20 votes

Rethinking the State Concept

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

~ Thomas Paine, Common Sense

As a scientist, it is my job to make observations, interpret the data based on a fundamental understanding of the system under scrutiny, and report the useful findings to the greater scientific community (or perhaps, employ my newfound knowledge in a worthwhile endeavor). Humanity has had thousands of years of experience under State rule, but only very rarely are meaningful adjustments made. It's disturbing to me how often and easily valuable lessons are ignored for the sake of familiarity and tradition.

The Newtonian Revolution brought mankind a workable understanding of the Laws of Nature. Almost immediately - as John Locke was a friend of Newton - concepts such as divine right came under the fire of reason and logic. Can kings break the Laws of Nature? Such a question leads one to the conclusion - All men are equal before the Laws of Nature. The American Revolution was simply an offshoot of the Newtonian Revolution.

I have several Chinese colleagues, and it's always a pleasure to converse with them. Today, as I spoke with one of my friends, the concept of the State came up - as it often has in the past. The statement was made (paraphrasing) - "In China, special economic favor is given to those closely connected to the politicians. The class of wealthy entrepreneurs is dominated by such people - while opportunities for common people are much less prevalent especially in major industries." Sound vaguely familiar? (How about that solar farm of Reid, for example?)

People from around the world place different flavor labels on various State designs, but in reality, a State is a State is a State.

My friend lauded the opportunities people have in the United States to become successful. However, I quickly pointed out, we've been living on our grandfathers' grandfathers' wealth - which is quickly vanishing in our, now, debt-based, nanny-state dominated system. It's only ever a matter of time before the State plunders what it considers the excess wealth of its perceived subjects - regardless of the flavor.

A question that will receive a virtually uniform response from people across the globe is - In general, are politicians trustworthy?

If your child had a friend that you suspected of stealing from your household, would you continue to allow him/her to come over? Would you marry or have a significant relationship with a person which you clearly couldn't trust? If you owned a business, would you fire a person for stealing from the cash register, or would you promote him/her to manager? If there was an entire group of people you couldn't trust, do you think it would be a good idea to give them billions of dollars, a shitload of automatic rifles, tanks, & nuclear weapons, and the ability to punish anyone they wanted to with impunity?

Adhering to flawed philosophy out of familiarity and tradition is a cop out. Often I've heard - "Well, that's just the way things are. So, you may as well just take it up the woo-hoo like everyone else." Truthfully, the reason why "things are the way they are" is because of this complacent attitude. If people continued to have a similar stance for the remainder of human existence, would anything ever change?

Rather than engaging in the futile endeavor of trying to perfect the State, Humanity should aspire toward anarchy. We should venture to make the State as small as people are willing to tolerate, and then, once they become comfortable, shrink it a little more until one day, hopefully, it disappears.

People tend to, more or less, say - "Who will protect me?"

Who protects you now? For instance, do the police protect you? How often are police present when a crime is being committed? Police don't prevent crimes, police respond to crimes after they occur. Deferring protection to other individuals only provides a false sense of security that often places victims at greater risk.

It was reported that a college girl where I live was sexually assaulted in a university parking deck over the weekend. Suppose that she was packing a Derringer - which is forbidden on campus - and plugged the perpetrator? What if the headline read - Attempted Rape Victim Shoots and Kills Assailant - rather than - Girl Gets Sexually Assaulted at Parking Deck: Assailant Remains at Large?

Crime is prevented much more effectively when it is known by potential criminals that the potential victims are willing to defend themselves - rather than when a criminal knows the victim is likely defenseless and the police are minutes-and-minutes away. (This is no fault of the police. It's simply the nature of the beast.)

Lysander Spooner provides an entertaining example which demonstrates the absurdity of the current US State in Section III of No Treason:

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers who call themselves "the government" are directly the opposite of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not like him make themselves individually known or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts.

On the contrary, they secretly, by secret ballot, designate someone of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:

"Go to A B and say to him that the government has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business and not his, that we choose to protect him whether he desires us to do so or not and that we demand pay too for protecting him.

