What is the proper roll of the “state”? What are the distinctions from the federal, state, and local level–if any?
This interesting excerpt from Murray N. Rothbard, “The Ethics of Liberty,” gives a fundamental view of government from a libertarian, free market perspective. I thought this discussion relevant to many of the others that have been posted in the recent weeks concerning liberty and the state:
Lets keep this discussion/argument civil.
~lift
A civil discussion? What a challenge!! 
The state, by its very definition, is legalized power of coersion. It must therefore attract those individuals who seek to assert power of others, like bees to nectar. Over time, the state MUST become totalitarian.
Our Founding Fathers understood this and tried to put together in 1787 a state that would not do this. They probably knew such would fail, because they were trying to go against the very definition of a state.
So, we have a choice: leave civilisation entirely or accept the fact that we are subjects, whether we get to vote or not. (Of course, where possible, we should try to emigrate to those places in which repression and coersion are minimal, such as in the United States.)
Eventually though, we’ll have a global state and attempting to flee means they’ll simply hunt you down. 'Tis the nature of the ‘Beast’.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
A civil discussion? What a challenge!!
The state, by its very definition, is legalized power of coersion. It must therefore attract those individuals who seek to assert power of others, like bees to nectar. Over time, the state MUST become totalitarian.
…
So, we have a choice: leave civilisation entirely or accept the fact that we are subjects, whether we get to vote or not.
[/quote]
I am starting to understand this more and more from observation of both the present and past–which begs the question: is mankind capable of defying these “natural” tendencies?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am starting to understand this more and more from observation of both the present and past–which begs the question: is mankind capable of defying these “natural” tendencies?
[/quote]
Only when mankind casts off it’s need for want.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am starting to understand this more and more from observation of both the present and past–which begs the question: is mankind capable of defying these “natural” tendencies?
[/quote]
I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum, but it does not “beg the question.” It raises or prompts the question. To beg the question is a logical fallacy.
Maybe it prompts with a whiny, needy voice?
I didn’t read the entire piece yet, but I can see that Rothbard assumes that a person acting under his own volition is something to be desired. He takes that as axiomatic. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) This brings into play several other axioms.
Deductive logic in political philosophy!
This will be a cool read!
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum, but it does not “beg the question.” It raises or prompts the question. To beg the question is a logical fallacy. [/quote]
Every forum needs its pedant. I think it’s very noble of you to take on the job!
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum[/quote]
So then don’t be “that guy”. It is a logical fallacy to state you don’t want to be “that guy” and then go and be him…?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
nephorm wrote:
I hate to be “that guy” on the internet forum
So then don’t be “that guy”. It is a logical fallacy to state you don’t want to be “that guy” and then go and be him…?[/quote]
No, just very annoying.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So then don’t be “that guy”. It is a logical fallacy to state you don’t want to be “that guy” and then go and be him…?[/quote]
If I weren’t, how would you learn?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So then don’t be “that guy”. It is a logical fallacy to state you don’t want to be “that guy” and then go and be him…?
If I weren’t, how would you learn?
[/quote]
Well, it is a logical fallacy to assume that you are the only person capable of teaching grammar which begs the question…are you?
Is there a logical fallacy there…? Its only a logical fallacy when an assumption is made.
Do you have an opinion about the article or just here to correct grammar, usage and spelling?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you have an opinion about the article or just here to correct grammar, usage and spelling?[/quote]
It could be edited for brevity?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So then don’t be “that guy”. It is a logical fallacy to state you don’t want to be “that guy” and then go and be him…?
If I weren’t, how would you learn?
;-)[/quote]
A common statement from my students is: “Why are we doing this?” or “When will I ever use this in life?”
By then, I’ve usually memorized parents’ names — so my response is: “Well, told me to make your life a living hell. So, I’m just doing what they want.” or “No, you’ll never use this in life. I just want to torment you.”
Gets a good laugh every time.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you have an opinion about the article or just here to correct grammar, usage and spelling?
It could be edited for brevity?
[/quote]
Edited? Its already an “excerpt”…for the slow readers.
I really have no qualms whatsoever about being “that guy”, so I’ll go ahead and attempt to veer the conversation back toward the original topic, thusly:
From the article:
[quote]It would be an instructive exercise for the skeptical reader to try to frame a definition of taxation which does not also include theft. Like the robber, the State demands money at the equivalent of gunpoint; if the taxpayer refuses to pay his assets are seized by force, and if he should resist such depredation, he will be arrested or shot if he should continue to resist.
[/quote]
This is a crucial point: Money is Power. The more of our assets we are willing to relinquish to the State, the more Power we should expect that State to exert over our lives.
