POLITICS PART 6: THE STATE
Since the beginning of human civilization, virtually every society has had the state in some form. Its track record hasn't exactly been exemplary in furthering our virtues, as history shows us not only millions, but perhaps billions of people enslaved and killed by their actions, not to mention the "lesser" violations of rights. Still, emotions and allegiances often run high, as do bizarre rationalizations when defending or examining the state. National anthems, flags and pledges are often a source of pride for people, and obscure the state's true nature. We also get justifications and rationalizations for the state like, "we are the government" or the more intellectual "social contract" theory. However, these don't hold up to rational examination.
If "we" are the government, then we are all responsible for its actions, yet in reality we often have no control or say. By this reasoning, Jews in 1930's Germany (which was a democratically elected government) "were the government" and apparently wanted to commit suicide. Southern blacks under Jim Crow laws were the government, and a guy who buys and smokes weed is part of the government and must therefore be consenting to be thrown into jail if caught. Obviously, something isn't quite accurate about the bromide "we are the government"!
If "we" are the government, then we are all responsible for its actions, yet in reality we often have no control or say. By this reasoning, Jews in 1930's Germany (which was a democratically elected government) "were the government" and apparently wanted to commit suicide. Southern blacks under Jim Crow laws were the government, and a guy who buys and smokes weed is part of the government and must therefore be consenting to be thrown into jail if caught. Obviously, something isn't quite accurate about the bromide "we are the government"!
The "social contract" theory, while more complex, also doesn't hold up. It puts forth that by living in a society, individuals give a tacit consent to be governed, and (whether explicitly or implicitly) have agreed to this "contract". If they don't agree with a government, they are supposedly free to leave the city/state/country and live elsewhere. This is a bizarre use of the concept, as nowhere does any citizen have the ability to read, sign, alter or refuse said contract. It also perverts any sense of individual rights and morality, as it becomes incumbent on the individual to uproot and leave if the state acts immorally (an action that is often not possible to achieve). It would be like proclaiming that its the deli owner's responsibility to leave if the mafia comes in and he doesn't like their demands. Why must he leave, and what kind of morality is that justifying?!
In order to determine if we need the state, or should justify some of its actions, we must first examine it objectively.
In order to determine if we need the state, or should justify some of its actions, we must first examine it objectively.
WHAT IS THE STATE?
When all of the pomp and circumstance of state slogans, songs and ceremonies are removed, we are left with its true nature. In short, the state is an organization which has a monopoly of the use of force in a given territorial area. The state generally governs through laws, which are justifications to use force against those who break the law. When all the slogans and flowery defenses are put aside, the state has power simply because it has the guns and the authority to use them. It may keep power only if enough citizens don't object to its existence.
The state is a unique organization in society. Leaving aside criminal enterprises, all other organizations in society are voluntary in nature. From the local running club, to the Red Cross, to the ACLU, to the NRA, to Coca Cola, all private organizations operate in a similar way. They obtain their members via voluntary consent, and acquire money by peaceful and voluntary exchanges of their goods and services. It's only the state that obtains its revenue and power through coercion; meaning the threat (or actual use of) violence by means of imprisonment or the gun of the police. In other words, the state (as we currently know it) exists by violating the Non-Aggression Principle. This nature cannot be denied, but is it necessary to have a civilized society? Does the state supply some services that are essential, and can't be delivered by voluntary, private means?
When all of the pomp and circumstance of state slogans, songs and ceremonies are removed, we are left with its true nature. In short, the state is an organization which has a monopoly of the use of force in a given territorial area. The state generally governs through laws, which are justifications to use force against those who break the law. When all the slogans and flowery defenses are put aside, the state has power simply because it has the guns and the authority to use them. It may keep power only if enough citizens don't object to its existence.
The state is a unique organization in society. Leaving aside criminal enterprises, all other organizations in society are voluntary in nature. From the local running club, to the Red Cross, to the ACLU, to the NRA, to Coca Cola, all private organizations operate in a similar way. They obtain their members via voluntary consent, and acquire money by peaceful and voluntary exchanges of their goods and services. It's only the state that obtains its revenue and power through coercion; meaning the threat (or actual use of) violence by means of imprisonment or the gun of the police. In other words, the state (as we currently know it) exists by violating the Non-Aggression Principle. This nature cannot be denied, but is it necessary to have a civilized society? Does the state supply some services that are essential, and can't be delivered by voluntary, private means?
