The State Is Too Dangerous to Tolerate


Paul's picture

Higgs argues here against his own earlier point, that panarchy is the solution. The state actually must be tolerated, at least in the short and middle term. It's not like we have a choice in the matter.

Samarami's picture

"The State" is an abstraction. It does not exist. People exist.

    "The state is the central abstraction by which a catastrophically wrong idea is placed into practice. It is the organized system for employing violent action (or its threat) on the part of individuals, for as noted before, only individuals act. This rationalization occurs on two levels, first by diffusing responsibility to a fiction and second by inducing a group-think inversion of standards".

    ~David Calderwood, "A Demon In Need of Extraction"

Same with "panarchy" -- who's going to be in charge of "panarchy"? Who's going to rise "it" up and sustain "it"?

Dr. Higgs, like so many libertarian writers and speakers, is eloquent and brings to light many, many ideas each of us can use to acquire personal liberty and freedom for ourselves and for those we influence. I truly admire Robert Higgs and his writings and lectures.

But he still basks in the language of servitude by talking of "The State" as a living, breathing entity that can actually have power and control beyond that granted by those who accept the propaganda promulgated by the psychopaths that make that abstraction up.