|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 22LeviathanWritten by Darrell Anderson. The state is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frédéric Bastiat, The State As with many animals, humans often use raw acquisition as a means to sustain their energy flows but prefer not to engage directly in that process when conflict is possible. Thus, they often hire other people to perform that act and then invent or use various social and legal conventions to justify their adversarial raw acquisitions. The most common avenue for justifying adversarial raw acquisition is using political systems. Throughout history philosophers, theologians, and lay people have pondered and asked the vexing question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” Other than philosophers only a few individuals ask another seemingly vexing question, “Why is there a state instead of none?” Observing the world reveals much of life pursuing autonomy. All life seems to strive continually for a condition of freedom and liberty of action. Groups and symbiotic relationships exist, but there seems to be no natural principle or law requiring such relationships. Why then, when people overwhelmingly seem to accept straightforward ideas such as “mine and thine,” does “the state” exist when such a social system routinely violates that idea? Why do people believe in “mine and thine” yet willingly ignore that “the state” is a process of force and coercion and not persuasion and cooperation? Why do people sanction adversarial raw acquisition — stealing under the color of law as acceptable and to be condoned — yet do not recognize or admit that such a process violates the concept of “mine and thine”? Although any group of people always will develop principles and rules for peaceful coexistence, some people are not necessarily concerned with mutually beneficial relationships. So why is there “a state” instead of none? What exactly, then, is this thing called the “the state”? Is “the state” merely an abstract construct, independent of the form or process of government? The word state can describe three ideas:[1]
Generally, ancient groups of people placed survival of the group above survival of any individual. As these older communities became more mature and sophisticated, early philosophers believed that individuals should act only in ways that benefited the entire group. Many people seem to accept that the modern state — a political social system — is a part of the natural order. Many reasons are offered to explain “the state,” all revolving around the concept that “the state” is an instrument or tool to:[2]
Do states evolve naturally or do they appear by design? The ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought states arose because humans are not self-sufficient.[3] People therefore form groups to satisfy individual needs and wants, but also to promote their desire to find meaning and purpose in life.[4] People form groups to help satisfy the need for identity and stimulation without excessive sacrifice for security.[5] Plato thought states formed naturally. He thought that states would evolve either intentionally or purposely because collective living benefits individuals. In other words, mutual survival promotes individual survival. Thus, Plato concluded that “the state” was necessary for the highest development of the individual.[6] Plato’s student Aristotle believed likewise that humans were social animals, and that individual survival depended upon mutual survival. Whereas Plato believed in philosopher-rulers — a programmed and highly trained aristocracy,[7] Aristotle thought social equality should balance that aristocracy, that the form or structure of society must meet the needs of that specific group.[8] Both men nonetheless believed “the state” evolved naturally and should and must exist. Many years later the Roman jurist Cicero described “the state” as “a union of the people, associated in an agreement of law and community of interest.”[9] Although there are many ways and reasons that people bond themselves to one another to form groups or nations,[10] the traditional modern definition of “the state” is similar to those held by Plato and Aristotle. A more thorough modern definition might be that “the state” is a social-political entity; offering a means of human control through legislation, enforcement, and adjudication; representing a specific geographical area; consisting of a relatively homogenous collection of people with a common culture and language; and generally recognized as such by other people throughout the world.[11] Like the word “society,” “the state” is merely a symbolic expression describing a complex social system. Like all concepts, “the state” does not exist in the unconditional physical realm of matter and energy, but only in the conditional realm of ideas. As a system, the concept of “the state” represents a specific collection of people defined by its own elements and relational rules. “The state” is not a mystical thing, or a science-fiction blob, but a collection of people. “The state” possesses no consciousness or will.[12] Understanding that “the state” is only a descriptive collection of certain individuals is critical to understanding the philosophy of statism — the political means of sustaining energy flows. In one respect “the state” could describe everybody, but in modern practice “the state” describes a collection of people who use the political means to satisfy self-interests.