PDA

View Full Version : Do You Hate the State?




Conza88
09-16-2008, 06:08 AM
Do You Hate the State? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html)
by Murray N. Rothbard
[Originally published in The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No.] 7, July 1977.


I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot of attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs. limited government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs. utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as important as these questions are, they don’t really cut to the nub of the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.

Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.

The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.

Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

It should be noted here that many of Milton’s most famous "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income tax, the withholding tax, fiat paper money – are gradual (or even not so gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and hence the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.

His button-pushing position stems from the abolitionist’s deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime and oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic button or any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely as possible. Period.

And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four Year Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing the State. The radical – whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire – cannot think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we’ll cut the income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the second year we’ll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

I despise it, more than anything I've ever known. :)

Truth Warrior
09-16-2008, 06:17 AM
Hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is.<IMHO> ;) :) It seems to me that "hate" still implies involvement.

Pete
09-16-2008, 07:24 AM
This article makes the point that minarchists and anarchists are fellow travelers to a point, so should work together. Not too much argument there.

Re: abolitionism vs. gradualism, I think the gold standard is pragmatic radicalism, and I have some experience with this is real life. Very big cancerous tumors like DHS and most of our foreign policy can be dealt with in a heartbeat. Other functions, the FAA, FDA, and USDA being classic examples, can be set to expire on a certain date agreed to by those who will take up the useful functions, if they want to. If they don't, the public is on notice to make their own plans. Gradualism is usually a cop-out, IMO. In private business, transition plans and such are negotiated settlements to allow the party being ousted to maintain some cash flow while they find something else to do. It doesn't have much place in government except perhaps for phasing out entitlement programs.

Truth Warrior
09-16-2008, 07:50 AM
This article makes the point that minarchists and anarchists are fellow travelers to a point, so should work together. Not too much argument there.

Re: abolitionism vs. gradualism, I think the gold standard is pragmatic radicalism, and I have some experience with this is real life. Very big cancerous tumors like DHS and most of our foreign policy can be dealt with in a heartbeat. Other functions, the FAA, FDA, and USDA being classic examples, can be set to expire on a certain date agreed to by those who will take up the useful functions, if they want to. If they don't, the public is on notice to make their own plans. Gradualism is usually a cop-out, IMO. In private business, transition plans and such are negotiated settlements to allow the party being ousted to maintain some cash flow while they find something else to do. It doesn't have much place in government except perhaps for phasing out entitlement programs.

The differences between the minarchists and the anarchists quickly become moot, as long as the state continues to GROW.<IMHO>

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." -- Bob LeFevre

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

pacelli
09-16-2008, 09:35 AM
How can one hate an artificial entity that does not exist in nature?

Conza88
10-08-2008, 05:24 PM
How can one hate an artificial entity that does not exist in nature?

You can hate what it stands for and represents can't you... :confused: Injustice, coercion, theft? Evil... :eek:

Violation of natural law.

Number19
10-08-2008, 06:34 PM
The question to me is : what does "hate" gain you? What is it's value?

As a "hardcore" libertarian in my youth, I find my position has softened with advancing years. Not in my core beliefs - which remain uncompromised - but in my approach to politics.

To be a hardcore radical means you must also be resigned to living as a statist slave ( if you choose to be active in society ) - for the simple reason that you will never have an impact on the political system. The sole purpose of being involved in the political process is to be elected to political office and to be elected to political office, a libertarian must soften his hardcore edge.

To be a hardcore radical means placing the future of freedom, and liberty, in the political hands of other people who you will not agree with.

To remain ethical and true, the political libertarian should never shy from divulging his core beliefs and where he would like society to ultimately move. And he should never compromise in a direction benefiting the State, but only in a direction which is short of what he wants.

I guess this would make me an "abolitionist" in Rothbard's description.

heavenlyboy34
10-08-2008, 07:07 PM
How can one hate an artificial entity that does not exist in nature?

inasmuch as said entity violates one's legal and natural rights.

Conza88
10-08-2008, 07:20 PM
The question to me is : what does "hate" gain you? What is it's value?

The question to me is: what do you love?

