• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
An Illegitimate Republic
Justin Oliver I have asked to speak before the body to clear up a matter. I have questioned if a republic isthe best political form to protect individual rights. Some have stated they are confused bywhat I mean. I want to take this opportunity, on the record, to explain why I believe any state-imposed government is antithetical of liberty and, therefore, illegitimate.Now when I said "the state," I mean any political entity that claims the monopoly on theinitiation of force within a geographic area. Or as Frederic Bastiat put it, "The state is the greatfictitious entity in which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."Morally, I oppose any initiation of force or coercion. As Ron Paul said, "The most importantelement of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is therejection of the initiation of violence." That is not such a radical claim, is it, that we shouldrestrain from initiating force against out neighbors and that force should only be used in self-defense against such hostility? Yet, it is self-evident that the state constantly initiates force toimpose its will. It is institutionalized violence.But wait, a republic is different, you say. In its proper form, supposedly, it defends individualsagainst this abuse. But I disagree. Its most fundamental method of initiating force, the one onwhich its other powers rest, is the claim to have governing authority over all people within ageographic area regardless of a peaceful individual's objection to do so. Even competinggovernmental services (such as for defense, law enforcement, judicial arbitration, and lawmaking) must submit to and comply with these higher authorities or face violent retribution.Rightly, most people would oppose an individual using force to be the monopoly supplier of aproduct or service. Yet, too often, most people accept the state's aggression against everyentity that threatens its monopoly.The most common method of initiating this force is taxation, allegedly the price you pay to livein civil society. How can a group of people that enforces its will at the end of gun be calledcivilized? How can a mob be called civilized? The abolitionist Lysander Spooner summed itup:The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon himfrom the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But therobbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly andshameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, andcrime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money,or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything buta robber. ... Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him todo. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to beyour rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does notkeep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiringyou to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often ashe finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so.
 
As Bastiat pointed out:If every person has the right to defend even by force—his person, his liberty, and hisproperty, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support acommon force to protect these rights constantly. ... Thus, since an individual cannotlawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then thecommon force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person,liberty, or property of individuals or groups.Since no individual may justly use force to seize the justly acquired property of others, then nogroup—for the same reason—may justly use force to seize the justly acquired property of others. The state violates it's own laws, and therefore, is neither a legitimate lawmaker nor law enforcer.Just and proper laws would be those that impose a "a mere negation. They oblige [anindividual] only to abstain from harming others." As Bastiat said time and again, "Law isforce." He added:But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men aregulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—thenthe law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of thelegislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. Whenthis happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the lawdoes all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they ceaseto be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.Then I must be some kind of radical for questioning this. Quoting Bastiat again, "If yousuggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that 'You are adangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundationupon which society rests.' " He then continued, "Thus, if there exists a law which sanctionsslavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even bementioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Stillfurther, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; fromthe supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law."Well, I confess. I am a radical. As Barry Goldwater claimed, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. … Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."So, if I don't like the state, why not just leave? After all, am I not granting consent by stayingput? Well, no. It is no more consensual than preferring to live in a neighborhood prone toburglary because I don't want to live in a neighborhood prone to murder. The burglar is stillimmoral and a criminal. As Bastiat reminded us, "It was the fact that life, liberty and propertyexisted beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." The question pre-supposes that the state and the burglar have some higher claim to my property than I do, butthe state and the burglar have only come to power because of their past successful conquestand plunder. I could more rightly ask, and I do, why doesn't the state just leave? The statedoesn't own my property. The state doesn't own my labor. The state doesn't own my mind. Ido.
 
Then if I oppose the state, what am I in favor of and how do we achieve it?My ideal world is one in which human interaction is voluntary. That means individuals shouldbe free to do as they consent so long as they do not violate the rights of another. Thatincludes what competing governments, if any, they choose to be subject to and financiallysupport, what they produce, what they consume, and how they live your life. Bastiat said, "If anation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among thepeople ...
whatever its political form may be
" [emphasis mine].Again from Bastiat, "It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eatbecause we do not want the state to raise grain." Just because I do not want a state-imposedgovernment, that does not mean I am blind to the value of voluntarily organizing a commondefense and consolidating the rule of natural law, such has been the case for common-law judiciaries and the admiralty law at sea. Just because I don't want the state to provide myeducation, that does not mean I want to be ignorant.Luckily, these ideas are not that foreign to us, not yet. Most governmental entities arevoluntary, such as in business, non-profit organizations, and activists organizations such asthis one. The people who are governed by them have consented voluntarily, and both partieshave an opportunity to peacefully dissolve their relationship. And I support using the politicalprocess to work within the system, as one of many strategies. Until the time comes when thestate's coercive powers can be peacefully abolished, one of those temporary stepping stonescould be a republican form of government, which I consider to be the least worst forms of statism, that is, the belief that sovereignty rests with the state. But that is not the finish line.Liberty is the ultimate political means and the ultimate political ends.A limited constitutional republic, fundamentally, suffers from the inherent contradictions of violating individual rights in an effort to protect them. As Maximilian Robespierre, the Frenchrepublican responsible for the "Reign of Terror" in revolutionary France said openly, "Theprinciple of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue isterror." Deep down, we all understand this. If the state provided exactly what each individualwanted from it, as the market does best, there would be no need for its coercion.Those governmental services would be available in the market because it is dynamic andresponsive, while the state is slow and inefficient. It is because the state uses coercion totransfer wealth from one individual to another that slave masters were so receptive to formingits first primitive models. Inevitably, that contradiction of attempting to uphold liberty byinitiating force will be exploited, just as every republic in all of history has been. Lest weforget, power corrupts, Lord Acton said. Thus, a true republican government can only exist for a brief moment in time until its coercive powers are used to expand its reach. I believe analternative approach that does not employ coercion provides for the greatest possibility of  justice and liberty. Bastiat said, "Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent."So I ask of you, is it not utopian to believe in a hypothetical republican form that has never truly existed, that will not exists because it cannot exist, that is contradictory to its purpose,and that would require a shift in the fundamental nature of human beings? Is that notmadness? Or is it more reasonable to believe that some individuals are good, some aren't,and we should not entrust our lives and liberty to a structure that has violated them at everymoment since its inception?
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...