Why Do We Give Government A Safe Haven For Initiating Violence Against The People?

{Editor’s Note: This is the 23rd installment of a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the previous installment, "Why Is It Claimed That If People Don't Care Of Their Needs, Government Can Do It For Them?"}By far one of the most difficult concepts to get through to others when discussing libertarianism is the idea that the State uses a monopoly on violence in order to do well, just about anything it does.  As I discussed in my post about the concept of patriotism, we have all been indoctrinated from a young to associate the State with ourselves. Likewise, most people don't see themselves as committing violence upon others, therefore it is very difficult for them to concede that the State with which they associate themselves does so.In his epic article Anatomy of the State, which I can rarely go an article without referencing, Murray Rothbard defines the State as:

that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area

I went into detail about the problems with the State's monopoly on the legal system in my series on anarcho-capitalism.  Even the most ardent advocates of  free markets will usually still default to the idea that the State must have a monopoly on legal and defense services.  But what we really do when we give the State a monopoly on legal and defense services is that we give the State a monopoly on violence.  Giving the State a monopoly in these areas essentially provides it a safe haven from bearing any repercussions from it's own violence.  If an agent of the State, be it a a police officer or soldier, commits an aggressive violent act against another person, they are not held to account in the way that the common citizen would be.  If a civilian shoots innocent civilians in the U.S., they are rightfully subject to being punished to the full extent of the law.  If a soldier shoots up a village in Iraq, it is called "collateral damage" and generally ignored by the people.Giving the State a monopoly on violence makes about as much sense as giving The State a monopoly on shoes and allowing them dictate the make, size and cost of all shoes in a society.  And if the State had always had this monopoly, it might be difficult to convince them that the market could, in fact, provide the shoes they desire."BUT THAT's DIFFERENT! Even if you're silly shoes example were true, it's just SHOES. We can't trust that crazy free market with the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE COURTS AND THE MILITARY...STUPID ANARCHIST".Well Imaginary Statist Contrarian Voice In My Head, it's nice to see YOU TOO. I would make several points to counter this, the first of which being, that shoes ARE pretty darn important. Nearly everyone I know wears shoes every single day, and would likely develop serious medical issues if they had to walk around in Government Shoes all day. Secondly, I would agree that courts and defense are extremely important, perhaps as important as shoes, and that is exactly why we should not accept a government monopoly on these services any more than we do shoes.In the shoe analogy, almost every logical person will agree the government should not have a monopoly on the production of shoes. This is because there are all different types of shoes for all different types of feet, and only free enterprise can supply the abundance and variety demanded by the market.  Why should we view courts and military defense any differently? There are all different types of court cases, and all different types of situations where defense might be required.  But when we cede this regulation to the government, which has a monopoly on force over the geographical area in which we live, all of the advantages the diversity of the marketplace would provide are gone.I've discussed at length how these services could be provided in the absence of a State. But how do we even get there? First, the people en masse must recognize the State for what it is.Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating violence against the people?The government is able to enjoy a safe haven for initiating violence against the people simply because the people allow it. As French political philosopher Etienne de la Boettie believed, all governments ultimately exist at the  will of the masses.  The main reason people accept this is because the violence is hidden.  People see paying taxes as honoring some sort of mysterious "Social Contract" , and not for what it truly is: extortion through the threat of violence.  When you point this out most people will think you are nuts. They will say "well that's just crazy, and that rarely actually happens".And it's true that it is somewhat rare for the goverment to show up at someone's house the when they don't pay their taxes with guns demanding money.  But ultimately that is what will happen to anyone who refuses.  If I decide not to pay my taxes, I will be levied fines and the State will demand that I pay. If I refuse to comply eventually men with guns will show up at my house and forcibly take me away to put me in a cage to live out the rest of my existence. And if I refuse to go with them and defend myself against their violent aggression upon my body, violence will be inflicted upon me. And it will all be perfectly "legal".   The reason that it "rarely goes that far ", is quite simply because the vast majority of people will give in to the threat of violence before it ever comes to that. But does that make it any less violent of an act?Let's say I am walking in an alley in the middle of the night, as I'm often known to do,  and I am stopped by a mugger holding a gun demanding that I give up the money. Valuing the continuation of my life, I decide to give the mugger my money. He takes it and goes about his merry way. Now most people would agree that I only gave up my money due to the threat of violence from the mugger, and that due to this threat the action of handing over my money to him was in no way voluntary.  And yet the government does the same thing - only it's even worse.  Not only are we threatened with jail time if we don't pay, but we have to disclose all sorts of personal financial information to the government in the process. And just like I dneid with the imaginary mugger, most people will comply with the Government Mugger. Not because they see it as some sort of moral duty; but simply because the alternative is becoming the victim of State violence.Rothbard,  when discussing private roads,  mentions how people often have trouble grasping the idea of a service being provided in a different way simply because they aren't used to it. Most people think it's just absolutely cray cray that anyone but the government should be responsible for building roads.  There is no logical reason for this, however they simply believe because it is just the way it has always been. Why shake up the apple cart?And if you think the idea of the free market providing roads is difficult to convey, just wait until you try to explain the ideas of private courts or military defense to a happily indoctrinated Statist.  You likely won't even be able to get another  word in once they realize what a raving anarchist lunatic you must be.  Expect plenty of dropped jaws and blank stares in your future if you choose to make these arguments.What's the solution then? Well it certainly isn't a simple one. We may be getting repetitive here, but the oft-repeated axiom remains true: we will only see a more free society when the people, on a large scale, begin to better understand the ideas of freedom and see government for the monopoly on force that it is. Maybe start by pointing them to this article! At which point they will hopefully make it to this final paragraph, and perhaps even watch the below video on the philosophy of liberty!Keep spreading the message folks.  A good place to start in changing others is helping them to recognize the State for the violent monopoly that it is. The Lions of Liberty were all ardent supporters of the State at one point in our lives, so there is hope for everyone!                              Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!