The State, A Singularity

The State a singularity? How so? And what does “singularity” mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary it means “the fact of being singular” and singular means “single, unique”. The word singularity is derived from the Latin “singularitas” and this amounts to uniqueness, anomaly, outlandishness. And that`s exactly what the State, every state, is! It`s a unique phenomenon as it is the sole entity on this planet that:

1. originated from violent crime


2. exclusively, permanently, and constantly commits violent crimes


3. cannot survive without committing violent crimes[amazon asin=0990463109&template=*lrc ad (right)]

Without exaggerating the State therefore can be characterized as institutionalized violent crime. No other person or institution on this planet even comes close. Astonishingly, despite its morally perverted character, the overwhelming majority of the people love the State, take it for granted, regard it as necessary, or simply accept it with a shrug as some kind of natural phenomenon, while simultaneously utterly critizising criminal behavior by individuals and corporations and stridently calling for prosecution – amusingly by the country`s biggest criminal, the State. This obviously must be understood as some kind of global schizophrenia.

1. That on the first stages of its formation the State was created solely from violence, coercion, and predation has already most reasonably been established by Prof. Franz Oppenheimer. The State is a societal institution which was imposed by a victorious group of people with the only purpose of securing the rule of the conquerors over the defeated and safeguarding it against internal uprisings and external attacks. And the rule had no other objective than the economic exploitation of the defeated by the victorious (Oppenheimer, Der Staat, 3rd Edition [German], 1929, p.15). This is still true today, considering the citizens` forced tribute payments under such trivializing and obfuscatory terms like taxes, duties, and contributions.[amazon asin=0974925381&template=*lrc ad (right)]

2. That the State exclusively, permanently, and constantly commits violent crimes already reveals itself with little intellectual effort from the laws made by the State itself, which of course only apply to the inferior subjects and not to the godlike State, sitting enthroned above everyone and everything.

The State commits murder and manslaughter, e.g. by the unprovoked, not justified by self-defense, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It deprives the individuals being at its mercy of heir freedom (= puts them in jail) if they don`t pay the imposed tributes (= taxes) or otherwise don`t do exactly what it requests in its self-made laws. It collects the demanded tribute (= taxes) by violence or threat of violence (extortion under threat of force). The State keeps some of the loot from its extortion for itself and distributes the rest to his bureaucrats and minions (money laundering and concealment of unlawfully obtained assets). To stealthily and unnoticedly expropriate its subjects the State produces bank notes which are no money and which don`t possess any underlying real asset value (counterfeiting and fraud). This list could be continued almost infinitely.[amazon asin=1500844764&template=*lrc ad (right)]

To these facts the alleged intellectuals object (“alleged” because intellectual essentially means that someone has the ability to apprehend and perceive) that the State`s laws permit the actions of the State and its bureaucrats and that the laws were made by representatives which were elected by the people. This of course is incredible idiocy and has always been used as a foolish excuse to justify state atrocities in which oneself participated or still participates energetically. Voters can only confer such rights upon their representatives which they themselves possess. But no voter has the right to coerce his neighbor at gunpoint to hand over his money or to kill someone who didn`t attack first. Hence no representative can have got these rights transferred to him. And consequently no riotous assembly of representatives (“parliament”) can enact any law justifying robbery and murder if committed by the State. That state laws can neither morally-ethically nor according to (natural) law create authorities for the State already follows from the efforts all states have pursued and still pursue for presenting some basic justification for their arbitrarily created rules and authorities, be it from divine counsel or from the democratic procedure which superseded it in modern times.

The Fifth Commandment reads: “Thou shalt not kill” and not something like “Thou shalt not kill except by order of a state”. And the [amazon asin=B00N59J5BS&template=*lrc ad (right)]Seventh Commandment says: “Thou shalt not steal” and not “Thou shalt not steal unless justified by majority decision”. The laws the State begets are solely meant to safeguard its power derived from its monopoly on the use of force and its fiscal monopoly. Thus, in reality these laws signify what already Frédéric Bastiat astutely perceived: “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” The tax evaders who, conducive to the State and well-covered by the media, fake remorse and call for tax-honesty, are a nice illustration, as well as the explanation for the military`s murder missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as defending America “over there”. For the politicians no explanation is too foolish not to present to the people as a justification for the State`s criminal behavior – and the people are foolish enough to take each and every of these explanations at face value.

And then there are the so-called minarchists who want to reduce the State`s scope and limit its enforcement powers but don`t intend to abandon it altogether (“laisser-faire regimen”) – an especially distinctive form of schizophrenia. For the minarchists it`s intolerable [amazon asin=1610161920&template=*lrc ad (right)][amazon asin=B005S28ZES&template=*lrc ad (right)]that the State kills millions of people, but a few thousands are okay. For minarchists it`s not acceptable that the State extorts billions of taxes from its subjects but there are no objections to a few hundred millions. While regarding the serious-crime state-lovers with disgust they themselves fancy being on the morally safe side as petty-crime state-lovers. This conception makes nonsense of itself as it isn`t able to reason what a less sprawling criminal behavior could possibly change with regard to the fact of the persistent and intrinsic state delinquency and its amorality. Ask the victims of the smaller minarchist state if they feel that this kind of state is quite alright.

