Theme: Institution

ANTI-STATISM. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON”T THINK SO.

Hmmm … This is an angle I haven’t worked on enough, which is disambiguating the state (assets and bureaucracy), government (leadership), authority (rule of law and market polity vs authority and directed polity). Because it’s not whether we have a state or government or authority but whether we have rule of law or arbitrary rule (Rule by discretion). Plato’s vision and Sparta’s vision were different only in details. Fundamentally, in both, the majority ‘unwashed’ needed rule. The church the same. The feudal fiefs the same (true). In the monarchies the people only needed order because the middle class had begun to evolve and commerce creates order by incentives thereby eliminating the need for intervention by rulers. The enlightenment sought a majority middle class where all of us were governed by incentives in the market. The industrial revolution tried to reverse it, under Marx putting labor in position of authority rather than the market, and the vast increase in the underclasses continued that expansion.

So when we say we are anti-state, or anti-governmnet this isn’t really true. it’s that we need a state and need a government, sufficient to preserve the largest middle class (market participants) possible, with the optimum common possible.

And the only way to do that is rule of law and eugenics. And eugenics requires either embodiment in law, or the unfettered consequences of the market. So embodiment in the law is preferable solution because it is a moral solution that trades non-reproduction, for subsidy.