I ultimately hate the state with an intense passion, but it's really what it does & represents that irks me so much. Fundamentally it's not because of the hate, but because of the love I have for truth, justice, property rights + non aggression axiom, and people... that I want to get rid of it. Cure poverty, world hunger, save the environment.. all can be done without the state... hell, especially without it.

mediahasyou
10-08-2008, 07:40 PM
Freedom. now

http://11-05.com

DamianTV
10-09-2008, 02:30 AM
I dont think there even is a state any more. Just puppets. Its so well built that even the puppets think that they pull their own strings. All that exists is the puppets, their masters, and we the serfs.

muzzled dogg
10-09-2008, 05:06 AM
dump the state

revolutionman
10-09-2008, 05:17 AM
The state In my opinion, is a necessary evil. Like an action/adventure movie plot, we the protagonists must team up with our arch enemy The State, in order to fend off the Greater Evils of the World.

No matter how useful and helpful that state is, we need to keep our guns (metaphorical) trained on it, because it should not, and cannot be trusted, lest it destroys us. there is no reluctant handshake and mutual respect exchanged at the end of this film.

Malakai
10-09-2008, 11:48 AM
Lew is such a great writer!

We hate the state!

Original_Intent
10-09-2008, 12:23 PM
Hate is not the opposite of love, indifference is.<IMHO> ;) :) It seems to me that "hate" still implies involvement.

Some say, and I agree that you can only hate what you once loved or admired.
Hate comes from disappointment when expectations are not met.

When I first heard this I disagreed because I hated Bill Clinton at the time and NEVER admired or loved him. but as I looked inward I admitted I DID admire a lot about him - he was definitely a gifted, persuasive speaker - and my hate came from disappointment of the uses he put that gift to.

I don't hate the state per se - but I certainly hate the distortion of what a proper government should be that we currently have.

mediahasyou
10-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Fine, keep your state. But, leave me alone. I hate the state simply because it does not do that.

Follow your leaders. Dont give me yours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

heavenlyboy34
10-09-2008, 04:47 PM
btw, I personally despise the state. The world would be a much finer place without it! :D

Conza88
01-17-2009, 05:37 AM
I cannot put into words, the utter contempt and hatred I have for the leviathan :mad:
And the profound love and exultation I have of Liberty and justice. :)

tremendoustie
01-17-2009, 03:41 PM
I hate violence and coercion. The modern state is the most violent, coercive organization on the planet, so I absolutely do hate it.

Conza88
03-24-2009, 05:02 AM
bump

Truth Warrior
03-24-2009, 05:35 AM
What is the "state", apart from an extension of the, MINORITY of the people, voters will and other ongoing support? :p :rolleyes:

hillbilly123069
03-24-2009, 12:28 PM
I don't hate the state,just the corrupt individuals trying to manipulate it.

Truth Warrior
03-24-2009, 12:34 PM
I don't hate the state,just the corrupt individuals trying to manipulate it.

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

Conza88
04-30-2009, 04:25 AM
I hate the State, just as much as I love the truth, justice and wisdom.

ChaosControl
04-30-2009, 09:44 AM
The state can go to hell. Kill it now.

BuddyRey
04-30-2009, 12:13 PM
State make BuddyRey angry...

BuddyRey want to smash!!!

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/stillsx/2007/06/ferrigno_as_hulk.jpg

heavenlyboy34
04-30-2009, 12:16 PM
State make BuddyRey angry...

BuddyRey want to smash!!!

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/stillsx/2007/06/ferrigno_as_hulk.jpg

:D BuddyRey be funny! :):cool:

Andrew-Austin
04-30-2009, 12:19 PM
State make BuddyRey angry...

BuddyRey want to smash!!!

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/stillsx/2007/06/ferrigno_as_hulk.jpg

Woah, calm down there terrorist.

We're going to have to give a group of people a monopoly on force, in order to protect us from the BuddyRey threat. This guy is just out of control.

andrewh817
04-30-2009, 01:21 PM
More and more I'm seeing that distaste for the government and especially police can establish common grounds in just about anyone. All we need to do is take the next step.

asimplegirl
04-30-2009, 01:27 PM
I am sick every time I think of the state. UGH.

Conza88
08-31-2009, 08:57 PM
Much to learn...

Conza88
09-08-2009, 10:36 PM
Again. Much to learn about strategy.

Conza88
09-14-2009, 02:08 AM
Well do ya punk?