If the government is so pervasive as to be able to affect the lives of everyone within it’s borders, it can claim that all those people stand to gain from the State’s benevolence. Thus the State can justify taxing the individual’s income and every single transaction they make. It does fit the definition of theft since there is no way to opt out of said taxation without facing legal consequences (coercion).
Rothbard also comments on the State’s desire to gain a monopoly upon the use of force. I think this is particularly relevant today when there is a quiet struggle to make voters feel like they must frequently choose between Security and Liberty. This struggle is obvious within the debates over gun control, public surveillance, and the War on Terror. The latter two are greatly affected by the fact that we perceive ourselves to be up against an enemy from which only the State can protect us, so we should defer to it’s judgement at every opportunity.
If individuals increased their own self-reliance, and gained more understanding and trust for their neighbors and their communities, perhaps they would be less willing to accept some of the State’s “benefits”, which might make them re-think how much of their hard-earned money can reasonably be requisitioned by said State.
This of course is a threat to the Power of the State, and must be avoided at all cost.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Do you have an opinion about the article or just here to correct grammar, usage and spelling?
It could be edited for brevity?
Edited? Its already an “excerpt”…for the slow readers.[/quote]
It could use more pictures.
Ok, I’ll try and be serious.
I think that in our Western societies, we tend to worry too much about the state, and not enough about large corporations.
Ultimately, most people involved in making decisions for “The State” are elected and can be replaced and/or dismissed when they overreach too badly.
Corporations, on the other hand, wield enormous power over populations and are directly accountable to no one; at the very least, not directly to the people over which they hold power. They often have far more influence over the elected officials, through various means, than any citizen group.
Here’s the same argument, edited for brevity:
Big government = bad.
Big corporations = worse.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Big government = bad.
Big corporations = worse.
[/quote]
big corporate interests + big government = death of liberty
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Is there a logical fallacy there…? Its only a logical fallacy when an assumption is made.
Do you have an opinion about the article or just here to correct grammar, usage and spelling?
[/quote]
I think you need to take a deep breath.
Exhale.
With regard to Rothbard, it grows tiring to read set after set of strawman arguments being “refuted” with free-market economics. The polis (I won’t go so far as to say “state”) is necessary because human beings are political animals that desire to live together.
At the point where we make this decision - whether as an intentional break with nature or a further realization of our selves as species - we rely on some mechanism through which to attain common goals.
In homogeneous societies, government is best as organization; a way of giving form to the matter of debate, and of crafting the will of the people into a single voice. One might say that government, or administration, would be that which is necessary to determine the general will.
But as the state grows larger, we tend to become heterogeneous. It is inevitable. Size confers certain conveniences, certain advantages that are very compelling. And if what then becomes the state seeks to organize this activity, and direct it towards ends (for it must be directed), then how might we maintain that, even through a free market system, we would be able to direct it ourselves?
The state has as one of its few redeeming features the ability to decide upon a direction, raise the sails, and pursue it until it has exhausted its powers. In a republic, we help determine the extent and longevity of that power.
Libertarianism, especially academic libertarianism, ignores that there are differences between human beings, and that oftentimes we need specialists to do a job. It ignores that human beings are notoriously obtuse and shortsighted, and that we often must have what is best for us demonstrated or proven through experimentation.
Libertarianism rejects hundreds of years of social contract theory, and embraces a very strange notion: that somehow, a collection of one or two hundred million individuals, spread out over vast expanses of land, all with differing levels of interest in local and national policy, will be able to agree with something enough that a free market would actually be able to solve something.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Libertarianism rejects hundreds of years of social contract theory, and embraces a very strange notion: that somehow, a collection of one or two hundred million individuals, spread out over vast expanses of land, all with differing levels of interest in local and national policy, will be able to agree with something enough that a free market would actually be able to solve something.[/quote]
But what is the “State” (er…polis) but an institution for festering bureaucratic inefficiency? I will go as far to say the State is nothing more than a notion of infinite regulation–which requires taxation to enforce. In fact, the only thing the State can do is regulate. I fail to see how regulation corrects human error.
In a free society all we need is a means to seek reparations for being hurt (having our productivity hindered) or to enforce contracts. In essence, voluntary contracts as well as a means to enforce them (courts) are all that are needed–and even they can be free from a State-run monopoly.
Under absolute libertarian ideals the free market can solve everything. Humans have a self interest in survival (a biological imperative) which requires maximizing efficiency and specialization. Due to the natural law of diminishing returns (conservation of energy) this becomes even more apparent; especially as human populations become larger. The state does not provide any of those requirements–in fact, it is the antithesis of them.