Blog response: "Statism"

First of all I would like to thank you for your quick and thoughtful response. It has helped me very much to better understand your position, and I do think you made some valuable points in regards to what you understand about anarchism and communism. While this is the case, some other things I would like to flush out a bit more so that I can better understand what the real meaning of "anti-state" means. You wrote quite a few things that I think deserve a response but I will try, for sake of length to keep it short. To do this I would first like to discus our better-refined definition of state.

For sake of consistency and fluidity I will reiterate our definition, "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." I much appreciate the fact that you were able to find a definition that agreed with your own, Christopher's definition, "the idea that one person or a group of persons should rule over any other person or group of persons without the consent of the governed", but I will propose that while they agree, this agreement only serves to draw away from our practical application of it. The contradiction I see presented here is nestled in the word "claims" in the first definition by Max Web, and the words "without the consent of the governed" in Christopher's definition. In my mind this way of explaining a state totally eliminates democracy or a republican form of government being described as a state, because in such systems the governing power never "claims" it's monopoly of legitimate physical force, like some presumptuous oligarchy or aristocracy, founded on simple economics, as this definition seems to suggest. But rather the people consent to be governed, as well as, in some form, consent to be participants in their own governing power; you, yourself must already agree considering your words, "And are we not the ones that give the state it's power ultimately?".

This inevitably forces me to say the United Stated of America falls outside of our definition, for, as you well know the chief reason that the United States exists is due to the fact that they were being governed without consent in the form of taxation without representation previous to our independence from Britain. The United States could not have been more clear that it wanted a new kind of philosophy of government where the people considered it to be a "necessary evil", but an evil that they freely consented to exist and consented to try their hardest to maintain (be which I mean, disallow it from doing nearly anything). This leads me to believe that either we need to make alterations to our definition, or I am forced to assume that America is not the practical object of our discussion. Also, I sense an undertone in your logic that would consider the constitution (the backbone of how our system operates) to be a form of coercion because it was not consented to by all Americans at any given time. Despite the obvious fact that the constitution has built into it mechanisms for its change, thankfully difficult as they are, if the Constitution of the United States is coercion, I will plainly say it was the most freely conceived, divinely inspired act of tyranny ever precipitated in modern history. I do not really think this is your belief, but rather wish to show the implications of such an idea that the United States could have taken power, without consent, that was not already given by the people as expressed through the Constitution of the United States. I wish I could just think that we have problems with the powers the state has acquired over the years that do not align themselves with the words and intent of the Constitution, but it is obvious that it goes deeper than that.

It is not on the exception that we disagree, but rather the rule; the rule being that if we were left to fend for ourselves we wouldn't make out all right in the end.  In essence we are not really able to approach the issue of state with open eyes until we reach an understanding of our views about human nature. In my mind ever since the first Adam we are born with what I'll call sin nature; something that is passed on in a deeper sense than just genes and tissue, but something spiritual, a spiritual deficiency. To me there is no other way to describe how Cain could have killed his brother so quickly over such a whim inspired rage. He certainly had the greatest chance for having the most perfect possible environment in a sinful world. With that in the back of my mind, I can say that, while the state is not perfect, it is based on what I think to social realities. Where as, a system lacking real leadership (and you can't have leadership without power, given or otherwise) seems to be based on the idea that humans are basically good until spoiled by sin in others; this I do not agree with. I will also say that even if such were the reality it would do us little good now considering our society and our world today.

I’m sure you are aware that this post was more pointed than the last, unfortunately due to the topic of concern, but be sure to realize I welcome any revisions to your opinions that I have misinterpreted. I am striving to allow the other side to frame the rules and definitions of our discussions so as to allow for mutual respect of opinion. 

I am opposed to coercion.  I oppose the state because it uses coercion.  I accept Max Web's definition of the state in favor of my own.  My definition included aspiring states and other organizations and groups that use coercion.  But state or not, I oppose the use of coercion.

