“Politics in all its variants, particularly the politics of political parties, is the archenemy of freedom, prosperity, and peace. Yet wherever one looks, more government is invoked as the solution.”—Antony P. Mueller, “Is Anarcho-Capitalism Viable”
People are supposed to exercise eternal vigilance to keep themselves free. How does one exercise vigilance when the entity in question can pretty much do what it wants and can back its actions with superior force? How does one exercise vigilance when nature requires him to spend his time supporting his life and the lives of those he chooses to support? How does one exercise vigilance in defending freedom when most people today would rather be the subject of a state than be free?
It is a formidable task that has little in the way of a promising future.
Imagine how life is for people in Ukraine or Gaza or Iran—or anywhere else where bombs are falling or missiles striking. Borrowing from Hobbes, you might describe their lives as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” but you’d be immediately faced with another problem. Hobbes was describing what life would be like in the absence of a state. People suffering the consequences of war are suffering at the hands of states.
Is life one vast contradiction that can only be resolved at one’s death? Is that one of the appeals of religion, that it replaces suffering with peace and good will in the afterlife? Or is it possible people still on earth can find a way to live peacefully with one another without a state?
If it is possible then anyone looking to persuade others of this position will find resistance everywhere he turns. And not just from warmongers.
More moderate positions on the state’s necessity come from thinkers who self-identify as libertarians, who promote peace, prosperity, and freedom but also claim none of it is possible without a sovereign authority to establish and enforce laws. They argue for limited government—keep the state but limit its functions to those needed to protect the Declaration’s inalienable rights.
It’s intellectually easy to criticize the state as it exists today, rather than the idea of the state itself, here understood in Oppenheimer’s sense as a predator of the producing class. Taxation is theft, inflation is deceptive theft, conscription is kidnapping—each established libertarian positions, and all attributable to the state’s aim of increasing its power. Do away with these and others, such as a standing army, and we will arrive at a version of the state that satisfies libertarians because it’s the best we can hope for. Their axiom: We will always have states. Libertarians want them as small as possible.
But even this version is alien. States grow. It’s in their nature. Their purpose is to provide security. There are always more and better ways to secure. For the state, security comes at a cost of imposing restrictions on freedom. People can turn to private security firms but they operate under state permission. If the security sought is that provided by sound money, the whole industrialized world opposes it. Fiat money, best understood as legal counterfeiting, grows the state, not sound money.
How does a state get away with growing? Usually, in response to a crisis. What is government for if not to fix or alleviate it, as FDR allegedly accomplished with his New Deal? Isn’t that how security is understood? It will require government expansion but most people are led to believe it’s worth it. Besides, under a fiat monetary regime, such as most states have, the hit on its subjects’ net worth will be mostly hidden until much later, a result of the Cantillon effect, at which time there will be market actors to blame, not the government.
Instead of demanding a flat sum immediately such as a sales tax imposes, the state has an ingenious theft installment plan of which most people are unaware. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee has as policy an innocent-sounding target of a 2 percent inflation rate, translated as a 2 percent hit on the purchasing power of the dollar that is achieved by creating money ex nihilo—out of nothing, like a child playing make believe, only these children are considered the best and the brightest so are obliged to do it in a very circuitous way by adjusting something called the federal funds rate. Fed monetary inflation is sometimes augmented with higher taxes on the rich that slides down to the middle and lower classes who are mostly puzzled at this outcome. As for the benefit of state expansion, the combination of welfare and warfare has worked every time. At home it helps the “needy” often on the basis of their support for the current regime, abroad it devastates lives and destroys critical infrastructure to impose political ideals on people who don’t want them, always with the threat of blowback.
All this is how the state provides protection to ensure the freedom and well-being of its subjects. For this difficult task it claims a legal monopoly on the use of force. Monopoly defined:
A situation, by legal privilege or other agreement, in which solely one party (company, cartel etc.) exclusively provides a particular product or service, dominating that market and generally exerting powerful control over it.
The “particular product or service” a state allegedly provides is protection of your status as a human being. Did you vote to be under rule by a state? No. Did you vote for the particular constitutional state now in effect? No, your ancestors did. The Constitutional US replaced the Articles US by means of a quiet coup d’etat. Pro-Constitution delegates in 1787 argued that their purpose was “to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union [i.e., the State]” which they claimed justified ditching the Articles. In their view, an adequate government required a monopoly central state with the power to tax.
Americans have always inveighed against monopolies, usually without making a distinction between coercive and non-coercive monopolies. Problems emerge when coercive monopolies have the force of law behind them.
In the late 19th century, for example, voluntary cartel agreements couldn’t establish the market control big business wanted so they turned to the state, the mother of all coercive monopolies, to get the legal advantages they wanted.
Always, the legal establishment of monopolies that began with the creation of the federal government was done under the moral umbrella of the public interest. The Constitution’s preamble gives it away, that it was created by “We the People . . . to promote the general Welfare . . .” A person genuinely concerned with the general welfare of the country would not agree to assign that task to the state, the historical record of which is anything but a promoter of its subjects’ welfare.
The idea of eternal vigilance suggests the task of keeping the state in line, of keeping it from overstepping its boundaries. But ask yourself: what boundaries does a nuclear superpower have today? We would be far more effective in elaborating the raw essence of any state and its threat not just to our freedom but to our lives.
