The state is the great fictitious entity by which
everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.
Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone and the
libertarian Institute. This is an article by University
of Nevada. Las Vegas, Professor, Hans
Hermann Harbour where he discusses how the greatest scam
ever has been pulled off for thousands of years.
Let me begin with the definition of a state.
What must an agent be able to To do to qualify as a state.
This agent must be able to insist that all conflicts among
the inhabitants of a given territory.
Be brought to him for ultimate decision-making or be subject to
his final review. In particular.
This agent must be able to insist that.
All conflicts involving him be adjudicated by him or his agent
and implied, in the power to exclude all others from acting
as ultimate. As the second defining
characteristic of a state is the agents power to tax to
unilaterally, determine the price that Justice Seekers must
pay for his services. Based on this definition of a
state it is easy to understand why a desire to control a State
might exist for whoever is a monopolist of final arbitration
within a given territory can make laws and he who can
legislate can also tax. Surely.
This is an enviable position more difficult to understand is
how anyone can get away with controlling a state.
Why would others put up with such an Ocean.
I want to approach the answer to this question indirectly,
suppose you and your friends happen to be in control of such
an extraordinary institution. What would you do to maintain
your position provided you didn't have any moral Scruples,
you would certainly use some of your tax income to hire some
thugs. First to make peace among your
subject. So they will stay productive and
there were something to tax in the future.
But more importantly Because you might need these thugs for your
own protection. Should the people wake up from
their dogmatic Slumbers and challenge you.
This will not do. However, in particular, if you
and your friends are a small minority in comparison to the
number of subjects for a minority cannot lastingly rule,
a majority solely by brute force.
It must rule by opinion. The majority of the population
must be brought to voluntarily. Up your rule.
This is not to say that the majority must agree with every
one of your measures. Indeed.
It may well, believe that many of your policies are mistaken.
However, it must believe in the legitimacy of the institution of
the state as such and hence that.
Even if a particular policy may be wrong, such a mistake is an
accident. That one must tolerate in view
of some greater good provided by the state.
Yet. How can one persuade the
majority of The population to believe this, the answer is only
with the help of intellectuals. How do you get the intellectual
to work for you to this? The answer is easy.
The market demand for intellectual Services is not
exactly high in stable, intellectuals would be at the
mercy of the fleeting values of the masses.
And the masses are uninterested in intellectual philosophical
concerns. The state, on the other hand,
can accommodate the intellectuals, typically,
overinflated, Egos, and offer them a warm.
Cure and permanent birth in its apparatus.
However, it is not sufficient that you employ just some
intellectuals. You must essentially employ
them. All.
Even the ones who work in areas far removed from those that you
are primarily concerned with that is philosophy, the social
sciences and Humanities for even intellectuals, working in
mathematics or the Natural Sciences for instance, can
obviously, think for themselves and so become potentially
dangerous. It is thus important that you
You're also their loyalty to the state put differently.
You must become a monopolist. And this is best achieved.
If all educational institutions from kindergarten to
universities are brought under State control and all teaching
and researching Personnel is State Certified, but what if the
people do not want to become educated for this education must
be made compulsory. And in order to subject the
people to State Control? Old education for as long as
possible. Everyone must be declared
equally educable the intellectuals.
No, Such egalitarianism to be false, of course, yet to
Proclaim nonsense, such as everyone is a potential.
Einstein, if only given sufficient educational
attention, pleases the masses and in turn provides for an
almost Limitless demand for intellectual services.
None of all this guarantees, correct status thinking, of
course, it certainly helps. However, in reaching the
incorrect conclusion, if one realizes that without the state
one might be out of work, and may have to try one's hands at
the mechanics of gas pump operation.
Instead of concerning oneself with such pressuring problems,
as alienation Equity exploitation the destruction of
gender and sex roles, or the culture of the eskimos, the hope
he's and the Zulus. In any case, even if the
intellectuals feel underappreciated by you, that is
by one particular State Administration.
They know that help can only come from another state
Administration but not from an intellectual assault, on the
institution of the state as such, hence.
It is hardly surprising that. As a matter of fact, the
overwhelming majority of contemporary intellectuals
including most conservative or so-called free market.
Intellectuals are fundamentally and philosophically statist.
