Stefan Blankertz
The Strength Of The State
The Sociology Of Submission
Libertarianism Is Not A
Success-Story
Libertarianism is not a
success-story... I remember that some years ago a new American libertarian
group called the Advocates of Self-Government proclaimed that they will succeed
in turning most Americans into libertarians within the next few years. They
just projected the growth rate of their group in the first months into the
future. But as far as I know, America is still governed by a paternalistic
president who enjoys a very high rate of popular consent - even despite many
scandals.
Libertarianism is not a
success-story... I remember that before the Advocates of Self-Government were formed,
libertarians rallied around the Libertarian Party. When the Party in the early
eighties succeeded to get ballot-status in most of the States of the US, they
started to plan the takeover of Washington. But obviously they failed to do so.
Libertarianism is not a
success-story... Even if you feel ready to accept the broadest possible
definition of libertarianism and include Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan,
you have to admit that they have failed rolling back the state drastically and
lastingly. Or go back in history and look at our hero Thomas Jefferson. As
president of the USA he betrayed almost all libertarian ideals he upheld
before.
Actually, I do not think that
lack of political success indicates that the libertarian theory is wrong.
Otherwise I would not be here. But I think we have to face the hard question:
Why is libertarianism not
successful in convincing people that a free society will bring about wealth and
happiness for all of us?
There are only two possible
answers: First, libertarianism isn't capable of convincing people because the
idea is wrong. Then we shouldn't be at all surprised that libertarianism is not
convincing. Second, libertarianism is a good idea, but there are agents that
hinder people from realising what is good for them.
Methodology
I am here because I think that
libertarianism is a good idea. I am convinced that rolling back the state leads
to a healthier economy and a happier life. I have piled up arguments which
furnish evidence that the state destroys economy, have a negative impact on
education and culture, offends against justice, fails to produce security. This
is why the state is even an menace to the pursuit of happiness which we
libertarians consider to be the most fundamental human right.
To my opinion it is not the lack
of logic or evidence in the arguments which causes that people are not
convinced by libertarianism. If I want to stick to this opinion, the
intellectual honesty demands that I give an explanation of the social
mechanisms which inhibit people from realising the benefits of libertarianism.
But not only intellectual honesty demands an explanation of the reasons why
libertarianism has only very little political influence: You also cannot think
of any realistic strategy to bring about a libertarian society if you refuse to
face the true reasons for the political failure of libertarianism. (But my
intention in my speech is not to dwell upon the question of strategy.)
Libertarian economists,
sociologists, and psychologists like Ayn Rand, Paul Goodman, Murray Rothbard,
and others, contributed substantial ideas to answer the question: How does the
state influence people in a negative way? But what I miss in the libertarian
literature, however, is a coherent theory of the strength of the state. For many
years I have searched for what is missing. Here I'm going to present you an
outline of my findings.
The mechanisms the state derives
its strength from are complicated. In order to understand these mechanisms you
have to employ integrated models of economics, sociology, and psychology. But
this is not the proper place to discuss such models. To present you my findings
in a non-technical way, I tell you something about the history of Ruritania.
Ruritania is a rural kingdom well-known to those who read Murray Rothbard's
Ethics of Liberty. The parallels between Ruritania and our own experience
should become clear immediately. I have chosen Ruritania because in the history
of this country the structures of how the state functions become clearly
visible.
A Short History Of The Ruritanian
Kingdom
Once upon a time, there was a
peaceful valley of industrious and successful peasants called Ruritania. The
fatal development towards a modern state began, when eventually a gang of
bandits started to raid the valley. In the first year the bandits came just
after harvest, took all the grain they could carry and destroyed what was left.
In the following winter, Ruritania was plagued by a famine. Only a few peasants
managed to survive.
When the gang of bandits
returned the following year, they were surprised not to find much to take away.
The more stupid members of the gang suggested to kill the damned lazy peasants
for not working enough. But the boss of the gang was more sophisticated. He
came to an agreement with the peasants: The bandits allowed the peasants to
keep part of their crop for themselves so that they were able to produce enough
to survive the next winter. In return the peasants promised to hand over their
surplus the years to follow without fighting or cheating.
