FlyoverPress.com

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would

wish unknown to the whole world." Thomas Jefferson

The concepts expressed on this web site are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997 as applying to the Internet.


HOME


Support FlyoverPress

Donate


Click Here to Puruse the old Flyover-press

Subscribe to our Daily Blog


The Essence of Libety



Please Click ton Ab

 

 

Liberty knows no compromise


A Condensed Version of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

Compiled by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Chapter 3: The State

The State as Aggressor

Central to libertarianism is the opposition to any and all aggression against property rights. But, there is nothing unique about that since almost everyone opposes random violence against persons and property. However, there is a difference in emphasis. In the libertarian society there would be no "district attorney." The victim would decide whether to press charges without having to convince the district attorney that he should. The emphasis would never be on "society's" jailing the criminal. Instead, the emphasis would be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim. This would be in contrast to the present system where the victim is not recompensed and also pays taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker. Logically, this is nonsense.

On the other hand, libertarians would not interfere with a person's right to be a pacifist. For example, if Jones is a pacifist and objects to defending himself by violence (and is therefore opposed to the prosecution of crime), then he would simply not prosecute. There would be no government mechanism for the trial of criminals against the wishes of the victim.

Libertarians regard a ll States everywhere as the ultimate organized aggressor against persons and property. The State is always considered above the general moral law. Service to the State is used to justify actions that would be immoral or criminal if committed by "private" individuals. To cover its crimes, the State cloaks its activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For example: mass murder is called "war," enslavement is called "conscription," and robbery is called "taxation." The State need not be thought of as anything more than a band of organized criminals.

There are two crucial distinctions between government and all other organizations. First, all other persons or groups receive their income by voluntary payment. Only government obtains revenue by coercion and violence in the form of a threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Second, only government uses its revenue to commit violence against its own or the subjects of any other government. Only government aggresses against property rights in order to extract revenue in order to, in turn, impose its moral code or to kill people with whom it disagrees.

The absence of any check upon State depredation is another reason why State aggression is more important than private. There is no one to protect us against the State itself. The State holds the compulsory monopoly on protective services—e.g. a virtual monopoly of violence and ultimate decision-making. There is no other agency to which one can turn.

The uS constitution supposedly imposes limits on government. But, the constitution must be interpreted by men and these men (the Supreme Court) are the government's own. The much touted "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" are, in reality, very flimsy. The reason is simple. They are all divisions of the same government and controlled by the same rulers.

John C. Calhoun warned of the inherent tendency of a State to exceed any limits of a written constitution. Assuming that any constitutional provision aimed at limiting power will be sufficient to prevent the dominant party from abusing its power is a large mistake. The minor (the party that would be in favor of the restrictions) would simply be overpowered.

Further, we are told that, in a "democracy," “ we” are the government." However, the collective term "we" is nothing but camouflage. If we are the government, then anything the government does is “voluntary,” just and not tyrannical. For example, claiming nonchalantly that “we owe it to ourselves” conveniently obscures a huge public debt. Following this line of reasoning, the Jews that were murdered by the Nazis were not murdered. So, they must have "committed suicide." There is no logical way out of such grotesque conclusions for those who view the State as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.

So "we" are not the government and it does not "represent" the people. Furthermore, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the other 10%, it would still be murder and slavery. There is nothing sacred about a majority. Crime is crime, aggression is aggression.

The normal condition of the State is oligarchic rule by a coercive elite that has gained control of its machinery. This is for two reasons.

The first is the inherent inequality and division of labor found in the nature of man. This gives rise to an "Iron Law of Oligarchy." Individuals differ in ability in all walks of life. This vast natural diversity within mankind flowers as civilization progress. As the process proceeds, leadership will be assumed by a handful of the most able in each field of endeavor. This “Iron Law of Oligarchy” is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the “natural aristocracy.”

A second basic reason for the oligarchic rule of the State is its parasitic nature. It lives coercively off of the citizenry. The fruits of parasitic exploitation must be confined to a minority. Otherwise no one would be able to gain anything from it. Franz Oppenheimer identified the only two means of obtaining wealth. One is production and voluntary exchange, which he called the "economic means." The other is robbery by violence. This one he called the "political means." It is parasitic in that it requires previous production. In addition, it subtracts from (instead of adding to) total production of society. The State is the "organization of the political means."

On the one hand, private crime is sporadic and uncertain and resistance of the victim can cut the parasitic lifeline. On the other, the existence of the State provides for legal, orderly and systematic predation. Thus its parasitic lifeline is certain, secure, and "peaceful." Albert Jay Nock put it this way: "The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime…It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants…"

At first it may be startling for some to hear taxation referred to as robbery (and therefore government as a band of robbers). But anyone can easily envision what would happen if he should choose not to pay.

Hans Kelsen attempted to “scientifically” justify the State but came to a sticking point. What , exactly is it that makes the edicts of the State different from the commands of a criminal gang? His only answer was to simply claim that the decrees of the State are "valid." By necessity, he did this without bothering to define "validity." A useful exercise for doubters would be to ponder a way taxation could be defined which would make it different from robbery.

