Why is the State Evil ?

[GWilly]

Ok so I’m throwing this one up so that I can get a better understanding of your views, maybe I should just research this question independantly, but I value all of your views.

There is little doubt that the State does does Evil things, but why do they do it? What is their reasoning? What is their Justification?

In thinking about this subject I consider the General who sends his troops into battle knowing full well that some will die, the wives of the soldiers that are killed would probably consider the General as Evil, the General would probably consider himself altruistic, knowing that he has to live with this blood on his hands, but believes he does it for a greater good.

I always try and understand the motives, rather than judge purely on the Actions.

Are all of our Politicians inherently Evil?

UK Minarchist

[Jon_Irenicus]

Have you given Hoppe’s Democracy - the God that Failed a look? He provides a rather lengthy answer in it.

-Jon

[GWilly]

@Jon Irenicus

Have you given Hoppe’s Democracy - the God that Failed a look? He provides a rather lengthy answer in it.

-Jon

Thanks Jon I’ll give it a go - but the first thing I come across is this

Hoppe’s essential approach is axiomatic-deductive, much at odds with the currently fashionable empirical-positivist credos of perpetual uncertainty and underdetermination. Just as there exist axioms of metaphysics, from which all philosofical principles inexorably follow, so there exist axioms of praxeology, the science of human action, which render fundamental economic principles and relationships universal and all-applicable, rather than mere phenomena of particular eras and paradigms

EEEK - Maybe I’m just too stupid ;-(

UK Minarchist

[Jon_Irenicus]

That’s the Austrian methodological approach. The book is on political economy/sociology, though, so you won’t encounter much regarding epistemology in it. It’s just a preliminary. If you want an education on methodological concerns anyway, google the terms on the Mises website or check the Praxeology reading list.

-Jon

[Stranger]

The problem with the state is power. To understand what makes power evil, you need read nothing more academic than The Lord of the Rings.

[Sphairon]

I’d definitely recommend “Democracy - The God That Failed” as well. If you’re not yet educated in the principles of libertarianism or Austrian economics, you’ll learn enough to get a fundamental understanding of “why freedom works”. You’ll also get to learn how praxeology operates, and I can tell you it’s not that difficult. Just keep your logical thinking switched on.

As for the content of the book, I read it in English as a non-native speaker and encountered no particular problems. Should be a cakewalk for an interested Englishman.

[liberty_student]

@Jon Irenicus

That’s the Austrian methodological approach. The book is on political economy/sociology, though, so you won’t encounter much regarding epistemology in it. It’s just a preliminary. If you want an education on methodological concerns anyway, google the terms on the Mises website or check the Praxeology reading list.

-Jon

I mentioned this a long time ago and got laughed at. The layman can’t keep up with the conversation, it is intimidating. There is a shortage of people who can introduce them to the topics in plain English.

[liberty_student]

GWilly, give this a try.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-07-29_008_the_scam_called_the_state.mp3

Professor Hoppe has a heavy accent, so you might want to listen to it twice. It’s a very good introduction to his theories on the state and democracy.

If you want to hear more, try this

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3

Hope that helps.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Well lucky for me I have you to translate then, no? [:P]

-Jon

[liberty_student]

Nope. I’m a dummy too.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Well there’s no substituting self-education in this regard. There is no way to simplify these matters without losing substance. At best, what the methodological scheme described means is that Austrians approach matters with theory that is not itself subject to the hypothesis-falsification methodology adopted by mainstream economists in blindly imitating the natural sciences, and which is antecedent to the observation of any empirical facts, because it is necessary to explain them.

-Jon

[liberty_student]

@Jon Irenicus

Well there’s no substituting self-education in this regard.

I agree, although to the layman who lacks a formal education in philosophy the starting point doesn’t have to be the advanced class.

@Jon Irenicus

There is no way to simplify these matters without losing substance.

There is, we just haven’t mastered it yet. Instead of giving people the whole deal in 50 words, most over 8 characters and foreign to the common man’s ear, surely there are ways to break it down, expand the definitions and while perhaps now 150 words, make it that more readable.

I don’t know. I’m just a working schmo.

[Stranger]

@liberty student

Professor Hoppe has a heavy accent, so you might want to listen to it twice.

A heavy accent? Where are you from?

[liberty_student]

Canada, although perhaps I wasn’t as precise as I could be.

Professor Hoppe has a heavy accent, and a staccato speaking style, which may necessitate multiple listenings of the interviews.

[Jon_Irenicus]

To a European ear his North German accent is actually very clear (compare to Mises for instance.) I have no problem understanding him, though it seems a lot of Americans do.

There is, we just haven’t mastered it yet. Instead of giving people the whole deal in 50 words, most over 8 characters and foreign to the common man’s ear, surely there are ways to break it down, expand the definitions and while perhaps now 150 words, make it that more readable.

It’d take more than that, as the paragraph he quoted summarized a huge deal of knowledge, which is why I said some self-education is necessary.

-Jon

[GWilly]

This is a good thread - Thanks Guys for being patient with me.

@liberty student

GWilly, give this a try.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-07-29_008_the_scam_called_the_state.mp3

Professor Hoppe has a heavy accent, so you might want to listen to it twice. It’s a very good introduction to his theories on the state and democracy.

If you want to hear more, try this

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3

Hope that helps.

