What do you think?
Rate this book
Anatomy of the State
Murray Rothbard was known as the state's greatest living enemy, and this book is his most succinct and powerful statement on the topic. He explains what a state is and what it is not. He shows how it is an institution that violates all that we hold as honest and moral, and how it operates under a false cover. He shows how the state wrecks freedom, destroys civilization, and threatens all lives and property and social well being, all under the veneer of "good intentions."
58 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
552 people are currently reading
8831 people want to read
About the author
Murray N. Rothbard
284 books1,123 followersMurray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism. Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed "anarcho-capitalism".
In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.
In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 543 reviews
January 17, 2025
The author impresses upon the reader what can be called a dark side of the concept of the State. The product of his analysis is a very unattractive portrayal of the State. Instead of a neutral mechanism that keeps violence and conflicting interests in check, the State comes across as a manipulative, predatory force that maintains a monopoly on the use of force in a territorial area it controls.
The State obtains its revenue "not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." According to Rothbard, almost everything about the State is based on coercion and appropriation. The State is an organization that confiscates private income through taxes and wages wars by drafting people into its army. In order to function, however, the State must have the support of the majority of the people who live within it. This is true of all forms of government, not just democracies.
"This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public."
The State is a clever organization that knows how to make the majority of the public believe that they do what the State expects of them voluntarily and not by force. To this end, the State employs intellectuals. An age-old alliance between the State and intellectuals is aimed at molding public opinion in a direction favorable to the ruling caste and promoting ideas that suit the people at the helm of the State. People must be persuaded that their government is good or, at least, better than any other conceivable alternative. It is not surprising that the State tries to control the education system to indoctrinate people with its ideology from a very young age.
The author calls into question the idea of checks and balances. One of the pillars of this book is that the State ultimately controls the very constraints that are supposed to limit its power.
As an example, Rothbard cites the Supreme Court in the US.
When state rulers wage wars, they look to convince their citizens (or subjects) that they are defending themselves, not the state rulers and their interests. States rely on patriotic propaganda and national narratives to mobilize people and throw them into a war machine.
The author casts a rather gloomy shadow over the twentieth century by comparing it to the earlier periods: "If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up — with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction."
I was a little confused to read about an increase in freedom and peace in the seventeenth century. But looking at it from such a perspective can help us see how the world wars and multiple mass killings and crimes against humanity became possible in the supposedly more 'civilized' twentieth century. And I cannot help but think that the consequences of this, including nationalistic agendas, continue to reverberate today.
Some might argue that the author in his take focuses too much on the negative, ignoring some positive developments.
For example, he mentions the separation of the private civilian sphere from the State’s war in the eighteenth century, when warfare, at least in Europe, became much less cruel and deadly to civilians. In contrast to the animosity fostered by state propaganda in the twentieth century, people from warring nations often communicated as friends in the eighteenth century. They (smartly) did not identify themselves with the State.
But is this decrease in brutality against civilians not the result of certain deliberate efforts at state level, brought about in part by the bloody Thirty Years' War, which proved to be such a catastrophe for the ordinary people?
Does the author provide answers regarding what might be done to reduce the level of control enjoyed by the state? Not really, except that he proposes the development of centers of intellectual inquiry and education independent of State power.
In other words, let us try to be critical and think for ourselves instead of believing what the media chooses to tell us.
To sum up, this is a thought-provoking little book that provides a condensed yet somewhat one-sided account of the State.
The State obtains its revenue "not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." According to Rothbard, almost everything about the State is based on coercion and appropriation. The State is an organization that confiscates private income through taxes and wages wars by drafting people into its army. In order to function, however, the State must have the support of the majority of the people who live within it. This is true of all forms of government, not just democracies.
"This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be; else the minority of State rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public."
The State is a clever organization that knows how to make the majority of the public believe that they do what the State expects of them voluntarily and not by force. To this end, the State employs intellectuals. An age-old alliance between the State and intellectuals is aimed at molding public opinion in a direction favorable to the ruling caste and promoting ideas that suit the people at the helm of the State. People must be persuaded that their government is good or, at least, better than any other conceivable alternative. It is not surprising that the State tries to control the education system to indoctrinate people with its ideology from a very young age.
The author calls into question the idea of checks and balances. One of the pillars of this book is that the State ultimately controls the very constraints that are supposed to limit its power.
As an example, Rothbard cites the Supreme Court in the US.
When state rulers wage wars, they look to convince their citizens (or subjects) that they are defending themselves, not the state rulers and their interests. States rely on patriotic propaganda and national narratives to mobilize people and throw them into a war machine.
The author casts a rather gloomy shadow over the twentieth century by comparing it to the earlier periods: "If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up — with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction."
I was a little confused to read about an increase in freedom and peace in the seventeenth century. But looking at it from such a perspective can help us see how the world wars and multiple mass killings and crimes against humanity became possible in the supposedly more 'civilized' twentieth century. And I cannot help but think that the consequences of this, including nationalistic agendas, continue to reverberate today.
Some might argue that the author in his take focuses too much on the negative, ignoring some positive developments.
For example, he mentions the separation of the private civilian sphere from the State’s war in the eighteenth century, when warfare, at least in Europe, became much less cruel and deadly to civilians. In contrast to the animosity fostered by state propaganda in the twentieth century, people from warring nations often communicated as friends in the eighteenth century. They (smartly) did not identify themselves with the State.
But is this decrease in brutality against civilians not the result of certain deliberate efforts at state level, brought about in part by the bloody Thirty Years' War, which proved to be such a catastrophe for the ordinary people?
Does the author provide answers regarding what might be done to reduce the level of control enjoyed by the state? Not really, except that he proposes the development of centers of intellectual inquiry and education independent of State power.
In other words, let us try to be critical and think for ourselves instead of believing what the media chooses to tell us.
To sum up, this is a thought-provoking little book that provides a condensed yet somewhat one-sided account of the State.
August 26, 2012
Read this now! Download the ebook for free at http://www.mises.org/document/1011/An...
It's more of an essay than a book but once your done, you'll never look at the "State" the same again.
It's more of an essay than a book but once your done, you'll never look at the "State" the same again.
July 20, 2019
Yesterday, I reviewed Frederick Bastiat's The Law, which is very similar to this text in its message, but Murray Rothbard's writing is, in my opinion, far superior to Bastiat's and many others in this genre. I mean no disrespect to those writers' excellent contributions, but when you read Rothbard after reading other libertarian and Austrian school texts, I think you will see what I mean. Rothbard is skilled at making concise points that are backed by intelligent thought and research. There are great quotations like, "Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check." Beneath this excellent writing are some of the best footnotes you will ever read, each pointing to other excellent thinkers like Mencken and Nock. Every Rothbard book I have read has brilliantly refined and expanded on the work of other great thinkers, showing Rothbard's place among the best intellectual writers of the libertarian movement. This is an excellent short book for an afternoon of anti-establishment reading!
May 17, 2021
Hasty Evisceration of the State
Topics :
Indefinite extension of the powers of the State (unproductive, enjoys monopoly of legitimate violence, fraudulent, predatory).
Lack of counter-powers to government and Parliament majority in the U.S. in particular (some form 'unanimity' should be required. How to implement it, however?)
'For one thing, just as the right of nullification for a state logically implies its right of secession, so a right of individual nullification would imply the right of any individual to “secede” from the State under which he lives.'
Many reservations I personnaly have, and some I partly share with other reviewers:
'The social path dictated by the requirements of man's nature, therefore, is the path of "property rights" and the "free market" of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the "jungle" methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.'
⇒ 'peaceful and harmonious' are to define. More on that below...
'The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism'
⇒ ... Or is it a necessary element in any actually functional State?
With the Supreme Court appointed by the State, the State establishes itself as its own judge of Constitutionality : the only limits to State power is... the state itself via its judges and its laws (since Marbury v. Madison 1803).
⇒ To me, Rothbard makes a relevant point here.
Questions raised by reviewers:
James Last (State as a whole, secular education, children's rights)
[Quote:] "Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste."
[James:] It occurs to me that they wouldn't have to do this because the people would already be convinced [...]. I'd say it would be a harder task to convince the people the attack was only on the rulers!
Next up there is a quote about science as a god:
[Quote:] "In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers." (p. 28)
[Me:]⇒ Actually, this quote is highly akin to a passage of Bakunin's God and the State, where Bakunin warns against the sacralization of science and the implementation of a form of scientific government, or 'scientific despotism'.
[James:]The reason this is debatable is because, along with the shift to secularism, has been a massive increase in the number of people given a secular education. This involves things like learning how to think critically and design experiments. Nature can now be cleaved at its joints efficiently with this method by huge numbers of people. The way the world works is therefore more fully understood by more people. There are less gaps in understanding to be filled by a "god of the gaps", the world is less of an experience of dealing with one mysterious pattern after another. More people are now exploiting their understanding of how some of nature's patterns work, they are living longer etc as a result. To assert that such a populace would tolerate any god is to state that one does not know the effects I've outlined of a secular education for the majority of the people. [...]