3. That the State cannot survive without permanently committing violent crimes already follows from a simplethought experiment: if you take away the State`s possibility for the monopolized use of force, it immediately collapses as it is no longer able to finance itself by violence or threat of violence. It then simply cannot fund its favored groups (big corporations, banks, pressure groups etc.) and its own bureaucracy (pretentiously called “public servants”) any more. This means: a state without violence is neither possible nor imaginable.

The term “public servant” for the bureaucrats is deceptive as in reality they do not serve the public. They solely serve the State and not its subjects and therefore should be called “state servants”. The State depends on them for its survival. They implement what the state-owners determined. Without these willing agents who don`t consider themselves too good for leaving any ethics at the latest in the cloakroom when entering the State`s service as a quid pro quo for getting a fixed monthly salary from robbed loot, the State wouldn`t be able to act. This firmly proves the corrupt basic attitude of these state servants.

But who are those bureaucrats anyway? Themselves criminals! Every state of course recruits and only can recruit criminals for executing its dirty job because morally superior people would never work for a racket. The State and its bureaucrats are both parasites living on other people`s productivity. Their essential principle of action – might makes right – is almost identical. And their chief objective, to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area, is congruent (Justin Raimondo). Therefore you won`t find morally decent people in state service, at best some desperately pretending to be – and professionally at most second-rate individuals. For who works voluntarily for a gang of criminals which pays his fixed monthly salary from robbed loot? Now, there are those gullible men who believe that criminal attitude cannot be ascribed to every bureaucrat or even to the majority of bureaucrats. But that`s an indefensible position. On the contrary, one must ascribe criminal attitude and this accusation is well-founded. The State procures its funds by predation and extortion. This knows every bureaucrat, even if maybe he doesn`t like to admit this perception to himself or suppresses his conscience. Should he actually not know, then ignorance is no excuse against moral and (natural law) legal liability. The bureaucrats subsist on part of the State`s loot, the rest becomes redistributed to the State`s minions. In that the bureaucrats assist energetically. This in the State`s own, self-invented legal terminology is called complicity, aiding and abetting, fencing, money laundering, and concealment of unlawfully obtained assets. Everybody working for the State participates in it and all participants are (co-) responsible.

There are more than a few opining that the State also does good and useful work. On the one hand – they say – it provides protection against external enemies and internal criminals. On the other hand it applies the monies from the taxes it collects to social purposes. But, whoever justifies the existence of the State, pointing to its protective function domestic and against foreign enemies, shows that he hasn`t conceived the causation why the State accepted this function in the first place. The protective function is a duty assumed by the ruling class on behalf of safeguarding their sovereign rights and revenues. The State doesn`t come into existence because of its protective function, instead the protective function arises on behalf of the already existing state (Oppenheimer, loc. cit., p.13). The State provides protection not for the sake of its subjects but only in its own interest, i.e. for himself. As regards the State`s alleged social attitude there immediately arises a serious moral question. If I take away $1,000 at gunpoint from my neighbor and then pass on $100 to a needy old woman so she doesn`t starve, is my action towards my neighbor then legally – based on natural rights – and morally justified? Of course not! To begin with, it`s without doubt easy being generous when I don`t have to work for my money but only need to threaten somebody with my gun. Moreover, my social support of a needy doesn`t change anything with the criminal wrongs of my preceding act. Otherwise every bank robber would have to get out scot-free if he directed a small part of his loot to social purposes. And if the State indeed rendered useful services why doesn`t it meet the challenge of competing with it on the free market, without any coercion? Quite simply because the State knows exactly how many people would make use of its services if they had free choice: almost nobody. If the State were sure of offering a valuable good or a useful service for a competitive price, would it then have to convince its “customers” at gunpoint to purchase these goods and services? Of course not! But that`s exactly what the State does when “offering” its services, knowing quite well that otherwise almost nobody would “buy”.

And yet others believe that the State`s existence and actions are justified by a social contract with its subjects, articled in the constitution. This opinion is nothing but crude nonsense, circulated by the usual state-funded state apologists. I know of not one single state having come into existence by voluntary agreement between all individuals concerned. The State did neither arise out of the need for association (Plato) nor is it a natural construct (Aristotle) nor did it develop to end the war of all against all (Hobbes) nor did it emerge by virtue of a social contract (Grotius, Spinoza, Locke, Rousseau), but by violence and conquest (Oppenheimer, loc. cit., pp.13, 14).

The State really is a singular phenomenon. Murray Rothbard stated quite rightly that with the exception of the State all other persons and groups in society – save for acknowledged and sporadic criminals such as thieves and bank robbers – obtain their income by voluntary exchange of goods and services. Only the State “earns” its revenue by coercion, threatening dire penalties should tribute – known under the term “taxes” – not be paid. Taxes are simply extortion under threat of force to the greatest conceivable extent, an extent of which an ordinary criminal can only dream. Taxes are the forced confiscation of the State inhabitants` property. And one might add the following: Even the acknowledged and sporadic criminal is in a morally better position than the State. For if you take away the possibility of use of force from an individual or a corporation, still the individual or the corporation remains. And they then, without using force, still can do a lot of good: produce commodities, offer services, help other people in need and much more. The State by contrast, without resort to violence, couldn`t do any of this good because he would not be able to finance itself and its supporters/bureaucrats without coercion any longer and would immediately cease to exist. This leaves only one morally correct decision: the State must be abolished.