About the Authors

Sheldon Richman is the editor of The Freeman and TheFreemanOnline.org, and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's Families. ... See All Posts by This Author

The Goal Is Freedom | Sheldon Richman

The Most Dangerous Derivative

An anti-corporatist coalition?

Posted August 20, 2010
Print This Post • 65 comments

In the October 1962 issue of The Freeman an obscure 28-year-old lawyer wrote, in perhaps his first published work (see update below):

Giant government has outgrown the capacity of the institutions designed to restrain its encroachments and abuses…. [F]reedom, to be meaningful, must find direct expression in practice as well as in principle. Articulations of principles of liberty may provide the understanding, but these must be practiced to give freedom objective existence. Freedom is a process of being and becoming, in our laws and their enforcement, in our institutions and the purposes for which they are used, in our policies and methods and daily behavior.

The occasion was the young man’s chronicling of how the small town of Winsted, Connecticut, had defeated a public-housing project by public referendum — three times — after the federally financed housing authority tried to impose it. “In summary,” he wrote, “the approach employed to defeat the repeated onslaughts of public housing proponents was to explain the cost, the abuses, and the consequences to the Town. The steady bit-by-bit erosion of private property was clearly described along with the explanation of what private property contributes to the Town.”

It was an appropriate article for The Freeman. Within three years this man had gained considerable fame as well as infamy. In 1981 I had a couple of telephone conversations with him as together we fought the city of Detroit and General Motors, which had teamed up to use eminent domain in order to confiscate the property of the working-class residents of Poletown to make way for a Cadillac plant. In all, 4,200 people were removed. Demolished were 1,300 homes, 140 businesses, six churches, and one hospital. As Wikipedia reminded me, “A 29-day sit-in at the Immaculate Conception Church came to an end on July 14, 1981, when police forcibly evicted 20 people from the church.” (At the time I was working for the long-gone Council for a Competitive Economy, a principled free-market business organization headed by Richard W. Wilcke. He and I held a news conference in Poletown to express our solidarity with the victims.)

You might recognize the name of that lawyer, Freeman author, and activist:

Ralph Nader.

So, he’s come a long way ideologically since 1962. Or has he?

Anticorporatist Convergence?

Nader’s Freeman article and Poletown battle came to mind the other day when I read his op-ed in – the curiosities continue – the Wall Street Journal. The headline and subtitle grabbed me: “Where Left and Right Converge: Anticorporatist views are becoming more and more common.”

Leaving aside the dubious left/right reference, Nader’s point is that an unlikely alliance could be forming among people who would not ordinarily be found in the same room. “A convergence of liberal-progressives with conservative-libertarians centering on the autocratic, corporate-dominated nature of our government may be growing,” Nader writes, cautioning, however, that “there are obstacles to a synthesis of anticorporatist views becoming a political movement.”

Nevertheless, he has personal experience with this convergence of what he calls “liberal-progressives” and “conservative-libertarians.” He writes:

I have received earfuls on these matters during my three nationwide presidential campaigns from both workers and taxpayers who call themselves conservatives or progressives. The Main Street versus Wall Street figures of speech bespeak a deep sense of loss of control over just about everything that matters to people’s lives. In their daily discourse they know that big government beats to the drums of big business or, to use the elegant words of conservative philosopher Russell Kirk, “a host of squalid oligarchs.”

Those who see common ground (despite obvious differences) between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are aware of the same phenomenon. More and more, regular people feel subject to decision-making from Washington and their state capitals, where, as I’ve said before, money talks. Living, as we are, in the age of “too big to fail” and accelerated bureaucratic rule-making, this hardly needs explaining.

Corporatists in Free-Market Clothing

Nader aptly points out that corporatists portray themselves as free-enterprisers, which disarms some who truly value free markets and prevents the emergence of effective coalitions in opposition to the policy elite. “The issues that don’t get nearly the attention they deserve include opposition to the arbitrary erosion of privacy by the Patriot Act and to the daily collection and storage of personal consumer information in corporate databases; resistance to tax-funded sports stadiums, the Federal Reserve’s out-of-control powers, unconstitutional wars and monopolistic practices against small business, and to the swarm of corporate welfare subsidies, tax havens, handouts, giveaways and bailouts,” he writes.

Nader misses the mark on lots of things. For example, he shows little understanding of how the competitive market would work in the absence of corporatist intervention. He may get the diagnosis more or less right, but despite that, he usually sees government as the solution rather than the problem. And he overlooks something fundamental. When he refers to “abuses of corporate power, especially when supplemented by state power,” he shows a failure to understand that corporate power is derived entirely from State power. Big business can’t impose its own eminent domain, trade rules, IP laws, and banking cartel. Unsupported by the State, business would have nothing but the power of persuasion at its disposal. But since the age of mercantilism, that has never been enough. Hence, the abundance of competition-inhibiting measures. You know who gets the short end of the stick.

Corporate power is what I call The Most Dangerous Derivative. It’s the one Congress refused to address in its financial regulation bill.

Ralph Nader a potential ally against corporatism? I can imagine stranger things.

* * *

Update 1: I’ve since learned that The Freeman article was not Nader’s first published article. He had an earlier one in The American Mercury.

There Are 65 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Troy Camplin on 20 August 2010:

I have heard libertarians described as anti-government and anti-business, but pro-market. What separates Nader from the rest of the American left is that he is pro-governemnt, anti-business, and anti-market, while most Democrats are pro-government, pro-business, and anti-market. (While, we’re at it, Republicans are pro-government, pro-business, and pro-market.) I’m not sure that makes him much of an ally.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 20 August 2010:

He’s certainly not there yet, Troy. But he does things that should be of interest to us.
Comment by David Johnson on 20 August 2010:

The best defense against capitalism is the free market.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 20 August 2010:

Almost everyone confuses “the State” with “government”. However once this very important distinction is made and comprehended the fog lifts. Read chapter 2 of Albert J. Nock’s “Our Enemy the State”.

In a nutshell the state is (and has always been) an instrument of coercion available to whoever has the sagacity to get control of it. In recent times (starting circa 1600) corporations have used this coercive power to obtain an edge on their competitors and expand their resources and markets. Without access to the State’s coercive power they would have to compete in the voluntary marketplace. This explains why most regulatory legislation is initiated by corporate interests. The State (i.e. organized coercion) is the central obstacle to the attainment of freedom.
Comment by Scott Haley on 20 August 2010:

The heads of many of the mega, multinational corporations (the Crony Capitalists) basically are Fascists. Fascism is the marriage of large corporations and the State, according to Mussolini. Nader recognizes that, and manages to distinguish the difference between the Fascists and the genuine Capitalists. Good for him. Kudos.

What is not being recognized by many is how the new Fascists fit into the Globalization phenomenon. The goal is the virtual elimination of national borders and the imposition of global rule by unelected elites. And no, it’s NOT a conspiracy; it’s right out in the open for all to see. As David Rockefeller put it in 1991, “Surely it is preferable to have the world run by supranational, unelected, intellectual elites as compared to the national auto-determination of the past.”

Global economic and financial structures (e.g., the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.) are consolidating power into the hands of Rockefeller’s “supranational elites” as we speak. Meanwhile, American voters continue to be distracted by the old political paradigm of Democrats v. Republicans, Left v. Right, etc. The Globalist Media brand the Rockefeller/Brzezinski globalism scheme as a “conspiracy theory”, the result of which is that few pay any attention to the worldwide loss of sovereignty. Nader may be one of the few who is paying attention. Again, kudos to him.
Comment by Scott Haley on 20 August 2010:

The new political paradigm is: Globalists v. the common people (or We the People), Globalism v. Sovereignty, or the Corporatocracy v. Nations. Meanwhile, Americans argue about issues such as whether or not the Ten Commandments should be seen in public buildings. God help us.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 20 August 2010:

Scott Haley has got it right! A general (and historically observable) characteristic of statism is futher consolidation of coercive power (and on this planet) this must ultimately culminate in a world state per the post 18th century merchant state paradigm.

However, the real conflict has not changed and is not political but social-economic: voluntary cooperation vs. involuntary cooperation or freedom vs. slavery. The political means (i.e. coercion) is and has always been the modus operandi of the state. The provision of government is another matter entirely which the State cannot provide due to its MO and concommitant conflict of interest.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 20 August 2010:

I agree with Mr. Haley and Mr. Shapiro but the threat to national sovereignty comes in many guises.

I would offer the staunch support of illegal immigration by the advocates of the right to “free movement” that write prolifically for the Freeman such as Becky Akers are playing into the hands of Globalists that Mr. Haley warns of.

Corporations only see profit regardless of what it does to standard of living, freedom, ethics, morals, etc. An economic tyranny is no better than any other. Oppression at the point of a paycheck is no more tolerable than at the point of a gun.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 20 August 2010:

I don’t share Ralph Nader’s, or Ron Paul’s, or Pat Buchanan’s views on sovereignty. Only individuals are to be regarded as sovereign.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 20 August 2010:

You can’t have personal property without recognizing the legal authority of the government to lay claim to the land it in the first place.

If borders are arbitrary and national sovereignty a fiction then title is too. You may have bought your home from a developer but the property was originally acquired by the US and the parcels dived and sold by the government.

The authority to purchase the land is the same authority that allows them to divide it, sell it, grant title to it, and regulate access to it, including removing an uninvited guest from your living room if I choose to ignore your “arbitrary” property line the same way foreign nationals choose to ignore our “arbitrary” national borders.

Watch out what legal concepts you undermine in your quest for liberty because you are just as likely to unearth the roots of anarchy and tyranny.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 20 August 2010:

“You can’t have personal property without recognizing the legal authority of the government to lay claim to the land it in the first place.” – JAMES MADISON FAN

Are you a descendant of an English monarch or aristocrat? Propery control by states is never acquired by any other means than conquest and confiscation.

Property in life, liberty, and all other tangible and intangible derivatives are in all cases antecedant to any contrived or conjectured state claims based upon legal force.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” – FREDERIC BASTIAT
Comment by exped on 20 August 2010:

Shapiro is on the mark. Men create governments to protect private property-not to rent it back from the governments they create. Apart from total ownership of property- beginning with self ownership, man is a slave-granted to varying degrees but nevertheless a slave. God creates men as individuals. Men create governments and as Jefferson penned should be free to destroy the creation if it no longer serves their needs and if necessary create a new one that better serves them. Jefferson good – Lincoln bad.
Comment by Drik on 20 August 2010:

“Men are free to create a new one that better serves them.”

The issue is always shutting down the one that has taken on goals and a drive of it’s own and uses force to extract a percentage of the labor of those that are willing and able to work to support themselves. That government that is treading towards tyranny will not willing give up the life of living off the extracted life’s blood of others. They view themselves as benign protagonists and that their own efforts are sincere, and those that question them are dangerous and must be controlled and gelded, lest they escape and take their labors with them.

It’s the only game they know.
Comment by N. Joseph Potts on 21 August 2010:

Corporatism is a vicious circle. Enterprises get big in most cases through the hijacking of one or another government privilege (usually through and with connections). Having done this, they get big and, once they are big, they command the dollars and lobbyists to stay that big, and even get bigger.

The key is to deprive the government of the power to set this process into motion.
Comment by Todd S. on 21 August 2010:

“Watch out what legal concepts you undermine in your quest for liberty because you are just as likely to unearth the roots of anarchy and tyranny.”

