3 votes

The Power of the State vs. the Power of Love

For thousands of years, philosophers have argued that society must invest great power in the rulers because only great power can hold back the forces of evil — violence, plunder, and disorder. They have often conceded, however, that this solution has a down side: powerful rulers may themselves resort to violence and plunder.

Given that wealth destruction undermines social well-being, how did it come to pass that the state — an institution based on violence and plunder — has overridden peaceful cooperation as the dominant factor in social life virtually everywhere on earth?

Individuals may rest their personal lives on love and thereby find the peace that seemingly evades all philosophical and sociological understanding of social affairs. Whatever wise men and women may know and practice in their own lives, however, essentially Hobbesian analysis holds the great thinkers in its iron grip, and those who recommend love are dismissed as muddle-headed and simplistic. Yet, to repeat, here we are, inhabiting a world made no better by our hanging on the words of the greatest political philosophers, statesmen, and international-relations experts. In their view, the state is a given, and their analyses take for granted its nature and conduct. Perhaps this point of departure is their root error: that they readily accept what most needs to be challenged.

So long as the state exists, with its intrinsic violence, plunder, and insolence, and we seek solutions to our pressing social problems through it or in its dark shadow, we are doomed not to second-best or third-best solutions, but to make-believe solutions that are, at best, momentary rest stops on the road to our worsening degradation and ultimate demise. Destruction is what states do (or threaten to do); it is the nature of the beast. As technological changes augment state powers, the culmination of this terrible sequence may be our absolute annihilation.

http://mises.org/daily/6570/The-Power-of-the-State-vs-the-Po...

Comment viewing options

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

Maybe you are just an “apologist” for the State.

Maybe this is all you have ever known. Maybe you just don’t really stand for anything and therefore cannot grasp your Liberty as your own and not given or protected by the State. Maybe you just can’t stand it that I won’t conform to what you think is a more “intelligent” stance. Maybe you don’t have a clue as to what it is to stand in a line of fire or have any Honor. Maybe you don’t know a thing about me other then I will not let you define me…..Good luck with that. I am not here to bend to your wishes.

And just so you know “Oh Great Philosopher of the Moronic Middle Ground” The phrase “middle ground is where you bury the losers” is business acumen for companies that do not define a corporate strategy as to which end of the market they will compete. Will they be the low cost provider, low margins and compete on volume or will they differentiate with higher quality products, higher prices with higher margins. “The Middle Ground is where you bury the Losers”

and maybe I don't give a fuck about HTML...and maybe, you mistook that statement as easily seen through as sarcasm,but if you KNEW more you wouldn’t get so easily offend….how about growing a pair.....or can I expect a visit from the State for offending you...man you sure can dish it out, but can't take it.

And yes you have been lacing sarcasm through the whole discussion….I just chose to ignore it.

Last bump you get.

Maybe you have a problem with authority? Maybe you think that your own, individual perception of right and wrong are the only standard viewpoints that should exist in any human being? Maybe you have no knowledge of the individual beyond yourself? Maybe is all you've got when you don't understand context.

Who said I was offended? If I couldn't "take it", would I still be here typing? Weren't you the one who was whining "talk to me and not at me?" Such a child. If you could actually handle speaking openly about ideals instead of hiding behind then, then perhaps you would have the right to make such an assessment as a man.

And speaking of growing a pair, it is that middle ground where real men fight their battles, not cowering in one corner or the other in polarized opinions so that they don't have to think or consider their beliefs. Using the bloodthirsty verbiage of corporate America is supposed to make me somehow believe in your idealistic love without the rule of law?

I'm not here to bend to your wishes either. I refuse to accept that your idealistic and childish perception of love - your personal beliefs of right and wrong, and your trashy disregard for anything that would stop you from doing whatever you damn well pleased against the common wealth - are some healthy alternative to the rule of law. If you can't handle the fact that someone still believes in law, don't post about it. Try living in the real world for a change, and you will see that hearts and flowers aren't going to stop thieves and murders from having their way.

When I refuse to say anything else, it is not just because I have grown sick and tired of your hateful ranting or tautology. I refuse to give your polarized and despotic mindset another bump.

Great….No more Bumps for Me!!!!!!!!!!!

What are you the “Bump Nazi” ( reference Seinfeld Soup Nazi)…..i know I have to spell things out for you. I care LESS about BUMPS then I do HTML.

And the last time I checked….Wars were fought out on “Fronts”. When did you ever hear a commander order his troops to the “Middle”.
And who was sending those troops to the front…..Oh yeah ….the benevolent leaders of the “Civil Union”….NO......THE STATE.

If we followed you moronic middle ground philosophy we would still be speaking English (joke.... defined again).

I prefer to fight the enemy I know and see rather than have someone use extortion to protect me from an enemy that might not even exist.

And every “Man” I have ever known doesn’t talk behind someone’s back…… like a little bitch, They call them out ……oh yeah just like I did…..what you referred to as me “whining” was the actions of a MAN…..oh yeah which it appears you have never met.

Remember….”Lawlessness is evil”….I called you out on this and you have yet to say anything that proves it. I don’t need to talk behind your back, and you still can’t make that statement work.

I am more afraid what my government can do to me (legally by the way with written laws) then what the government can ever do for me…..I can do for myself thank you very much and thanks to no man for the “RIGHT”

Do you have an example of a state

which actually improved the lives of most of its citizens? States destroy, that is their essential nature, as is the nature of any institution which is based on violence. If you actually think a loving God would approve of this violence, you are dead wrong.

Leading question -

It's a shame you turned that into a leading question. Were you actually asking for an example? You could have simply asked - you confused state with empire by writing anything else.

What you are saying is that a "central civil government" - that is what defines a state - is essentially violent, but then it would cease being civil. Government is, of course, the political laws derived from reason, given direction or control that is exercised upon all members. Bad philosophy, devoid of solid reason, poisons the political mindset. Civility is lost when those "in power" - whether by law making or simple authority - begin to regard themselves as above the population. Then your joint-effort to uphold a code of law stops being a state and becomes an empire. This is the only time when violence comes out of the institution.

Athens is a good example of a state that actually improved the lives of its citizens, but I have many, many more examples of times when the absence of the civil state did just as much damage. Prior to the unification of Japan, there was no central military or police to enforce laws that regarded the general welfare of the population, to protect small villages from raids by bandits. Your crops, livestock, whatever you produced, your wife or your daughters, everything in your life thus belonged to those bandits. Sure, you could fight them, but what match were you - having spent your entire life being productive - against a horde of men who spent their entire lives fighting? Many places in the early US were similarly structured - far beyond the reach of any law but aggression. Recent history shows a similar lawlessness in central and western Africa. And if you want to speak of a loving God, don't forget that the Hebrew people wanted a state.

The thing that confuses me the most about anarchists is their fervent tautology of "state destroys". The absence of civil law is what destroys. If you actually think you want to live in a world where there is no civil law but your gun, you'd be worse than dead wrong. You'd just be dead. Or a bandit. Or a dead bandit.