Mises Daily

Home | Library | Abolish the State?

Abolish the State?

April 15, 1999

Anarcho-Capitalism Attacked!

I have just read the text of a lecture on the British welfare
state delivered last night by Peter Lilley, who is the Deputy
Leader of the Conservative Party. It is a remarkable document
that confirms everything I have always suspected about Mr
Lilley's intelligence and commitment to principle. Let me
quote from his lecture:

"For fifty years we have expanded, improved and
poured public money into the welfare services.

"Yet we have been strangely shy to admit that we were
doing so....

"I believe it is because many Conservatives have come to
assume that the primary or even only role of Conservatism
is the application and extension of the free market

"Conservatives can and must become the champions of better
public services.

"Only the anarcho-capitalists, a little known sect of whom
there are probably only a handful at liberty, believe the
model of autonomous individuals interacting by voluntary
exchange without the intervention of the state can be
applied to every aspect of human affairs.

"Their attempts to apply this market model to defense
[sic], law, policing, planning etc. provide intellectual
amusement to those who like to see people address an
impossible challenge.

"But no-one else is convinced that such tasks can be
undertaken other than by the state.

"Certainly no Tory, feels in the least uncomfortable about
supporting the role of the state in defence, law and
order, and protecting the environment.

"We should be equally willing to accept that the state
must play the dominant role in ensuring the provision of health, education and welfare."

The Conservative Case Against Welfare

This is the definitive break with Thatcherism that we have
been promised for the past few years. The problem is that it
does not seek to advance from the Thatcher revolution of the
1980s, but instead to reverse it. I am almost glad that we
have a Labour Government that - for all its ghastliness in
other respects - has more sense than to spray the public with
drivel like this.

I am not exactly one of the anarcho-capitalists Mr Lilley goes
out of his way to sneer at. But I am deeply hostile to the
notion of state welfare. In the first place, it is a fraud.
For the great majority of people in this country, it involves
taking 10 out of our pockets at one time in our lives and
putting back 7 later on - retaining 3 for administrative
costs. A small minority loses 5 and gets back 5. A smaller
minority loses 20 and takes back nothing. But for most of
us, the money is simply churned and diminished.

In the second place, the costs of running the welfare state
have been made into a mass of sinecures for the lower clerisy
- the kind of people who parrot every statist nonsense they
read in The Guardian and who thereby give a persistently
statist tinge to the whole of pubic opinion, and who provide a
solid constituency for the Labour Party. They are the modern
equivalent of the priesthood - telling us what to believe,
checking on whether we do believe it, and inflicting various
punishments on us for not believing. And they do this with
our own money.

In the third place, state welfare is degrading to the
character of everyone who receives it. By losing
responsibility for our own welfare - and by losing the means
of taking such responsibility because of the burden of taxes
required to fund the system - we grow increasingly childish as
a nation. Millions of people take no thought for the morrow,
because that will be looked after by others. But they do bear
in mind the value of conformity in speech and action to the
prevailing intellectual fashions - the modern excommunication
is to be driven away from the nipple of state welfare.

For these reasons, we would be better off making our own
provision. It would be cheaper. It would be more suited to
our individual needs. It would also mean disestablishing the
worst clerisy this country has had since the Reformation.
Just as the commissioners of Henry VIII ended the idle,
parasitic sway of the monasteries, so we should sack several
hundred thousand social workers and health bureaucrats -
sending them out to more productive careers in telephone

This does not mean immediate abolition. Certainly, the old
have a strong moral claim on our tax money. They have spent
their lives as virtual property of the State. Their choice of
work was limited by regulations. Their incomes were heavily
taxed. What little they did manage to save was eroded by
inflation. They put up with all this on the promise that they
would be looked after in old age. I do not agree with the
modern trend to break this contract. It was a bad contract to
impose on people, but it should now be honoured in full.

Equally, there are many younger people about who are capable in
principle of looking after themselves, but whose habits and
ambitions have been comprehensively warped by welfare so they
have become rather like those battery hens that even cannot
scratch in the dust when finally let out of their boxes. They
need to be helped gently into the light, not pushed into it.

