National Law University Odisha
Science of Politics
I Dont Need State
Instructor:
Prof. Afroz Aalam
Submitted By:
Shreyansh Sharma (13BA044)
Deepankar Dixit (13BA012)
Kushagra Gupta (13BA022)
Shobhit Ahuja(13BA042)
Introduction
State has always been adulated by statists as the Supreme Being in the Political World. Their
argument is that state is necessary and essential for the survival of humanity, which without it
there will be chaos and conflict. Survival of the fittest will prevail. They argue that state is the
only mechanism protecting the poor from the rich. The weaks exploitation by the stronger
entity. They cannot fathom a world without a state: an entity which demands absolute
obedience to its commands, and punishes severely those who do not. In todays world,
disobeying the commands of a state is almost unthinkable, as any derisive actions towards
state, invites serious contempt. Whats more is, it is a socially acceptable phenomenon, as
people do not really know any other form of living in a society other than under the coercion
of authorities.
By this research, we intend to explore the notion of a world without a state. We will be
looking into the dysfunctions and discrepancies of a state, the development (or regression) of
the ideals of freedom and free will in a world under governmental authorities, and how to
develop alternative mechanisms to the classical idea of a state. We will be analysing how the
state is strengthening as the world progresses and modernizes by looking at recent
developments. We will try to judge by our findings whether a world without state can really
exist or will that idea remain a chimera.
Our studies will be focused on sources already established as authoritative, like reputed
research papers and other academic works such as books and journals, as well as blog articles
and websites.
The questions we will try to address will span a wide spectrum; such as how the existence of
a state is justified, the dysfunctional aspects of state that have inadvertently manifested in the
real world, the disadvantages that having a state imposes on personal freedom and individual
liberty, the various political ideologies which developed as a result of the disillusionment of
various political scientists and philosophers from the statist forms of governance.
Our hypothesis is that the state has failed in its objectives, and has failed to develop itself as a
political organ that can be trusted with the responsibility for regulation of lives of numerous
individuals that inhabit this planet. Instead of improving the conditions of the world and
developing into an ideal system it was visualised to eventually evolve into, it is deteriorating
and becoming more tyrannical by the day; the NSA global spying operation and the recent
revolutions in many middle- eastern countries. As days pass us by, the governments are
becoming more powerful and absolutist, more ruthless in exercising the prerogatives they
have been attributed for the purpose of the welfare of its people. We think the present
situation demands a limitation, or perhaps absolute abolition of the powers of the state as that
would be more suitable to the development and progress of the human race, and development
and implementation of other forms of associations and voluntarily- constituted organisations
to substitute the present system.
What we are trying to do in our research paper is to try and examine whether or not a state is
really needed for the sustainable development of humanity. And through our research we
intend to try to come up with various alternate mechanisms which can be established to
function more efficiently than the contemporary idea of the state. We will try to come up with
the solutions to the problems we encounter in the course of the research. We intend to
examine and scrutinize the various aspects of state, and study it in a more critical light. As
even when you hold something sacred, academic study demands its critical evaluation, as that
only is the medium through which we can debunk myths and see the reality of the situation
and appreciate it.
1.Theoretical justification of having a State
1.1What is State?
The term can be used to refer to a bewildering range of things: a collection of institutions, a
territorial unit, a historical entity, a philosophical idea and so on.1 It is significant that though
some sort of political organization has existed since ancient times , such as Greek city states
and the roman empire yet the concept of State is comparatively modern and owes its origin to
Machiavelli who expressed this idea as power which as authority over men.2 However there
is no accepted definition of State and it has been differently defined by various writers from
time to time3. According to Aristotle The State is a union of families and villages having for
its end perfect and self sufficient life. According to Prof. Sigwick the State is a political
society or community, i.e. a body of human beings deriving its corporate unity from the fact
that its members acknowledge permanent obedience to the same government which
represents the society in any transaction that it may carry on as a body with other political
societies4.
The view of Woodrow Wilson is that the State is a person organized for law within a defined
territory. Bakunin writes the State is not society it is only a historical form of it, as brutal as
it is abstract. It is born historically in all countries of marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in
a word, war and conquest, that the goods successively created by theological fantasy of
nations . It has been from its origin and it remains still at present the divine sanction of brutal
force and triumphant in force, it does not insinuate itself; it does not seek to convert .Even
when it commands what is good it hinders and spoils it just because it commands it.
Max Weber sought to evolve a sociological definition of a State he wrote sociologically the
State cannot be defined in terms of its ends. Ultimately one can define the modern State
sociologically only in terms of specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association
namely the use of physical force.
1 Andrew Heywood,Political Theory An Introduction,75.
2 O.P. Gauba, An introduction to political theory, 132.
3 V.D. Mahajan, Politiccal theory, 133.
4 O.P. Gauba, An introduction to political theory,132.
1.2Conceptual Grounds To Justify State
(A).Theory of divine origin
It is the oldest theory regarding the origin of State.5 According to this theory the State is
established and governed by God himself or by some super human power. 6God may rule the
State directly or in directly through some ruler who is regarded as the agent of the god.
According to Mahabharat there was anarchy in the beginning of the worlds and people prayed
the God to come to their rescue. It was under these circumstances God appointed Manu to
rule over the people. The theory of divine right was used to support the theory of the divine
right of king.7 James 1 king of England supported the theory of divine right of kings in his
book the law of free Monarchies. His view was that kings were kings because God had made
them kings and consequently they were responsible to God alone. They were not responsible
to the people for their acts of omission and commission because they were merely the agents
of God. Even if a king is wicked it means God has sent him as a punishment for peoples sins
and it is unlawful to shake off the burden which god has laid upon them. A bad king will be
judged by God but he must not be judged by his subjects or any human agency for enforcing
the law such as the estates or the courts.8
(B).Theory of force
According to this theory the State was created by force. The State is the result of subjugation
of the weaker by the stronger. It can also be said that war begat the king. History tells us that
great empires were created by generals and war lords. Hume says that it is probable that the
first ascendancy of one man over multitudes began during a State of war, where the
superiority of courage and of genius discovers itself most visibly.