[13] Because of combined social and political attributes, few individuals today distinguish between the social process of government and the political process called “the state.” Many individuals often confuse a structured process of government with the philosophy of statism. A collection of people is not necessarily “a state.” Societies of hunter-gatherers or herders typically do not create an entity known as “the state,” although they adopt group living and sanction certain boundaries of behavior. Because the concepts of government — fundamental social order — and society coexist and because humans usually prefer to satisfy their happiness with as little effort as possible, the seeds for statism always exist. Statism is a philosophy of attempting to create artificially a privileged social system, a unique subsystem of society attempting to create virtual perpetual motion through the captured labor of other people. Politically created privileges deny the concept of justice because a handful of individuals is allowed to trespass against others under the color of law. Statism is a philosophy of creating a social system of classes, an attempt to create superior and inferior social groups based upon distinctions of rank or property titles.[14] The desire for a formal structure of government is a natural outgrowth of human interaction and is a natural result of wanting to protect self-interests and to benefit everybody mutually. The philosophical and political process of modern statism is an outgrowth of wanting to promote self-interests at the expense of others and to benefit a privileged few. Statists are people who embrace the philosophy of statism, individuals who prefer the political means of sustaining energy flows rather than the economic means. Modern statism is a philosophy promoting class struggles and conflict, and of sanctioning trespass under the color of law. Modern statism is a belief in compulsory association and domination,[15] rather than free association and voluntary exchange. Modern statists consider this system of privileges and denials as applying to everybody, including themselves. Thus, they have no problem extending that process to people who have not provided explicit consent to participate. Many individuals who advocate “limited government” or “constitutional government” often do so within the context of a limited centralized process. Not distinguishing between the philosophy of statism and the concept or process of government creates much confusion. Sociologist Max Weber defined “the state” as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”[16] However, what exactly is “legitimate”?[17] With respect to the concept of statism, Weber’s definition is vague because his definition could apply to any individual protecting knowable boundaries, regardless of who the aggressor or defender might be. Because only each individual can determine when trespass occurs, then every individual possesses standing to force and coercion for self-defense. If the concepts of self, property, and rights have meaning, then all self-defense is legitimate. Thus, if self-defense is a legitimate right then using force to prevent trespass, including physical force, also is a legitimate right. By definition, property titles identify physical boundaries, thereby defining the boundaries of legitimate self-defense. Weber’s definition fails to define “the state.” To avoid this argument some people might add that “the state” does not claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but claims a monopoly as a last resort on the use of force.[18] Yet, such a definition falls short for the same reasons because many modern statists believe they can initiate force and coercion under the color of law. To refine that often-used definition, statists are a collection of people who, with respect to a given arbitrary geographical territory, by fiat, “claim” standing to:
“Legitimate” use of this alleged monopoly is not a concern for modern statists because they believe they can define the word any way they want. Unlike the natural boundaries created through free association and voluntary exchange, statists create boundaries by fiat and an illusion of jurisdiction. The collection of people calling themselves “the state” use the threat of violence to enforce their decisions. Indeed, statists consider themselves the sole source of the “right” to use violence. Explicit consent is meaningless. Many individuals realize that if violence is legitimate in self-defense then statists do not possess a monopoly on violence. Furthermore, if all people are created equal and possess an equal right to survive, then that right to self-defense extends to all people. People realize that if statists claim a monopoly on violence then they are contradicting their own beliefs because by definition, a monopoly voids the concept of being created equal. Actually, everybody still will be “equal” because nobody then possesses the individual right of self-defense. Every type of defense becomes a “group right” possessed by “the state.” Most individuals don’t mind the contradiction because the concept is something they seldom consider. The concept of government merely means social order. Through that process people recognize that each individual may seek his or her own methods of protection through the processes of free association and voluntary exchange. Modern statists deny that option and believe in centralized, arbitrary, and self-serving control. The philosophy of statism is about power and control, not liberty of action. Machiavelli was not concerned with how “the state” came to be or even whether an individual or collection of people could justify their existence as a state, but instead provided a blueprint about how to maintain power and control.