In your second paragraph, you seem to take a collectivist view: if the "people" (a majority) create a state, then all individuals have consented.  I disagree.  Consent belongs to the individual.  Can you demonstrate, for example, that I have freely consented to be a member of the USA?  Am I free to stop being a member with out loosing life, liberty, or property?  (I own land.)

Don't forget, the state does not give liberty, God does.  The state only restricts liberty.  We may applaud the constitution for taking very few of our liberties, but this doesn't make it good -- only better than states and constitutions that take more.

 I totally understand what you are saying.  I don't want anyone coercing me into doing something either.  The problem is this is idea is purely idealistic. It is impossible to have a functioning society (on this earth) without someone have the ability to coerce.  Reality is not ideal.  The government is neccesary to protect me from other people who may use their idea of "freedom" to harm me or my possesions.  In order to do this it must limit everyones liberty to some extent.   I don't see any other option unless you are alone on an island or you live in a world with limitless resources and land where you can go off to a corner somewhere and be alone.  The only alternative I see is tribal groups warring over land and resources.  This would not eliminate coersion, just make it worse. 

I think our government goes beyond what is neccesary, therefore I think we should spend our energy and time reforming it - not trying to end it all together.   I have not heard a viable alternative to having a government.  If there is not one, then your argument against the state is like me arguing against breathing.  If there is no alternative, we can talk about how cool it would be to not breathe, but, in reality where does that get us?  Let's focus on making the air cleaner. 

There are real changes we can fight for in our country.  Give the central government less power and the States more authority over thier local area.  Focus on localized government instead of central Government.  I I see these and worty causes.  But trying to eleminate the state all together seems to be just fanciful dreaming. 

I am certainly open.  It's just that I have not heard an explanation of how society would function without a state and I cant seem to come up with any ideas myself.   

Do you agree that coercion is sin?

Thank you as well for your timely response. I feel like we should be standing in front of an audience (I guess in a sense we are) in a real old-fashioned sort of debate...

I'm going to begin by specifically responding to some of your comments and concerns and try to clarify my perspective.

You said, “you made some valuable points in regards to what you understand about anarchism and communism”.

I am curious to know what valuable points you may be referring to here. I do not claim to know a great deal about anarchism or communism, but felt it was important to be clear that there are very diverse opinions on what they are.

The first real concern/question that you posed is that of our definition of “the state.” Do we in America consent to be governed as we are part of a democracy (or more accurately a constitutional republic) or are we governed by force without our consent? I do think the definition that a state "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" can be applied quite accurately to America in that it is the only institution in this land that is given the “right” to use force. The definition does not speak to how it receives or claims that monopoly. And while it may sound contradictory at first glance, I stand by my earlier statement that we the people allow the government to be what it is by not resisting. The majority of people are ok with the government having the power that it does. This may be because it brings a sense of security (albeit a false one), it benefits them in some way, they are ignorant of what is happening, etc. As a result, those of us who might want to do something different, can be forced into compliance based on what is decided at the top. For example, if the majority of people, or even a few powerful people decide that it is unsafe to give birth to a baby in our homes, then the government can pass a law to say that no one is allowed to do this. If these people decide that for all of us, do I have a choice about it? My choice becomes to break the law and go to jail or pay a fine, and have my baby taken from me, etc., or simply comply with what those in power decided. Yes, we can send letters and call our senators and congressman, but if there are only a few of us who really want the right to have our children at home, or if someone else has more money, then they will get to decide it for everyone. Another example would be if I wanted to make homemade baby toys and sell them to someone else. I no longer have the freedom to do that unless I comply with extensive and expensive testing. I also do not have the right to buy them even if I am okay with the fact that the tests were not done.

To be honest I think that had our country continued to function in the way it was created as a constitutional republic which put great limits on the powers of government, we would not be having this conversation right now. However, the fact that we could have started there and have come so far to where our government has taken on the monstrous power that it has today, simply reinforces my concern that power tends to increase and expand over time. How would you propose that we we as the people prevent that from occurring? If this “freely conceived, divine act” that was the Constitution of the United States could become so convoluted over the years to begin to resemble the very thing that our founders were trying to separate themselves from, what hope is there for something better in regards to government?

