The efforts of earlier political philosophers to explain the origins of the state either as an expression of “divine will” or as the product of an alleged “social contract” begin to melt away when confronted by Nock’s realism. He tells us that the state has its genesis not in some highly principled pursuit of a “common will” to resist some imagined perverse human nature, but in nothing more elevated than “conquest and confiscation.” He echoes Voltaire’s observation that “the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other.” The Watergate-era mantra “follow the money” reverberates this more-prosaic theme. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/10397/meet-the-enemy/
Meet the Enemy
Previous post: Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement
Next post: Obama and the Continuing War on the Poor
{ 10 comments }
I can’t seem to get enough of Nock. However, I would suggest a modification of his ideas on the origin of the state by appealing to his Christian background: the state was God’s will.
God intended the state as a judgment on rebellious mankind. States existed before the Israelis left Egypt for Palestine, but pay attention to the period under the judges. When the Israelis obeyed God, they would enjoy a minimal state with great freedom. When God became weary of their evil, he would punish them by having the most brutal state in the region conquer and rule them. When they repented, God would remove that state and restore their freedom.
And, as Nock has pointed out elsewhere, God turned Israel into a state when he used it to punish the nations of Palestine as the Israelis conquered them.
Then, when Israel had rebelled to the ultimate degree by rejecting God as their king and demanding a human king, God punished Israel by allowing them to have a king and the ultimate form of the state. From then on, Israelis would never again enjoy the freedom they had under the judges, but would always suffer from their rebellion.
Jump to the modern era. The Dutch Republic gave us our modern freedoms and capitalism. They were a very devout people (see Jonathan Israel’s book on the Dutch Republic) and saw themselves as the new Israel. That freedom spread to a very devout England and eventually the US.
Compared to today, the US and UK enjoyed great freedom until the late 19th century and early 20th. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the decline of freedom correlates well with the decline of Christianity in both, though later in the US than in the UK. The difference this time around is that God doesn’t have to do anything to punish rebellious Americans and Brits. Democracy does God’s work for him.
The people abandon the true God for their idol, the state. Socialism is just the liturgy. So with democracy, people vote their own judgment—tyranny.
Voltaire’s observation that “the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of the citizens to give to the other.”
There is a third class of citizens who know that the above is true and position themselves in between
and milk the system for Power and Pelf. The Politicians and the Federal Reserve banking system.
Golly, fundamentalist, didn’t G(/Ch)engis Khan saying something along of “you people must have been very wicked for God to grant me the power to conquer all of you”?
Gil, I didn’t realize Gengis Khan was a theologian. In the OT book of Habakkuk, the prophet Habakkuk starts out complaining to God about how evil the Israelis are. Murder, theft, adultery, rape, child sacrifice is rampant. So God tells Habakkuk what he is going to do about it. He is going to have the Babylonians conquer Israel and he describes in pretty gruesome detail what the Babylonians will do.
Habakkuk is stunned and he tells God that’s not exactly what he had in mind. And he complains that the Babylonians are more wicked that the Israelis. God says he will judge the Babylonians in due time, too.
Albert Jay Nock was a cultured man and, sadly, I am not.
However, I do not believe that the great mass of uncultured people are “mass man” minds. On the contrary I have found many people (perhaps most) deeply value freedom – and can understand political and economic arguments if people bother to present them in a clear way.
Otherwise such works as Thomas Woods “Meltdown” and virtually every other political and economic book out at the moment (yes including Glenn Beck’s “Common Sense” – great scholar he is not, but he is one of the good guys and he puts the message over well) would not be the pro freedom best sellers they are.
Even in Nock’s own day – the “Road To Serfdom” was a bestseller and most readers DID understand the pro freedom position (perhaps the ordinary readers understood better than Hayek did himself – but that is a debate for another day).
The “bottom line” is as follows:
The elite are lost to freedom – the people who control the great institutions are hostile to freedom and we are not going to convice them of its value (in any sense).
That leaves the “ordinary people” – many (perhaps most) of whom are NOT the “mass man” types Nock describes.
If we just write off ordinary people (holding ourselves to be some special “remnant” who can not talk to most people with any hope of having an effect – well then freedom is dead.
We are not from a different planet and we are not Supermen. The logical structure of our minds is not different from those other people on the street – and our moral character is not automatically better than theirs either.
We have just read books that they have not read and had more time to think about things (and have met people and….).
The most easy way to fail is to say “it is impossible – the people are scum, they would not understand us whatever we said”. That way avoids work (as any effort is deemed hopeless in advance), but it makes the destruction of freedom and civilization certain.
Fundamentalist,
Very interesting comments. The only thing I wonder about with respect to your idea is the Middle Ages. There were plenty of devout people, but also there was much corruption and power in the church hierarchy. I suppose they were more antagonistic to the ruling class, but I wonder how it affected the common man. Just a thought; no definite opinion here on my part.
to paul marks:
well said. that was the opinion of george orwell, too, from memory.
Michael, I’m not sure what you’re asking.
When I wrote about Christianity declining, I meant authentic Christianity, not the Church organization. The Byzantine Church is a good example. It quit being authentically Christian soon after Constantine made Christianity the state religion. The Byzantine Church severely persecuted any group that disagreed with it on even slight matters. They murdered a lot of people. As a result, the Christians of the Middle East and North Africa often welcomed the Muslim invaders as liberators.
The decline of Christianity in the 19th century began in Germany with the theology that the Bible is wrong about most things. Churches abandoned historical Christianity for what became known as liberal Christianity. So even though people called themselves Christians, they weren’t much different from atheists.
Paul, I think you may be a little harsh on Nock. I think what he was saying is that most people aren’t interested in the argument, let alone which side is right.
My late father was self-educated and well read and he used to get frustrated with the people he knew because they simply weren’t interested in much beyond personal pleasure. He called it the “big mac six pack” mentality, meaning they were perfectly content if they could buy a Big Mac hamburger and a six pack of beer.
That’s not to say they weren’t intelligent; they just applied their intelligence to mundane things and to pleasure.
Also, I think Nock may have been influenced by his understanding of the Bible. Jesus was very pessimistic about humanity’s desire for truth.
“He tells us that the state has its genesis not in some highly principled pursuit of a ‘common will’ to resist some imagined perverse human nature, …”
Unfortunately, any interest I might have had in this book was killed with the reference above to the “imagined perverse human nature.” [emphasis mine]
If “perverse human nature” is dismissed from the get-go by the author as a foundational premise for understanding human history, including the development of the modern State, then I am certain that the arguments put forth in this book will be neither sound nor compelling to me, even if they are logically valid.
I have said it here before, and I will say it yet again. It is that very “perverse human nature” that is the real enemy of humanity, not its specific expressions in the institutions associated with the State (or the Market, Academia, the Media, etc.).
Every evil committed by the institutional State is the result of an evil (or woefully misguided) intent on the part of one or more of its officials. Fill the federal government with hundreds of honest and honorable Ron Paul-ish ideological “clones” and watch it reform itself overnight while shrinking to a fraction of its current size.
Comments on this entry are closed.