What is the state (“government”)? The current prosecutions of a former statocrat-in-chief* offer multiple opportunities to raise the question. A declaration by a lawyer about how Donald Trump’s co-defendants could challenge the use of Georgia’s RICO law is especially interesting. The Wall Street Journal reports (“How Donald Trump Could Attack Georgia RICO Prosecution,” August 25, 2023):
“They’d say that there may have been a similar goal—that Trump remain president—but there was no coordination,” said Jack Cunha, a lawyer in Boston who has defended racketeering cases. “They’re going to say this isn’t the mafia or a street gang. They’ll say this is just hardball politics.”
Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century political philosopher and activist, would probably reply that hardball politics is indistinguishable from a mafia. For Spooner, the state is the ultimate criminal conspiracy. In this light, there is a certain irony in its creation and use of RICO. In his fiery 1870 article “The Constitution of No Authority,” Spooner wrote:
Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves “the government,” the tax payer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of “the government”—that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of “the government,” and have determined to kill every body who refuses to give them whatever money they demand. …
The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. …
Thus it is obvious that the only visible, tangible government we have is made up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies and murders, have taken to themselves the title of “the people of the United States,” and who, on the pretence of being “the people of the United States,” assert their right to subject to their dominion, and to control and dispose of at their pleasure, all property and persons found in the United States.
An economist or a political economist will look at the state in a very different way. The question is not the ontological one of what is the state but, in a scientific-nominalist way, how the state works (and how, comparatively, would anarchy work).
Incidentally, this focus on how things work reminds us that any collective action or conspiracy must be incentive-compatible. Most of what is called “conspiracy theories” is not. Incentive-compatible means that each individual co-conspirator thinks that his own action will increase his own expected net benefit more than his own expected cost. This is why there are few large, complex, and risky conspiracies. When there is one, it is discovered because each conspirator has an incentive to rat on his fellow conspirators (it’s the “prisoner’s dilemma”). Note that “risky” usually means illegal.
Going back to how the state works, consider Anthony de Jasay who was, I believe, one of the great (and most neglected) economists of the 20th century. He described himself as a liberal and an anarchist. Perhaps one could say that he was a conservative anarchist. How the state works is the question he asked in his masterpiece The State. He answers that the state (even if run by an altruistic political philosopher like, say, Trump or Giuliani) does not behave like a great and glorious embodiment of “the people.” Instead, the state is in the business of governing, that is, of handicapping some of its subjects or “citizens” in order to grant privileges to those whose support it needs to retain power. The state may not be more dignified in de Jasay than it was in Spooner, but the methodology and implications of the analysis, as well as its (possible) normative corollaries, are very different. One may disagree with de Jasay’s analysis, and have good reasons to, but not before reading the book.
———————————————————–
* “Statocrats” comes from an old French word (statocrate) recycled by Bertrand de Jouvenel and meaning “a man who derives his authority only from the position he holds and the office he performs in the service of the state” (On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth, 1945 for the original French edition).
READER COMMENTS
Jim Glass
Aug 26 2023 at 12:47pm
The question is not the ontological one of what is the state but, in a scientific-nominalist way, how the state works (and how, comparatively, would anarchy work).
We know full well, in the scientific-empirical way, how non-state societies work – with massive violence. E.g.:
“What quantitative data is there about violent deaths in non-state societies?”
https://ourworldindata.org/ethnographic-and-archaeological-evidence-on-violent-deaths
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 26 2023 at 2:58pm
Jim: You could also have cited me:
“A Wide-Ranging Libertarian Philosopher, Reasonable and Radical,” review of Michael Huemer, Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy and The Problem of Political Authority, Regulation 44:4 (Winter 2021-2022), pp. 40-45;
“The Valium of the People,” review of Anthony de Jasay, Social Justice and the Indian Rope Trick, Regulation 39:1 (Spring 2016), pp. 53-56.
Consider, however, the problem with this argument (my and your argument!). Before the 18th century, that is, after 499,800 years of the history of mankind, anybody could have said, say, “We know full well, in the scientific-empirical way, how freedom of religion (everybody being free to choose his own religion, I shiver by just saying these words!) works – with massive violence to prevent social disintegration.” Hence, raw facts of history are not sufficient; economic analysis is needed.