It's disappointing, if viewed as anything other than a polemic, to see the author restrict his view to the state as parasite. Obviously, to me at least, capitalism unsupervised by something like a state is bad and can be parasitic also. An example is that businesses exist which exploit people's, even encouraging children's, addiction to cigarettes. These cause cancer and are one of the biggest causes of early death. You could leave it to the Holy Market to eventually eradicate such exploitation of addiction by companies, or you could do the sensible thing and create something like a state to do such good things for its people, using a scientific evidence based approach.
[Me:]⇒ Rothbard's point seems to be that whether you like cigarette or not is your own concern. Which certainly can be highly debatable as regards children. Rothbard has expressed his controversial views on the matter of the rights of children and parents in a chapter of The Ethics of Liberty....
Mackenzie (On Labor, Poor relief/laws)
'Rothbard asserts there are two ways to make money - producing it through labor (free market capitalism), and stealing it (taxes) - conveniently ignoring how his definition of "labor" hides a split within it. Labor, as he defines it, consists both of physical, actual labor [...] and return on investment from capital [...]. The [bourgeoisie], as has been pointed out by people far more famous and far more dead (for now) than I, do not actually have to work, they must merely be in possession of property. There is nothing "default" about a system in which one group of people must work at the service of another, much smaller group. And without this assumption, the idea that the taking of wealth from those the rich and redistributing it to the working class, who *actually* perform labor - or who are precluded from performing labor by how the incentives created by the very free market system Rothbard touts produce unemployment - is somehow an infringement on the natural state of human interaction is laughable on its face.
I'm not a fan of "the state," however, my critiques are so wholly divorced from Rothbard's that he might actually turn me into a statist (to clarify because I am writing on the internet: this was a joke). "Crony capitalism," as those who believe the government's role is to interfere with the free market call it, is merely a result of the incentives created by capitalism. Were there no state, the rich would create one to increase their ability to exploit the poor. See the company towns which popped up in the era preceding the great depression.
I agree with Rothbard in the assertion that the legitimacy of states is one of faith and fable, and artificial limits are only as effective insofar as the people in power are willing not to cross them. I would, in fact, go farther and argue that the legitimacy of a state is truly only found in the power to enforce its rules by violence against those who disagree with its legitimacy. And it is a horrifying limitation of democracy that minorities are subject to the good graces and support of those groups with power. However, early on, the pamphlet reads this limitation as an indication that there is a complete severance of "the people" from "the state," as if the latter were a completely autonomous entity moving and operating on its own. There is a difference between democracy and a monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, or any other form of government in which "the people" have no say or contribution.
[...]
That the working class would ever overthrow the state only to maintain the system of oppression by which they are forced to work for the benefit of the rich, presumably just pacifly accepting the conditions of squalor such a situation would create out of idealistic devotion free market capitalism over even their own well-being, is the fantasy of someone whose image of the world is so juvenile, he believed the criminal system (how's that going to exist without a state, Murray?) should be intentionally retributive, and a poor person who steals bread because they cannot afford to eat should be forced to pay twice the price (see his work on punishment and proportionality). Perhaps the poor person should have just stuck to the ideological convictions of free market capitalism and starved to death?
Paul Taske (The Poor man's Machiavellian Prince)
The reason I view this as worse than “The Prince” is because this book is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest. Rothbard incorrectly identifies several key aspects of government in his book. Notably, these include the formation of the state (his omission of any reference to the formation of the United States is particularly distressing) and the nature of treaties.
Daniel Mendoza (Private property needs some sort of State to last)
I don’t see how private property could exist in any sort of even partially perpetually secure state without the existence of a state. Private property, as I see it, relies on the state to ensure its existence; without the state, it is much more vulnerable to bad faith - and Mr. Rothbard does nothing here to address this concern.
Elliott (Logical fallacies, sophistry)
Immediately Murray Rothbard begins his Anatomy of the State with a strawman: "Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the 'private sector' and often winning in this competition of resources." I'm certain there are patriotic theorists, and theorists who consider the state an 'amiable though inefficient organization.' We're not reading those theorists though, we're reading Rothbard. I produce this to illustrate an important part of this text which is that if you started to cross out logical fallacies in "Anatomy" you wouldn't have much of a text at all.
[...]
Going off of that the State most certainly does not make its money solely of coercion. In fact the State does provide many services: which is protecting property rights, ensuring markets at home, negotiations for them abroad, a stable currency, and taxation is the fee for that service. Rothbard simply doesn't like paying for that service (though he enjoys receiving it).
The gist is that even using Rothbard's "Ruritania" analogy capitalism requires a state to exist and furthermore needs a state strong enough to ensure that a uniform currency is accepted, to ensure the continued operation of markets, and to protect property "rights."
Kevin B. (Rothbard's essentialism)
Finally what I really think this text suffers from is a bad cause of essentialism. Rothbard tries to propose that the state is essentially an immoral entity rather than what it really is: an amoral organization that can be used for good or bad purposes and can be based on legitimate consent or violent oppression.
João Gross (The State ensuring minimal opportuny for everyone)
'[...] taxes must be seen as a compulsory contribution each individual makes to society, according to their financial capacities, so the State can provide services to all the population, especially for the poor that don’t have the means for proper education, health and security and in many cases depend on social security for their own survival. The State serves as a regulator of equality of opportunities for everyone.'
⇒ [Me:] I'm not certain it suffices without taking into consideration social reproduction, inheritance, cultural lead, education... See Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture
Shhhhh Ahhhhh (The State does actual work, and can't be branded 'parasitical') :
'Capitalism, described entirely as free trade and never as its more mature form, Corporatism, is the savior of the world. It converts human energy and ingenuity, in combination with raw materials, to create value. Please note that prior to free trade, the species literally couldn't exist because none of us could feed ourselves... [...]'
'The state never does any actual work (even if state and federal enterprises exist...).'
⇒ [Me:] But its capital is provided by taxation, not by profit from free market; hence, state/federal enterprises are operated by public capital? At least, I assume this is Rothbard's point here...
Further reading:
On Liberty
God and the State
The Law
Psychologie Des Foules
Liberty and Property
Bureaucracy
Matching Soundtrack (I guess):
Politics - Korn
Topics :
Indefinite extension of the powers of the State (unproductive, enjoys monopoly of legitimate violence, fraudulent, predatory).
Lack of counter-powers to government and Parliament majority in the U.S. in particular (some form 'unanimity' should be required. How to implement it, however?)
'For one thing, just as the right of nullification for a state logically implies its right of secession, so a right of individual nullification would imply the right of any individual to “secede” from the State under which he lives.'
Many reservations I personnaly have, and some I partly share with other reviewers:
'The social path dictated by the requirements of man's nature, therefore, is the path of "property rights" and the "free market" of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the "jungle" methods of fighting over scarce resources so that A can only acquire them at the expense of B and, instead, to multiply those resources enormously in peaceful and harmonious production and exchange.'
⇒ 'peaceful and harmonious' are to define. More on that below...
'The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism'
⇒ ... Or is it a necessary element in any actually functional State?
With the Supreme Court appointed by the State, the State establishes itself as its own judge of Constitutionality : the only limits to State power is... the state itself via its judges and its laws (since Marbury v. Madison 1803).
⇒ To me, Rothbard makes a relevant point here.
Questions raised by reviewers:
James Last (State as a whole, secular education, children's rights)
[Quote:] "Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste."
[James:] It occurs to me that they wouldn't have to do this because the people would already be convinced [...]. I'd say it would be a harder task to convince the people the attack was only on the rulers!
Next up there is a quote about science as a god:
[Quote:] "In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers." (p. 28)
[Me:]⇒ Actually, this quote is highly akin to a passage of Bakunin's God and the State, where Bakunin warns against the sacralization of science and the implementation of a form of scientific government, or 'scientific despotism'.
[James:]The reason this is debatable is because, along with the shift to secularism, has been a massive increase in the number of people given a secular education. This involves things like learning how to think critically and design experiments. Nature can now be cleaved at its joints efficiently with this method by huge numbers of people. The way the world works is therefore more fully understood by more people. There are less gaps in understanding to be filled by a "god of the gaps", the world is less of an experience of dealing with one mysterious pattern after another. More people are now exploiting their understanding of how some of nature's patterns work, they are living longer etc as a result. To assert that such a populace would tolerate any god is to state that one does not know the effects I've outlined of a secular education for the majority of the people. [...]
It's disappointing, if viewed as anything other than a polemic, to see the author restrict his view to the state as parasite. Obviously, to me at least, capitalism unsupervised by something like a state is bad and can be parasitic also. An example is that businesses exist which exploit people's, even encouraging children's, addiction to cigarettes. These cause cancer and are one of the biggest causes of early death. You could leave it to the Holy Market to eventually eradicate such exploitation of addiction by companies, or you could do the sensible thing and create something like a state to do such good things for its people, using a scientific evidence based approach.