“In essence we are not really able to approach the issue of state with open eyes until we reach an understanding of our views about human nature.”

From what you have expressed, I don't think that we necessarily have opposing views of human nature. In fact, I believe that it is precisely because of the view of human nature that we share that leads us to our individual perspectives. Your concern seems to be that because we are sinful human beings living in a sinful world, we need a governmental system (i.e. state) that wields some form of power over us in order to bring order and peace. I however, believe that because we are sinful human beings living in a fallen world, that any type of structure of our own making is bound to fail. And any sinful human being that we give the power to rule over us is bound to take more and more power, and use it for their own benefit. My allegiance is to God alone. I also believe that others may choose to follow Him or not, and that is not mine to decide for them. I think that if we as sinful human beings are able to come together and make a government that is truly good and helpful, than we can do the same thing without giving it the power to use force against us.

One last concern is this: The right that we give the state to use force is not only here at home, but extended to other countries with devastating results (ie lives property loss). Our consent to this, by supporting the state, is in a sense legitimizing the actions that it takes in the name of freedom and often Christianity as well.

I recognize that this conversation has been mostly dealing in the philosophical realm. You may argue that it is simply not practical to do away with government all together, but rather we should attempt to reduce the size and power of the one that we have. While I agree at this point that that may be the best route available, it does not change the philosophical belief that I believe to be right or ideal.

Now my question is this: What does the state provide that is so important?

 No.  Though it surely can be. 

If someone were beating up on my child i would not think twice about taking away their freedom to do as they please. I wouldn't have a problem coercing them to the ground and sitting on them.  

I still would like to know how a stateless society would function.  No one is willing to answer this question.  In my mind everything hangs on this.  Unless we are only speaking philosophically of an ideal world in which we don't live.  Please clarify this for me. 

Fair enough.  I was not considering the case where "coercion" is used as self defense, and now I'm thinking that coercion is the wrong word.  I think aggression better describes it -- where aggression is defined as the initiation of force.  I'll reframe my question: Would you agree that aggression is a sin?  See also: non-aggression axiom.

I am planning a podcast with some additional thoughts on a stateless society.  Look forward to that, eh? :)

I agree. It is not the force itself but the initiation of force that is undesirable. Coercion or force can be used for good or evil. But to many the word does  imply something more than force applied in self-defense. To quote Lew Rockwell

"The idea that coercion has something to do with state power goes back as far as the Latin forebear of the word -- "coercitio" is the Roman term of art for "the infliction of summary punishment by a magistrate or other person in order to secure obedience to his will; also the right of doing so" (as per the Oxford Latin Dictionary). The fasces carried by the magistrates known as lictors were the symbol of the the state's coercitio, which is more than just police power -- it means the fundamental power of the state to enforce its will upon its citizens. The English word doesn't have quite that meaning, of course, but does still bear the marks of its ancestry. I think we're right to oppose it."

Also The first definition given by Merriam-Webster's on-line (for "coercing") is "to restrain or dominate by force. I believe as this definition includes "dominate" it can be applied to its use by the state.

Looking forward to the podcast. Need someone to interview you? :)

I don't think aggression in general is a good thing.  I don't think I could say across theboard it is a sin.  Sin is a theological word.  God many times in the Bible asked his people to perform acts of aggresssion.  I think that there are times when "force" is necesary.

The Wikipedia link you reference made a this reference

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

1. Do you agree with this?

2. If so, what should be done to a person who infringes on the rights of another person?  Is action taken against someone who infringes on anothers rights aggression?  is it coersion?  

This is what I don't understand.  If when you say "anti-state" you don't believe that you should have to pay taxes, that's fine.  If anti-state means that no one has the power to enforce the above quote then I am confused and scared. 