But the commitment should be to dismantle the welfare state.
There is room for disagreement over how to dismantle it.
Nevertheless, the final result of privatised welfare should be
accepted by all but those who directly benefit from the
present system.

The Converson to "Crackpot Realism"

Now the Conservative Party has formally announced that it
adores the present system and would spend even more money on
it if ever returned to power. While he was about it, Mr
Lilley might as well have denounced telecom privatisation and
promised to build another million council flats. It is the
biggest single repudiation in British politics this century -
far more radical than the repudiation of state ownership that
Tony Blair extracted from the Labour Party. No wonder people
like Edward Heath are looking so pleased all of a sudden.

Why this repudiation? Is it because the Conservatives have
suddenly changed their minds? Not so far as I can tell. I
know that Mr Lilley was just recently quoting Murray Rothbard
in private--that is, the most prominent of the anarcho-capitalists--and agreeing with him. As for his denial that
we nurse some nefarious plans to privatise health,
education and almost everything else - when in fact no
such plans have to my knowledge ever been formulated,

I well remember that little else was spoken about by Mr Lilley
when in the last Government.

The reason for the change of message is political opportunism.
The Conservatives think they lost the last election because
people were tired of Thatcherism; so they think they can get
back into power by pretending to love the welfare state.
There is no consideration of principle in this - of how to
advance the public good. These people want power so badly,
they would swim though a sea of filth to get it.

A few
recantations are nothing to them beside the chance of being
back in those nice cars with the red dispatch boxes and the
hushed private secretaries. I can imagine some management
consultant friend of Mr Hague enthusing in front of a flip
chart about "rebranding" and how this can help cast off
"negative associations" in the public mind. The hope seems to
be to occupy some of the ground vacated by Labour in its shift
towards the Thatcher consensus.

But no one but a fool could ever think this will work. The
electors will never believe that the Conservatives really care
about the public sector. Those working in it never will. Mr
Lilley has simply made himself look stupid - and managed to
upset people like me who are seriously wondering if the
Conservative Party is worth regarding as the best opposition
to Labour.

And it is stupid opportunism. It is what Chris R. Tame calls
"crackpot realism" - the belief that success in politics only
comes by holding all regard for principles in public contempt.
It is the cunning of the fool who thinks himself clever. The
simple truth is that what is right in politics is usually what
is the most advantageous; and at least the electors tend totrust people who appear to be sang what they believe.

The way to damage Labour on health and welfare policy is to
keep congratulating it on its conversion to Conservative
policies, and to criticise only by explaining that the it
could move still faster on its journey to full privatisation.

That would have the twin effect of alienating Labour from its
natural supporters among the clerisy, while making it appear
to be no more than the servant of a Conservative agenda. All
that has now happened is that Labour can safely move into
areas vacated by the Conservatives, claiming those areas as
entirely its own. Rather than box Labour in, the
Conservatives have given it boundless freedom to do whatever
it pleases.

I am told that Anne Widecombe, whose job it is to present
Conservative policy on health and welfare, has rejected Mr
Lilley's speech as an act of madness. She says she is
standing by the old policies of "public-private partnerships"
in health and welfare. Doubtless, other senior Conservatives
will turn on him. On yet another issue where unity would be
so easily achieved, the Party is split.

The real author of this chaos, of course, is William Hague.
He has been Party Leader for almost two years now. In this
time, he has consistently failed to oppose on a single issue
that might bring about a Conservative recovery. He will not
allow a clear and aggressive policy on Europe, or the
Constitution, or on the fact that Tony Blair has no more
independence of will from the Americans in his foreign policy
than the average glove puppet. It would be so easy to damage
this most wretched of Governments.

But Mr Hague's nearest
approach to a strategy seems to involve waiting silent until
Labour destroys itself and then hoping to pick up enough
support to creep into Downing Street. If that really is what
he hopes to do, he can wait until all his hair drops out and
most of his teeth, and Mr Blair will still be Prime Minister....

That Tory politicians might pay some regard to principle is an
expectation I dropped some time around 1987. For a long time
after, though, I continued to believe that opportunism would
point them in generally the right direction in spite of their
lack of principle.

Sometimes, I am very naive.

* * * * *

Sean Gabb edits Free Life Commentary, an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

Follow Mises Institute