Do You Hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard

           Do You Hate the State?

Informative, but more vitriol than I can handle. But, buried in all
the rhetoric is good advice: "..we must take every opportunity to
chop away at the state", whether cutting taxes, etc. It would seem to
me that there is no need for a burning hate to do that; I would even
go so far as to say that a burning love for a libertarian political
structure might be a more effective driving force.


--- In, "Dr. Michael R. Edelstein"
<dredelstein@t...> wrote:

> Do You Hate the State?
> by Murray N. Rothbard
> I have been ruminating recently on what are the crucial
> questions that divide libertarians. Some that have received a lot


> attention in the last few years are: anarcho-capitalism vs.


> government, abolitionism vs. gradualism, natural rights vs.
> utilitarianism, and war vs. peace. But I have concluded that as
> important as these questions are, they don't really cut to the


> of
> the issue, of the crucial dividing line between us.
> Let us take, for example, two of the leading
> anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New
> Liberty and David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Superficially,
> the
> major differences between them are my own stand for natural


> and
> for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman's
> amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs
> between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the


> really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and
> most
> of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the
> State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the


> is
> the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does


> hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the


> that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better
> social
> and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully,


> anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is


> than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political
> alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism


> superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is
> pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman


> any
> sense hates the existing American State or the State per se,


> it
> deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and
> murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism
> would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current
> set-up
> is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in
> Friedman that the State - any State - is a predatory gang of
> criminals.
> The same impression shines through the writing, say, of
> political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who
> believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his


> of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any


> that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.
> Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is
> "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch
> opposition to the existing political system and to the State


> Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition


> the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system


> crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to
> the
> spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and
> emotion,
> heart and soul.
> Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true
> nowadays, you don't have to be an anarchist to be radical in our
> sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical
> spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of


> present day who is radical - a truly amazing phenomenon, when we
> think
> of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who
> hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully
> integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine,


> Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a
> veritable
> roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine's radical hatred


> the
> State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of
> liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between
> laissez-faire and anarchism.
> And closer to our own day, such early influences on me


> Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were
> magnificently
> and superbly radical. Hatred of "Our Enemy, the State" (Nock's
> title)
> and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a
> beacon
> star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit
> anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred
> anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing
> status quo.
> Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today?


> are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists


> conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of "radical" is
> "conservative," where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our
> limited
> statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits
> between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is


> anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord,


> us
> radicals, be they anarchists or no.
> To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists


> extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered
> libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire
> the
> work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they
> consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers.
> That
> they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true
> importance.
> For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as
> inconsistent
> as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the
> State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which,


> its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of
> liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of
> every
> syllogism and every lemma down to the "model" of competing courts.
> Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our


> sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism"

vs. "gradualism"

> debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a
> magazine
> every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which


> Bob
> Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate.


> takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice"


> failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to
> there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate
> the
> true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not

grab a

> feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The
> difference
> is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his
> ultimate
> goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his
> goal
> as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will
> accept
> a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can
> achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step
> toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The
> abolitionist
> is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button
> that
> would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed.


> the
> abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist,


> that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary - while always
> preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.
> It should be noted here that many of Milton's most


> "gradual" programs such as the voucher plan, the negative income
> tax,
> the withholding tax, fiat paper money - are gradual (or even not


> gradual) steps in the wrong direction, away from liberty, and


> the militance of much libertarian opposition to these schemes.
> His button-pushing position stems from the


> deep and abiding hatred of the State and its vast engine of crime
> and
> oppression. With such an integrated world-view, the radical
> libertarian could never dream of confronting either a magic


> or
> any real-life problem with some arid cost-benefit calculation. He
> knows that the State must be diminished as fast and as completely


> possible. Period.
> And that is why the radical libertarian is not only an
> abolitionist, but also refuses to think in such terms as a Four


> Plan for some sort of stately and measured procedure for reducing
> the
> State. The radical - whether he be anarchist or laissez-faire -
> cannot
> think in such terms as, e.g.: Well, the first year, we'll cut the
> income tax by 2%, abolish the ICC, and cut the minimum wage; the
> second year we'll abolish the minimum wage, cut the income tax by
> another 2%, and reduce welfare payments by 3%, etc. The radical
> cannot
> think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our
> mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever


> can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every
> opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it's to reduce or
> abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And
> the
> radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the


> has
> been abolished, or - for minarchists - dwindled down to a tiny,
> laissez-faire role.
> Many people have wondered: Why should there be any
> important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and
> minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much
> common ground, why can't the two groups work in complete harmony
> until
> we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air


> disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to


> excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand


> this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the
> birth
> of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the
> antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant
> within
> the movement.
> Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was the author of Man,
> Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government


An interesting take from an unknown source reposted form a repost, but
rings true. Elite ie leftists San Franciscans benefit from inflation,
but poor, disabled and working people that they cheme to help are
completely screwed by inflation. I keep wanting to tell the hotel
workers to move the protest fromthe embarcadero hyatt across the
street, because that is the culprit, the FED that made the hotel wage
unlivable. The question is how to communicate this basic fact even to
our friends. Wven Jennifetr, our Republican Cato occasional visitor
was suprixed by my vehemance about the evils of inflation..."With
today's release of a 0.1% decline in May consumer prices, many
pundits continue to assert that the inflation threat has ended.
However, a closer look at the data reveals that the threat has only
just begun. Despite May's benign figures, which were driven mainly by
falling energy prices, so far 2005 is on pace to achieve the largest
CPI increase in fifteen years. Yes, that is not a typo. Not since
1990 has the CPI risen by more than 3.65%, which is the annualized
pace set during the first five months of 2005.