The theory of force has been advocated from time to time by different institutions and
individuals to serve their own ends. The individuals relied upon the principle of survival of
the fittest and argued that it is only the strong who survive and the weak go to the wall. The
view of Karl Marx was that the State was based on force and when the classless society was
5 V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory, 249.
6V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory, 250.
7 Andrew Heywood, Political Theory An introduction, 85.
8 Andrew Heywood, Political Theory An introduction,86.
established it will wither away. The view of Herbert Spencer was that the government is the
offspring of the evil bearing about it the marks of its parentage.9
(C) Social contract theory
The social contract theory is not only the most ancient but also the most famous of all the
theories regarding the origin of the State. 10
The substance of this theory is that the State is the
result of an agreement entered into by men who originally had no governmental
organization11
. In the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Rousseau the theory of
social contract received systematic wide treatment.
Thomas Hobbes
According to Hobbes the human beings are by nature selfish, quarrelsome, wicked,
competitive, coward, they run towards reward and escapes from punishment. The motive of
gain and the wish to satisfy appetite and desires was the motive behind all human action. Man
by nature was anything but social animal. He found nothing but grief in the company of his
fellows12
. The state of nature was a state of war, war of each against all. The life of man was
nasty, bruty, shorty.
The State of nature was ended by the people by entering into a contract. Every man has said
to every other man I authorize and give up my rights of governing myself to this man or
assembly of men on this condition that thou give up my right to him and authorize all his
actions in like manner. It was in this way that the State came into existence. In this contract
State was not a party to the contract but it was the product of the contract. The people cannot
break the contract because it was based on the sentiment of fear. The contract is eternally
binding because to break the terms of the contract is to slip back into the insecure conditions
of the state of the state of nature from which the people had contracted to escape.
John Locke
According to the philosophy of John Locke man by nature is social, altruistic, peaceful,
helpful, rational, equal, he considered human beings as pretty decent fellows far removed
from competitive, quarrelsome, and selfish creatures of Hobbes. Locke believed in the
9 V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory, 251.
10 V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory, 134.
11 Andre Heywood ,Political Theory An Introduction,82.
12 O.P. Gauba, An introduction to political theory, 132.
goodness of human nature. He believes that men are capable of self regulation. They are
rational and social.
According to Locke the individual can live in a moral way even without the state. People
lived in the state of nature. The state of nature was not of war but one of inconvenience. The
reason was that there was standing want of an established law. The law of nature was given
individual interpretation by every individual so there is the possibility that conflicts arise in
thus interpretation so there should be a third party to solve this dispute. If there is no third
party then it would be against the principle of natural justice. In this way State is created as a
third party to resolve the disputes.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
According to Rousseau man by nature is neither social nor anti social, he is a political, a
social, a cultural. Man by nature is a noble savage. 13
He considered the state of nature as an
era of idyllic felicity. Reason did not guide the action of individuals who were moved by
emotions. He wrote that man by nature never think and one who thinks is a corrupt creature.
Every individual has unlimited liberty in the state of nature. There was no private property,
no corruption, no jealously. He know neither right or wrong and was away from all notions of
virtue and vice.
With the passage of time things changed in the state of nature. The increase in population and
dawn of reason were the main reasons for this change14
. The people started thinking in terms
of mine and thine. Human beings has the capacity to improve so the population starts
increasing there was limited number of resources and the people starts innovating so they
start having pride of their innovation and this pride led to competition. Thus appears the
difference of rich and poor. Life became intolerable.
Then by a social contract everyone surrendered to the community all his rights and the result
was that the community became sovereign. The sovereign was absolute. Even after the
contract the individual remained as free he was before. He says since each gives himself up to
all he gives himself up to no one. Law was the expression of general will.15
In this way a
sovereign was created to resolve the disputes.
13
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction To Political Theory, 211. 14
V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory,242. 15
Robert Taylor. Rousseau Social Contract
1.3Alternate Mechanism Of State
(A) Anarchism
The word anarchism is taken from Greek word anarchia which means no rule.16
Florence
Ellioit defines anarchism as a political doctrine advocating the abolition of organized
authority17
. Anarchists say that every government is evil and tyranny18
. They want free
association of individuals, without armed forces, courts, prisons, or written laws. Anarchism
is a principle of life under which society is conceived without government; harmony in such a
society is being obtained not by submission to law or any authority but by free agreements
concluded between various groups. Anarchists believe that political authority in any of its
forms is unnecessary and undesirable. Anarchism means opposition to government based
upon force. It is opposed to the State as the embodiment of the force employed in the
government of the community. Liberty is the supreme goal of anarchist creed and liberty is
sought by the direct road of abolishing all forcible control over the individual by the
community19
.
(B) Libertariainism
It is a philosophy that holds the liberty as a highest political end. It mainly focuses on
individual liberty, voluntary association and political freedom. The libertarians were in the
favor of giving limited rights to the state, they did not talk about the complete abolition of
political government. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any
political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to
voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of
the free market or of communal cooperatives. Libertarian defend the idea of minimal state
i.e. a state limited to the functions of protecting its citizens against violence, theft and fraud
and to the enforcement of contracts.20
In a libertarian view it is not the ends of mans action
16
Murray N Rothbard. Anatomy of State 17
V.D. Mahajan, Political Theory, 728. 18
O.B. Gauba,An Introduction To Political Theory,442. 19
V.D.Mahajan, Political Theory,729. 20
Robert Nozick, Philosophy of Liberty
that count only the means used in serving that ends. Libertarians represent a way of
achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution.