Spoken like a true statist. Anarchy and tyranny are mutually exclusive.
Comment by Frank on 22 August 2010:

@James Madison Fan

My guess is that if you ever actually read Madison, you would no longer be a “fan”. In fact, just read “The Papers of James Madison” and his chapter on property.

Your statist comment portrays a very confused concept of liberty. Am If I had to guess, I’d day you watch a lot of Glenn Beck.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 22 August 2010:

Wow! How encouraging it is to know that there are few individuals out there that see through the statist self-aggrandizement, propoganda, camouflage, superstitions, and the one-dimensional left/right political dialectic noise that the media makes so much of.

Maybe there really is hope.

Also many thanks to Sheldon Richman for another of his typically thought provoking essays.
Comment by dhlii on 23 August 2010:

As encouraging as Nader’s Op-Ed might be, and despite the small possibility of some common ground, Nader’s ideology and his approach to corporatism is expansion of government power. Agreeing on the disease is not agreeing on the cure, and Nader is rarely seeking to constrain the power of government, nor does he even grasp that the root of corporatism – what distinguishes it from free markets is the use of government power.
Comment by Chris Whited on 23 August 2010:

I wouldn’t trust ralph nader as far as I can throw my apartment. The left is always parasiting from one host to another. And with the Tea Party Movement and people like me, a conservative libertarian, he sees a “market” for advancement. The left will discard it’s useful idiots when they get power or to their ultimate end. That man hasn’t changed one bit. Make no mistake.

“If the ends doesn’t justify the means, then what does?”

Saul Alinsky
Comment by Charles Johnson (Rad Geek) on 23 August 2010:

Scott Haley:

What is not being recognized by many is how the new Fascists fit into the Globalization phenomenon. The goal is the virtual elimination of national borders …

Man, I wish they’d hurry up on that one. Somehow even with all this effort to virtually eliminate nation-state borders, my undocumented (“illegal”) friends here in Las Vegas are still living in fear of nighttime knock-on-the-door raids from all those virtually eliminated ICE agents, and “Ihre Papiere, bitte” treatment from the virtually eliminated U.S. Border Patrol (whose expansive notion of the virtually eliminated U.S. borders apparently includes the Greyhound station at Lake Mead and LVB). I hear there are some other folks in similar predicaments. Meanwhile, my own efforts to get outside of those virtually eliminated national borders for a scant two weeks have cost me over $200 and a few months of calendar time solely for government paperwork processing — not including all the hidden costs and administrative red tape built into my airline tickets, etc.) If those globalist fascists want to virtually eliminate the despicable and dehumanizing institution of arbitrary nation-state borders, then that’s at least one good thing you can say for them. However, if that is what they want, they’re not doing a very good job of getting it, are they?

James Madison Fan:

I would offer the staunch support of illegal immigration by the advocates of the right to “free movement” that write prolifically for the Freeman such as Becky Akers are playing into the hands of Globalists that Mr. Haley warns of.

I agree that “illegal” immigrants are undermining national sovereignty. That’s why I like them. “National sovereignty” is a statist code word for massive government surveillance and violence against peaceful and productive people, on the basis of arbitrary political boundaries drawn on the basis of statist conquests, and all of it enforced by means of a “Papers, please” border-police state that affects all of us, immigrant and native alike — from I-9 forms, to interstate and bus-terminal checkpoints, to endless Customs and Immigration queues, to increased demands for IDs and proof of citizenship at everything from basic travel to college applications, along with government’s ever-increasing demands for even more rigorous forms of National ID (for “security,” natch). People who violate such manifestly unjust and destructive laws are to be praised for their courage and their practical contribution to routing around the damage created by nation-state collectivism.

If borders are arbitrary and national sovereignty a fiction then title is too

I agree that land titles which derive from feudal land grants and statist conquests are a fiction, and ought to be abolished. Those which derive from honest labor and homesteading are not, and ought not be.

How much this will affect any given person’s land ownership depends on how much they have honestly worked the land they are on, and how much they have simply depended on the government’s arbitrary claims to a political Land Monopoly to exclude other potential homesteaders.

The authority to purchase the land is the same authority that allows them to divide it, sell it, grant title to it, and regulate access to it, including removing an uninvited guest from your living room if I choose to ignore your “arbitrary” property line the same way foreign nationals choose to ignore our [sic] “arbitrary” national borders.

Of course, nobody objects to you being able to remove uninvited guests from your living room. What I object to is your claim that you, through the United States government, has a right to remove invited guests from my living room, if they don’t meet your approval, based on the government’s borders. (They’re not my borders; I never wanted them. Maybe you’ve decided to adopt them as yours, but if so you ought to speak only for yourself.)
Comment by James Madison Fan on 23 August 2010:

Mr. Shapiro and Todd S.,

States can buy land as well as in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, Mexican Session, and Alaska Purchase. Other States can voluntarily cede ownership to become a part of a nation as well as in the case of Texas and Hawaii. So conquest and confiscation are not the only means a state can acquire property.

Common law comes from the English Monarchs so I don’t need to be descended from kings to understand the basis of US and International law.

Anarchy is a special type of tyranny where the mob rules. You have no rights because there is nothing to enforce them. The moment your rights are inconvenient for the mob, they cease to exist. The lynching of Blacks and Civil Rights advocates in the South is an example of anarchy where natural rights were abridged due to the lawlessness of the mob.

You both offer some wonderfully concrete sentiments in the face of a legal and philosophical ambiguity. You can’t buy land from the manufacturer so where do you draw the legal authority to buy and sell property when our “Creator” isn’t taking checks and handing out deeds?

The way law currently works is this authority to parcel property comes from the nation that is recognized as being sovereign over said property. If you do not recognize the authority of the State then I have as much right to migrate into your living room as you do.

What many contributors to this magazine fail to recognize, including the authors, is that “natural rights” only exist as far as our ability to protect and enforce them. That’s why the Second Amendment exists. Even then you can rebel against an unjust government but said sedition will be notoriously short lived if you stand alone against an army. I’d offer Waco and Ruby Ridge as examples.

I’m not a Statist; I’m a Realist.

“If men were angels then government would not be necessary.” – James Madison
Comment by James Madison Fan on 23 August 2010:

Mr. Johnson,

I didn’t choose the borders any more than you did. I didn’t choose the speed limit either but that doesn’t mean I can drive 140 on the way to Vegas.

Society is about rules that dictate how we interact. For instance the Freeman has a filter that checks for certain words. If I use one of these words it will hold up my post until it is approved or rejected. I can choose to post here understanding this limit or I can choose to post somewhere else. Such are the demands of society even in a Libertarian environment.

You are using terms that are just as subjective and arbitrary as the ones you are against. How much land can you homestead? Can I homestead the City of Anaheim? County of Orange? State of California?

If you homestead 5 acres and you are not “honestly working” three of these acres because you left them fallow until the price of corn justifies the investment do I get to homestead the unused acreage because I can “honestly work” it now rather than in the future?

My mom currently owns an acre of land with a big back yard, can you homestead half of it because she’s not “honestly working” it? She lives in a four bedroom house but she’s a single widow so what portions of her home can you homestead because she’s no longer “honestly working” it?

If some of my neighbors and I get together and buy a dozen homes, bulldoze them, and let it grow wild because we like camping. Do you get to homestead this land because we’re not “honestly working” it?

Even if we spent a couple weeks hammering out the specifics all we’re doing is substituting one set of arbitrary rules for a different set. What makes your set superior to the ones that are currently in place?

I don’t claim that I have a right to remove invited guests from your living room. Invited guests come into the US all the time to work, learn, and live. Some on a temporary basis using various types of visas and others do so permanently by applying for citizenship. If you invited 15 million people over for dinner you need to provide better directions next time because most of them can’t seem to find the party.

I keep hearing about the echoes of fascism when it comes to the US government asking for “papers” when the allusion is entirely specious. You have to provide identification for just about any business transaction from a home loan, to a credit card, to hiring a vendor, to applying for a job. Washington is getting pressure to produce a secure ID from businesses and citizens that are loosing millions from identity theft. You don’t see the government putting rice sized data transmitters into products; that would be Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club. If you want to find Big Brother he’s currently in the clothing isle.

Meanwhile the cops don’t ask for your papers arbitrarily within the US. You have to provide them when you are suspected of breaking the law or when you are doing something suspicious. I have never been asked my ID outside of a traffic stop except for when I was walking around my neighborhood at 12:30 in the AM and they wanted to make sure I belonged in the area since we had a rash of burglaries (my house included). Welcome to 2010 where property crimes are almost never prosecuted because we don’t have anywhere to put the criminals and they know it.

You guys are so paranoid about Big Government you can’t see the real danger lurking in the shadows. It has already been ruled that your Constitutional rights end at your employer’s door and this power is spreading to after hours activities as well. If you get drunk in Cabo and paste in on Facebook your boss can fire you the next day when it had exactly ZERO to do with your job performance. If you want to find the seeds of tyranny that would be a good place to start.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 24 August 2010:

James Madison Fan,

Thanks for taking the time to respond and stating your opinions.

You wrote at the end: “I’m not a Statist; I’m a Realist.”

This really baffles me as every statement you made is clearly a justification of the necessity statism! Can’t you see it? Your denial of this seems to indicate that you regard “statist” as a term of reproach.

If I was a bureaucrat or politician trying to aquire more power you would be my number 1 candidate for a PR man. Happily I don’t have criminal tendencies and have learned how to interact with others and to solve problems without the use of force or fraud. You regurgitate the standard statist propoganda so very well!

I’ve spent the last 30 years re-educating myself to overcome the misleading indoctrination I received in state run schools and the superficial mass media. It simply requires a desire to look below the surface and some intellectual honesty.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 August 2010:

Mr. Shapiro,

I see it as a reproach because you seem to link “Statism” with “intellectual [dis]honesty.”

Where you and I seem to differ is the concept that government is a necessary evil.

I think your vision of an Anarchist Utopia is every bit as unrealistic as Marx’s view of a Communist Utopia. This is not to say that both are equally noble visions. In your world men interact freely with concern for each other’s natural rights. In Marx’s world we all work together as a harmonious unit creating wealth for ourselves and each other. I look forward to the day when some sort of philosophical utopia is practical but today is not that day because neither model survives when exposed to the creature called Man.

Attempts to create Marx’s collective utopia have universally turned into dictatorships and oligarchies rather than self rule. The workers are exploited and lose motivation to work so the economy degrades. It cannot work because it does not take into account human nature such as lust for power and wealth even to the point of self destruction. It assumes and egalitarian attitude that only exists in a handful of minds and even there it is in constant danger of being pushed aside by emotion.

I think your vision is doomed for the same reason. Anarchy expects self control on a level humans have never displayed. Our entire history tells a single story – might makes right. It is only in the past 250 years a new chapter has started and this Pax Americana is constantly on the edge of a knife. The only societies that value liberty are the US and Europe but even this is nothing more than a façade as demonstrated by the Left and Right constantly bickering over what aspects of our lives they will attempt to regulate next. The violence in the former Czech republics proves that civilization is only the thinnest of venires even in Europe and Asia, Asia Minor, Latin America, and Africa are even worse.