If he dares to inquire who the individuals are who have thus taken upon themselves the title of 'the government' and who is soon to protect him and demand payment of him without his ever having made any contract with them, say to him that that too is our business and not his that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him, that we have secretly, by secret ballot, appointed you, our agent, to give him notice of our demands, and if he complies with them, give to him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demands for the present year.

If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands but all your own expenses and trouble besides. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you. Doubtless, some of them will prove to be members of our band.

If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who were assisting you, capture him at all hazards, charge him in one of our courts with murder, convict him, and hang him.

If he should call upon his neighbors or any others, who like him may be disposed to resist our demands and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors, that our country is in danger. Call upon the commander of our hired murderers. Tell him to quell the rebellion and save the country, cost what it may. Tell him to kill all that resist though they should be hundreds of thousands, and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter.

When these traitors have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore."

The logic that underlies the concept of the State is extremely flawed.

This generation is not the first to encounter State tyranny. It has been around for ages. The State cannot be perfected and, very likely, cannot be limited once given a monopoly on the use of force.

What must one do to change it? Spread ideas. Learn to communicate effectively. Speak in a regular volume so that those lingering in the immediate vicinity can hear what you are saying. Never be ashamed to admit that you're a minarchist or anarchist or whatever else. Be proud and stand on sound logic. And, rather than telling people what you want them to know, try to instead ask them questions that will get them to think about the message you are trying to convey.

If you were around during the days of chattel slavery, would you have been for immediate abolition? Or, would you have been for gradual abolition for practical reasons? To hell with what's practical. Stand for what is right. Stand for what you truly believe and nothing less. Even if you don't change every mind you encounter, you will earn quite a bit of respect for your candor and consistency.

The State is not great. This is something virtually everyone knows yet does nothing to change. Be the exception. Politicians are not divine; they, too, cannot break the Laws of Nature, just like the kings who came before them. If you disagree with them, challenge their supposed authority. Stagnation is not progress. If something is broken, it is reasonable to make appropriate changes - while leaving things unchanged and expecting different results...

It's high-time to rethink the State concept.

Comment viewing options

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

Divine right of kingship

Divine right of kingship doesn't have anything to do with the physical laws of nature not applying equally to kings. It was a belief about the propriety or rightness of a kings claim to temporal authority. Just as you believe that every individual has his own claim to ultimate political authority. Neither has anything to do with how gravity or electromagnetism treat people equally.

Give me a break and please go do some reading...

Here's one example:

So it has been for ages, which is why King James II of England sought to manipulate the administration of universities in order to consolidate his authority. In an era in which religious denominations were essentially political parties, James was a Catholic who believed in a 17th century French-influenced divine right of kings theology. But he ruled over a Protestant England.

The University of Oxford, being a seminary of Anglicanism, was the first to be targeted by the king. The fellows of Magdalen College were punished by eviction when they refused to elect a papal-leaning president, and when Anglican president Dr. Hough had his office wrested from him, “he complained that the government had illegally deprived him of what was tantamount to private property,” thus invoking a debate about the deprivation of English rights.


Newton observed that when it comes to dispensing with laws, the king has no authority to ignore laws which are against mala in se (that is, laws against crimes that are wrong in themselves based on absolute principle). “The King cannot dispence with a law made for securing the liberty or property of the people,” wrote Newton. He figured that the king also could not dispense with a statute unless there was some reasonable necessity.



Unfortunately you feel the need to be rude

which does nothing to help you when you're in such a weak position. Your quote, for those who bother to read it, clearly says nothing whatsoever about how the observed physical laws of nature caused any rethinking of political systems. If you could produce some quote that did bear on the actual point in dispute, that would be actually interesting.


The Second Treatise [by John Locke] consists of a short preface and nineteen chapters. In chapter i, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. In his view, these laws only work because the people accept them and because they are for the public good. In chapter ii, Locke claims that all men are originally in a state of nature. A man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but he is otherwise able to live, act, and dispose of his possessions as he sees fit.


Nothing in that

paragraph resembles the idea that Newtonian physics caused people to come to new ideas about political relationships.

Moreover, the idea of men being without political bonds in the prehistoric wasn't a discovery, it was just a mistaken assertion.

