So far, I have considered and rejected several autonomy-based defenses of neutralism. But what, next, of the argument that the modern state's power is so vast, and those who wield it so flawed, that no government can be trusted to promote its citizens' good? Unlike arguments that defend neutrality on elevated moral grounds, this one defends it simply as a way of protecting citizens against certain dangers. Neutrality, on this account, is merely a prophylactic device. Yet while the cited dangers clearly are real, and clearly call for protective measures, it is far less obvious that neutrality is the best protection against them. In this chapter, I shall argue that it is not. By relying on other sorts of protection, we can approach nonneutral policies as we do all others, evaluating each one strictly on its merits.

Broadly speaking, the dangers posed by government fall in three main categories.

OPPRESSION

First, any modern state needs vast power. To keep order, to protect citizens from external threats and from each other, and to provide essential services and public goods, a government must have both a (near-)monopoly on force and access to great wealth. But, quite obviously, these resources can also be used in less salutory ways: to suppress dissent, to consolidate and maintain personal power, and to create and sustain unjust patterns of advantage and privilege.