The State as Aggressor

BurnTheShips

Excerpt from Murray Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto: For a New Liberty
But the critical difference between libertarians and other people is not in the area of private crime; the critical difference is their view of the role of the State, the government. For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical, whether red, white, blue, or brown,
The State! Always and ever the government and its rulers and operators have been considered above the general moral law. The "Pentagon Papers" are only one recent instance among innumerable instances in history of men, most of whom are perfectly honorable in their private lives, who lie in their teeth before the public. Why? For "reasons of State." Service to the State is supposed to excuse all actions that would be considered immoral or criminal if committed by "private" citizens. The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place....................
.............There is another reason why State aggression has been far more important than private, a reason apart from the greater organization and central mobilizing of resources that the rulers of the State can impose. The reason is the absence of any check upon State depredation, a check that does exist when we have to worry about muggers or the Mafia. To guard against private criminals we have been able to turn to the State and its police; but who can guard us against the State itself? No one. For another critical distinction of the State is that it compels the monopolization of the service of protection; the State arrogates to itself a virtual monopoly of violence and of ultimate decision-making in society. If we don't like the decisions of the State courts, for example, there are no other agencies of protection to which we may turn.
It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government's own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government. Furthermore, the highly touted "checks and balances" and "separation of powers" in the American government are flimsy indeed, since in the final analysis all of these divisions are part of the same government and are governed by the same set of rulers.
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

hamilcarr

In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place....................

Including violence?

I don't think of the State as a criminal band though.

BurnTheShips

I don't think of the State as a criminal band though.

It acts as one. All orgs take on a life of its own. Think of them as multicellular organisms. The individual cells have little control. Look at the Watchtower, for example.

hamilcarr

It acts as one. All orgs take on a life of its own. Think of them as multicellular organisms. The individual cells have little control. Look at the Watchtower, for example.

That's why they need supranational control mechanisms.

Individual cells don't function in isolation. They only perform within an organized system (cf. social insects, emergent properties of neurons, ...).

BurnTheShips

That's why they need supranational control mechanisms.

That's just a superstate.

BTS

hamilcarr

That's just a superstate.

So, the UN is a criminal band to you?

The UN is simply a government of governments. The members of the United Nations are, by definition, not the peoples of the world, but the nations of the world. This is an even worse state of affairs than democratic national governments, where in theory at least the people at least have a say in the decisions that are made. Should I remind of you of criminal activities undertaken by UN in Africa, the child rapes? Of the Oil for Food program corruption, touted as the largest in history? Of the tyrannical member states that have an equal vote with those that wear the guise of representative governments? The delegates to the UN are politicians who have been appointed by the member states. It is in the nature of the UN that it will look after the governmental interests of its members. Not the people.

BTS

hamilcarr

I was referring to the UN in its role as a control mechanism.

The reason is the absence of any check upon State depredation, a check that does exist when we have to worry about muggers or the Mafia.

This is simply wrong. There are many supra- or subnational checks (bottom-up, rarely top-down).

BurnTheShips

I was referring to the UN in its role as a control mechanism.

Even in this, how effective has it been? The law among nations is the law of the jungle, there is no greater power than the nation state at this time. For such a thing to exist as a true restraint it would have to be a superstate and the UN, without a monopoly on violence, can't function in this way. If the state is an instrument of force and coercion, then what's would the UN? A restraint? It isn't a very good restraint! Any restraining instrument for a coercive instrument would have to contain more coercive power than the lesser instrument or it would be ineffective. Effectively, such a thing is also a government. It is simply be a bigger, more coercive, more dangerous and more insidious instrument and one that is less subject to restraint than the original instrument (national governments) of compulsion because it is universal. A universal government would be capable of much more evil than many small ones working individually. Do you want such a thing?

subnational checks

Like which ones? The people?

BTS

The State as Aggressor

Share this