[This article is a continuation of How Anarchic Market Forces (And Not the State) Created Civilization]
The epoch following the Neolithic Revolution in 10,000 B.C. was characterized by unprecedented growth in human population, culture, technology, and trade unrivaled in all of human history. The natural emergence of ideas and technology through entrepreneurial innovation and market processes over many years of natural selection led to the creation of the necessities of advanced civilization–agriculture, husbandry, pottery, medicine, metallurgy, trade, law, and money. States, as we consider them today, were conspicuously nonexistent.[1]
While some social stratification based on ability, function, or gender existed, on the whole, Neolithic societies were much more egalitarian than those found today. Most societies were centered around the family and the village, with some even looking down on excessive accumulation of wealth. Likely, there were wise elders or elites that emerged in each village based on reputation and respect, who adjudicated any possible disputes between community members; but they were not held to be a separate, superior class. The marvels of archaeological sites like Çatalhöyük, Abu Hureya, and Ain Ghazal in Ancient Mesopotamia are testaments to the success of voluntary relations and market exchanges. Based on the evidence found within these sites, it is accurate to say that human civilization predates the State by 4,000 years.
Some of the earliest States to be established were Arslantepe and Uruk, in the form of powerful cities dominating a surrounding hinterland. The “great” empires of old, Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria would model themselves on these Sumerian structures. Contrary to whatever fashionable methods are proposed today, a State can only arise through a very specific three-step process: through conquest, establishment of institutions, and ex post facto justification.
Step One: Conquest
All States must necessarily arise from an act of violence, an aggressive invasion into one’s property. This only varies by degree: it may simply be a small band of strongmen terrorizing a small village, or cities mobilizing entire armies to rape and pillage the surrounding territories.
For any act of conquest to be worthwhile, the potential invader must weigh the costs and benefits of invasion.[2] There are high costs to conquest – acting immorally, the expense of acquiring weapons, the risks of losing one’s life, retributions, and reprisals from the enemy, the loss of one’s reputation, etc. The benefits – material wealth, psychological pleasure, etc – must outweigh these costs in order to proceed with the venture. Otherwise, such actions would be irrational and suicidal. If for no other reason, and there are many, voluntary cooperation would always tend to be prevail due to the extremely high costs of violence.
Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, large-scale conquest was irrational not only due to the high costs of invasion, but also because there was not much to be gained by conquest. Hunter-gatherers were living only on a subsistence economy. There was no surplus of goods to enjoy, as everything that was hunted and gathered was consumed, with no residual savings or hoarding. But this was all to change.
Following the discoveries of agriculture and the resulting plethora of inventions–not the least of which was pottery for storage–the concept of surplus was introduced to mankind. People were productive enough so that they could produce more goods than they needed to consume, an excess that could be saved and enjoyed later, as well as the potential for new exotic and luxurious goods. For the first time in human history, a single individual could produce more than they could consume.
Suddenly, the benefits of invasion now became obvious to some. With ample new wealth to be gained, there now was an incentive to steal the goods of one’s neighbors. Additionally, the discoveries of metallurgy, copper, and iron would lower the costs of invasion with new incredible weapons–the bow and arrow, the axe, and the ubiquitous sword.
If one follows through with an act of conquest and succeeds, (abstracting away from moral concerns) there are four “solutions” to the problem of what to do next. One can either
- leave with the booty and move on
- kill all the inhabitants
- capture the survivors as slaves
- let the survivors remain and live off their production
The first two, while still “solutions” in their own right, are crude solutions which have existed since the dawn of man. These make the invader no more unique or despicable than the petty thief or murderer.
The third option is an interesting solution that now emerges as people become productive at producing excess wealth. This option may be seen only as a more sophisticated (and of course, more immoral) alternative to the first solution. After all, the new slaves become the slaveowner’s property, to be disposed of as one disposes any material object.