Looking forward to your podcast. :o)

Adam, you state that reality is not ideal. But does that mean we should not strive for what is ideal? Is there anything wrong with striving for the impossible. Isn't this what Jesus directed Christians to do? Jesus told his followers "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48. We do not need to believe that something is possible in order to strive for it.

How would we survive if we didn't have the state to look after and protect us?  I am not sure how we would function but looking at the state's track record I wouldn't mind giving it a try. Or at least striving for that ideal.

Infringing on another person's rights is aggression.  If a person infringes on my rights, I have been aggressed and have a right to retaliate.  Interestingly, Jesus says that even when aggressed his people are to refuse to respond in kind.  I view a third party as also aggressing if it attempts to restrain the aggressor without the consent of the victim.

Considering the OT stories of the Israelite nation is a different beast altogether because God has property rights over us.  He gave us life and liberty, thus he has the right to take it again.  Job understood this, though it seems he was a bit confused about what was actually happening in his situation.

Personally, it is respect for the Author of life and liberty that drives me to resist all forms of aggression.

P.S.  I don't think there is anything to be afraid of in the anti-state, or more broadly anti-aggression, position.  It's actually quite lovely. :)

"its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power."    

I think this statement is the key to the whole problem of the state -- we have no such robot.

If a person infringes on my rights, I have been aggressed and have a right to retaliate.

Ok so someone abuses your kid.  You have right to retaliate.  What do you do?  Is it a sin to kill someone who is abusing your kid?  But you also say Jesus said not to retaliate.  So we let people walk all over us?

If we were all individualy responsible to mete out justice when we feel we have been aggressed society would devolve into a mass of chaos, revenge killings and tribal warfare.  History shows us that.  

It is our form of government that makes our country so much safer than so many other places in the world where the government has no autority to enforce laws.

I think there is lots of stuff that our government does to abuse it's power and it needs major reformation.  But I cannot understand how my liberties would be safer if there was "no one who has authority over anyone else". 

So is your problem just with our state?  I thought that any state of any form was what we were talking about.  So you would accept a state that acted more as a "robot"?

Perhaps we all already agree!

I agree with what you are saying, Adam.  I searched the internet to find which areas of the world are actually a stateless society.  The only one that comes up is Somalia.  And some parts of Afganistan and Sudan.  I agree that our government is too big, and we have to diligently guard our individual freedoms.  But a completely stateless society seems incomprehensible to me.  I would not want to live in one.  That said, I believe we need to make some drastic changes.  And maybe this is really the first time our government has been tested ( and we do need to make some changes).  I think now that I might be termed a minanarchist.  What is it some of you would want to do that you cannot do now?  Other than not pay taxes!  That should be a totally other discussion.  What is it about your life that would change if there was no state?  It is late and my mind is pretty fuzzy!  Ahhh, what the heck, go ahead and bring taxes into it!  LOL

I have tended to stay out of these discussions on NLD regarding the state. It seems that often there have been statements made both anti-state and pro-state that have not included carefully thought out arguments (not that they didn't exist in the mind of the writer). This blog by Nathan, however, outlines rather thoroughly his position. As I have been reading and considering the various viewpoints lately, I feel compelled to respond to this thoughtful post.

Warning: this is more than just a “comment”

In Max Weber's influential definition, the state is that organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. However, using Christopher's earlier examples given of “the state”, Nathan concludes that a state is, “to have organization of people based on a code whether constitutional or familial,” which would therefore define the word “anti-state” as being “unorganized people lacking any written standards of conduct.” I happen to know that Christopher's concern regarding the state has little to do with organization or agreed upon standards of conduct, but rather the monopoly on the use of force or coercion that we general give (or is taken) by the state. In fact, in an earlier post he defines the state as, “the idea that one person or a group of persons should rule over any other person or group of persons without the consent of the governed.” The lack of an official state does not mean that there can be no organization, voluntary associations, or any agreed upon standards of conduct. In fact, we have many of these in our society today that have nothing to do with the state (such as businesses, clubs, churches, etc.)