Lysander Spooner likened government to a highwayman. They both demand, "Your money, or your life." But he went on to point out a significant difference. The highwayman takes total responsibility for the danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim or that he intends to use your money for your benefit. He is too sensible to profess to be your "protector." In addition, after he takes your money, he leaves you alone and does not persist in following and "protecting" you by robbing you of more money. He does not brand you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy and shoot you down if you dispute his authority. He is too much of a gentleman to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The plunderers who constitute the ruling elite come in two forms: 1) the full-time apparatus— politicians, bureaucrats, etc and 2) groups who have gained special privileges, subsidies, and benefits. John C. Calhoun saw that the very nature of government creates two unequal and conflicting classes: those that pay the taxes (the "tax-payers") and those that live off taxes (the "tax-consumers")—and the greater the scope of government, the greater its fiscal burdens, the greater the artificial inequality between these two classes. Thus, every tax increase enriches and strengthens the one while impoverishing and weakening the other.

How has this oligarchic group of predators been able to maintain their rule over the masses? David Hume had the answer: In the long run every government depends on the support of the majority. Of course, this does not mean that these governments are "voluntary." M ajority support does not have to be eager and enthusiastic. It only needs to be passive acquiescence and resignation.

Now, by necessity, tax-consumers are a minority (parasites can not outnumber their hosts). So, how can compliance and acquiescence of the masses be insured? Why do the bulk of the government's subjects accept such a situation? These questions are answered in the next section of this chapter.

The State and the Intellectuals

If, by necessity, tax-consumers are a minority, how can compliance and acquiescence of the masses be insured?  The State's rulers have always turned to society's intellectuals for the answer to that question. The masses have always passively followed the ideas promulgated by these molders of societal opinion, which is precisely what the State needs. The intellectuals spread the idea that the State and its rulers are wise and good. In return, the State incorporates them into the ruling elite and grants them “power, status, prestige, and material security.”

Before the modern era, it was the priestly caste that filled this role for the State. “The State "established" the Church and conferred upon it power, prestige, and wealth extracted from its subjects. In return, the Church anointed the State with divine sanction…”

In the modern era, the intellectuals pose as scientific "experts" and convince the public that political affairs are just too complex for the average person to understand. Only the State and its “experts” can deal with such complex problems.

One of the most effective weapons the State and its intellectuals use to convince their subjects to accept their rule is the power of tradition. The longer the rule of any State lasts, the more powerful this weapon becomes. Worship of one's ancestors is an apparent means for cultivating worship of one's ancestral rulers.

Another powerful weapon is for the State to deprecate the individual and exalt the collective society. Furthermore, it will use ridicule to nip any new critical or potentially dangerous idea in the bud.

It is important for the State to make its rule seem inevitable so it will then be met with the passive resignation. One method it uses is to employ “historical determinism” so as to convince its subjects that nothing that any puny individuals can do will change the inevitable. Furthermore, it is important for the State to instill in its subjects an aversion to any “conspiracy theory of history" because that involves a search for motives and individual responsibility for the misdeeds of ruling elites. As long as the masses can be convinced that any tyranny is the result of mysterious "social forces," they will see no point in rising up against the ruling elites. In relation, discrediting anything resembling "economic determinism" serves to render the masses more susceptible to believing the "general welfare" excuses that the State invariably puts forth for its aggressive actions. Thus, the rule of the State is made to seem inevitable.

Furthermore, the State induces terror or dread of the chaos that would “surely” follow if it should disappear. The people could not possibly protect themselves from the criminals and marauders that would certainly appear.

Furthermore, State has instilled fear among its subjects of other States. The basic tactics for accomplishing this is to identify itself with the territory it governs. Men naturally love their homeland. So if that land and its population can be identified with the State, the resulting natural patriotism will work to the State's advantage. In this way, a war between rulers is converted into a war between peoples with both sides holding the mistaken belief that the rulers are dutifully defending them. This device of nationalism has been particularly successful in recent centuries. (Editor's Note: And it continues to be successful today. “Our” boys are fighting for “our” freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Another technique employed by the State is the infusion of guilt. It attacks any increase in private well-being as "unconscionable greed" and mutually beneficial exchanges is denounced as "selfish." The conclusion is always the same—more resources should be siphoned into the parasitic "public" sector. The State often admonishes its subjects to make "sacrifices" for the common good. But somehow those sacrifices are always one way.

Such arguments reflect a double standard of morality. One standard applies to State rulers while another applies to everyone else. No one is surprised that businessmen seek higher profits. But if anyone dare assert that politicians and bureaucrats are motivated by the desire to maximize their incomes, he is generally labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" or "economic determinist." The general opinion is that men enter politics or government purely out of devoted concern for the common good. This is the general opinion because it is carefully cultivated by the State itself. To reveal politicians and bureaucrats subject to the same monetary motivations as everyone else would strip the emperor of his clothes of pretentious concern for the common good.

There are two types of arguments used by the State to "engineer consent." The first is that rule is inevitable, necessary, and far better than any other alternative and the second is that the rulers are great, wise, and altruistic.

