THE LATEST IN THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA: OUR CURRENT FEATURE ARTICLE
Table of Contents
FROM BEHIND ENEMY LINES:A Conservative Libertarian Inside Academia
SOUTHERN HERITAGE: Dedicated to the truth about the War of Yankee Aggression
Constitutional Law
NEW WORLD ORDER, UNITED NATIONS, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN SOVERIGNTY
Why is the government persecuting Ernst Zündel? Click here to visit the Zundelsite
How to Lobby Congress
What is Digg? Click to Find Out
Compiled and Summarized by
Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume
Our Enemy, The State: A Study of Social Power vs. State Power and of The State in Colonial America by Albert Jay Nock. Available from the Mises Institute at www.mises.org
Chapter 1. Social Power vs. State Power (Pages 25-44)
Since the founding, there has been a great redistribution of power between society and the State. All public policy has come to the same thing--an increase of State power and a decrease in social power.
Since the state has no money of its own it has no power of its own. All it has is what society gives it plus what it confiscates. Every assumption of state power leaves society with less power—the disposition to exercise social power dwindles with any exercise of State power. For example, any citizen can conduct a felony arrest. However, since the state has exercised that right through its police for so long, the citizen is indisposed to exercise it. In fact, most probably do not realize they have it.
Earlier in American history any crisis of misfortune was no concern of the State. But the State assumed this function under FDR. This brought about a prodigious enhancement of State power and materially affected the balance between State power and social power.
This provides an illustration of how the conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable. Now, if we experience a catastrophic event, the general instinct is to let the State handle it. In the process, social power has atrophied as has our disposition to exercise it. For example, years ago, when approached by a vagrant, we might have given him a quarter. Today we refer him to the relief agency. After all, the State has already confiscated our quarter on his behalf so therefore, he should go to the Sate for relief.
State intervention in business (wage, price and competition fixing) has had essentially the same result. Before, an entrepreneur might actually operate temporarily at a loss because he did not want to turn his workers out onto the street. But now that the State has stepped in, his instinct is to let it take the responsibility.
Often the intervention is directly competitive. This has happened on a large scale as the State has taken over a long list of private enterprise—everything from chief health care provider to insurance dealer to loan shark and everything in between. When that happens private enterprise dwindles. This is because social power is always at a disadvantage when competing with State power. That, in turn, is because the State can arrange the terms of the competition.
Take, for example, the State's monopoly of letter-carrying. The advantage to the State is not only the large, well-distributed volume of (captive) patronage, but also the fact that it enables the State to post one of its lieutenants at every crossroad in the country.
In this manner the State develops a habit of acquiescence in its citizens. Generations grow up accustomed (a better word might be “conditioned”) to State power. So much so that they assume the process is in order—even wholesome and necessary for the “public good.”
Three Indexes of State Power
The first index is the absorption of practically all rights and powers of the smaller political units (states, counties, cities, etc.) by the federal government. Power is concentrated in Washington —primarily in the hands of the Executive. It is nominally “republican” in form but actually more monocratic—characteristic of a people with little intellectual integrity. This happened by coup d'etat —not by violence but by purchase. The national legislature was not suppressed by arms. It was bought out with public money.
The second index is the extension of the bureaucratic principle as reflected by the proliferation of boards, bureaus and commissions. This centralization has converted every official and political aspirant in the smaller units into an agent of the federal bureaucracy. All congressional aspirants go to Washington with their hats in their hands. Thereby, the rights and practices of local government were surrendered, not suppressed.
The third index is the elevation of poverty and begging into a permanent political asset. All that was needed was a declaration that the State owes all its citizens a living. This, naturally, has produced a mass of subsidized voting power and thereby strengthened the State.
State Power Does Not Diminish
There is an impression that the growth of State power since 1932 is provisional and temporary—a kind of emergency loan. But any change in the other direction would be without precedent and very unlikely. There is no natural reason for such a change and every reason why one should not occur. (Editor's Note: Keep in mind that Nock was writing in 1935. Here it is 2007 and State power, relative to social power, is much greater than it was then—strong support of his contention.)
We shall shortly see politically-organized poverty come to be subsidized indirectly instead of directly because the State can not keep up with the “disposition of the masses to loot their own Treasury.” Therefore, direct subsidy will give way to “social legislation” that will create a multiplex of a wide variety of State-managed indemnities—pensions, insurances, etc. (Editor's Note: And it has come to pass.) This indirect “social legislation” did not decrease State power. To the contrary, it opened the way for a continuous creation of new State-administered social “programs.”
