Governments Are Just Monopolies on Force
“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.”
~ H.L. Mencken
I give a good number of speeches each year. For some time I’ve asked audiences a question: “What useful purpose does the US government serve?” I do that not to be challenging or provocative, but to actually find out if anyone else can think of a useful purpose the government serves. The question at first shocks, then amuses and then perplexes almost everyone because it is both so obvious and outrageous that no one ever thinks of asking it. Most people accept the institution of government because it has always been there; they have always assumed it was essential. People do not question its existence, much less its right to exist.
Government sponsors untold waste, criminality and inequality in every sphere of life it touches, giving little or nothing in return. Its contributions to the commonweal are wars, pogroms, confiscations, persecutions, taxation, regulation and inflation. And it’s not just some governments of which that’s true, although some are clearly much worse than others. It’s an inherent characteristic of all government.
The essence of something is what makes the thing what it is. But surprisingly little study of government has been done by ontologists (who study the first principles of things) or epistemologists (who study the nature of human knowledge). The study of government almost never concerns itself with whether government should be, but only with how and what it should be. The existence of government is accepted without question.
What is the essence of government? After you cut through all the rhetoric, the doublethink and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force. And the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient. Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, “The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun.” There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, given with any enthusiasm.
A person’s attitude about government offers an excellent insight into their character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another; they offer a practical insight into how he views humanity at large and himself in particular.
There are only two ways people can relate in any given situation: voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism, but government is viewed as somehow exempt. It’s widely believed that a group has prerogatives and rights unavailable to individuals. But if that is true, then the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the PLO – or, for that matter, any group from a lynch mob to a government – all have rights that individuals do not. In fact, all these groups believe they have a right to initiate the use of force when they find it expedient. To the extent that they can get away with it, they all act like governments.
Terrorists, Mobs and Governments
You might object that the important difference between the KKK, IRA, PLO or a simple mob and a government is that they aren’t “official” or “legal.” Apart from common law concepts, legality is arbitrary. Once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the “laws” of governments and the ad hoc proceedings of an informal assemblage such as a mob, or of a more formal group like the KKK, boils down to the force the group can muster to impose its will on others. The laws of Nazi Germany and the USSR are now widely recognized as criminal fantasies that gained reality on a grand scale. But at the time those regimes had power, they were treated with the respect granted to any legal system. Governments become legal or official by gaining power. The fact that every government was founded on gross illegalities – war or revolt – against its predecessor is rarely an issue.
Force is the essence of government. But the possession of a monopoly on force almost inevitably requires a territory, and maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a “successful” government. Would any “terrorist” organization be more “legitimate” if it had its own country? Absolutely. Would it be any less vicious or predatory by that fact? No, just as most governments today (the ex-Communist countries and the kleptocracies of the Third World being the best examples), demonstrate. Governments can be much more dangerous than the mobs that give them birth. The Jacobin regime of the French Revolution is a prime example.
Is the State Necessary?
The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That’s been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That’s because although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil. (The larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing – perhaps in another forum.)
What, arguably, makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.
One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another – unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.
Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon and North Africa for centuries, until the situation became politicized after WWI. Until then an individual’s background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities, making money.
But politics does not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however innocently or “justly” at first) to impose its values and wishes on others, with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.
Sometimes that means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India, or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes its mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found out throughout Africa in the 70s, or Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.
Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefiting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it.
Regards,
Doug Casey
December 30, 2009
ShareThis
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Simon and Agora Financial, Whiskey Gunpowder. Whiskey Gunpowder said: Governments Are Just Monopolies on Force: “The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to t… http://bit.ly/6atYS3 [...]
Doug, your articles are always informative and entertaining as well as being great reference material. However, I believe that there is a misconception that most people have regarding the conflict that Ireland has gone through for the last 150 years or so. The misconception is that it is a religious war or conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. I do not view it this way. The conflict is more between the Irish people and the English people. It just so happens that the English are Protestant and the Irish are Catholic, that is all. I know that this distinction has now become somewhat blurred because of inter-marriage, but this theme is still the dominant force of the conflict. As you know the Protestants were the ruling class from England and the Catholics were the working class who came from true gaelic(Irish) stock. The Irish people tolerated being basic slaves to the English ruling class because they were able to work the land, provide shelter and food for their families. However when the main source of food for the Irish, the potatoe, became infected with the potatoe blight the source of food disappeared and a million and a half Irish people died. England refused to help and the Sinn Fein (IRA) was born to fight the English and to rid them from their soil. There was actually enough food to sustain the Irish but all cattle, grain and other food was shipped out of Ireland to England. The American slave history was very tragic also, but no slave owner in the States would treat his slaves the way England treated the Irish people. To make matters worse it was Irish soil to begin with, so the Irish realized that the English monarchy was so corrupt to let this famine happen, that they were forced to take back the land that was originally stolen from them. Plus one more thing Doug, it worked! Many people do not realize that Ireland was not in the second world war, it was a neutral country and stayed out of that conflict. I believe that if the Queen of England would voluntarily give back the “rest of Ireland”, ie Northern Ireland, there would be peace forever. You must have read the book, The Great Famine by C.W. Smith, I read it approximately 40 years ago and it has stayed with me ever since. Review the book again Doug and then rethink your views that Sinn Fein was just a band of marauding thugs and terrorists. All theatres of war rely on terror and intimidation. It is unfortunate the Queen’s Family does not to this day acknowledge the truth.The conflict could have been terminated years ago with the mere stroke of a pen. Doug, keep up the excellant writing and Best Regards for the New Year, CanadaNorth
Dear Doug: I ALWAYS know I’m in for a good, sensible, thought-provoking read when I see your name, but this particular essay is magnificent, particularly followig the two conversations between you and Louis.
