Do You Hate the State?

[green73]

The great economist and libertarian, Murray Rothbard, in July 1977 wrote an important essay, Do You Hate the State?

In the essay, he said:

There runs through [my book] 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.

The Noble laureate economist Friedrich Hayek, before Rothbard's essay, warned us about the state in his book, The Road to Serfdom, especially Chapter 10, which he appropriately titled, "Why the Worst Get on Top."

And I urge anyone, who is not convinced that government can become the ultimate in evil, to read R.J. Rummel's Death By Government. I consider this book to be the most important book ever written, for the person who wants to understand historical examples of how evil governments can become.There is quite simply no force on earth as evil as government can be. Rummel's book drives home this point in a manner that will never, ever leave you. The book will change you.

That the United States has not, yet, become a source of widespread domestic killing may be nothing but historical accident. As the state grows in power, and it is growing rapidly in the United States, the trip wire, that could trigger great domestic evil, is moved ever closer. And before we get to that dangerous trip wire, other freedoms are slowly being taken away from us, one by one--now almost on a daily basis.

And that is why it is important to shrink the power and capabilities of government, always and in every manner.

It is because government, by definition, always suffocates freedom and creativity, and may ultimately turn into a great killer. This is why government is so dangerous.

As Rothbard put it:

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.

But Rothbard also warned:

[T]he 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.

cont.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...rand-paul.html

[Christian Liberty]

I hate the State. Though in many ways, I feel more like a radical minarchist and a "moderate" an-cap. I am not sure how an-cap could be implemented without substantially changing the minds of people.

I don't care how long it takes. If we could completely eliminate the State within a year, I'd be for that. But without social change via education, someone will just create another State. Until then, the best you can do is at least try to elect someone like Ron Paul, but that will take social change to.

I don't expect politicians to be "radical" in the Rothbardian sense, it would be nice if they were, but I don't think its a strict requirement. I think the bare minimum is that they actually want government to be smaller, rather than just slowing down the increase.

[green73]

I hate the State. Though in many ways, I feel more like a radical minarchist and a "moderate" an-cap. I am not sure how an-cap could be implemented without substantially changing the minds of people.

Maybe think about early Christian and what they were up against, for a parallel. All that matters is what's in your heart.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

I think the "state" will always appear to some degree depending upon how you define it.

Personally I'm not against "government" as a concept, I'm against super huge governments reigning over millions of square miles, with a 1000 men deciding for 300 million people spread over a continent, that is a cruel joke.

So, I'm an Anarchist in the sense, I think people should have the right to form their own communities, and decide on what rules or no rules they want in their area. I'm not crazy enough to believe their could exist a place where no rules exist for long, even in families rules exist, stick two people in a car and some rules will evolve to determine who gets to select what gets played on the radio, for how long, the driving shifts, etc..... I'm against this blanket rule set, play pretend game that we are a nation of common beliefs and values, we aren't, never have been, and never will be. I think drinking is retarded, I think gambling is retarded, I think seat belt laws are stupid, I think personal income taxes are dumb. I think all kinds of things are dumb and useless, it'd be nice if I could go to a community that had the same values, I don't see why that is such an issue, and everyone has to be forced into this little square holes, I don't want to be a square, i want to be a circle. Why is that such a big freaking problem.

Anyway, I'm pro dissolution of all nation states that exist on the planet. I'm pro small communities making up their own rules based on their values. If you want to live in a theocracy knock yourself out, more power to ya. If you want to live in sex, drugs, and rock n roll land go for it. If you want to live in the green hippy communist commune, have fun with it.

Do what you want just stay out of the community I would join, if you can't follow the rules while there. I don't see how this is hard.

[Ronin Truth]

Does Satan still rule the Earth?

[William Tell]

Rothbard wisely supported Pat Buchanan. Funny to see Wenzel try to twist Rothbard to his anti Rand Paul purposes. Murray Rothbard would without a doubt back Rand Paul.

[osan]

I think the "state" will always appear to some degree depending upon how you define it.

Well in that case, yes. I could define "the state" as being my kitchen sink, which does not help us very much.

Barring outrageously modified definitions, "the state" is a naught but a conceptual entity whose existence is nowhere but within the confines of people's skulls. In other words, it is in reality nothing of its own existence. It is an idea. In a more practical vein, it is a script, the roles of which are doled out to each mewling infant as its mother spits him onto the birthing floor and whose lines most most people obediently recite as commanded. Those who do not most often end badly in some way and degree.

It is eminently doubtful that the concept of "the state" could ever be removed from the minds of men, and in fact even if it could, I firmly believe that removing it would be a grave mistake. Its removal would necessitate the removal of all memory of it, leaving the human race ripe for a repeat performance, which they readily and in many cases eagerly do in any event.

What we need to do is to teach people to reject the script, the roles, and the lines they have been bid recite. Reject the concept as wholly unworthy of consideration, but not as the result of the usual methods, but rather for just, proper, and learned cause.

Personally I'm not against "government" as a concept, I'm against super huge governments reigning over millions of square miles, with a 1000 men deciding for 300 million people spread over a continent, that is a cruel joke.

And yet, much as is the case with "the state", "government" is similarly naught but a concept. Why? Because it, too, is a noun, which implies that the label refers to something, which it does. The problem, however, is that most people do not understand that to which the name refers, falsely believing it is a solidly real thing when in fact it is nothing more than mental vapor. The correct term you should seek is "governance". Why? Because the thing to which it refers is real and actual in terms of the actions that fall under its umbrella. It is not an object per sé in this sense, but rather something we do. We govern - primarily ourselves, but others when they fail.

Divorcing oneself from the misconceptions about "government" and "the state" are crucially important to uncovering a more universal human truth. Keeping people from that divorce is a central aim of tyrants, for in this case knowledge constitutes the basis of very real power and for the despots that power must never fall into hands not their own. This is one reason they are so increasingly draconian in the ways they respond to anything falling beyond the limits of their arbitrarily defined orthodoxy. Knowing who you are is, for Themme, the single greatest crime committable and they will stop at essentially nothing to prevent you from discovering the truth. That is why the likes of Joan d'Arc were so mercilessly put to the stake. Her silence was mandated and for the rest, terror at the spectacle of another human being burned alive by an intolerant and unforgiving "state".

I think people should have the right to form their own communities

They do. What they most often do not have is the power to pull it off in the face of a tyrant turned scarlet with rage at such an affront to his supremacy. While a fundamental right is always extant, we sadly see that the power to exercise it is often absent.

I'm pro small communities making up their own rules based on their values.

I hope you see the potential problems inherent to this.

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe think about early Christian and what they were up against, for a parallel. All that matters is what's in your heart.

I'd love to see the entire State fail to exist. That said, I'll support libertarians for political office ALL THE WHILE trying to teach people that the State is a bad idea.

Rothbard wisely supported Pat Buchanan. Funny to see Wenzel try to twist Rothbard to his anti Rand Paul purposes. Murray Rothbard would without a doubt back Rand Paul.

I agree. Rothbard was more pragmatist than I am, actually. I do support Rand Paul, but would not have supported George Bush.