[Me:]⇒ Rothbard's point seems to be that whether you like cigarette or not is your own concern. Which certainly can be highly debatable as regards children. Rothbard has expressed his controversial views on the matter of the rights of children and parents in a chapter of The Ethics of Liberty....
Mackenzie (On Labor, Poor relief/laws)
'Rothbard asserts there are two ways to make money - producing it through labor (free market capitalism), and stealing it (taxes) - conveniently ignoring how his definition of "labor" hides a split within it. Labor, as he defines it, consists both of physical, actual labor [...] and return on investment from capital [...]. The [bourgeoisie], as has been pointed out by people far more famous and far more dead (for now) than I, do not actually have to work, they must merely be in possession of property. There is nothing "default" about a system in which one group of people must work at the service of another, much smaller group. And without this assumption, the idea that the taking of wealth from those the rich and redistributing it to the working class, who *actually* perform labor - or who are precluded from performing labor by how the incentives created by the very free market system Rothbard touts produce unemployment - is somehow an infringement on the natural state of human interaction is laughable on its face.
I'm not a fan of "the state," however, my critiques are so wholly divorced from Rothbard's that he might actually turn me into a statist (to clarify because I am writing on the internet: this was a joke). "Crony capitalism," as those who believe the government's role is to interfere with the free market call it, is merely a result of the incentives created by capitalism. Were there no state, the rich would create one to increase their ability to exploit the poor. See the company towns which popped up in the era preceding the great depression.
I agree with Rothbard in the assertion that the legitimacy of states is one of faith and fable, and artificial limits are only as effective insofar as the people in power are willing not to cross them. I would, in fact, go farther and argue that the legitimacy of a state is truly only found in the power to enforce its rules by violence against those who disagree with its legitimacy. And it is a horrifying limitation of democracy that minorities are subject to the good graces and support of those groups with power. However, early on, the pamphlet reads this limitation as an indication that there is a complete severance of "the people" from "the state," as if the latter were a completely autonomous entity moving and operating on its own. There is a difference between democracy and a monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, dictatorship, or any other form of government in which "the people" have no say or contribution.
[...]
That the working class would ever overthrow the state only to maintain the system of oppression by which they are forced to work for the benefit of the rich, presumably just pacifly accepting the conditions of squalor such a situation would create out of idealistic devotion free market capitalism over even their own well-being, is the fantasy of someone whose image of the world is so juvenile, he believed the criminal system (how's that going to exist without a state, Murray?) should be intentionally retributive, and a poor person who steals bread because they cannot afford to eat should be forced to pay twice the price (see his work on punishment and proportionality). Perhaps the poor person should have just stuck to the ideological convictions of free market capitalism and starved to death?
Paul Taske (The Poor man's Machiavellian Prince)
The reason I view this as worse than “The Prince” is because this book is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest. Rothbard incorrectly identifies several key aspects of government in his book. Notably, these include the formation of the state (his omission of any reference to the formation of the United States is particularly distressing) and the nature of treaties.
Daniel Mendoza (Private property needs some sort of State to last)
I don’t see how private property could exist in any sort of even partially perpetually secure state without the existence of a state. Private property, as I see it, relies on the state to ensure its existence; without the state, it is much more vulnerable to bad faith - and Mr. Rothbard does nothing here to address this concern.
Elliott (Logical fallacies, sophistry)
Immediately Murray Rothbard begins his Anatomy of the State with a strawman: "Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the 'private sector' and often winning in this competition of resources." I'm certain there are patriotic theorists, and theorists who consider the state an 'amiable though inefficient organization.' We're not reading those theorists though, we're reading Rothbard. I produce this to illustrate an important part of this text which is that if you started to cross out logical fallacies in "Anatomy" you wouldn't have much of a text at all.
[...]
Going off of that the State most certainly does not make its money solely of coercion. In fact the State does provide many services: which is protecting property rights, ensuring markets at home, negotiations for them abroad, a stable currency, and taxation is the fee for that service. Rothbard simply doesn't like paying for that service (though he enjoys receiving it).
The gist is that even using Rothbard's "Ruritania" analogy capitalism requires a state to exist and furthermore needs a state strong enough to ensure that a uniform currency is accepted, to ensure the continued operation of markets, and to protect property "rights."
Kevin B. (Rothbard's essentialism)
Finally what I really think this text suffers from is a bad cause of essentialism. Rothbard tries to propose that the state is essentially an immoral entity rather than what it really is: an amoral organization that can be used for good or bad purposes and can be based on legitimate consent or violent oppression.
João Gross (The State ensuring minimal opportuny for everyone)
'[...] taxes must be seen as a compulsory contribution each individual makes to society, according to their financial capacities, so the State can provide services to all the population, especially for the poor that don’t have the means for proper education, health and security and in many cases depend on social security for their own survival. The State serves as a regulator of equality of opportunities for everyone.'
⇒ [Me:] I'm not certain it suffices without taking into consideration social reproduction, inheritance, cultural lead, education... See Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture
Shhhhh Ahhhhh (The State does actual work, and can't be branded 'parasitical') :
'Capitalism, described entirely as free trade and never as its more mature form, Corporatism, is the savior of the world. It converts human energy and ingenuity, in combination with raw materials, to create value. Please note that prior to free trade, the species literally couldn't exist because none of us could feed ourselves... [...]'
'The state never does any actual work (even if state and federal enterprises exist...).'
⇒ [Me:] But its capital is provided by taxation, not by profit from free market; hence, state/federal enterprises are operated by public capital? At least, I assume this is Rothbard's point here...
Further reading:
On Liberty
God and the State
The Law
Psychologie Des Foules
Liberty and Property
Bureaucracy
Matching Soundtrack (I guess):
Politics - Korn
August 20, 2021
The raw, good and old truth.
June 21, 2015
A review of Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard
Available at: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
Ok I've read "the anatomy of the state". It's provocative and fails to address the good things a state does. I don't think the name is correct, it should be "a cynic's anatomy of the state". When it does get to the good things like a police force, the view is combative:
"For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve." (p. 24)
The author leads the reader into this view of the state through only considering one example of how it arose - the highwaymen approach of co-opting a functioning tribe or society and forcing them to pay tributes. The pathetic negativity of this view is easily registered when considering the many other ways states have arisen and the strongly positive, egalitarian agendas they have for the peoples they serve. Consider the obsession in Holland with humble architecture of state buildings, to emphasize the state function there of primarily serving the people rather than being parasitic and indulging in grand architecture, or statements of dominance. Another example is the prison system in Sweden, which has a focus on rehabilitation of people, assuming a reparable deficit of function possibly due to mental ill health or socioeconomic factors. This is opposed to considering them as targets for retaliation, based on the assumption they acted against others totally out of free will, psychopathically, without justification or evidence of their behavior being a reasonable response to a set of circumstances that might test the ability of even the most stoic to act "ethically".
His rather heroic, even melodramatic attempt at cynicism perhaps confuses the author here:
"Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste." (same page)
It occurs to me that they wouldn't have to do this because the people would already be convinced, for the reason the author states at the start of the quote. Rather I'd say it would be a harder task to convince the people the attack was only on the rulers!
It was at this point I checked the date of the publication expecting it to be from the time of aristotle, but it's 2009, so obviously this is a polemic. By the way, on the subject of aristotle, he wrote a book on the same subject, Politics, check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...
...we were told about it on our recent Greece tour. The contents was taught amongst others by Aristotle to Alexander the Great, at a school here:
Η Σχολή του Αριστοτέλη - Η Σχολή του Αριστοτέλη
http://maps.google.com/?cid=386939522...
Next up there is a quote about science as a god:
"In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers." (p. 28)
The reason this is debatable is because, along with the shift to secularism, has been a massive increase in the number of people given a secular education. This involves things like learning how to think critically and design experiments. Nature can now be cleaved at its joints efficiently with this method by huge numbers of people. The way the world works is therefore more fully understood by more people. There are less gaps in understanding to be filled by a "god of the gaps", the world is less of an experience of dealing with one mysterious pattern after another. More people are now exploiting their understanding of how some of nature's patterns work, they are living longer etc as a result. To assert that such a populace would tolerate any god is to state that one does not know the effects I've outlined of a secular education for the majority of the people. This is the mark of a lazy, merely antagonistic attempt at critiquing the State if one doesn't wish to recognize the way people are in the modern, secular world.
Then on p. 42:
" Sincethe State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist."