Doug,
This is perhaps the most brilliant piece of work I’ve read in a very long time. Thank you. As you so deftly reasoned, a person’s attitude about government offers an excellent insight into their character. The idea that an organized collective will inherently promote harmony is a time-tested fallacy – promoted by those that seek power and embraced by those who lack the character to be truly free individuals.
Our nation’s greatest General said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” – - George Washington
Yet he, along with our other founders, and even the most die-hard freedom lovers (or tyranny haters) realized the ugly necessity of organization and enforceable laws to guarantee and protect the individual’s life, liberty and property rights.
In the Federalist Papers (#51), James Madison wrote, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Allow me, if I may, to answer your original question, “What useful purpose does the US government serve?” by offering another quote from my favorite statesman, Thomas Jefferson.
“The proper purpose of government is to guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. The government shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
How far we’ve fallen.
All the best to you Doug, and thanks again for this fantastic piece.
Your article on Government seems to overlook the fact of why the United States is closing in on bankruptcy. It wasn’t the government that lost billions from the Bernard Madoff ponze scheme. It wasn’t the government that caused the banks in the United States to reach insolvency. Were we to eliminate government, depending on where you live along the major rivers like the Colorado, the Mississippi, etc., you may or may not have access to water. Not only do I disagree with your thesis, but would argue the exact opposite. We need more government intervention to prevent Capitalist pigs in our country from creating another Civil War. The major speakers for the right, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and others would have you believe we need to depend on personal responsibility. They must be blind, dumb and deaf to what is going on around them. There is no personal responsibility or accountability in our country. Don’t believe it? Look at how many Americans are obese or overweight. Look at how many Americans spend more than they make. Look at how many Americans are without health care or homes. Look at how much greed, corruption, prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. are prevalent in the United States. If you want to blame government for all these ills, then close down government and see how long you survive in a society without it.
Dear Mr. Deist:
Hank Reardon, I believe, said in Atlas Shrugged, “Gentlemen, I regret that I must save your necks along with mine.” Mr. Reardon was clearly a much nicer person than I am and he did not “live” in a world where 40% of all those employed worked for some government somewhere, producing nothing but destruction of capital, loss of liberty, inane programs to “help” the “less fortunate,” and increasing inability to feed over 300,000,000 primarily sub-humans..
The government will collapse of its own weight for a variety of reasons and in time we will scrabble something out of the ruins.
For now, sensible people look to their whole cards, and you national socialist statists continue to seek lower standards for us all. You’re very good at it. When your vicious house of cards falls, though, how well do you, personallu, think you will be able to take care of yourself? I won’t care because I have gone out of the business of supporting grasshoppers, drones, and locusts. What you eat and how you get it in a world full of government-caused shortages isn’t my problem and is of no interest to me. I’m going to look after myself and mine and NO ONE else. Your ilk has had nearly a hundred years of supporting every grifter, ne’er-do-well, and lazy lout and they are YOUR problem. Expect them to start looting and rioting happily given the least excuse; they always do.
Attempt to save your neck? Whatever for?
[...] Whiskey & Gunpowder – Governments Are Just Monopolies on Force [...]
A. M. Diest said, “If you want to blame government for all these ills, then close down government and see how long you survive in a society without it.”
Sounds good to me. Let’s give it a try.
Very interesting article, thanks for the info. In my opinion the U.S. dollar is in a lot of trouble in the long run because the Fed is now caught in a position where it cannot withdraw the stimulus or stop the money printing because it would devastate the economy. So one of the few ways for people to protect themselves from this fiat currency debasement is to continue to add to gold positions on pullbacks. And I recently came across an article titled “Canadian Gold Stocks Rally as Gold Price Opens 2010 Higher” at http://www.goldalert.com/ which discusses the outlook for a bunch of gold-related sectors, including several gold mining companies based in Canada that have benefited and should continue to benefit from the bull market in gold.
ROFL, Canada North. Did ye ken, laddie, that me dear auld faither was th’ first o’ his clan t’ marry a Sassenach, may th’ good Lard forgive him? Yes, being half Irish and growing up on ancestral tales definitely shaped my thinking. Daddy and I were in Ireland one bitterly cold and blustery day but we went into town deliberately to flaut an ancient English edict: “Neither Mac nor O shall strut nor swagger in the streets of Galway.” We got there as soon as we could and strutted and swaggered happily. It amused a couple of the locals, so we repaired to the nearest pub and sang songs of rebellion and made age-old toasts. Up the republic! LBT
I’m with you, Mike, and I’m in favor of gold any time I can hold it in my hand, Mr. Strainer. I wouldn’t want gold held “in street name.”