I had absolutely no problem with Hoppe’s accent or speaking style, he certainly seems to have the ability to express himself in easy to understand Laymans terms.

However maybe because of this he seems to have opened chinques in his arguments?

1] The state ONLY exists because there are Scarcitys & Thus conflicts

Mmmmm - what about defending against aggresion that is not born out of a desire for material gain - Jealousy, revenge, fear, impressing the ladies etc… these are endemic traights of mankind that exist today and will unfortunately continue to exist for a long time to come.

2] The State is Simply a Parasite that produces no good at all

Mmmmm - So we are to believe that the State has NEVER EVER achieved anything Good - this supposition is going to be hard to sell.

3] The Flaw is that the State will always abuse it’s own monopolistic power simply because it can get away with it & people do not really have another competing government to exodus to. The absolute worse option would be to have a World Government, where there would be no avenue of escape.

Mmmmm - But Hoppe agrees that Government will cease to exist if it is proven that the majority have no confidence in them according to the (supposedly evil) Democratic principle, but does this not (theoretically at least) put the state monopoly under the sword of the people.

The Second Interview simply stating that a Monarchy is less evil than a Democtratically elected Caretaker Government is based on some very simple & possibly sound assumptions. But he certainly plays up the altruistic nature of a monarch/owner, History shows many of them to have been Meglamaniacal lunatics that would commit attrocities on the slightest of whims.

It is clear to me that he has given absolutely no thought whatsoever to the possibility of society ever achieving (through new technology) a more efficient democracy with transparent, accountable state decision making. Say with a powerfull Direct Democracy or eDemocracy mechanisms.

I’m afraid as a Layman I find some of his arguments (on the radio) somewhat simplistic & based on (not ENTIRELY true) assumptions.

I am just somehow left with a feeling that there exits some strange non-altruistic hidden agenda.

O well I suppose I better get on Amazon & order the book anyway - but I cannot allow myself to drift into terminology that the general public cannot understand. If Libertarian principles are not able to be explained without this terminology, then, maybe society is not ready & should not be forced to live by it’s principles.

UK Minarchist

[liberty_student]

Darnitt! I knew I should have included my Amazon afiliate link! [;)]

Happy the audio got you started at least. It’s all food for though, it’s never too good to obsess about one particular philosopher or ideology.

On democracy however, the issue remains the same. If 99.9% set the standard for the remaining 0.1% against their will or desire, it is still a surrender of free will. I can’t see how technology might change this, but if you have ideas in that direction, I’m sure we would all be interested to read them.

[Juan]

@GWilly

There is little doubt that the State does does Evil things, but why do they do it?

You should ask them ? Actually I think there’s no answer for that question - unless you turn to revealed religions that pretend to explain why evil exists.

2] The State is Simply a Parasite that produces no good at all

Mmmmm - So we are to believe that the State has NEVER EVER achieved anything Good - this supposition is going to be hard to sell.

But is one of the core principles of libertarianism. If you don’t think that what you’re selling is good enough maybe you should sell something else ?

Also, it’s not a supposition but a fact. Anything the state does can be done more efficiently by voluntary association.

Caretaker Government is based on some very simple & possibly sound assumptions. But he certainly plays up the altruistic nature of a monarch/owner, History shows many of them to have been Meglamaniacal lunatics that would commit attrocities on the slightest of whims.

I am just somehow left with a feeling that there exits some strange non-altruistic hidden agenda.

Yes. Hoppe is partial to monarchy and oligarchy, although he uses a different word for oligarchy. He calls them ‘natural elites’…

Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State

Oh, here’s the original libertarian argument against monopolistic government.

[Maxliberty]

@GWilly

Ok so I’m throwing this one up so that I can get a better understanding of your views, maybe I should just research this question independantly, but I value all of your views.

There is little doubt that the State does does Evil things, but why do they do it? What is their reasoning? What is their Justification?

In thinking about this subject I consider the General who sends his troops into battle knowing full well that some will die, the wives of the soldiers that are killed would probably consider the General as Evil, the General would probably consider himself altruistic, knowing that he has to live with this blood on his hands, but believes he does it for a greater good.

I always try and understand the motives, rather than judge purely on the Actions.

Are all of our Politicians inherently Evil?

UK Minarchist

The state is evil because it takes from you by force that which does not belong to the state. It is the same as if you are robbed on the street by a lone individual, all of the possible motivations of the lone robber apply to the state. The state often rationalizes this theft by saying there are helping someone else but this is no different than the lone robber saying he needs your money to feed his child. If you understand the truth of this then the state is by definition evil.

[Jon_Irenicus]

His arguments are not simplistic (nor, misleadingly, as suggested by Juan who has not even read his book, are they in favour of oligarchy.) He is not relying on the altruism of the monarch. His book lays out his thesis in depth. That is an aside though. Democracy is just another form of archism. His criticisms do not cease to apply to direct democracy, which is potentially even more destructive than its representative forms. All it does is affirm the principle that others have the right to interfere with one’s property rights (including those over oneself.) Moreover, he is entirely correct in stating that the state exists due to scarcity, the primary cause for all conflict (analyze all the counter-examples you gave and you’ll see they reduce to it.) At every level the state is faced with the problem of economic calculation. Hence it will under-produce goods and over-produce bads. Hoppe (building on de Molinari) is merely highlighting this fact. So yes, we are to believe it.

-Jon