Excerpts from “Our Enemy, the State” in Support of the 2024 Summit

The Illusion of Benevolent Governance: Unveiling the State’s Economic Deception

The prevailing economic discourse often serves as a thinly veiled justification for expanding state power. Economists, consciously or unconsciously, morph into political apologists, crafting theories that legitimize the government’s ever-growing reach. This symbiotic relationship between the state and intellectual elites dates back to the very foundations of modern economics. The American Economic Association’s founding document, for instance, explicitly champions the state as an "educational and ethical agency" indispensable for progress, while simultaneously decrying laissez-faire economics as morally unsound. This perspective aligns with the notion that intellectuals, including economists, play a pivotal role in shaping public perception, fostering acceptance of government authority as inherently good and necessary. This orchestrated "bamboozling," as described by Murray Rothbard, obscures the state’s true nature and its potential for exploitation.

Mises’s Qualified Defense of Democracy: A Critical Examination

Ludwig von Mises, a staunch defender of free markets, paradoxically advocated for democracy, not on the grounds of liberty or equality, but as a mechanism for facilitating the division of labor and promoting material well-being. He viewed democracy as a system of self-determination, a means of peacefully transferring power without resorting to violence, thereby safeguarding societal cooperation and economic productivity. However, Mises’s endorsement of democracy was inherently limited. His argument primarily applies to nascent democracies emerging from prior regimes, where the threat of violent power struggles is most acute. It does not adequately address the realities of mature democracies, where protracted political processes often marginalize the influence of the ruled, rendering genuine self-governance elusive. The rise of "commercial democracy," characterized by entrenched political elites and special interests, further erodes the efficacy of popular sovereignty.

The State’s Coercive Origins: Conquest and Confiscation, Not Social Contract

Contrary to the romanticized notion of a social contract, the state’s origins lie in conquest and confiscation, forcefully imposing its authority upon the populace. This historical reality, as articulated by Albert Jay Nock, exposes the state’s fundamental nature as an instrument of economic exploitation, benefiting a privileged ruling caste at the expense of the ruled. This exploitative dynamic, often disguised as cronyism, permeates even seemingly democratic systems. The US Constitution, often touted as a product of voluntary consent, was, in fact, enacted through a carefully orchestrated political maneuver, a "constitutional coup d’état" designed to empower special interest groups. This rigged system, established from the outset, serves to perpetuate the state’s exploitative power. Nock’s insights remain relevant today, reminding us of the inherent dangers posed by unchecked government power.

The Perils of Public Health: A Politicized Tool of Control

The field of public health, ostensibly dedicated to promoting well-being, has become a highly politicized and often unreliable source of information. Its pronouncements frequently lack scientific rigor, serving instead to advance ideological agendas. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly revealed the public health establishment’s propensity for overreach and its disregard for legal constraints. The frustration expressed by figures like Anthony Fauci over judicial challenges to mask mandates exemplifies the authoritarian tendencies within this field. The pandemic exposed the public health establishment’s willingness to prioritize its own authority over individual liberties and sound scientific principles, raising serious concerns about its legitimacy and its potential for abuse.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and the Expropriator-in-Chief: Unveiling the Deficit Deception

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) proponents, such as Stephanie Kelton, argue that government deficits are mere accounting fictions, obscuring the state’s capacity to achieve grand societal goals. They claim that government spending, even when exceeding tax revenue, represents a net benefit to the private sector. However, this argument conveniently ignores the crucial fact that servicing government debt ultimately requires extracting resources from the very same private sector it supposedly benefits, either through taxation or money printing. This process, effectively a form of expropriation, is acknowledged even by MMT proponents, who readily admit the government’s power to commandeer existing market resources. This inherent contradiction within MMT underscores its underlying statism and its potential to exacerbate the very problems it claims to solve.

The Elusive Neutral Rate of Interest: A Smokescreen for Political Manipulation

The concept of the "neutral rate of interest," a theoretical interest rate that neither stimulates nor hinders economic growth, has become a central focus of monetary policy discussions. However, the inherent inability to directly measure this rate in real terms transforms it into a convenient tool for political manipulation. Central banks, like the Federal Reserve, can invoke this elusive concept to justify policies driven by political pressures and the interests of the banking elite, rather than sound economic principles. This highlights the persistent influence of political and special interests on monetary policy, underscoring the need for greater transparency and accountability. The pursuit of the neutral rate serves as a smokescreen, obscuring the true motives behind central bank actions.

Phony Civil Rights and the Weaponization of the State: A Call for Liberty, Not Vengeance

The proliferation of hate speech legislation, often presented as a shield against prejudice, frequently involves double standards and subjective interpretations. The state’s intervention in personal disputes and expressions of preference further erodes individual liberties. These "phony civil rights," as Murray Rothbard termed them, often serve as a pretext for expanding state power and curtailing freedom of expression. The solution lies not in creating more laws, but in dismantling existing ones that infringe upon individual liberties. Emphasis should be placed on voluntary accommodation and peaceful coexistence, fostering a society where differences are resolved through mutual respect and cooperation, rather than through the coercive power of the state.

Prohibition: The Sword of the State and the Perpetuation of Control

Prohibition, the state’s attempt to control or suppress certain behaviors, serves as a potent symbol of its coercive power. By criminalizing specific activities, the state gains a pretext to exert force and control over individuals, effectively dividing the population into "outcasts" and "protected sheep." This dynamic empowers the state, allowing it to punish its enemies and reward its allies, thereby consolidating its authority. As Ludwig von Mises’s theory of progressive interventionism demonstrates, prohibition rarely achieves its intended goals, instead creating new problems and exacerbating existing ones. Prohibition exemplifies the state’s tendency to overreach, ultimately undermining individual liberty and societal well-being.