Christian Relaunch

"The State"

The Idea of the State

Most Westerners seem to agree with Producer's Right except for one big exception, that undermines it all. They assume that certain gangsters known as "the State" are entitled to seize our produce.

This strange notion, absurd if you think about it, hides in plain sight, an Elephant in the Room.

The notion probably arose as follows. Long ago, when Producer's Right was upheld by most and violated only by a few thieves and extortioners, one extortion-gang hit on the ruse of lulling its victims by claiming to be plundering them for their own good. It called itself "the State" and euphemistically called its plunder and hindrance "taxation" and "regulation". The ruse was successful and has been imitated across the world.

They even managed to induce a sense of community, where the victims inwardly identified the gangsters with the victims' own nationhood, in the idea of "the nation-state".

When I describe these gangsters' activities, my listener usually nods along and agrees how wicked it is until they realise "Oh! you're talking about the State! Well that's all right then, It's legal!" (Of course the gangsters call it "legal"! That's part of the scam! It's a euphemism!)

Varieties of Statism

Statists vary on the circumstances in which the State is entitled to encroach.

Conditional Statism justifies the State only because some souls will act wickedly.

Unconditional Statism justifies it even in a world where everyone always acts virtuously.

Statists also vary on the extent to which the State is entitled (or wise) to encroach.

Totalitarianism (pure Statism) upholds (or applauds) maximal Statery.

Libertarianism demands (or proposes) minimal Statery.

Most Statists are confused about which variant to uphold, and why, but we need to focus on the basic point that always and everywhere "The State" is nothing but varnished gangsterism.

Arguments for Statery

Statists vary on what reasons (if any) they offer for their approval of this form of gangsterism. Most of them seem to combine firm approval of its role with hazy notions of its purpose. The following variety of common arguments illustrates this.

"Without the State men would be able to oppress women."

Men always rule, and are able to oppress women if they choose. Unless you envisage an army of Amazons enchanging fire with their male "oppressors"!

But sometimes they use women as pawns in oppressing other men. The idea that The Vote gives anyone power is delusional. Violent men gave the vote to women to control other men, and whichever men have power will take it back if and when they choose.

(Gotcha!) You cannot be right about both Androcracy and the State. The same reasoning that justifies Androcracy would also justify stronger men plundering weaker men.

Not so. Men being usually stronger than women is not the central reason for Ancrocracy. Gender is a cosmic principle with a definite role, whereas variations in bodily strength between men have no special significance.

(Democratism) "Producing an asset confers no ownership; all assets are owned by the public, the people as a whole. If private ownership refines territoriality, public ownership refines it more."

Maybe the most popular excuse for Statery is Democracy. Pure democratist rhetoric is prominent in public political discourse, and many seem to think they believe it, but few seem to hold it very firmly. It is nonsensical.

For details see Democratism...

(Conditional Statism) "To defend against violations of producer's right, someone must have a monopoly of power."

Imagine a world without wrongdoing. In general there is agreement about who owns what, for it is usually clear enough who produced what. From time to time two men differ, for learning through trial and error is inherent in being human, but then they will compromise, or seek arbitration, or resolve the matter in some such amicable way.

Man's defection has changed all that.

"They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit."

Paul of Tarsus, Romans 1:29.

It became necessary to react against encroachments by deterrence, defence, retaliation and restitution. This is the right and duty of counteraction which is the only basis for the proper use of force.

Men may form a league to protect property and punish violations. It may well be wise (and in that sense a duty) for all residents of a given neighbourhood to join such a league, but they are not obliged to do so, and to force them would itself be a violation.

The first to expound the voluntary defence league seems to have been Gustave de Molinari, in The Production of Security (1849). For a modern treatment see Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty (1973).

(Christian Conditional Statism) "God has instituted the State on account of sin, as explained by Paul of Tarsus in Romans 13. God's appointed agents are entitled to enforce obedience, and our Christian duty is to recognise and obey them."

"We gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men."

Justin Martyr, First Apology Ch.17, c.155 CE.

The idea that success as a gangster would indicate divine appointment is especially bizarrre.

"Only the ban is used for the admonition and exclusion of the one who has sinned, without the death of the flesh."

Michael Sattler and others, Schleitheim Confession, 1527. (This milestone in the development of Anarchism rejected the use of force to compel the conduct of others, leaving ostracism ("the ban") as the only sanction.)

For details see Statism in the New Covenant Book...

"Christ favours sharing goods, not clinging to them."

Yes, sharing them voluntarily, not having them stolen away.