We are Greeks debating Plato while the Romans march and we would suffer the same fate if we unilaterally held to the course you recommend.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 24 August 2010:

James Madison Fan,

Wow! I really don’t know what to say. What you seem to think about the meaning what I have written is so far from the truth, I’m utterly taken aback.

Even this statement makes no sense to me and is a distortion of what I wrote:

“I see it as a reproach because you seem to link “Statism” with “intellectual [dis]honesty.””

If you had read my original comment to this article, I was trying to emphasize the importance of distinguishing “government” from “the State” which are very often intermixed and lead to much confusion and misunderstanding. I referenced an excellent book that explains this. I think you may profit from reading Chapter 2:

http://mises.org/books/Our_Enemy_The_State_Nock.pdf

I’m all for government which is both necessary and good; it’s the State which is evil and unnecessary. If you read this chapter, perhaps you will see what I mean.

Yes “might makes right” has been (and still is) the prevailing epistemology in the social domain. In fact “majority rule” is a corollary of this law of the jungle. This also explains why civilizations collapse. There are other more rational and constructive ways to determine right from wrong. Scientist’s don’t shoot each other when they disagree about explanations of natural phenomenon nor do they don’t count noses to determine what is right and wrong.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 25 August 2010:

Mr. Shapiro,

I’m in Chapter 1 Section IV of “Our Enemy, The State.” So far it appears that Mr. Nock is offering that the government is too big and too invasive. I can agree with this arch and what I’ve read is pretty good considering it is 75 years old. I found it interesting that he indicates at some point “At its best government is a necessary evil.” which mirrors my own comment above.

Some quick thoughts on what I’ve read so far:

His point about Citizen’s Arrests is correct. While I was aware of my right to do so, I have no idea what the process entails. I have heard horror stories about people incorrectly exercising this right only to be arrested for kidnapping, false imprisonment, and similar crimes.

I would offer that his point that entitlements retards philanthropy is over stated. Hurricane Katrina and similar disasters both domestic and foreign prove the generosity of the American public even under a staggering tax burden.

I think his point about centralization of the state would be better applied to the Civil War. Once the State’s right to cede was quashed it was only a matter of time before the rest followed since there was no way to protect them.

I agree with his point about expansion of the bureaucracy but his comparison to the Flavin Dynasty is weak. You could just as easily point to the expansion of government power and bureaucracy under Julius and Augusts as proof that a strong central government with massive expansion of public works is beneficial. Invoking the ghost of Rome is a dangerous undertaking.

I am torn about his point in regard to institutionalized poverty and mendicancy especially during the period in which this was written. Hoover had no idea what to do and Roosevelt was no better. Economic advisors were clueless and kept contradicting each other Was Roosevelt supposed to let a quarter of the population starve on the street when recent history had given rise to Stalin in the Soviet Union and Hitler in Germany? I think that would have been ill advised since both parties were fairly popular in the US. It wasn’t until years later that Fascist and Communist became epithets. Of course I have the benefit of hindsight to guide me unlike Mr. Nock.

On the other hand it certainly is applicable in regard to what Johnson created with the invention of the “Great Society” and the ever expanding entitlement programs the Democrats have championed ever since. In this regard Nock is the Nostradamus of 1935.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 25 August 2010:

James Madison Fan,

The first chapter might have been titled: “The absorbtion of social power by the State”. Here he gives historical examples of the various circumstances that bring this transfer of power about.

The second chapter might have been titled: “The distinction between ‘government’ and ‘the State’”

“At its best government is a necessary evil.” is a quote from Thomas Paine that I believe appears in Chapter 2

I think Chapter 2 is the most important part of the book.

Chapters 3 and 4 are mostly on early American and British merchant-State history relative to his thesis which mainly concerns the characteristic nature of the State.

Chapter 5 discusses the Articles of Confederation and the 1789 Constitution.

Chapter 6 presents some general conclusions and is rather pessimistic.

Hope you find this book interesting or at least thought-provoking – I certainly did. I like it because it attempts to discover the underlying dynamics of social phenomenon.
Comment by Scott Haley on 26 August 2010:

Regarding sovereignty— (for Mr. Richman and Mr. Johnson)

I agree that only individuals are sovereign, and each has no one to rule but himself/herself. I also recognize, however, that rightly or wrongly, individuals have formed nations. Certain powers (and only those powers) were delegated to the central government by the People in the case of our Republic. To me, that means our central government is (or should be) representing the sovereignty each of us possesses.

It is only in that sense that there is such a thing as “national sovereignty”. If Utopia were possible, then I would disavow “national sovereignty” in any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, reality prevails.

Without our national borders, without our “nation”, it is my belief that what little freedom we still have would gradually disappear. Our “nation” is fairly unique in the fact that we believe individual rights trump majority rule. Without our borders, and thus our Republic, we would be subject to either Fascism on a grander scale than ever seen before, or, democracy with little regard for individual rights. That is how I see reality presently.

One can argue that our Republic indeed has been converted into a Democracy already, and that there is little regard for individual rights if those rights interfere with desires of the majority. To some degree, that’s the case. But I don’t believe that we are completely at that point. More so than any other “free” People, I believe we are still free to do as we wish…as long as our actions do not infringe on the genuine rights or on the property of others, and we do not commit fraud. Unfortunately, slowly that concept is disappearing; however, without our “nation”, I believe it would disappear completely and very quickly. I think we have time to reverse the trend.

To many, belief in the concept of a nation is Statism; I don’t see it that way. Nations are the result of a well-known phenomenon, the Territorial Imperative. Nations most likely are here to stay; the only question regarding a nation, or perhaps the most important question, is will each one foster Individualism or Collectivism.
Comment by Scott Haley on 26 August 2010:

Addendum to my last comment—

I agree with Ayn Rand’s view that we need government for the following: a military for national defense; a court system to resolve disputes and judge criminals; and local police for local security. The first of those, and to some degree the second, presuppose the existence of a nation. If a national government ever can be limited to only those functions, then I see no reason why Individualism could not thrive in that nation.

While I’m philosophically drawn to the idea of self-governance, I also am enough of a realist to believe that government is a necessity in the three areas mentioned. I don’t see any way that privatization of services would work in those areas. I’m willing, however, to be convinced otherwise.

p.s. Correction to last comment—

In the third paragraph, the first sentence should read, “…………….quickly disappear.”, not gradually disappear.
Comment by Wayne Jericho on 26 August 2010:

Pro-border: we followed the State’s rules, so the State should protect us in some way from having our jobs taken and paying for uninvited guests. Never mind what the reasoning was behind those rules.
Anti-border: the free exchange of labor and natural resources is the next step in a world with greater liberty. It’s not like the market has a “place”. So neither do the resources that are exchanged on the market…wait.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 26 August 2010:

Mr. Shapiro,

I’m working my way through it but my time is limited.

The thing I want to make clear is that it isn’t that I have any great love for overnment, at least not what it has become especially in the last 50 years. It is that I hate everyone else’s government far more. I don’t want the US to turn into England much less Somalia or Mexico or China or (insert country here). Is it bad? Yes. Could it be worse? Absolutely. In fact, I can’t point to a single place where it is better. It is quite hot in this frying pan but it’s refreshing when compared to the fire.
Pingback by links for 2010-08-26 « Overton’s Arrow on 26 August 2010:

[...] The Most Dangerous Derivative | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty (tags: freeman FEE Sheldon.Richman Nader government business power) [...]
Comment by Brian T on 28 August 2010:

I’ve not had so much fun reading since I was a boy enjoying the Martian Chronicles. Thanks to all of the contributors, from James Madison Fan to, as always, Sheldon Richman.
I’m perhaps just too unsophisticated or poorly read. I’m not terribly picky about which particular brand of freedom I’m imbibing, as long as I can have nearly all I want.
Comment by Stephan J on 30 August 2010:

Daniel,

Could you enlighten me? I read Nock ages ago, and reread it now, and it still seems to me the distinction he makes is pointless. So what if “governments are instituted among men yada yada”. I can’t think of any examples of stateless governments of any significance. Sure, you have the Elks Lodge, but they clearly do not have the power to protect your rights from the state, let alone from non-state privations.

Furthermore, if the distinction has any merit at all, then “government” must be an opt-in venture, or at least one with an easy opt-out. The alternative is that your government has authority over me and mine, without my consent, and you are right back to having a state.

What I’m saying is that with the distinction as presented, its a little disingenuous to say one is for government but opposed to the state, since any government worth having would HAVE to impose itself on non-subscribers. For instance, even if we were not to opt into the same “government”, I have no real fear of Mr Richman or his agents violating my rights. He’s not that type. The only ones I really fear are James Madison Fan and beyond, who aren’t going to agree to non-aggression in the first place, so whichever government I opted into would have no legitimate power over them in the first place.

Belonging to Mr Richman’s government wouldn’t do me a lick of good, since their only legitimate authority would be to somehow compel or incent Mr Richman into leaving me alone, which he’s going to do anyway.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 30 August 2010:

Fear me? Why wouldn’t I agree to non aggression? In fact my fears are identical to yours. The rest of the world is not the US. I have no desire to have the Constitution replaced by Biblical cannon much less Sharia Law. I have no desire to become displaced and economically responsible for people that can’t control their reproductive urges. I have no desire to be subjugated by corporations than by a tyrant. Our rights are only guaranteed to the extent we can defend them from those that would impose their will upon us. Until a better form of government is developed and proven realistic we have a responsibility to protect that which has clearly demonstrated its worth.

“Mary forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” – Winston Churchill
Comment by Stephan J on 31 August 2010:

The US Constitution is itself a violation of non-aggression, at least the way its been interpreted since 1789. How do I opt into or out of it? If my only means of opting out is to leave the “country” for one which is even more aggressive, its definitely an “out of the frying pan” situation. Why is some compact entered into by a bunch of dead white guys any more binding on me than if I were to sign your name to a contract would be binding on you? And that’s about the best case you can make for it.

I’d encourage you to read Lysander Spooner’s Constitution of No Authority. Google it. Its all over the place. Yes, its a little repetitious, but so has been our indoctrination over the years telling us again and again how wonderful the constitutional republic has been. In fact, I’m almost certain that the first time you read it, you will reject it completely, regardless of the rationality of its argument.

——————————
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
–Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 August 2010:

Mr. Shapiro,

I finished the first chapter at lunch.

My initial impression is it took him 32 pages to arrive at what should have been his first paragraph in that I kept trying to determine his purpose and was thrilled when he finally presented. This isn’t to say I didn’t enjoy what I was reading but it did wander a bit.

I can agree with many of Nock’s admonishments about the lack of curiosity displayed by the typical citizen and contempt for deeper review of beliefs. His equation of nationalism with religion is apt. I would go further and offer that for some people the State has replaced religion. His commentary on the homogenous nature of the parties is also sadly accurate.

I think he exaggerates and over states upon occasion such as invoking Hegel, Hitler, and Mussolini as well as what will eventually become Stalin’s Russia then offering “Yet how far is that doctrine alien to our publics actual acquiescence? Surely not far.” He is obviously speaking from ignorance of what will eventually happen.

Nothing else strikes me as being in conflict with anything that I’ve written?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 31 August 2010:

Stephen J.

I appreciate the reference and I’ll examine it but I really must protest abdicating the debate in favor of trading texts.

