The State: A Reductio ad Absurdum

[Dissipate]

The State: A Reductio ad Absurdum

by Anthony Gregory

The state is a contradiction. Or, more precisely, a state that protects individual rights is an absurdity.

A state is an agency that maintains a monopoly on the use of legal force in a given geographical area. The idea that such an institution can, on balance, protect individual rights, is fallacious.

Let us think about it. In order for a state to exist, it must monopolize the ?service? it provides, forbidding other agencies from entering the business of rights protection.

But anything that the state should be allowed to do ? under the libertarian credo ? so should any other institution be allowed to do. Protecting life, liberty and property is a victimless act. Using force to maintain a monopoly on this protection violates the rights of those who wish to establish and patronize competitors in the business of protecting rights.

States also must be financed, and they all use theft ? taxation, central bank inflation, and/or eminent domain ? to maintain themselves. If they didn?t use theft, and if they didn?t forcibly prevent competition, they wouldn?t be states; they?d be private institutions.

So again, we see that a libertarian state is a self-contradiction. States must violate rights, even for the limited task of protecting them. If their purpose is to protect rights, but by their very nature they violate rights, what we have is a reductio ad absurdum ? the state reduces down to an absurdity.

It is no wonder, then, that states do such a horrible job at producing anything of value, and such a good job of destroying such things.

A friend of mine told me we need government to protect us from bands of terrorists breaking into our homes, looting and killing us. But what commits such acts most frequently? Governments, both here and abroad.

We often hear that government must fight the unfair consolidation of economic power. But what types of institutions typify the centralized consolidation of wealth through unfair means? Governments, both here and abroad.

But do we not need government to ensure that the water, air and land are clean? Well, what is responsible for most pollution? Governments, both here and abroad.

Some people want government to teach proper moral values, to protect the fabric of tradition. But where do we see the most lying, irresponsible decadence, and an outright hostility toward families and traditional social arrangements that compete with them for the allegiance of society? Governments, both here and abroad.

Government, some people believe, can promote diversity, tolerance, racial harmony and equality. But what types of institutions have carried out, by far, the greatest attacks on these values, dividing people into artificial sub-groups of humanity, treating some people as second-class citizens, and even, at times, displacing or outright exterminating large groups of human beings based on their race or ethnicity? Governments, both here and abroad.

Government must keep the peace! Well, what is constantly waging war? Government.

Government must stabilize the economy! Well, what is always creating recession, depression and famine? Government.

Government must curb Big Business! Well, what props up undeserving big companies and destroys small ones? Government.

Government must protect us from common criminals! Well, what disarms victims and fosters violent crime waves? Government.

Government must teach the children! What is it that dumbs them down? Government.

Government is an unnecessary evil. The only reason most people think it is necessary or good at all is because they have been bamboozled ? by government schools, government-regulated media, and government court intellectuals.

It is no wonder that so many people think that bombing cities filled with people in US wars were acts of liberation, peacekeeping and defense; that price supports and controls will help the economy grow; that breaking up companies will foster competition; that paying farmers not to grow is good agricultural policy; that military conscription is a necessary price for freedom and that taxes are necessary to maintain civilization; that government affirmative action is a good program for racial equality; that disarming victims will protect them from criminals; that government can be trusted to tell us what we can do with our bodies and our money and what kids should learn in school ? because, supposedly, the alternative of letting people make their own choices would lead to disaster. It is no wonder that people believe such absurdities, because they were taught to believe them by the embodiment of absurdity called the government.

The minimal rights-protecting government envisioned by most libertarians is an absurdity. If a government can?t manage the economy, build good roads, or feed the poor, how can it protect rights? Its very nature is to violate rights and steal property. It doesn?t do a good job at engineering a healthy society, so why would it do a good job defending liberty? Why can?t the market and voluntary human action protect rights, if they can do a better job than the government at everything else? Why should we believe in a minimal state that protects rights more than it violates them, when we have never seen such a state, and when we have seen that human cooperation and the market currently protect people?s rights far better than the government, just as they do a better job at producing all other goods and services?

Government is an absurdity, whether we look at the particulars of its policies or its very definition.

Text

I've known about and understood the truths in this article for a long time now, I'm glad that someone took the time to formalize them in a nicely edited format.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Government has a monopoly on force within its jurisdiction. Nearly everything else in that article absolutely screams "weak point; shout louder!".

BTW, comparing market goods to 'liberty' as the author does is an absurdity in itself - there is no scarcity of 'liberty' and therefore no need to allocate it, only to protect it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Government has a monopoly on force within its jurisdiction. Nearly everything else in that article absolutely screams "weak point; shout louder!".

BTW, comparing market goods to 'liberty' as the author does is an absurdity in itself - there is no scarcity of 'liberty' and therefore no need to allocate it, only to protect it.