Who cares? The validity of the state doesn't rest on merely which side of some economic theory-fence it sits. The state is also not necessarily a mechanism to sustain a ruling caste. As I observed before, and as illustrated in this comic:
http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
...the state also can serve the people, such as by introducing cigarette plain packaging regulations to help reduce their "coolness". Both, and other, types of states exist. It's disappointing, if viewed as anything other than a polemic, to see the author restrict his view to the state as parasite. Obviously, to me at least, capitalism unsupervised by something like a state is bad and can be parasitic also. An example is that businesses exist which exploit people's, even encouraging children's, addiction to cigarettes. These cause cancer and are one of the biggest causes of early death. You could leave it to the Holy Market to eventually eradicate such exploitation of addiction by companies, or you could do the sensible thing and create something like a state to do such good things for its people, using a scientific evidence based approach. Not creating a state to do such things, knowing the scientific evidence about cancer from cigarettes and the general shittiness of using addiction to make money off people in this context, strikes me as being psychopathic. Returning to the quote, there is a broader context that a state could be evaluated within than its degree of enthusiasm for an economic theory, and to restrict one's evaluation just to that means you're missing the point of some states, admittedly not all, and the distinctive good they can do for individuals. As an individual it is not a better experience for me to spend some of my life the victim of an advertising campaign trying to make me feel inadequate unless I buy an addictive carcinogen from some company. It is a better experience as an individual to have a group of people protecting me from such parasitic companies by sharing their scientific knowledge in the form of market regulations.
Through the above, yes I make the counter argument that the Holy Market of the author's capitalist utopia is in fact inhabited by some parasites and the state can protect individuals from these. Not the other way round that the author would have us think. I'm all for getting rid of parasites, hell who wouldn't be. It's just that the author in his narrow, cynical, ancient view of what a state is, has missed the fact that many states no longer are, and the good work these ones do attacking other parasites, some of which are companies trying to sell addictive carcinogens to children.
In his concluding chapter there is the remark
" State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production—a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers."
I'm not convinced that this book is about social vs state power. Rather it's about parasites (and misses the point they're not only states). I don't really care who is doing it, parasatism is bad and I have provided evidence that non-state parasites exist such as cigarette companies. The aforementioned comic illustrates an example of a state (Australian federal government) attacking this parasite with a plain packaging regulation, and an attempt by the parasite to overturn this through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pres...).
Available at: https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state
Ok I've read "the anatomy of the state". It's provocative and fails to address the good things a state does. I don't think the name is correct, it should be "a cynic's anatomy of the state". When it does get to the good things like a police force, the view is combative:
"For the State, to preserve its own monopoly of predation, did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was kept to a minimum; the State has always been jealous of its own preserve." (p. 24)
The author leads the reader into this view of the state through only considering one example of how it arose - the highwaymen approach of co-opting a functioning tribe or society and forcing them to pay tributes. The pathetic negativity of this view is easily registered when considering the many other ways states have arisen and the strongly positive, egalitarian agendas they have for the peoples they serve. Consider the obsession in Holland with humble architecture of state buildings, to emphasize the state function there of primarily serving the people rather than being parasitic and indulging in grand architecture, or statements of dominance. Another example is the prison system in Sweden, which has a focus on rehabilitation of people, assuming a reparable deficit of function possibly due to mental ill health or socioeconomic factors. This is opposed to considering them as targets for retaliation, based on the assumption they acted against others totally out of free will, psychopathically, without justification or evidence of their behavior being a reasonable response to a set of circumstances that might test the ability of even the most stoic to act "ethically".
His rather heroic, even melodramatic attempt at cynicism perhaps confuses the author here:
"Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste." (same page)
It occurs to me that they wouldn't have to do this because the people would already be convinced, for the reason the author states at the start of the quote. Rather I'd say it would be a harder task to convince the people the attack was only on the rulers!
It was at this point I checked the date of the publication expecting it to be from the time of aristotle, but it's 2009, so obviously this is a polemic. By the way, on the subject of aristotle, he wrote a book on the same subject, Politics, check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...
...we were told about it on our recent Greece tour. The contents was taught amongst others by Aristotle to Alexander the Great, at a school here:
Η Σχολή του Αριστοτέλη - Η Σχολή του Αριστοτέλη
http://maps.google.com/?cid=386939522...
Next up there is a quote about science as a god:
"In the present more secular age, the divine right of the State has been supplemented by the invocation of a new god, Science. State rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascientific, as constituting planning by experts. But while “reason” is invoked more than in previous centuries, this is not the true reason of the individual and his exercise of free will; it is still collectivist and determinist, still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation of passive subjects by their rulers." (p. 28)
The reason this is debatable is because, along with the shift to secularism, has been a massive increase in the number of people given a secular education. This involves things like learning how to think critically and design experiments. Nature can now be cleaved at its joints efficiently with this method by huge numbers of people. The way the world works is therefore more fully understood by more people. There are less gaps in understanding to be filled by a "god of the gaps", the world is less of an experience of dealing with one mysterious pattern after another. More people are now exploiting their understanding of how some of nature's patterns work, they are living longer etc as a result. To assert that such a populace would tolerate any god is to state that one does not know the effects I've outlined of a secular education for the majority of the people. This is the mark of a lazy, merely antagonistic attempt at critiquing the State if one doesn't wish to recognize the way people are in the modern, secular world.
Then on p. 42:
" Sincethe State necessarily lives by the compulsory confiscation of private capital, and since its expansion necessarily involves ever-greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise, we must assert that the State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist."
Who cares? The validity of the state doesn't rest on merely which side of some economic theory-fence it sits. The state is also not necessarily a mechanism to sustain a ruling caste. As I observed before, and as illustrated in this comic:
http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
...the state also can serve the people, such as by introducing cigarette plain packaging regulations to help reduce their "coolness". Both, and other, types of states exist. It's disappointing, if viewed as anything other than a polemic, to see the author restrict his view to the state as parasite. Obviously, to me at least, capitalism unsupervised by something like a state is bad and can be parasitic also. An example is that businesses exist which exploit people's, even encouraging children's, addiction to cigarettes. These cause cancer and are one of the biggest causes of early death. You could leave it to the Holy Market to eventually eradicate such exploitation of addiction by companies, or you could do the sensible thing and create something like a state to do such good things for its people, using a scientific evidence based approach. Not creating a state to do such things, knowing the scientific evidence about cancer from cigarettes and the general shittiness of using addiction to make money off people in this context, strikes me as being psychopathic. Returning to the quote, there is a broader context that a state could be evaluated within than its degree of enthusiasm for an economic theory, and to restrict one's evaluation just to that means you're missing the point of some states, admittedly not all, and the distinctive good they can do for individuals. As an individual it is not a better experience for me to spend some of my life the victim of an advertising campaign trying to make me feel inadequate unless I buy an addictive carcinogen from some company. It is a better experience as an individual to have a group of people protecting me from such parasitic companies by sharing their scientific knowledge in the form of market regulations.
Through the above, yes I make the counter argument that the Holy Market of the author's capitalist utopia is in fact inhabited by some parasites and the state can protect individuals from these. Not the other way round that the author would have us think. I'm all for getting rid of parasites, hell who wouldn't be. It's just that the author in his narrow, cynical, ancient view of what a state is, has missed the fact that many states no longer are, and the good work these ones do attacking other parasites, some of which are companies trying to sell addictive carcinogens to children.
In his concluding chapter there is the remark
" State power, as we have seen, is the coercive and parasitic seizure of this production—a draining of the fruits of society for the benefit of nonproductive (actually antiproductive) rulers."
I'm not convinced that this book is about social vs state power. Rather it's about parasites (and misses the point they're not only states). I don't really care who is doing it, parasatism is bad and I have provided evidence that non-state parasites exist such as cigarette companies. The aforementioned comic illustrates an example of a state (Australian federal government) attacking this parasite with a plain packaging regulation, and an attempt by the parasite to overturn this through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/pres...).
June 10, 2020
I have a number of problems with this book.
First of all, Rothbard defines the state in a manner that is inaccurate - but rather in a manner that allows him to make his arguments. He says "in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion". Now, that is true of many states, but the existence, anywhere in history, of any state that is not true of makes the statement false - not part of the proper definition of a state. And exceptions to that statement are very easy to find (Sioux nation, Spartan City-State, etc.).
He also claims that the natural state of man is production and exchange - yet both history and the natural world demonstrate that is false. Predators hunt and kill. Man (and some other animals) wage war. It is just as much the natural state of man to do those things (and possibly more so) than it is to grow crops and voluntarily exchange products. This statement isn't actually supported by facts, it is simply a claim by Rothbard - what he wishes to be true, not what is.
His comments regarding intellectuals are "cherry-picking" - ignoring the states that have intentionally targeted intellectuals, probably because claiming that "the state needs intellectuals" fuels his own ego.
Now, I agree with his comments regarding the SCOTUS being the sole decision maker on what is Constitutional and Unconstitutional is contrary to the very concepts of division of powers that the Constitution lays out. But he seems to miss that the Supreme Court is NOT GIVEN that power by the Constitution - John Marshall seized that power with the Marbury v. Madison verdict. His comments on Calhoun and on nullification suffer from the same flaws, since he avoids the nullification arguments of Jefferson and Madison (which don't fit his agenda).