(c) Marxian Philosophy on State
Marx said that the state is neither a natural institution nor an ethical institution .21
According
to the Marx the state is nothing more than a machine for the exploitation and oppression of
one class by another. The edifice of state is rooted in class war. The state is not a natural
institution. He considers state as an instrument of violence22
. The dominant class employs
every instrument to exploit and suppress the dependent class. The military, police, courts,
law, etc. are employed to use violence and force for the good of the dominant class. He
considered the state a temporary institution, after the overthrow of the bourgeoise the state
will have a quasi character.
The Marxian theory of state denounces the democratic character of authority and wants to
substitute it with a new type of democracy called peoples democracy.
2.Is The State going Through the Phase of Legitimacy Crisis
It has been said that human society can neither be well ordered nor prosperous unless it has
some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and devote
themselves as far as necessary to work for the good of all. The founding fathers held the view
that government derives its power from the people and it should be limited by the rights of
the individual23
. The purpose of the government was to maintain law and order, protection
and promotion of well being of its citizens. It is based on the principle of equality of
opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth and public responsibility for those who are
unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions of good life24
and all the tasks which are
taken by government nothing is more important than economic growth25
. The state is
universally considered as an institution of social service.26
It is regarded as necessary means
for achieving the goals of a mankind.
21
V.D.Mahajan, Political Theory,172. 22
Andrew Heywood, Political Theory An Introduction,87. 23
Edvard Younkins. Individual Happiness And Minimal State 24
Wikipedia.Welfare state 25
Doug Bandow. The Role Of Government Promoting Development 26
Murray N Rothbard. Anatomy of State
As Bertrand De Journal has sagely pointed out, through the centuries men have formed
concepts designed to check and limit the exercise of State rule and one after another State
uses his intellectual rubber stamps of legitimacy and virtue to attach to its decree and
actions.27
In Western Europe the concept of divine sovereignty held that the kinks may rule
according to divine law but the kings turned the concept into rubber stamp of divine approval
of an action of the king. Now if we look at present scenario parliament is considered as an
essential element of the State and its every act is considered as totally sovereign.
It is also said that Constitution was designed with checks and balances to limit any one
governmental power and yet had then develop a supreme court with the monopoly of
ultimately interpreting power.28
The role of State is to maintain law and order, providing
education, removing poverty but in present scenario what the State is doing is altogether
different State is curtailing the individual freedom oin every sphere of life whether it is
education, economic interest or what so ever. The purpose of the State is not to help people
either materially or spiritually to pursue their vision of happiness, the proper function of the
State is no more than to provide peoople with the preconditions for their own happiness
pursuing activities.29
A legitimacy crisis is widely perceived to exist on the basis of polls of public attitudes
reflecting a precipitous decline in societal leadership, increasing manifestations of illegal,
anti-social and repressive behavior of policies, and the structural failure of the State to
respond to fundamental human needs.30
If we look at present conditions it is commonly said
that our society is experiencing a crisis of legitimacy. Now the question arises what is crisis?
According to sociology the crisis is a turning point often brought by convergence of events
which create new circumstances threatening establishing goals and requiring action.
The legitimacy crisis is evident in public attitudes which are expressed in a variety of
contexts and most systematically in polls. There is a massive shift towards major political
institutions which is characterized by the dissipation of confidence and the emergence of
diffuse political cynicism; it also includes a perception of selfishness and corruption among
the leadership.
27
Murray N Rothbard. Anatomy Of State 28
Murray N Rothbard. Anatomy Of State 29
Edvard Younkins. Individual happiness and minimal state 30
David O Firedrichs. The Legitimacy Crisis In The United States: A Conceptual Analysis. Sociology Of Political Knowledge (1980) :540-555.
Further if we look at the behavior of people they are doing activities such as riots, protest, the
rising crime rate these may be taken as symptoms and consequences of legitimacy crisis.
Now look at the behavior of political leadership it represents the established policies of
repression and dissatisfaction.
The existence of legitimacy crisis is widely claimed, this crisis is essential perceptual but also
has a behavioral and structural roots. It may be attributed to the conditions of a modern mass
society or to the impact of specific events, leaders and controversies. There has been a slow
but steady erosion in the protection of constitution provides its citizen against arbitrary power
of government. We need to reaffirm the spiritual and political wisdom of our founding fathers
and return to government that is limited to establishing and to enforcing the standards of just
conduct.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM BEING CURTAILED BY THE
INSTITUTIONS
Hobbes is truly putting forth not only two sorts of freedom, common and civil, yet two ideas
of emancipation, outer and inner. His meaning of regular freedom is to the extent that idea as
a thoughtful contention. What he needs to show is the means by which awful the state of
nature is when we every have the outer freedom to do however we see fit31
. When we enter
social order we surrender this emancipation; we are less free yet better for it.32
At the same
time to maintain this refinement, Hobbes needed to contend that things other than outside
impediments restrain liberty as well as force, since laws are not physical obstacles.33
Thus, his dialogue of the freedom of subjects is a critical move from his examination of
characteristic liberty.34
There is no contrast in guideline between the sovereign's sword and
the bandit's weapon, yet Hobbes wishes to say that the dread of one abandons us free and the
different does not.35
It is currently states of brain (interior legitimate ties of the executor),
which influence freedom as well as outside obstructions, and subsequently fear is no more
extended perfect with freedom. Hobbes should attempt to cover this change of position,
generally the entire thought of agreement through trepidation loses its genuineness; as he says
more than once, an automatic contract is not quality.36
31
Barry, Brian. 1972. "Warrenderand His Critics." In Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essayed.