The fourth option, however, is the most unique and ingenious. The conqueror is still a slave-owner, but instead of physical restraints, one can gain all the more power and wealth out of his conquered slaves by allowing them to go about their daily lives under the illusion that they are still free. The conquerors can return to their home village after the conquest and demand that the conquered village submit to the authority of the victorious; they can demand periodic “tribute” of wealth, slaves, or other methods of displaying subservience. (Alternatively, the conquerors can move-into the conquered village and exploit them directly. However, this is not a substantive difference, just one of geographic proximity.) Following any form of this final option leads down the dubious path to Statehood.
Lysander Spooner, the great natural-rights individualist of Victorian era America trenchantly describes what distinguishes this final option:
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.[3]
Step Two: Establishment
If one has chosen to exploit the villagers and live off their production, one then must institutionalize their exploitation. The reasons for this are simple – power is always unstable and must be dispersed in order to remain stable. In order for a single man to dominate over another, he must either be physically stronger and thus able to win in a struggle, or he can influence the other to do his bidding by nonphysical means. Even a man of Herculean brute strength easily can easily be toppled by a number of men and women resisting him by sheer force of numbers. Therefore, he must disperse his power through his nonphysical influence – and command the obedience of others. This might come in the form of bodyguards or armies, but even this cannot be enough.
By definition, the number of conquerors must be substantially smaller than their conquered community. This is due to the fact that the conquerors do not produce and exchange to accumulate wealth, but instead live off the wealth produced by the conquered peoples, “given” to them as tribute. As supply-side economist Arthur Laffer demonstrated with the famous Laffer Curve, after a certain point, the more you tax citizens, the less wealth you will obtain (since more and more of individuals’ incomes is taken away, leaving them with less and less to consume and invest with). Thus, it is in the interest of the conquering group to remain small relative to the community, and to obtain as large a tribute from the community as possible without diminishing its productivity.
At this point, the conquering group must begin to distinguish itself from the conquered group as a superior class of individuals. It must necessarily exclude others from joining it to keep the class relatively small, lest it grow large and over-siphon wealth from the community and leave it sterile.
A second problem now arises for the conquering group, which becomes its dominant concern for the rest of its existence – its survival. The conquerors can be overthrown, losing their comfortable hegemony, and potentially their lives. The group can be destroyed through two means – internally or externally. It may be overthrown in a revolution of the conquered peoples, or it may be conquered itself and subsumed to the authority of another rival group of conquerors. Sometimes both can happen simultaneously, as internal struggles can arise out of fear from external threats.
To address the second threat, the conquerors can begin conscripting its constituents into an army to prevent invasions from rival conquerors (or more likely, to invade and conquer further villages and expand their empire). It can demand restrictions for the people to abide by in order to “protect them from an immanent threat.”
Addressing the first problem is more interesting. In order to secure its rule from internal threats, the conquering class must monopolize the use of violence. They must declare that they, and they alone, shall have the authority to murder, steal from, and enslave other people. There must be absolutely no questions as to who is in charge, and it must be made clear that any attempts by rivals and subversives attempting to conquer or oust the conquerors will be dealt with severely.
Additionally, though of much less concern to the conquerors, they also demand that they and they alone shall be the arbitrators in any dispute between any two of their subject people. They will enforce all laws, regulations, and punishments for violating those regulations through violence. Anyone else attempting to adjudicate disputes, propose laws, or enforce punishments must go to the conquerors, or else they themselves will be punished and executed – for they are a threat to the dominance of the conquerors. Thus, the conquerors will invest their stolen wealth into establishing a second, though inferior, social class – the guards, who will enforce the whims of the now very comfortable conqueror class.
This is the apex of Statehood.
By this point it should hopefully be abundantly clear what we are discussing here, so we can modernize our terms:
- conquerors = the State
- conquered = the people
- tribute = taxation
- guards = police
The State is only a systemization of the exploitation of the conquerors. It serves no other purpose than to enrich the conquerors at the expense of the conquered. All actions it takes are primarily concerned with ensuring its survival, then its expansion, and then any residual action (if any) is taken, on the surface only, to appear to benefit the people.[4]
The State does not seek to eliminate crime, only to ensure its own monopoly over crime.
