Why Limited Government Inevitably Grows

Since we are in a minority, I don't make it a hobby of arguing with other libertarians, but I feel this is something I must share.

The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property.  Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.

Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value.  This is not entirely accurate.  What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality.  After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer.  (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)

The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does.  "who will protect us from criminals?"  "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...

Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state."  Both people are consumers of anxiety relief.  And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action.  "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security.  Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts.  Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.

 Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source.  The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.

If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state.  An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you.  The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.