Wednesday, November 19, 2014

The Beneficiaries of Violence



Aggression is the initiation or threat of physical force against an individual or their property. The state commits acts of aggression on a regular basis. The entire institution of the state is based completely on violence. That is why I seek the complete abolition of the state.

When I engage with other people about the illegitimacy of the state, I often hear the claim that some need would not be met if the state did not exist. There are many examples of these claims. Content creators would not be able to get royalties without copyright law. People would use dangerous drugs if the state did not enforce drug laws. The job market would be flooded with low-wage labor without border security. Space exploration and other scientific research would not get funding without taxes. We would all die from poisoned food without the FDA. The list goes on and on.


I can usually propose theoretical ways in which the free market can provide for the things that people need in the absence of the state. Really, I should not have to say anything more than, "In the free market, entrepreneurs will always work to meet unfulfilled demand". But theoretical economic debate is completely beside the point.

Ultimately it comes down to this: Certain groups benefit from the violent acts of the state. Examples of such groups include academia, unions, movie studios, pharmaceutical companies, and various other privileged industries. Absent a state, those groups would most likely find it prohibitively expensive to utilize their own resources to commit those same acts of violence. THIS IS A GOOD THING! For every worthy end, there is always a peaceful means of achieving that end. If a peaceful means cannot be found to achieve an end, then that end is probably terrible anyway.

The next time you are skeptical of the possibility of a stateless society, ask yourself the following question: "Is there anything that I wish to achieve in life that necessitates the initiation or threat of force against peaceful individuals?" If the answer is no, you do not need violence. If the answer is yes, you are a beneficiary of violence. When you have your answer, demand the absence of presence of the state accordingly.

No comments:

Post a Comment