Jim Glass
Aug 29 2023 at 9:10pm
Hence, raw facts of history are not sufficient; economic analysis is needed.
Well, there’s also the present day, and non-state societies still existing to look at…
People follow incentives. There are massive incentives towards violence in all societies (economic incentives and many others, see story above.) We see the result throughout history.
Then warlords arise, grabbing monopolies over violence for their own benefit in their fiefdoms, which evolve into states.
What does economics tell us about what monopolists do? It tells us that monopolists reduce the quantity of the monopolized item — in this case, violence.
What happens when the amount of violence declines? Well, when people are stopped from murdering each other, looting their goods and raping their women, opportunities increase for trade, investment, education, expanding inter-personal trust, and the growth of civilization…
Hey, economic analysis predicts that the rise of violence-monopolizing states will enable great increases in human welfare, and our scientific-empirical analysis confirms that actually happens as predicted. It’s like science in action!
Now if we can ever find scientific-empirical examples of the state disappearing (as Marxists and Libertarians both desire — as if they’ve gone so far in opposite directions they’ve met in the back), with all that increased peaceful trade, investment, trust, civilization, etc. continuing onward and upward, in spite of all the basic human incentives for violence no longer being suppressed by the former state, then we’ll have something else interesting to talk about.
steve
Aug 26 2023 at 1:29pm
Interesting. I think there is a difference between engaging in conspiracies and believing in them. There isn’t much apparent risk most of the time in believing in conspiracy theories with a few exceptions. It’s also pretty rewarding over a long period of time. You get to associate with a special group of friends who know the truth and look askance, or even better hate, those who wont accept the truth. For those actively participating in a conspiracy there is immediate gain, hopefully, but long term risk. It’s not just prisoner’s dilemma, which many wont understand.
It’s husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend which everyone should understand. Break ups can get really ugly as most of us have witnessed. It’s just not believable that in a conspiracy with thousands of people that some angry, scorned spouse/significant other isn’t going to get revenge by revealing secrets. Then there is the combination of alcohol and stupidity. What are the chances that among thousands someone wont get drunk and say something they should not?
Steve
Thomas L Hutcheson
Aug 27 2023 at 7:14am
Perhaps that is what you mean by “engaging.” I have not had real contact with anyone in those loops since “Obama was a Muslim/Atheist/born in Kenya days.” From the way my FB friends argued, I had the impression that they didn’t really “believe” those things; they were just “facts” adopted after the fact as shorthand for antipathy to him for being popular as a garden variety Democrat. [That is they were not “racist;” just that the “facts” used for a different candidate would have been different.]
Alan CharlesKors
Aug 26 2023 at 6:48pm
In my deeper mind, I believe that absent “the state,” we all would be ruled by war lords. The world was not a peaceful Eden and then the State emerged and ruined everything. It’s a violent world once tribes and groups interact, and people seek protection from slaughter, helplessness, and permanent fear. The problem now is what the source of protection becomes once and after warlords become government.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 26 2023 at 10:29pm
Alan: That’s a defendable opinion. We may be for now (at perhaps for the next thousand years) stuck with the state and have the only practical alternative to try (again) to constrain it.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Aug 27 2023 at 7:29am
I agree, specifically, I think along with DeLong in Slouching Toward Utopia, that we have reasonable chance to do so — achieve a good society, although not “utopia.” And I think the key is to push “back” and “forward” the boundaries of the state in very granular ways, ways that “back” and “forward” do not even capture.
Is the chant:
“What do we want?”
“We want more mutually beneficial market transactions between consenting adults that do not create any untaxed/unsubsidized negative/positive externalities (with some exceptions for transactions in addictive substances) and for some of the income generated from those mutually beneficial transactions taxed with a progressive consumption taxes and revenues used for redistribution and purchase of public goods.”
“When do we want it”
“In due course.”
More or less “statist” than the status quo?
Jose Pablo
Aug 27 2023 at 7:46am
Yeah! we have to be much better at constraining the state before deserving the paradise on earth of living in a stateless society.
But what about starting now by constraining the size of the State to 10% of GDP and limiting new bills to one thousand per week (approximately 40% of the actual rate!) and new words of legislation to “just” 1,000,000 per day (around 1/3 of the actual rate).
https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/state-legislatures-versus-congress-which-is-more-productive/
Too many people live too well from “protecting” us from others.
