PDA

View Full Version : The Only Question That Matters




powerofreason
07-12-2009, 09:14 PM
Classical liberal. Constitutionalist. Minarchist. Anarchist. Can we work together to achieve more liberty?


Do You Hate the State?

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.

Lets see how divided are we really?

Do you hate the State?

Brassmouth
07-12-2009, 09:36 PM
This will be interesting.

Steeleye
07-12-2009, 09:40 PM
Can we work together to achieve more liberty?

We must.

eduardo89
07-12-2009, 10:24 PM
We must.

Fight for liberty or shut up and turn into a slave

Dreamofunity
07-12-2009, 11:41 PM
Indeed, I do; I must.

Pauls' Revere
07-13-2009, 12:03 AM
The more I learn of the abuse of government toward people the more I depise the state. I also ask myself this questions each day:

Does government really need to be involed with (fill in the blank), does it have the authority to do so? If it does should it?

I look around the city in which I live and realize most things could be run by private enterprise. Trash collection, water service, electric, road repair, etc... yeah I have come to the realization that the state is useless thus it must find ways to create a dependency upon it to "justify" it's exsistance. Once people realize we are better off without it the sooner we all will be.

Andrew-Austin
07-13-2009, 12:21 AM
One of the primary differences between these ideological groups, is their stance on how much government coercion should be tolerated in theory.

If we were to just assign numerical values to the amount of government coercion each group would tolerate it would look something like this:

Ancaps: 0
Minarchists: 10
Constitutionalists: 15
Classical liberals: 20

Now lets put our current dilemma in perspective by assigning a value to the amount of government coercion that is actually going on today:

Current status quo totalitarian wet dream: 10,000


Given that all of these ideological factions would like to dramatically reduce the amount of coercion from this insanely high number, I think the answer to the poll should be obvious.

Kludge
07-13-2009, 12:29 AM
Ancaps: 0
Minarchists: 10
Constitutionalists: 15
Classical liberals: 20

Current status quo totalitarian wet dream: 10,000

Why did you exclude anarchists? Now your numbering system must include negatives.

Pauls' Revere
07-13-2009, 12:59 AM
Book: Our Enemy The State

http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html

Thanks T.W.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 08:30 AM
30-7. So far so good.

Theocrat
07-13-2009, 09:13 AM
I do not hate the State. The purpose of the State is to punish the wicked and praise the righteous through protection of God-given rights such as life, liberty, and property. It's not the State's fault that we have the problems addressed by so many anarchists. Rather, it is the people involved in the State who do not understand the philosophical and legal jurisdictions by which the State is supposed to function. In other words, certain people are ignorant about the proper role of the State in human affairs.

Hating the State for its abuses of power is like hating steak knives for killing a victim. It's not the knife's fault for the murder. The blame belongs to the person who uses the knife in an improper way. The steak knife was not created to kill people. Though it's a sharp instrument and must be used carefully, the steak knife was made to cut steak. Similarly, the State was not created to control people's lives. It has a very limited but necessary role in society for the reasons I stated above. I don't know how many times that has to be explained to the anarchists on these forums.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 09:20 AM
Used in the way it is now, yes, I hate the State. But instead of dissolving it completely, I want to reduce it tremendously and have a tightly-constrained limited constitutional republic where the state's only purpose is to protect liberty.

acptulsa
07-13-2009, 09:25 AM
I don't know how many times that has to be explained to the anarchists on these forums.

Well, to be honest, it isn't just the anarchists, or just the ancaps, or whatever. Many don't look at that. Yes I do agree that states don't enslave people, people enslave people. Interesting that someone could refuse to blame the gun for enabling the murder, but happily blame the institution for the insane people who run it. Can a thing be good or evil? Or can it just be especially good at enabling either good or evil? In any case, there is a thing and it can be used to advance either. Is it to be blamed?

To look solely at the things humans create and try to seperate them from human nature seems to me to be a good way to get yourself confused.

I know the impulse is to say, this is evil, that is evil--even things, even ideas--in order to keep it from being used against you. That's where support for gun control legislation comes from, after all. And there are things that could be classified that way. Institutionalized slavery, for example; I can't think of a way it could create more good than harm no matter how you did it. But when you get carried away with pronouncing things evil, you tend not to be taken seriously.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 09:47 AM
Well, to be honest, it isn't just the anarchists, or just the ancaps, or whatever. Many don't look at that. Yes I do agree that states don't enslave people, people enslave people. Interesting that someone could refuse to blame the gun for enabling the murder, but happily blame the institution for the insane people who run it. Can a thing be good or evil? Or can it just be especially good at enabling either good or evil? In any case, there is a thing and it can be used to advance either. Is it to be blamed?

To look solely at the things humans create and try to seperate them from human nature seems to me to be a good way to get yourself confused.