This agreement worked for a
couple of years. The peasants of Ruritania handed over their surplus to the
bandits without any resistance. The bandits did not ask for more than the
agreed upon share. Of course some peasants tried to cheat and hide away part of
their surplus. A couple of anxious Ruritanians tried to keep their fellows from
withholding part of the crop. They argued that if they break the agreement they
would run the risk of the bandits' revenge. But the bandits did not think about
revenge. The Ruritanians were very successful peasants. Every year the amount
of what they handed over to the gang rose. So the bandits did not care for
hidden fruits.
Then a strong winter came and
some of the less successful peasants run into economic trouble. As every year,
the bandits came after next harvest to collect "their" share of the
crop. But this time they had to find out that due to the economic troubles the
harvest had not come up to their expectations. Knowing that they had
disappointed the bandits, the peasants anxiously waited how they would react.
The old boss of the bandits was
dead and his son had taken over. His name was Count. His father always had kept
Count away from the fighting. When he was old enough to work, his father
entrusted Count with the task to store the robbed crop and sell what was not
used up by the members of the gang themselves.
When confronted with the bad
crop yield, surprisingly Count was not angry as everybody had expected him to
be. He did not punish the underachieving peasants. Instead, he offered them
help. Count ordered his companions to take seeds from his own silos and bring
it to the rescue of the distressed peasants in need. To keep the distribution
of the seeds under surveillance, Count decided not to leave the Ruritanian
valley after the collection of the crop. This was what the gang used to do. But
now Count stayed in the Ruritanian valley together with his armed forces. The
peasants were not hostile, not even resentful, but they thankfully begged Count
and his companions to settle down forever.
After some good years had
passed, the peasants started to become rebellious. Their patience was used up.
But Count was lucky again. Another gang of bandits was attracted by rumours
about the wealthy valley of Ruritania. They threatened to raid the valley.
Although he never fought a battle before, Count managed to drive away his
competitors with the help of his armed forces. The peasants celebrated this as
a miracle.
By the way, Count did not like
all the words which his father and he were called. He declared that he didn't
want to be called the boss of a gang of robbers any more. Count ordered the
peasants to call his armed companions "the best men helping the best man
to help and to protect the peasants." One of his men had learned that in
some countries this system was called an "aristocracy". Count
invented the term "tax" as name for the share of the crop which the
peasants had to hand over to the aristocracy. "Tax", he said,
"is what the peasants have to pay for security against invasion and for
support if they are in need of it."
When Count died at a very old
age, his son stepped in. The peasants did not care to learn his name, but
called him just "the new Count". But the New Count did not play his
cards as well as his father did. He was moody and clumsy. When it came to
politics, he acted arbitrarily. He offered advantages to his favourites even
when they where not in need of it and refused to support real underachievers
even if they had been on the edge of starvation. The peasants again rebelled,
pleading for "justice". Feeling threatened in their very existence,
the aristocrats pressed the New Count to accept certain rules which should
regulate the distribution of benefits. A special board was set up to control that
the rules were followed. The peasants in turn had to pay an extra tax for this
new service called Board of Justice.
As decades went by, the peasants
again revolted. In order to save the system, the aristocracy of Ruritania took
what looked like a radical action. They announced that every adult inhabitant
of Ruritania should go to the polls and choose their leader.
The First Election In Ruritania
So Ruritania had her first
election. The Ruritanians had the choice to give their vote to the existing Count
or to his challenger, Emma, the daughter of an independent, modest peasant.
Emma's platform was simple:
"Every honest peasant," Emma declared in her speeches, "should
keep the fruits of his work entirely for himself. All we have to do to have a
wealthier life is to abolish the institution of the Count, the Aristocracy, the
Armed Forces and the Board of Justice."
The peasants' first reaction to
this platform was enthusiastic. It sounded good for them to keep everything
they produced for themselves. During the campaign, however, Emma faced many
sceptical questions.
For instance, one peasant asked:
"I use to sell my grain to some families of the Aristocracy. If they don't
get taxes, they will get poor, and cannot buy my products any more. What do you
think about that?"
Emma answered: "The members
of the aristocracy can work for their own living, I think, as every honest
peasant does. This is why I think you won't have a problem after they have
learned how to farm."
But the peasant was not
convinced: "This is what you think might happen. But I am not a utopian. I
am a realist. I would rather stick to what I know even if I have to pay
taxes."
Another peasant asked:
"What will you do if the barbarians which the heroic Old Count defeated
come back? With the Armed Forces abolished there won't be defence any
longer!"
