Anatomy of the state Chapter 1

     So as I posted last week, I would be delving into the world of Murray Rothbard. This blog will be strictly on Anatomy of the State chapter 1. The first question it answers is "What the state is not". I think that is a fitting start as chapter two then tries to answer what the state is. So what isn't the state? Lets go over some of what I believe to be the most notable parts of this book. 

     The most important part of this book for understanding the common theme is that there is no "we". The argument made is quite succinct and simple. So simple it makes you feel uncomfortable at first. While I won't simply cut and paste chapters here, I find the idea that anything the government does, we are doing, since the government is us to be absurd on its face. It's a valuable point. Think of state sanctioned murder. The death penalty is technically suicide if we are the government. Therefore the government can't technically murder anyone. That is the statist position. Rothbard succinctly destroys this collectivist idea. IF the government breaks into your house and kills you (as in no-knock raids, 10% of which are to the wrong address) then no big deal, since you volunteered for it. Sounds stupid right. 

     So then, what is the state? It's not voluntary association. It's not a family unit or club. You are usually born into it, or immigrate in with an understanding you are in charge of your own destiny. Are you really in charge of your own destiny when 51% of the population can force their agenda on you through the act of voting? Here is Rothbar's answer to this. "The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area". With the riots and businesses burning in select large cities around the country, this has never been more apparent. The McCloskey's stood in their front yard, armed, and dissuaded trespassers from destroying their homes and lives. The state in turn, bending to mob rule, arrested and charged this couple, even though the state DA said they did absolutely nothing wrong and broke no laws. Giving the monopoly of force to the government at all levels is the worse thing we ever decided to do.

     What does the state produce? In short, nothing. It attains 100% of its revenue through taxation or in many local jurisdictions, fines for non-violent offenses. The monopoly of force, couples with the ability to tax at any level to fit the collective's goals is modern day slavery. Not chattel slavery mind you, but a servitude one did not volunteer for. Your time, effort, and money go in no small part to funding the state, whether you want to or not. This is quite simply put, extortion. You can not opt out, you can not choose to remove yourself from the equation peacefully. You are legally bound to fund the government if you desire work. If you choose not to work, those extorted will pick up the tab. This money is also used to dictate how you earn your money. So they take what you earn, and decide how you get to earn it. Seems wrong to me. 

     That covers chapter 1 in my own words. I leave you with the final part of the final paragraph of this chapter written more eloquently than I can paraphrase. 

     "Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary."