|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllThe StateWritten by Darrell Anderson. Many authors expend much effort trying to explain the drawbacks of the philosophy of statism. Many authors often refer to something called “the state” or the “government.” Unfortunately, the manner in which the phrase “the state” is commonly used is often misleading. The word state can describe three ideas:
Do states evolve naturally or do they appear by design? The ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought states arose because humans are not self-sufficient. People therefore form groups to satisfy individual needs and wants. 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, “the state” was necessary for the highest development of the individual. 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, Aristotle thought social equality should balance that aristocracy, that the form or structure of society must meet the needs of that specific group. Both men nonetheless believed “the state” evolved naturally and should and must exist. The Roman jurist Cicero described “the state” as “a union of the people, associated in an agreement of law and community of interest.” All three philosophers saw no distinction between “the state” and a community of people. Yet, a collective society is not necessarily “the state.” Societies of hunter-gatherers or agrarians typically do not create an entity known as “the state,” although they adopt group living, and sanction and enforce certain rules of behavior. The traditional modern definition of “the state” is similar to those held by Plato and Aristotle. A more thorough 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.[1] Because of those combined social and political attributes, few people distinguish between the social process of government and a political community of people. However, nations and nation-states are not necessarily the same. The natural boundaries inherent in family structures, cultures, religious choices, and ethnicity defines nations. The natural world knows no artificial fiat political boundaries, knows no states, no nation-states. Look at any map and observe the straight lines for so-called territorial boundaries. Government is a natural and normal outgrowth of people forming societies and groups. The process of government can take various forms, but is nothing but a mutual desire to peacefully regulate the everyday actions of people. That process is a collective effort to provide and maintain a predictable and knowable societal order. The process of government does not describe the form or manner in which human behavior is regulated. Is “the state” the same as, or independent of the form or manner of the process of government? Nature knows no systems. With nature, that which is, is. All systems are mere models of human invention that help people understand the universe. Like the word “society,” “the state” is merely a word 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 between the ears. “The state” is not a mystical thing, or a science-fiction blob, but a collection of people. Understanding that “the state” is only a descriptive collection of certain people is critical to understanding the defects of statism — the political means of satisfying needs and wants. “The state” is not an entity or a thing, but merely a label for a system describing a specific collection of individuals — a unique society. The phrase “the state” describes certain characteristics or relationships among humans. “The state” has no “interests” or ability to act. That is not to declare that collectively individuals do not act, create, or provide perceived value, only that specific individuals within that collection actually provide the necessary energy (labor) to act, create, or produce. “The state” is an abstract construct — nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately, many people often reify or personify the phrase “the state” and that is why confusion about “the state” often exists. According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition, 1983), to reify means “to treat (an abstraction) as substantially existing, or as a concrete material object.” People tend to reify as a means of understanding complex systems by analogy. An abstract idea called “society” can be compared to living organisms. Some similarities include:
Yet, as often is the case, analogies fail. At best, language is an imprecise means of communicating ideas. Problems tend to arise when people reify descriptive processes. When people reify they attempt to move the conditional abstract realm of ideas and constructs into the unconditional realm of physical existence — attempting to treat abstract ideas as physical objects. When people reify they hide root causes and tends to open doors to subjectivity rather than objectivity. Being objective means according to a known standard. Nature knows no systems. Therefore, by definition all human “standards” are arbitrary. Deriving those standards is a matter of human action and interaction. Once established, however, those standards provide fixed reference points. For example, the definitions of a second, a gram, and a meter are arbitrarily derived, but nonetheless provide objective standards through which other processes become recognizable and usable. Subjective standards are different. A thermometer provides a distinct indication of the temperature in a room. To say that the temperature in a room is 65°F is an objective statement. However, to declare the room feels cold is a subjective statement. The former statement is true by definition, the latter is true only to a specific individual. Because of the human interpretive process, all decisions made by humans ultimately are subjective, but most people try to use objective standards to help make those decisions. The ability to render contrary decisions despite arguably objective criteria is sometimes called irrational behavior. Once a descriptive process is reified, the process of communicating ideas becomes more difficult because of the human interpretive process. Objectivity is lost. Only humans cause social problems, not reified abstract constructs. Only individuals can harm other individuals — just like the familiar bumper sticker reminding that “guns do not kill people, people kill people.” Likewise, “the state” does not kill or deprive people of property, only specific individuals do. To make generic references to “the state” is misleading. People do not receive letters from the IRS, they receive letters from individuals who believe that stealing under the color of law is acceptable. People do not receive letters from zoning commissions, they receive letters from individuals who support the illusion that they can control and tyrannize other people under the color of law. People of different cultures or ethnicity do not hate, only individuals hate. Using the phrase “the state” is best left to describe only a geographical area. Refer to government when describing the natural and normal process of peaceably regulating human interaction and providing societal order. An easy way to help distinguish your thoughts is to write “the process of government” instead of “government.” If the text makes sense then you are on track. If not, then perhaps you might mean to discuss some variation of the abstract concept known as “the state.” When discussing the process where people use the political means of satisfying needs and wants, a more effective approach is to refer to the actual individuals who cause harm while operating under the illusion and color of law known as statism. Writers should refer to statism, the philosophy of statism, statists, politicians, bureaucrats, officers, agents, tyrants, two-bit tinhorns, thugs, bullies, or thieves, and not “the state.” Writers should avoid using reifications whenever possible. Does doing so mean an extra few words in a sentence? Typically yes, but by doing so writers will notice a distinct change in the tone and context of their arguments. Addressing the true root cause — individual humans — helps to objectively identify the actual problem, avoid confusion, and help communicate ideas. Avoiding reifications also requires opponents to deal with issues at root levels, rather than hide behind mystical and subjective cloaks. That effort also helps you, the writer, to act as a self-empowered individual rather than sound like a whining and embittered slave. Most importantly, by avoiding reifications you do not commit the mistake of dehumanizing people. If you do not want to call yourself a murderer, then simply refer to vague, ambiguous ideas like “the state.” Liberty-minded people should be leaders. Do not reify. Deal with life at the fundamental level — humans. Finis. Next: Anarchy Endnotes [1] Thanks to Dr. Don Beane for this description. |
||