1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/9169/the-left-the-right-and-the-state/

The Left, The Right, and The State

December 31, 2008 by

What is the state? It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against person and property.

Why would any society permit such a gang to enjoy an unchallenged legal privilege? Here is where ideology comes into play. FULL ARTICLE

{ 13 comments }

Bruce Koerber December 31, 2008 at 8:20 am

No matter how it is specifically structured, the fact of the matter is that the constitutional republic that was designated as the United States of America has been taken over by an unConstitutional coup. There is a hierarchy within this band of usurpers and a method has evolved for the ‘passing of the baton’ from one generation to the next since we know that this unConstitutional coup has existed for generations now.

We need to find out who are the members of the inner circle of the unConstitutional coup and we need to find out the mechanism for its perpetuation. Once these are known and that knowledge is disseminated there are enough people around the world who despise these criminals that justice will come to pass.

Leaf December 31, 2008 at 10:32 am

“So we had the New Deal, which was a democratic hybrid of socialism and fascism.”

Had never thought of fascism being part of the mix. Someone please explain.

cavalier973 December 31, 2008 at 4:42 pm

The fascism part come from the economic arrangement where the state directs the activities of businesses rather than outright owning them. The National Recovery Administration is a good example of one of FDR’s fascist programs.

N. Joseph Potts December 31, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Some of the most avid statists I know style themselves “middle-of-the-roaders.” While the stresses and energies arising from the extremes of Left and Right have indeed been harnessed to the benefit of the state, the state in my view garners critical support from many who fancy themselves moderate, and cruise smugly down the middle of the road.

P.M.Lawrence December 31, 2008 at 8:53 pm

“The very idea of the state is so implausible on its face that the state must wear an ideological garb as means of compelling popular support. Ancient states had one or two: they would protect you from enemies and/or they were ordained by the gods.”

The latter is not ideological, it is theological. Ideology, as a word, is actually a back formation from theology to cover similar processes that didn’t have ideas of the divine in there; it is the secular analogue. Ideology does not include theology. This isn’t just quibbling – it’s a barrier to understanding things like Islam and what is done under it, if we try to think in terms that it deliberately rules out.

Anarchy is Order December 31, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Of course, the most avid statists are “moderates.” Afterall, when the left and right deviate, it is usually in the area where their side actually stands for liberty. The Republicans care far more about imposing their social views on others and killing large numbers of foreigners than they do about protecting the free market (for a prime example, look at the presidency of George W. Bush). The Democrats primarily care about their economic policies and will compromise on every social issue and foreign policy issue in order to implement those policies (look at what Bill Clinton did as president).

Statists of both varieties generally are more concerned with the areas where they want government. The further left or right a person is in the conventional political spectrum, the more they tend to care about liberty. It is not the “extremists” that we need to be worried about, but rather the “moderates.”

Gil January 1, 2009 at 1:55 am

What a drab concept:

“What is the state? It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against person and property.”

Yeah right. Is the better definition is that sovereign land ownership is held in commons called a representative government when it should be held in private hands and competition will determine how much power and rights the landowners and landtenants have relative to one another?

The notion of ‘a set of rule for some but not for others’ sounds like a whinging l’il brat complaining “grown-ups get to do all sort of stuff and us kids get nothing but being bossed around”. So what?! It sounds like socialist talk – “Someone has something I don’t have therefore the other person should share what he has with me”. A sovereign has many powers that a landless person doesn’t have but that doesn’t mean the landowner has to divvy up his land so that ‘everyone has some land to call their own’.

P.M.Lawrence January 1, 2009 at 2:45 am

“…sovereign land ownership is held in commons…”

That should be in common. It’s bad enough when Americans think the plural “commons” of the noun “common” is the singular form, but when they start thinking the adjective ends in “s”…

Evans Munyemesha January 1, 2009 at 7:32 pm

‘Yeah right. Is the better definition is that sovereign land ownership is held in commons called a representative government when it should be held in private hands and competition will determine how much power and rights the landowners and land tenants have relative to one another?’

A representative government is as real as superman.

billwald January 2, 2009 at 12:29 pm

“Why would any society permit such a gang to enjoy an unchallenged legal privilege?”

You gots to be kidding! Which historical or existing society large than 10,000 members hasn’t? It is human nature.

One obvious example is the Plymouth Brethren Christian denomination. They will not admit to being a denomination or having a name for their organization. In the old days they had no – zero – paid employees in a local congregation and no person was elected or appointed as the pastor or leader. Any person who attends three meetings of a local Plymouth Brethren congregation knows who the pastor is.

phil January 4, 2009 at 8:21 pm

Good book, good read while stranded in the bureaucrat infested LAX airport.

SailDog January 5, 2009 at 5:11 am

This book is let down by its environmental section. The market and private property law cannot solve the central issue of the commons. The air and oceans can never be protected by property rights.

The result is climate change (a risk management problem), resource depletion and overloading the capacity of the earth to absorb our waste.

It is fashionable and “de rigeur” no doubt to regard the world as limitless. But it isn’t; and the Austrians have no answer other than to sneer.

I do not have any answers either in the context of our political systems. Our energy requirements are too great and our systems are too complex. It is in effect too late. Like yeast in a bottle of wine we are simultaneously reaching the zenith our growth curve and commencing to drown in our own waste or starve from resource depletion. Like the yeast we have not comprehended the problem; and most continue to deny it.

newson January 5, 2009 at 8:55 am

to saildog:
nations already have delineated territorial waters; within these waters, there is no barrier to private allocation of resources, hence prawning licences for specific areas over distinct time-frames.

economics is the allocation of scarce or finite resources, by definition. good quality air already attracts a premium in many parts of the world (eg. the higher parts of santiago that suffer less from the winter smog). localized pollution is tractable, global pollution will either by tolerated like uncontrollable natural effects, or else will give rise to profitable avenues for amelioration.

what’s your solution to vulcanic gas production, or bushfires? handwringing won’t save gaia, either.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: