I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

[QUOTE=The One and Only...;153656]Why the State Is Different

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

[Posted December 30, 2003]

A common accusation against libertarianism is that we are unnaturally obsessed with tracing social and economic problems to the state, and, in doing so, we oversimplify the world. If you let the people who say this keep talking, they will explain to you why the state is not all bad, that some of its actions yield positive results and, in any case, the state should not always be singled out as some sort of grave evil.

It is not inconceivable, they say, that the state is performing actions that weave themselves into the normal operation of society. The state is not always exogenous to the system but is sometime intrinsic to it. To constantly blame the state for our ills is as cranky as those who single out the Bilderbergers for all the world's ills; it is a half truth gone mad.

Without attempting a wholesale refutation of this position, what this criticism overlooks is the uniqueness of the state as an institution. Let us turn our attention to a news item that underscores in what respects the state is different from the rest of society. It concerns the new law passed by Congress and signed by the president that criminalizes the sending of commercial spam. From this one case, we can observe a number of traits of the state that demonstrate just how truly outside of society it really is, and therefore why it is right to focus such close attention on it.

There are a number of commercial products on the market designed to crush spam, which can be defined as email you never asked to receive and do not want. It is not at all clear that sending someone such an email is really a coercive invasion of property rights, but it is surely annoying, and so there is a market for methods of stopping it.

As always in commerce, there are those who stand to make a buck by solving problems. Entrepreneurs dream up new methods and capitalists take risks to bring them to market. Each product that is offered is distinctive. Consumers try out a number of different ones. The ones that work better than others—and sell for the right price and are easy to install—displace those that work less well. Profits flow to those who have done the best job.

This is the way the market works, and all is done voluntarily. The power to judge, to make some products succeed and some fail, is in the hands of consumers. Consumers base their judgments on what is good for them personally, so there is a constant feedback mechanism, from the desktop to the capitalists to the entrepreneurs to the traders who buy and sell stocks of companies that bring the products to market at the least-possible cost.

We can only marvel at how all of this is coordinated by the price system, which is the link between our subjective valuations and the real-world of technology and resources. To succeed in this market requires creativity, imagination, a keen sense of judgment, a technological sense, and relentless attention to the needs of others. People make money even as society is served.

Now, let us contrast this gorgeous web of trial and error with the ham-handed approach of Congress and the president. Someone had the idea that spam is bad, and thus does the solution present itself: make it illegal, which is to say, threaten spammers with fines and jail and, if they resist enough, death. It is no more or less complicated than that. There is no trial and error process, no imagination required, no permission from consumers to be sought, and no investors to issue a judgment on the merits or demerits of this approach. Congress speaks, the president agrees, and it is done.

What if it doesn't work? Only under the rarest conditions does the state reverse itself or admit error. Its tendency instead is to keep pounding away with its one and only hammer, even if the nail is all the way in or hasn't budged at all.

Hence Lesson One in the uniqueness of the state: the state has one tool, and one tool only, at its disposal: force.

Now, imagine if a private enterprise tried that same approach. Let's say that Acme Anti-Spam puts out a product that would tag spammers, loot their bank accounts, and hold them in captivity for a period of time, and shoot spammers dead should they attempt to evade or escape. What's more, the company doesn't propose to test this approach on the market and seek subscribers, but rather force every last email user to subscribe.

How will Acme Anti-Spam make money at its operation? It won't. It will fund its activities by taking money from your bank account whether you like it or not. They say that they can do this simply because they can, and if you try to stop it, you too will be fined, imprisoned, or shot. The company further claims that it is serving society.

Such a company would be immediately decried as heartless, antisocial, and essentially deranged. At the very least it would be considered uncreative and dangerous, if not outright criminal. Its very existence would be a scandal, and the people who dreamed up such a company and tried to manage it would be seen as psychopaths or just evil. Everyone would see through the motivation: they are using a real problem that exists in society as a means to get money without our permission, and to exercise authority that should belong to no one.

Lesson Two presents itself: the state is the only institution in society that can impose itself on all of society without asking the permission of anyone in particular. You can't opt out.

A seemingly peculiar aspect of the anti-spam law is that the government exempts itself from having to adhere to its own law. Politicians routinely buy up email addresses from commercial companies and send out unsolicited email. They defend this practice on grounds that they are not pushing a commercial service and that doing so is cheaper than sending regular mail, and hence saves taxpayer money. It is not spam, they say, but constituent service. We all laugh at the political class for its hypocrisy in this, and yet the exemption draws attention to:

Lesson Three: the state is exempt from the laws it claims to enforce, and manages this exemption by redefining its criminality as public service.