What makes Spooner or Nock superior authorities? Marx writes some lovely stuff but that doesn’t mean it has any chance of working until humans start acting like the humans he writes about in “The Communist Manifesto.” From what I’ve read of Spooner he’s every bit as unrealistic with his volunteerism. Even if his opinions are 100% on a philosophical level it doesn’t change the fact the world doesn’t work the way he wants it to work any more than it works the way Marx wants it to. You can’t rewrite human history much less human behavior over night.

As you pointed out opting out of the US means going to an even more aggressive nation. That should give you some insight as to why you shouldn’t want to opt out. The reason it is binding is those dead white guys and a couple thousand of their friends not to mention several million more in a couple wars that have followed (including my great-grandfather, grandfather, and father) put everything on the line in an effort to create a place where you can look at every other “county” on this wretched globe and say “sucks worse than here” every single time. If it helps you cope you can abandon “America: Land of the Free and Home of the Brave” and adopt “America: It Sucks (But at least I’m not living in Somalia).” How’s that?
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 31 August 2010:

To Stephan J.:

Perhaps I have read more into Nock’s analysis because of my previous inputs. The bottom line is that in Chapter 2 Nock describes the origin of government (Nock references Thomas Paine’s idea) is through mutual consent and it’s function is protection of life, liberty, and property. The State (historically)in contradistinction, originated in conquest and confication and it’s function is to maintain a class structure of exploiters(aristocracy) and exploitees (slavery of varying degrees).

To me what should be recognized (if you accept the truth of his premises regarding “the State” and “government”) is that these 2 organizations are totally incompatible with one another! Nock mentions this briefly near the end of the book. However, at the beginning of Section IV of Chapter 2 Nock says:

“There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man’s needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means. … The State, then, whether primitive, feudal or merchant, is the organization of the political means.”

Another point that I think is important is that Nock doesn’t ever say “the government” (singular) which implies that there could exist more than one organization that would offer property protection services by consent. This might take the form of a competitive “economic government” per the market paradigm which provides most of the other products and services we are familiar with. Thus this concept of government would employ the “economic means”. BTW: Nock got this distinction of “political” and “economic” means from Franz Oppenhiemer.

Your statement regarding “opt-in” and “opt-out” is significant. The only way you can opt-out of the State is to get off their turf. If government was a market enterprise, you could opt-in and opt-out per a contractual agreement that would guarantee to protect your property in exchange for a fee.

Hope this helps.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 31 August 2010:

James Madison Fan:

You wrote:

“I think he exaggerates and over states upon occasion such as invoking Hegel, Hitler, and Mussolini as well as what will eventually become Stalin’s Russia then offering “Yet how far is that doctrine alien to our publics actual acquiescence? Surely not far.” He is obviously speaking from ignorance of what will eventually happen.”

I think Nock hit the bulls eye with this statement. I would describe
the American State as in general collectivist, and specifically crypto-faschist and crypto-Nazi. The whole republic format is a facade and a blind and to fool most of the people into thinking it is “their government”. I don’t think it ever was.

You wrote:

“Nothing else strikes me as being in conflict with anything that I’ve written?”

I don’t know James Madison Fan if it’s in conflict or not. When I read Sheldon Richman’s piece on Ralph Nader, I thought that a making a distinction between “the State” and “government” would help clarify things. That’s why I referenced Chapter 2 of Nock’s “Our Enemy the State”. It sounds like you decided to start with Chapter One and I hope you found it interesting. However as I said preciously, it is Chapter 2 which I thought appropos. Here’s a thought-provoking quote from Nock’s book:

“Perhaps, some aeons hence, if the planet remains so long habitable, the benefits accruing to conquest and confiscation may be adjudged over-costly; the State may in consequence be superseded by government, the political means suppressed, and the fetiches which give nationalism and patriotism their present execrable character may be broken down.” – Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy the State)
Comment by James Madison Fan on 1 September 2010:

I started with Chapter 1 in order to ensure that comments in Chapter 2 were in context otherwise I might misunderstand the foundation of Nock’s logic. I felt I owed it to both you and the author to be thorough. Unlike most of the authors in this magazine I take the topic seriously enough to examine my opinions relative to new data rather than hiding behind what I “believe” to be true. Faith is for the sectarian. Fact is for the secular. I find it annoying when people are corrected in regard to a factual or logical error yet continue to revisit it as though repetition makes it true. I might end up disagreeing but at least I have the courage to look at an alternate view and explain where I think it fails rather than dismissing it. I think the Socratic method of learning yields the best results. If you can’t defend you opinions in a reasonable and logical debate then you shouldn’t have any. Unfortunately the opinions of the ignorant are held most dear while the educated know there is merit in yielding to the superior argument.

It seems to me if a poster takes the time to respond to my posts honestly I have the responsibility to do my best to understand his point of view. There are hundreds of authors besides Marx, Rand, Smith, etc. and I won’t pretend to know all of them. I was vaguely familiar with Spooner due to his abolitionist activities but I am not familiar with his alternate Constitution so I’ll give it a shot. If nothing else it cures my ignorance in regard to Spooner’s stance so I can comment on it with some authority if someone brings it up in the future.

In regard to your assessment of the American State I have my doubts that we are practicing what the Founders envisioned. I look at nanny laws with complete contempt and Kelo makes me crazy. I think we’ve been going down hill in regard to the people that run this nation for 50 years or longer. Where are the candidates like Jefferson, Adams, and Madison? Why is it their like seem to have disappeared from our society only to be replaced by the likes of Baby Bush and Barry Obama? Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, and McCain/Obama aren’t choices, their punch lines. Now Palin is making waves in the Republican Party and she would have trouble spelling cat if you spotted her the C and the A.

If you will permit me to intrude on your comment to Stephan I don’t see how opting in and opting out is a reasonable expectation? If I opt out of the US that means I’m no longer affected by US law so I can do 150 in my car on the way to Vegas and when I get pulled over for speeding I can say, “I’m not a signatory of the Constitution. I opted out so you can’t write me a ticket.” The purpose the ticket isn’t to protect me. It is to protect others from me. From what I can tell under what Stephen is offering I am not in violation of the law until after I turn someone into a protein smear at which point it is too late. From what I can tell the same would apply to drunk driving and anything else that is potentially dangerous. It seems to me that “opting out” is synonymous with abandoning any responsibility to the community in which you live if it is even remotely inconvenient. I’ll do as I please until I hurt or kill someone. Is that freedom? I suppose but it sounds like a version of freedom you find in the plains of the Serengeti before man developed society, culture, and law not anything we should be striving to revisit.
Comment by Stephan J on 1 September 2010:

James Maadison Fan,

I agree that its far better to discuss ideas than to “link-swap”. That’s why I concluded my post with the conclusion to Spooner’s argument — either we have the government the Constitution intended or the Constitution was insufficient to prevent the usurpation of what was intended. Neither is a very good reason to think if we just go back to the Constitution, all will be swell.

Its simply not honest to argue that things would turn out OK if real men were to cling to some ideal principles. Of course that’s true, but largely irrelevant. Real to real, or ideal to ideal, I’m fine with discussing either. But its not reasonable for you to argue from the point of view of ideal persons in charge of your government while making me defend the actions of real people. It would be as ludicrous as me telling you that I’m going to assume all people will drive responsibly, then force you into defending government corruption.
Comment by Stephan J on 1 September 2010:

Daniel,

Thanks for the response.

One correction, though. Paine’s distinction is between society and government, not government and state. He comments on Jefferson’s observation that some of the tribes existed with an admirable social order but “without government”. But he rightly calls Paine to account over not being internally consistent with his distinction. Paine’s argument about government being necessary are simply because he believes that spontaneous social order is not plausible.

I think that’s really all Nock had to address — spontaneous order is everywhere we look. Except when we look to State, where we see social order replaced by, um, until I can think of a better word, military order. Where social order focuses on satisfaction of wants and needs, military order focuses on forms and lines and neat rows. Social order would see as many brands of tomato sauce on a supermarket shelf as customers are willing to pay for, while government order seeks to have uniformity of labelling, and ideally, “sauce, tomato, tin, 16 oz, one each.”
Comment by Stephan J on 1 September 2010:

James Madison Fan,

‘If I opt out of the US that means I’m no longer affected by US law so I can do 150 in my car on the way to Vegas and when I get pulled over for speeding I can say, “I’m not a signatory of the Constitution. I opted out so you can’t write me a ticket.”’

I have no problems with property owners setting their own rules on behavior while on their property. If the owner of the road chooses to set some arbitrary speed limit, I’m fine with that. They define the terms under which I can be on their property, and I either accept or refuse. The problem comes when speaking of government as being the owner of the road. If the government is really “the people”, and I’m part of “the people”, then logically I am part owner. I could, for instance, sell my share of the road to Mr Richman, transferring my ownership rights to him. That’s how I’d do it with Microsoft, right? So how would I go about doing that? How would I go about transferring my share of I-10 to someone crossing the Rio Grande?

I think that eventually you’ll have to concede that I have no real way of doing so, and that this rhetoric about “the people” is just a scam to fool the gullible. The bureaucracy and politicos, the nomenclatura, they are the ones who really have ownership, if the word has any meaning at all. They also think they own YOU. Do they?
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 1 September 2010:

James Madison Fan:

Thanks for your comments. Yes, intellectual honesty is necessary to learn anything – particularly abandoning old ideas (that are demonstrated to be fallacious) in preference to new ideas which correspond to observable reality. We have 221 years experience with this constitutional republic experiment to observe and perhaps learn from.

I hope you find Chapter 2 of Nock’s book interesting or at least thought provoking.

Regarding the comment I made to Stephan J yesterday: Based upon what you wrote above, I think you misunderstood what I said:

“The only way you can opt-out of the State is to get off their turf.”

I meant this quite literally. The State acts as if this territory within North America is theirs and ultimately under their control per their unilaterally enacted edicts, laws, and other terms. Just try repairing your own house without their permission. Thus to opt-out one must voluntarily leave.

I tried to contrast this traditional statist protection racket with a rational concept of government that is voluntary. Once again I’m using Nock’s distinction between the institutions of “the State” and “government”, and by associating these mechanisms with “political means” and “economic means” respectively.

Almost everyone I’ve discussed this with has problems with this concept of volutary government. Not because it is not rational, but rather because they think it impractical. Of course I don’t agree, yet I’m sympathetic because it’s so unfamiliar to our historical experience thus far which has be dominated by the State paradigm. I firmly beleive the root problem and obstacle to the achievement of freedom is “coercion”; regardless of it’s source – legal or otherwise.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 1 September 2010:

Stephen,

I have a great deal of difficulty with Spooner: I’d ask you to examine the following:

“It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man.”

Law is not a contract between “man and man.” Law is a compact between man and the society he inhabits.

Even “Natural Law” is nothing more than an abstract social definition of personal liberties based on a subjective opinion that personal sovereignty is the only legitimate sovereignty there is. In truth the only natural law is “Survival of the Fittest” which is “Might Makes Right” revisited. In this sense an authoritarian government is more “natural” than “natural law.” The only thing that lends legitimacy to personal liberties as outlined by Jefferson and others is a societal belief in individual rights and our staunch desire to protect these rights. If that didn’t exist then theft and murder would be perfectly legitimate ways to do business. If you think I’m in error I would offer the Mafia, South American drug cartels, and most of Africa as evidence of what happens when society is based on true natural law rather than societal law.