While there are certainly differences between the Mafia and the United States government, the use of force to further their objectives is common to both. We might argue, however, that the US Government is not acting in it's own interest (or that of certain special interest groups), but rather as what the people “want as a whole, as expressed in the Constitution of the United States,” yet we each can cite many examples that have taken place that are not what we wanted and that served the interest of politicians rather than the people that the are supposed to serve. Unfortunately, power corrupts, and we have come a long way from the constitutional republic that we once had which upheld our US constitution and protected our personal liberties. History has proven that when power is given to a select group of people the tendency is to take more and more power, even if those individuals were elected. And because our government has become so centralized we no longer know those whom we elect, but only the image they want us to see. And we not only choose them as our leader, but give them power to use force against us. Yet, we are given the illusion of control without really having it, and that creates a perfect recipe for abuse.

In regards to anarchism and communism, we must keep in mind that the two of these do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Where there are certainly many that adhere to a the anarcho-communist philosophy, in my opinion this simply recreates the problem of the all-powerful state, unless it is a purely voluntary society. What it does not do is allow for the individual to have freedom to choose their own way and make choices for themselves and their own families, but everyone must surrender themselves to what someone else determines to be for the collective good of the people. Anarchism, defined as “a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which support the elimination of all forms of compulsory government” can take many forms, including anarcho-capitalism, collectivist anarchism, christian anarchism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-pacifism, among others. Several well known figures, such as Leo Tolstoy, and Gandhi were considered to be anarcho-pacifists, rejecting the use of violence, but protesting state control through passive resistance.

While Capitalism has long been heralded as the American way, the brand of capitalism that we have today is also derided by those who are concerned about monopolies, greed, and the control of society by Big Business. What often fails to be mentioned is the fact that monopolies only exist in the presence of a state who has unlimited funds (through taxation, borrowing from other nations, and the printing of more money), and provides subsidies and other supports, taking away an even playing field. The competition of a true free-market economy should bring about competition and better products at lower prices, rather than giving certain large corporations an advantage because they have more powerful lobbyists and special connections in Washington.

(Not to mention the fact that most of the services that the state provides such as protection, welfare, roads, schools, etc., could be provided by other means more effectively and more efficiently, whether that be through charities, churches, or private companies.)

“statism was never capable of remaining tyranny free, and tyranny has seemed to have fully enveloped our nation and our world.  Even so, I do feel that there are other possible options that can be taken that neither sink to unorganized masses nor rise to structured policemen states of the world.”

I completely agree with the above statement. My concern with the state is the giving of control to a few people who are no less corrupt than the masses and who are also looking out for their own interests and the interests of those who have money. I also disagree with the state having the right to use force and take away my personal choices (like having my baby at home, teaching my children what I want, giving up a third of my income to help fund a war I don't agree with, etc.).

It seems that all that we do, whether it be the transfer of property, or of donating time or money to others, should not be done through force or coercion. Jesus certainly demonstrates that it is not ours to force other individuals to do what we wish or to rule over one another. Instead he encourages us to give to others out of love without regard for ourselves, and to love even our enemies. Should we give the state power to violate these principals (and are we not the ones that give the state it's power ultimately?)

This however, does not mean that we cannot choose to join together as the early Christians did and share our possessions with one another. It does not mean that we would not choose to organize ourselves or follow a standard of conduct. It simply means that we don't force anyone to share with us or do things the way that we say they must be done. Each person is allowed to exist within the freedom that has been given to them by God.

And for those who subscribe to the Seventh-day Adventist view of eschatology, we also find that in the end of time the state will not be our friend. It will not be the state who protects or defends us. Rather our choices and liberties will be taken by those who are in power over us. We will stand and declare ourselves as citizens of a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one who persecutes and tries to take away the freedom we have been given by God. If we want to protect our own freedom, we must stand up now for the freedom of all people.

This is a very interesting article about Somalia's stateless government, called Kritarchy. It's a long article and I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly, but what I found very interesting. For those of you interested in this topic I think it would definitely be worth reading.