NOT an essential service
WHAT SERVICES ARE NEEDED?
As was laid out before, the goal of politics is to come up with a society that reflects a rational morality, and that allows people to live and flourish according to their nature. While governments have often been anathema to these ideals, they have also provided some essential services that a rational society needs. In order for an individual to properly function in a society, their rights need to be protected. They need to be confident that others in their society will not violate the non-aggression principle and infringe on their rights. The state has traditionally supplied us with 3 main services that ostensibly protect rights; the military, the police and the courts.
The police and military deal with physical threats from criminals, inside and outside the state's territory. Just as we delegate our garbage disposal or telephone service to entities that specialize in it, so we would delegate our need to protect our property and safety. Most people aren't criminals, but when crimes are committed in a civilized society there needs to be an organized entity that is authorized to use retaliatory force to protect rights and facilitate justice. Without such an entity, the only recourse for individuals who are aggressed upon would be vigilante justice, which tends to be highly destructive and irrational. Imagine someone's house is broken into. If they took it upon themselves (or even their neighbors) to investigate and dispense justice, both things they are untrained to do, this will not often lead to the virtue of justice and protection of rights in practice! Clearly, some sort of police services are needed in a civilized society, as well as a criminal code of law to facilitate justice.
Another essential service is the court system. The only way for property rights to be secured and for capitalism to be possible is if legal contracts can be created and enforced (we're talking real contracts here, not the "social contract"). There has to be a rational recourse for individuals or businesses who feel they have been wronged. Without that, you'd have something similar to the current illicit drug trade. If a drug dealer gets a bad shipment (or no shipment) from his supplier, there is no legal protection. The result is that disputes (and the entire industry) is regulated by violence. While the illicit drug trade is not regulated by the government, it's also not a true free market. In order for property rights and criminal justice to be facilitated, there needs to be some mechanism to enforce them. The services of the military, police and courts are essential to protecting our rights, but what is the proper way to supply and pay for them?
As was laid out before, the goal of politics is to come up with a society that reflects a rational morality, and that allows people to live and flourish according to their nature. While governments have often been anathema to these ideals, they have also provided some essential services that a rational society needs. In order for an individual to properly function in a society, their rights need to be protected. They need to be confident that others in their society will not violate the non-aggression principle and infringe on their rights. The state has traditionally supplied us with 3 main services that ostensibly protect rights; the military, the police and the courts.
The police and military deal with physical threats from criminals, inside and outside the state's territory. Just as we delegate our garbage disposal or telephone service to entities that specialize in it, so we would delegate our need to protect our property and safety. Most people aren't criminals, but when crimes are committed in a civilized society there needs to be an organized entity that is authorized to use retaliatory force to protect rights and facilitate justice. Without such an entity, the only recourse for individuals who are aggressed upon would be vigilante justice, which tends to be highly destructive and irrational. Imagine someone's house is broken into. If they took it upon themselves (or even their neighbors) to investigate and dispense justice, both things they are untrained to do, this will not often lead to the virtue of justice and protection of rights in practice! Clearly, some sort of police services are needed in a civilized society, as well as a criminal code of law to facilitate justice.
Another essential service is the court system. The only way for property rights to be secured and for capitalism to be possible is if legal contracts can be created and enforced (we're talking real contracts here, not the "social contract"). There has to be a rational recourse for individuals or businesses who feel they have been wronged. Without that, you'd have something similar to the current illicit drug trade. If a drug dealer gets a bad shipment (or no shipment) from his supplier, there is no legal protection. The result is that disputes (and the entire industry) is regulated by violence. While the illicit drug trade is not regulated by the government, it's also not a true free market. In order for property rights and criminal justice to be facilitated, there needs to be some mechanism to enforce them. The services of the military, police and courts are essential to protecting our rights, but what is the proper way to supply and pay for them?
