Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

latter is the embodiment of violence while the former
entails voluntary and peaceful exchange of goods, it
should not be suprising that the political means gain
a t the ex pen s e 0 f the e conom i c • And sinc e itis the
state that maintains a monopoly of the political means,
it should likewise not be surprising that it is able,
as James Madison once remarked, to turn "every contingency
into a resource for accumulating force in the
government.(16)
But this answer, by itself, is too abstruse. What,
more specifically, do·. the individualist anarchists see
as the means that the state uses to augment its power?
Drawing heavily on the writings of such men as Bertrand
d e J 0 u v e n e 1, Am e rica nan t i - s tat i s t s s uchas Ra ndol ph
Bourne, and such laissez faire economists as Ludwig von
Mi ses, a few of the more important means can be
indicated.
a. Democracy.
Bertrand de Jouvenel agrees with Oppenheimer that
"the state is in essence the result of the successes
achieved by a band of brigands who superimpose themselves
on small distinct societies ••. It pursues no
just end; its one concern is the profitable exploitat
ion 0 f con que red and s u bm iss i ve sub j e c t s . I t lives
off the subject populations."(17) But with the passage
of time the governmental units expanded beyond the
a b iii t Y 0 f the king toex e r t per sona leon t r 0 I. Con s e ­
quently, control over particular areas was delegated to
the kin g T s sub 0 r dinatesand f r i ends, i n pa r ticu Iart0
those mi I i tary figures who had supported the king in
his s t r ugg I e for power. These areas gradually emerged
into all but completely independent political units,
viz., fiefdoms, possessing their own courts, military
for c e san d sou r c e s 0 f reven ue • Inth i s wa y the king
became largely dependent for his revenue on the support
of those elements independent of him, i.e., the feudal
lords. Since there was an inverse relationship between
the power of the king and that of the aristocracy, the
latter were always careful to view the king as a person
in opposition to themselves. They were jealous of
their independent prerogatives and relinquished them to
the kin g 0 n I y g r u d gin g 1 Y and wh entheye i therag r e e d
with the king's policies or were presented with no alt
ern a t i ve . T h us i twa s rat her d iff i cui t for the employment
of the pol it ical means, or "State power" to
use Albert Jay Nock's term, to grow at the expense of
the economic means, or "social power.
83