Government and the Cycle of Violence

Individuals who have objects to buy or sell typically do not initiate violence upon the people with whom they trade. This should be evident in anyone's day-to-day dealings: if you killed your grocer, from whom would you obtain food in the future? If you stole timepieces from the clockmaker, why would he ever be willing to enter in a trade with you again? As such, wherever the division of labor occurs, one can be sure that the people adhere to the principle of contract over the principle of violence. The principle of contract requires people to voluntarily cooperate with each other for mutual benefit, whereas the principle of violence dictates that physical force determines the allocation and use of resources. The principle of contract is synonymous with peace, and it is the principle upon which any economically growing country is based. On the other hand, government is not built upon voluntary agreements and peace but upon coercion and force. It is upon the principle of violence that all governments are necessarily based and from which all war and terrorism are derived.

The division of labor works so well as a result of the great diversity of talents and resources that different people possess. If I am expert at growing corn and my neighbor is expert at raising livestock, it only makes sense that we each specialize in what we are best suited for, and the result of this specialization is a higher standard of living for both of us. As the realm of economic activity expands, more people can enter into the division of labor and everyone will reap the rewards of the increased specialization made possible. The division of labor replaces the adversarial role of autarkic individuals competing for scarce resources with the dependence of one upon all others and therefore requires, above all else, peace.

The capitalist order of economic activity requires an individual to suit himself for the needs of others if his own needs are to be fulfilled. Society becomes a sort of organism, in which every part executes its own essential functions and as a result supports the whole being. Without the iron mines, the machine factories would stop producing.

Without the machine factories, the farmers would have no equipment to cultivate their great fields. Every link in the chain is necessary to all others, and peaceful trade and agreement is required if it is to succeed.

The market also contains its own mechanisms for ensuring that all urgent needs are fulfilled, since profit-seeking individuals will fill any niche that opens up. In short, an economic system based on private property and the principle of contract allows the full potential of human creativity to be realized and requires an interdependence of individuals that unites them in peaceful cooperation.

However, even within a society based upon the division of labor and private property there are some who operate on a wholly different principle, the principle of violence. These anti-social individuals, excluding petty thieves, can support their positions by various means, but usually by appealing to a collective authority such as the General Will or the Common Good. Whatever the reasons by which they claim to act, anti-social individuals operate by replacing the voluntary division of labor with a system of force.

Although the classical liberal ideal for the United States government was to protect the division of labor from people who operate on the principle of violence, the government soon became the largest perpetrator of its own reason for existence. Taxation, price controls, tariffs, subsidies, and regulations are all tools by which the government uses force to replace the voluntary division of labor with an outcome of whatever the major political voice dictates.

If a market economy and the principle of contract foster a culture of cooperation and peace, then the coercive government and principle of violence upon which it is based cultivate enmity, war, and terrorism. This is the necessary result of breaking apart the division of labor and creating conflicts among people who previously were united by a common effort. When the government takes resources from some to give to others or restricts some from production, a condition is created by which individuals must struggle against each other instead of with each other.

The government is then embraced by all anti-social individuals who wish to use its police power to loot others.

On an international level, the principle of violence is no less destructive than within the arbitrary geographical boundaries of a country. The voluntary division of labor need not be stopped anywhere, and free trade is beneficial without exception at all times. Just like one would not impart violence to his neighbor from whom he obtains livestock, one also would not impart violence to a man halfway across the globe from whom he obtains ivory. The unifying effects of the division of labor apply in all cases, and it is only by that method which the peoples of different regions can find common cause.

Unfortunately, the United States government does not practice a policy of allowing free trade with all. The principle of violence is applied even more vigorously with the people of other countries. Whereas if an individual within the country does not obey the government he will be tried and possibly imprisoned or killed, disobedient individuals outside the country often bring about the bombing of whole villages. It is only by cutting off all trade with these people beforehand that the American people tolerate such abuse. The government always has its reasons to meddle in the affairs of other nations, be it more money or power, and just like the principle of violence results in conflict and animosity within the United States, outside of the country it generates hatred and aggression. Within the country this destruction plays itself out over what special interests will gain control of government, but outside of the country it must operate in different ways. The only way to react to anti-social people or governments using the principle of violence is to respond in kind.

When the principle of violence is used by anyone, it should never come as a surprise when others use it in return. In modern times, governments often employ violence not against other governments but on their civilian populations, and where the governments are too weak to formally declare war, terrorist tactics are often taken. After such an attack is ever suffered, it is tempting to retaliate with full force and continue the cycle of violence. However, we must first analyze why people fight each other and alternately, what joins them in peaceful cooperation. Only when the principle of contract prevails over the principle of violence, not only domestically but also abroad, can true peace be realized. This requires that free trade be allowed everywhere, so that all can participate in the division of labor and grow as one social organism. As Ludwig von Mises stated, "The greater productivity of work under the division of labor is a unifying influence. It leads men to regard each other as comrades in a joint struggle for welfare, rather than as competitors in a struggle for existence. It makes friends out of enemies, peace out of war, society out of individuals." Perhaps we should take von Mises' advice, and realize that businessmen make infinitely better ministers of peace than politicians ever will.

March 17, 2002