Also, there is the impression that “recessions” may be brought about by voting a political party out. This idea is based on unsound assumptions. The first is that the “power of the ballot” is what political theory says it is and that the electorate actually has a choice in the matter. This is simply not true. In the imperialistic system, politicians meet now and again for the purpose of deciding what they can “get away with.” The electorate then votes according to their prescriptions. Any assumption that party pledges imply performance is baseless. The underlying faith in “political action” is the erroneous assumption that the interests of the State and those of society are the same. Not so. In fact, they are directly opposite.
Personal government, control of a massive bureaucracy and a huge mass of subsidized voting power are as attractive to one politician as any other—Democrat, Republican, or whatever. There is no point in listening to their words. Their actions reveal that the continuous growth of State power is here to stay. A change of regime through a change of party is illusory. The only party-competition will be for control and management. Closer centralization, furtherance of the bureaucratic principle and larger concessions to subsidized voting-power will be the result. (Editor's Note: And this too has passed.)
The aim of the collectivists (their fundamental doctrine formulated by idealist philosophers of the last century) is the total extinction of social power. Hitler said, “The State dominates the nation because it alone represents it.” This was popular language for what Hegel said, “The State is the general substance, whereof individuals are but accidents” or Mussolini who said, “Everything for the State; nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
The various forms of collectivism, superficially distinguished as Fascism, Bolshevism, etc, are bound by one common, root idea—a complete conversion of social power into State power.
The Noiseless Revolution
The conversion of social power into State power in the uS has gone a long way at an accelerated rate, but with an “unspectacular” character. Every advance in State aggrandizement has been noiseless and un-alarming—especially to a people notoriously preoccupied, inattentive and incurious. In fact, it has been so unspectacular that its true nature escaped notice, and is not generally understood.
Furthermore, specific arrangements of words have been obstacles to our perception of how far this conversion of power has actually gone. For example, when Hegel's doctrine is restated by Hitler or Mussolini, it offends us and we congratulate ourselves on our “freedom.” But, as long as he does not formulate that doctrine in those same terms, an American politician may take it further than Mussolini did without being questioned.
With respect to the relationship between the theory and the practice of public affairs, Americans are un-philosophical. They find rationalization to be repugnant and prefer to emotionalize. They are indifferent to the theory of things, so long as they can listen to the patter of their litanies, no inconsistency disturbs them. In fact, they seldom even recognize it as being inconsistent.
Michel Chevalier observed that Americans have “the morale of an army on the march.” An army on the march has no philosophy. It only sees itself as a “creature of the moment.” It rationalizes its conduct only in terms of an immediate end. As Tennyson said, “theirs is not to reason why.” Its conduct is emotionalized by elaborate paraphernalia (flags, music, uniforms, etc.) and the careful cultivation of camaraderie. Its mentality is one of “delayed adolescence”—infantile.
Past American generations elevated this infantilism into a virtue and indoctrinated fellow Americans with the idea that a philosophy is not necessary and that a “concern with the theory of things is effeminate and unbecoming.”
But, this “morale of an army on the march” has brought us where we are and got us what we have. So, if we have accomplished all of this without a philosophy, then a philosophy and the theory of things must not be worth considering. The morale of an army on the march is good enough for us and we are proud of it.
The cause of the current condition of public affairs does not lie with the characteristics of the republican, moncratic, constitutional, collectivist, totalitarian, or Bolshevist State . It lies with the State itself.
The Modern State Citizen
We know that human institutions exist and affect all of us. But we do not ask how they came to exist or what their original intent was. Then, when they affect us so unfavorably that we rebel, we never contemplate replacing them with anything but some modification or variant of the same institution.
The average individual's attitude towards the State is today exactly what it was towards the Church in 1500. At that time, the individual was born into the Church just as he is born into the State today. He was taxed to support the Church just as he is today to support the State. He was to accept the official doctrine of the Church, conform to its discipline, and do as it told him. These are exactly the same sanctions the State lays upon him today. If he were reluctant, the Church made trouble for him. Today the State does. And then, even when he revolted, he simply exchanged one form of the Church for another. In the same way, modern State citizens exchange one type of the State for another. The individual did not examine the institution of the Church itself. Neither does the State-citizen today.
The tremendous rise in State power, paid for with a commensurate decline in social power, suggests that it is important to know more than we do about the basic nature of the State itself. We need a “theory of the State” that we can be sure is supported by history. We need to understand how the State originated and why. We need to understand what it is that history shows to be the State's main function. We need to identify the characteristics, if any, that differentiate “government” from “the State.” Using history, we need to decide if the state is a social or an anti-social institution. These are the questions that the remainder of the book is devoted to.
Copyright ©2004, FlyoverPress.com
Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.
Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.
“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of being guilty of treason.”
He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.
Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author's name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.
FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com
*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.
To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.
OUR SPONSORS
Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Professional Firearms Training at its finest.
Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership
AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.
They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.
Visit their site.
Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses
Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals
Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare
We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books