Maurice Cranston and Richards. Peters.New York: Anchor
32 Karatnycky, A. (Summer 2000). The State of Democracy: 2000. American Educator, 24 (2)
33 Hobbes's Theories of FreedomAuthor(s): David van MillSource: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 2
(May, 1995), pp. 443-459
34 http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/burbules/papers/critical.html
35 Liberty, Rights, and Will in Hobbes: A Response to David Van Mill John D. Harman.
36 Supra note. 2
One contemporary example is, The parliament of Uganda yesterday passed the disputable
Public Order Management Bill (POMB) of 2011 which is likewise generally regarded as the
"Anti-Demo Draft Law. The bill looks to manage open gatherings, define the callings and
obligations of the Police and the coordinators and members throughout open gatherings, and
in addition endorse measures for defending open request. 37
This bill when marked by the
president of Uganda will be law and it stipulates that an assembling of three or more
individuals will be illegal. 38
A research by the united nation explained, Research recently conducted by the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Middle East has shown that although the
constitutions of the majority of Middle Eastern countries provide for freedom of expression,
in reality conventional and international (including radio, satellite TV and the Internet) media
remain under a restricted and intimidatory legal, political and security environment. 39
GLOBALIZATION AND THE IDENETITY OF THE STATE
Globalization is construed by the KOF40
score. Globalization can be deciphered by two
criterions:
The KOF index defines economic globalization as long distance flows of goods, capital
and services as well as information and perceptions that accompany market exchanges.41
Globalization is often thought of solely as an economic process: The globalization of
finance, demand, supply, and competition form a series of interlocking currents of global
circulation of information.42
Political Globalization
37
J. S. Mill, On Liberty, chapter i: p. 226 in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson
(Toronto/London, 1981- ), vol. 18
38 http://faruganda.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/bill-to-curtail-freedom-of-assembly-passed-public-order-
management-bill/ 39
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/FreedomofthePressintheMiddleEast.aspx
40 The Kearney index has four dimensions, Economic, Political, Personal and Technology, but Personal and
Technology are best viewed in combination to better compare with the equivalent measures of social in
the other two indices.
41 KOF http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/static/pdf/method_2010.pdf
42 Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2009) p.9
Political globalization accounts for 25% of a countrys overall KOF score. It is measured in
the KOF Index by recording the number of embassies in country, membership in international
organizations, participation in UN Security Council Missions and the number of international
treaties signed by the country since 1945.
Social Globalization
Manfred Steger notes that globalization is also a linguistic and ideological practice43, as
opposed to finding globalization as merely a set of material processes anchored in
economics and technology. It is also reflected in conflicting systems of ideas and claims...that
define, describe, and evaluate the process44
. Ideas spread through social contacts. The KOF
index defines social globalization as the spread of ideas, information, images, and people.45
Social globalization index scores add up to 38% of overall globalization score and take into
account measures that include, tourists, phone calls, internet users, trade in books and
newspapers, international mail, and also includes the per capita number of IKEA stores and
McDonalds restaurants.46 While one can measure directly the cost of a Big Mac in these
countries and count how many are purchased, there is the shared universal experience of
eating at a McDonalds that is harder to both qualify and quantify as a driver of
globalization.47
Likewise, does one purchase a coffee table at IKEA because the prices are so
reasonable, or does having Swedish furniture make one feel more cosmopolitan?
state contracting and the decrease of official regulation figure out the genuine abolishment of
the existing controls for the free development of persons, merchandise, administrations and
capital. As Scholte says, people in general part should arrive at a finish in arranging the
powers of the business in worldwide setting". 48
Also, as per Martin Carnoy and Manuel
Castells, the precise wellspring of globalization has been spoken to by the a free market
system rebuilding process both of the state and companies intended to conquer the mid
43
Steger, M. (2009) p.18
44 Steger, M. (2009) p.ix
45 KOF http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/static/pdf/method_2010.pdf
46 Supra note 11.
47 Ibid.
48 Scholte, J. A. 1993. International Relations of Social Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
1970's emergency.49
This change was significantly liberal in nature: "deregulation,
liberalization, and privatization, both locally, and globally were the institutional foundation
that made ready for new business procedures with the worldwide
Then again, at the worldwide level, globalization speaks to or makes the essential conditions
for the signs of a few substances which disintegrate the universal part of the state as the
single global on-screen character.50
This implies that globalization is connected with an
administration of sway as an aftereffect of the rise of some "new and powerful manifestations
of non- regional financial and political association in the worldwide field, comparable to
multinational enterprises, transnational social developments, global administrative offices,
and so on."51
. As such, worldwide and transnational associations and developments rival the
state52
, creating an emergency of state power; in this way, unwaveringness is exchanged from
the state or social order to the easier or more elevated amount units 53
. Provided that
globalization is a methodology, and some of its principle outcomes might be investigated at
the state level, then, the state itself could be examined from the processual point of view. The
postmodern state is no more extended dependent upon the equalization of force framework
and no more extended underlines the vitality of sway or an acceptable division between
domesticated and outside legislative issues . 54
The postmodern state is a result of
globalization and is one of the performing artists populating the space of "postinternational
legislative issues" .
Today, globalization cutoff points state power and in the meantime redefine its social fringes.
Provided that the established country state suggests the presence of a national group as a
referent, then globalization constrains the state to adjust this edge of reference, national
neighborhoods lose their political representation channel and the following move is spoken to
49 Scholte, J. A. 2000. Globalization. A Critical Introduction. London: Palgrave.
50 Ibid.
51 Smith, D. 2006. Globalization. The Hidden Agenda. Cambridge: Polity Press.
52 Ibid.
53 Rodrick, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
54 Sassen, S. 1996. Losing Control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University
Press.
by the advancement of patriotism against the state.55
Hence, as a regular advancement of the
state "the detachment between country and the state is a crucial process normal for our
chance".56
Without summing this up detachment, we should underline the way that the state
loses its qualities offered by innovation.57
The worldwide economy and the enlightening
insurgency have genuinely reconfigured the central foundations of the legislating courses of
action curious to the cutting edge state and therefore they adjusted two of the focal
characteristics of the current state: sway and region.