Finally, he makes a claim that "The natural tendency of a State is to expand its power". Like his previous comments, any example of a state without that tendency would disprove this claim. And it also is easy to find examples (Hoppe, Ute, Modoc, Walla Walla, Cherokee, Etruscans,) . It is not the natural tendency of a state - it is the common tendency of people in power. And that is a significant difference.
First of all, Rothbard defines the state in a manner that is inaccurate - but rather in a manner that allows him to make his arguments. He says "in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion". Now, that is true of many states, but the existence, anywhere in history, of any state that is not true of makes the statement false - not part of the proper definition of a state. And exceptions to that statement are very easy to find (Sioux nation, Spartan City-State, etc.).
He also claims that the natural state of man is production and exchange - yet both history and the natural world demonstrate that is false. Predators hunt and kill. Man (and some other animals) wage war. It is just as much the natural state of man to do those things (and possibly more so) than it is to grow crops and voluntarily exchange products. This statement isn't actually supported by facts, it is simply a claim by Rothbard - what he wishes to be true, not what is.
His comments regarding intellectuals are "cherry-picking" - ignoring the states that have intentionally targeted intellectuals, probably because claiming that "the state needs intellectuals" fuels his own ego.
Now, I agree with his comments regarding the SCOTUS being the sole decision maker on what is Constitutional and Unconstitutional is contrary to the very concepts of division of powers that the Constitution lays out. But he seems to miss that the Supreme Court is NOT GIVEN that power by the Constitution - John Marshall seized that power with the Marbury v. Madison verdict. His comments on Calhoun and on nullification suffer from the same flaws, since he avoids the nullification arguments of Jefferson and Madison (which don't fit his agenda).
Finally, he makes a claim that "The natural tendency of a State is to expand its power". Like his previous comments, any example of a state without that tendency would disprove this claim. And it also is easy to find examples (Hoppe, Ute, Modoc, Walla Walla, Cherokee, Etruscans,) . It is not the natural tendency of a state - it is the common tendency of people in power. And that is a significant difference.
November 21, 2015
While it may be a little too extreme for most readers, this small book is an interesting essay on the organics and nature of the State, what is is, what it is not, and how it survives. Rothbard claims that all States begin with a bunch of thugs gaining control over a territory and then trying to find a way to make their subjects feed them without causing a revolution. He adds many quotations from previous authors and points to some historical facts that question our current idea that 'we are all the State' and that without the State people just couldn't live together.
I recommend it to any reader interested in politics, as it is very short and thought-provoking, even though most readers may find it too arrogant. I guess libertarianism is an acquired taste...
I recommend it to any reader interested in politics, as it is very short and thought-provoking, even though most readers may find it too arrogant. I guess libertarianism is an acquired taste...
March 4, 2021
In recent years I have been dissatisfied with the state apparatus and frankly lost hope in governance and justice, this book gives voice to my thoughts and fears. The author dissects the role of state and it's intended purposes. It was interesting to read about what crimes the state punish in earnest and was pretty surprised by the answers . I have never considered the role of the state from the author's perspective.
Even what I think the author is very rational for the major part if the book , I somehow find some of this theories a little too extreme. Overall a intriguing read.
Even what I think the author is very rational for the major part if the book , I somehow find some of this theories a little too extreme. Overall a intriguing read.
January 29, 2021
If the state is so bad why not just take power and make a cooler state. You're never gonna just magically make all the state power disappear so why not put someone in charge who is a really cool guy and will let us trade GameStop stonks?
December 3, 2017
This is a very concise statement of the world's foremost anarcho-capitalist, Murray Rothbard's, view of the state. It's pretty dense and not particularly suited to the audiobook format, although the argument doesn't rely on weird redefinitions or anything else -- more, that the impact of relatively simple statements takes some reflection to consider. Probably better as a print book, although the narration was technically fine.
Rothbard's beliefs are certainly extreme, but even if you don't agree fully with them, they seem to be a logically consistent belief system and are worth learning about.
Rothbard's beliefs are certainly extreme, but even if you don't agree fully with them, they seem to be a logically consistent belief system and are worth learning about.
June 25, 2021
Libertarianism has always felt suspect to me. For all its grand claims of breaking free from ideology, it seems mired in a Romanticist framework that elevates the individual above the totality of the culture that raised and reared them. Here, Rothbard provides a critique of state ideology, not unlike those raised by thinkers such as Gramsci and Chomsky; however, he appears blind to the historical position of his own subject, and how this subject (supposedly) pierces through the miasma of ideology. Furthermore, he does not distinguish between state and civil society, but this separation is why culture is now a site of intense contestation.
Now, I don't think his critiques of the state are that bad. But his efforts to distance the state from the market feel flimsy.
He essentially argues that the (capitalist) market preceded the (liberal) state. Before the (liberal) state, you didn't have fervent patriotism; rulers waged wars with mercenaries. Mercenaries did not slaughter or pillage, like armies do today. They did not fight due to racism, but due to an economic exchange, and thus they had no desire to destroy the other (as an other). I found this section really illuminating.
Rothbard argues that a state comes into being through nationalism, through the construction of a national identity. This aligns with leftist thought to some extent. Marxism also argues that nationalism is the locus of state ideology, of organising gender, race, class and sexuality, unto the reproduction of state power. However, Marxism further adds that this state power ensures the reproduction of capitalist relations. Rothbard conversely argues that this state power is antithetical to capitalist relations, for it limits freedom through taxation. In other words, the state is a parasite. Pretty typical stuff.
Now, there are many issues I have with Rothbard's conception of capitalism. He collapses production, distribution and consumption into one monolithic totality. I'm pretty sure markets have changed across history, but from the way Rothbard talks about them you'd think there's only ever been one form — the capitalist form — a form he doesn't define. This is a retroactive argument that essentialises capitalism as the modus operandi of human beings — as some sort of timeless spook. Furthermore, it's conceptually muddy — he doesn't define what a market is. This muddiness allows Rothbard to leap over issues of capitalist exploitation and alienation, by simply repeating the phrase "free exchange", without expanding on it, or showing how his idea of free exchange overcomes class antagonisms. Who is the productive agent of labour? Rothbard does not say. He treats all those within the production process as equals, when they are not. Yes, you can agree to inequality, but that does not make a just and free system. We can agree out of coercion (economic, psychological, social, political), we may not have the resources to move to another city with better working conditions, and we cannot obtain perfect knowledge of our market exchanges, because we are not equal in our capacities to comprehend legal contracts. Rothbard name drops Marx about two times, without refuting Marx's arguments against capitalism.
I came into this really wanting to engage with libertarian thought. I'm pretty disappointed.
Now, I don't think his critiques of the state are that bad. But his efforts to distance the state from the market feel flimsy.
He essentially argues that the (capitalist) market preceded the (liberal) state. Before the (liberal) state, you didn't have fervent patriotism; rulers waged wars with mercenaries. Mercenaries did not slaughter or pillage, like armies do today. They did not fight due to racism, but due to an economic exchange, and thus they had no desire to destroy the other (as an other). I found this section really illuminating.
Rothbard argues that a state comes into being through nationalism, through the construction of a national identity. This aligns with leftist thought to some extent. Marxism also argues that nationalism is the locus of state ideology, of organising gender, race, class and sexuality, unto the reproduction of state power. However, Marxism further adds that this state power ensures the reproduction of capitalist relations. Rothbard conversely argues that this state power is antithetical to capitalist relations, for it limits freedom through taxation. In other words, the state is a parasite. Pretty typical stuff.
Now, there are many issues I have with Rothbard's conception of capitalism. He collapses production, distribution and consumption into one monolithic totality. I'm pretty sure markets have changed across history, but from the way Rothbard talks about them you'd think there's only ever been one form — the capitalist form — a form he doesn't define. This is a retroactive argument that essentialises capitalism as the modus operandi of human beings — as some sort of timeless spook. Furthermore, it's conceptually muddy — he doesn't define what a market is. This muddiness allows Rothbard to leap over issues of capitalist exploitation and alienation, by simply repeating the phrase "free exchange", without expanding on it, or showing how his idea of free exchange overcomes class antagonisms. Who is the productive agent of labour? Rothbard does not say. He treats all those within the production process as equals, when they are not. Yes, you can agree to inequality, but that does not make a just and free system. We can agree out of coercion (economic, psychological, social, political), we may not have the resources to move to another city with better working conditions, and we cannot obtain perfect knowledge of our market exchanges, because we are not equal in our capacities to comprehend legal contracts. Rothbard name drops Marx about two times, without refuting Marx's arguments against capitalism.
I came into this really wanting to engage with libertarian thought. I'm pretty disappointed.
