I notice that Austrian political theory views the state as acting like a single person. Hans Hermann Hoppe is particularly guilty of this in his lectures. He talks about the state being a territorial monopolist that prints money and so on. I find this contrary to methodological individualism. By doing this, one is making the assumption that everything the state does is agreed on by everybody constituting the state, which is obviously false. For every X lobby that exists, there can also exist an anti-X lobby. Most people would just mention the idea of checks and balances as a counter to libertarian political philosophy. Indeed, this idea that there are constitutions or “magical pieces of paper that limit the growth of the state”(as Stefan Molyneux would like to say), or divisions between the branches of government to keep them honest… these ideas are very popular with people and a very strong reason for resistance against libertarianism. So my question is, how does libertarian political philosophy answer the objection that there are checks and balances controlling the state?
There are indeed checks and balances within the state. However, anarchy maximizes checks and balances.
No such thing. Austrian Economics is value free. You mean Libertarianism, which deals with political philosophy.
Really, where? lol. I believe you’ve misinterpreted him, and/or wrongly assumed errors in his analysis.
"Conventionally, the state is defined as an agency with two unique characteristics. First, it is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction). That is, it is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Second, the state is a territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price citizens must pay for its provision of law and order.
Predictably, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in favor of the state. Instead of resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. Worse, while the quality of justice will fall under monopolistic auspices, its price will rise. Motivated like everyone else by self-interest but equipped with the power to tax, the state agents’ goal is always the same: to maximize income and minimize productive effort." -
And why would you find the above contrary to methodological individualism? lol. Individuals who compromise the parasitic class (state agents), follow their own self interest, like everyone else.
What checks and balances controlling the state? I don’t think you’ve presented any at all. Have you read Anatomy of the State btw?
There’s no such thing. Maybe you should try learning what you are talking about before telling us what you notice.
Nope, we see through such reification common in everyday talk about states. It has no place in libertarian theory.
“State” is a very real concept. People acting as rulers exercise territorial monopolies by way of force. If Höppe doesn’t extrapolate on all this every time he talks about states, well, sorry?
non sequitur
What? The failure of “checks and balances” under the [not at all really ‘libertarian’] ideology of the “founding fathers” or confused Libertarian Minarchists? It isn’t an argument against actual libertarianism.
So, this mention of “checks and balances” are “very popular with people”. Yes, the presidential candidates trot out some mention of your constitution every 4 years. If anyone thinks that modern states are constrained by checks and balances, they need to get a dose of reality.
I thought it was Hoppe who emphasized in particular that the non-monolithicity of the modern democratic state is responsible for its more intrusive and destructive tendency, as compared to monarchies.
I think the argument against checks and balances is that all the very few checkers and balancers wind up getting together and divvying up the spoils, agreeing to watch each other’s backs
It’s not much of a check and balance when it is all part of the same institution/entity that holds a legal monopoly over everything it does.
This. The “checks and balances” aren’t even done outside of the government by a third party, they are done within the government. With that being said, how is it, do you propose that they are really keeping themselves restrained? Just look at the 1800s, the 1900s, and today. “Checks and balances” is a non-existant term thrown around in high school classes and political science classes to show that our state in particular isn’t actually a leviathan state (which it is).
Separation of powers theory has been at the core of liberalism since before the 19th century.
That’s incorrect.
In practice checks and balances come down to turf wars over who gets to oppress you.