"Let the thief no longer steal."

Paul of Tarsus, Epistle to the Ephesians 4:28. He did not add, "but of course if enough of you get together and take a vote, that's all right." Peter's rebuke to Ananias in Acts 5 (not for holding property back but for lying about it) also makes clear that it is for rich men to give, not for others to grab.

"What about human rights?"

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself".

United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 25:1 (1948)

Most of the rights claimed in "Human Rights" talk fall into two categories. For instance, in the 1948 U.N. Declaration (the basis of most modern "human rights" theory):

Negative Rights (1-20) claim the right to be free from interference. These concur with Producer's Right.

Positive Rights (21-30) claim the right to be given the produce of others' work (without the consent of those others). These amount to political consequentialism. For instance, take the supposed "right to health and well-being". 100% of the world's resources could be spent on healthcare without exhausting the possible benefits, so "health" is already vague enough, and "well-being" is even more flexible. In reality they allow for unlimited seizing of assets, depending on someone's judgment that it will improve well-being. In other words, "Do whatever leads to good outcomes", that is, Consequentialism.

What about altruism?

The question here is who should control products, and the standard is non-encroachment. Another important question, but a separate one, is how they should control them, and there the generosity to which you appeal has its proper place.

"Our principle leaves every man to enjoy that peaceably, which either his own industry, or his parents have purchased to him: only he is thereby instructed to use it aright."

Robert Barclay, An Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1676), under Thesis 15.

"What if a man is unknowingly walking off a cliff?"

Try to restrain him as an emergency measure, but if he insists, step aside. Do not encroach on his freedom, only touch delicately on its boundary.

But if he is incapable of acting as a man, try to restrain him until his guardian can be contacted or established.

(Political Consequentialism) "We should override producers' rights to achieve good outcomes."

(Conditional Welfarism, one form of this) "So many are too selfish to help the poor that an organisation to seize their produce is needed."

Such theories often start with good intentions, aspirations to improve society and suchlike, and it is to be expected that following such intuitions will generally aid rather than hindering our developmental task, since both are God-given. So if any of the alleged grounds for overriding producer's right seemed weighty enough we should reexamine the matter.

But they do not. See Consequentialism...

We conclude that political consequentialism is generally based on envy, selfishness or conservatism (fear of change), not on reasoning, and that all the alleged reasons are covers for these shyer motives.

(Militarism) "Assets are not owned, and seizures are generally good because conflict stimulates progress. War is normal and healthy. Instead of restraining our territorial instinct by asserting Producer's Right we should liberate it by recognising Conqueror's Right, the right of the strong to plunder the weak. This approach has been espoused by many nations in many periods of history."

"The creatures see of flood and field, and those that travel on the wind!

With them no strife can last; they live in peace, and peace of mind.

For why? Because the good old rule sufficeth them, the simple plan,

That they should take, who have the power, and they should keep who can."

William Wordsworth, Rob Roy's Grave (1803). (Probably not his own view, but he expresses it memorably.)

Few now admit to Militarism, but it has been popular in the past and we should be clear about why we reject it. We reject it because its naturalism regards man as mere beast. Its conqueror's right is a license for all to do as they wish, a denial of all permanent principles, a moral relativism.

(The ) "We have an imperfect system of government that imposes laws, taxation and various services intended for the public good. Though imperfect it is probably better than many of the alternatives. Such as the anarchy that we could find ourselves in were individuals free to pick and choose which laws to obey."

Dunno who is supposed to be doing the "intending", or what evidence this objector thinks they have for it, but anyway ....

This is probably a fair summary of what many relatively articulate people think. It suggests that upholding producer's right would not "work". It claims that statery is "probably better" but offers no argument or basis for that claim, even though the question it purported to answer asked not only whether but why. As usual, there is confusion about what the state is for. The planned economy is certainly not efficient, as economists have shown. Few now uphold the open assertion of economic planning, as in the old Soviet bloc or the semi-planned economies of postwar Britain, but many still uphold a confused version of it. "The public good" means little more than "whatever I regard as good". This "explanation" explains nothing, and has no value in assessing the merits of Statery.

Associating Producer's Right with "Anarchy" may be misleading. Anarchy is freedom from rulers, and in that sense Producer's Right is indeed a type of Anarchism, sometimes called "Right-Anarchism"). But Anarchy need not be chaotic, and Propertarianism is very different from the more familiar "Left-Anarchism" under which nobody owns anything and everyone is entitled to grab what they see as "their fair share". There is nothing chaotic about Producer's Right.