“The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” – O. W. Holmes.

The purpose of law is to define on a literal as well as metaphorical level where your fist ends, my nose begins, and what happens if the two interact under different circumstances. You do not need to be a signatory to fall under its jurisdiction, only an inhabitant of said society.

Government is a manifestation of the infrastructure required to create and enforce these laws. Some governments are beneficent and yield to the will of the people. Others are tyrannical and ignore the will of the people. Most fall somewhere in between.

Spooner continues:

“And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing.”

Law does not begin and end with the person that entered into the bargain. For instance, if I buy a condominium and my daughter inherits it she is required to follow complex rules such as limiting the number of people in the pool, obeying noise ordinances, paying monthly dues, etc. If she finds these rules onerous she is free to sell the unit and move someplace she finds more acceptable.

“It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.”

This contract is voluntarily renewed daily since the Constitution has provisions that allow it to be changed or even dissolved if that is the will of the People. It also guarantees the right of the individual to leave if they feel this country no longer represents their best interests. Corporations take advantage of this right on a daily basis by “off shoring” to countries like Bermuda.

“And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts.”

This is fiction of the highest order. In the Preamble it clearly indicates that the intent is to establish the “United States” for “ourselves and our posterity.” You can’t get much clearer than that. This kind of disingenuous attempt to muddle something that is entirely clear is intellectually dishonest and seriously wounds Spooner’s credibility. If the facts are compelling then let them speak. There’s no need to embellish especially in such a cavalier manner.

“Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner.”

The Constitution was a revisiting of the Articles of Confederation which were implemented in 1777. The Constitution was drafted nearly 10 years later in 1786. It was not ratified until 1790 after several Constitutional Conventions where duly elected officials from every state were in attendance. There was plenty of time for people to voice their concerns. In fact that is the primary reasons the Constitution allowed the slavery Spooner was so fanatically opposed to. It was a necessary evil or it never would have been ratified and the Confederation would have splintered while the British watched and waited. What in the nine sweltering hells is Spooner talking about?

“Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the pretended “constitution,” so far as it was their contract, died with them.”

Once again, Law is an expression and a function of the society and the nation, not the individual.

“They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children.”

They didn’t. “Their children” can alter or dispel it any time we want to. That’s what “freedom” is all about. The “problem” is very few of us want to because no one has offered a better alternative.

I’m less than a paragraph deep and I’ve written something like two pages.

You seriously think this is superior to Madison’s Magnum Opus?
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 1 September 2010:

Stephan,

Thanks for your comments. If I recall, Nock quoted from Paine’s great work “Common Sense” (and the 1776 Declaration – which I am quite certain Paine wrote!) where he made the distinction between society and government, the origin or government, the function of government, and that government was a “necessary evil” due to mankind’s inability to rule himself based upon “moral virtue”. Nock then crticized Paine for comparing his own description of the function of natural government (protection and freedom by mutual consent) to the English State. Nock then forgives Paine because he is writing a political pamphlet with an “ad captandum” agrument.

All this is leading up to Nock’s main point which is that Paine, Jefferson, Schoolcraft, Herbert Spencer, et al (regarding their observations of the native Americans apparent social order, and in the case of Spencer, native Africans), missed the important distintion between “the State” and “government”; their differing characteristic marks regarding origin and purpose. In effect they threw them both into the same pot. Nock states that according to these observers own observations, the native American clearly had government but not a State.

This idea of “necessary evil”, first-off I find to be an internal contradiction. And I also think I now understand why Paine coined it; he was (like everyone else at the time) combining government and the State into one entity. This is likely because in Europe the State always claimed to provide protection to “the people” – a clearly dubious claim. Here’s my analysis: Because of fallible human nature, government is necessary and good; it is the State that is unnecesaary and evil! See what I mean? Take the “necessary” associated with government (protection by consent) and the “evil” associated with the State (i.e. coercion) and you get “necessary evil”! This is why I think drawing a distinction between government and the State is so paramount and clarifying. Also “State-government” leads to the following contradiction: you must be robbed to be protected.

Your observations regarding the State’s requirement of “one size fits all”, so-to-speak, is exactly true. And you are correct in the military-like hierarchy of the State; this is also true of other organizations and is sometimes termed: “top-down, command and control”. I’m with you on the problematic nature of such an organizational structure which usually requires varying amounts of coercion to maintain it along with a concomitant loss of satisfaction, productivity and incentive. A spontaneous society would be best served by more horizontal structures based upon contractual networks; and as you know, contract, by definition is entirely voluntary.

I maintain that the State cannot provide true government because of conflict of purposes and modus operandi. The above contradiction regarding “state-government” is resolved only when government is voluntary. Thus, the locks on our doors are a example of a true government product.
Comment by Charles Johnson (Rad Geek) on 2 September 2010:

James Madison Fan: There was plenty of time for people to voice their concerns.

As Spooner makes clear in the text, a large majority of the people subjected to the U.S. Constitution (black slaves, women, propertyless whites, Indians not taxed, etc.) had plenty of time to “voice their concerns,” but no politically meaningful venue for doing so. Even if a majority of people actually had signed on for the Constitution, that would provide no grounds for binding the minority that had not signed on; but in fact a large majority of people were never even asked.

James Madison Fan: They didn’t [make it obligatory on their children]. “Their children” can alter or dispel it any time we want to. That’s what “freedom” is all about. The “problem” is very few of us want to because no one has offered a better alternative.

Spooner wrote and published No Treason over a period of three years from 1867-1870. As you may be aware, in the 1860s a large group of people had recently tried to alter or dispel their political obligations to the United States government, in favor of a proposed alternative, and they were subjected to a military invasion and occupation in order to force the obligation on them, the meaning of “freedom” notwithstanding. (The title of “No Treason” comes from the fact that Spooner intended it as a legal defense for secessionists should the federal government attempt to try them on charges of treason.) You may think whatever you like of Spooner’s argument, but this dropping of obvious historical context in your attempted criticism is careless reading at best.
Comment by Stephan J on 2 September 2010:

First, let me apologize for the whiny tone of my last post, the one responding to a concern about a man who wanted to drive 150 mph on his way to Las Vegas. While I stand by the concept, I phrased it extremely poorly, in part because I was appalled at the implications of the objection.

In the early 1930s, the Germans were designing and building the Autobahn. We’re coming up on the 80th Anniversary of the first such, between Cologne and Bonn. Men are dying of old age who do not recall a time before a road existed capable of 150 mph traffic. I got my drivers license before Nixon imposed the 55 mph national limit, in a state with a 75 mph, an hour from a state whose daytime limit was “safe and proper”. On the 20 mile trip to town, I recall many times my great uncle’s Buick cruised along at 120 mph. Since then, engines are more reliable, there is no comparison in terms of tires and suspension, ceramic brakes vastly surpass the asbestos shoes of the 60s. In every respect, the automobile of 2010 should be capable of better than the Buick of yesteryear, safer at any speed, and capable of much more. Yet one consider driving 150 mph as some form of anti-social bogeyman. Why? What happened to make perfectly appropriate and reasonable behavior anathema?

The last Freeman had an article asking what happened to flying cars. I think the wrong conclusion was reached. What DID happen to the flying cars? One of my friends in Houston has a plane built in ’64 which travels along almost three times the speed of landcraft, but whose fuel consumption is actually less. The small utility aircraft of WWII and even into Korea had engines so weak we wouldn’t consider putting one into a mid-range Harley. The Cessna 150 came with a 100 hp engine, about the same as the Prius’ 98 horsepower. Engines have been vastly improved, in terms of weight, fuel consumption, dependability, etc. So what happened to my flying car? There’s absolutely no technological, engineering or economic reason for it.

Maybe most importantly, why do we whine about someone driving 150 when the question should be what happened to the dream? And how have we as a people been so distracted?
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 2 September 2010:

Well said Rad Geek,

I’ve really come to appreciate the James Madison fan because he inspires me to think and articulate and I wish him the best. However, when it comes to the sanctity of the US Constitution, he will not budge an inch. He seems to accept the idea of such an instrument as a kind of a priori article of faith.

From my studies and thinking the US Constitution and other such semi-plastic politically imposed “social contracts” all fall to pieces in the light of reason, rationality, and historical experience. L. Spooner, Herbert Spencer, Andrew J. Galambos, and others have identified the many fundamental flaws that account for the chaos and servitude created by State sanctioned coercion justified by this Constitutional contrivance. Perhaps in 1789 it was the best they come up with to satisfy all the interests vieing to get control of a single federal State and the privleges and coercive power it could dispense with impunity.

His previous comment that the US under the Constitution is better than Nazi Germany or other States may be true, but so what! It’s like saying that I’m prettier than a crocodile. Politics is a superstition like alchemy, astrology, burning witches to cure the bubonic plague, etc. I’m certain there are better ways for people to interact and organize to sustain and advance their lives and leave a positive legacy for the future.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 September 2010:

Mr. Shapiro,

After completing Chapter 2 I would offer on a purely literary level that Nock would be better served if he made his point then supported it rather than going on for pages without a direction. If he wants to draw a distinction between the Government as a social body required for the implementation of law and the State as a manifestation of aggression and political will it would better serve the writer as well as the reader if he followed the “tell the reader what you are going to say, say it, then tell them what you said” format so we can follow a logical progression from theory to conclusion rather than guessing where he will eventually arrive.

He seems want to wander about and repeatedly returns to the wonder of the government (or lack thereof) in Native American tribes. He dedicates a significant portion of his time to this but never explains what structure they implemented that feels is superior. Mr. Nock makes it sound like they discovered a socio-political Shangri-La but never outlines how this is achieved or how we could mimic it.

He seems aware the reason these tribes didn’t have a State is due to their nomadic and communal society. The concept a mortal could own land was as absurd as owning the wind to most tribes. It isn’t like you can put it in your pocket or strap it to a horse. He seems to miss the connection that the inability to conceive of land ownership precludes the concept of State.

Nock offers these tribes as an example of non-State government but never clarifies why he thinks they are fit to be emulated. Most were patriarchal with a chief, group of elders, and shamans. I fail to see how this is different than a Monarchy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, etc. on a State level. In function they weren’t any different than ancient city-states or modern nations in miniature. Many were peaceful. Many were not. Males hunted and protected. Females cooked, tended the children, etc. This behavior is consistent with primitive cultures around the globe.

Since Nock equates the State with aggressive behavior it lends the impression that he believes the lack of a State meant they weren’t aggressive which is fallacious. Tribes fought over access to the best hunting and fishing sites. As tribes grew and resources became scarce relative to population tribal tensions grew. It was no different in Europe when the Angles and the Saxons invaded Britannia (England) and the Franks invaded Gaul (France). Such is the nature of Man. I don’t condone it, I simply acknowledged it as well as the futility of implementing anything that conflicts with it.

Nock comes dangerously close but never quite discovers that the invention of the State is a function of owning land. I think this is because he’s so preoccupied with the aggressive tendencies of his contemporaries. He mentions but does not discuss the defensive aspects of the State and completely ignores other aspects as well. One of the key funtions of a state is the orderly distribution of resources in the economy including land. You need a legal mechanism to determine paramount title. Without that there isn’t any way to determine who owns anything. If the US does not have sovereign authority my “natural right to migrate” doesn’t end when I cross the border. It includes walking through “your” front door and taking up residence in “your” living room because your title is a fraud.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 2 September 2010:

Mr. Johnson,

You act as if there was a superior alternative when there wasn’t. These few men had just thrown off the yoke of the most powerful empire this planet had ever seen and you think they should have further jeopardized their situation by warring against establish social conventions and religious dictates as well? Failure at such an early date meant the death of the “traitors” and a return to the monarchy. Do you think slaves, women, and Native Americans would have been better served by such a resolution?