What is considered theft in the private sector is "taxation" when done by the state. What is kidnapping in the private sector is "selective service" in the public sector. What is counterfeiting when done in the private sector is "monetary policy" when done by the public sector. What is mass murder in the private sector is "foreign policy" in the public sector.

This tendency to break laws and redefine that infraction is a universal feature of the state. When cops zoom by we don't think of them as speeding but merely being on the chase. Killing innocents is dismissed as inevitable civilian casualties. So it should hardly surprise us that the state rarely or even never catches itself in the webs it weaves. Of course it exempts itself from its anti-spam law. The state is above the law.

The problem of spam will be solved one way or another. The criminal penalties will deter some but the real solution will come from the private sector, just as the problem of crime is lessened by the locks, alarm systems, handguns, and private security guards provided by the private sector. The state of course will take credit. Historians will observe the appearance and disappearance of spam coinciding with the before and after of the criminal penalties, while it will be up to those dismissed as wacky revisionists to give the whole truth.

This is the final feature of the state (for this article) to which I would like to draw attention: it gets to write the history. Unlike the other three issues, this is not an intrinsic feature of the state but rather is a reflection of the culture. This can change so long as people are alert to the problem. And this is the role, the essential role, of libertarian intellectuals: to change the ideological culture in ways that make people aware of the antisocial nature of the state, and how it always stands outside of society, no matter how democratic it may claim to be.

The case of the latest anti-spam law is only one chapter in a very long book that dates back to the beginning of recorded history, and extends as far as our existence on this earth. There will always be those who claim to have special rights over the rest of society, and the state is the most organized attempt to get away with it. To focus on these people as a unique problem is not an obsession, but the working out of intellectual responsibility.[/QUOTE]

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jan 8th, 2004 06:43 PM

The_Rorschach

I second CLA. It is not inherently so, yet in a culture espoused with materialism that is the inevitable fate of commercial enterprise to turn people from citizens into competitors rending mutual-reliance and replacing it with capital-driven parasitism.

Jan 8th, 2004 03:28 PM

theapportioner

From the article:

Quote:

And this is the role, the essential role, of libertarian intellectuals: to change the ideological culture in ways that make people aware of the antisocial nature of the state, and how it always stands outside of society, no matter how democratic it may claim to be.

This is preposterous. Capitalism is the prime mover of anti-sociality.

Jan 7th, 2004 05:28 PM

kellychaos

For Christmas, his parents just bought him a Fisher Price briefcase complete with stock portfolio coloring book and a toy Motorolla that says "Buy low, sell high!" when you press the button.

Jan 3rd, 2004 06:06 PM

Anonymous

Kelly, the lad still has three years to go before you can legally call him 'mister.'

Jan 3rd, 2004 01:20 PM

kellychaos

Let's pretend that that is our present economy. Why do I get the feeling that OAO believes that he would be amongst the monopolizing Mellons and Carnegies and not a simple part of the 98% pion class? I've seen nothing so far to justify this arrogance whether in be in intelligence, diction, wordly knowledge, business acumen, ect. The majority of his posts are simply collages of libetarian cut-n-paste rhetoric. Is there an entrepreneur in our midst? That being the case Mr. OAO, I have to ask what is in it for you to advocate that type of economy?

Jan 2nd, 2004 06:23 PM

Brandon

YOU KNOW WHAT WE DON'T TALK ABOUT ENOUGH HERE?

LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM!

Jan 2nd, 2004 03:48 PM

kellychaos

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov

While scroling down I saw this:

Quote:

Hence Lesson One in the uniqueness of the state: the state has one tool, and one tool only, at its disposal: force.

I totaly agree!

Lets take control of it!

I only have one tool.

Jan 2nd, 2004 12:58 PM

Protoclown

FOR TALKING ABOUT THE MARKET AS MUCH AS YOU DO YOU SURE MUST LIKE BUYING GROCERIES, I'M TELLING YA

Jan 2nd, 2004 12:13 PM

Zhukov

Cheers

Jan 2nd, 2004 12:10 PM

The One and Only...

Yes, capitalism has existed. No, the exact extent of the state which I would support has not existed - in some cases, the state has even been too small.

Jan 2nd, 2004 12:07 PM

Zhukov

"Market orientated"?

"Some like to site..."?