[19] Power is the rate at which work is performed and is measure of how fast energy flows. Political power is no different. The political means of satisfying needs and wants is a process of sustaining energy flows through force and coercion. Accumulating political power is a process of increasing the rate at which energy is redirected or redistributed to other people. Observation indicates that Plato and Aristotle were correct about why people form collective associations — that humans lack self-sufficiency. Yet, there is a distinct difference between individuals voluntarily and mutually coexisting collectively and those individuals called “the state.” The former desires to sustain and improve life through cooperation and persuasion, the latter seeks control, force, and coercion. The former seeks to sustain energy flows through production and exchange, the latter through adversarial raw acquisition under the color of law. The philosophy of statism seeks to create virtual perpetual motion through the captured labor of other people. How does the concept of government — a natural outgrowth of any society of people — transform into the philosophy of statism? At what point does a system known as society cease being a voluntary organization and become an instrument of force and coercion and exploitation? Exploitation in a pure sense merely means using something, but in a political sense is the willingness to use force and coercion, and the threat of violence, to satisfy the needs and wants of a privileged few. When do people stop being reciprocating common benefactors and protectors and mutate into trespassers and aggressors — thereby violating their theoretical purpose for being? Like all reified ideas, organizations cannot create or exchange wealth. Only individuals can do so. When individuals do not produce but seek to capture the labor of others, they act only as a conduit to redistribute wealth. That redistribution can be voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, there always will be a natural tension among the participants to see wealth redistributed in a manner that satisfies their definition of happiness while hopefully avoiding or at least minimizing trespass. Many individuals then try to define happiness and trespass globally. Therein lies a dilemma — when trespass occurs then somebody has been deprived of happiness, but the people embracing the philosophy of statism often deny that those trespasses occurred because those acts are sanctioned under the color of law. Statists proclaim their own arbitrary fiat dictatorial law as the “supreme law of the land.” Statism is not a fictitious collective will of “the people” but a combined coercive will of a privileged few with specialized agendas. Because of the desire to live life as efficiently as possible, the political means of existence is a strong magnet of temptation to some individuals. Today, “the state” is an organization of people who obtain their sustenance and wealth through force and coercion rather than voluntary exchange of goods and services. Modern statists survive by demanding sustenance through the threat of incarceration, loss of property, or even loss of life.[20] They seek to sustain their energy flows through virtual perpetual motion, not their own productive labor and voluntary exchange. Although the option always exists of using the direct predatory means of sustaining energy flows, that method creates challenges for many people. Therefore, “the state” comes into existence through a combination of two avenues:
The first method is a process of living under conquest or the fear of conquest. Most people prefer to avoid violence at any cost and therefore tend to accept the lesser of evils and “voluntarily” choose their expropriators. The fear of predatory violence and conquest need not be that of invading hoards of vandals, but simply the intrusion and conquest that occurs when a single individual robs or pillages another. The concept of property is a result of scarcity, fixed locations, and storing wealth and future exchange power. The tendency then is for most people to submit to eloquent orators who claim alleged standing — in exchange for the hope that life might be reasonably quiet and peaceable. People want security and protection while pursuing their happiness. The second reason often is a result of the first reason. As people seek methods of security, a minority of individuals tends to claim to be able to provide protection and remedy against predatory violence. The process of seeking communal security against violence and plunder provides opportunity for specializing in protection. From those opportunities comes the desire to be “compensated” for services rendered. Most individuals prefer quiet and peaceable lives and that desire encourages persuasion and cooperation. Despite the temptations of the political means of sustaining energy flows, only a minority of people throughout history has demonstrated the tendency to use violence to sustain energy flows. Nonetheless, despite the great numbers, most people live in fear of conquest and those few who prefer to live by the political means are quick to take advantage of that fear. The rise of various communal protection schemes gave rise to recognizing the benefits of enslaving other people — the political means of sustaining energy flows. Those individuals who provided protection — whether that protection was provided coercively or contractually, gave rise to positions of status and privilege. All of human history is a result of free will and choice. All societies of people exist by consent. Therefore, the rules of every society — including the legal rules of that specific society — also exists by consent because humans are creatures of free will. Even the most ruthless dictatorship exists by consent.[21] Dictatorships exist because people allow them to. Both a pure contractual voluntary society and the most ruthless dictatorship exist by consent. The great “butcheries” of history — such as through Genghis Khan, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch hunts, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, or Mao Tse-Tung — never could have happened without consenting and willing participants. If other people had refused to participate, the associated deaths would have numbered in the dozens instead of thousands and millions. In the 20th century alone, some people estimate the number of deaths caused by implementing the philosophy of statism is approximately 169 million.