The State

by Anthony de Jasay

Strikingly original. . . . De Jasay offers the most compelling account of what is wrong and dangerous about the state."

—Alan Ryan

The State is an idiosyncratic and brilliant analysis of modern political arrangements that views the state as acting in its own interest contrary to the interests of individuals and even of an entire society. As Nobel laureate James Buchanan has observed, Jasay subjects the state to a "solid, foundational analysis, grounded in an understanding of economic theory, informed by political philosophy and a deep sense of history." The results include a "devastating critique of the absurdities of modern welfare economics." Jasay traces the logical and historical progression of the state from a modest-sized protector of life and property through its development into what he believes to be an "agile seducer of democratic majorities, to the welfare-dispensing drudge that it is today." Can, Jasay wonders, this seemingly inexorable expansion of the state be stopped? Or, "Is the rational next step [for the state] a totalitarian enhancement of its power?"

Anthony de Jasay is an independent theorist living in France. Jasay “believes that philosophy should be mainly, if not exclusively, about clarifying conclusions that arise from the careless use of, or deliberate misuse of, language. There are echoes here of  . . . Wittgenstein's later philosophy.” His books, translated into a half dozen languages, include Justice and Its Surroundings and Social Contract, Free Ride.



[source/credit line] I. M. D. Little in Ordered Anarchy, 2007

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, Science, History, Theory

330 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

Reviews

[Kevin]

A masterful public-choice inspired analysis of states as institutions and why they inevitably grow. Jasay starts with the core classical liberal (and public choice) idea that states are composed of people, replete with the same flaws as exist in private actors. Jasay's idea - though this is an oversimplification - is that once members of a state get the power to be the final appeal in adjudication of disputes, they essentially have the power needed to start expanding their power. Constitutions won't help because states reserve the right to adjudicate constitutional disputes, and will tend to interpret the constitution in a way favorable to the state. (Think of the U.S. progressive era and the creative ways the Supreme Court found to read into the Constitution powers the executive/legislature wanted to have.)

There are a few problems, though. First, Jasay conceives of members of the state as essentially having the same interests, which is at least debatable. Nor am I necessarily convinced that the separation of powers will always be ineffective (could a state be designed where the judiciary REMAINS independent of the legislature or executive?) Also, while I share much of Jasay's pessimism, I do not follow Jasay into anarchism, but more like fellow public-choicer James Buchanan, believe that anarchism may not be able to deal (in a way any better than an average liberal state) with the idea of justice and law.

Otherwise, this is easily on my top 10 list of must reads for classical liberalism. And, while I am not an anarchist, any believer in minimal government (or government at all) really should have to go through Jasay's arguments first.

[Daniel Moss · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's not what he says but how he says it that drives me nuts. I was tempted to give this sucker 2 stars on mere fact that I absolutely cannot stand 95% of his writing. The one chapter I thoroughly enjoyed (even the writing) was the one on symmetry and how humans have a natural tendency towards it, which is why we believe in one-man, one-vote and other symmetrical things like material equality. De Jasay did a good job of pointing out (in his own words of course) that this attraction toward the symmetry of material equality (as well as one-man, one-vote) is the result of believing that symmetry can only be found in those paradigms. In other words, it's not true that only material equality is symmetrical — so is equality grounded in property rights and non-aggression — but people are ignorant of this fact.

[Hunter Hastings · Rating 5 out of 5]

Totalitarianism, here we come.

The democratic state drifts inexorably towards totalitarianism. As it feels the need to bribe more interest groups and allocate more resources to keep them voting, it eventually tires of the increasing burden. The cost of redistributive entitlements restricts the State’s discretionary power to invest in national greatness, fight foreign wars and land on the moon. It eventually decides to consolidate political and economic power and remove the tiresome necessity of increasing the level of bribery in order to win at the ballot box. This is the direction in which we find ourselves moving.

[David McGrogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

De Jasay's prose is like marmite. I'm in the unusual position of neither loving nor hating it. I found his pithiness and sardonic wit entertaining, but his exposition often dense and hard to parse (although reading him in translation may be partly to blame for that). He is preaching to the converted with me, which of course influences my perception considerably. What I think even those from the other end of the political spectrum can appreciate is his commitment to analysis rather than prescription: this is not a book about how to change the world - rather, about how it can't be changed. The humility in that is refreshing.

[J. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love Jasay's unique approach to the subject, and while it is a much needed antidote to conventional poly sci, the delivery and flow are such that one quickly begins to feel that he is "beating a dead horse". I also believe that he puts far too much emphasis on rationality being an unquestionably reliable guide to any one sector of society.

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Jasay demonstrates that it is rational for the state to erode the freedom of its citizens- in other words, when a democratic government shifts towards totalitarianism, it is only doing what is in the government’s best interest. A helpful reminder that the people who run the government do not suddenly become saints because they were appointed or elected. Rather, they continue to pursue their interests, interests which rationally coincide with stealing your liberty.

Jasay also makes a compelling case against the idea that people would sign a social contract. There is no coherent reason why someone in the state of nature would give up their freedom for the promise (usually unfulfilled) of protection.

Highly recommend.

[Larry · Rating 4 out of 5]

The discussion of the inanity of interpersonal utility comparisons eats up most of the book’s interest and leaves you (as far as the rest of the argument goes) with scattered insights that would most of the time need further development. However, unlike other people here apparently, I’m definitely a fan of the guy’s writing.

[康佳刘 · Rating 5 out of 5]

9月21日阅读完毕

[Craig Bolton]

The state by Anthony De Jasay (1998)