In this new force topography, globalization infers no less than "a halfway denationalizing of
national domain and an incomplete movement of a few segments of state sway to different
establishments, from supranational substances to the worldwide capital business" (Sassen
1996: 146). At the end of the day, power and region are moved in other institutional stadiums
outside the state and outside the customary domain system, sway being decentralized and
domain somewhat denationalized. As a consequence of such changes the country state ends
up compelled on one hand by the worldwide market constrains, and then again by the
political objectives of the force shift. Hence, if the business strengths denationalize the
region, the force movement is made setting power in a mixture of institutional enclosures of
the transnational (legitimate) administrations.
In this age, globalization must be comprehended acknowledging the redefinition of the force
relations. In the first place, country states have practically come to be parts of a vaster
example of worldwide progressions and, second, the thought of worldwide governmental
issues underlines the intricacy of the interpenetrations that transcend states and social orders,
adding to them an extensive system of organizations and associations. Inside such a
revolutionary connection the unoriginality of these collaborations may be examined through
the viewpoint which reflects the increase of the worldwide and local captivating examples.
55
Adam Ferguson, Principles of Moral and Political Science, New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1978, vol. II, p. 208 56 Modelski, G. 2008. Globalizations as Evolutionary Process. In: Modelski, G, Tessaleno D. and Thompson, W. R., eds. Globalization as Evolutionary Process. Modeling Global Change. London: Routledge.
57 Supra note 24.
Demerits of State and Contemporary Government:
Most people concur that government as a whole is incompetent, dishonest and disruptive, and
that politicians are liars and unreliable, but they do not attribute any ethical failings to it.
When something clearly bad happens, the defence is "they were just doing their job" is trotted
out. While people are against government, they consider it as a "necessary wrong." They
point to all the "good deeds" that government does, like constructing roads, schools and
vaccination programs, and ignore them, "bad deeds" that government promotes, like war,
genocide, Drugs, and jailing innocents on the basis of a Monopoloid58
and bankrupt
principles of justice.
Certainly the individuals who work for any given government are not wicked in and of
themselves. They may commit wrong actions as part of their work, but they themselves may
be very nice people who wouldn't otherwise think of throbbing another person, and, insofar
as the moral aspect is concerned, probably don't understand what it is exactly that they are
doing. Despite the fact that they support a system that hurts and takes away the freedom of
millions of people on a daily basis, it is not the individuals that we call wrong when we say
"government is wrong." We are, rather, talking about the concept of government and the
belief in government.
Granted, people have varying ideas on which ethics2 one should use to judge actions, and
what is or is not wrong. But even with that in mind, the vast majority of people agree on
some basic ethical principles such as:
1. Killing people without provocation is wrong.
2. Stealing from people is wrong59
.
3. Taking away people's freedom is wrong60
.
There are some exceptions to these principles. Some persons think that the death penalty is
morally permissible since the individual being killed is a criminal and consequently has
58
"Monopoloid" is the adjective of "monopoly." A monopoly holds, by definition, a Monopoloid control over an area. 59
Through so called Taxes. 60
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar. SC. 1983.
forfeited his privileges as an individual. Many people would also be sensitive to a person who
steals out of urgent need. But apart from these particular cases, the vast majority of people
would agree to principles 1 to 3 above. Any system which is premised on61
, and maintained
by, the constant violation of these points is also visibly wrong in nature. For instance, a union
of serial killers doesnt matter how much "good conduct" they perform, would be wrong
because it is based on, and maintained by, a violation of principle 1. The association cannot
breathe without some persons killing other persons, because that is exactly what serial killers
do.
On the other hand, in malpractice cases, a doctor may by mistake kill a patient through
negligence, but we do not call him evil. At worst, we would call him incompetent. The
distinction between both cases is that, in the case of the killers, violating the principles of
morals listed is a systemic62
attribute, while the case of doctors is not.
Freedom is one of the most important aspects of the society which is being violated by the
state as happened in the well known case of Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar63
.
Some of the activities of the government:
War
The dual purpose of war: to boost government's tax base by dominating more land, and to rise
its supremacy base at home. During each and every war in the past you can view a
tremendous expansion of government. Budgets are inflated at an enormous speed, war
profiteers64
make their fortunes, and the normal person loses a deal of money and freedom.
Insurgents and soldiers execute these strategies using deadly force. Sometimes, they slaughter
civilians in order to inflict terror65
. The Iraq war claimed more than 116000 civilian lives66
. It
seems that the only dissimilarity between war and murder is scale. War cannot exist without
61
Premised on: Using as a basis for justification or argumentation, assuming something as true or taking it for
granted. 62
Systemic: Common to a system, integrated within the features of a system. 63
Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar. SC. 1983. 64
Such as military-industrial complex. 65
As done by American soldiers in Iraq. 66
David Blair,Iraq-war-10-years-on-at-least-116000-civilians-killed, The Telegraph, 15 March 2013.
government. Only a government can focus, by slander or force, all the money and manpower
to wage war. The price tag of the wars in Afghan and Iraq could reach as high as 6 trillion
dollars or $75,000 for every house in America67. The 2003 invasion of Iraq has become the
largest longest and most costly use of armed force by U.S.68.
Price tag of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars69
(billions of dollars)
If war is unwanted and wrong, then government must be indicted as permitting this evil to
exist.
All this organizing of war is not a natural but a very complicated process. Particularly in
contemporary nations70
, it could never survive without the State.
