Progress pill
Freedom or Power

Murray Rothbard: State versus Society

A Philosophical History of Freedom

Murray Rothbard: State versus Society

  • The State as a Parasite
  • The Failure of Attempts to Limit the State
  • The 20th Century: A Century of Retreat
In the last chapter of Anatomy of the State (translated into French as L’anatomie de l’Etat, by Résurgence editions), Murray Rothbard proposes a theory of history. This very short chapter is titled 'History: A Race Between State Power and Social Power.' According to Rothbard, history can be understood as a perpetual conflict between two fundamental principles:
  • Peaceful cooperation and production, which represent voluntary exchange and the creation of wealth through labor and innovation.
  • Coercive exploitation and predation, embodied by the domination of the State, which appropriates the fruits of individuals' labor by force.
Referring to Albert J. Nock, Rothbard uses the terms "social power" and "state power" to designate these two opposing forces:
  • Social power emerges from the cooperation and ingenuity of free individuals, leading to economic progress and prosperity. It is a power over nature, the creative capacity of man to transform nature into resources and knowledge, for the collective good of society.
  • State power is imposed through coercion and violence, seeking to control and exploit society for its benefit. It is a power exercised over man. It consists of "draining the fruits of society for the benefit of non-productive (in fact, anti-productive) leaders."

The State as a Parasite

Rothbard considers the State as a parasite that lives at the expense of the productive society. It seizes "command posts" strategically to appropriate wealth and power. Monopoly of force, justice, education, and infrastructure. And he adds, "In the modern economy, money is the essential command post." For Rothbard, the principle of freedom should also apply to money. If we are in favor of liberty in other sectors, if we want to protect property and the person against the intrusion of the State, our most urgent task must be to explore the possibility of a free money market. (See on this point his essay: State, What Have You Done with Our Money? Translation by Stéphane Couvreur for the Institut Coppet, 2011).

The Failure of Attempts to Limit the State

Rothbard warns against the idea that written constitutions, by themselves, could guarantee freedom and the limitation of power:
The last centuries were times when men tried to impose constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, like all other attempts, had failed. Of all the many forms that regimes took over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that were tried, none succeeded in keeping the State under control.
A written constitution certainly has many advantages, but it is a serious mistake to assume that it would be sufficient. Indeed, the majority party, with its power, can adopt an extensive interpretation to increase its power. Without concrete mechanisms to enforce rights and faced with a dominant party determined to extend its power, constitutions risk becoming ineffective, misleading tools.

The 20th Century: A Century of Retreat

According to Rothbard, history is not a linear process, but rather an oscillation between the advancement of social power and the resurgence of control by the State:
  • Periods of freedom: when social power flourishes, freedom, peace, and prosperity increase.
  • Periods of state domination: when the State gains the upper hand, leading to oppression, war, and regression.
Between the 17th and 19th centuries, in many Western countries, there were periods of accelerated social progress and a corresponding increase in freedom, peace, and material well-being. But Rothbard reminds us that the 20th century was marked by a resurgence of State power, with dire consequences: an increase in slavery, war, and destruction.
During this century, the human race faces, once again, the virulent reign of the State; the State now armed with the creative power of man, confiscated and perverted for its ends. What is a free society, after all? It's a society without a monopoly. In his work of political philosophy, Ethics of Liberty (1982), Rothbard answers: "a society in which there is no legal possibility of coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual." This is why, according to him, political philosophy, which must define the principles of a just society, boils down to one single question: "Who legitimately owns what?"
For Rothbard, social order can prevail if it is the product of the generalization of contractual procedures for the free exchange of property rights, achieved by privatizing all economic activities and even sovereign functions (such as central banks and courts), and by resorting to competition among protection agencies.
And he adds:
We have now tasted all the variants of statism, and they have all failed. Throughout the Western world at the beginning of the 20th century, business leaders, politicians, and intellectuals began to advocate for a "new" mixed economy system, characterized by state domination, in place of the relative laissez-faire of the previous century. New panaceas, attractive at first glance, like socialism, the corporatist state, the Welfare-Warfare state, etc., have been tried and all have manifestly failed. The arguments in favor of socialism and state planning now appear as pleas for an aged, exhausted, and failed system. What is left to try but freedom? (Ethics of Liberty)
Quiz
Quiz1/5
What is the definition of social power given by Rothbard?