The so-called Wild West wasn't--but does that imply a hands off government works?

The essay below was published in a journal on legal issues where it was reviewed by peers in the legal profession. I don't know what the peers had to say about it, except for two peers (professor of law and economics David Friedman, and economics professor Bruce Benson.)

The second most remarkable thing about the article is that the wild west wasn't wild -- it was more law-abiding than big cities on the east coast of the USA.

But the most remarkable thing about the article is that they draw a conclusion relevant to modern life: we could do with shockingly smaller government than we have now and have less chaos that today.

"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application."

The Not So Wild West

Years later the authors went on to write a book on the same issue: The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier. I haven't read it.

Here's part of a review of the book I found on Amazon.com.

---
Mention of the American West usually evokes images of rough and tumble cowboys, ranchers, and outlaws. In contrast, "The Not So Wild, Wild West" casts America’s frontier history in a new framework that emphasizes the creation of institutions, both formal and informal, that facilitated cooperation rather than conflict. Rather than describing the frontier as a place where heroes met villains, this book argues that everyday people helped carve out legal institutions that tamed the West.
---

David