The state educates in violence and viciousness. It educates in the sense of E1 and not E2 (On Education). The state displays in its activity, and it is that which is most essential to its activity such that it is that most remembered by those who interact with it. Now one might object that, in their interaction with the state, some are benefited and others are harmed. I would not disagree with the point. But I would disagree if the judgment was benefited and harmed per se. Far from it. The per se judgment must be that all are harmed, made worse, both the state, those from whom the forced labor is demanded and the loot stolen, and those to whom the fruit of the forced labor is given and the loot handed out. All are harmed. The state, those benefiting from interaction and those harmed by the interaction.
The state does not lure, attract, invite. It does not draw out voluntary choice. It forces. It compels. It threatens. Thus, no prices for goods can be discovered and so no accounting of profit and loss for any good provided by the state, even security, even dispute arbitration, certainly not education or roads. Old-age insurance? Not a chance.
Take the goods often appealed to. Security. “Surely the state must provide private property security and taxation is justified for its provision. Ha! How much security? At what cost? A body-guard per citizen? A tank per household? Video cameras in every room of every building and on every corner? The variables are many. The values of such variables are even more. JUST HOW IS IT DETERMINED HOW MUCH AND WHAT KIND OF SECURITY TO PROVIDE? WHAT OTHER GOODS ARE TO BE SACRIFICED OR INCREASES IN SECURITY? This can only be determined in two ways. But only one way is even potentially sustainable. First, the master may force the slave to pay for his goods (of whatever quality he determines) at whatever price (he determines). This is not sustainable. It will lead to reduction in quality AND increase in price!
It is too easy to furnish examples dear reader. Collect government services into a grab bag, close your eyes, and draw at random. Education? We have never spent more or gotten less from our public schools!
Distortion. Unpredictability. Insecurity. Anxiety. Increase in violence and viciousness are the result.
What is the PREDICTABLE outcome of forced trade, master and slave relations? An increase in violence and viciousness generally. What do I mean by generally? I do not mean that in every soul viciousness will be increased. No. There will be souls that bear up under the burden and take as training what the state means as harm. By generally I mean that on a random draw from the population one will be more likely to draw more viciousness of a single soul than one would have drawn were the state’s use of force not an ingredient.
How are all harmed? The state is harmed MOST. All of the truest and deepest harm is self-harm. But this is harm in a special sense. As one engages in evil it becomes easier and one becomes more and more addicted to achieving satisfaction through evil. So, as the state employs its perceived monopoly on violence to achieve its own satisfaction it more and more grows accustomed to that mode of achieving and less and less understands its interaction with the citizenry to be one of attraction, lure, seduction. It works less and less at the production of high quality for low price and turns more and more to demanding the acceptance of low quality at high price.
How are those forced harmed? Well, this is too easy. In the category of self-harm the forced are not necessarily harmed. They have choice of response. But, by moving to an ordinary earthly sense of harm, and it is a legitimate sense, the forced are harmed to the degree of the forced no less than the robbed, the assaulted, the enslaved are harmed. This brutalization is hard to live under. It has all kinds of implications. One instance of an implication: there will be less production through investment of stored capital, which means less employment of those without capital but willing to labor, and thus all around less satisfaction and more unemployment.
How are the benefited by distribution of loot harmed? They are harmed by the distortion in prices as are all the others. It becomes less expensive for the state to engage in satisfaction. It becomes more expensive for those forced and stolen from. It again becomes less expensive for those who are the receivers of stolen loot. This distortion in prices means that the true relation between production and consumption and savings is hidden. Since ultimately production and consumption and savings must be equal, since nothing can be consumed or saved which is not first produced, those who live off of stolen loot are heading toward disaster.
Why is it so hard to convince those who know so intuitively their own reaction to being forced that the use of force will only increase dissatisfaction and decrease satisfaction? Why is it not intuitive that this is a recipe for increases in violence and viciousness more generally?
As an example (and it will only serve as an example if it is indeed a representative sample of a more general truth. I have not the inclination of proof of the general truth more than has already been expressed above), a testimony from a California miner turned journalist (a Mr. Bacon) included in the excellent (1884) study of mining camps by Charles Howard Shinn, Mining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government. The point, for any who are finding my path difficult to follow, is that the frontier was a place ruled by homesteading, voluntary-contract, production and private law. There were no federal or state super-structures regulating the lives of the men who worked and lived. They ruled themselves. And it was not a utopia. But…
“I have never lived in any community where there was less crime, or where people were more charitable, than they were in the early mining-camps of California. No one was ever allowed to suffer for necessaries of life, and nowhere were the sick neglected. I remember many instances where a miner with a broken constitution, who had become discouraged or unable to work, and desired to return to his family, was sent home by the miners, and, in addition, was given one or two thousand dollars for a ‘home-stake’.”
I leave it at that.