What Is Striking the Root?  

by Gil Guillory

To strike at the root of government, one must understand what that root is. To that end, I offer a few definitions. My dictionary offers a mechanical definition that leaves one scratching his head: 

Government is the act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. 

Max Weber offered a now-famous definition of the state that is almost universally accepted. After noting that an operational definition is problematic, he relied on the notion of sovereignty as monopoly: 

A government is an entity that claims a legitimate monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area. 

This definition is quite good, but needs an extensive ancillary discussion on the distinction between "force/coercion" and "persuasion," which folks like Amitai Etzioni deny exists. There's a good discussion that defends the distinction on the first audiotape listed here. (HEY, CATO! When are you going to post MP3's of these tapes like The Mises Institute does with its lectures? Get with the program!)  

Can we do better? Roderick Long's essay on equality is not to be missed. It informs the third definition. 

The state is an organization that claims a legitimate monopoly of the adjudication of rights-claims in a given geographic area.  

As Hoppe has said (see his lecture here), this power to adjudicate supports and implies the legitimacy of taxation, and taxation can only be maintained with this power. 

Some worry that this definition, using the word “monopoly,” cannot fit within the US system of divided powers, where jurisdiction is divided, even within the same territorial limits. This claim is weak, if history is properly followed. First, the colonies were royal charters under a sovereign. Then, their representatives claimed in a famous document that they were “free and independent states.” The states entered into a mutual defense treaty, the Articles of Confederation, and later delegated some sovereignty to the Federal Government through the Constitution. Strictly speaking, the states still retain that authority, and all other political entities (counties, cities, special taxing districts, etc.) are chartered by state governments.

But, all of this is unpersuasive to some. So, here is a fourth formulation, which seems to be the best one I can muster:

The state is an organization that claims to legitimately adjudicate on issues in which at least one party to the dispute does not agree to have the state so adjudicate.

This last formulation still presents problems, though. Imagine a criminal that refuses to acknowledge any adjudicator. If that criminal is then tried in absentia, will the adjudicator in such a process be a state? That doesn’t seem right. Let’s say the victim then (on the basis of such adjudication) seizes the property of the criminal either directly or through an agent, what will the criminal do? Either he will seek adjudication or not. If he seeks adjudication, then the problem is solved, for he will be thereby compelled by his own act to choose an adjudicator. If he does not choose to dispute the seizure of his property in any way, can we say that he has consented to such seizure? I think we can.