In fact, given that oil prices have already increased by over 18% in
the last four weeks, and that a reversal in the dollar's recent
strength is likely to push commodity prices higher for the remainder
of the year, I except CPI gains in the second half of 2005 to push
the year's total increase to over 4.6%, its second largest gain in
twenty-four years.

Even more shocking, if one adjusts for the facts that in the late
1980s the government took housing prices out of the CPI, and that in
the late 1990s it began hedonically adjusting the price components
which comprise much of the index, inflation this year would probably
be much closer to 10%, were it still calculated using the same
methodology as the one used back in 1981.

However, even though this year is shaping up to register the highest
inflation rate in 15 years, the strident claims of victory over
inflation have never been so prevalent. In fact, today CNBC flashed a
graphic showing the benign "core CPI" going back to the 1970's, while
neglecting to show a graphic of the far less benign actual CPI over
the same time period. During the last fifteen years, when inflation
was far less of a problem that it is in the current year, such
victory claims were far less numerous, if not completely non-

Why then, during a period of relatively rapid inflation, is the
outcry so muted? Why is the government so quick to claim victory over
an adversary that is so clearly winning the fight? I believe there
are two primary reasons for this apparent paradox. First, in the
1970s and 1980s, when America was a nation of savers, most people
easily perceived how inflation robbed them of their purchasing power.
Today, American debtors sees inflation as their salvation, as rising
home prices and equity extractions increase their purchasing power.
Second, as the Fed deliberately peruses a policy of inflation as a
means of repudiating government debts, as well as bailing out other
borrowers, including hedge funds and homeowners, it can only do so to
the extend that it conceals it true intentions from America's
creditors. If the world's savers only knew the truth, interest rates
would soar, bursting the bubble economy the Fed is trying so
desperately to keep inflated."

A poor man gets jail time for writing a bad check or staling from
Safeway, but not a single banker deeply involved in Enron or MCI has
even been indicted. AAaArgh. Here is my epistle accidently posted
onthe discuss board last night.

JPMorgan Chase(Bank One) today agreed on a 2.2 Billion dollar
settlement with a group of Plaintiffs led by the california State
University pension system. Hooray! There are some advantages to having
California in open confrontration with the established Eastern
Powers.But what really riles is that Morgan denies any guilt. And what
really is patently wrong is that despite patent fraud not a single
individual banker has brought before the Bar of Justice. Not a single
indictment. Where is Lou Dobbs on this issue. It appears the bankers
are immune fromJustice. In Saenate hearing Enron a few years ago
emails between bankers were revealed that said words to the effect,
Wnron Loves these loans because they can hifde them from the auditors
and analysts. Smoking gun. The Stock of JPM was unchanged for the week
at 38.60 with barely a 10 cent ripple the whole week. The markets
understand that if JP Morgan ever is in trouble, thier status as a New
York Fed menber and part owner of the Federal Reserve System will
insulate them from any financial risk. there is aterm in economics for
behavior of bankers whos create systemic risk with no direct risk to
themselves, the word is Moral Hazard. And the bankssters show everyday
that they are of more moral hazrd thana roomfull of interns and all
the crack whores in Gotham.What is important for Libertarians to tale
home from this not so little morality play, is that WE DO NOY LIVE IN
S FREE MARKET ECONOMY. The heart of the economy, the Financial SYSTEM
is an utterly corrupt government charted bastard. On this critical
issue we can find common ground with the Socialists. The corruption
that flows from a fractional reserve system pollutes the morality of
the entire economy, and fixes the game in favor of the rich and
connected. Rand was quite explicit trough the speaces of Mr.John Falt,
that the destruction of the value of money through the never ending
fraud of fractional reserve banking and the subsequent dilution of
money's value destroys the objective value of money, condeming society
to drift on the uncertain seas of relativism, where no value is
certain. So Enron is not an unimportant issue just about money. It is
the japosis sarcoma on the face of our nations body politic.
Wmblematic of the rot within. We will probably muddle along carrying
the disease of fiat fractional reserve banking, but when people of
Socialist ideaology, talk about the evils of capitalism and the pain
brought about by inflation and stagnation, remember, it's all because
of the fiancial system forced upon us bya government in direct
conflict with crystal clear Constitutional prohibitions and intent
.The Constitution demands payment is Gold and Silver coin. Oh and one
more thing. The entire structure of Fractional reserve banking was
accepted by the king of England so that He could pay for wars with out
inconveniencing the public with taxes or rising interest rates. The
war would paid for in delayed inflation. The blame for inflation can
be sloughed off on greedy corporations for raising prices. and so the
Viet Nam war and this war are funded by debt bought by the Federal
Reserve ir other central banks. The inflation will come later.
Meanwhile the bonus's to keep the boyz and girls signing up for the
armed services are printed and funded by JP Morgan and Citi and etc.
BNo wonder Bankers do not go to jail. Is this really that hard to
understand. Could we explain this to the lefties. the general public,
and ever get some traction is fixing the core of the economy and
ridding the country of the financial core of the war machine.

Most of previous post credited to Peter D. Schiff
President/Chief Global Strategist
Euro Pacific Capital, Inc.