So has the work of the intellectuals paid off for the
state. I would think so, if asked
whether the institution of a state is necessary, I do not
think it is exaggerated to say that 99% of all people would
unhesitatingly, say yes. And yet this success rests on
rather shaky grounds and the entire state is edifice can be
brought down if only the work. The intellectuals is countered
by the work of intellectual anti intellectuals.
As I like to call them. The overwhelming majority of
State supporters are not philosophical.
Statist Sy e because they have thought about the matter.
Most people do not think much about anything philosophical.
They go about their daily lives. And that is it.
So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists
and has always existed as far as one can remember.
And that is typically not farther away than When one's own
lifetime, that is the greatest achievement of state
intellectuals, is the fact that they have cultivated the mass
natural intellectual laziness or incapacity and never allowed for
the subject to come up for serious discussion.
The state is considered an unquestionable part of the
social fabric. The first and foremost task of
the intellectual anti intellectuals, then is to
counter this dogmatic. Slumbers of the masses by
offering a precise definition of the state as I've done on the
outset. And when asked, if there is not
something truly remarkable odd, strange awkward ridiculous.
Indeed, ludicrous about an institution such as this.
I am confident that such simple definitional work will produce
some very first, but Doubt regarding an institution.
That one previously had been taken for granted a good start
further proceeding, from less sophisticated yet, not
coincidentally, more popular Pro State arguments to more
sophisticated ones. To the extent that intellectuals
have deemed it necessary to argue in favor of the state at
all, their most popular arguments encountered already at
kindergarten age runs like this, some activities of the state are
Pointed out the state builds roads kindergardens schools.
It delivers the mail and puts the policemen on the street.
Imagine there would be no State then we would have none of these
Goods. Thus the state is necessary at
the University level, a slightly more sophisticated version of
the same. Argument is presented.
It goes like this. True markets are best at
providing many or even most things.
But there are other Goods markets cannot provide or cannot
provide. Quantity or quality.
These other so-called public goods are Goods that bestow
benefits on to people Beyond those who have actually produced
or paid for them foremost. Among such Goods, ranks
typically, Education and Research, Education and
Research. For instance.
It is argued are extremely valuable Goods.
They would be under produced. However, because of Free Riders,
IE cheats who benefit via so-called neighborhood effects
from Education and Research. Church without paying for it.
Thus, the state is necessary to provide otherwise unproduced or
under produced public goods such as Education and Research.
These statist arguments can be refuted by a combination of
three fundamental insights first.
As for the kindergarten argument.
It does not follow from the fact that the state provides roads
and schools that only the state can provide such Goods, people
have little difficulty recognizing that.
This is a fallacy from the fact that monkeys can ride bikes.
It does not follow that. Only monkeys can ride bikes and
S. Immediately following it must be
recalled. That the state is an The tution
that can legislate and tax. And hence, the state agents have
little incentive to produce efficiently, state, roads, and
schools will only be more costly and their quality lower for,
there is always a tendency for State agents to use up as many
resources as possible, doing whatever they do but actually
work as little as possible. Doing it third as for the most
sophisticated status argument. It involves the same fallacy
encountered already, at the kindergarten level four.
Even if one were to Grant the rest of the argument.
It is still a fallacy to conclude from the fact that the
states provide public goods. That only states can do.
So, More importantly. However, it must be pointed out
that the entire argument demonstrates.
A total ignorance of the most fundamental fact of human life,
namely scarcity, true markets will not provide for all
desirable things. There are always unsatisfied
once as long as we do not inhabit the Garden of Eden but
to bring such unproduced Goods into existence.
Scarce resources must be expended which consequently can
no. Longer be used to produce other,
likewise desirable things whether public goods exist.
Next to private ones does not matter in this regard, the fact
of scarcity remains unchanged more public.
Goods can only come at the expense of less private goods
yet, what needs to be demonstrated is that one good is
more important and valuable than another one.
This is what is meant by economizing.
Yet, can the state, help, economize, scarce resources.
This is the question that must be answered.
In fact, however, conclusive proof exists that the state does
not and cannot economize for an order to produce anything.
The state must resort to taxation or legislation, which
demonstrates irrefutably that it's subjects.
Do not want what the state produces but prefer instead
something else as more important rather than a Mice.
The state can only redistribute it.
