinction you draw between natural and political elites is kind of arbitrary. They are elite in comparison to others in the community who look up to them/defer to them/acknowledge their authority. So if one community member does that voluntarily and another party does not, in practical terms it makes no difference - you can ignore the Godfather’s edict and his authority the same as you can be a sovcit and deny the cops authority; you’re still flesh and bone and that bullet won’t discriminate.
Anyway I think you’d find that book interesting, just to pull together some concepts about how elites are going to act regardless of voluntary associations or not.
Fair point—any elite, natural or political, will work to protect and expand its position. The distinction I’m making isn’t about motives but about tools. A mafia boss and a police chief both have guns, but only one can tax you by law and outlaw his competition. That legal monopoly is what makes political elites far harder to dislodge. The danger is when voluntary elites gain so much control that “exit” stops being a real option—at that point, they’ve effectively become a state.
I'll look more into your recommendation. Thanks for this exchange 🤙