Limited government: An incoherent concept

Abstract Advocates of limited government argue that the role of government should be limited to preventing the use of coercion in exchanges and stopping people from harming others. They believe that government should not seek to change the distribution of wealth from that arising through voluntary exchange nor to influence the preferences people hold. But this view proves to be self‐contradictory or incoherent. In order to define coercion and permissible harm, governments must make enormous numbers of determinations about how people are entitled to behave. These determinations, in addition to demanding extensive government activity, will also have important effects on the distribution of wealth and the preferences people hold.