The other classes, left to them, have too many necessities and interests and ambitions, to
concern themselves with so expensive and destructive game.71
67
New calculations suggest economic cost of Iraq war much larger than previously recognized, Harvard Gazette, January 8, 2005. 68 Daniel Liberfeld, Theories of Conflict and Iraq War, International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Autumn/Winter 2005) (pp. 1-21) 69
Source: For 2001 to 2008 from Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.org; for 2009, the Budget includes $70 billion in allowances for GWOT; WRL estimates an additional $130 billion will be authorized for spending in 2009 and subsequent years, making the total authorized $200 billion. This graph shows Budget Authority, while the pie on the front is Outlays. 70
Like United States of America, Iraq and India. 71
By Randolph Bourne.
Taxation
"That part of the revenues of a state which is obtained by the compulsory dues and charges
upon its subjects."72
Is there anyone who wants to pay taxes? Hell no. its no secret that nearly everyone don't like
to pay taxes Taxation is involuntary. We do not choose to pay the government and give them
our wealth: they claim it from us on the basis of where we reside, and if we refuse to give,
they use laws and armaments against us. No other institution uses such hard-core tactics. A
continuation of the present plan is little short of downright robbery73
.
The exact definition of extortion, The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of
violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means
to obtain property from someone else with his consent.74
Supporters of taxation generally emphasize that no such rights are injured. They argue that
"theft" must be measured in the background of the system of government in place.75
"Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are
any valuables in ones house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar
questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns."76
If you refuse to pay your taxes, if you do not consent to the government's claim over you,
then the government may perform armed raids on your property, and will threaten you with
harm to your property through politely-worded letters. Taxation, therefore, seems to fit the
definition of extortion approved by the government itself.
The reality is that the government is like a person, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.'
And most, taxes are paid under the force of arms. The government does not, indeed, spring
upon him from the pavement and pointing a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets.
But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and
72
The Encyclopaedia Britannica. 73 Legalised Robbery, the Los Angeles Times, P. National Tax Association. 74
United States Code, Title 18. 75
Anthony E. Parent. "Is the income tax theft?" 76
Murray N. Rothbard. "The Moral Status Of Relations To The State, chapter 24 of The Ethics of Liberty (ISBN 0-8147-7506-3 Humanities Press 1982, New York University Press 1998).
shameful.77
Advocates of taxation say that your tax money goes to noble purposes and that you should be
glad to give in some of your income. But the bitter truth is more than half of income tax
revenues go to military purposes. Taxation is the way by which government centralizes funds
to wage war. Have a look at where your money actually goes.
Total Budget (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
78
If I go around with a gun telling people to surrender part of their earnings for the purposes
which I consider as noble, I would be searching for an eminent lawyer. Extortion is wrong,
and stealing is wrong. Since government cannot breathe without taxation, government is evil.
State courts and police:
The courts and police are universally hailed as essential functions of government. And yet,
for the most part of the history of civilization, they have been outside of the jurisdiction of
government.
The government gains a great deal by doing so. What government gains is the freedom to
impose new, wrong laws on people. Laws that allows crimes when done by government such
as taxation, drafts, taking over whole areas of society and laws that outlaw victimless actions
when done by individuals.
The State's behaviour is violence, and it calls its violence "law"; that of the individual,
crime.79
77
Lysander Spooner 78
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009, Analytical Perspectives (2010). 79
By Max Sterner.
All contemporary governments have taken over the courts and police in order to enforce their
dominance on society. If taking away our freedom to choose the way we want to live, is
unacceptable, then government is also unacceptable.
Infrastructure:
Generally, we think that: "we need government to build roads, to run schools and to stop
crime."
The first thing to keep in mind here is that "government" does not construct roads, run
schools, or stop criminals. Individuals do. And they can do that not considering of who they
work for. Private bridges and roads get built, private security and police forces also stop
criminals and private schools also run. The disparity is that government is a monopoly;
monopolies are not good for consumers as well as for society. Wherever there is a monopoly,
people have less choice, pay twice and get worse service, and everyday stories of corruption
in newspapers.
Corruption:
Though it is not a function of a state but, they do more than what they are being paid for.
Corruption refers to the exercise of public power for private gain. Corruption is government,
whereby a public employ, elected or not, uses his or her position in order to obtain
benefits.80
The U.S. Government Deception
The pie chart under is the government view of the budget. This is a misrepresentation of how income taxes are spent by the U.S. government.
81
80 Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, who cares about corruption?, Palgrave Macmillan Journals, Vol. 37, No. 6, Nov., 2006 81
Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008
The chart depicts the evil of the government. How it misrepresents the fact that only 20% of
funds were used in wars which in reality was 54%.
Some examples from India,
Scandals in India
Scandal Name Year INR
crore Location Persons involved Summary
2012 Indian coal
mining scam 2012 185591.34 nation
Comptroller and Auditor General of India,
the coal ministry, many electricity boards
and private companies
coal blocks allotted, not auctioned, leading
to estimated losses as per the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India.82
Karnataka Wakf
Board Land
Scam8384
2012 200000 Karnataka
Uttar Pradesh
NRHM scam8586 2012 10000
Uttar
Pradesh87 Mayawati88
2G Spectrum
Case89 2010 17600090 national
Nira Radia, A. Raja, M. K. Kanimozhi,
many telecommunications companies
communication bandwidth auctioned for
lower than market value
Uttar Pradesh food
grain case91 2003 35,000 Uttar Pradesh Akhilesh Yadav92, Mayawati93
Food which the government purchased for
poor was instead sold on the open market.
