The Ethic of the State
By Scott Roads
To the state, the solution to every problem is a gun. This is true almost by definition. When faced with a problem, the tools that governments have are tools of violence. It is no wonder then that the moral character of those under the state becomes corrupted. Everywhere we hear the claim that people are getting more violent, more volatile, more prone to angry, childish fits of rage. People get gunned down over road disputes, stabbed because they cut in line, beaten nearly to death because they addressed someone by the “incorrect” pronoun. It would be wrong to suggest that this is in any way new. Violence has always been utilized by people unable to create value. Likewise, the state has been ever-present throughout history. My suggestion is only that it is not unreasonable to think that there may be a connection between the inherent violence of government and the degree to which people under those governments are willing to rely on force to achieve their ends.
The state—as Tolstoy said—is organized violence. Each law, each regulation, is a threat to those who would step out of line. The larger the state, the more numerous the laws, and thus, the more numerous the threats. When the state is large enough, we begin to rely on it to mediate a huge number of our social interactions. The kind of relationship we have with our employer, our neighbor, our doctor, is determined by the government. Instead of negotiation, cooperation, and compromise, we learn to run to those with the power of violence on their side. We ask the state, can you MAKE them do that?
Of course, when we ask the state to do something, we are asking them to do it with a gun. Is it so strange then to suggest that constantly relying on the state to threaten people, constantly badgering the state to do it more often and on a grander scale, might affect the ways in which we view the legitimacy of violent action generally? A man who hires a hitman is not morally better than a hitman. A reasonable person can ask, if it is acceptable for me to vote for my government to threaten these people, and to shoot them if they don’t comply, why in the world can’t I?
I don’t want to overstate my position. I’m not arguing that perceiving government violence as legitimate is the main driver of violence in our society. Violence is everywhere and always will be. Dismantling or drastically reducing the state would not eliminate it. My suggestion is that if people are raised to believe that the state has a right to act in a huge range of ways—to provide healthcare, to spy on citizens, to enforce bylaws relating to the appearance of your lawn, etc.—then it will be impossible to create a culture in which violent action is considered an unthinkable solution for the average person. In other words, it is impossible to create a culture that truly abhors violence while enthusiastically endorsing the violence of the state.
___________
Free the People publishes opinion-based articles from contributing writers. The opinions and ideas expressed do not always reflect the opinions and ideas that Free the People endorses. We believe in free speech, and in providing a platform for open dialogue. Feel free to leave a comment.