Is it possible to limit the role of government solely to protection of the population from aggression? by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Mainstream political posturing almost always takes place in disagreement over the role of the state. Political alliances are formed by one’s position on which areas of our lives the state should exert its influence and which areas it should remain passive {remain is the proper term, as the state rarely if ever willfully gives up influence and power}. While it might be interesting to analyze these differences of opinion on where the state should exert its force, it is far more crucial to question the basic assumption mainstream policy is based on; that there is indeed a legitimate role of the state.
Attempting to defend the complex modern worldviews, those of the neoconservative or the state liberal, with their weak arguments for the seemingly limitless extension and growth of state power is an exercise in futility. The reason they find so much distaste for the opposition’s arguments is symptomatic of their shared assertion; that there are few areas in which the state does not belong in our lives. Most people, if the reality of this oppressive condition were thoroughly explained, would also find it distasteful.
Instead, to give the state a fair shot at legitimacy, why not examine the concept of the “night watchman state”? If we limit the state to its most fundamental role, that of protecting us from aggression, have we then found a universal role for Leviathan?
Concentrating on the most commonly accepted solitary reason for the legitimacy of the state, defense from aggression, allows us to simplify the discussion. If the primary reason for the acceptance of the state or a state like coercive institution is not legitimate or valid, then what is the point of debating the countless other areas the state may be involved in?
Our case for analyzing and limiting the state to one single endeavor, protecting us from aggression, runs into a couple of snags right at the get go; the most obvious being the aggressive nature and origin of the state itself. Do we dare trust that which holds a “monopoly of force” to use that force in a manner that limits aggression rather than compounds it?
As far as trusting and “permitting” the state to protect us, the state never asks permission to do what it believes is necessary to get where it is. In fact it does just the opposite; it demands that those within the region it intends to occupy or already occupies fully submit to its force and power. Submission and permission are entirely different concepts. Permission signifies consent, while submission most often implies coercion.
The concept of the night watchman state assumes we can create {or convert} a state that is obviously aggressive, but yet will only use that aggression in some positive fashion. For us to place our trust in that which arose out of a monopoly of aggressive force, to somehow suddenly transform its demeanor and decide to protect the same people it forcefully dominates is misunderstanding the nature of not only the state, but also of human nature.
If we propose that as a group, humans are aggressive and the non aggressive among us need to be protected, the last place you would think we would turn to find protection would be among the aggressive. The only true “safe harbor” for this protection would be among the “defensive”, those that live without aggression, but are capable of defensive action, if need be. We all know people of this sort and we may even be prone that direction ourselves, but when in history have we ever witnessed a state with this sort of inclination?
This condition, defensive protection, is in complete opposition to an institution that came into being through aggression and maintains itself solely through the threat or actual use of force and aggression; the fox and henhouse analogy comes to mind. .
Our other snag pertains to any hope of truly limiting the state. Nothing comes for free and an institution that is chartered to “defend” us from aggression comes with costs. Those costs must be met and it is glaringly obvious that in order for that to take place the state must immediately expand its defensive role and take on the powers necessary to “confiscate and redistribute the wealth”. Actually, if the state already exists, these powers are already in place.
Wealth is necessary not only to “defend” the population, but to accomplish a forceful monopoly of a region in the first place. Building a successful state has always been a “profitable” enterprise. It is no secret where that profit arises from. Confiscation and redistribution of wealth takes place long before the notion arises that the state exists for the defense of the same region it has dominated and exploited.
What historical example do we have of a state forming without the existing inhabitants of a region being occupied ending up with less wealth than they possessed before? How did our natives {or, any natives for that matter} do during the formation of the American state, the land of the free and home of the brave?
I suppose we could rationalize a “devil’s contract”; the possibility that if we don’t accept the state, the same guns promised to protect us may be used upon us; either directly as in totalitarian regimes or indirectly in more “democratic” regimes as we are being escorted to jail for some “crime” whose only victim may be the state itself.
But, this obviously would be an “illegitimate” reason. It is a reason again built upon fear of aggression from the same entity that claims to protect; comparable to cutting your local mobster his percentage because buildings whose owners refuse to pay up seem to be far more prone to late night fires.
Even more confounding is accepting the legitimacy of our own state to ward off an aggressive attack from another competing state. Since all states originated from outright aggression, how do we determine which will continue to aggress and expand their region and which will only maintain a defensive posture? At what specific moment does our own particular state cease to expand and exist solely to defend our region?
There are no answers to these questions that can truly be said to have “reason” simply because a “monopoly of force” by its very nature has no checks and balances. The belief that the “rule of law” can limit the state is a belief that the state, the monopoly of force, will never use that force to go beyond whatever its subjects believe is just law. Force that enforces law, if it happens to be inclined to, always trumps law.
Our acceptance of the state is based on the fear that rejection of the state would subject us to that very same aggression, whether from within or outside, whether from our state or one of its competitors.
Even the possibility of “choosing” the state does not exist. We have no place to go to opt out. Every corner of the world has been claimed by one state or the other. While many of us, if it is feasible, can choose “which” state, we cannot reject the dominance of the state. We accept because as its subjects, we are subject to its coercive authority and outright and active physical rejection of the state would ultimately prove detrimental to our well being. States do not take rejection lightly and always have a remedy for their opposition, whether resistance originates from outside its region or within.
Limiting the state to any role or task has no grounds in reason other than fear. That, which monopolizes us by force, has no inherent limits. The night watchman, in order to insure freedom, must be man ourselves.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
