The core of the proceeding article is one I wrote when I first launched this webpage. I wasn’t really sure how to start, what the inaugural article should be. So I picked one that I thought was a basic foundational problem, one that described how the government functioned, why this was terrible, and what can be done about it. That articles, titled “What is the State?” was good for what it was, but there is more to the topic that needs to be understood. I’ve found myself referencing back to it constantly in almost every article I’ve written and if it is going to be that important, and the article like the topic is that important, then I need to strive to do the topic more justice than I did. This is that attempt. Below I have taken the skeleton of the original article and expanded upon it in significant ways. Perhaps most importantly I have given the ideas of government, Voluntaryism, and Statism (“state-ism”) more of an in depth study and included more insights from other sources than I originally did.
I know that for some the concept of exploring the ideologically foundation for how governments function is as foreign as a language they’ve never heard, a food they’ve never heard of, or even an alien form another planet. For most the government simply is and they had no idea that there was something even conceptually different and certainly not something better than what now exists. For others the idea may seem boring and fraught with meaningless hair-splitting over seemingly undifferentiated concepts. Both of these reactions are both extremely common and exactly why understanding this issue is so important. The concepts are neither as difficult as those academics and politicians who dominant the discussion want you to believe and are extraordinarily important as they impact every aspect of your life, whether you see it or not. I don’t know that I can make this exciting, I’ve never been great at punch-up writing. But I promise you that I will explain why it matters for you to understand what the idea of government is, how the government functions, and alternatives to the way it works now that would help ensure a greater measure of liberty, equality, and prosperity for all members of society.
****
What Is A Government?
The word government is typically defined as having something to do with the political organization which rules or controls a country. But this definition is, at best, extremely poor and far too limited. For example, every qualifier you can add to a country’s government which defines it as such -an organized system of leaders, legal codes that must be obeyed, a legal system that dispenses justice based upon said legal code, methods of organization that stretch from local communities to national and internationally acknowledged bodies, collection of monies form the public to be used for the behalf of the whole, social safety nets and complex welfare programs, etc.- can all be found in a multitude of private organizations. Corporations are famously compared to governments, most because they function exactly like them and the most powerful wield enough financial force alone that they can overpower some of the smaller governments on the planet. Coca-Cola, for example, has a net worth of $37 billion dollars, which would place it somewhere around the 98th richest country on the planet if it were recognized as such.
The problem is that this comparison often ignores that many other organizations in society function in the same manner. For example, religious organizations function exactly like governments. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has its own President, its own ruling councils, its own body of law and formal procedures, its own legal system with its own body of judges, its own system of funding, its own welfare system to care for the poor and needy, is recognized and active internationally, and even runs its own educational system with major universities. Everything you could use to define a government it has. And it isn’t alone. Obvious comparisons would be with the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churches, both of which have similar structures and programs. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church its headquarters, Vatican City, is even recognized as its own independent city-state, its own government in the traditional sense. But it isn’t only religious organizations or corporations that function like governments. Everything from your local Parent-Teacher Association to your local gangs function in every way like a national government does, only on a smaller scale- and of course size is not a defining matter, otherwise Vatican City, the smallest nation on the planet, wouldn’t count as its own independent government.
David Boaz, explains the problem we see here -the definition of government being written so as to exclude all forms of government that don’t try and control people- this way:
We should distinguish at this point between government and state. Those two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, especially in American English, but they actually refer to two very important but easily confused kinds of institutions. A government is the consensual organization by which we adjudicate disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs. A condominium association, for example, has a government to adjudicate disputes among owners, regulate the use of common areas, make the residents secure from outside intruders, and provide for other common needs. We can readily see why people seek to have a government in this sense. In every case, the residents agree to the terms of the government (its constitution or charter or by-laws) and give their consent to be governed by it. A state, on the other hand, is a coercive organization asserting or enjoying a monopoly over the use of physical force in some geographic area and exercising power over its subjects.
So it seems clear that the typical definition for government is a poor one. Definitions are supposed to define a thing and exclude all other things, so if we can list -as we did- multiple things that function as governments but don’t fit the definition usually used then that definition is not a good one and needs to be revised to include all examples which fit the defined idea. In other words, we need to develop a different definition for government so that it includes all the examples of governments that we see in action. To that end I propose this definition of government:
A government is an organization which is acknowledged by its members as defining, directing, and administering the commonly accepted laws and customs of its members.
This definition is broad enough to include all organizations which function as governing bodies -as governments- without excluding any of the political organizations one might wish to discuss. It also helps us to understand that there are many different kinds of political governments, which are as often as different as they are similar.
Further, understanding government this way helps us to better classify different types of government into two basic forms: The State (in all its forms) and Voluntaryism (in all its forms). This division and why it matters will be explored below.