Emma answered: "You
misunderstood me. I do not want to abolish the Armed Forces. You and I, we can
pay the best men to defend us. I just want to abolish the monopoly of the Armed
Forces. This will bring us lower costs and higher performance."
But the peasant was not
convinced: "Are you the expert to decide who the best men are? Definitely,
I am not. On that account I stay with what gives me the best feeling of
security even if I pay a little bit more than in your scheme."
A third peasant asked: "If
you abolish the Board of Justice, what happens to me when I have a stroke of
bad luck and won't be able to grow enough grain to feed my family?"
Emma answered: "Imagine: If
you don't pay taxes, you will be able to built up your own silo, I think. What,
then, is your problem?"
But the peasant was not
convinced: "But imagine: If I have that stroke of bad luck next year, I
won't have had the time to build my own silo. That's precisely why I cling to
what my forefathers agreed on, even if it costs me a lot."
Needless to say that those
Ruritanians who were employed with the Board of Justice and with the Armed
Forces and those who were employed as servants with the members of the
Aristocracy screamed out in horror when Emma presented her platform to them.
Only a couple of learned members of the Aristocracy listened to her and agreed
to discuss her propositions as an intellectual adventure. Although it seemed
that they betrayed their very personal interest, they could be sure that the
majority of the Ruritanians would vote against Emma. Which in fact happened.
Analysing The History Of Ruritania
Looking back to the history of
Ruritania, the first thing which should strike you is that the Ruritanians were
a very happy people - compared to people in some other parts of the world. The
Counts of Ruritania had been enlightened persons. The taxes they raised were
moderate. They waged just a few wars. Moreover, the wars had been fought for
defence reasons only. Ruritanians did not experience the horrors of a secret
police and of torture. This was the foundation of their wealth.
For my argument's sake it is
necessary to look at a "soft" state like Ruritania. That's why:
Everybody thinks he knows where a "strong" state ruled by a tyrant
like Stalin or Hitler takes its strength from: The strength of such a state is
built on terror and anxiety. The problem of the libertarian political theory
seems to be: How is it possible that statist oppression grows in a liberal democracy
like the US or Western Europe with the consent of the vast majority of those
who vote?
I just said, this question
"seems to be" the problem of the libertarian political theory,
because I think that the mechanisms the state takes its strength from are
basically the same no matter whether the system of the state is democratic or
dictatorial.
All mechanisms which bring about
the strength of the state make use of
one central human motivation: self-interest.
Take for instance the arguments
the peasants used in discussing Emma's proposal to abolish the Ruritanian
state: The peasants feared that with changing the fundamental rules of their
political lives they will run the risk of loosing what they consider to be a
secure basis of their lives. In a dictatorship people behave in just the same
manner: Either people submit to the dictator because they are afraid of
punishment and even death, or they collaborate with the dictator in order to
have personal advantages out of the collaboration. Now we understand what it
means that all mechanisms bringing about the strength of the state make use of
the central human motivation of self-interest.
Those libertarians who argue
that benevolence or altruism, and not self-interest, is the source of the
strength of the state in my opinion are plainly mistaken. Those who think that
"altruistic" benevolence is where the state takes its strength from
do not considerate the impact of ideology. It's true that the Count of
Ruritania and his Aristocracy pretended to help the needy peasants. This sounds
benevolent. But let's have a look behind the surface: The benevolence covers
nothing but the fact that the aristocracy have emerged out of a gang of
bandits. Their main interest is to protect a cleverly worked out system of
exploitation.
Altruistic ideology pretends
that actions are in the interest of the people which in fact are in the
self-interest of the ruling class.
But the ideology of benevolence
alone was not sufficient to stabilize the state of Ruritania. The peasants had an idea of their rulers'
hypocrisy, and often they reacted annoyed. This is why spreading the altruistic
ideology was only the second part of the strength of the state. To built up and
maintain the system, in the first place it was necessary for the ruling class
of Ruritania to organise the political lives of the peasants in a specific way:
The peasants should get the feeling that they couldn't do without the state any
longer. What trick did the Ruritanian aristocracy use to make people believe in
the necessity of the state? It's a trick, indeed! The state derives advantages
from its own shortcomings. This is possible in the following manger: The system
of robbery causes economic troubles or crisis’s. This is a matter of fact,
established by experience and by the libertarian economic theory. But people do
not revolt against the crisis’s caused by the state if the state pretends to
give a helping hand to those in trouble.