June 5, 2021
Murray Rothbard is one of my favorite political and economic philosophers, along with the others from the Austrian School of economics such as Ludwig Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and I even like the Chicago school (Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman). I must admit, I have a bias towards this work, because I am a libertarian with anarcho-capitalist leanings. I think of any of Rothbard, Mises, and Hayeks work as the gospel for my economic and political beliefs, like I view the Bible and teachings of Jesus as the gospel for my religious beliefs.
This work really reiterates the facts about the state, and how no matter what limitations are put fourth, like those in the constitution, they always look for ways to circumnavigate the limitations. Rothbard made a good point: If the federal governments function is to inhibit the attacks against individual liberty, what is to check the federal government when it attacks those same individual liberties? There was a lot more in this book that was talked about and worth reading if you are interested in the Anarcho-capitalist viewpoint.
This work really reiterates the facts about the state, and how no matter what limitations are put fourth, like those in the constitution, they always look for ways to circumnavigate the limitations. Rothbard made a good point: If the federal governments function is to inhibit the attacks against individual liberty, what is to check the federal government when it attacks those same individual liberties? There was a lot more in this book that was talked about and worth reading if you are interested in the Anarcho-capitalist viewpoint.
September 14, 2013
Anatomy of the State probes into the structure and legitimacy of government where it exposes the true predatory nature of government. Preserving the government apparatus is paramount to the continuation of plunder in a colluded alliance of the rulers, operators and intellectuals.
Defining what the state is or not is critically important. The State is not us or the people, it doesn’t represent the majority, and when it does, it is a tyranny of the majority. The State is a organization whose only agenda is to maintain and expand its own monopolistic use of violence and coercion in any geographical area. All attempts to limit the power of the state has ultimately proven to be futile.
Overall, although the book is considerably short, Rothbard provides a brilliant and concise perspective into the underlying basis of government.
Defining what the state is or not is critically important. The State is not us or the people, it doesn’t represent the majority, and when it does, it is a tyranny of the majority. The State is a organization whose only agenda is to maintain and expand its own monopolistic use of violence and coercion in any geographical area. All attempts to limit the power of the state has ultimately proven to be futile.
Overall, although the book is considerably short, Rothbard provides a brilliant and concise perspective into the underlying basis of government.
April 2, 2021
Immediately Murray Rothbard begins his Anatomy of the State with a strawman: "Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the 'private sector' and often winning in this competition of resources." I'm certain there are patriotic theorists, and theorists who consider the state an 'amiable though inefficient organization.' We're not reading those theorists though, we're reading Rothbard. I produce this to illustrate an important part of this text which is that if you started to cross out logical fallacies in "Anatomy" you wouldn't have much of a text at all.
Rothbard's favourite fallacy seems to be the reductio ad Hitlerum. This is a favourite of the libertarian right in general and though Rothbard was hardly the first to utilize the comparison he exemplifies its usage: "Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have 'committed suicide,' since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part." Of course the deported French, Polish, and Soviet Jews didn't have a say in Germany's electoral prospects but Rothbard skips past that because it doesn't fit his hyperbolic statement.
He continues in this hyperbole only with a touch of the melodramatic: "Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." There is a kernel of truth here: the State does maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area. But, what is interesting is that Rothbard never asks the obvious 'why?'
The state utilizes force and violence to protect private property. It prevents one person's usurpation of the property rights of another because of this monopoly of force. Indeed if you read into Rothbard's silly "Ruritania" analogy you can see this quite clearly: the "bandits" took other people's property and formed "The State" to protect their property. Property rights require a strong state as the poor victims of the "Ruritania" analogy make clear.
Going off of that the State most certainly does not make its money solely of coercion. In fact the State does provide many services: which is protecting property rights, ensuring markets at home, negotiations for them abroad, a stable currency, and taxation is the fee for that service. Rothbard simply doesn't like paying for that service (though he enjoys receiving it).
Of all of the flimsy examples in this book though here is my favourite in regards to how property rights come about: "[Man] does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by 'mixing his labor' with them, as Locke puts it) to make them his individual property..." You almost miss it. Rothbard here makes a generalization here that is very weak. The first is that while conceivably someone could go out, collect some reeds and make a basket by themselves this is not how capitalism works. There's not one man who finds himself all the materials for a car in some valley, combines those component bits and then sells several million of them singlehandedly.
The second is that there are no "natural resources" down the street that you can simply go and collect. It would certainly validate the libertarian ideal if there were just a bunch of unclaimed oil rigs or gold mines a la some civ simulator just ripe for the collecting that process pure gold, or refined oil.
Of particular interest here is Rothbard's complete and utter devotion to the Lockean concept of property despite the complete and utter disdain he has for the Lockean concept of the social contract expressed not so many pages before!
The gist is that even using Rothbard's "Ruritania" analogy capitalism requires a state to exist and furthermore needs a state strong enough to ensure that a uniform currency is accepted, to ensure the continued operation of markets, and to protect property "rights."
I'm an unapologetic leftist and I didn't think that Rothbard would convince me otherwise- but, I expected a more rigorous text from someone considered to be an intellectual titan on the right to at least make me consider my own beliefs more thoroughly. I admit that I have greatly overestimated Murray Rothbard's capabilities.
Rothbard's favourite fallacy seems to be the reductio ad Hitlerum. This is a favourite of the libertarian right in general and though Rothbard was hardly the first to utilize the comparison he exemplifies its usage: "Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have 'committed suicide,' since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part." Of course the deported French, Polish, and Soviet Jews didn't have a say in Germany's electoral prospects but Rothbard skips past that because it doesn't fit his hyperbolic statement.
He continues in this hyperbole only with a touch of the melodramatic: "Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." There is a kernel of truth here: the State does maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area. But, what is interesting is that Rothbard never asks the obvious 'why?'
The state utilizes force and violence to protect private property. It prevents one person's usurpation of the property rights of another because of this monopoly of force. Indeed if you read into Rothbard's silly "Ruritania" analogy you can see this quite clearly: the "bandits" took other people's property and formed "The State" to protect their property. Property rights require a strong state as the poor victims of the "Ruritania" analogy make clear.
Going off of that the State most certainly does not make its money solely of coercion. In fact the State does provide many services: which is protecting property rights, ensuring markets at home, negotiations for them abroad, a stable currency, and taxation is the fee for that service. Rothbard simply doesn't like paying for that service (though he enjoys receiving it).
Of all of the flimsy examples in this book though here is my favourite in regards to how property rights come about: "[Man] does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by 'mixing his labor' with them, as Locke puts it) to make them his individual property..." You almost miss it. Rothbard here makes a generalization here that is very weak. The first is that while conceivably someone could go out, collect some reeds and make a basket by themselves this is not how capitalism works. There's not one man who finds himself all the materials for a car in some valley, combines those component bits and then sells several million of them singlehandedly.
The second is that there are no "natural resources" down the street that you can simply go and collect. It would certainly validate the libertarian ideal if there were just a bunch of unclaimed oil rigs or gold mines a la some civ simulator just ripe for the collecting that process pure gold, or refined oil.
Of particular interest here is Rothbard's complete and utter devotion to the Lockean concept of property despite the complete and utter disdain he has for the Lockean concept of the social contract expressed not so many pages before!
The gist is that even using Rothbard's "Ruritania" analogy capitalism requires a state to exist and furthermore needs a state strong enough to ensure that a uniform currency is accepted, to ensure the continued operation of markets, and to protect property "rights."
I'm an unapologetic leftist and I didn't think that Rothbard would convince me otherwise- but, I expected a more rigorous text from someone considered to be an intellectual titan on the right to at least make me consider my own beliefs more thoroughly. I admit that I have greatly overestimated Murray Rothbard's capabilities.
January 14, 2020
I view this book as similar to Machiavelli’s “The Prince” but worse. Where Machiavelli examines political power of a ruler, Rothbard presents his examination of what a state is and hints at his answer to whether a state is legitimate or not.
The reason I view this as worse than “The Prince” is because this book is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest. Rothbard incorrectly identifies several key aspects of government in his book. Notably, these include the formation of the state (his omission of any reference to the formation of the United States is particularly distressing) and the nature of treaties.
Of course, not everything Rothbard says is inaccurate, but the concern is that he includes just enough accuracy to make his failings all the more troublesome. If something were all bad it could easily be dismissed, but where it had some semblance of credibility or argumentation it has the power to persuade where it shouldn’t.
The reason I view this as worse than “The Prince” is because this book is, in my view, fundamentally dishonest. Rothbard incorrectly identifies several key aspects of government in his book. Notably, these include the formation of the state (his omission of any reference to the formation of the United States is particularly distressing) and the nature of treaties.
Of course, not everything Rothbard says is inaccurate, but the concern is that he includes just enough accuracy to make his failings all the more troublesome. If something were all bad it could easily be dismissed, but where it had some semblance of credibility or argumentation it has the power to persuade where it shouldn’t.
May 19, 2017
The author presented a passionate argument against governments. The biggest problem I have with this argument is that it's entirely one-sided, without even considering the benefits of government. A non-trivial portion of the arguments are also not supported by facts and there are many leaps to conclusion.