I know the impulse is to say, this is evil, that is evil--even things, even ideas--in order to keep it from being used against you. That's where support for gun control legislation comes from, after all. And there are things that could be classified that way. Institutionalized slavery, for example; I can't think of a way it could create more good than harm no matter how you did it. But when you get carried away with pronouncing things evil, you tend not to be taken seriously.

I like to compare the State to the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings story. It is an incredibly powerful thing, but no matter how good of a person you are you cannot do good with it. It will corrupt you, inevitably.

It is in the nature of the State to be run by sociopath criminals. Could it start out being run by people who aren't so bad? Yea possibly. But its only a matter of time before sick freaks that want to control other people gain a foothold on power and begin to work their way up the political ladder. Is it a coincidence that every State in the world is run by lying, thieving, murdering, thugs? No, its not.

MsDoodahs
07-13-2009, 10:07 AM
But its only a matter of time before sick freaks that want to control other people gain a foothold on power

Happens wherever people gather...even online forums!

:eek:

;)

LittleLightShining
07-13-2009, 10:11 AM
Happens wherever people gather...even online forums!

:eek:

;)

hahahaha!

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 04:23 PM
Moar voters! So far so good.

Brassmouth
07-13-2009, 04:33 PM
Hating the State for its abuses of power is like hating steak knives for killing a victim. It's not the knife's fault for the murder. The blame belongs to the person who uses the knife in an improper way.

A clever analogy, but not relevant here.

A steak knife is not an institutionalized monopoly of legal aggression. The State is. By definition, the State is evil and immoral according to every libertarian ethic in the book (http://a3.vox.com/6a00cdf7e3ccde094f00d4141ad8a3685e-500pi).


Moar voters! So far so good.

Eh, those 7 "No" votes scare the hell out of me. People on these forums are pointing guns at me!

paulitics
07-13-2009, 04:38 PM
Of course most on this forum hate the state, esp in its current form. But, it means very little in proving anything greater than the obvious.

I could go on dailykos and ask do you hate corporations, or do you hate laissez fair capitalism? Most would poll yes. It would be unfair for me to make the enormous leap, and then to follow up with. "well, since corporations are evil, certainly you agree they must be abolished."

Kraig
07-13-2009, 04:38 PM
Interesting that someone could refuse to blame the gun for enabling the murder, but happily blame the institution for the insane people who run it. Can a thing be good or evil? Or can it just be especially good at enabling either good or evil? In any case, there is a thing and it can be used to advance either. Is it to be blamed?

When the institution cannot exist without involuntary taking money from people, I blame the ideas the institution was founded on. I don't see the insane people running it as the problem, I see the idea that "they know how to spend my money better than me so they have the right to take it" as the problem. If someone finds a way for it to exist voluntarily, given it's past history I would give it a different name, but if you still want to call it government I don't care.

Theft is an action, not an object. I can't think of a more legitimate application of the word evil than applying it to actions.

Brassmouth
07-13-2009, 04:58 PM
It would be unfair for me to make the enormous leap, and then to follow up with. "well, since corporations are evil, certainly you agree they must be abolished."

Why? If someone thinks corporations are evil, then their only logical option is to advocate that corporations be abolished.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:03 PM
Eh, those 7 "No" votes scare the hell out of me. People on these forums are pointing guns at me!

No, they aren't. In fact, maybe they want a very limited government to protect themselves from you and whatever group of mercenaries you might hire as your enforcer.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:08 PM
When the institution cannot exist without involuntary taking money from people, I blame the ideas the institution was founded on. I don't see the insane people running it as the problem, I see the idea that "they know how to spend my money better than me so they have the right to take it" as the problem. If someone finds a way for it to exist voluntarily, given it's past history I would give it a different name, but if you still want to call it government I don't care.

Theft is an action, not an object. I can't think of a more legitimate application of the word evil than applying it to actions.

Kraig, I don't see many, if anyone, here, who loves government and certainly none who like what our government has become and the unconstitutional roles and power they have taken on.

We all agree that government has to be majorly cut down. We just disagree on probably the last 2 percent.

For me, I'm proud to work alongside anyone, whether it is an ancap, a progressive, a conservative, whomever, to drastically reduce the size and scope of government. I'm thinkin' we can work together a long time, until we are going to have any major disagreements and at that point, we can just go our separate ways. :)

Kraig
07-13-2009, 05:12 PM
No, they aren't. In fact, maybe they want a very limited government to protect themselves from you and whatever group of mercenaries you might hire as your enforcer.

As long as there are not guns pointed at me for that very limited government, which means no taxes, it sounds great to me. :)

paulitics
07-13-2009, 05:13 PM
Why? If someone thinks corporations are evil, then their only logical option is to advocate that corporations be abolished.

