Can a Government Function Without Leaders or Elections? Debunking Libertarian Ideals

Libertarianism posits an ideal where government's role is minimal, with some adherents even advocating for the abolition of government altogether. This essay delves into the idea of a government without leaders or elections, drawing on historical instances, economic theories, and practical scenarios to argue against this radical view.

Historical Context and Economic Backing

The Libertarian ideal often harks back to the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, who famously stated, that government governs best which governs least. This idea suggests that the optimal form of governance is one with minimal interference in the lives of individuals. However, several prominent economists and scholars have contributed to this perspective, providing a solid theoretical foundation.

One such influential figure is Murray Rothbard, a proponent of Anarcho-Capitalism and a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Another key figure is F.A. Hayek, the Nobel Economics Laureate, whose seminal work, The Road to Serfdom, discusses the dangers of expansive government. Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand, two more prominent figures, also support this view, with Mises even going so far as to call Rand the most intelligent man he ever met. Even Allan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, who was a disciple of Rand, aligns with this perspective, showing that this is not merely a fringe idea but one with substantial intellectual backing.

The Role of Leaders and Decision-Making

The notion of a government without leaders or elections is fundamentally flawed when examined through the lens of practical governance. While it may seem ideal to have one's life run by oneself, the reality suggests that a collective might make better decisions for individuals. The assumption that a group could make optimal decisions for an individual is a core tenet of libertarian thought.

Moreover, in recent history, various instances highlight the necessity of leadership and elected officials in governmental functions. For instance, during the final years of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who exhibited signs of cognitive decline starting in 1983, it was Nancy Reagan and Howard Baker who effectively managed the country. Similarly, during the tenure of George W. Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney effectively acted as the de facto leader, highlighting the dependence on figures beyond the formal structure.

Practical Examples: Bureaucrats and Anarchy

While it could be argued that most government officials are inept, the reality is that actual governance is often conducted by bureaucrats rather than elected officials. This raises the question: does a government without leaders or elections lead to effective governance or chaos?

The answer is unequivocally no. Without designated leaders, the government would be unable to function effectively. Leadership is essential for making critical decisions, setting policies, and ensuring the smooth functioning of state operations. The alternative, anarchy, would be essentially the breakdown of order and governance.

Take the Swiss government as an example. It operates under a system where a supreme council, internally elected by the winning party, oversees the government for a one-year term in a four-year cycle. While this system may seem to suggest a leadership role, the presence of a rotating senior council still points to the necessity of someone taking up the mantle of leadership to navigate the complex affairs of state.

Conclusion

While the idea of a government without leaders or elections may appeal to those who believe in minimal state intervention, historical examples, economic theories, and practical realities all point to the necessity of leadership and elections for effective governance. The presence of leaders ensures that critical decisions are made, policies are implemented, and the government remains functional, thus avoiding the brink of anarchy.