In Anatomy of a state, Rothbard wrote “Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or “caste” is how to maintain their rule.[7] While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” government) must have the support of the majority of its subjects.”
This seems to me to be - like most if not all of what Rothbard wrote - to be self evident. But doesn’t this argue against those who claim the state is involuntary?
No. The “support of the majority” can be mere acquiescence, which does not equal consent. I think the key is recognizing that government rests on force in the short run, but in the long run, as parasites they must have public opinion on their side.
So is your argument that resigned consent is not consent? Or that this consent is somehow under duress? It seems like you are simply substituting '“acquiescence” with consent - defining your way out of trouble…
So long as a majority does not actively hate the state, that is enough. States that actively depend on force(most despots) to maintain themselves soon fall.
Government does coerce people. But because government is a parasite, it must also have the support of public opinion in order to survive in the long run (a parasite cannot leech off an unwilling host forever).
Thus, government must be supported by an ideology that legitimizes government coercion. People believe that coercion is necessary. So government is both involuntary and supported ultimately by public opinion.
The flaw in your reasoning I believe is equating the coercive nature of the state with the fact that it is involuntary. Perhaps my thinking is confused?
The State is not voluntary. Even if the majority of the people approve of the State, they can’t change their minds and opt out, unless of course, a somehow peaceful revolution occurs, a violent revolution occurs, or another State conquers this State and the people mobilize in favor of this new State. In either of these revolutions or changes in the condition of the State the State is threatened and the State does not willingly step down. Unless you know of a State stepping down willingly it would be interesting to know about. This is basically an issue of choice. Do I have it or not?
Either you have it completely or we are at least almost there. Thank you, your reply was insightful. As were the others! I appreciate time you are all taking with me on this relatively basic issue.
No. Though this has been a source of confusion for many members on this board.
If there are 1000 slave masters and only 1 slave, does slavery not still exist?
Of course, we can play semantics with it as well. The President of the United States clearly is in favor of continuing the state; as he approves of it serving him. But this does not mean that, for him, the state is voluntary. Its involuntary nature is completely seperate from anyone’s opinion of it.
People, by supporting the state, are demonstrating their desire to hold others in an involuntary relationship. If they did not so desire, they would have no objections to letting the state wither.
The state being legitimate because of implied consent has to be the weakest argument possible. If the state is proper only because people consent to it, must it not be unproper for the state to lord over any person who does not consent to it? All that is required to defeat the argument is for one to withhold consent.