Debunking the State

[Borodog]

In this article I am going to explain the Hobbesian rational for the necessity of states, explain the definition of a state, and illustrate the logical consequences of the existence of states. If you have read anything by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, much of this may sound familiar to you.

I take it as axiomatic that, in general, humans act in self-interested ways (even altruistic actions almost always have self-interested motivations; charity makes the charitable feel better, for example). We are told by the devotees of government that without government, it is the nature of humankind to be at each others' throats. That is, if left to their own devices, human beings will not spend enough on their own protection, leaving them vulnerable to aggression, while others will choose to pursue their own self-interest through aggression, thus becoming the aggressors. That the existence of the latter will tend to minimize the former is often ignored (as aggressors incentivize individuals to spend on their own defense), but for now, let us take this scenario to be true. This is the classical Hobbesian "anarchy" of violent chaos.

Hence it is rationalized that an external party, the State, is required to protect individuals from aggression (i.e. from themselves). The State's task, we are told, is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its "citizens." The State settles disputes between parties, defines and enforcers justice, protects the citizens from internal and external aggression, and taxes the citizenry to provide for these services. This is the justification given to the citenzry regardless of the political structure of the State, be it monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc.

What then, is the definition of State? As Hoppe tells us, the State (Government), is a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making and taxation. That is, the State (through legislation, enforcement, and a judiciary) defines and enforces justice, and tells the citizenry how much they are going to pay for it. This is not a remarkable definition of State or Government; it is widely accepted amongst economists and political theorists.

But . . . who is the State? Is the State made up of some divine race of angels not subject to the human foibles that we are told necessitate its existence in the first place? No. The state is made up of human beings. Since human beings can be counted on to act in self-interested ways, and since the state is the ultimare decision maker, it is easy to see that those self-interested human beings in Government will twist the definition of justice and the level of taxation to their own benefit. Hence, the life, liberty, and property of the governed will be under ever encroaching assault from those supposedly tasked with protecting the same. Eventually then, all states must collapse economically. Since the production of wealth depends on strong property rights (which Government acts to assault), disincentive to produce will eventually reign (why produce something if you are uncertain you will be able to keep the wealth you have earned?), and the economy must implode.

This is exactly the scenario that exists in all States, regardless of their political structure. Western-style democracy must implode in exactly the way that Eastern-block communism imploded over a decade ago. Communism simply imploded first because of the relatively smaller extent of property rights. However, the continuous assault on property rights in the Western Democracies will eventually lead them to the same end.

Are these then the only two alternatives? Violent chaos or the cyclic rise and collapse of parasitic States that destroy life, liberty, property, and economies?

Not at all. Recall at the outset that we said that the existence of aggressors (and surely they will ALWAYS exist) will incentivize individuals to spend on defense. In turn, strong defense acts as a disincentive to aggression. The central Hobbesian tenet that left to their own devices individuals will in general not spend enough on their own defense is simply false. Individuals already spend on the private provision of their security in far more effective ways than the state does. A man with little more to protect than the clothes on his back and the money in his wallet may carry a $20 revolver. A man with a home and family to protect may have a handgun in the house, a Rottweiler, a security system, and his homeowner's insurance policy. A man with much more to protect installs a safe and security cameras. If he has even more to protect, he may build his home in a gated community and hire armed guards. In other words, individuals tend to insure themselves against aggression in proportion to the value they place on their property and the level of threat they perceive. It is precisely when Government convinces people that it is not their responsibility to provide for their own security that violent aggression tends to increase, since of course the State can never have enough resources to take responsibility for all the people they have convinced to behave irresponsibly. This is why all government programs are constantly in a state of "chronic underfunding."

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Eventually then, all states must collapse economically. Since the production of wealth depends on strong property rights (which Government acts to assault), disincentive to produce will eventually reign (why produce something if you are uncertain you will be able to keep the wealth you have earned?), and the economy must implode.

[/ QUOTE ]

There doesn't seem to be much historical evidence for this contention at all. In many ways, a common attribute of the best performing capitalist economies in the last 150 years is that they have had stronger states than other countries. Not more interventionist, which is another issue, but stronger in the sense that they have been able to maintain the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, been able to extract resources from the population, and been able to enforce contracts.

In fact, there are no examples of modern economies that have succeeded in the longish term without a state capable of these functions. Nor are there any examples of state collapse among the advanced countries. So I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this argument.

[Borodog]

They are stronger precisely because they are less interventionist. However, as I have shown, the nature of States is to become ever more interventionist, with ever expanding attacks on property rights. Since property rights are the foundation of a strong economy, as property rights erode, so do economies.

Furthermore, that there are no examples of robust modern economies operating in the absence of a state does not show that robust modern economies cannot exist in the absence of a state. I invite you to try to show that they can't.

