Having dialogue with those still trapped in the duopoly can sometimes feel exactly like talking to someone in a high-control group.
It feels like they don’t care about truth. They just want to echo from their side. Because their side is right. And anything not from their side is wrong.
I feel like we (anti-authoritarians) must be an enigma, because, for example…
On one hand we proclaim the benefits of a free-market.
On the other hand we stand firmly against the patriarchy.
I guarantee you those sentences triggered people who identify with the duopoly.
I’m hoping that those people recognize that there is freedom in believing that the state is not the solution in which we should place our faith.
My faith is not in a political party (or ideology). My faith is in Christ. My goal is not to use government to “make things the way they should be.” It is to be the hands and feet of Jesus, and carry out His work. To build relationships with people, and not walls between them.
And I hope that knowing that we (anti-authoritarians and voluntaryists) don’t want to enforce our beliefs on anyone via government, not only builds our credibility, but enables people to hear what we have to say.
If we define the nature of the state as “force,” and acknowledge that it is something that can be co-opted by those who want to abuse power and turn it against us, we should ask “why would we want it to exist at all?” We need to define its purpose.
Prior to defining its purpose however, I want to define the term “government.” I would define government as “the legitimate use of the power of the state to enforce the rule of law”
I define it this way to make it distinct from “the state.” Anyone who amasses human power for themselves and rules over other humans is “the state.” I would not call this “government” though as this type of rule is actually the rule of man. But what is the difference between the rule of man and the rule of law?
Rule of law refers to a society in which people have to answer only to the law and not to the edicts or orders issued by humans. A society in which people have to respond to edicts and orders issued by humans is what is called “the rule of man.” The difference is whether the rules for society are written down and apply to everyone equally (even those in “power”), or whether they are the whim of those in power.
We should now ask the question “what is the law?” I think there is one book that defines the purpose of government better than any other and that is “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat. This passage from the opening section sums it up very well:
“What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”
What Bastiat is saying is that the only true purpose for the law is to protect individual liberty (and property).
Therefore if government exists to enforce the rule of law, it’s purpose, and it’s ONLY purpose is to protect individual liberty.
But why must that be its only purpose?
The reason this must be the only purpose is because inevitably, in order to advance their own property, power, or ambition, people will use their existing wealth to rent the force of government to achieve their own ends. (I will discuss this in more detail in a later post.)
By limiting it’s purpose we ensure that all humans are equal under the law, and that no one human or group of humans can use the law to abuse or take advantage of others.
This further means that anytime government uses force to do anything contrary to protecting liberty, it is acting in contradiction to its purpose, and is therefore illegitimate.
Understanding the legitimate purpose of government is a huge first step in the journey towards building more quality human connections. Personally, I feel like I can have a much more transparent relationship with people who don’t want to force me to do things I don’t want to do, or prevent me by force from doing things I do want to do.
Next topic (I hope): Authority