TAXATION
There are three main ways the state goes about funding itself; taxation, borrowing and inflation. Inflation is accomplished by having a monopoly on issuing the currency and devaluing it by printing new money out of thin air. It's akin to stealing by fraud. Borrowing, via treasury bills or other debt instruments, rests on the faith of taxation in the future. Therefore, the revenue sources for the state are either inflation or taxation. Taxation, like the state itself, is strangely defended and justified by all sorts of rationalizations and resignations. We hear things like "nothing is certain except death and taxes", or it's a necessary evil, etc. Before we try to justify it, what is taxation?
Looking at taxation objectively, just like with the state, we see the emperor has no clothes. Taxation is just another word for theft. Regardless of its intentions, the money is acquired by coercion, the threat of violence against innocent people. Some fail to connect the dots, as it seems money magically comes out of their paychecks, or gets added onto their purchases at the supermarket, but this is only possible with the threat of violence. Avoiding taxes might start out with fairly benign letters or inquiries from the IRS, but if one ignores these long enough, eventually there will be a man at the door with a gun.
It's quite impressive to see the moral disconnect with taxation, as otherwise moral people seem to have no problem accepting it. When teaching our kids playground morality at an early age, we tell them to not hit other kids or take their stuff. Parents don't tell their children that if the kid down the street has rich parents, it's ok to take their bike, or it's ok to steal their friend's lunch money if they're doing it for a philanthropic cause. However, once the state is brought into the picture, this type of morality seems to evaporate. All of a sudden, not only is stealing justified, it could even be moral, and we get otherwise virtuous people clamoring for more of it (usually to those other groups, of course). But this begs the question, if stealing is wrong then what makes it right if the state does it? Is theft justified if we vote on it? How is this different from other abuses of rights that governments engage in, often democratically voted on? These are questions that are seldom seriously entertained, and must be avoided at all costs to continue the state as we know it.
The immorality of the act of taxation cannot be avoided by any honest person. The only way it can be justified is to hold the idea that it is necessary for a civilized society, and that its benefits outweigh its immorality. In other words, the ends justify the means. This ethical fallacy was put to rest in Ethics Part 4, where we discovered the irrationality of believing good can be achieved by evil means. Delving even deeper back into philosophy, we see there is a contradiction here. In order to achieve the good and protect rights in a society, we need to violate rights?! In metaphysics we saw contradictions were impossible. Anytime one comes up in an ideology, something is wrong and its premises need to be checked to find the error. The reality is that individual rights and taxation cannot coexist. Either there is a problem with our concept of rights, or a problem with taxation and the state as it currently exists, take your pick!
(Here's the result of an intelligent person trying to pretend taxes are voluntary)
There are three main ways the state goes about funding itself; taxation, borrowing and inflation. Inflation is accomplished by having a monopoly on issuing the currency and devaluing it by printing new money out of thin air. It's akin to stealing by fraud. Borrowing, via treasury bills or other debt instruments, rests on the faith of taxation in the future. Therefore, the revenue sources for the state are either inflation or taxation. Taxation, like the state itself, is strangely defended and justified by all sorts of rationalizations and resignations. We hear things like "nothing is certain except death and taxes", or it's a necessary evil, etc. Before we try to justify it, what is taxation?
Looking at taxation objectively, just like with the state, we see the emperor has no clothes. Taxation is just another word for theft. Regardless of its intentions, the money is acquired by coercion, the threat of violence against innocent people. Some fail to connect the dots, as it seems money magically comes out of their paychecks, or gets added onto their purchases at the supermarket, but this is only possible with the threat of violence. Avoiding taxes might start out with fairly benign letters or inquiries from the IRS, but if one ignores these long enough, eventually there will be a man at the door with a gun.
It's quite impressive to see the moral disconnect with taxation, as otherwise moral people seem to have no problem accepting it. When teaching our kids playground morality at an early age, we tell them to not hit other kids or take their stuff. Parents don't tell their children that if the kid down the street has rich parents, it's ok to take their bike, or it's ok to steal their friend's lunch money if they're doing it for a philanthropic cause. However, once the state is brought into the picture, this type of morality seems to evaporate. All of a sudden, not only is stealing justified, it could even be moral, and we get otherwise virtuous people clamoring for more of it (usually to those other groups, of course). But this begs the question, if stealing is wrong then what makes it right if the state does it? Is theft justified if we vote on it? How is this different from other abuses of rights that governments engage in, often democratically voted on? These are questions that are seldom seriously entertained, and must be avoided at all costs to continue the state as we know it.