And if there are no examples of state collapse among advanced countries, what then was the Soviet Union?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
They are stronger precisely because they are less interventionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that follows at all if you look at the historical record. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a correllation, much less a causal relationship.

[ QUOTE ]
However, as I have shown, the nature of States is to become ever more interventionist, with ever expanding attacks on property rights. Since property rights are the foundation of a strong economy, as property rights erode, so do economies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made a deductive argument. But to actually "show" something about the nature of states, you must present evidence. Anybody can make an argument without evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, that there are no examples of robust modern economies operating in the absence of a state does not show that robust modern economies cannot exist in the absence of a state. I invite you to try to show that they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is of course the case that we cannot know for sure what is and is not possible. All we can do is make inferences based on evidence. That a successful modern economy has never existed in the absence of a strong state is an important piece of evidence for the idea that a strong state may be a necessary condition for economic success.

[ QUOTE ]
And if there are no examples of state collapse among advanced countries, what then was the Soviet Union?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Russian state did not collapse during the Soviet era. The regime changed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They are stronger precisely because they are less interventionist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that follows at all if you look at the historical record. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of a correllation, much less a causal relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you are joking. Are you seriously claiming that there is no correlation between magnitude of state intervention and economic health?



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as I have shown, the nature of States is to become ever more interventionist, with ever expanding attacks on property rights. Since property rights are the foundation of a strong economy, as property rights erode, so do economies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've made a deductive argument. But to actually "show" something about the nature of states, you must present evidence. Anybody can make an argument without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no I don't. I don't need to repeatedly make measurements and analyze data to prove to myself that 2+2=4. Once I have shown it deductively from agreed upon axioms, I'm done. If you'd like to dispute the axioms I've used, or the logic, be my guest.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, that there are no examples of robust modern economies operating in the absence of a state does not show that robust modern economies cannot exist in the absence of a state. I invite you to try to show that they can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is of course the case that we cannot know for sure what is and is not possible. All we can do is make inferences based on evidence. That a successful modern economy has never existed in the absence of a strong state is an important piece of evidence for the idea that a strong state may be a necessary condition for economic success.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. Until 1903, no powered heavier-than-air machine had ever flown. That was not "an important piece of evidence for the idea that powered heavier-than-air machines cannot fly."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if there are no examples of state collapse among advanced countries, what then was the Soviet Union?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Russian state did not collapse during the Soviet era. The regime changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the regime change?

[The Don]

Well put. Your explaination of the nature of the state is the reason why minarchist libertarian/conservative ideology is utopian, not anarchist. The state--no matter how carefully crafted (the Framers of the US Constitution, in my opinion, made a noble attempt)--will always swell out of control because you cannot give self-interested humans "legitimate" power of others. That is why the US has gone from Jeffersonian to Rooseveltian.

[Borodog]

Thanks. Your linking of public choice theory in the other thread was quite timely. I wish that I'd incorporated some of the terminology into my earlier thesis. Brilliant stuff, and I have to admit, completely new to me. "Rational Ignorance." Absolutely brilliant.

[XxGodJrxX]

You say that you are reaching these conclusions logically, but you are not. You are merely picking them out of the air.

You say that governments, as a rule, work to intervene in life, liberty, and property, and as a result, decrease and eliminate those rights. Where did you get this from? I do not see any proof or evidence that this is the case. History has shown that the exact OPPOSITE has happened. Look at the governmental regimes of a thousand years ago, and compare them to the emergence of liberalism. I think it is hard to say that governments work to intervene more in property rights when they have, in fact, intervened less as time has progressed.

Second of all, you say that economies will necessarily collapse as a result of government. If that were true, then there would be a Soviet-style decline in the economy of all governments. In the short-term, there may be falls in the economy, but in the long-term, the economy has steadily risen. Why would you say that the economies must collapse, when there is no downward motion attributed to property rights? I am assuming you are using the Soviet Union as the inspiration of an economy collapsing because of a decrease in property rights, but a decrease in property rights is not the only reason that Communism failed, yet you assume it is.

Third, you make the assumption that just because government is not around, that everybody would be able to keep their rights to life, liberty, and property. The reason that it would not work is right in your own example. One poor man has a $20 revolver, a richer man has a bunch of guns, a rotweiller, etc. Instead of the government encroaching on the poor man's rights, it would be the rich man instead, since he has many more resources to do so. You say that governments lead to increase in violence because the government cannot possibly defend everybody. Along the same lines, in a state of anarchy, I say violence will increase, since all of the people cannot possibly defend themselves.

This is also making the big assumption that everybody will be able to afford guns. Once guns become so important to protect ourselves, the price of guns will skyrocket. Most people will not be able to afford guns. What would happen then? They will beg those people with guns to protect them. Surprise, a governmental instiution has just resurfaced.