The State does not cooperate, the State exterminates its competition.
The State does not produce wealth, it only steals it from others and redistributes it as it sees fit (after taking a large cut for itself, naturally).
The State is not a social institution, the State is the epitome of anti-social behavior.
Step Three: Legitimacy
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s.” –Matthew 22:21
By this point, the following question must have been built up with excruciating amazement – Why do the people put up with this? How can the State possibly get away with the abject degradation of the people, for whom no rewards are reaped, no privileges granted, no opinions are considered?
Such a rigid social hierarchy is not possible without the violent imposition of a State upon a free populace. Such a close-knit and egalitarian community would not take kindly to having to obey the arbitrary dictates of a (likely foreign) man, pay a fraction of their earnings as tribute (before the innovation of currency, a tax collector would come into one’s home and physically seize one’s assets), and be conscripted to join the ruler’s army to rape and pillage the village downriver (at expense of their own life, and their families lest there be reprisals), and finally suffer punishment and death upon failure to comply with these dictates. There needed to be a legitimate reason for the populace to suffer this indignity and outright predation without instantly rebelling. If one “social theorist” proposed such an idea to his community, he would be laughed out of the village without any need for violence.
It is all the more curious, as we have seen, because the State is always outnumbered by the people. The public must support this absurd venture for it to continue, as has been observed by political philosophers like David Hume:
Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as FORCE is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. [5]
and Étienne de la Boétie:
He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy on you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? [6]
The answer to the great question is that the people are led to believe that this hegemony is in their interest, the exploitation is for their own good. This is the delicate craft of justification.
It is critical to note that this justification only comes after the State has already been violently established. No State has emerged through some sort of “social contract,” where free individuals decide to voluntarily form a State by ”giving up some of their liberties for the greater social good.” This, an example par excellence, is only a theory spurned to justify the existence of an already established State. It is the fancies of abstractly-minded academics describing how a State might emerge in some parallel universe, and not in connection with any historical account in the real world. States always and everywhere have been established through violent conquest.
So we return to the question at hand: What would convince the average man or woman that their ruler ought to be obeyed and never questioned?
What if he was a god?
What if disobeying his will meant punishment of a greater and longer lasting degree of pain than a mere mortal can conceive?
The ruler could thus claim some degree of divinity in order to disguise their anti-social behaviors as heavenly pursuits for the “public good.” Niccolo Machiavelli, writing in the 16th century, wrote down what every true “statesmen” had known for millenia: If a ruler cannot be loved, he must be feared. His rule would be held together more viscerally by the irrational fear of their allegedly divine power. While a mass of disgruntled peasants could surely overwhelm a merely mortal thief, if that thief claimed to be in connection with the divine, and questioning his actions would result in eternal punishment, the problem of rebellion has thus been solved, and civic submission achieved. If a peasant thought his life was full of toil and pain, he was in for a future life of greater pain and suffering if he questioned the ruler in this life. His capacity for reason and critical thinking, which would have led him to conclude he was being duped, was short-circuited by a religious fear and sense of awe.
Just like an individual person against a city, no single State can conquer the Earth through brute force. But, if it can convince its enemies to capitulate, it does not need to. Thus, the marginal State, which is established and expanded by violence, gives way to the ideological State, where the people enforce the State’s bidding themselves.
A mature State need not rely on its police force to repress subversion and disobedience. This State need not fear the logistical impossibility of policing every man and woman’s thoughts and actions 24/7. Instead, the citizenry becomes its own police force. They enforce the dictates of the rulers and the social norms because of their indoctrination. Any deviation or suggestion thereof would instantly be shot down with social ostracism, scapegoating the deviant as an “outcast,” a “crackpot,” or a “conspiracy theorist.” A slave contemplating escape is not kept in line his master, but by the other slaves who discourage his behavior, calling it irrational, strange, or foolhardy. It is only if the deviant is able to break free of the ideological state – enforced by the beliefs of his fellow slaves, that he has to worry about the marginal state – the violent crackdown by the master and his sadistic police force.