Weak point, shout louder? I don't see any weakness at all. I can't find a single untruth in this article.

Market goods are liberty because capitalism is essential to freedom.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Government has a monopoly on force within its jurisdiction. Nearly everything else in that article absolutely screams "weak point; shout louder!".

BTW, comparing market goods to 'liberty' as the author does is an absurdity in itself - there is no scarcity of 'liberty' and therefore no need to allocate it, only to protect it.

Weak point, shout louder? I don't see any weakness at all. I can't find a single untruth in this article.

Market goods are liberty because capitalism is essential to freedom.

Essential to complete economic freedom. IIRC "Ayn Rand said it best" comes next.

The biggest error would be in the environmental impact; by far the largest contributor to environmental destruction is industry and consumer habits. Not government.

"We often hear that government must fight the unfair consolidation of economic power. But what types of institutions typify the centralized consolidation of wealth through unfair means? Governments, both here and abroad."

Like it or not, the 'unfair means' that the author is referring to are different from the ones government is supposed to fight; so it doesn't add anything to the argument from liberty, which is really all you have.

It goes on like this, but I don't feel like writing a novel at the moment.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Government has a monopoly on force within its jurisdiction. Nearly everything else in that article absolutely screams "weak point; shout louder!".

BTW, comparing market goods to 'liberty' as the author does is an absurdity in itself - there is no scarcity of 'liberty' and therefore no need to allocate it, only to protect it.

Weak point, shout louder? I don't see any weakness at all. I can't find a single untruth in this article.

Market goods are liberty because capitalism is essential to freedom.

Essential to complete economic freedom. IIRC "Ayn Rand said it best" comes next.

No, actually I think Ayn Rand has detracted from the libertarian movement by attempting to turn libertarianism into a moral philosophy. Not only that, but she was a minarchist, and tried to defend a limited government position. She fell right into the trap of the fundamental errors of classic liberalism.

The biggest error would be in the environmental impact; by far the largest contributor to environmental destruction is industry and consumer habits. Not government.

That's debatable, but I don't really wish to dwell on environmental issues.

"We often hear that government must fight the unfair consolidation of economic power. But what types of institutions typify the centralized consolidation of wealth through unfair means? Governments, both here and abroad."

Like it or not, the 'unfair means' that the author is referring to are different from the ones government is supposed to fight; so it doesn't add anything to the argument from liberty, which is really all you have.

Do you deny that government has consolidated economic power? I would find it absurd if you did deny this, considering the fact that the government spends over a trillion dollars a year.

It goes on like this, but I don't feel like writing a novel at the moment.

 

[AntiEverything]

charlie

Perhaps you don't understand. Mega-corporations only exist due to the power of the state. Without state enforced monopolies and intellecutal property laws, the corporations which you speak of would not stand against competition.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
charlie

Perhaps you don't understand. Mega-corporations only exist due to the power of the state. Without state enforced monopolies and intellecutal property laws, the corporations which you speak of would not stand against competition.

Your statement is neither true nor false - mega-corporations exist for a number of reasons, including but not limited to government support.

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient. Thus in some industries, only large corporations can actually compete (that doesn't mean there's no competition though). Mass-production industries, like automobiles, have already seen the many small firms model of competition, and it disappeared for reasons of efficiency and competition, not because of intervention.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
charlie

Perhaps you don't understand. Mega-corporations only exist due to the power of the state. Without state enforced monopolies and intellecutal property laws, the corporations which you speak of would not stand against competition.

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient.

Everyone disregard the fact that this statement flies completely in the face of economic theory as we know it. When I mean "we" I mean mainstream economists and Austrians alike. :disgust:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone disregard the fact that this statement flies completely in the face of economic theory as we know it. When I mean "we" I mean mainstream economists and Austrians alike. :disgust:

Which statement is that?

That's why beaurocracy was created - it's aimless beaurocracy which is self-perpetuating and entirely inefficient. Directed beaurocracy actually gets things done. The trick is to kill it once it's done its work, and before it convinces you that it 'needs to do 'X' now'.

At it's root, beaurocracy rests only on the concept of avoiding repeated work (ironic that when it bogs down on itself, the first symptom is work being done over and over again).

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
charlie

Perhaps you don't understand. Mega-corporations only exist due to the power of the state. Without state enforced monopolies and intellecutal property laws, the corporations which you speak of would not stand against competition.

Your statement is neither true nor false - mega-corporations exist for a number of reasons, including but not limited to government support.

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient. Thus in some industries, only large corporations can actually compete (that doesn't mean there's no competition though). Mass-production industries, like automobiles, have already seen the many small firms model of competition, and it disappeared for reasons of efficiency and competition, not because of intervention.