What about starting legal procedures against actual states on extortion (taxes) and fraud (social security pyramid scheme)? They sure are guilty as charged.
Maybe the RICO Act can come in handy …
Walt
Aug 27 2023 at 12:27am
Warlords, kings, popes, tsars, tribal elders, cult leaders, ayatollahs or alpha wolves; there’s always someone. Men seem to crave passing the buck and living in some kind of organized order even if it’s a really terrible one. We’re pack animals, after all. De Toqueville, in the end, foresaw the possibility of where our ingenious republic could end and we’re pushing that wire. But I don’t think it’s government per se that’s the conspiracy, I think it’s the vying political parties, and their ends-justify-the-means politicians, , and RICO (though an inappropriate charge) could easily be equally (mis)used against them.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 27 2023 at 1:54pm
Walt: That man’s brain has been wired, or at least coded, by cultural (as well as biological) evolution is one of Hayek’s structural ideas: see his The Fatal Conceit. What we instinctively know are tribal or group-identity rules. Hayek develops the momentous implications of that.
Mactoul
Aug 27 2023 at 1:47am
And who has been protecting Spooner’s private property all along. From foreign invaders and domestic criminals. And who has been securing his property, indeed defining his property in the first place?
When he leaves behind his will, who takes care that the will is honored?
Jose Pablo
Aug 27 2023 at 7:56am
Take a look at Part II, you will find some (interesting) answers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Authority
On the other hand, never let your lack of imagination be the cause of your acceptance of an awful reality. The answer is never: “Ok, do me as you please. You are horrible but the best alternative”. You always will find a better answer along the lines: “Ok, Let’s think some more! we deserve better” … and, in any case, in the meantime, let’s move in the right direction (less and less state) one step at a time.
Some rivers are way narrower than we would have imagined before reaching their banks.
Mactoul
Aug 27 2023 at 9:17pm
The very logic of private property requires a nexus of laws and the laws imply a state.
Jose Pablo
Aug 27 2023 at 11:18pm
Not really, certain property rights are natural, independent of conventions and laws.
And even the part of “property rights” that must be settled by conventions and laws does not require the existence of a “state” you are “forced” to be part of.
After all, you can also say:
The very logic of having a right not to be murdered requires a nexus of laws and the laws imply a state.
Which is, basically, the same fallacy.
Mactoul
Aug 28 2023 at 1:21am
And which property rights are natural and which are not?
In all actual societies, past or present, private property within the territory occupied by a particular people — private property has always been a matter of laws and legal system– formal or informal. It is to the Courts we turn to in order to settle property disputes not to guns.
Jose Pablo
Aug 28 2023 at 7:51am
And which property rights are natural and which are not?
On this see Locke’s Second Treatise of Government: individuals have a natural property right over the fruits of their labor (deriving from your natural right to own your own body)
See Caplan discussion on this very same topic.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/07/huemers_moderat.html
A couple of the problems with your idea that are the law and the courts who support the property rights:
a) It is “circular” you are simply assuming that property rights are created by the government. Once you assume this premise you can only reach the conclusions you reach. But, what would be the government legitimacy to “create” property rights? it has none
b) It is factually false. The state does a really awful job “protecting” property rights. Less than 10% of motor vehicle theft crimes are cleared in the US and I highly recommend you avoid “courts” (the same you say “support” the property system) as an efficient practical way of settling your property disputes. They have a terrible reputation as a way of doing this and rightly so: they are slow, expensive, unpredictable …
If this was the main way of holding property rights, we would be living in a society with no property rights at all, even in the US
TMC
Aug 27 2023 at 10:14am
I always thought it would be the RICO act that would take down the DNC to Teacher’s union to DNC money laundering scheme.
David Seltzer
Aug 27 2023 at 6:29pm
Pierre: Per your suggestion, I read De-Jasay’s The state. After several readings, so as to grasp his hypothesis, I understand him to mean the state is unnecessary because it’s an adversary state. I suspect for contractarian arrangements individuals would agree the state shouldn’t exist. Since the state does exist, h0w would individuals, governed by the state, consider the benefits of a contractarian society in which they have not lived. In order to achieve that state, unanimous agreement is necessary. As a follow on, I’m reading Buchanan for clarity.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 27 2023 at 7:39pm
David: Quite good summary. Your second sentence represents indeed the main argument of de Jasay: what the state does, its business, is to take sides in favor of some of its subjects (the ones whose support it needs to remain in power) and against the others. (This is necessarily the case since there is no scientific way to say that the utility gained by those favored by the state is higher than the utility lost by those harmed by it.) But note that the state is not only unnecessary, it is positively detrimental–except for those, or some of those, who are privileged by it. Your fourth sentence represents an unconventional argument by de Jasay–which, I agree, occupies an important place in his argument. I think you will find Buchanan’s The Limits of Liberty easier to read than de Jasay.
