State of Contradiction

Two sets of questions that never fail to stump the statists.

Are monopolies bad?

Ask this question to any economic or political expert, and they will almost certainly respond with a yes. A monopoly is an organization with special privileges to exclusively offer a certain service or good in a market, and new entrants are barred from competition. Producers would love to be a monopoly because they are safe from competitors and will stay in business. For consumers, however, monopolies are undesirable because the lack of competition in the market leads to low-quality, expensive products. Thus monopolies are generally considered bad.

Is the state, which has a territorial monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, bad?

This is typically where the mental gymnastics commence. There are all sorts of possible justifications for answering “no” to the second question. Most likely, a respondent would begin second guessing their answer to the first question.

Perhaps monopolies aren’t as bad as we thought. Maybe consumers can benefit after all.

Rarely does one second guess their answering “no” to the second question.

Of course the state is necessary. Thomas Hobbes told us so!

But you cannot escape the fact that the state is a monopoly. And if monopolies are bad, it follows that the state is bad as well.

Is it wrong to take a person’s property by force, i.e. steal?

The expected answer is practically universal. Yes!

Is it wrong for the state to take a person’s property by force, such as through taxation?

Now suddenly the first question doesn’t seem so straightforward. Maybe it’s okay to steal if the government is doing it? After all, they do provide us with roads, healthcare, and security.

One of the most common justifications for answering “no” to this question are centered around the social contract theory. We have to pay for the state because we have tacitly agreed to surrender some of our freedoms in exchange for security.

Of course, none of us have ever seen this contract, nor do we ever remember consenting to it. It’s described as being tacit because it doesn’t exist. Contracts are voluntary agreements, where both parties hold each other accountable to their end of the bargain. No such voluntary agreement with a state can be found on Earth today.

The state takes property by force. Anyone doubting that assertion can try to avoid paying taxes for a year and find out what happens. If taking property by force is stealing, then it must follow that when the state takes our property through taxation or eminent domain, it is stealing as well.

These questions have had a tremendous impact in shaping my political philosophy. When I first came across them, I of course answered them in the typical fashion. I came up with all sorts of justifications for my answers, knowing full well that answering “yes” to all four questions would go against everything I had been taught.

But there is just no way of getting around it. The state is a contradiction. It insists it must break up large trusts to prevent monopoly and protect consumers, yet it is a monopoly itself. It enforces laws to prevent others from stealing our property, yet it forcefully takes enormous amounts of private property every year.

We have been conditioned to believe that the state is necessary. But it is important to understand that on the whole, it is not good for us as consumers, and that it must engage in immoral acts in order to exist. Doing so can help us look forward to more peaceful and prosperous ways to organize our society.