What Is The State
The word “state” (aka statist and Statism) is an often misunderstood term. In the United States of America, the word state is often used in the way that other nations use the term province. The reason for this is because the United States of America originally did not mean a single indivisible nation but rather a unified confederacy of individual nation-states which came together to share certain powers under the guise of The Constitution but otherwise retained all other authorities and powers that individual nations, or states, hold. Long after that understanding died the uniquely American usage of the word state has remained.
So, what is the definition of “state” and why is it important? For that we turn to the highly influential German sociologist and political commentator Max Weber whose 1918 definition is still the most widely used standard in academic studies. In his speech Politics as a Vocation, Weber defined the State as being the:
human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
As shorthand, Weber’s definition is usually referred to as “the monopoly on violence.” In other words, the State is a form of government which has the sole control over the use of legal violence to force everyone living within the territory it claims to obey its orders. If you don’t obey the law then the military and/or the police show up to terrorize you into obedience by threatening to beat, cage, or kill you or they actually do those things to you in order to force you to obey them and to terrorize others into obeying by using your punishment as an example. It isn’t just the major laws -like murder or rape- that the government will kill you for disobeying. There is no law so trivial that the government will not murder you to enforce. As Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter explains, violence is the very fundamental basis of how the law functions:
“Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill…even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.”
This is another reason for defining government as we did above. While the State takes many forms -republicanism, democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, socialism, etc.- it is a fact of history that not all political governments have had a monopoly on violence, therefore defining all governments in ways that equate the concept of government and the State – such as saying that the government is the organization which rules or controls people – is nonsensical. But people in every nation on the planet seem to use the term state as a synonym for government and both being synonyms for order. This is why when you start talking about the removal of the state they think you’re talking about destroying all social order and inaugurating nothing but blind, unending chaos.
That people think this way is no accident. After all, it is the statist element of each nation that dominates the educational system within, helping to ensure that people learn to think of the nation and its government as being essential to civilization, peace, and prosperity, thus ensuring the continued existence and rule of the statist system. Though I’m sure this sounds conspiratorial to some, it really isn’t. I’m just being blunt here and not dressing the process up by using propagandist terms like “learning to love your country,” becoming a patriot,” or “being taught how to be a good citizen.” No matter how you dress it up, it amounts to condition obedience to and participation within the statist power system in the belief that it, in one of its forms, is essential to existence and being taught that wanting anything else is crazy and trying to create anything else is treasonous and worthy of death.
But, there is more. There is a whole other theory of government with its own wide variety of systems to explore and put into place that work as well as, if not better than, the statist system. There is Voluntaryism.
What Is Voluntaryism?
Voluntaryism is the very opposite of Statism. The key concept in Voluntaryism is that all of our interactions in society should be voluntary, by our own consent. Carl Watner, editor of The Voluntaryist, explains Voluntaryism this way:
Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.
In a voluntaryist society, neither the preservation of the government nor the maintenance of its power are purposes for which people should be kidnapped, beaten, caged, or killed. For the voluntaryist a government is not as or more important than the individual. Voluntaryists believe that the reason people should share a government system and agree to live by its laws should do so because they voluntarily agree to be a part of that system because it benefits them and their families. Governments are meant to serve the individual, the individual is not meant to serve the government. Voluntaryists expect governments to function in the same way that restaurants and stores do- by meeting your needs in the best way possible for the lowest costs or you’ll choose another service and there is nothing your previous one can do about it. The voluntaryist believes that this is the only way you can have a just government as just governments can only exist by the consent of the governed. It also prevents overweening governments from being able to compel you to obey unjust rules because if it did so it would lose support and funding as people quit it for better systems.
Voluntaryism it all its forms -libertarianism, anarchism, agorism,etc.- rejects violence as a means to assert power or a foundation upon which to establish order. The political philosopher William Godwin explained why succinctly:
Let us consider the effect that coercion produces upon the mind of him against whom it is employed. It cannot begin with convincing; it is no argument. It begins with producing the sensation of pain, and the sentiment of distaste. It begins with violently alienating the mind from the truth with which we wish it to be impressed. It includes in it a tacit confession of imbecility. If he who employs coercion against me could mould me to his purposes by argument, no doubt he would. He pretends to punish me because his argument is important, but he really punishes me because his argument is weak.
The State does not exist because it makes the most sense nor because it functions the best of all possible choices. It exists because those who depend on it for their positions and power will beat, cage, or kill all others who offer it any significant challenge. Because the argument for it -the position that peace, justice, liberty, and prosperity cannot be achieved except by this political monopoly that uses brutal violence against all those who question it and which exists solely through extorting and stealing funds from the public through violently enforced taxation- is weak and obviously nonsense when it is stated plainly in the most obvious way the only way for the State to exist is through forced compliance.
