There's A Gun In the Room

(With due props to Stefan Molyneux for the analogy…. - LJ)

I received a comment today regarding something I said in my last post. When I stated, “the State’s only method of action is the initiation and propagation of violence”, I was accused of making sweeping generalizations and, presumably, guilty of profound intellectual naïvete. As I reflected on the ensuing conversation, it dawned on me just how strong the desire exists for people to rationalize the State and all its works into being something other than what it really is, namely, an institution which operates not through voluntary and cooperative means, but by coercion and force. To paraphrase Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio, pointing out that there’s a gun in the room makes people very uncomfortable, and thus moves them to make rationalizations, advance strawmen arguments, change the topic of conversation, or simply engage in denial about what is ultimately and objectively true - ie. that the gun exists. Now, while I could simply encourage everyone to go download all of Molyneux’s marvelous and enlightening podcasts, or to read Murray Rothbard’s masterful essay, Anatomy of the State, I will rather attempt to shortly explain in a logical and concrete fashion what is so plainly obvious to libertarians, but so horrendously ignored by Statists.

As I attempted to explain to my critic, the State works by one means and one means alone: violence (or at least the threat thereof). Anytime the State levies a tax, passes a law, or issues a regulation, obedience is mandatory. It is completely irrelevant whether or not you agree that the law, tax or regulation is for a good cause. Failure to comply will result, eventually, in the arrival of men with guns (aka police, SWAT teams, FBI agents, IRS agents, ATF agents, the military forces, etc.) at your door to apprehend you, and forcibly relocate you to a jail cell to await more proper punishment. If you resist, these agents have the authority to use the weapons they armed with, and shoot you dead on the spot.

For example, let’s say the government passes a law that says, “All people over the age of 21 must dye their hair red.” What are the real effects of this? Do you have the free choice in this matter? Are you free to simply ignore this weird request? Are you free of any adverse consequences for non-compliance? Of course not. You must dye your hair red, or else. Now, maybe at first you’ll just get a ticket. A cop pulls you over and writes you up for not having those fiery locks. Now you face a court date. If you ignore the summons, then the men with guns will hunt you down. If you go to court, maybe you get a fine. Well, if you ignore the fine, again…armed men hunt you down. Anyway you slice it, the State will get compliance out of you or you will be punished in a variety of ways. And whether or not it actually turns to violence is measured only by the degree to which you obstinately refuse to acquiesce. Nowhere in the logical progression of this string of events, beginning with the initial demand to dye your hair red, are you simply free of escalating harassment for non-compliance.

Now, let’s say instead of the government, Procter and Gamble issues a press release saying the exact same thing: “All people must dye their hair red.” How is this different? What happens if you ignore Procter and Gamble’s demand? Why nothing, of course! Procter and Gamble has no such power to force anyone to do anything. All they can do is exhort, persuade, negotiate, plead, and beg for you to do something. Procter and Gamble cannot send men with guns to your house to apprehend you. If they do, is virtually indisputable that you would be completely justified defending yourself with whatever means necessary.

So what is the lesson here? Anytime we ask government to do something – anything at all – we are asking that violence, or the threat thereof, be employed in affecting some stated goal. It matters not whether the goal is frivolous, as in my offered example, or something noble, such as helping the poor or liberating Iraqis. The irrefutable fact of the matter is that government works only by violent, coercive means. It works no other way. The private sector, by contrast, is peaceful and civilized. The free market recognizes the moral integrity of every individual, recognizing that we each retain control over ourselves, and we interact with each other with dignity and respect. If I don’t like what you do or think or have, I can only seek to persuade you to change. Forcing you to change because I am stronger is how the State works, and which is why politics brings out the most barbaric elements of humanity.

So the counter to all of this is that old view of the State as a social engineer. We vote for people who set policy on all things ranging from war making, foreign policy, infrastructure, domestic issues, and the torturing of dark-skinned non-Christians in gulag-like prisons located in Third World countries. We achieve miraculous things through the State, because Democracy creates community, and political action is the highest expression of society’s values. The State marshals society’s resources to provide things that will improve humanity, and elevate us to Utopia.

Honestly, I have to say that it’s refreshing to hear someone actually admit that they view the State as that entity which is responsible for molding them into a better person. Granted, a bit shocked that someone actually believes that politicians are better capable of managing their lives, and those of their loved ones, then they are - but hey, Statism is a profoundly powerful faith. The argument seems to go, without government, many of the things government provides – like roads (why is it always "the roads" with Statists?) - would simply up and vanish. We’d all be riding horseback to work through 20 feet of snow that isn’t plowed by government employees. So, logically, we are to assume that because we need roads, then government must take $2.7 trillion away from the productive sector, wage war around the globe, ruin our education and health care systems, systematically destroy our currency, encourage the criminal underworld with its gun control laws and the War on Drugs, enslave the poor in a cycle of welfare state dependency, block economic expansion by squashing entrepreneurship and free enterprise, and a whole slew of other catastrophic effects manifested by State action. All of these things, you see, are for the betterment of mankind. Because one can point to one or two arguably nonobjectionable government services, we must keep the entire apparatus because its all the “price of civilization”.

Yes, yes, I know…. I’m blowing it out of proportion. (Well, not really. ) But in relation to the need for roads as justification for the entire State, is it ridiculous for me to make the claim that someone who worries about whether or not we’ll have roads, while a whole slew of monumentally bigger problems plague civilization is putting the cart before the horse just a bit? Even if the aforementioned “necessary” government services were to disappear without a State, wouldn't it be worth seeing if alternative methods of delivery of these services weren’t possible, while simultaneously abolishing all of the other evils of the State? Forget “the baby and the bath water”; what we are looking at is tossing out a penny at the bottom of a vat of toxic waste!

But back to the objection at hand. Does the State create “community”? And whose values are ultimately expressed in a majoritarian system? Well, the last time I checked, it seemed to be in the area of politics where people have the most vitriolic conflicts. For example, take the whole teaching evolution vs. creationism debate. No matter what your opinion of the particular topics, the fact is, because education has been politicized, ordinarily inane topics such as curriculum content elicit the most virulent disputes, spawning huge industries of talking heads whining and complaining about a culture war. People who want their kids to learn evolution and not creationism, are at odds with their neighbor who wants something different, and only one side can win the argument (and force their views on the loser). So tell me…what “community” exists when such conflicts arise from politics? When 51% get to make 100% of the decisions, and the other 49% might as well have stayed home. Whose voices are raised, and whose are squashed?

Sorry, Virginia… The State destroys community. It does not foster it. Majoritarian democracy censors and represses minorities, and breeds conflict. It does not mitigate conflict and elevate society.

Is it surprising? Philosophically considered, do we really experience fulfilling, nurturing, joyful relationships with those around us when we interject violence into our interpersonal dynamics? When it’s pointed out that there is a gun on the room, who should feel the most uncomfortable? The one who points out the gun, or the one who’s reaching for it?