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 3. The State in Colonial America (Pages 63-83)
When the colonists arrived in America they already had considerable and varied experience with the State. Furthermore, the colonial period coincided with revolution and readjustment in England. During this time the British merchant-State was displacing the feudal State and, therefore, shifting the incidence of economic exploitation.
The feudal state had governed on the theory of monarchy by divine right. This doctrine worked well as long as society was clearly stratified. The feudal State's economic beneficiaries were a close coalition of Church hierarchy and hereditary large land holders with an undifferentiated populace blow the line of stratification.
But this did not suit the growing class of merchants and financiers. The Sate had never considered the idea that its chief reason for existence was “to help business.” The merchants and financiers saw the possibilities for profit from production. They also realized that they must get the State's mechanism to work on the behalf of “business.” This meant capturing control of the apparatus of the State and adapting it in a way that would give themselves the same political means that were being enjoyed by the current beneficiaries—whom they would displace.
The Puritan movement elevated labor to a Christian virtue and gave work itself a special religious sanction. But, the Puritan merchant State was just like any other. It originated in conquest and confiscation. The only difference was that the conquest was by civil war instead of foreign war. Just like the feudal State that it displaced, its object was the economic exploitation of one class by another—the proletariat by enterprisers instead of feudal serfs by nobility. The merchant-State was, simply, an organization of the political means—a machine for the distribution of economic advantage.
The establishment of the merchant-State brought about changes in the general theory of sovereignty. It had to respond to the growing pressure of individualism. The feudal State had not needed to take a spirit of individualism into account. The economic interests that needed to be accommodated under feudalism were not very diverse—e.g. one large proprietor's (or clergyman's) interest was about the same as any others. Hence, upward social mobility (from one class to another) was easily blocked. Therefore, very few positive State-interventions were necessary to keep people “in their place.”
On the other hand, the merchant-State, with its basis in contract, had to meet the rapid development of social power and a multitude of economic interests—both of which stimulate individualism.
Individualism, in turn, fostered the doctrines which formed the basis of the political philosophy of the merchant-State. The primary two were laid down by the Declaration of Independence as fundamental—natural rights and popular sovereignty. Furthermore, there was no difficulty finding Scriptural sanction for both. Like the judicial interpretation of a constitution, the interpretation of the Bible is a process by which anything can be made to mean anything the interpreter desires. The Puritan doctrine of work brought the sanction of Scripture and the sanction of economic interest into total agreement and united the religionist and the merchant-entrepreneur.
The doctrine of popular sovereignty provided immense leverage for ousting the regime of status and replacing it with the regime of contract. But, as a practical matter, implementing an organization that concerns itself only with the maintenance of freedom and security for the individual is particularly difficult. The merchant-entrepreneur did not want that form of social organization. The problem is that there was no practical way to avoid conflict between the “logic of natural rights and popular sovereignty, and the economic law that man tends always to satisfy his needs and desire with the least possible exertion.” The merchant-entrepreneur did not want an organization that did no more than maintain freedom and security. He wanted one that would redistribute access to the political means. In other words, he was against the idea of government and strongly for the idea of the State, just as the hierarchy and nobility were. He did not desire any material change in the fundamental character of the State. What he wanted was the economic advantages that the State had to confer.
The ideas of natural rights and popular sovereignty are easily reconcilable with a system of simple government. However, such a system would not answer the purpose of the merchant-entrepreneur. The problem was how to keep these ideas in the forefront of politics while simultaneously preventing their practical application, which would undermine the organization of the political means. The best they could do was to make structural changes in the State which would appear to express these ideas without really implementing them. The most important of the structural changes intended for this purpose was the introduction of the representative form of government.
Natural Rights and Popular Sovereignty
Much is made of the democratic spirit and temper of the migrants, especially that of the separatists who landed at Plymouth. However, this contention is not supported by facts, with one exception—their Congregationalist principle of church order (giving final authority to the local congregation rather than a general council) was decentralizing and democratic. However, applying this principle to civil affairs was a different story.
The Plymouth colonists did draw up an agreement while still aboard ship. However, this agreement was not in any way a “frame of government” or constitutional document. It was only an agreement to write a constitution after they were ashore and had a chance to look the situation over.
It could not have been any more than provisional, considering the fact that these migrants were not their own men. They did not sail on their own.” They were not bound for a “virgin” territory where they could “homestead” and set up any kind of civil order they might choose.
In fact, it was only through navigation error did they land on the rocky coast of Plymouth. They were headed for Virginia which was under the jurisdiction of a company of English merchant-enterprisers (land speculators, actually). Furthermore, the English company was shaky and would soon be converted into a royal province under royal authority.
The point is that, although they might have been free to found a church in any way they might chose, they were in no way free to found any sort of civil democracy. They were in bondage to an English trading-company. Even their religious freedom was by permission of the London company. The company allowed it simply because it did not care anything about that.
Their agreement with the company bound them to seven years' service. During that time they were to till the land communally. They were to store their produce in a common warehouse and draw their individual and family maintenance from these stores. Thus, whether or not they were communists in principle, their actual practice of communism was prescribed by their agreement with the company—whether or not these practices suited their ideas, they were contractually bound to adopt them.
The trading company was the commercial corporation for colonization. It was, in reality, an autonomous State. ”Every essential element long afterward found in the government of the American State appeared in the chartered corporation that started English civilization in America.”
But, the headquarters of the autonomous State being on one side of the Atlantic and its subjects on the other caused administrative difficulties. As a result the Massachusetts Bay Company moved its headquarters over to America in 1630. Thus, the merchant State was set up in New England long before it was set up in Old England. The Massachusetts Bay colony was the first autonomous State established in America. Furthermore, whether under the rule of a trading-company or a provincial governor or a representative legislature, the merchant-State is the only form of the State that has ever existed in America.
From the beginning, some of the colonists thought they could become large agricultural land holders and maintain a certain level of semi-feudalism. However, a tenant-economy was not maintainable. Instead of working for a master, the immigrant preferred (and could) move out onto un-claimed land and work for himself. In short, he could not be exploited until he had been expropriated from the land.
The Company System
The American merchant-State showed no evidence of the philosophy of natural rights and popular sovereignty. The Bay Company's charter served as its constitution. It operated as a small and close oligarchy with the right to vote vested only in the shareholders. Its officials were only responsible to its directorate—not the community.
Marx said that “religion is the opiate of the people.” This is a misuse of terms. Religion was never that. However, organized Christianity (not the same thing as religion) has been since the 4th century. This opiate has never been more skillfully employed for political purposes than it was by the Bay Company.
By the 4th century, the Church had risen to a considerable level of influence. In 311 Constantine issued an edict of toleration for organized Christianity. He realized that the Church could be made into an effective tool of the State. Church and State came to a tacit understanding—in exchange for imperial recognition, patronage, and endowments, the Church would quit criticizing the State's administration of the political means. These have been the terms of every understanding between organized Christianity and the State ever since—including the merchant-State in America.
Nock summarizes: “…nowhere in the American colonial civil order was there even the trace of democracy. The political structure was always that of the merchant-State; Americans have never known any other. Furthermore, the philosophy of natural rights and popular sovereignty was never once exhibited anywhere in American political practice during the colonial period, from the first settlement in 1607 down to the revolution of 1776.”
(Editor's Note: Murray N. Rothbard's four volume set, “Conceived in Liberty ” provides a plethora of facts to support that conclusion.)
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