Just think about it. There was once anarchy, and now there are governments. They had to have come from somewhere, and they must have fulfilled some need at the time. If governments disappear, then it logically follows that whatever problem there was during anarchy, that required governments, will resurface.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you are joking. Are you seriously claiming that there is no correlation between magnitude of state intervention and economic health?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understood you to be asserting a causal relationship between the strength of the state and its level of intervention in the economy.

There is of course a relationship between state interventionism and economic health, but not a straight forward one by any means. Nobody is advocating a command economy. But the majority of examples of modern economic success have been accomplished with pretty active states.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need to repeatedly make measurements and analyze data to prove to myself that 2+2=4. Once I have shown it deductively from agreed upon axioms, I'm done. If you'd like to dispute the axioms I've used, or the logic, be my guest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can do whatever you like to "prove" these things to yourself. People who take this stuff seriously and do it for a living, however, have long decided that this kind of intellectual inquiry has to be grounded in empirics.

[ QUOTE ]

And why did the regime change?

[/ QUOTE ]

A combination of important factors, none of which were the collapse of the state.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]

You say that you are reaching these conclusions logically, but you are not. You are merely picking them out of the air.

You say that governments, as a rule, work to intervene in life, liberty, and property, and as a result, decrease and eliminate those rights. Where did you get this from? I do not see any proof or evidence that this is the case. History has shown that the exact OPPOSITE has happened. Look at the governmental regimes of a thousand years ago, and compare them to the emergence of liberalism. I think it is hard to say that governments work to intervene more in property rights when they have, in fact, intervened less as time has progressed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... Let’s compare America in 1900 vs. 1950. The emergence of the welfare state, the militant state, the Federal Reserve, and the adoption of Keynesian economics all took place during this time period. And you think that the protection of property rights actually improved? I seriously cannot tell whether or not you are trolling here...

[ QUOTE ]

Second of all, you say that economies will necessarily collapse as a result of government. If that were true, then there would be a Soviet-style decline in the economy of all governments. In the short-term, there may be falls in the economy, but in the long-term, the economy has steadily risen. Why would you say that the economies must collapse, when there is no downward motion attributed to property rights? I am assuming you are using the Soviet Union as the inspiration of an economy collapsing because of a decrease in property rights, but a decrease in property rights is not the only reason that Communism failed, yet you assume it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, it would be naive of you not to see the destruction of property rights in the modern US. See my response above.

Second, what are these magical other reasons (the non-property rights ones) you are referring to for the Soviet Union’s collapse?

[ QUOTE ]

Third, you make the assumption that just because government is not around, that everybody would be able to keep their rights to life, liberty, and property. The reason that it would not work is right in your own example. One poor man has a $20 revolver, a richer man has a bunch of guns, a rotweiller, etc. Instead of the government encroaching on the poor man's rights, it would be the rich man instead, since he has many more resources to do so. You say that governments lead to increase in violence because the government cannot possibly defend everybody. Along the same lines, in a state of anarchy, I say violence will increase, since all of the people cannot possibly defend themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

The rich man could do this, but it would be unprofitable for him to do so since he would undoubtedly face prosecution for his aggression. People will not tolerate this because by doing so, they themselves may be subject to similar aggression – thus they will demand protection. As in every thread, you are again making the mistake of conflating law and government.

In modern statism, the government prevents people from defending themselves with gun regulations and the like. Moreover, law enforcement is inherently less efficient because it is concerned with arbitrary crimes such as drug offenses, illegal gambling, etc...

[ QUOTE ]

This is also making the big assumption that everybody will be able to afford guns. Once guns become so important to protect ourselves, the price of guns will skyrocket. Most people will not be able to afford guns. What would happen then? They will beg those people with guns to protect them. Surprise, a governmental instiution has just resurfaced.


[/ QUOTE ]

The market for guns is inherently inefficient precisely because they are essentially a black market item due to state regulations; thus their price is driven up artificially. I find it hard to believe that in a society free of “legitimate” coercion that people could fail to afford protection relative to their needs. Take a look at the status quo – people are forced to pay a ton of money for less personalized, more inefficient protection. You think that people would be worse off without these handicaps?

[ QUOTE ]

Just think about it. There was once anarchy, and now there are governments. They had to have come from somewhere, and they must have fulfilled some need at the time. If governments disappear, then it logically follows that whatever problem there was during anarchy, that required governments, will resurface.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just think about it. In the Soviet Union, there was monarchy, then there was totalitarianism. It must have come from somewhere, it must have fulfilled some need at the time. If monarchy disappears, then it logically follows that whatever problem there was during monarchy, that required totalitarianism, will resurface.