|
Should we work to abolish "the State" and live under a 100% pure laissez-faire capitalist economy (that is, a truly Free Market -- a stateless Market -- with 100% of state regulation abolished)?
Gary North, writing about anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard, says:
I don't think we can eliminate the state. I believe that there are gang leaders out there who would like to become warlords. They specialize in the thing they are best at: violence. Step by step, we would wind up with another state unless we organized politically. In short, if it ain't one state, it's another.
Johnny One Note and His Digital Hobby Horse
Let's look at the key terms in this quotation.
"Violence" is not limited to "warlords," as North implicitly concedes. Violence is what all states do best. It is, in fact, the only thing they do. As Franz Oppenheimer has explained, "the State" arises as the instrument of violent conquest. The State does not innovate/create/produce wealth; this is the work of "Economic Man." The State is an instrument of extortion and violent appropriation: "Political Man."
"We" are taxpayers. "We" are the good-guys.
At first glance "They" are the "warlords." The warlord who rules our society, and the warlords who rule all the other societies.
But the real fear is not just the singular boogeyman-warlord,
but his "loyal armed forces."
A "gang leader" needs "gang members."
These forces are often employees of the previous government, who have defected from the old government and are now loyal to the new government,
the "warlord" government. Mercenaries will work for anyone.
North believes that when we are "organized politically," we have a system of violent suppression of would-be warlords. Eliminate that political machinery, and warlords will emerge. Then we'll just have to create that machinery ("the State") all over again to suppress the warlords.
In short, North says we should not work to abolish "the State," because if we do, another "state" will replace it, led not by a democratically elected lord, but by a "warlord." This new warlord state would "force" us to create a newer state (reminiscent of the old state) to defend us against the new warlord state.
It seems to be an endless cycle. A curious position to take by one who claims to believe in "optimillennial" (not "pessimillennial") "linear history."
Why is it that if "we" (Christian leaders and influencers -- or armchair leaders on Facebook) had the power to eliminate "the State" and create a world of global anarcho-capitalism, that "warlords" would rise up and "take over?"
How do we break this cycle, and replace "the State" with a family- and market-centered society that will last? How do we achieve Micah's “Vine & Fig Tree” vision (Micah 4:1-7) generation after generation?
What North fails to consider is that there must be a certain social morality in order to abolish "the State." A society does not choose to abolish "the State" because the people in that society are violent predators who want to become full-time criminals, but don't want "the State" to interfere with their criminal objectives. (As though "the State" were society's singular barrier to theft and violence.)
Abolition of the State requires the abolition of a criminal mindset and the widespread nurture of non-violence. Anarcho-capitalism requires widespread and principled non-aggression. To re-cast a famous quote by John Adams, "Anarchism is made only for a moral and religious people."
A society creates the machinery of "the State" because the voters are immoral predators. They have no moral compunction against using coercion, compulsion, and threats of violence to get what they want.
The only way "the State" will ever be abolished is if "we" (the good guys) evangelize all potential "loyal armed forces" and "gang members" (the potential bad guys).
"We" also have to evangelize those who
vote for "loyal armed forces" because they believe subsidies and entitlements are better than working in a Free Market, and these government benefits must be extorted by violence from working taxpayers by "loyal armed forces."
This is why it is a myth to say that abolition of the State will result in "chaos." Abolition of the State presupposes a massive Christian evangelism and reconstruction of human society and social morality. Read More.
We cannot have "anarcho-capitalism" without eliminating those who
(1) want something for nothing, are not willing to work for it, but are willing to vote for people who
(2) are willing to seize it violently from those who have it.
This is a project of comprehensive global evangelism.
When we evangelize people, we have to "disciple" them. That means teaching them "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20). The "Great Commission" is not just getting people "saved" so that they wait around to die and go to heaven; it's about discipling the nations. "Nations" is the Greek ἔθνος, "ethnos," from which we get the English word "ethnicity." Don't think all we have to do is evangelize the President, or the Prime Minister, or vote in a new one, and that will solve the world's problems. That's dreaming. We have to evangelize all the ethnicities, the people who vote, the people who are willing to "get a job" by becoming government employees and confiscating their neighbor's wealth. If this happens, some "warlord" can start making speeches and nobody will listen. Nobody will sign up. Nobody will carry out the warlord's orders.
But we have to teach all these potential "loyal armed forces" and "gang members" what Jesus commands. And that's the hardest part of all.
Because nobody takes the commands of Christ seriously. Nobody is willing to teach them to all the ethnic groups in the world.
Some will say that taking Jesus this seriously -- going "the second mile" -- will make us all slaves of the warlord. This is true only if we refuse to be the slaves of Jesus the ultimate and only legitimate Lord. In short, if it ain't one Master, it's another. But that's not an excuse for not working for anarcho-capitalism. That's a command to choose the Right Master. And work for the Right Master.
Biblical Law prohibits theft, murder, and vengeance. The concept of "the State" was invented by rebels against God who wanted to steal for a living, and kill those who resist. Christians who oppose statism and violence will always have enemies, but Jesus commands us to love our enemies, not kill them.
A society that does not relegate God's Law to the "private" realm of individual piety will reconstruct society according to the blueprints of Biblical Law, and develop systematic social incentives to resolve disputes and reduce violence. Such institutions replace (preempt) warlords.
A society that rejects God's declaration in 1 Samuel 8 (that the creation of a State is a rejection of God) will end up paying more in taxes to their State than they would have paid to violent criminals under a pacifist Free Market. In other words, the social costs of pacifism are less than the social costs of statism. Yes, there will always be evil-doers. Even in the "millennium." "Criminals" inflict costs on a peaceful society. But if society opts for a warlord to "save" them from these evil-doers, society will pay more for the warlords and their "loyal armed forces" than they would pay to the criminals.
And "criminals" do not force society's children to attend secular "public schools" where it is illegal to teach children everything that Christ commanded us. In other words, only "the State" creates new statists generation after generation. Only "the State" erects institutional barriers to carrying out The Great Commission. The State knows that The Great Commission is the death warrant for the State itself.
Christ, not Caesar, is Lord. God is the only government we need (Isaiah 33:22).
When will we learn that violence is not the answer to our personal and social problems?
When we abolish the State, we abolish the soil in which warlords grow.
This means the end of the American Revolution. A discipled society would not get out their muskets and kill the "Red Coats." Rather, they would do what Jesus and the Apostle Paul commanded: Pay your taxes. People today would accuse such Americans of being "pacifists."
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? | Robert P. Murphy | Mises Institute