Please give me an example of a small automobile company which failed due without relation to government intervention via regulations or unions, both of which are state derived.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone disregard the fact that this statement flies completely in the face of economic theory as we know it. When I mean "we" I mean mainstream economists and Austrians alike. :disgust:

Which statement is that?

That's why beaurocracy was created - it's aimless beaurocracy which is self-perpetuating and entirely inefficient. Directed beaurocracy actually gets things done. The trick is to kill it once it's done its work, and before it convinces you that it 'needs to do 'X' now'.

At it's root, beaurocracy rests only on the concept of avoiding repeated work (ironic that when it bogs down on itself, the first symptom is work being done over and over again).

Unfortunately beuracracy's goal is to perpetuate itself. There is no such thing as "limited beuracracy". Unless you think people WANT to put themselves out of a job. Human nature is to expand one's power, not eliminate it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone disregard the fact that this statement flies completely in the face of economic theory as we know it. When I mean "we" I mean mainstream economists and Austrians alike. :disgust:

Which statement is that?

That's why beaurocracy was created - it's aimless beaurocracy which is self-perpetuating and entirely inefficient. Directed beaurocracy actually gets things done. The trick is to kill it once it's done its work, and before it convinces you that it 'needs to do 'X' now'.

At it's root, beaurocracy rests only on the concept of avoiding repeated work (ironic that when it bogs down on itself, the first symptom is work being done over and over again).

I find it ironic that you state that bureaucracies can be efficient, when in fact their efficiency cannot even be measured in any meaningful way. Take the Department of Defense, for instance. The DoD is a half-trillion dollar a year bureaucracy. How can its "efficiency" even be measured? There is a whole lot of input, but its output consists of centrally planned artificial "goods."

Furthermore, it must be noted that the DoD is almost certainly overproducing "defense." It has a budget greater than the next 20 countries combined, and spends very little of its time actually defending the country. To claim that this adds up to "efficiency" is absurd.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything
Unfortunately beuracracy's goal is to perpetuate itself. There is no such thing as "limited beuracracy". Unless you think people WANT to put themselves out of a job. Human nature is to expand one's power, not eliminate it.

Perpetuation comes with the saliency of the end of the original reason for existence. Firms which keep a tight grip on the future of the beaurocracy in question (i.e. that there isn't one) can be effective. Some firms accomplish this with consultants, though many have problems with contract labour becoming entrenched. (good consultants are like hookers - you pay them to leave).

Car companies - there used to be many small automakers; the assembly line, not government, was the major reason they failed. Efficiency wages leading to productivity increases at companies that implemented these wages were another cause.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone disregard the fact that this statement flies completely in the face of economic theory as we know it. When I mean "we" I mean mainstream economists and Austrians alike. :disgust:

Which statement is that?

That's why beaurocracy was created - it's aimless beaurocracy which is self-perpetuating and entirely inefficient. Directed beaurocracy actually gets things done. The trick is to kill it once it's done its work, and before it convinces you that it 'needs to do 'X' now'.

At it's root, beaurocracy rests only on the concept of avoiding repeated work (ironic that when it bogs down on itself, the first symptom is work being done over and over again).

Unfortunately beuracracy's goal is to perpetuate itself. There is no such thing as "limited beuracracy". Unless you think people WANT to put themselves out of a job. Human nature is to expand one's power, not eliminate it.

Haha, try telling that to Charlie. He actually thinks that the government can behave in some sort of "rational" way according to the way his economic "models" say it should.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It has a budget greater than the next 20 countries combined, and spends very little of its time actually defending the country. To claim that this adds up to "efficiency" is absurd.

It's a good thing I didn't claim that then.

Public/private military is another matter, and not necessarily to be confused with efficiency, since it may be framed as an absolute 'win lose' in some cases.

This discussion of beaurocracy is with regards to corporations, not government.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Haha, try telling that to Charlie. He actually thinks that the government can behave in some sort of "rational" way according to the way his economic "models" say it should.

Whereas you claim that you know everything about how the economy should work 'a priori' even when it's demonstrably incorrect or inapplicable.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It has a budget greater than the next 20 countries combined, and spends very little of its time actually defending the country. To claim that this adds up to "efficiency" is absurd.

It's a good thing I didn't claim that then.

Public/private military is another matter, and not necessarily to be confused with efficiency, since it may be framed as an absolute 'win lose' in some cases.

This discussion of beaurocracy is with regards to corporations, not government.

So let me get this straight. You actually believe that the government can be more efficient than a private firm?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Haha, try telling that to Charlie. He actually thinks that the government can behave in some sort of "rational" way according to the way his economic "models" say it should.

Whereas you claim that you know everything about how the economy should work 'a priori' even when it's demonstrably incorrect or inapplicable.