The failure was one of societal beliefs of the period, not the document as authored. It was a giant step that eventually allowed all three demographics you describe as well as gays to achieve equality and have it protected (14th Amendment) even in the face of a hostile majority. The effect of this revolution shook Europe to its core putting an end to Monarchies that had stood for millennia. I doubt this domino effect would have occurred if the first in the series of revolutions had been quashed, the leaders hung, and the Articles burned in flames of Independence Hall.

It is easy to be critical 250 years later standing in the light of what these men fostered. Would you risk a fraction and hope to achieve near as much?

I think Spooner is correct in “No Treason.” On the other hand I know he was a radical abolitionist that was exceedingly naïve if he thought the South was going to tolerate legislation that threatened their social order. What did he expect? Southern land owners were going to admit they were equal to Blacks and embrace them as brothers?

The Civil War is a conundrum because States should be allowed to cede if they do not feel the Union is in their best interest. On the other hand the change the South feared the most was the abolition of Slavery which is a moral imperative especially in a nation the purports to be the “Land of the Free.”

That isn’t careless reading. It is an ethical Gordian Knot.
Comment by Charles Johnson (Rad Geek) on 3 September 2010:

James Madison Fan: You act as if there was a superior alternative when there wasn’t.

I said nothing at all about “superior alternatives.” I said that it’s disingenuous to claim that the ratification process gave “the people” subjected to the U.S. Constitution a meaningful opportunity to accept or reject the obligations being imposed on them. What actually happened is that a small, privileged minority of the population unilaterally imposed open-ended, non-negotiable political obligations on a disenfranchised and oppressed majority of the population. Whether or not that strikes you as the best that could be hoped for under the circumstances is a separate question.

That said, I’d also note that (1) you seem to be talking a lot about the Revolution, but my comments weren’t about the Revolution. They were about the adoption of the Constitution, which was a separate event, carried out years later, mostly by a different group of men, and which many of the Revolutionaries were actively opposed to. Maybe you think that without the Constitution, the Revolution would have failed; but if so, that’s a strong historical claim that you’d need to argue for. (2) I don’t know what evidence you think you have for believing that American Indians or black slaves would have been worse off under the English monarchy (slavery was abolished in British colonies decades before it was abolished in independent America; the English monarchy’s attempts to curb white land-grabs west of the Appalachians was one of the white Revolutionaries complaints). My attitude towards the American Revolution is generally positive, but it’s mixed and complicated (revolutions are big, complicated things), and I think honest observers ought to acknowledge the real faults and vices of the revolutionaries — let alone the much more conservative and centralist regime that overtook them in 1789.

James Madison Fan: On the other hand I know he was a radical abolitionist that was exceedingly naïve if he thought the South was going to tolerate legislation that threatened their social order.

He believed nothing of the sort.

What he believed is that the military invasion and reconquest of the Southern states was not an justifiable way to deal with the situation. He believed that slavery should be abolished by other means. (Spooner’s attitude towards the war, as expressed in No Treason No. 2, was that “The result – and a natural one – has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth.”)

James Madison Fan: What did he expect? Southern land owners were going to admit they were equal to Blacks and embrace them as brothers?

No, he believed that Southern whites would remain unrepentant slavers. His published Plan for the Abolition of Slavery (1858) was for black Southerners and poor white Southerners to ally with each other to abolish slavery by means of escape, slave uprisings, and guerilla warfare against white slaveholders, with moral and material support from sympathetic Northern abolitionists. I don’t know whether Spooner wrote anything on the topic before the outbreak of the Civil War, but many radical abolitionists believed (rightly, I think) that it would actually be far easier to destabilize slavery in the South after secession than before it, since enforcement of the slave system depended, in the last resort, on Federal force, in the form of the Fugitive Slave Act and the use of the U.S. Army to suppress slave uprisings. (If you’re interested in the topic, for a good overview of the radical abolitionist support for Disunionism, I’d recommend either Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s _Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men_, or _All On Fire_, Henry Mayer’s excellent biography of William Lloyd Garrison.)

But, anyway, whether or not Spooner is correct about all this has nothing to do with whether or not people were free to “dispel” their political obligations to the U.S. government when Spooner wrote his pamphlet. Manifestly, they were not — whether you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing — and many of them had just recently been forced to submit to those obligations at bayonet-point, in spite of their explicit refusal of the obligations and their concerted efforts to opt out of them. I’m not insisting that you agree with Spooner’s argument; what I’m objecting to is the attempt to make the argument look silly by disregarding basic facts about the historical situation.

James Madison Fan: On the other hand the change the South feared the most was the abolition of Slavery which is a moral imperative especially in a nation the purports to be the “Land of the Free.”

Well, “the South” didn’t fear abolition. Southern slaveholders did. Enslaved Southerners (who were, remember, a numerical majority of the population in many parts of “the South”) generally welcomed the prospect. Of course you are right that Southern slaveholders were terrified of abolition, and that that was a large part of their reason for seceding and for fighting the Feds’ attempts to regain political control. You’re also right that the abolition of slavery is a moral imperative. But I don’t see how that makes the Civil War a “conundrum,” unless you think that the invasion and occupation of the South was the only way in which slavery might have been abolished. I don’t think that it’s the only way slavery might have been abolished; if there are other means by which abolition might have been accomplished just as well or better, without a war of reconquest and a military occupation of the South, then abolition doesn’t lend much moral weight to the Feds’ cause.
Comment by Daniel Shapiro on 3 September 2010:

I think it’s pretty obvious that the American Civil War was primarily a conflict about states rights vs. federal rights and that slavery was the particular issue that brought this conflict to a force of arms.

As Nock pointed out (and history demonstrates), the trend toward consolidation (or centralization) of coercive power is intrinsic to statism. And once this institution is centralized (1789 Constitution) there is no going back without a fight. During the War of 1812, many of the Northern states threatened to secede!

Even by the the 1860′s, chattel slavery was becoming economically expensive. I believe that the death knell of chattely slavery was the invention and production of machinery. Slavery must be about the most inefficient means to accomplish anything useful!

The immorality of slavery is beyond debate. However, I believe that chattel slavery would have entirely disappeared for economic reasons well before the 20th century without a Civil War.

Unfortunately, politcal (state) slavery is still with us.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 3 September 2010:

Mr. Johnson wrote: “I said nothing at all about “superior alternatives.”

Being critical of something infers that there was a better way to have done it.

I’m not being disingenuous when I point out that you can’t separate the behavior from the context of the period in which it occurred. In fact I would argue that it would be disingenuous to attempt to separate the two.

If the Constitution had been imposed without input it wouldn’t have required so much debate or so many compromises. For instance the slave debate was quite heated and the three-fifths clause was an unhappy compromise imported from the Articles. In this case the Constitution was a victim of input from those it was about to govern, not improved by it. In fact the volume and value of input was nearly the death of the experiment before it had even begun.

The slaves and Native Americans didn’t have a voice because they weren’t recognized as being human by the society the document was about to govern. Women were humans but far too emotional, fickle, and intellectually challenged to be trusted to vote. Law is a codification of societal rules and regulations. Unfortunately morality and ethics are subjective. I’m not here to defend that society, only the success of the document it produced.

It is a temporal fallacy to offer that the Constitution is wounded because the Founders didn’t ask the input of slaves, women, and Indians because it superimposes our sensibilities over a society that hasn’t existed in more than two centuries; Sensibilities that exist and a society that does not in great part because of the wisdom included in this document. I would ask you to consider that Spooner is blaming the cure for oppression rather than the cause.

Spooner seems to think the oppression is inherent in the document because it was ‘imposed” on people without their consent. I would counter that it has repeatedly forced the majority to leave their prejudices in the past as in the case of the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s, and Gay Rights in the modern era.

1. The Constitution was ratified in 1790, 14 years after the Declaration and 13 years after the Articles of Confederation. While that seems like a long time in the age of the internet, cars, and jets it was not an overly large amount of time when you consider it could take days, weeks, or even months for post and Representatives to travel the requisite distances. I wouldn’t call it rapid but it wasn’t exactly leisurely considering they squeezed in a war and a fair amount of debate into that period of time.

I think the inability to agree on a founding document would have meant the Revolution had failed by definition. However my opinions are less important than those offered by the Founders themselves. I think the proof resides in comments such as those traded by Hancock and Franklin at the signing of the Declaration:

Hancock: “We must be unanimous. There must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.”

Franklin: “Yes, we must all hang together or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

I don’t think revolting against the British Empire is something you do on a lark without expecting that there is a fairly good chance you’re going to get your neck stretched. The Founders knew this going in but did it anyway. 22 years later the British showed up for a second round and almost succeeded. If we had been a disjointed mishmash of states separated by miscellaneous and sundry without a common purpose and call to arms it is likely they would have.

As Spooner points out in “No Treason”, the only reason slavery persisted was to “induce” the South to remain part of the Union. I would offer the US government didn’t have any other choice as long as they were faithful to the concept of State’s Rights because the only other options were forcing the South to abandon slavery via war or allowing them to cede so any attempt to legally liberate the slaves was going to be pyrrhic.

Sadly, it seems likely to me that if the South had not chosen to cede when Lincoln was elected it is likely the strained relationship between the North and South would have continued as it had for decades. This lack of action is one of the reason Spooner became angry with the Republican Party he helped create.

Due to Federal impotency it is quite possible the slaves and Native Americans would have been better under the crown. However, considering the British traded with the South until the Northern blockade made it difficult and dangerous without any attempt to pressure the South into abandoning slavery it seems just as likely the crown would have found a way via royal decree or license to allow it to continue if there had been a threat of interrupting the flow of Cotton.

The British were less concerned for the welfare of the Native Americans and more concerned that the land west of the Appalachians was claimed by France and they didn’t want war thrust upon them due to the behavior of a few colonials establishing unauthorized homesteads on French territory. I would offer their treatment of aboriginal people well into the 20th century as proof the British had little concern for the natives.

Mr. Johnson wrote: “He believed nothing of the sort.”

From the home page of LysanderSpooner.org:

“Entrepreneur, scholar, radical abolitionist…”

They have a complete collection of his works that can be sorted in alphabetical as well as date order.

“…was for black Southerners and poor white Southerners to ally with each other to abolish slavery by means of escape, slave uprisings, and guerilla warfare against white slaveholders, with moral and material support from sympathetic Northern abolitionists.”

Just to be clear it appears to me you are offering that one flavor of force and violence is preferable over another?

It doesn’t appear Spooner considered that the moment the Confederacy had evidence that the “material support” originated in the Union they would have declared war anyway. His plan arrives at the same destination via a different route.

It also appears he didn’t consider the international implications of the Union supporting sedition in the Confederacy post cession. For instance the British declared the Northern blockade of the South legal because the South was in illegal rebellion. What happens to British neutrality if the Confederate States could prove it was protecting its sovereignty from rebellion instigated by Union agents?

