What is so bad about regarding the state as an abstract entity? To grasp van Creveld’s answer, one must consider the second part of the twofold process he describes. In the early modern period, “the relationship between … the state and its citizens was based not on sentiment but on reason and interest” (p. 190). Under this conception, a citizen would meet undue demands with reluctance or outright resistance.
If, however, emotion could be mobilized for the new abstract entity, what our author calls a “Great Transformation” was in the offing. Jean Jacques Rousseau acted as the prime theorist of the new order. In his view, everyone must be subordinated to the “general will” which embodied one’s patrie or community. “Patriotism – the active submission to, and participation in, the general will – becomes the highest of all virtues and the source of all the remaining ones” (p. 192).
With Rousseau, though, we have not yet reached the modern state in its culminating form. He took the patrie to be local. But when, after the French Revolution, various writers identified the general will with the nation, the process that led to disaster was complete. FULL ARTICLE
{ 6 comments }
I think he’s wrong about the decline.
And the author states that without the ability to have full out nuclear war, the state’s reason to exist diminishes.
Instead of one big fear, they’ve replaced it with many smaller fears – and – the threat of the big one in the hands of a few (so called terrorists), rather than from other states.
I think the more accurate position would be that of Orwell with perpetual small wars and big name villains forever just beyond our grasp. It is their elusiveness that is proof of how dangerous they are – being but eyelash away from destroying us all.
This works far better than having a large identifiable state as the enemy. So it would appear that the state has simply shifted into a new gear.
So, what replaces the modern state then?
How about an opt-out clause in the constitution, such that those who wish to opt-out of citizenship may choose to do so. In this case, they can avoid paying taxes for wars, welfare, or other initiatives they don’t believe in and only pay user fees for the use of public infrastructure. The non-citizens wouldn’t get a vote, except perhaps on infrastructure initiatives and wouldn’t be eligible for additional government benefits. There are, of coure, many other details which I omitt for the sake of brevity.
This would be an excellent check on state power, as wars, taxes, and debt that cannot be justified to certain citizens would lead to a loss of come of those citizens and a shrinking of the tax base.
Just food for thought.
Mike Sandifer: “So, what replaces the modern state then?”
Insurance companies. Hoppe has written an excellent article on how insurance companies can provide many of the services that governments now provide. This is essential reading.
See section IV: http://mises.org/daily/2874
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
pretty libertarian huh ?
“So, what replaces the modern state then?”
Private landowners.
I think many Libertarians are mainly missing the point, and going into the semantics of what the state is, or even worse, of what it should, or should not be…
The simple truth is that the state is mere instrument amongst many in the arsenal of the powerful few who always controlled, control and will eternally control the many… Much like in the shepherd and the sheep analogy…
For example, consider the history of Wild West in the early days of settlers arriving in North America.
This is a brilliant example of what happens when there is no single authority in the land: people start shooting each other left and right, because everybody wants a piece of something. And since the resources are limited, there will always be a conflict, and the strongest and conniving few will always prevail, by forming an alliance, and ruling by cunning and force…
What many simply choose to ignore, is that the sate is the natural consequence of hierarchical social order in which many species of mammals, including humans, are usually organized in…
The solution in my opinion is to find that golden middle where the state is limited to enforcing constitution and criminal laws, and maximum reasonable freedom is given to the market relationships among its citizens…
But alas, even if such perfect arrangement of state and its subjects comes to pass, it will only be a fleeting respite, since the human nature will in all certitude prevail over those lucky few entrusted with upholding the laws, and everything will repeat itself, indeed…
Comments on this entry are closed.