If anybody had doubted the veracity of Rothbard’s insight regarding what maintains state control, the Middle East uprisings should put their objections to bed. From Anatomy of the State:
“Once a State has been established, the problem of the ruling group or ‘caste’ is how to maintain their rule. While force is their modus operandi, their basic and longrun 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 support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature…For this essential acceptance, the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives.”
While probably common knowledge to most libertarians, I’d bet the majority of Americans are shocked at how easily these Middle East regimes are toppling, all due to public-wide dissent.
How far do you think this idea goes though? Could a nation like North Korea just ignore Kim Jong-Il and his sycophants and see the regime topple or is a State like that too entrenchted? My only problem with Rothbard’s idea (and it’s not really a problem per se, more like an addendum to his thesis) is that it doesn’t take into account how it is like a giant game theory experiment. I think, even if people were to start dissenting, the regime would kill a good deal of people and shut the rest up. If 100% of the subjects did refuse to submit to the regime, many would probably die in the process but the government would collapse, so I agree on that score.
Also, what other historical examples might Rothbard be drawing off of? The closest historical example I can think of to the Middle East revolutions would be the Simon Bolivar-led rebellions in 19th century South America.