No. I do not claim to know everything about the economy. I restrict my knowledge to those a priori axioms of human action. Austrian economics is not demonstrably incorrect, if it was it would not be a growing school of thought today. It would have failed the test of history like Keynesianism has. As for it being inapplicable, I would say that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
So let me get this straight. You actually believe that the government can be more efficient than a private firm?

More efficient? I don't see why it would be.

More optimal in allocation between industries? Sometimes.

Able to overcome human shortsightedness, and correct for some market externalities (like environmental destruction)? To some extent.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
So let me get this straight. You actually believe that the government can be more efficient than a private firm?

More efficient? I don't see why it would be.

More optimal in allocation between industries? Sometimes.

Able to overcome human shortsightedness, and correct for some market externalities (like environmental destruction)? To some extent.

You said above:

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient.

I have to assume that this word "extremely" was used in a context relative to private firms.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Haha, try telling that to Charlie. He actually thinks that the government can behave in some sort of "rational" way according to the way his economic "models" say it should.

Whereas you claim that you know everything about how the economy should work 'a priori' even when it's demonstrably incorrect or inapplicable.

No. I do not claim to know everything about the economy. I restrict my knowledge to those a priori axioms of human action. Austrian economics is not demonstrably incorrect, if it was it would not be a growing school of thought today. It would have failed the test of history like Keynesianism has. As for it being inapplicable, I would say that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The evaluate it on a case by case basis, instead of blindly assuming it's true for everything.

Austrian economics is just market economics with no allowances for social welfare improvements. You said Ayn Rand was wrong to moralize it, but in some ways it can't be avoided. Government can make everyone better off, in the Pareto improvement sense. But if you weight absolute liberty beyond any such improvements, then you can't make those improvements.

Aside from the rhetoric about absolute inefficiency in government in all places at all times, and the denial of major imperfections in the free market system, the argument is essentially philosophical, and always will be.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
So let me get this straight. You actually believe that the government can be more efficient than a private firm?

More efficient? I don't see why it would be.

More optimal in allocation between industries? Sometimes.

Able to overcome human shortsightedness, and correct for some market externalities (like environmental destruction)? To some extent.

You said above:

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient.

I have to assume that this word "extremely" was used in a context relative to private firms.

Why would you assume this? Have you ever worked for a major company? They use beaurocratic coordination heavily.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Haha, try telling that to Charlie. He actually thinks that the government can behave in some sort of "rational" way according to the way his economic "models" say it should.

Whereas you claim that you know everything about how the economy should work 'a priori' even when it's demonstrably incorrect or inapplicable.

No. I do not claim to know everything about the economy. I restrict my knowledge to those a priori axioms of human action. Austrian economics is not demonstrably incorrect, if it was it would not be a growing school of thought today. It would have failed the test of history like Keynesianism has. As for it being inapplicable, I would say that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

The evaluate it on a case by case basis, instead of blindly assuming it's true for everything.

Austrian economics is just market economics with no allowances for social welfare improvements. You said Ayn Rand was wrong to moralize it, but in some ways it can't be avoided. Government can make everyone better off, in the Pareto improvement sense. But if you weight absolute liberty beyond any such improvements, then you can't make those improvements.

Aside from the rhetoric about absolute inefficiency in government in all places at all times, and the denial of major imperfections in the free market system, the argument is essentially philosophical, and always will be.

I do evaluate on a case by case basis.

Absolute liberty must be held above all else, because the consequences of denying absolute liberty are horrible. Murray Rothbard showed this beyond a shadow of a doubt in two landmark books: Man, Economy & State and Power & Market.

You keep assuming that major "imperfections" in the free market system could not be solved by private law. Your worldview is extremely narrow, because you perceive people as just complete idiots who have no idea how to solve social problems on their own without government intervention. Your position on public roads speaks volumes about this. You actually believe that if government was not involved in the construction of roads people would just sit in their houses all day long and never figure out how to get from point A to point B in their cars.

Actually, I think that you aspire to be a social engineer in some government department as an economic policy "advisor." Despicable.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
So let me get this straight. You actually believe that the government can be more efficient than a private firm?

More efficient? I don't see why it would be.

More optimal in allocation between industries? Sometimes.

Able to overcome human shortsightedness, and correct for some market externalities (like environmental destruction)? To some extent.

You said above:

When directed towards a defined goal ('build a railroad' 'make more widgets cheaper') bueaurocracy can be extremely efficient.

I have to assume that this word "extremely" was used in a context relative to private firms.

Why would you assume this? Have you ever worked for a major company? They use beaurocratic coordination heavily.

Wow. You really have no idea what the difference is between government and private firms, do you? Four words: rational allocation of resources.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I shudder to think of a world with no protection from greed. No laws means lawlessness.

Fsck efficiency. Govt is imperfect and there are many things I dislike, but I have seen the "kindness" of businesses when one stole my fathers retirement pension fund. Very efficient.