[22] That is 4,630 people per day for 100 years. Because statists use force and coercion to obtain title to resources not owned, and do not participate in the voluntary exchange of goods and services, then by definition statists steal. Regardless of form all societies of people exist by consent, therefore many members of a society choose to legitimize this theft. That is not to declare that occasionally statists do not provide useful goods or services or that those who benefit the most perceive otherwise, only that the initial process is flawed. However, statists cannot afford to be called thieves and cannot afford to have people recognize their true nature. Statists expend great effort in justifying their existence and attempting to convince people that in exchange for various forms of extorted property or coerced conscription of services, certain “benefits” and “privileges” are provided — thereby creating the illusion of voluntary exchange and contract. To further justify this image, statists expend a great amount of effort instructing people into believing “the state” exists for the people’s own benefit, that no alternative but statism is possible, and that a “social contract” exists. Statists will use whatever means plausible to keep the majority of people ignorant, including religious teachings[23] and propaganda.[24] Conditioned obedience is necessary to sustain this dominance.[25] Ignorance enhances statism because improperly educated and unaware people are easily misled by those in control.[26] This combined effort of creating an illusion of exchange and misleading people is an effort to implant a belief that the philosophy of statism is legitimate.[27] Obedience is maintained through fear and hope — fear of the powers-that-be, and hope for rewards in this world or beyond.[28] Some individuals call such an operation a “protection racket.” Today, “the state” is a collection of people who use the political means of sustaining energy flows to obtain that to which they have no lawful property title. Although many individuals who “serve” in “the state” mean well, they are nonetheless participating in theft because their sustenance depends upon the involuntary expropriation of property and redistributing wealth. Theft cannot occur without previous production — one cannot steal what does not exist. Because statists only take and redistribute, and never directly produce,[29] statists are a continual drain on the production of a society of people. Creatures that take without producing are more commonly known as predators and parasites. By definition predators and parasites consume and destroy, they do not produce and build.[30] If statists truly produced, they would offer their goods and services through free association and voluntary exchange. They do not do this, instead using compulsory extractions. Thus, statists do not truly produce and only take and redistribute what they extort — creating only an illusion of exchange. Perhaps Plato and Aristotle were correct — that society and “the state” were one and the same. If the concept of government grows out of the concept of society, and members of that society choose to condone theft under color of law, then society and “the state” are one and the same. Perhaps the comic strip character Pogo had the right answer, “We have met the enemy and he is us!” All behaviors, norms, standards, etc., are derived by choice. Common desires give rise to empowerment and the illusion of creating collective “rights” and “authorities.” This illusion drives the philosophy of statism and the social destruction that flows from statism. Trying to establish any theoretical “limited government” that does not honor the concept of explicit consent is ultimately futile. Outside of restitution for trespass, if any degree of force or coercion is allowed in any process of government, then people no longer have a process of government founded upon free association and voluntary exchange, but a state built upon fiat dictatorial law and theft under the color of law. The modern state is little more than a collection of people exercising adversarial raw acquisition and is a collective process of coercively redirecting energy flows. Under such conditions human conflict and violence tends to increase. Finis. Next: Chapter 23 — Political Systems Endnotes [1] Zane, The Story of Law, p. 371. [2] de Jasay, The State, p. 2. [3] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, p. 100. [4] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 30. [5] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 342. [6] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 182. [7] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 182. [8] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 183. [9] Zane, The Story of Law, p. 369. [10] Weber, Essays in Sociology, pp. 171–176. [11] My thanks to Dr. Don Beane for this description. [12] Sumner, What Social Classes Owe, p. 8. [13] Oppenheimer, The State, p. 9. [14] Oppenheimer, The State, p. 4. [15] Weber, Essays in Sociology, p. 82. [16] Weber, Essays in Sociology, p. 78. [17] de Jasay, The State, pp. 73–74. [18] de Jasay, The State, p. 5. [19] Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, written in the 16th century. [20] Rothbard, “The Anatomy of the State.” [21] de La Boétie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. [22] Rummel, Death by Government. [23] Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, p. 151. [24] Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, p. 168. [25] Weber, Essays in Sociology, p. 80. [26] Tannehills, The Market for Liberty, p. 41. [27] Livingston and Thompson, The Consent of the Governed, p. 7. [28] Weber, Essays in Sociology, p. 79. [29] Sumner, What Social Classes Owe, p. 108. [30] Rothbard, “The Anatomy of the State.” |
||