Emma analysed this statist trick
in the classical libertarian way. The peasants were well able to understand
Emma from the intellectual point of view. But when they were to put it into
practice, they got cold feet and acted according the saying: "A bird in
hand is worth two in the bushes." That's why they re-elected the existing system.
The existing system gave the peasants at least the feeling of security whereas
Emma's alternative was a vague promise only. It is an economic truth, too, that
present goods are of more worth than future goods. Or again: "A bird in
hand is worth two in the bushes." On this account people are inclined to
accept the system of robbery (as long as the robbery is limited and
calculable).
The peasants of Ruritania got
adopted to live with the hypocrisy of their rulers because they calculated that
changing the rules would imply risks. That means:
People accept the altruistic
ideology of pretended benevolence only if they have the feeling that it works
out to their own self-interest.
The realisation that
self-interest is the source the state takes it strength from embarrasses the
libertarian theory. Our fundamental principle is: Everyone should be free to
follow his own interest as long as he does not hamper with the freedom of
another person. The situation becomes paradoxical when we have to realise that
self-interest is the motivation to submit to the state: Our principle of
freedom is instrumentalised by "our enemy, the state" itself.
Again, the situation is
paradoxical: The motivation of self-interest is utilised by the state.
Sociologists have a word for this phenomenon: "alienation". Let's go
into it more deeply: The interest of the Ruritanian peasants became
"alien" to themselves in two ways:
o On the one hand, the interests of the peasants were
"hold in trust" by alien persons, namely by the Count, who decided
what was best for "his" subjects.
o On the other hand, to the peasants themselves their
interests became alien, that is unknown: They didn't trust their own judgement
of what was best for them. They just thought of themselves as not being
"the experts" to know their interests.
This is what the Ruritanian
libertarian rebel Emma was confronted with: Of course every peasant would have
preferred to pay less or even no taxes at all. But alienated from taking over
responsibility for their own lives they were afraid of the consequences which
meant organising everything on one's own.
At this point I'd like to make
sure that you well understand me: I am not selling you the conservative
ideology. Conservatives use to hold the opinion that most people are not capable
of looking after themselves and need coercive guidance by the authorities.
Conservatives also often maintain that most people fear freedom and thus prefer
to be patronised. In contrast to what the conservatives say, the notion of
"alienation" in sociology means that something which rightfully
belongs to you is taken away from you by the social structure.
But is it possible to overcome
alienation? It will not be easy. Let's have a look at how alienation works.
Is It Possible To Overcome
Alienation?
The odds are against us...
Alienation is a mighty enemy. From the point of view of economics alienation
means the following: Many vital functions are monopolised by the state. Take
for example something as "innocent" as bread. The grain used to bake
it is subsidised. The baker who baked it is regulated. The streets on which the
bread is transported to your local store are owned by the state, and so on.
Sociologically regarded alienation
means that the individual person isn't able to define his self-interest without
allowing the interests of the state to have a part of it: I refer again to the
example of bread. Even if the baker dislikes the regulations, he thinks that he
needs the subsidised grain because otherwise the bread would be too expensive
for the consumers. In the context of psychology alienation means that following
one's own interests is an unfair act against the community. For example, even
if the carrier of the bread we spoke about objects to the high taxes, he feels
guilty when he evades taxes because he uses the streets built with tax-money.
The odds are against us... The
enemy of alienation is inside ourselves. If we stand up and fight for the
freedom to follow our self-interest we have to act against our self-interest.
If we want to be teachers, like the heroes of Paul Goodman, we must accept to
be employed in tax-financed and regulated institutions, or we have to look for
another job. If we want to be entrepreneurs, like the heroes of Murray
Rothbard, we have to make for business transactions with the government, or we
have to accept lower profits. Even if we prefer to work as simple factory
workers, like the heroes of Ayn Rand, we profit from collective contracts
negotiated by state privileged unions or we would starve to death.
The odds are against us...
But... But I am not a pessimist. Although in the beginning I mentioned that the
question of strategy is out of the scope of my intent in this speech,
I want to conclude my speech
with optimism.
The odds are against us... But I
am an optimist: In my view we are not only economic machines who maximise
self-interest. For human beings able to think and feel the only chance to
preserve our health in a mad statist world is to fight with all our hearts and
minds for freedom.