Nevertheless, the book gives me interesting insights about how "parasitic" governments may work.
Nevertheless, the book gives me interesting insights about how "parasitic" governments may work.
April 8, 2021
Short and sweet. But packed. I love solutions. I love hope. And I love this book even tho it has neither of those. This guy quickly got my attention by clearly setting out the basics. what is a state, why is a state, how does a state interact with other states at little tea parties and such.
I want to read it again. and probably track a bunch of the footnotes. but... liked it.
I want to read it again. and probably track a bunch of the footnotes. but... liked it.
August 12, 2019
" the State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime. . . . It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or of alien"
One of the most powerful quotation in this book, that gives me chill and sympathy to anarchy. To be honest, I don't quite agree with all Rothbard's notion of State skepticism, as behavioral economics suggested that individual is emotional rather than rational. So, State intervention is needed to nudge individuals to live better. But man, all those arguments of State's hypocrisy, just blow my mind.
One of the most powerful quotation in this book, that gives me chill and sympathy to anarchy. To be honest, I don't quite agree with all Rothbard's notion of State skepticism, as behavioral economics suggested that individual is emotional rather than rational. So, State intervention is needed to nudge individuals to live better. But man, all those arguments of State's hypocrisy, just blow my mind.
January 16, 2016
I've never read a book and felt like I was cheering on a sporting event until I read this one. I guess because it's rare to read a book these days where someone actually understands and cogently describes the nature and history of the State without idolizing and lauding its paternal — or rather, authoritarian — attributes. This short work is something I wish my family and friends would take the time to read, especially those with such forthright opinions, but something tells me you won't. There's only so much you can do from your couch and recliners and reading a book isn't one of them.
August 31, 2013
Nunca tinha pensado no estado da forma que é mostrado nesse livro. Ainda tenho algumas duvidas sobre o estado, mas menos do que antes. Interesante o ponto de vista de Rothbard.
stricken
December 22, 2019ancaps are literally the funniest political group of all time. talk about the libertarian right wing
January 26, 2022
صرف نظر از برخی ادعاها که برق از سر آدم میپرونه به نظرم در مجموع خلاصهای منطقی از رئوس اندیشه ضددولتگراهای فردگرا رو در قبال دولت ارائه داده
:)) ولی اینکه برای کتابی به اسم "آناتومی دولت" عکسی از آناتومی بدن انسان رو انتخاب کنی واقعا سطح عجیبی از بدسلیقگی طراح جلد رو نشون میده
:)) ولی اینکه برای کتابی به اسم "آناتومی دولت" عکسی از آناتومی بدن انسان رو انتخاب کنی واقعا سطح عجیبی از بدسلیقگی طراح جلد رو نشون میده
March 19, 2024
Short, but veryyyyyyyyy sweet. A masterpiece. I only wish it was longer.
September 21, 2018
Let me lead with this. Don't read this nonsense unless you want to be annoyed and have nothing substantive added to your life and understanding of the world.
What is this trend I'm noticing of horrible ideas coming in pamphlet sized books? Is it because they know their target audiences have the combined attention span of a gnat? Or is it because the authors themselves are incapable of a more thorough intellectual labor? If the contents of this book (and the attendant ratings that I've seen of it) are any indication, it's both.
Typical Libertarian claptrap. Now with more exuberant ignorance! The classic Libertarian strategy of thinking that expressing an idea calmly and orderly is the same as speaking substantively, logically, or convincingly. (Hint: it's not)
My responses in order of egregiousness:
The intellectuals are complicit with the state in that they create the ideas that everyone else accepts. Nice soft-sell on anti-intellectualism and anti-education. Nevermind that the educated and educators have often been some of the states most fervent opponents. Nevermind that they fight against the very state you say they're complicit with to deliver ideas of liberation to the people. Nope. It's the Smarts! They're the ones to blame!
Capitalism, described entirely as free trade and never as its more mature form, Corporatism, is the savior of the world. It converts human energy and ingenuity, in combination with raw materials, to create value. Please note that prior to free trade, the species literally couldn't exist because none of us could feed ourselves.. what with all of that no good, non-capitalistic, cooperative agriculture and collaborative hunting we did.
The state is responsible for the ills of society. No matter what the Smarts tell you, the state is not your friend (but your company is...). The state wants to rob you of your money and, in fact, that's the only way it got its own (but not your company...). The state never does any actual work (even if state and federal enterprises exist...).
You are not the government and you shouldn't identify with them. They are a ruling elite (even if you directly work for the government as part of a state-run entity that does actual work and know actual government representatives on a first-name basis and have seen exactly how they live.. same as you). You should feel no emotional compulsion towards the government as ruling class. When we go to war, it is ruling elites fighting and we shouldn't be emotionally invested (even if people we love are fighting and dying, even if people we love have been killed as collateral, we must remain stoic and remember that it's none of our business...).
Anything the government does that you don't like is evidence of government overreach. Being conscripted (which doesn't happen anymore), having trade limited (which exists to protect the consumer or the industry as a whole), being arrested. These are all evidence of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong in the lives of free individuals under the fraudulent guise of "we the people". Because the government holds the monopoly on violence and enforces that monopoly with an iron fist (just never you mind that community enforcement of rules predates governments and that, if the government didn't lock you up for doing system-disrupting or destructing activity, the tribe would participate in group homicide instead).
And naturally not a single goddamn citation.
I don't care what this dude identifies as, though I do now see why Anarchists are so skeptical of AnCaps. You sound like Libertarians... just more violent. Don't think that that bit of Nazi dog-whistling, that is literally the last line of the book, went unnoticed.
"Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored if the successful FINAL SOLUTION the state is ever to be obtained."
Shitbirds of a feather.
What is this trend I'm noticing of horrible ideas coming in pamphlet sized books? Is it because they know their target audiences have the combined attention span of a gnat? Or is it because the authors themselves are incapable of a more thorough intellectual labor? If the contents of this book (and the attendant ratings that I've seen of it) are any indication, it's both.
Typical Libertarian claptrap. Now with more exuberant ignorance! The classic Libertarian strategy of thinking that expressing an idea calmly and orderly is the same as speaking substantively, logically, or convincingly. (Hint: it's not)
My responses in order of egregiousness:
The intellectuals are complicit with the state in that they create the ideas that everyone else accepts. Nice soft-sell on anti-intellectualism and anti-education. Nevermind that the educated and educators have often been some of the states most fervent opponents. Nevermind that they fight against the very state you say they're complicit with to deliver ideas of liberation to the people. Nope. It's the Smarts! They're the ones to blame!
Capitalism, described entirely as free trade and never as its more mature form, Corporatism, is the savior of the world. It converts human energy and ingenuity, in combination with raw materials, to create value. Please note that prior to free trade, the species literally couldn't exist because none of us could feed ourselves.. what with all of that no good, non-capitalistic, cooperative agriculture and collaborative hunting we did.
The state is responsible for the ills of society. No matter what the Smarts tell you, the state is not your friend (but your company is...). The state wants to rob you of your money and, in fact, that's the only way it got its own (but not your company...). The state never does any actual work (even if state and federal enterprises exist...).
You are not the government and you shouldn't identify with them. They are a ruling elite (even if you directly work for the government as part of a state-run entity that does actual work and know actual government representatives on a first-name basis and have seen exactly how they live.. same as you). You should feel no emotional compulsion towards the government as ruling class. When we go to war, it is ruling elites fighting and we shouldn't be emotionally invested (even if people we love are fighting and dying, even if people we love have been killed as collateral, we must remain stoic and remember that it's none of our business...).
Anything the government does that you don't like is evidence of government overreach. Being conscripted (which doesn't happen anymore), having trade limited (which exists to protect the consumer or the industry as a whole), being arrested. These are all evidence of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong in the lives of free individuals under the fraudulent guise of "we the people". Because the government holds the monopoly on violence and enforces that monopoly with an iron fist (just never you mind that community enforcement of rules predates governments and that, if the government didn't lock you up for doing system-disrupting or destructing activity, the tribe would participate in group homicide instead).
And naturally not a single goddamn citation.
I don't care what this dude identifies as, though I do now see why Anarchists are so skeptical of AnCaps. You sound like Libertarians... just more violent. Don't think that that bit of Nazi dog-whistling, that is literally the last line of the book, went unnoticed.
"Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored if the successful FINAL SOLUTION the state is ever to be obtained."
Shitbirds of a feather.
October 18, 2022
Libertarians are the best at what they do well: anti-government polemics. Murray Rothbard’s essay “Anatomy of the State” is as good an introduction to libertarian thinking as I have encountered (not yet having read any of the F.A. Hayek books on my shelf). It is more of a medium-long essay than a book, and it is available for free by simply googling its title.