Can produce more of what it wants and less of what the
people want and to recall whatever the state then produces
will be produced in efficiently. Finally the most sophisticated
argument in favor of the state must be briefly examined from
Hobbs on down. This argument has been repeated
endlessly. It runs like this in the state
of nature before the establishment of a state
permanent conflict Reigns, everyone claims a right to
everything and this will result in interminable War.
There is no way out of this predicament by means of
agreements for who would enforce these agreements whenever the
situation appeared advantageous one or both.
Parties would break the agreement.
Hence, people recognize that there is, but one solution to
this disarray, bottom of Peace. The Establishment per agreement
of a state IE, a third independent party as ultimate
judge and enforcer yet. If this thesis is correct and
agreements, require an outside enforcer to make them binding,
then a state by agreement can never come into existence for an
order to Enforce. The very agreement that is to
result in the formation of a state, to make this agreement,
bonding. Another outside enforcer, a
prior state, would already have to exist.
And in order for this state to have come into existence, yet.
Another still earlier state must be postulated.
And so on in infinite regress. On the other hand, if we accept
that states exist, and of course they do.
Then this very fact contradicts the hobbesian story.
The state itself has come into existence without any outside
enforcer. Presumably at the time of the
alleged agreement. No prior State existed.
Moreover, once a state by agreement is an existence, the
resulting social order Still Remains a self-enforcing one, to
be sure if a and b. Now agree on something, there
are Agreements are Made binding by an external party.
However, the state itself is not bound by an outside enforcer
there exists. No external third-party insofar
as conflicts between State, agents and state, subjects are
concerned and likewise no external third-party exists for
conflicts between State agents or agencies insofar as
agreements entered into by the state vis-à-vis its citizens.
Or of one state agency, be Sofia.
Another are concerned that is such a grievance can be only
self binding on the state. The state is bound by nothing
except. It's own self accepted, and
enforce rules, IE, the constraints that it imposes on
itself, vis-à-vis itself. So to speak, the state is still
in a natural state of Anarchy, characterized by self-rule and
enforcement because there is no higher state, which Bind it
further. If we accept the hobbesian idea
that the enforcement of mutually agreed upon rules does require
some independent third-party. This would actually rule out the
establishment of a state. In fact, it would constitute a
conclusive argument against the institution of a state.
IE of a monopolist of ultimate decision-making in arbitration
for, then there must also exist, an independent, third party to
decide, in every case of conflict.
Act between me private citizen and some state agent and
likewise an independent. Third party must exist for every
case of intrastate conflict. And there must be another
independent third-party for the case of conflicts between
various third parties. Yet.
This means, of course, that such a state or any independent third
party, would be no State. As I have defined it at the
outset, but simply one of many freely competing third party.
Arbitrators. Let me conclude, then the
intellectual case against the state seems to be easy and
straightforward, but that does not mean that it is practically
easy indeed. Almost everyone is convinced
that the state is a necessary Institution for the reasons that
I have indicated. So it is very doubtful.
If the battle against statism can be one as easy as it might
seem on the purely theoretical intellectual level.
However, even if that should turn out to be impossible, at
least, Have some fun at the expense of our statist opponents
and for that, I suggest that you always and persistently confront
them with the following riddle, assume a group of people aware
of the possibility of conflicts between them.
Someone then proposes as a solution to this human problem
that he or someone be made the ultimate Arbiter in every such
case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is
involved. Is this a deal that you would
accept? I'm confident that he will be
considered. Either a joker or mentally
unstable yet. This is precisely what all
status proposed. Thank you for watching Keith and
I don't try it on anyone and the libertarian Institute.
Oh, dude. When we are truly free.
It doesn't mean there won't be any evil in the world.
In fact, a stateless society is a recognition of the fact that
evil exists. And the first place that
evildoers go is to the state to gain control over the state,
right? If human beings are all good.
We don't need to state of human beings are all evil.
We can't afford the state if human beings are.
Mostly evil and only somewhat good.
Then the mostly evil people vote for Democratic policies, that
overwhelming, subjugate the good people.
If people are mostly good and only somewhat evil, which is my
belief, then the good people become the tax livestock
controlled by the evil people who swarmed to the state to get
control over the good. There is no scenario.
Of any add mixture of Good and Evil which justifies the
existence of the state. The state is a giant magnet.
Four monsters in human form.