In order to accomplish this feat, it becomes necessary for the State to establish a third class – the clergy. [7] The clergy could spin the web of legitimacy behind the ruler – claiming that he was a man-god. Over time, as the average citizen became more and more enlightened, the clergy – not to lose their grip, would have to fall back on weaker and weaker claims – from asserting that the ruler was a prophet who could speak to God to asserting that the ruler was simply divinely chosen by God to rule. The unification of throne and altar forms a symbiotic relationship between the power elites – the State benefits from the clergy spinning the statist zeitgeist to support it, while the clergy enjoy positions of power and privilege to enjoy a portion of the plunder.
This is empirically confirmed by the existence of the first States in Arslantepe and Uruk:
Archaeologists found two temples among the rubble in Arslantepe. On the walls of the corridors separating the temples and the warehouses, paintings of deities show that even economic activity was influenced by religious beliefs. For here, as in all the cities of that era, the elite was quick to use religion to justify itself. [8]
5,000 years ago, the Egyptian civilization would model itself on Arslantepe. Flourishing agriculture, immense temples and palaces, few cities. Despite these differences, whether at Arslantepe, in Egypt, or in Uruk, one constant remained – the importance of religion to ensure social control. The kings would not hesitate to become gods to legitimize their power. [9]
At this point, the wealth of the peacefully emergent civilization has been coopted by the violently established State. The average village has gone from one where all inhabitants are free and equal, with no single building being more luxurious than any other, to one with a rigid social hierarchy, with massive and awe inspiring palaces, temples, and homes for the elite classes distinguished from the squalor that the peasantry subsisted in.
The State is the origin of religion. The State would not survive without religion. Religion would not survive without the State. It is a symbiotic relationship. Religion and conceptions of the afterlife, are a method of ex post facto justification for the violent expropriation of private property, and monopoly of violence over individuals manifested in the anti-social institution known as the State. And religion itself, as we encounter it today, is nothing but ex post facto legitimations for the superstitions of ancients.[10]
For the more sophisticated State, it is precisely a morality tale that captures the “hearts and minds” of its constituents. The State is seen as an apotheosis of society, a paragon of virtue, that which instructs the children, restrains greedy businessmen, punishes criminals, and subsidizes the poor – to say nothing of the “public services” it grants. [11] The State is seen as a virtuous solution to the immoral problems of a naturally wicked humanity (which, unsurprisingly and without consequence, is a central tenet of all major religions). Few of the citizens realize, however, that the State blatantly contradicts its self-proclaimed morality by creating a double standard:
- Immoral: Theft, Assault, Slavery, Murder, Rebellion, Counterfeiting if private individuals do it
- Moral: Theft, Assault, Slavery, Murder, Rebellion, Counterfeiting if the State does it
The State thus masks its hypocritical nature in veils of legitimacy, of special privilege to commit crimes en masse. If the State’s only tool is force, it must cloak it in velvet to legitimize it. Any citizen who witnesses violence comprehends that it is wrong and should not be done. So to disguise this fact, the State does not call a spade a spade, but distorts everyday language of morality:
- Theft –> Taxation/Tribute
- Assault –> Resisting Arrest/Police Brutality
- Slavery –> Obeying the Law/Conscription/National Service
- Murder –> War/Lethal Injection/Treason
- Rebellion –> Treason/Subversion
- Counterfeiting –> Legal Tender/Fractional Reserve Banking/Debt Monetization
Conclusion
A State is violently established over a preexisting, peacefully productive civilization. It does not emerge naturally, it is not voluntarily designed, it is not a necessary consequence of human interaction, it is not inevitable.