All the great governments of the world... have been mere bands of robbers, who have
associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men. And
their laws, as they have called them, have been only such agreements as they have found it
necessary to enter into, in order to maintain their organizations, and act together in plundering
and enslaving others, and in securing to each his agreed share of the spoils.94
82
"CAG estimates: Our likely loss Rs 38,00,00,00,00,000". Hindustan Times. 17 August 2012. 83
"Now, Rs 2 crore Wakf land scam in Karnataka". Zee News. 27 March 2012. 84
"Wakf Board land scam: Rs 2 crore scam surfaces in Karnataka". IBN Live. 27 March 2012. 85
"NRHM scam: 6 officials booked in accountant's murder". DNA. 86
"NRHM scam: 2 former UP ministers to appear before CBI". The Indian Express. 26 December 2011. 87
"NRHM scam: CBI arrests three in Uttar Pradesh". The Hindu, 6 January 2012. 88
"Mayawati misused funds for rural health: PM". Express Buzz. 89
"CAG's Report". CAG Report, 2013-09-25. 90
"2G case: Loss of Rs 30984 cr due to govt policy". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2013-09-25. 91
"UP Akhilesh govt faces Rs35,000-crore food grain scam heat". India Today. 92
"UP Akhilesh govt faces Rs35,000-crore food grain scam heat". India Today. 93
"Massive food grain scam in Maya's UP". Zee News. 94
By Lysander Spooner.
Developing Alternate Mechanisms to the
Contemporary State
According to Anarchists, Libertarians and other adherents of ideologies advocating no/
limited state, contemporary state has been a deterrent in the wholesome progressive
development of humanity as a whole, as, according to their argument, the states practices
and policies are going in a direction diametrically opposite to what they were meant to be. As
state intervention in more and more spheres of human life increases, the interests of a
common person are forced into the background to make way for ever-strengthening, giant
corporate, capitalist forces and established political forces interests. There are certain natural
rights all human beings are born with which cannot be transgressed by any authority. The
contemporary state has not been taking this in consideration and its policies have perverted to
an extent where the very argument of the statists that State is an ethical institution is being
questioned by the liberal political ideologists. Case in point: the NSA surveillance of the
internet users from major portions of the world.95
This brings up several questions: How
much power should we grant a State to exercise? Is the very existence of State a roadblock in
the way of getting an ideal system to govern ourselves? How do we check such incidents
from ever happening? Are there any alternate mechanisms to remedy these problems and
have better and more efficient structures for governance which give due importance to the up
keeping of natural rights of human beings? How do we check the misappropriation and
misdistribution of resources to ensure that we have a just society where everyone has equal
opportunities and there is minimal conflict? The answering of these questions is of pivotal
importance if we are to come up with any significant solutions to the current crisis we face,
and to make this world a better place, the place it was meant to be. The world that was
promised to us by the zealots of statism and democracy is not visible anywhere on the
horizon. What we see is a totalitarian state intruding in every sphere of life, curbing the
individual freedoms and free will of its citizens, and enforcing dogmatic laws and rules in the
name of maintaining peace, law and order and promising prosperity while supporting and
maintaining the instruments of exploitation. The only way to avoid this situation is to act
95
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/nsa-collects-and-stores-web-history-of-millions-of-users-creates-profiles-of-us-citizens-131002?news=851284
now, contemplating on the best options we have, and treading carefully as to avoid the
mistakes of the past. We dont need more power and domination to have a better system of
governance. What we need is a more co-operative society, without hierarchies, in all spheres
of life, whether they are social, political or economic.96
96
Susan Brown,[The Politics of Individualism], p 106.
Anarchism
Ever reviled, accursed neer understood,
Thou art the grisly terror of our age.
Wreck of all order, cry the multitude,
Art thou, and war and murders endless rage.
O, let them cry. To them that neer have striven
The truth that lies behind a word to find,
To them the words right meaning was not given.
They shall continue blind among the blind. But thou, O word, so clear, so strong, so pure,
Thou sayeth all which I for goal have taken.
I give thee to the future! Thine secure
When each at least unto himself shall waken.
Comes it in sunshine? In the tempests thrill?
I cannot tell- but it the earth shall see!
I am an Anarchist! Wherefore I will
Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!
- John Henry Mackay
These words by the great Anarchist writer and thinker John Henry Mackay convey the
misconceptions people have about Anarchism, and the confidence he has in the anarchist
ideology quite strikingly. The word Anarchy has to it so many derogatory connotations
associated by the statist indoctrination people usually go through due to their living in a
statist world. They take it to mean a complete absence of order, chaos and the reversion back
to primal, olden periods when the world was ruled by the principles of might is right and
survival of the fittest. The Anarchist historian George Woodcocks words are suited for their
sole appropriateness in this situation, "Of the more frivolous is the idea that the anarchist is a
man who throws bombs and wishes to wreak society by violence and terror. That this charge
should be brought against anarchists now, at a time when they are the few people who are not
throwing bombs or assisting bomb throwers, shows a curious purblindness among its
champions." The idea that anarchism has only meanings of chaos and violence was rebutted
long ago by Alexander Berkman when he wrote: I must tell you, first of all, what anarchism
is not. It is not bombs, disorder, or chaos. It is not robbery or murder. It is not a war of each
against all. It is not a return to barbarianism or to the wild state of man. Anarchism is the very
opposite of all that. 97
The Anarchist argument against the state is that it is not the instinct of association that
gives birth to a state, but the instinct of domination.98
Anarchists are against the popular view
that power is the driving force behind the working of the social world. They consider the use
of power to control another human being, who has the same rights and entitlements as every
other human being, as immoral and illegitimate. The freedom of an individual to make his
own life decisions without the states coercion is of utmost importance. According to Peter
Kropotkin, human beings fall into basically two categories.99
There are those of the view that
formal institutions and compulsion and force are required to maintain order in the society.
Another type of people are those of the view that compulsion in the form of state is not
necessary to maintain peace and order in the society, which can be achieved by self-discipline
and mutual help and cooperation. For an Anarchist, authority only means power of coercion
of one person over another.100 An Anarchist advocates the shift of focus from power to
liberty. After all, the ultimate goal that we as humans seek to achieve is that of ultimate
freedom.
