Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

tain a perpetual flux.(12) But regardless of how powe
r f u 1 the s tate, its powe r is a Iwa y s fin i t e • Thus, no
g 0 v ernmen tean beeom pIetel y "t 0 t a lita rian" and nos 0 ­
ciety can be completely atomized. Moreover, the central
point still holds, for even with an atomized society
no government could persist if large numbers of individuals,
despite their isolation, suddenly decided to
res i s t the s tat e • Hen ce, wh i lethe moret0 t a lita r i 8 n
countries can coerce obedience from greater numbers
than can the more open societies, the extent and effectiveness
of coercion still remains limited.
But if both the carrot and the stick are confined
to the minority, the brunt of the burden falls on the
third category of political indoctrination. There are,
the individualist anarchist argues, two types of justificat
ions propounded by the apologists for the state:
[1] the rulers are good and wise, and [2] the rule of
the s tat e i s neee s saryandine v ita bIe. Un de r the I a t ­
ter one finds arguments such as [1] anarchism is chaos
and hence the state is inevitable, and [2] the state is
the great benefactor of the people, protecting them
from both foreign invasion and domestic violence.
Other means of securing support, Rothbard says, are
such ploys as [1] patriotism, [2] "tradition," [3] exaltation
of the collectivity, and [4] guilt. First,
the state is able to generate patriotism by identifying
itself with such common objects of love as one's homeland.
Thus, one comes to think of the entire territory
over which the state rules as "my country." Second, the
rulers exhort their subjects to "worship your ancestors"
and "uphold old customs and institutions," while
the y p 0 r t ray t h em s e I v e s a s the 1 e gi t i rna t e he irs of
theseancest 0 r san d t he prod uc t 0 f thesecus t oms. ( 13 )
Third, individual dissent is discouraged by appeals to
n a d jus t to soc i e t y" 0 r "heedthewi I I 0 f the rna j 0 r i t Y• "
And finally, "Any increase in private well-being," says
Rothbard, "can be attacked as 'unconscionable greed,'
'mater ial ism' or 'excessive affluence'; profit-making
can be attacked as 'exploitation' and 'usury,' mutually
beneficial exchanges denounced as 'selfishness,' and
s 0 me how wit h the con c 1 us ion a I wa y s be i ng dr awn t hat
more resources should be siphoned from the private to
the 'pubI i c sector • ' The i nduee d gu i 1t rna kesthe pub­
I i c m0 r ere 8 d Y t 0 do jus t t h8 t • For wh i 1e i nd i v i d u8 I
persons tend to indulge in 'selfish greed,' the failure
of the State's rulers to engage in exchanges is supposed
to signify their devotion to higher and nobler
causes--parasitic predation being apparently morally
and esthetically lofty as compared to peaceful and pro-
81