“Well, “the South” didn’t fear abolition. Southern slaveholders did.”

The majority of Johnny Rebs weren’t Southern slave holders. The majority of Yankees weren’t abolitionists. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation had little to no effect on Southern slaves and caused many Yankees to abandon the Union Army. Even though our schools teach it was about Slavery, it wasn’t. It was about many things not the least of which was a way of life. Agrarian versus Industrial. Saving the Republic versus State’s rights. As typical the truth is our forefathers were far smarter than we give them credit for being.

However the question remains; Is it oppressive to force people to admit the equality of someone else they deem inferior? Does someone have the right to be a racist? I think yes but what sort of precedent does this set? At what point does his right to be prejudiced end and my right to be treated as an equal begin?

If we say the South should have been allowed to cede what do we say of modern controversies that are similar? Should California be able to cede if the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 and Gays can get married again? .Should Arizona cede if the Supreme Court overturn 1070? Should the South threaten to cede because they want to implement sectarian education and the Feds say it violates Separation? Allowing states to cede based on the tyranny of the majority is a dangerous precedent for individual rights. Isn’t that what we’re supposed to be protecting?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 3 September 2010:

Mr. Shapiro wrote:

“Even by the the 1860′s, chattel slavery was becoming economically expensive. I believe that the death knell of chattely slavery was the invention and production of machinery.”

More than likely. I wrote something similar here:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/
Comment by Rad Geek on 4 September 2010:

Daniel Shapiro: I think it’s pretty obvious that the American Civil War was primarily a conflict about states rights vs. federal rights

I think it’s obvious that that’s what Lincoln’s pursuit of the war was about. (More or less the same goes for the rest of the Republican war administration.) He couldn’t have been more explicit
as to his “paramount object in this struggle.” But it’s not clear that that’s what the conflict was about for other people involved in it. If one side in a war has a particular cause for fighting, it’s not always the case that the other side has an equal but opposite cause. I think it’s pretty clear from the use of federal power by the Southern slavocracy prior to the war (esp. in the 1840s-1850s), from a number of the centralizing policies of the Confederate government (which was if anything more interventionist than the U.S.; see Hummel’s discussion of “Confederate War Socialism” in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men), and from the explicit statements of folks like Jeff Davis against those who contemplated secession from the Confederacy, that the folks in charge were not primarily concerned with any strong theory of local rights and delegated powers, but rather something much more concrete: maintaining white supremacy, with “states rights” and secession being valuable mainly insofar as it was conducive to that end. Of course, there are also many others who fought in the war who had other reasons for their own, besides the views of the belligerent governments: black Union soldiers who explicitly were fighting mainly to free themselves and enslaved black Southerners, Missouri partisans who fought against the Union not for slavery or states rights but because the Army was burning down their farms and running them off their land (again, see Hummel’s discussion on the occupation and insurgency in the border states). Etc. etc.

Daniel Shapiro: Even by the the 1860′s, chattel slavery was becoming economically expensive. … The immorality of slavery is beyond debate. However, I believe that chattel slavery would have entirely disappeared for economic reasons well before the 20th century without a Civil War.

Well, maybe, but the studies on the economics of slavery in the 1850s and 1860s tend to paint a pretty complicated picture. It is clear that slavery was expanding economically, not declining, in the years leading up to the Civil War, especially in the Deep South. (Part of the reason that the issue of expanding slavery into U.S. territories was such a politically explosive one was that they had an extremely profitable — for them, of course, not for their victims — mode of production that they wanted to expand into other rich territories like the Plains, or California. For that matter, they wanted to seize Cuba, too.) Anyway, I think that the underlying issue of whether slavery was on the whole profitable for slave-drivers, or not profitable for slave-drivers, depends on what set of costs you look at. Just before the Civil War, it was extremely profitable on the account books — but only because a lot of the real costs of maintaining a slave system (in particular, the enforcement costs — the costs of blocking, hunting, and capturing fugitive slaves, of suppressing slave revolts, etc. — had largely been extensively socialized through state and Federal government (through the Fugitive Slave Act, the use of the U.S. Army to crush revolts, etc.). Of course it’s hard to make any kind of reasonable counterfactual prediction, but I think the data tends to show that if the slavers continued to be able to socialize the costs of terrifying, torturing, and recapturing “their” slaves, then slavery might well have been able to continue being profitable for decades. On the other hand, had they not been able to continue socializing these costs, it would have collapsed economically, not so much from competition with industrial production (you can have industrial slavery; cf. I.G. Farben), but rather from the dissolution of the slavers’ resources for keeping slaves under their boots.

One of the results of this is that it raises the question of what the likely effects of a successful secession would have been. Given the huge role that the federal government played in the enforcement of slavery throughout the 1840s-1850s, I think that the Confederates would have found that their secession actually made it increasingly difficult to sustain slavery once they no longer had the Fugitive Slave Act and the U.S. Army doing their dirty work for them at Northern taxpayers’ expense.
Comment by Rad Geek on 4 September 2010:

JMF: Being critical of something [implies *] that there was a better way to have done it.

Well, no, it doesn’t. There are no guarantees that the best option you can hope for won’t still have genuine faults or defects. It may have fewer or different from all the other available options, but still have them; and in this vale of tears, usually it has plenty. But honesty and critical thought require that we be able to recognize and point out the faults that are there. You can’t do good accounting if you only look at the benefits and ignore all the costs. Hence, while I *disagree* with you that the process that led to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution was the best option available at the time, I don’t actually care about trying to get you to agree with me on that point. Say it was the best option available, for the sake of argument. Well, then so what? It is still perfectly reasonable to point out, and to acknowledge, the real faults that it had. Not to ignore them or to make up convenient fictions about “the people” approving something that they were never consulted on.

(*) I think you mean “implies” here, not “infers.” A reasoner infers things from what a statement or act implies.

JMF: If the Constitution had been imposed without input it wouldn’t have required so much debate or so many compromises. For instance the slave debate was quite heated …

Good God. “The slave debate” was “quite heated” among a handful of white male politicians arguing among themselves about what they should all be doing about (or to) black people. There was no debate allowed, heated or otherwise among the majority of the people directly affected by the issue of slavery (viz., slaves).

JMF: In this case the Constitution was a victim of input from those it was about to govern …

Well, no; I think that if all those “it was about to govern” had “input” into the process then the matter would have come out quite differently. There were more slaves getting good and governed by the U.S. Constitution than there were slaveholders.

Look, my point is not that the tiny minority of the population you’re discussing here had no input into the Constitution, or that there were no debates among them. Of course they did and of course they were. My point is, once again, that the vast majority of the population had no input into the Constitution, were not asked, had no option to vote for or against ratification, etc. You may think that a debate and a process limited to this tiny circle of political, racial and sexual elites is the best that could have be hoped for under the circumstances. Fine, argue for that if you want to believe it. But whether that is true or false, even if domination by a 5% minority faction is definitely the best that could have been hoped for under the circumstances, that doesn’t magically transform the 5% minority faction into “the people.” (“The people” does not mean “the tiny faction currently in political power.”) If you want to defend the imposition of the Constitution by a tiny minority on the unwilling majority, as the least-bad option available at the time, fine, go ahead and defend that. Sometimes tiny minorities are right, and often the actions of tiny minorities are all that can be hoped for. But you don’t get to pretend as if the tiny minority were something other than a tiny minority. If you want to defend something, you have to defend it, as it really is, not a civics-class children’s tale about We The People.

JMF (previously): On the other hand I know he was a radical abolitionist that was exceedingly naïve if he thought the South [sic] was going to tolerate legislation that threatened their [sic] social order.

Me: He believed nothing of the sort.

JMF: From the home page of LysanderSpooner.org: “Entrepreneur, scholar, radical abolitionist…”

I didn’t say that Spooner was not a radical abolitionist! I linked you to his “Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,” which is about as radical an abolitionist document as you could find. I said that he did not believe that Southern slave-holders would have tolerated legislation that threatened slavery. (That is, he did not believe the thing that you accused him of being “exceedingly naive” for allegedly believing.) As I discussed at some length, Spooner had notions of how to abolish slavery, but his conception of the best way to do so had nothing in particular to do with convincing Southern slave-holding politicians to adopt different sorts of legislation.

JMF: I would offer the US government didn’t have any other choice as long as they were faithful to the concept of State’s Rights …

Provisions like the Fugitive Slave clause and the Domestic Violence clause had nothing to do with fidelity to the concept of states’ rights. They were direct grants of federal power that forced the people in free states to subsidize the slaveholding of people in slave states, by being forced to pay for, collaborate with, or serve as, the enforcers of the slave system.

JMF: Just to be clear it appears to me you are offering that one flavor of force and violence is preferable over another?

I didn’t tell you anything about what I find “preferable.” I told you what Spooner’s position was.

Spooner certainly did believe that abolishing slavery through the use of force was justified; what he didn’t believe in was abolishing it through the use of a government war of conquest against the South. He didn’t object to the Civil War because he objected to force per se; he objected to it because he believed that if force were to be used, it ought to be used against slaveholders, not against hundreds of thousands of innocent farmers, conscripted soldiers, women and children; that it ought to be used in order to end slavery, not in order to establish open-ended political dominance; and that it ought to be directed by the people immediately affected by slavery (viz., slaves), not by a foreign power that could generally have cared less whether they lived or died, so long as The Union could be Saved.

Maybe Spooner is right about that and maybe he’s wrong. But that’s his position, not the “exceedingly naive” position you thought to attribute to him.

JMF: It doesn’t appear Spooner considered that the moment the Confederacy had evidence that the “material support” originated in the Union they would have declared war anyway

There was no “Confederacy” at the time Spooner wrote the “Plan” (1858), so of course he does not discuss what the not-yet-existent Confederacy might or might do. It would have been nice if he had updated the “Plan” after the secession and the outbreak of the Civil War to discuss in greater detail how it would apply to the changed circumstances, but he was busy with other things at the time. However, I will note that (1) he was not suggesting that governments at the North ought to be lending aid to rebellions against slavery. He was suggesting that Southern blacks and non-slaveholding whites ought to take the lead in rising up against individual slaveholders, and that sympathetic private partisans in the North might be able to lend aid at a later date (at which point the guerilla warfare might be safely escalated into “general insurrection”). (2) It might well turn out that the newly-independent Southern slavocratic states might try to attack the North in order to stop Northern partisans from supporting the uprising. Desperate autocracies do all kinds of desperate things. But if you think that the Northern government possibly ending up, many years down the road, fighting a limited defensive war in order to ward off an attempted invasion of the North is “the same destination” as the Northern government aggresively launching a total war for the reconquest and occupation of the South, then I can’t say I much trust your sense of direction. Certainly, Spooner, for his part, would have thought very differently of the Northern government’s position in the former kind of war than he thought of its position in the latter.

JMF: The majority of Johnny Rebs weren’t Southern slave holders.

(1) The majority of Southerners weren’t “Johnny Rebs.” The majority of Southerners were black slaves and white women. Many (but by no means all) of the latter feared emancipation. Most of the former did not.

(2) I agree that many non-slaveholding white men did fight for the Confederacy. And so what? That would tell against my point only if the people fighting for the Confederacy were all doing so because they “feared emancipation.” But most ordinary Confederate soldiers weren’t fighting because they gave much of a damn either way about emancipation. They were fighting, at first, because their homes were being invaded; later on, many of them were fighting because they were conscripted by the Confederate government.