The immorality of the act of taxation cannot be avoided by any honest person. The only way it can be justified is to hold the idea that it is necessary for a civilized society, and that its benefits outweigh its immorality. In other words, the ends justify the means. This ethical fallacy was put to rest in Ethics Part 4, where we discovered the irrationality of believing good can be achieved by evil means. Delving even deeper back into philosophy, we see there is a contradiction here. In order to achieve the good and protect rights in a society, we need to violate rights?! In metaphysics we saw contradictions were impossible. Anytime one comes up in an ideology, something is wrong and its premises need to be checked to find the error. The reality is that individual rights and taxation cannot coexist. Either there is a problem with our concept of rights, or a problem with taxation and the state as it currently exists, take your pick!
(Here's the result of an intelligent person trying to pretend taxes are voluntary)
HOW TO FUND THE STATE?
(Note: the following is one of the final steps to a truly free society, not the first. It can only happen when the mainstream view in a culture understands and demands the consistent philosophical principles of liberty.)
This is perhaps a bad header, as the ideal social system may very well be for no state, at least no government as we currently know it. However, the state does supply essential services to secure liberty, as seen above, so some entity needs to supply those services, and someone needs to pay for it. So how should it be funded? In short, the same way every other thing in a free society is funded, by voluntary exchanges. In order for a government to be moral (exist to protect individual rights) it must comply with the principles of morality. If it's immoral for individuals to violate rights, there is no earthly justification for a group to get together and vote in an organization that can violate moral principles. Where would such a power come from?
The immediate reaction to this is normally along the lines of "this would never work" or "that's fantasy" or "no one would voluntarily pay taxes, everyone would try to freeload", etc. These are all pragmatic objections, not principled ones. They take a view of our current and past systems of government, and naturally can't fathom how a voluntary system would work, but they ignore the fundamental philosophical questions of morality. If we went back in history, the same pragmatic arguments would be made to support things like slavery. By ignoring morality, strong pragmatic arguments could be (and were) used to justify such systems. "Who would do such menial labor? We'd all starve!" "Abolishing slavery would send civilization into chaos". The question of how society would change and function without slavery was largely unknown to the abolitionists. They couldn't have predicted the vast changes (and improvements) that would result from such a change. All they really knew was that the institution was immoral, and wasn't compatible with reason and a free society, thus was untenable. Similarly, it's impossible to predict how society would look and function without coercive taxation, but likely it would result in great improvements, as things do every time a society adopts rational, moral ideas.
(Note: the following is one of the final steps to a truly free society, not the first. It can only happen when the mainstream view in a culture understands and demands the consistent philosophical principles of liberty.)
This is perhaps a bad header, as the ideal social system may very well be for no state, at least no government as we currently know it. However, the state does supply essential services to secure liberty, as seen above, so some entity needs to supply those services, and someone needs to pay for it. So how should it be funded? In short, the same way every other thing in a free society is funded, by voluntary exchanges. In order for a government to be moral (exist to protect individual rights) it must comply with the principles of morality. If it's immoral for individuals to violate rights, there is no earthly justification for a group to get together and vote in an organization that can violate moral principles. Where would such a power come from?
The immediate reaction to this is normally along the lines of "this would never work" or "that's fantasy" or "no one would voluntarily pay taxes, everyone would try to freeload", etc. These are all pragmatic objections, not principled ones. They take a view of our current and past systems of government, and naturally can't fathom how a voluntary system would work, but they ignore the fundamental philosophical questions of morality. If we went back in history, the same pragmatic arguments would be made to support things like slavery. By ignoring morality, strong pragmatic arguments could be (and were) used to justify such systems. "Who would do such menial labor? We'd all starve!" "Abolishing slavery would send civilization into chaos". The question of how society would change and function without slavery was largely unknown to the abolitionists. They couldn't have predicted the vast changes (and improvements) that would result from such a change. All they really knew was that the institution was immoral, and wasn't compatible with reason and a free society, thus was untenable. Similarly, it's impossible to predict how society would look and function without coercive taxation, but likely it would result in great improvements, as things do every time a society adopts rational, moral ideas.