The greatest strength of libertarian polemics, aside from being pointed and often hilarious, is that they are a healthy challenge to our modern liberal pieties about government. For example, Rothbard’s essay begins by pointing out how absurd it is when the governed population buys into the rhetoric that in a democracy, “we are the government”. He illustrates his argument by pointing out that if it were true, then Jews being killed by the German government in the 1930’s were actually committing suicide since the democratically elected government was merely an extension of themselves. Additionally, if the mere act of residing within a territory is to be treated as voluntary endorsement of any action a democratic government might take, then how is persecution even possible? The first step to libertarian enlightenment is to realize what the government is not, and the next is to recognize what it is. Rothbard offers this conception: “that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion”. This is not an exhaustive enunciation of the primary characteristics of government, but rather an articulation of what makes government different from every other organization within any society.
I think that these and a few other basic precepts of libertarianism are not only useful, but extremely important in any understanding of government. However, one of the great weaknesses of the libertarianism Rothbard presents is that it gets imprisoned by these precepts and cannot or will not acknowledge any valuable aspect of government. It is simply too dedicated to the ideal form of society in which a government is so restrained as to be unrecognizable to any person anywhere at any point in history. Any time an ideology requires the manifest destruction of a major pillar of society (whether government, churches, the family, etc. ) in order to give their entirely theoretical utopian system the opportunity to take root, I am immediately skeptical.
Rothbard’s libertarianism is concerned with the internal threat presented by the state to the exclusion of any other threat, particularly external threats. History has demonstrated that a robust industrialized economy that is being controlled by a centralized government can (in the short to medium term) produce war materiel at a rate that a free market economy with a decentralized and conflict-averse government could not compete with in time to mount a noteworthy defense. In fact, history has shown that in such cases that have necessitated a speedy production of war materiel, centralization of government and control of the economy have been the orders of the day. It is perfectly acceptable to imagine a world in which this were not the case in a poetic sense, but it’s simply not useful to ignore lessons of the past to indulge imaginative flights of fancy.
It is useful to be skeptical of the motivations, methods, and claims of any government. It is silly, however, to treat all governments as if they were malicious totalitarian mafias. Some might argue that I am expecting too much nuance from what is essentially an essay introducing the basic concepts of libertarianism. That would be a fair argument to entertain, if only Rothbard had included even a glint of nuance anywhere in his essay. Instead, he is presenting The Truth in its absolute simplicity, and leaves me hoping that F.A. Hayek does far better.
The greatest strength of libertarian polemics, aside from being pointed and often hilarious, is that they are a healthy challenge to our modern liberal pieties about government. For example, Rothbard’s essay begins by pointing out how absurd it is when the governed population buys into the rhetoric that in a democracy, “we are the government”. He illustrates his argument by pointing out that if it were true, then Jews being killed by the German government in the 1930’s were actually committing suicide since the democratically elected government was merely an extension of themselves. Additionally, if the mere act of residing within a territory is to be treated as voluntary endorsement of any action a democratic government might take, then how is persecution even possible? The first step to libertarian enlightenment is to realize what the government is not, and the next is to recognize what it is. Rothbard offers this conception: “that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion”. This is not an exhaustive enunciation of the primary characteristics of government, but rather an articulation of what makes government different from every other organization within any society.
I think that these and a few other basic precepts of libertarianism are not only useful, but extremely important in any understanding of government. However, one of the great weaknesses of the libertarianism Rothbard presents is that it gets imprisoned by these precepts and cannot or will not acknowledge any valuable aspect of government. It is simply too dedicated to the ideal form of society in which a government is so restrained as to be unrecognizable to any person anywhere at any point in history. Any time an ideology requires the manifest destruction of a major pillar of society (whether government, churches, the family, etc. ) in order to give their entirely theoretical utopian system the opportunity to take root, I am immediately skeptical.
Rothbard’s libertarianism is concerned with the internal threat presented by the state to the exclusion of any other threat, particularly external threats. History has demonstrated that a robust industrialized economy that is being controlled by a centralized government can (in the short to medium term) produce war materiel at a rate that a free market economy with a decentralized and conflict-averse government could not compete with in time to mount a noteworthy defense. In fact, history has shown that in such cases that have necessitated a speedy production of war materiel, centralization of government and control of the economy have been the orders of the day. It is perfectly acceptable to imagine a world in which this were not the case in a poetic sense, but it’s simply not useful to ignore lessons of the past to indulge imaginative flights of fancy.
It is useful to be skeptical of the motivations, methods, and claims of any government. It is silly, however, to treat all governments as if they were malicious totalitarian mafias. Some might argue that I am expecting too much nuance from what is essentially an essay introducing the basic concepts of libertarianism. That would be a fair argument to entertain, if only Rothbard had included even a glint of nuance anywhere in his essay. Instead, he is presenting The Truth in its absolute simplicity, and leaves me hoping that F.A. Hayek does far better.
April 7, 2020
Frankly, I mostly read this because it—as you no doubt have discerned—frames the nation State in anatomical terms. And seeing as how I took a class in anatomy, barely retained any of the information but still want to feel like I did, I naturally wanted to check that out. But apart from Rothbard saying
Succinctly put, Rothbard believes government in almost in form is bad—minus its ability to defend the citizenry and protect private property, and anything else I imagine that would be on a libertarians' ideological wishlist. He does this in a seemingly permanent sarcastic tone, and his argument is, in my view, intensely intellectually dishonest. This is because it quite one-sided in what he believes to be Correct. And variations are all apparently so Wrong as to be not worth mentioning as counter-arguments to balance out his own.
In fact, a more accurate title for his book might be "Why I Prefer to Hate on the State in the Style and Manner of a Rebellious Adolescent Child". Naturally, that does not necessarily make a book bad or boring, as many teenagers have written great books. Too bad Rothbard spent more time stacking up his confirmation biases than building a systematic argument–and using more anatomy terms.
And now, I present to you the entire book if Murray was alive today and chose to write it on Twitter as an angry thread:
"TAXATION is THEFT!!!"...
"THE STATE IS A BULLY DID YOU KNOW THAT?..>
"I'M LIKE, REALLY SMART"
"Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State" (16)that's about all the value I could detect in that context. And although I'm sure you no doubt, like me, found that single instance that connects his title's premise to his book exhilarating—I'm afraid that the fun ends there.
Succinctly put, Rothbard believes government in almost in form is bad—minus its ability to defend the citizenry and protect private property, and anything else I imagine that would be on a libertarians' ideological wishlist. He does this in a seemingly permanent sarcastic tone, and his argument is, in my view, intensely intellectually dishonest. This is because it quite one-sided in what he believes to be Correct. And variations are all apparently so Wrong as to be not worth mentioning as counter-arguments to balance out his own.
In fact, a more accurate title for his book might be "Why I Prefer to Hate on the State in the Style and Manner of a Rebellious Adolescent Child". Naturally, that does not necessarily make a book bad or boring, as many teenagers have written great books. Too bad Rothbard spent more time stacking up his confirmation biases than building a systematic argument–and using more anatomy terms.
And now, I present to you the entire book if Murray was alive today and chose to write it on Twitter as an angry thread:
"TAXATION is THEFT!!!"...
"THE STATE IS A BULLY DID YOU KNOW THAT?..>
"I'M LIKE, REALLY SMART"
Read
August 26, 2022The Anatomy of the State - also known as The Book of Footnotes.
Surprisingly, I quite enjoyed this book, if mostly for its comedic value.
While I understand - and even agree with - some of the arguments Rothbard lays out (such as the issue posed by the judiciary, or the fact that most wars serve only the State, and never its people),
most of what is written here is just him asserting that the existence of the State does not serve the individual in any way whatsoever, which is decidedly untrue.
I do however appreciate this work for what it is: an insight into the heart of anarcho-capitalist philosophy, which is, to put it simply: State bad. State take money but no do things I like. State very bad.
Surprisingly, I quite enjoyed this book, if mostly for its comedic value.
While I understand - and even agree with - some of the arguments Rothbard lays out (such as the issue posed by the judiciary, or the fact that most wars serve only the State, and never its people),
most of what is written here is just him asserting that the existence of the State does not serve the individual in any way whatsoever, which is decidedly untrue.
I do however appreciate this work for what it is: an insight into the heart of anarcho-capitalist philosophy, which is, to put it simply: State bad. State take money but no do things I like. State very bad.
Read
December 20, 2018There is much good in such a short book. Rothbard does an excellent job of deconstructing the State and its unlawful coercive power to "bully" the citizens.
However, there didn't seem to be a solution provided. So in that regard (and its clear lack of a foundation in the Lord for its criticisms), I'm finding it hard to know how to rate it.
However, there didn't seem to be a solution provided. So in that regard (and its clear lack of a foundation in the Lord for its criticisms), I'm finding it hard to know how to rate it.
October 20, 2018
This is one of the first books I read of this sort so can't really say much since I have nothing to compare it to. It's a long essay which makes for a short book. I expected it to be boring but it was surprisingly refreshing and eye opening.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 543 reviews