Advocates for liberty confront issue after issue, day after day. This is like shooing angry wasps. The problem is the nest. We can tolerate the nest and continue to be stung, or we can solve the problem.
It is necessary to deal with the problem of the state, and not merely the endless symptoms of its existence. One way to gain perspective is to recognize the absurdity of tolerating the state.
Practical Case for Anarchy
In “The Obviousness of Anarchy” (PDF), John Hasnas writes, “I have been asked to present an argument for anarchy. This is an absurdly easy thing to do. In fact, it is a task that can be discharged in two words — look around.”
Professor Hasnas addresses the “core functions” of government defended by classical liberals. He presents the case that government is not necessary for providing law, courts, police, or other purported public goods, or for dealing with externalities. These services originated outside of government, and continue to be provided privately.
As to national defense, Professor Hasnas points out that, absent government, there will not be a nation; thus there will not be a need for national defense. The real need is defense of people.
He discusses the fact that a significant amount of military spending is not really for defense, but rather for unnecessary wars and other interventions. He explains that the transition to anarchy would be gradual, and as the state wound down, defense “would be one of the last government functions to be de-politicized.” If the transition to anarchy were unsuccessful, the matter of defense would not be reached.
If the transition were successful, the need for defense would gradually decrease. The liberalizing nation would become stronger through economic and technological growth, and through drawing immigrants. The threat to the nation would decline as other nations became more dependent on its goods and services and some nations followed the example of liberalization.
In “Security Means Liberty: Why You Cannot Trade One for the Other,” I focused on two of the services discussed above, the provision of police and defense. The state indeed need not provide these, and there is a cost to allowing it to do so:
The state is the most dangerous provider of security, since it exacts liberty in exchange for its promises. Since the state imposes itself through violence and the threat of violence, and acts as a monopolist, it is also the worst provider of any service, including security. When the state promises security, it delivers insecurity.
Support for Government
Professor Hasnas argues, “[I]f people were ever to seriously question whether government actions are really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.” However, people support government for reasons besides a belief in its necessity for order.
Robert Higgs has observed, “We relate to the state in [a] sleepwalking fashion … not because doing so is hardwired in our genes, but because our conditions of life and our long historical accommodation to living under the state’s domination predispose us to react to it in this oblivious manner.” He also has discussed the means whereby states create dependency through social and corporate welfare, use fear to induce submission, and foster nationalism to appeal to the need for identity. These efforts condition people to accept and embrace the state.
People also use the state to do “legally” what they know would be wrong if they acted directly. As I wrote in “Only When We Are Free of Rulers Will We Live with Dignity,” “[L]isten to the cacophony of demands for privilege, plunder, coercion, violence, persecution, and abuse.”
Moral Case for Anarchy
The moral case for anarchy is more compelling than the practical one. It makes irrelevant the fallacious rationalizations of the need for the state. It invites recognition of the evil of the state and the need to end the institution. Dr. Higgs favors the moral path:
In the past, the great victories for liberty flowed from precisely such approach—for example, in the anti-slavery campaign, in the fight against the Corn Laws (which restricted Great Britain’s free trade in grains), and in the struggle to abolish legal restrictions on women’s rights to work, own property, and otherwise conduct themselves as freely as men.
The moral argument for anarchy, like the practical one, is obvious. The origin of government is telling — it is conquest, not consent. As Tom G. Palmer explains, “State formation represents a transformation from ‘roving bandits’ to ‘stationary bandits.’ … ‘The state is, at its core, a predatory institution.”
The state lives on plunder and relies on violence and the threat of violence. Only through fraud can it hide its essence. It is simply a criminal organization with a false claim to legitimacy. The state daily displays its predatory nature; we merely have to view it with open eyes to see the truth.
Absurdity
If the case for anarchy is obvious on both practical and moral grounds, then the state is both unnecessary and immoral. Tolerating the state is absurd.
The absurdity is illustrated by the manner in which people relate to the state, in light of its actual nature as a criminal organization. Consider these examples.
People debate the purpose of government, as though government has any purpose other than to serve itself and its cronies. They call for limited government, as though a degree of criminal oppression were desirable, and as if criminals, once empowered, could be constrained. They debate public policy, expecting a criminal organization to meet the needs of the public.
They claim that we consent to be governed, government is our servant, and “we are the government.” This would mean that we consent to domination by criminals, the criminals serve us, and we are part of the criminal enterprise.
They give money to politicians, financing criminal contenders. They enjoy politics, seeing competition among criminals as entertainment. They vote, encouraging the criminal enterprise. They make demands of government, begging the criminals for favors.
They call elected officials “leaders,” but leadership does not come at the point of a gun. They refer to officials as “lawmakers,” but the state issues mere legislation. They scold that “we get the government we deserve,” as though victims of crime share collective guilt.
They speak of restoring faith in government, as if there can be any faith. They call for reform of government, when what is needed is its termination. They call for “good government,” but what is evil cannot be rendered good.
They tell us we should “respect the office,” but an illegitimate office warrants no respect. They refer to government’s good intentions, but its intentions are always to coerce.
They call for “fair” taxes, as if theft could ever be fair. They fret that the state should balance its budget, meaning that its plunder should equal its spending. When plunder exceeds spending, they delight in the surplus.
They worry about government debt, and call it “our debt.” They oppose waste of “taxpayer money,” expecting criminals to apply stolen funds for the benefit of their victims.
They send their children to government schools, selecting communities on this basis. The schools — prisons — indoctrinate the children, teach them to conform, and discourage their creativity. The children learn to accept and fear the state, just as their parents did.
They praise the police, the state’s bullies. They applaud the military for “preserving our freedom,” as war steals their liberty. They view the state as protector, while the state views them as prey.
We can daily observe the absurdity of tolerating the state. When people say “government,” hear “criminal.”
Conclusion
The illusion of the state’s legitimacy is a fog, a fog we can dispel with the gift of truth. Tolerating the state is not only absurd; it is also degrading and immoral.
As Étienne de la Boétie, in “The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude” (written 1549), called for an end to tyranny, we can issue a broader call – for an end to the state:
From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.