A misconception about the Anarchist thought is that it advocates total abolition of all social
structures and organisations. This misconception gives birth to the stereotype that Anarchism
is all about the collapse of all order in society. When in reality many Anarchists accept the
necessity of having social organisations to carry further specific goals. However, these
organisations have to be formed out of their free will and not be imposed on them.101
For an
Anarchist, freedom is not simply a total absence of constraints; it entails responsibility,
97
http://hans-david.blogspot.in/2011/03/defining-anarchism-by-jason-justice.html 98
Bertrand de Jouvenel, On Power (Boston : Beacon Press, 1962), p. 99. 99
Peter Kropotkin, The State: Its Historic Role (London: Freedom Press, 1946), p. 44. 100
Albert Weisbord, The Conquest of Power, I (New York, Covici Friede, Publishers, 1947), 235. 101
Colin Ward, Anarchism as a Theory of Organization, Anarchy, LXII (April 1966)
choice and free and voluntary assumption of social duties and obligations.102
However,
Anarchists fully understand and know that power ultimately leads to corruption and thus
should never be wielded, especially over fellow human beings. Rather, they believe in a
gradual revolution against all forms of injustice, coercion and misuse of power to establish an
Anarchist society.
Liberalism
According to John Hespers, liberalism is a philosophy of personal liberty- the liberty of each
person to live according to his own choices, provided that he does not attempt to coerce
others and thus prevent them from living according to their choices.103 Basically,
libertarians hold liberty, equality and humanitarianism as their primary ideals. And for liberty
to be exemplified in a society, only minimal government is needed according to the
libertarians, as more government usually means interference with personal rights and
privileges.
In a libertarian society, every act and action needs to be done voluntarily. No fixed definition
of liberalism can be given except that it favours individual rights and liberties over other
things. Liberalism is based on the belief that human beings are valuable and have great
potential to do well. It advocates the freedom of an individual without any restrictions unless
the individuals freedom infringes on anothers.104 Increasing an individuals liberty and
freedom in all spheres, whether it be social, economic or political, is one of the major
principles of liberalism.105
As William Beveridge said: Liberty means more than freedom
from the arbitrary power of Governments. It means freedom from economic servitude to
Want and Squalor and other social evils; it means freedom from arbitrary power in any form.
A starving man is not free, because till he is fed, he cannot have a thought for anything but
how to meet his urgent physical needs; he is reduced from a man to an animal. A man who
102
George Molnar, Conflicting Strains in Anarchist Thought, Anarchy, IV (June, 1961), 121. 103
John Hospers, Libertarianism (Los Angeles, 1971), p. 5. 104
Ramsay Muir, Liberal Party (Encyclopedia Britannica)Vol. 15 105
L.T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (New York: Henry, Holt and Co., 1911)
dare not resent what he feels to be an injustice from an employer or a foreman, lest they
condemn him to chronic unemployment, is not free.106
Liberalism favours scientific inquiry and freedom of thought to achieve its goals. It
advocates the bringing about of such a society not through bloody struggles,107
but through
gradual changes and improvements. Liberalism is not rigid in the sense that it does not
believe that there is only one path to achieving liberty and equality of opportunity.108
Socialism
Socialism developed as an antithesis to liberalism, in the sense that while liberalism focused
on individual liberty and freedom, socialism focused on the collective identity of a society,
and emphasised on achieving designated goals through mutual cooperation.109
The Marxist
view is that as capitalism becomes more and more outmoded and thus results in the alienation
of the working class from the modes of production. This would lead to the development of a
class consciousness.110
This would lead to class struggle and eventually the capitalist class
will be overthrown. An egalitarian society will be established and the government which
supported such an exploitative system as capitalism would gradually wither away. A new
system of community governance will be formed which may be called socialism. It is of the
view that humans are essentially social animals and it is in their nature to cooperate and work
together.
Marxism is of the view that it is impossible to isolate matter and thought. The theory of
surplus value is of great importance to the socialist economics. In a capitalist world, the only
element responsible for production of goods and services, labour, has its value determined by
the market conditions. Here, as workers increase in number, their wage-values decrease and
106
Sir William Beveridge, Why I Am A Liberal (London: Herbert Jenkins, Limited, 1945), p.9. 107
Morris R. Cohen, The Faith of a Liberal(New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1946). 108
John Dewey, Liberalism and Social Action (New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1935) 109
Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, Margaret Jacob, James R. Jacob. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society From 1600, Volume 2. Ninth Edition. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2009. p. 540. 110
Comparing Economic Systems in the Twenty-First Century, 2003, by Gregory and Stuart. p. 62, Marx's Theory of Change.
their lives grow more miserable as their exploitation by the capitalists increase.111
Its basic
mission is the emancipation of land and industrial capital from different forms of private
ownership, and entrusting them to the community as a whole.112
This redistribution of
resources will eventually lead to the formation of an egalitarian society where everyone has
equal opportunities.
111
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory(Macmillan Publishers India Ltd., 2010) 112
O.P. Gauba, An Introduction to Political Theory(Macmillan Publishers India Ltd., 2010)
Conclusion
Through this research, we come to the conclusion that the state as an ideal has not manifested
itself as gracefully in pragmatics. It has mutated into something very different than what it
was supposed to be. Its purpose remains unfulfilled, and its return to the path of welfare and
good administration rendered impossible. The tyrannical monster that the state has become, it
needs to be controlled, or slayed outright. We see in our findings how state is a deeply flawed
and corrupt institution. We see how it prioritises war and conflict to a ridiculous extent,
shifting its focus from more important aspects instead, like the nutrition and prosperity of its
people. We also see how the law sometimes runs contrary to justice, and how the instruments
of state (police, courts, etc.) are corruptible and can be used to exploit and extort the very
people they are sworn to protect and serve. The state, we find, is becoming the single most
intimidating looming threat on the horizon against individual freedom, liberty and rights. It is
becoming a garb to legitimise all the evil the state is purporting on its people. Therefore, we
feel the need for the development of alternate mechanisms and their substitution and
implementation as soon as it is feasible.
Top Related