Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rothbard)
By Robert J. Heckner
The State, or the government at large, is entity that has existed for most of
human history. It is certainly difficult, for many, to imagine a society without a State.
However, what is the purpose of the State? What is its function? Is it a moral agency,
or an immoral agency? What is the nature of the State? The intention of this essay is to
demonstrate that the State is the single most immoral agency in human history, that
the States only function is to use coercion to increase its power, that the State has no
purpose in a just and moral society, and that the very nature of the State is a violation
of the highest moral and ethical principles.1 Primarily two things must be defined.
The first of these things to be defined is morality, or ethics.2 These may be
defined as certain standards held concerning right action or right deed. There is a
current trend of moral relativism in much of peoples definition of morality. Moral
relativism may be said to be a belief that what is moral changes based on the general
populaces beliefs and standards. However, this essayist, among others, believes that
there is only one set of morals that must be universally applicable or be false. What is
this moral standard? It is simply this: no one may, morally, initiate force against anyone
else. This formulation may be termed the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), it is founded
on an even deeper moral principle that must govern all morality. Every individual,
thinking and living human actor, owns themselves. This is the natural, or God-given,
right. It may be formulated either religiously or secularly. Religiously it may be
formulated as the following, each individual was created in the image of an omnipotent
and all-caring God and by virtue of this it cannot be said that any individual may be
owned by any other individual as God owns himself, thus all people must own
the highest (most highly evolved mentally) species on this earth, each individual is born
The failures of this essayist to demonstrate these points fully and perfect do not reflect on the nature of
the State, but merely the difficulty of the task to demonstrate these points in a limited amount of space.
2
Morals are the principle, ethics are the application of morals. The terms can be used nearly
interchangeably.
1
and by nature possesses ownership of themselves. To deny that each individual owns
themselves is to deny the very humanity of each individual. However, before
connecting the State and morality, the former must be defined.
The State may be broadly defined as, the civil government of a country
and Lineberry (2009) as the institutions and processes through which public policies
are made for a society. However, Rothbard (2002) defines the State as nothing more
or less than a bandit gang writ large. Similarly, the philosopher Nietzsche says the
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies; and this lie slips
from it month: I, the State, am the people. The State is an agency based solely on
coercion that does more harm than good.3 What is the purpose of the State?
provide for common defense? Is it to root out injustice and inequality? Or is the
purpose of the State something far more ominous? Many (Edwards, et al., 2009) would
say that the State is a public service entity that serves to implement the common
goals of the people. However, Rothbard (2001) suggests (italics in original):
follow either(1) that one agency must supply them or (2) that everyone in the
collectivity mustbe forced to pay them. In short, if X is a collective good,
needed by most people in a certain community, and which can be supplied only
to all, it by no means follows that every beneficiary must be forced to pay for the
good, which, incidentally, he may not even want. In short, we are back squarely
in the moral problem of external benefits The collective goods argument
turns out, upon analysis, to reduce to the external benefits argument.
Furthermore, even if only one agency must supply the good, it has not been
3
Rothbard (2009):
The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the organization of the political means; it is the
systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.4 For crime, at best, is sporadic and
uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any
time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the
predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively peaceful the lifeline of the
parasitic caste in society.
proved that the government, rather than some voluntary agency, or even some
The State is nothing more than a coercive, non-voluntary, agency that maintains a
monopoly on the usage of force over a certain area. Thus, the only purpose of the
State is to increase its own power and influence. Rothbard (2009):
We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself
rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State
pursue and punish most intenselythose against private citizens or those
against itself? The gravest crimes in the States lexicon are almost invariably not
invasions of private persons or property, but dangers to its own
It would be ignorant to believe that the State would have any other true purpose. The
most efficient State is wonderful at hiding this with rhetoric; however, this must be so.
As Lord Acton famously formulated, Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power tends to
corrupt absolutely. Most people when placed at the helm of a monopoly of violence
will surcome to libido dominandi, the lust to dominate. If this is the States only
purpose, can it be said to be moral?
The State is a coercive entity. It is not voluntary; no living person, at least in the
United States, signed a compact giving explicit consent to be governed. Voting and
receiving the benefits of government are often used to show implied consent.
However, if this is the case then the common thief may only to have give someone a
small gift before robbing them and say, by accepting my gift, you implied your
consent to be robbed. As Lysander Spooner (2004) says:
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money,
or your life...The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place,
spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to
rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and
it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself
the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he
For further treatment of this, and the external benefits argument, see Rothbard, M. (2001). Man,
Economy, and State
. Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn, Alabama.
4
has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own
The State is, by very nature, in violation of the moral principle of NAP. It enters into
aggressive action, in the forms of taxation, aggressive wars, and many other actions. In
doing so the State is an immoral entity. As Rothbard (2002) says:
would have to say, for example, that any Jews murdered by the democratically
elected Nazi government were not murdered, but only voluntarily committed
suicide surely, the grotesque but logical implication of the democracy as
voluntary doctrine.
always immoral, it is always unethical. The State by its very nature is a non-voluntary
and, thus, coercive entity, and, therefore, is completely immoral. What is the function of
the State in society?
Many will adject to the above statement. Many will say the State is a selfless,
public service-entity that must help to maintain or achieve such and such a policy.
However, as Thomas Woods (2011) says:
public servants innocently seeking to provide for the common good in areas
where private markets are supposedly incompetent. The actual operation of
regulation tends to far less benign than abstract models suggest. And there are
plenty of voluntary solutions that for both moral and practical reasons are to be
preferred to the coercive, bureaucratic kind.
There is no moral or rational function of the State in a free society. Voluntary action
could much more efficiently, and morally, provide for such things that most can only
conceive of the State providing. Whether through voluntary collective organization (for
example, voluntarily entered into communes) or voluntary exchange on a profit and
loss scale; voluntary, non-coercive, non-State action could better serve everyone,
except the political entrepreneur that coercively takes wealth from individuals.
The State is a cruel and immoral entity that has no place in a free society.
Liberty, justice, and equality could be better served through the abolition of the State.
The State has for far too long been give the benefit of the doubt. For far too long
people have pass by State atrocities by claiming that a few bad apples just got into
the process. The State is the mechanism by which the greatest wrongs of human
history. It was not an individual that massacred millions of Jews, Catholics, Romai, and
homosexual people; it was the State. It was not an individual that murder countless
Russian individuals, slaughtered other tribes, or perpetrated the Cambodian killing
fields; it was the State. It was not an individual that kept institutional slavery a feature
of the United States, or enact Jim Crow laws; it was the State. It was not an individual
that dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, enacted conscription, tore apart families and
countries through immoral and unnecessary wars; it was the State. It is not an
individual that commits theft because they have a right to others wealth, it is not an
individual that maintains that it can run society better than its members; it is the State.
The State is unnecessary, immoral, unethical, coercive, and wrong. The State has no
function, its sole purpose is achieving more power. It is the most immoral entity ever
conceived of in human history. Why must it be maintained? Why must it exist? Why
does the State persist in robbing, murdering, power-grabbing, and fear-mongering
without widespread challenge? Can liberty survive in the face of the all-consuming
State?
References:
Oxford English Dictionary Staff (2015). State. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved
from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/state.
Rothbard, M. (2002). Ethics of Liberty. Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn, Alabama
Rothbard, M. (2001). Man, Economy, and State. Ludwig von Mises Institute: Auburn,
Alabama.
Rothbard, M. (2009). Anatomy of the State [electronic copy]. Ludwig von Mises
Institute: Auburn, Alabama.
Woods, T. (2011). Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal
Collapse. Regnery Publishing, Inc.: Washington, D.C.