Arguably the biggest threat to freedom is the widely accepted belief among citizens that the State is a neutral force for good, a social service organization established to solve society’s ills.
But what is the State, and what is it not?
In his book “Anatomy of the State,” Murray Rothbard described the State as an organization “which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area.”
He further characterizes the State as “the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion.”
With this premise in mind, we see that the very existence of the State is based upon extracting its necessary funding from its citizens by force. This fact alone calls the moral legitimacy of the State into question.
To better understand the nature of the State, Rothbard cites German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, who pointed out the distinction between acquiring wealth through “economic means” and “political means.”
The economic means of acquiring wealth is through production and exchange, whereas the political means involves “seizure of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence.”
Moreover, the political means of wealth acquisition “siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group (i.e. the state)” and as such the State can be defined, in Oppenheimer’s words, as the “organization of the political means.”
Worse than crime, which is sporadic, this parasitic predation is steady and predictable, and backed by the force of the state.
That a portion of the stolen loot is used to provide “social services” to politically selected populations does not overcome the ethical problems of the one-sided confiscation employed by the State to collect the means to pay for such programs.
This leads us to a description of what the state is not. The common perception, taught to us in government schools and enforced by all “right-thinking” people, is the State as a charity of sorts. As Rothbard wrote, “almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind.”
This is obviously not true, because true charity is funded by voluntary contributions freely given by those following their conscious, not forking over their money at the point of a gun.
Rothbard further points out perhaps a more insidious misconception of the State. “With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, ‘we are the government’” he wrote.
The use of the collective we, Rothbard noted, has “enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life.”
But the government is not “us” in any meaningful sense, even in a democracy. It does not, and cannot, accurately represent the wishes of its citizens. What about those that voted against the winning representative? Or those that didn’t vote at all because none of the candidates represented their values? And how about people who vote for a candidate who campaigns promising one thing then does the opposite once in office?
These people’s interests clearly are not being represented by their elected officials. And all too often, because resources are scarce, the interests of some people are at odds with the interests of others. The welfare state, for instance, takes from some to give to others. The State pits citizens against each other, creating winners and losers – it is not “us.”
The State is huge, powerful and growing exponentially. But it is highly fearful of any threat to its power. Its power is protected, however, by a populace willingly persuaded “by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives,” according to Rothbard.
Enter government schools. As Vladimir Lenin once said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
The State is the enemy of freedom, peace and prosperity. It needs to be fought, root and branch. The biggest threat to its power is exposing its true nature.
As Rothbard wrote in his dedication to “Anatomy of the State,”: “The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism.”
