Hobbes Visits Campus
by Joshua Katz
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that there can never be harmony in a community unless there is a government; some person or group exercising the power to coerce the rest. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out, it is a logical consequence of this view that if 2 men live together, isolated from other people, one of them would have to be the ruler, or else there would be no end to their fighting lest death. This conclusion is obviously ludicrous, and leads one to doubt the truth and rationality of Hobbes’ premise. Yet it seems that our universities have internalized the Hobbesian position and act on it quite readily. How else to explain the spectacle that has been unfolding itself here at Texas A&M ever since Spring Break? A small group of students has spent their days wandering around campus, dressed in suits, shaking hands with other students. Of course, those with whom they shake hands likely ate beside them in some dining hall over the past 4 years and so do not consider it in an honor and a privilege to meet such an unimportant personage, but no matter. These students, who wish to be elected Student Body President, have spent much time assuring us of the crucial differences in their platforms. Candidate A, it seems, favors more student ‘involvement’ while candidate B vigorously opposes this. Hmm, that isn’t quite right. Actually, their platforms are identical. All have "lots of new ideas" for how to spend the mandatory student fees such as "movie nights" and "bowling trips." All favor a more "inclusive" campus, an unusual campaign position at one of the least tolerant campuses in the nation. In fact, all give roughly identical speeches. Many promise things which are entirely outside the scope of power of the Student Body President. One promised to expand meal service options – meal service is provided by an outside vendor. Another promised to institute an additional break during the year – a decision which would be made by the real school president (Robert Gates, by the way, and yes, THAT Gates.) To differentiate themselves, these students plan a number of campaign stunts. They ask other students to stand around campus at all hours holding giant flags. Some candidates are more creative – their staffers hand out copies of the student newspaper – next to the dispenser which holds roughly 1000 additional copies of that same newspaper at no user charge (not "free" of course.) All this activity begs what seems to be a reasonable question – why aren’t these people in class? If they have this much free time, why aren’t they working instead of maxing out their parents’ credit cards? I explained to a campaigner – a diehard supporter of Brian or Bill or someone like that – that I would not support any candidate. It is true, I did endorse a candidate for Vet-Med Senator, but only because I would love to see her picture in the school newspaper on a regular basis. She missed her calling in going to college, she should have been a model. But, back on topic, this campaigner was simply shocked that I "did not care what was done with my mandatory student fees." I responded that I was extremely concerned about my mandatory student fees, and saw there as being two options: Either that money could not be taken from me to support this student government nonsense, or it could be. Since all candidates endorsed the latter option, I saw no reason to care. By the way, it turns out that to become a candidate, a student must submit a number of papers. Once they have done so, they receive a few thousand dollars – paid for by mandatory student fees – to carry on their irritating campaigns. So in a very real sense, the irritation I experience around campus is the primary purpose of the entire student government. Where did people get the stupid idea that, since there are a bunch of students on campus, they ought to elect a president? Maybe they got it from Hobbes, but I doubt many are able to read at that level. Of course, to the government there is great benefit to the existence of such silliness. It gets students used to the idea that all identifiable groups need a Great Leader. The ludicrous nature of the campaign process makes it perfect training for those interested in a career in Parasite Service. I spoke to some of those very interested in the race, and asked them why the heck a bunch of students needed a President. Even most of their standard reasons for having governments didn’t apply here. After all, the Student Body President does not maintain law and order, nor does he order the invasion of neighboring schools or countries. They concurred with what I expected – the students need a President to direct the wise use of the mandatory student fees. Not enough money is paid by this fee to simply fund anyone who wants to do a fun activity, so we need someone to decide what the most fun project is and direct money to that. Suppose my annual fee is $500, and I want to go mountain climbing for $200. I would have had plenty of money to do that, had I not paid my fee. If I ask for funding for this activity, the Wise Leader (usually a student who couldn’t manage to graduate in 4 years) will likely decide that no, that is not really fun. What is fun is a trip to New York to campaign for the Republican Party, so that will be funded instead. Wouldn’t we eliminate the need for such a Wise Leader if we just let students spend money on what they wanted to do? Might this not save me a lot of annoyance for 2 weeks per year, plus also increase total funness (if such is a goal anyway?) No, say our illiterate teachers, this would be too expensive. It boggles the mind that people can believe that spending money on your actual activities is more expensive than pooling all this money, devoting large chunks of it to funding a meaningless election, and then holding regular meetings to decide what to fund. What they mean, of course, is that the private-property idea would be too expensive for them, the people who enjoy partaking of many campus activities. It would not be more expensive to those who prefer things like going to class and working. The present system allows them to live like parasites on the rest of us. If we complain, they respond that it’s our own fault – we should take advantage of those activities too! I eat a strict low-carb diet. I would not take too kindly to a man smashing me over the head, stealing my wallet, and then offering me a loaf of bread which I have paid for. When I refuse this bread, he might respond, in exactly the same manner as these students, that I can’t complain about the theft now – after all, I could have taken some of this thing which I don’t want but which I was forced to pay for. Of course, what makes this statement even more ridiculous is the fact that (one hopes) they can’t really mean it. Of course they realize that if all of us non-activity goers went to every activity, the fees would have to increase to exactly the price of going to all these activities, plus the campaigning fees. On the other hand, maybe they really do believe that costs are reduced in this absurd way. That is a frightening thought. Conclusion
April 1, 2006 Joshua Katz [send him mail] is a graduate student in philosophy at Texas A&M. He has studied philosophy of mind, logic, and epistemology of economics from an Austrian perspective. He holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics, and is presently looking for work after the academic term. He enjoys a glass of port and a wedge of Brie as a way to start his day. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com |
Of
course, university attendance is voluntary, and so I do not oppose
student government in the way that I oppose real government. You
might wonder why I bother commenting on it, then. There are a couple
reasons. First, ‘student government’ can be taken two ways. Not
only does it govern the students, but it also trains future governors.
So, if you want to know who your future enemies will be at any campus,
look to the student government. Second, student government exists
only because students have internalized the various myths and stupidities
regarding politics and economics. At the same time, its very existence
and lack of truly dangerous power gives students a sense of trust
in government, as well as the expectation of a government. Third,
I wish to point to what may be a rewarding line of anti-government
research. The student government is relatively small, with little
lasting bureaucracy due to the tendency of most students to graduate
in 6 years or less. It tends to have short documents, and to lack
good security mechanisms. (Doubtful regarding Texas A&M, of
course.) Therefore, it is quite transparent. That makes it easy
to study. Yet, at the same time, many absurdities and stupidities
regarding real government can be observed in student governments
– it is like a microcosm of the Incompetent State. If we can document
the complete lack of justification for student government, and do
it in a convincing way, those same arguments can, I believe, be
extended in general arguments for anarchy.