Unfortunately, I have many more sources...

since what I'm saying happens to be the truth.

Locke wrote and developed the philosophy that there was no legitimate government under the divine right of kings theory. The Divine Right of Kings theory, as it was called, asserted that God chose some people to rule on earth in his will. Therefore, whatever the monarch decided was the will of God. When you criticized the ruler, you were in effect challenging God. This was a very powerful philosophy for the existing ruler. But, Locke did not believe in that and wrote his theory to challenge it.


It just so happens that Locke and Newton were close friends. It was no coincidence that the theory of divine right went straight to the junk heap in the minds of the public once those two fellows started laying the leather of logic to it.

I don't see any point in this passage

that supports your assertion. Btw, Newton was a theist, not a Deist, predicted the end of the world in 2060, posited that God intervenes regularly to maintain the motion of the universe, among other things.

The state came into existence

The state came into existence when real private property did, that is, property beyond personal possessions and communal territory.


The state came into existence with agriculture when the wealth people could create was no longer portable, and it became impossible for people to run away from thieves, murderers, and slavers. Even thieves and murderers could relocate to get away from other thieves, murderers, and slavers.

The state is simply the thieves, murderers and slavers taking just enough of the wealth people can create by remaining in one place so that it doesn't become more attractive to run.

This is the 'healthy' state. People don't like being preyed upon, but the cost of relocating is greater than what the thieves take in a healthy state.

Degenerate states (oxymoron I know) or terminal states are those which go beyond that, and take so much that people start wanting to run, and thus must start investing in ways to keep people on the farm.

The U.S. is well into that phase.

If you made the state disappear tomorrow, those with the power and influence could re establish it if they desired.

Could they simply establish slavery? No. Which is all the state is, pro-rata slavery.

First off the state won't go away on it's own. Revolutions simply install different people in power. But the state as a firm is not viable without the belief of the people in the legitimacy of the state.

All it will take is for enough people to realize the state is illegitimate and then it cannot exist, for the same reason slavery evaporated, economics.

You cannot have a farm if the ratio of farmers to livestock approaches par or worse. The only way it works is because most of the sheep think they are supposed to be sheep and don't need constant attention from farmers.

That's what we are doing. Telling people they aren't the livestock of other men. It's all we need to do and it's the only thing that can work anyway.

It doesn't matter if you think you are a sheep once enough of us know better. The farmers simply will not be able to run a profitable farm anymore and you will be forced to face your responsibility as a human.

Presumably this fear is why you don't want the sheep to wake up, because once enough do, it would mean you have to.

The humans may lose. All they need to do is close down the internet, which they are trying to do, and likely will, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you.

The odds on humanity are long, smart money is probably on the sheep and farmers.

EDIT: You will still be able to let people steal from you in a free society, that won't change. You may still live as a slave. But you won't be able to so easily delude yourself that you are supposed to be a slave because it would no longer be the case that you are surrounded by slaves. You will know you are letting people take your money, and if they provide some 'service' in return, you will be able to look around and see the same services provided without monopoly and how much better and cheaper everything in a free competitive society. If you choose to remain a slave, it will be by your own choice.

Also your masters will be poor compared to free societies and will have no capacity to enslave anyone without their voluntary compliance, no matter how much you hate free men and want to pull people down with you. There will be no capacity for the same reason statism ended in the first place. The monopoly farm is not economically viable if you have to guard every sheep. It only works so long as the sheep outnumber the men. And it will work so long as the sheep can only escape to other farms.

Which is why real capitalism is not allowed to exist.

The wealth created under real capitalism would put the lie to the state.

But again enough people would have to become men and women before this happens. So you are probably safe in your sheepdom.

Besides your use of

Besides your use of emotionally charged words, I don't see where your analysis differs substantially from mine. You use morally loaded terms of derision for government, but on your analysis it emerged as the least costly means of defensive social order. Once it was established and obtained legitimacy, good people joined it in droves, just as good people do today join the police or the army, along with the bad apples. If you can create an alternative that can defend you from the government gangs, go for it. You can't, so you complain.