No, it isn't. The other option would be to regulate corporations. Getting rid of the corporations would be considered the greater evil for the vast majority who are in the liberal camp, although I am sure there are some radicals who hold onto the notion that communism can work if it is given another chance.

Unfrotunately, the idealists rarely think through the alternative scenario, and are the ones who fall victim to Marx's solely criticising the private sector as being responsible for everything.

Brassmouth
07-13-2009, 05:14 PM
No, they aren't. In fact, maybe they want a very limited government to protect themselves from you and whatever group of mercenaries you might hire as your enforcer.

Protect themselves from those who would enforce my rights?

I assume that would mean disposing of my agents and coercing me to join their Statist society at the point of a gun. Gotcha.

Like I said, they scare the hell outta me...:(

Brassmouth
07-13-2009, 05:15 PM
No, it isn't. The other option would be to regulate corporations. Getting rid of the corporations would be considered the greater evil for the vast majority who are in the liberal camp, although I am sure there are some radicals who hold onto the notion that communism can work if it is given another chance.

Unfrotunately, the idealists rarely think through the alternative scenario, and are the ones who fall victim to Marx's solely criticising the private sector as being responsible for everything.

Regulate evil? Regulated evil is still evil. No self-respecting socialist would ever advocate regulated evil (from their perspective, anyway).

paulitics
07-13-2009, 05:26 PM
Regulate evil? Regulated evil is still evil. No self-respecting socialist would ever advocate regulated evil (from their perspective, anyway).
Why can't it be, if this is exactly what most on the left advocate? Only the narrowminded idealists, who see the world through a prizm created by Marx and Engels, can't see true reality - and that is greed can never be eradicated by the government.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 05:38 PM
Of course most on this forum hate the state, esp in its current form. But, it means very little in proving anything greater than the obvious.

I could go on dailykos and ask do you hate corporations, or do you hate laissez fair capitalism? Most would poll yes. It would be unfair for me to make the enormous leap, and then to follow up with. "well, since corporations are evil, certainly you agree they must be abolished."

Wtf are you talking about? This thread is not about abolishing anything. Its about the ability of anarcho-libertarians and non anarcho-libertarians to work together. Good guess though. :rolleyes:

Fail.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 05:40 PM
Why can't it be, if this is exactly what most on the left advocate? Only the narrowminded idealists, who see the world through a prizm created by Marx and Engels, can't see true reality - and that is greed can never be eradicated by the government.

Greed is good.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:48 PM
As long as there are not guns pointed at me for that very limited government, which means no taxes, it sounds great to me. :)

You are missing the point.

Go back and read what I posted.

Kludge
07-13-2009, 05:49 PM
Greed is good.

Maybe, if your goal is to perpetuate consumerism.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:49 PM
Wtf are you talking about? This thread is not about abolishing anything. Its about the ability of anarcho-libertarians and non anarcho-libertarians to work together. Good guess though. :rolleyes:

Fail.

If one doesn't approve of what government has become, it does not follow that one is an anarchist of ANY flavor.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 05:51 PM
No, they aren't. In fact, maybe they want a very limited government to protect themselves from you and whatever group of mercenaries you might hire as your enforcer.

One can hate the State while (grudgingly) espousing some level of taxation.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:53 PM
Protect themselves from those who would enforce my rights?

I assume that would mean disposing of my agents and coercing me to join their Statist society at the point of a gun. Gotcha.

Like I said, they scare the hell outta me...:(

Nope and likewise, some of us don't want to be coerced into hiring protection squads to protect us from the one that you hire.

LibertyEagle
07-13-2009, 05:56 PM
One can hate the State while (grudgingly) espousing some level of taxation.

Yes. Very grudgingly. To support a very small, extremely limited constitutional government. One that is watched over very vigilantly.

95% of it needs to go, though.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 05:58 PM
Maybe, if your goal is to perpetuate consumerism.

No, that is not my goal. My goal is to maximize the wealth and standard of living of humans. The harder businessmen work to achieve a profit the more the customer gets pleased in the process. And I am of course not saying that greed outside of the marketplace is a good thing. Obviously cutting off support for the largest criminal organization in our society would go a long way towards eliminating that kind of greed.

powerofreason
07-13-2009, 06:01 PM
If one doesn't approve of what government has become, it does not follow that one is an anarchist of ANY flavor.

I never said that.

powerofreason
07-14-2009, 07:58 PM
bump

Brassmouth
07-14-2009, 08:32 PM
Nope and likewise, some of us don't want to be coerced into hiring protection squads to protect us from the one that you hire.

Interesting, you're employing the same "definition" of coercion that my Marxist professor uses to "prove the inferiority of capitalism."

You have no fundamental understanding of market anarchy if what you just typed wasn't a typo or misstatement.