Mactoul
Aug 27 2023 at 10:16pm
I am hard put to see anything revolutionary in the proposition that the state discriminates. It is the very nature of the laws to discriminate and the state is nothing but the nexus of laws and customs of a people.
I put it in this way– all individuals seek to realize their individual version of the Good– thethe vision of how things should be. And these individual visions would be conflicting in general.
q
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 27 2023 at 11:05pm
Mactoul: In the liberal perspective, laws that forbid future actions by unknown individuals and that seriously threaten the liberal order (“Thou shall not kill”) are not discriminatory. Discriminatory state actions are actions that take sides between citizens (and often between citizens and non-citizens). You should be able to understand that by reading Hayek.
Mactoul
Aug 28 2023 at 1:17am
Jasay (or you) is not being a good methodological individualist.
Where Hindus dominate, beef may be banned. Where English dominate dog meat may be banned. I see this as competition between individual visions of what is Good.
Jasay is saying that this state bans beef because it needs Hindu support to retain power. But what is power? The banning is itself power. So Jasay says the state exercises power in order to retain power. Essentially power itself is the goal ( not of the state but of individuals) because power is just realization of individual vision.
Mactoul
Aug 28 2023 at 9:30pm
Pablo,
The right to property derives from the moral premise that man must eat of the sweat of his labor.
But this doesn’t get you ownership of a parcel of land. First, the premise doesn’t specify how much labor must be mixed with a particular thing as to give a person ownership over that thing.
It is the particular laws of particular people that specify this critical point.
Moreover, private properties are protected and secured by armed might of the people. That the protection is imperfect is neither here nor there.
Protection is also labor that all people do for the proprietor and must be paid for.
In civilized countries, a helpless infant or old person may be secure in their ownership. And it is not by their personal might but by might and laws of the people.
Jose Pablo
Aug 29 2023 at 5:02pm
Mactoul,
1.- some property rights are “natural”. You can see this is the case from many “signals”:
a) violating property rights is not only “illegal” it is also, in many cases, “immoral”. A fact that should make you grasp than there are more than “legalities” at play
b) Au contraire, laws and regulations will have a very hard time establishing, for instance, property rights on other human beings or on women.
c) The state imposing compliance with property rights cannot be the main force behind “actual” compliance with property rights, for the very real reason that the state is terribly bad at imposing such compliance. Your car is not stolen much more frequently because stealing your car is immoral (you have a natural right over your car), not because the government prevent the thieves from doing so (which it doesn’t)
[You can draw a very useful parallelism with your right to “not be killed”. It is a natural right, not just based on the state’s laws, the state cannot make killing you “naturally lawful” just because, let’s say, you are a member of the communist party, even if the “state” wills to do so and enacts a “law” aimed at this end]
2.- Now, obviously, ANY band of thugs (the government as a particular case) can develop property rights that go well beyond (and even “against”) “natural property rights” and impose their “property code” by force.
3.- From this fact you cannot infer that ONLY a band of thugs (government as a particular case) can develop and impose a more complex system of property rights. The same way that from the fact that dogs bite you can’t infer that only dogs bite (this is a logical fallacy even if dogs are the only animal you have seen biting your whole life)
4.- A more complex system of property rights can be developed in the absence of a state that is imposed by force on individuals. Two options (and it is just a question of imagination to think of some more … it is a pity you only can see dogs biting):
A property rights complex system can be developed in the absence of any government (see my previous Huemer’s reference for a detailed explanations of hoe)
A complex system of property rights can be established after granting every individual a right of veto over the constitution and the new laws of a government (on that see Buchanan). This system of property rights would have a legitimacy that is obviously lacking in any set of complex property rights imposed forcefully by a band of thugs (for instance any government)
Comments are closed.