“The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations.”—Albert Jay Nock
Albert Jay Nock, a significant intellectual figure prior to Murray Rothbard, critiqued the state and its expansion. Unlike Rothbard, Nock stopped short of advocating for the complete abolition of the state, instead arguing for a radially reduced version of government.
1. Nock’s Perspective on the State: Nock believed that as the strength of the state increases, so does its level of criminality. He identified two primary means by which people's needs can be met: through economic production and voluntary exchange, or through political means, which he defined as the appropriation of wealth from others. He viewed the state as an institution that exploits the masses through coercion.
2. The State's Nature and History: Nock referenced Franz Oppenheimer’s definition of the state as a group that dominates another, focused solely on exploitation. He lamented that society is split between the oppressed and the oppressors, relating it to the question of whether the state is necessary. He equated the existence of the state with sanctioned theft, seeing it as an institution fundamentally based on coercion.
3. Education and Public Understanding: Nock was cynical about the potential for public education to change perceptions of the state. He deemed most people as unwillingly dependent and not interested in understanding economic principles, as reflected in his work "Isiah’s Job," where he advised against trying to educate the masses, noting they are often attracted to populist figures over sound policies.
4. Voting and Public Sentiment: He viewed voting as a ritual that merely legitimizes state power, with the average citizen hoping for better leadership instead of less government. This critique suggests people may not fully grasp their complicity in state authority through the electoral process. Nock pointed out that voters are often disappointed, as politicians frequently do not act in accordance with their campaign promises.
5. Historical Context and State Behavior: In Nock's view, the actions of states should be expected rather than surprising. He criticized people who express shock at state atrocities, positing that such behavior is consistent across oppressive regimes, whether they be democratic or totalitarian. He suggested that civil society should take a critical stance whenever state misconduct is reported.
6. Examples of Social Power: Nock illustrated his belief in the potential of social power by referring to community responses to crises such as the Johnstown Flood. He argued that social power could effectively mobilize resources and aid without the need for state intervention, contrasting this with the current expectation that the state should manage such disasters.
7. Call for Historical Awareness: Nock believed that a historical perspective is necessary to challenge the state’s actions. He proposed that society ought to continually question what one should expect from any state, advocating for a media that holds the state accountable for its actions based on historical precedent.
Nock’s critique aimed to mitigate state growth rather than eliminate it entirely. He recognized the need for vigilant engagement from the populace to keep governmental power in check. His ideas suggest a complex relationship with the state, advocating for a minimal government while acknowledging the challenges and shortcomings of public sentiment and the political system.
No comments:
Post a Comment