Of course, the grand war aims of the Confederate government are quite a different story: those did have a lot to do with preserving race slavery and fear of emancipation. But it is hardly news that the motives of ordinary soldiers, and the motives of the commanders and political masters who order them to die, are often different.

JMF: Even though our schools teach it was about Slavery, it wasn’t.

I don’t know what school you went to. Mine (mostly schools in the South, especially in Auburn, Alabama) certainly didn’t teach anything of the sort; and most standard high school American History textbooks (mine was The American Pageant) present a poorly-organized laundry-list of about 6 or 7 different things that the war might have been about and maybe on the other hand might not have been, without much attempt to sift through any of it or to point out that different sides might have had different motivations. Any discussion at all of political motivations was pretty quickly quashed in favor of moving on to a long and gory recounting of which battles happened where and when.

In any case, I don’t know what you mean to say by claiming that the Civil War wasn’t “about Slavery.” If you mean to point out that the Federal government wasn’t fighting in order to end slavery, you’re quite right: they didn’t much care about that, at least for the first 18 months of the war, and said so repeatedly. (When they did finally start making moves towards freeing slaves, they justified them as war measures to weaken the Confederate military resistance.) If you mean to claim that the Confederate government wasn’t fighting in order to preserve slavery, that claim is very clearly contradicted by what the Confederates themselves said at the time. (You might, for example, try reading the declarations of secession, or the Confederate constitution, or Alexander Stephens’ “Cornerstone” speech; the Confederates could not have been more clear that their primary motive in the conflict was to preserve and protect the institution of race slavery and white supremacy.) Of course, many ordinary Southern whites didn’t care much about those aims and had no interest in protecting slavery; but ordinary Southern whites didn’t make the decisions about secession or about war policy. Slaveholding politicians like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens did, and their priorities were different.)

JMF: However the question remains; Is it oppressive to force people to admit the equality of someone else they deem inferior? Does someone have the right to be a racist?

The libertarian response to this would be to point out that the question is confused. People have a right to believe anything that they want; the question is not whether or not you can force someone to admit something in the sense of changing their beliefs, but whether or not you can force someone to stop inflicting violence on other people in the name of those beliefs. So, for example, you have every right to be as racist as you want to be (the belief is wrong, but you have a right to be wrong; not all vices are crimes). But you do not have the right to enslave people of other races. And if you try it, they, and anyone who cares to help them, have a right to stop you, by force if necessary.

Which means that they have a right to use force against you. What they do not have a right to do is to raise an army, invade your whole neighborhood, firebomb your entire block, invade your innocent neighbors’ houses, tear up their gardens and kill their children, establish martial law in your streets, and take over the local homeowner’s association, which they will now run as they see fit, on a lot of issues which have nothing at all to do with your personal crime of slaveholding. Individual crimes merit a response against the individual who committed them; they do not merit an invasion and collective punishment against anyone who happened to be in the vicinity.

JMF: If we say the South should have been allowed to cede what do we say of modern controversies that are similar? Should California be able to cede if the Supreme Court overturns Prop 8 and Gays can get married again? .Should Arizona cede if the Supreme Court overturn 1070? Should the South threaten to cede because they want to implement sectarian education and the Feds say it violates Separation?

Like Spooner, I believe in an unlimited and unconditional right of secession, so my answers to your questions are “Yes,” “Yes,” and “Yes.” However, also like Spooner, I believe that the right is an individual, natural right which can be applied at any level of political association — not a collective legal right which magically stops below the state level. So I certainly think that the Federal government should not try to invade, conquer and occupy Arizona if the Arizona state government tried to secede from the U.S. over immigration policy. (**) But I also think that counties, cities, neighborhoods, and individual people in Arizona who disagree with the state government’s asinine “Papers, Please” police state policies ought to be free to secede from the state government of Arizona. Of course, the state government in Arizona might not be happy about the prospect of pro-liberty Arizonans striking out on their own, and leaving innocent Mexicans free to peacefully work, live and travel while in the free and independent counties, cities, neighborhoods, or private properties. They might even try to invade to force them not to secede from Arizona. But if so, the problem for individual rights here is not too much secession. It’s too little.

(**) Note that the issue is not whether or not I think it would be *right* for them to secede over that; it’s whether or not they ought to be *left in peace* if they decided to do so, i.e., whether the Federal government should call out its armed forces in order to invade and occupy Arizona in order to force them back into an unwilling “union” with the U.S. government.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 8 September 2010:

Rad Geek,

Excellent post. I intend to reply in detail shortly.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 9 September 2010:

Rad Geek,

Imply is acceptable.

I agree that you can’t do good accounting without examining the cost versus reward but I would offer that a necessary part of that analysis is admitting when a questionable investment yields unexpected dividends in excess of any other investment on the board.

Rad: “There was no debate allowed, heated or otherwise among the majority of the people directly affected by the issue of slavery (viz., slaves).”

You keep trying to apply 2010 definitions and sensibilities to 1790. In 2010 you can’t vote or sign a contract without your guardian’s consent until you’re 18 because we have arbitrarily defined this as the age of majority. My Dad had a running joke he’d toss at me every time I complained about chores: “Son is Assyrian (Babylonian, Hittite, etc.) for Slave.” In 1790 women weren’t competent and slaves were subhuman.

In 1790 you had abolitionists running around trying to give slaves rights. In 2010 we have PETA running around trying to give animals rights. In 200 years our posterity may look back in horror at McDonalds the way we look back at Auschwitz but that isn’t going to change my dinner menu for this evening, how about you?. It is good enough for me that it is legal right now. The future can judge my ketchup stained fingers when it arrives. PETA already condemns me but, alas, I am an unrepentant villain.

When the Constitution was authored slaves weren’t entitled to rights in that society any more than cows are entitled to rights in our society. Was that right? No. But that’s from our perspective. At the time slavery has been a part of American culture for at least a century as well as globally accepted for thousands of years. Rules for owning slaves are codified in the Old Testament so even “God” condoned it. The Constitution didn’t create slavery nor was it written in a period where it was practical to abolish slavery. What it did do was set the stage for the end of slavery by challenging and changing beliefs that had been a part of just about every culture since Man learned how to walk upright.

Rad: “There were more slaves getting good and governed by the U.S. Constitution than there were slaveholders.”

There were more free men in slave states than slave owners. There were around 400,000 slave owners, approximately 4 million slaves, and over 8 million free men in the slave states (Southern and Boarder states). Very few of these 4 million slaves rebelled after the Emancipation Proclamation. This would suggest they weren’t particularly motivated to change things even when given legal license to do so. Seems to me if they held their masters and lifestyle in contempt a large number of plantations would have been set alight by freed slaves rather than Union soldiers.

The thing people fail to understand is that slavery was as much a part of the slaves’ social order as it was the slave owners. Many were treated quite well and this is especially true when compared to the free men working in mills, mines, and factories in the North. Purchasing a slave was costly and, as Mr. Shapiro points out, the winds of change were set to blow slavery off the map because it was cheaper to exploit free men like they did in the North than to house, care for, and fodder slaves.

Rad: “…the vast majority of the population had no input into the Constitution,…”

I think you are mistaking fear and lack of interest for oppression. The vast majority of people find security in their anonymity. The average man had no interest in signing his name next to Hancock’s least he join him dancing a gallows jig. They were worried about British reprisals against a colony of rebels should the Crown return. “I’m just a farmer Mr. Redcoat. If you want to shoot someone aim at that guy in the powdered wig down yonder.”

The reason we celebrate heroes in fiction but less often in reality is they are so very rare. Who among us has the courage to stand against a government run amok passing invasive laws that range from Orwellian red light cameras to drug seizure laws to the “Patriot Acts?” More than half of the country can’t locate the energy to vote much less rebel. The mechanism exists to change things but we lack the determination. This is a tyranny of apathy, nothing more. I cannot find it in my heart to mourn the supposed subjugation of the indolent.

The men that debated the Constitution were elected by the people of their state not appointed by a king, ordained by a religious leader, or born patricians. Plebian input into the government that ruled them was uncommon if not unique in world history at this point. I think the implementation of this idea should be celebrated as a breakthrough despite the failures of the society that birthed it, especially when it was instrumental in eventually curing those failures.

Rad: “As I discussed at some length, Spooner had notions of how to abolish slavery, but his conception of the best way to do so had nothing in particular to do with convincing Southern slave-holding politicians to adopt different sorts of legislation.”

I understand what he advocated but he was being naïve if he thought that what he wanted to happen was gong to resemble what was going to happen especially under the time frame proposed.

History teaches that social change takes time or there will be civil unrest or open war. The greater the change, the shorter the period, and the more deeply held the belief the more likely it will lead to bloodshed, riots, and war. If Spooner and his radical abolitionist contemporaries hadn’t had such an aggressive agenda the amount of violence could have been limited or avoided entirely but they weren’t interested in compromise over time they wanted to free the slaves immediately. When zealots stand toe to toe with zealots the first victim is reason.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.” Dr. M. L. King

Rad: “They were direct grants of federal power that forced the people in free states to subsidize the slaveholding of people in slave states, by being forced to pay for, collaborate with, or serve as, the enforcers of the slave system.”

Slavery was legal and slaves were property. Cows are property. When someone finds my cow wandering around I’m entitled to get it back. If someone from PETA knowingly keeps my cow they get arrested for theft no matter how noble their cause.

I have a doctor’s appointment so I’m going to stop here. My appologies for not addressing everything you offered. I fear this is overly long as it stands.
Pingback by Government Is Force | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 16 September 2011:

[...] the rich against the rest. Indeed, power – what Bastiat called “legal plunder” — is the source of their strength and a good deal of [...]
Pingback by Occupying Wall Street | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 30 September 2011:

[...] the protesters miss is that corporate power is derived from government power – it’s the most dangerous derivative. Without State power no bank (or collection of them) could set the economy on a balsawood platform [...]
Pingback by Blame the Fed(s) « Gucci Little Piggy on 6 October 2011:

[...] What the protesters miss is that corporate power is derived from government power – it’s the most dangerous derivative. Without State power no bank (or collection of them) could set the economy on a balsawood platform [...]
Comment by New England Patriots Plan on 4 February 2012:

I’m therefore glad this web thing works as well as your publish really solved the problem. Might take a person on which house help you
Comment by Whopesantos on 8 February 2012:

best for you aoa audio extractor for promotion code aoa audio extractor at my estore

About the Authors

The Most Dangerous Derivative

An anti-corporatist coalition?

There Are 65 Responses So Far. »

Post a Response

Also in this issue

Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom

Rehabilitating Lochner

Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression

Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System

The Folly of Federal Training

Hybrids and Hype

What’s Wrong with Right-to-Work

The Keynesian Cure for Hunger: Eat More

Why Moral “Don’ts” Matter Most

Creating Jobs versus Creating Value

Money Market Funds: Success Must Not Go Unpunished

Allegory and Political Economy: Communication and Cooperation

Super Bowl versus Education?

The Economic Value of Time Travel

Government Can’t Make Us Happy

An Open Letter to Statists Everywhere

Where Should the Burden of Proof Rest?

Capitalism, Corporatism, and the Freed Market

Do Ends Justify Means?

The Employee Rights Act