This is what Voluntaryism rejects for the better way of interactions and society based upon mutual benefit, voluntarily chosen exactly because those involved see the way that being involved helps them and promotes their success. All of the reasons people depend on the State -legal systems, social roles, societal order, justice, security, etc.- can and do exist without need of statist systems. Think back to the examples I have already gave of organizations that function within the State as governments but which aren’t part of the formal political system -churches, social clubs, volunteer organizations, neighborhood watches, private schools, charities, even PTAs and gangs, et. al. They all are voluntary systems which people take part in because they provide for the basic needs of those involved in ways that the State has not and can not do. They all replace the State by providing the wants and needs of their members, getting them access to that which the State has promised to provide but which cannot. And to the degree that violence is an element in any of them -such as in gangs- it is in response to the violence that the State uses to try and dominate people and control what they do or do not do to their own bodies through brute force. While some may be more preferable than others, they all testify to the ability of society to voluntarily organize itself and for individuals and groups to voluntarily provide for their own wants and needs without the centralized control of a political elite dominating every aspect of life through violence.
Why Does This Matter?
Most governments today, including the United States government and all Western nations, are statist governments. If you don’t do what you are told to by those in power they will send the policing and military agents of the government out, at best, to extort money from you under the threat of overwhelming, life-destroying violence if you don’t give them what they want, typically under the guise of a “fine.” If that doesn’t work then they will assault you, kidnap you, strip you naked and sexually assault you, before finally locking you in a cage. If that doesn’t work, or if you resist their initial invasion of your life too successfully, i.e. if you fight back, they will kill you. The nature of the state can be boiled down to one phrase- “Obey or die.”
With but little demonstrated resistance, the government’s agents will kill you over the most minor of laws. They’ll throttle you to death for selling individual cigarettes. They will laugh at you at you as you lay dying on the jail cell floor, coughing up blood. They will murder you in cold blood as you lay on the ground with your hands in the air. They will throttle you to death in public as you beg and cry for your life. They will murder you in front of your children. They will murder you as you kneel in the doorway of your own home. They will murder you for being an autistic 13 year old child who can’t understand their commands. This is the state in its purest, truest form, stripped of the glamour of stirring song, strident marching, and soaring national banners. It is compulsion, domination, and death.
It is against this form of brutality, barbarism, and animalism that we must stand arrayed. The flippant will often respond, “That is the price you pay for civilization,” but the state is not civilization. The State is a beast, a scarlet whore dressed up in civilizations robes. And it is against this base violence that the good men and women of all nations, faiths, and beliefs are called to stand. It is especially the calling of the Christian to resist such reckless inhumanity. Christ commands us saying:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
In future articles we will discuss the First and Second Great Commandments in the face of the state, but here it is simple enough to note that you cannot claim to love others as yourself if you are willing to beat them, cage them, destroy their lives, sunder their families, extort and steal money from them under the mask of taxation, and kill them when they don’t follow your orders without question or resistance. Whether you’re doing these things personally or through some functionary such as a government employee who exists only because you continue to support and fund his position. Even if you believe that your government is the best in the world, even if you benefit from it, the State, because it is defined by violence, exists only through violence and hurting others and is therefore antithetical to the commandments of God to do nothing but love and serve others. Thus the State, in all its forms, can only exist and continue to survive through an intentional breaking of the commandments of Christ and in opposition to how He commands His disciples to live and treat all the people of the world. The Christian must reject the state and the kingdoms of this world for Zion and the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.
In rejecting the state we are not rejecting, order or society. Indeed, we are enhancing order and society by embracing voluntaryism. Almost all sources of chaos in society trace back to the state to begin with. Without it sowing the seeds of fractionalism, power, and domination through violence the presence of all those things would decrease and most of them would disappear. It would not be a perfect society. No one is promising utopia. But can you not see how when people no longer fear a large agency violently regulating what they eat, how they dress, what they drink, what they smoke, who they work with, who they’re friends with, where they can travel, what they can buy, what they can sell, who they can marry, who they can have sex with, what they can or cannot say, what they can and cannot do with their own property, what they can or cannot think, ad infinitum, that the need to use violence to secure your own power to live life and your fear and hatred of others who are different than you because they could force their ways upon you through government violence dissipates, which in turn eliminates most of the violence that drives society? To paraphrase the French political philosopher Gustave de Molinari, voluntaryism is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. The state is a guarantee that some will. For that alone it must be denied support by all people who are not robbers, thieves, and liars. For that alone the state must be abolished and voluntaryism embraced.