In modern times, the stress is not so much on divine approval as it is rule by "scientific experts." Modern day use of scientific jargon permits intellectuals to weave apologia for the State that rivals priest-craft in deliberate obscurity. For example, a thief who justifies theft by saying that he is actually helping his victims by spending the stolen money would be hooted down. But, when this same theory is dressed up in Keynesian mathematical equations and the "multiplier effect," it is effective in bamboozling the public.

So, it is clear why the State needs the intellectuals. But why do intellectuals need the State? The primary reason is that their livelihood in the free market would not be very secure. Generally, the masses are not interested in intellectual concerns. But the State offers a secure income and prestige.

This has been the dominant condition throughout the history of civilization. Wherever the State controls all property, everyone is economically dependent on it and it is therefore difficult for criticism to arise. However, not all intellectuals have been "court intellectuals" but critics have only been able to operate from an independent property base. Therefore, the exceptions have been mostly in Western civilization—e.g. with its independent sources of property and employment critics have been able to flourish only in the West.

With decentralized power and freedom, the economic development in Western Europe exceeded all previous civilizations. Furthermore, the Germanic (and especially the Celtic) tribes had a strong libertarian elements. Instead of through a State apparatus, disputes were solved by consulting tribal elders on customary and common law. Furthermore, there was no permanent war or military bureaucracy.

When a State did originate, it was not typically through voluntary "social contract." Instead, it was by conquest of one tribe by another. At first, the conquerors killed, looted and rode on. But at some point in time they saw that it would be more profitable to settle down among the conquered in order to rule and loot them systematically and permanently.

Conquering chieftains distributed the land to various warlords who then collected feudal "rents" from the peasants. The conquered people were frequently enserfed to the land to provide a continuing source of labor to be exploited by the feudal lords. The periodic tribute they extracted came to be called "taxes."

There are a few examples of the birth of a modern State through conquest. One is the Spanish conquest of the Indian peasantry in Latin America . Another is the new political form imposed upon the Saxons after they were conquest by the Normans in 1066. The most poignant creation of a State through conquest was the destruction of the society of ancient Ireland by England in the 17 th century. The libertarian society of Ireland lasted a thousand years. It was able to resist conquest because of the absence of a State which could be conquered and then used to rule over the native population.

Throughout the history of the West, intellectuals have formulated theories that would check and limit State power. However, each State has used its own intellectuals to turn those ideas around into further legitimations of their own power. For example, the "divine right of kings" was originally promoted by the Church to limit State power. But, the kings were able to turn the concept into the notion that God put his stamp of approval on their actions. In the same way, parliamentary democracy originated as a popular check on the absolute rule of the monarch but has since been turned into a sanctioning mechanism for expanding State power.

The most ambitious attempt in history to impose limits on the State was the uS Constitution and Bill of Rights. These written limits were supposed to be interpreted by a judiciary independent of the other branches. But in the end, the State's own judicial monopoly has extensively broadened State power. The State was able to transform judicial review from a limiting device into a powerful instrument for establishing legitimacy.

Professor Charles Black pointed out that “what is needed to establish ‘legitimacy' of government is a method by which the government can assure the public that its expanding powers are indeed ‘constitutional.' And this has been the major historic function of judicial review …The supreme risk [to the government] is that of disaffection and a feeling of outrage widely disseminated throughout the population, and loss of moral authority…This danger is averted by the State's propounding the doctrine that some one agency must have the ultimate decision on constitutionality, and that this agency must be part of the federal government itself.”

In short, the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus (being appointed by the executive and legislative branches). Thus, the government has set itself up as a judge in its own case—a serious violation of basic juridical principle.

Apply this view of the Supreme Court to the New Deal. The Supreme Court, without a single change in the law, “ placed the affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the New Deal, and on the whole new conception of government in America .” As a result, “ there is no longer any significant or dangerous public doubt as to the constitutional power of Congress to deal as it does with the national economy.”

The Constitution has not limited government. To the contrary, it has been an instrument for ratifying the expansion of State power. Calhoun saw it clearly—“any written limits that leave it to government to interpret its own powers are bound to be interpreted as sanctions for expanding and not binding those powers.” The libertarian solution is to abolish such a monopoly government completely.

It is an instructive exercise to suppose we are starting our society from scratch and begin with a debate on how protection (police and judicial services) will be provided. Some suggest that we give all of our weapons to Joe Jones and let him, and his family, decide all disputes among us and protect us all aggression or fraud. The Joneses would have all the power to make ultimate decisions and we would allow them to obtain their income by using their weapons and by exacting as much revenue by coercion as they desire. It is starkly evident that there is no way we can protect ourselves from the Joneses. And Rothbard concludes: “It is only because we have become accustomed over thousands of years to the existence of the State that we now give precisely this kind of absurd answer to the problem of social protection and defense.”

Continue to the next chapter...


*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.


Visit our Book Store


Support FlyoverPress

Visit Our Advertisers


Email for Advertising Rates

Use the link or send an email to: adinfo@flyover-press.com


 

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.