Do you think it's YES or NO to your version of Capitalism existing in the past or present?

Jan 2nd, 2004 11:42 AM

The One and Only...

Well... the Gupta empire of India was very market oriented - while the concept of capitalism was certainly nonexistant, texts have been found detailing a system which was roughly capitalist. Only those who tilled the royal lands payed taxes, and local governments held the most power. It was more like a confederation of city-states than anything else.

More extreme versions of capitalist societies include medieval Iceland, which was nearly anarcho-capitalist in nature. Some also like to site the "Wild" West as a very capitalist society.

Jan 2nd, 2004 10:34 AM

Zhukov

Sorry for being vague, it was an on-the-fly question.

Quote:

You cannot say "yes" or "no" to such a question unless capitalism is specifically defined, and at the current time, it is fairly broad.

I directed it to you so I could get your own definition of 'capitalism', which I was assuming was lassaiz-fair entirely-free-market stuff.

I also assumed that you do not count the US , or any other country, as capitalist. I was Just Checking.

Quote:

This question should be placed in a certain historical economical and social context. The whole of time just won't do.

Wel I was thinking of Capitalism as a economical and social context in itself, if that makes sense. If the whole of time is not good for you, make it anywhere between, ooh, 1700-2004. However, I don't see why the whole of history poses a problem, once you know what your definition is it should be simple. At least, that's what I think...

Jan 2nd, 2004 02:03 AM

Helm

Well he's right it's a loaded question. This question should be placed in a certain historical economical and social context. The whole of time just won't do.

Jan 1st, 2004 04:53 PM

camacazio

No it's not. He's talking about pure, laissez-fair, get-what-you-work-for capitalism.

Jan 1st, 2004 02:37 PM

The One and Only...

The question was incorrect. You cannot say "yes" or "no" to such a question unless capitalism is specifically defined, and at the current time, it is fairly broad.

Jan 1st, 2004 02:29 PM

Supafly345

I didn't know a "yes or no" question had degrees.
You aren't actually planning on answering that question are you?

Jan 1st, 2004 01:26 PM

The One and Only...

Depends on what degree of it you are talking about. The 1800's were pretty capitalist.

Jan 1st, 2004 09:47 AM

Zhukov

As soon as I read "As soon as I read "laissez-faire creates monopolies", I discounted you as ignorant" I discounted you as ignorant.

One does not have to be an anarchist to realise that the 'state' is ready to be replaced.

EDIT: Quick question OAO, has Capitalism ever existed?

Dec 31st, 2003 08:27 PM

The One and Only...

As soon as I read "laissez-faire creates monopolies", I discounted you as ignorant.

Dec 31st, 2003 12:14 PM

MatthewCleveland

I'll go for it.

Speaking purely in terms of our government, (the US), if only because it's what effects us and because I don't study in detail the socialist governments in Europe. Our governments beaurcracy is entirely out of line and over inflated. But Lassaiz-faire won't work, becasue as much as theoreticly the power is in the consumers to choose, lassaiz-faire fixes that little problem by the creation of monopolies. But your inevitable arguement to that is that obviously this monopoly was able to fihg toff the competitors with better products to the consumers. But people lie, frauds happen and what happens is eventually under true lassaiz-faire you are going to end up with a select few (if not on super trust) that is controlling 90%+ of the economic sectors. The state needs to ahve some control to keep that from happening.

But I entirely agree with you on some of hte laws passed by Congress where they exempt themselves from the rules. So do what you can then, lobby, run, support a canidate with your views. Go out into your city and convince peopel spread your movement. That's the point of the republic.

Dec 31st, 2003 10:40 AM

Occupant

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mew Barios

in 19XX...

crime ruled the streets of new york city after the nuclear war. even with crime syndicates growing bigger every year, two young men were brave enough to challenge them. while their names were billy and jimmy lee..

..people called them the double dragons!

Are there any anarchists over thirty? Hell, over twenty for that matter?

Dec 31st, 2003 10:17 AM

Zhukov

While scroling down I saw this:

Quote:

Hence Lesson One in the uniqueness of the state: the state has one tool, and one tool only, at its disposal: force.

I totaly agree!

Lets take control of it!

Dec 30th, 2003 11:39 PM

Brandon

YOU JUST SHUSH! CAN'T YOU SEE HE'S TRYING TO STIMULATE DISCUSSION ON LIBERTARIANISM?

Dec 30th, 2003 10:34 PM

Jeanette X

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off