That being said, there are some ideas to fund government (or its services) voluntarily. Clearly, a government like ours today couldn't be funded voluntarily, because it's tremendously bloated and caters primarily to special interests. Few would voluntarily fund our current government. However, protecting rights is incredibly valuable, and if a government was limited and excelled at these functions, most people would gladly pay. Funding the courts could be done by paying an insurance-like transaction for every legal document one wanted protected. In order to file a mortgage, marriage or labor contract with the state, a small fee could be charged. If the parties thought the government's court services were awful, or wanted a different arbitrator to decide their case, they would be free to not purchase this insurance. As for police services, these could easily be financed by homeowner associations and rental fees, or agreement by businesses in an area to protect their customers and stores. A common objection would be that the poor would have lousy services if not subsidized, but one only needs to look at how lousy they get treated now by our current system and how many minorities view the police with contempt, not as protectors. Yet, they still get car insurance and cell phones on par with the more affluent. A voluntary system would mean the police would need to serve, not harass, the population.
With a voluntary system, most government services would likely tend to be local, and the need for a larger, national government would become much less, if needed at all. Perhaps a national government would be the best way to finance a military, but if done on a voluntary basis it would likely exist only to protect a country, not finance an imperial force to go around the world "solving" problems or enriching government contractors. Wars are extremely costly, and typically don't benefit the citizens of either country. A free, productive people will be more than happy to both fight for and finance protection from a real, aggressive enemy, but will shy away and withdraw funding from a military who's purpose is too broad. A nation that is decentralized, productive and fiercely independent (think Switzerland) is not a very desirable target for other aggressive nations to target.
With a voluntary system, most government services would likely tend to be local, and the need for a larger, national government would become much less, if needed at all. Perhaps a national government would be the best way to finance a military, but if done on a voluntary basis it would likely exist only to protect a country, not finance an imperial force to go around the world "solving" problems or enriching government contractors. Wars are extremely costly, and typically don't benefit the citizens of either country. A free, productive people will be more than happy to both fight for and finance protection from a real, aggressive enemy, but will shy away and withdraw funding from a military who's purpose is too broad. A nation that is decentralized, productive and fiercely independent (think Switzerland) is not a very desirable target for other aggressive nations to target.
WHAT CAN THE STATE DO?
Again, this is perhaps a bad header, as the answer could be nothing, but any sort of legitimate government must be limited by the principles of morality. Voting, or appointing a bureaucrat to office, doesn't give them special moral powers the citizens don't have. If it's necessary for an agency to use force to secure rights, then that force must be used morally, meaning in retaliation to a crime committed. Laws (which are justifications for force) must not empower the government to initiate force or violate the non-aggression principle. A law against assault is moral, a law against "hate speech" isn't. A government may threaten force if a company violates a labor contract, but may not coerce a company into any particular contract. Any law, to be just, must be based on a corresponding rational view of ethics.
Even if someday a society institutes the "perfect" government, it may never be viewed as a permanent institution. Just as America's founders believed, the individual is always sovereign, and may take away their sanction at anytime if the institution no longer serves its purpose, or oversteps its bounds. Just as Apple exists only so long as people want to buy their products, so should government. If it can't exist by voluntary means, something is wrong and it should go away or change.
Again, this is perhaps a bad header, as the answer could be nothing, but any sort of legitimate government must be limited by the principles of morality. Voting, or appointing a bureaucrat to office, doesn't give them special moral powers the citizens don't have. If it's necessary for an agency to use force to secure rights, then that force must be used morally, meaning in retaliation to a crime committed. Laws (which are justifications for force) must not empower the government to initiate force or violate the non-aggression principle. A law against assault is moral, a law against "hate speech" isn't. A government may threaten force if a company violates a labor contract, but may not coerce a company into any particular contract. Any law, to be just, must be based on a corresponding rational view of ethics.
Even if someday a society institutes the "perfect" government, it may never be viewed as a permanent institution. Just as America's founders believed, the individual is always sovereign, and may take away their sanction at anytime if the institution no longer serves its purpose, or oversteps its bounds. Just as Apple exists only so long as people want to buy their products, so should government. If it can't exist by voluntary means, something is wrong and it should go away or change.