The State contributes nothing to the host civilization, but it lives off of it parasitically. In a free market, there is a positive-sum game, where individuals cooperate in exchange to produce greater wealth than they had before. The size of the economic pie is always increasing. With a State, a zero-sum game is created, where each class can only gain at the expense of each other. The size of the pie is fixed, and people fight for a larger share than others.
All innovations, all jobs, all wealth, and everything that is worth having has developed since the Neolithic era through the emergent order. The violent establishment of States has detracted much potential from this wealth fund, but it persists despite the State’s predations.
A State always must be established first by conquest, then by erecting a set of institutions to survive, and finally to legitimize the past violent and absurd actions before a bewildered populace. A State cannot exist, emerge, or develop in any other pattern.[12]
Unravel the legitimacy, the institutions will fade into irrelevancy, and the State itself will be conquered.
Notes
[1] For an introduction and further reading on the rise of civilization in Ancient Mesopotamia, see http://ryansafner.com/2009/11/24/how-anarchic-market-forces-and-not-the-state-created-civilization/
[2] Even those invaders who would be considered “irrational,” those who do not seek material plunder but only the sheer psychological pleasure of domination follow the same pattern: they choose to employ means of conquest to acheive this highest valued end of psychological utility.
[3] Lysander Spooner. No Treason, No IV, The Constitution of No Authority (1870; reprinted in Let’s Abolish Government)
[4] See Franz Oppenheimer, The State. 1908. http://www.franz-oppenheimer.de/state0.htm
[5] (David Hume, “Of the First Principles of Government,” in Essays, Literary, Moral and Political [Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 1987], p. 32)
[6] Étienne de la Boétie. The Politics of Obedience: A Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2008) p.46
[7] In modern times, as the power and authority of religion has dwindled to more secular concerns, and has encountered spectacular moral and political failures, this class has been replaced with “intellectuals.” These “Court intellectuals” are advisors, academics, and professionals in league with the State spinning lies to justify the intrusions of the State in a particular area of social life. It is obviously in the State’s interest to expand its power with the intellectuals justifying State control of society, but it is also in the interest of the intellectuals to pay homage to the State – as it will grant them monopoly privileges, government posts, tenure, and other favors that they would not encounter on a free market. Thus, the ages old relationship of intellectuals and the State benefits both parties, creating a powerful “intellectual bodyguard” to the State.
[8] The Rise of Civilization.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Why might such ancient individuals be more apt to believe such superstitions like religion and afterlives which justify the State? The answer lies in the abusive childrearing practices in ancient times which create various psychological problems in the mind of a child, making the average ancient literally insane by today’s standards. Gods and the State are both the result of a psychological projection and dissociation of the abhorrent qualities of the abusive mother. The theory and empirical evidence backing up this proposition is extremely disturbing, and of an even more shocking nature than this article, and is left out. I have a forthcoming article (or essay) which discusses the role of what is known as “Psychohistory” on the origin of religions and the State. For more information, see Lloyd deMause’s excellent treatment of The Origins of War in Child Abuse, www.psychohistory.com.
[11] As I have shown here, here and here, the State only “creates” jobs and wealth and “provides” services such as roads, utilities, and national defense at the expense of all other private industries. The State also cannot overcome the gap it creates, so there is always a net loss of jobs/wealth/services when it intervenes in the market. Additionally, lest we view the State as an apotheosis, we must always remember that there is no metaphysical entity known as the “State,” it is just individuals acting in concert.
[12] By and large, the most common objection to this is the United States of America under the Constitution of the United States. We must remember that the “United States” existed as independent States under the Articles of Confederation, and even back before that, were violently appropriated from conquering territory from Native Americans. Only the form of the American State has simply changed since the 1600s. Not to mention, the “voluntary” Constitution was composed in secret, by an aristocratic elite, and sprung onto the public to justify the form of State they had already designed. For more on this, see Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. IV – The Constitution of No Authority and Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy the State.
