The existence of government consistently presents itself as the common denominator of the most heinous abuses.
Wherein people find themselves in discussions of contemporary politic, the dyadic will often times boil down to an exchange of rhetoric which is functionally the same, only differing in application, but not substantive causality.
Moreover, the discussion typically remains a debate over the usage of the machinery of the state, daring not to broach the ever so sensitive subject as to why that machinery exists in the first place.
For example, the leftist and the rightist may disagree on the uses of one’s taxes, with the leftist supporting a tax policy that allocates funds towards healthcare and education, while the rightist conversely supports a distribution of funds towards a strengthened military and law enforcement apparatus.
Both may disagree over the particulars, but both remain unified in the concept of using the machinery of the state, through it’s legislative and enforcement arms, to coercively extract wealth from their fellow countrymen without their consent, under threat of violence from the state apparatus should they refuse, to fund the continuity of state institutions.
On the complexity of their individual purview, surely each believes their intentions to be right and just, rooted in altruistic desires to improve the quality of life not only for themselves but their fellow countrymen. Overall health, robust security, etcetera.
Certainly noble intentions, though the folly, however, comes from the inevitable coercive use of force and loss of individual autonomy inherent to the nature of consolidated bureaucracy. With the centralization of powers comes the lack of accountability.
The unscientific and abusive restrictions established during the covid era, or the excessive brutalities of militarized policing, neither of which have been proven effective, are just two recent real world examples.
Yet still, proponents of these measures will assert them to be necessary, woefully ignoring their ineffectiveness, because they have been convinced by the ever effective propaganda machine of consolidated media working at the behest of social engineers that such infringements are are only exerted for the greater good of the collective, and thus justifiable.
This is collectivist ideology in a nutshell, statist ideology more broadly, centralizing an authority which no one has actually given informed consent to into the hands of a small entrenched bureaucracy so that the few make decisions on behalf of the many.
It is important not to establish a mythological status to the nature of “the state”, as if it were some omnipotent entity, a fearsome titan whose name shouldn’t be mentioned above a whisper. The existence of the state in reality is merely a collection of systems and institutions administered by regular people, no different than you or I, held together by the fragile belief that they, for some unknown reason, ought to exert control over the lives of others.
That so many people have submitted to this concept which is no more than a fantasy is astonishing. That it has lasted as long as it has as the primary means of societal organization, even more so.
If we look at the last 6,000 plus years of human development, with all of our vast technological innovations and advancements in areas of philosophy, science and so on, it should be considered loathsome and abhorrent that our civilization has continued to perpetuate the same archaic standards of societal organization and management as our primitive hominid ancestors.
When one observes history, what has statism gotten us? When we look at the earliest civilizations of Mesopotamia, the city-states and empires of the classical world, the kingdoms of the middle ages, the democracies of the enlightenment, one thing is constant — in every example a minority group suffers under the oppression of the majority.
Whether it be slavery, conquest, poverty, or serfdom, established hierarchical class structure of the state results in inequity and exploitation.
Let us take a look at some historical examples from the United States, and properly contextualize these moments in history.
The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, the establishment of civil rights, and marriage equality.
Each of these instances are seen as great victories against injustice, but we are required to ask what initiated these injustices? It is not human nature to engage in such mistreatments of your fellow man. We are not born advocating for slavery, or inequality, or to cause suffering to others. These are circumstances afflicted by the institutionalized standards and systemic norms of collectivist bureaucracy and consolidated power.
The state did not end slavery, the state, or more specifically the ideologies of imperialism and colonialism as derivatives of the authoritarian nature of statism, was the cause of chattel slavery which the people then organized to end. The state did not grant women or people of color or the LGBTQIA+ community equal footing under the law, it was the state that restricted these things from them in the first place.
In a society that respects self-determination as a natural right, and subsequently the universal nature of consent and voluntary cooperation, such blights would not exist.
Whether we apply these principles to black and gray markets, the drug war, sex work, or any other number of supposedly elicit engagements, the principal remains that so long as exchanges remain voluntary and all participating parties consensual, there is no justifiable reason that such interactions are restricted or otherwise prohibited.
While most sensible people when applying a degree of critical thinking find these sensibilities to be logical, most will still resign themselves to the legislative moralities of the state and it’s institutions when seeking societal reforms pursuant to individual liberty.
Why then ask the state to fix the very problems that it caused?
The existence of the state has brought war, ecocide, and poverty. The very things that so many contend government must be used to remedy, government has caused. Not because of who was in charge of the state, not because of how it was administered or organized, but simply because of the fact that it exists. Because of the conditions that a hierarchical consolidation of power into a centralized bureaucracy inevitably creates. One that is antithetical to the human condition.
When the reason American healthcare is abysmally subpar is due to the state subsidization of corporate monopolies; when the institutions of policing have become more of a militant occupying force than one of safety and security under their roles as enforcers of the state; when the cost of living is sky high while the quality of life continues to decrease as a direct result of government intervention in market economics; when the labor of the many is exploited to enhance the wealth of the few; it is quite clear that the system is not broken, it does not need to be reformed, it is operating exactly as intended, and ought to be abolished in its entirety.
The people should seek to exit these systems and build new ones equitable to their circumstances. Parallel institutions, community organization, cooperative networking, counter economics, mutualist projects, as a means of establishing sustainable alternatives. The state has proven itself to be wholly insufficient in fostering either liberty or prosperity. It is our responsibility to build solutions for a better future.