2 votes

What is the State? I figured it out

I feel like I've had a breakthrough in my informal political theorizing.

I can tell you what the state is, and it's exciting because I know the clear and sure path - the only path - of action towards liberty!!

Before describing the state, allow me to define something else that isn't the state.

I call it the 'General Political Society'. This refers to whatever organization a society embarks upon, within a given territory, to share information/opinions/intentions of a political (use of force, philosophy, law, that which governs behavior of some as it pertains to how they will interact with others) nature.

The General Political Society is not the State. It is merely the sovereign people, acting collectively and voluntarily in a political manner.

Now, the next step is a 'Political Estate'. This is any concentration of power (which exceeds that which an individual man might on average successfully defend against) possessed by any agent with a specific agenda. A gang, a militia, etc. are all 'Political Estates'. Each has its own 'agenda' or set of 'laws' which govern how it will use the power it possesses to govern the behavior of others.

Finally, there is the 'State'. A 'State' is a monopolized 'Political Estate'. In other words, it enforces not only its laws/agenda, but also seeks to eliminate all competing political estates.

If you had a town with 5 gangs, but they shared a sort of 'code of honor' or 'pirate's code'. That 'Code' and the gangs collectively would be a 'State'. If not all the people are touched by the force of the gangs all of the time, then there is a State coexisting with anarchy. If all people in the town are under the rule and supervision of some gang, then the 'State' becomes a 'Total State'. SS numbers, tax collectors, constant surveillance, property tax - these are elements of a 'total state'.

A State which governs, but has the consent of the people, is a Republic. A town can appoint a chief with sole executive, legislative, and judicial authority - as long as they consent generally to this, the resultant State is republican in nature. If everyone wants to be part of one of the gangs, and support the Code, then that is a republican State. Usually, republican States have a democratic process for obtaining 'consent' and constitutional procedures for limiting abuses of power.

The most important secret of what a State is lies in its relationship to the General Political Society.

Basically: States exist unto themselves. NO STATE IS FOUNDED BY THE PEOPLE, THE GENERAL POLITICAL SOCIETY DOES NOT SUSTAIN OR CREATE A STATE.

A State creates itself. If 20 people form a constitutional convention - they and they alone are the new 'State'. When a State starts ruling and enforcing its laws on the people, it does so on its own.

The tricky, nuanced part of the relationship lies in that the General Political Society can express its consent for the existence of a State.

Ultimately, the people themselves, via their right to bear arms, give final consent for participation under the laws and within the apparatus of a State.

A State that tries to take power, against the will of the people, can be opposed. A State that tries to take power, with the consent of the people, will not be opposed.

That's all there is to it.


Again, the key is that States establish themselves. The consent of the people takes the form of an unwritten peace treaty between the State and each person individually.

The point here being to emphasize two things:

1) The State is not established by the people, is an occupying power that can serve a positive end, but which we must choose on our own to obey or not obey.

2) Following from that, it is of the utmost importance that THE PEOPLE ESTABLISH, ORGANIZE, AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN A GENERAL POLITICAL SOCIETY WITHIN EACH STATE so that the people can maintain their sovereignty despite the presence of the State.

STATES WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE INSTITUTED IN THE ANCIENT PAST VIA AN EXPLICIT SOCIAL CONTRACT WHEREBY WE VOLUNTARILY AND ENTHUSIASTICALLY SURRENDERED OUR SOVEREIGNTY FOREVER AND ALL TIME.

Soon I will post a video to YouTube explaining the structure of a General Political Society, how we should participate in it, and how we can use that participation to reclaim our liberty.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Very nice, Tman.

I like it.

I have a problem with this though:

"A State which governs, but has the consent of the people, is a Republic. A town can appoint a chief with sole executive, legislative, and judicial authority - as long as they consent generally to this, the resultant State is republican in nature. If everyone wants to be part of one of the gangs, and support the Code, then that is a republican State. Usually, republican States have a democratic process for obtaining 'consent' and constitutional procedures for limiting abuses of power."

A State never has the consent of all the people. This would mean that every baby that pops out of a womb in that geographic area has to acquiesce. Now if you mean a mafia-like set up I could agree. And also, democratic process' are not for obtaining consent, they by definition subjugate the minority, which is the opposite of obtaining consent.

Have you read or heard Rothbard's Anatomy of the State?:
ebook: https://mises.org/document/1011
Audio: https://mises.org/media/7640/Anatomy-of-the-State

The state is...

A geographical monopoly on violence.

It's a gang of thieves writ large.

It's a parasite living off the productive elements of society.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

"The State," is the overall

"The State," is the overall state of mind in our nation. It's sad and unfortunate, but many people have helped create the state...of mind.

"We," elect our leaders, and, "We," create the state by voting for those who we agree with most to gratify our own egos.

"The State," is created by, and composed of individuals.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Well sort of

The founders created the state. State officers create and run the state. State thugs enforce the mandates of the state.

Voters participate in the process of composing the state and its officers.

However, as sovereign people, the only way "we create" the state is through our consent.

Hell, we could vote in elections and still resist and oppose the state individually.

Democracy is sort of like part of a sales pitch the state offers in order to maintain our consent for it.

And, in fact, a good republican state heavily involves the opinions, perspectives, and will of the general public to the greatest extent possible.

So we as individuals can be part of the state, but as sovereign individuals in the body politic there is the matter of consent or not consent, and that alone.

There are some sticky points. How is authority established?

Overall your line of reasoning is good.

Hans Herman Hoppe: Private law societies. None have territorial monopoly.

It would be interesting to compare your insights with his.

Free includes debt-free!

I am sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism

Obviously, and its the burden of Statists to defend the state against the alternative of anarchy, I truly believe.

I do think there has to be a General Political Society. Basically, a voluntarily organized rules-based forum for expressing political opinion that tries to be as inclusive as possible. It has zero political power.

Such a society would 'endorse' possibly various private law codes.

The idea is to give people the ability to gauge the opinions of their fellow people (haha, not citizens). Thus preventing violence that would be the result of confusion over competing private law. If there is to be violence over disagreement, then there will be violence.

But there should not be violence over confusion.

Now, as for the State, I think any anarchist would agree with my assessment that the State establishes itself. No state is established by the people. The people can consent to a state, and that consent can only take the form of resistance or not.

This is different than 'assent' which is where you actually like the state. You can hate the state, but still consent by not resisting out of fear of punishment.

Assent is a factor in consent individually, but when it comes to the state and people the only factor is consent.

Our Cosntitution was perverted because of foreign creditors.

Their purpose was to recover the gold loaned, not create a free society.

Alexander Hamilton was the banker's agent.

Free includes debt-free!

Referendums

What if a constitutional convention establishes a state by referendum with 2/3 vote of the citizens ratifying? It's legitimate right?

NO!

If a constitutional convention (embryonic state) obtains 2/3 vote of people in a territory, they MAY PRESENT THAT AS EVIDENCE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE JUSTNESS OF THEIR RULE. It is merely part of the sales pitch, albeit a darn good pitch.

The people must still then choose individually to support or not support the state.

A full 1/3 in one corner of the territory may oppose being under that State. It would be up to them to oppose the new State's attempt at violence to impose itself upon them. Or, the State could concede that it does not have their consent and NOT try to rule there.