The Anti-Statist's Chicken and Egg Problem

by Lee McCracken

Which came first, the growth of the state or the erosion of civil society? And more to the point, how do we reverse this trend? Different answers have been offered, but many who’ve studied the problem seem to agree that the two phenomena go hand in hand. The libertarian-conservative sociologist Robert Nisbet argued in his The Quest for Community that the growth of the central state over the last three centuries has crowded out the usefulness of decentralized voluntary institutions like churches, guilds, neighborhoods and so forth. As the tasks of these intermediate institutions were usurped by the state, they became less and less effective as buffers between the individual and the naked power of the sovereign.  

Whichever began first (and the answer is probably complex), it’s easy to see how these two trends can be mutually reinforcing. As the state grows and takes on ever more tasks, people naturally begin to see it as the all-purpose problem-solver (despite the unintended consequences of so many of its “solutions”). Rather than thinking of politics as a last resort, more and more people see it as the natural vehicle for implementing their pet agenda. This further weakens intermediate associations which, in turn, makes the state seem like the only institution in society that can get things done.  

The problem is further compounded by the fact that people, once in a certain condition, will naturally tend to prefer that condition to one of radical change. As Anthony de Jasay points out in his book The State, the political environment you find yourself in will tend to narrow your horizon of available options:  

“When social scientists say that they know that Smith prefers tea to coffee because he just said so, or because he has revealed his preference by taking tea when he could have taken coffee, they deal in objects which are presumed to be both familiar and accessible to Smith. When Smith is talking about his preferences for things he can at best know from hearsay, difficulties begin to arise. They are compounded when he could not possibly translate his avowed preference into a practical act of choice, because some alternatives are simply not feasible. People who live in states have as a rule never experienced the state of nature and vice versa, and have no practical possibility of moving from the one to the other.”  

The more the state takes over vital social functions, the more likely we are to become used to the situation. It becomes natural because we don’t know anything else. We can see this trend at work in the creeping statism of the 20^th century. The Old Right of the interwar years was militantly committed to rolling back the New Deal. Then the neoconservatives of the ‘70s and ‘80s were willing to settle for trimming the edges of LBJ’s Great Society. Today, virtually no prominent conservative advocates radical cuts in the size and scope of the federal government. Our vision has become restricted to what seems “possible.”  

This might lead to severe pessimism about the prospects of rolling back the encroachments of the state. Libertarians have existed as an organized political force for about 30 years and have yet to succeed in seriously reducing any aspect of government. Small victories seem to be vitiated by the legitimacy granted to the status quo by those who desire to work within the system. The Libertarian movement seems destined to continuously moderating its claims in order to seem respectable.  

I think the insights of Nisbet, de Jasay and others help to show why the political model of change is ultimately doomed to failure. As long as people are convinced that the state is the only game in town, no one will be able to convince them to vote for its abolition. They need to be shown how important things can get done in society without “resorting to politics,” as de Jasay puts it elsewhere.  

If one of the problems of statism is that it suffocates voluntary, decentralized intermediate institutions, then part of the anti-statist’s task is to help revive and re-create a rich private sector. Americans are practical folk; a few people may be convinced by libertarian theory or by the study of economics, but most people will say: “Show me how it can work. Show me how non-coercive institutions can deliver the goods.” It won’t do just to show how all government functions could theoretically be performed voluntarily. To be convinced, people will need to see it in action.  

People all across the political spectrum have come to see the importance of so-called alternative institutions as a means of peaceably and voluntarily realizing their social and political goals. From the religious right to the anarchist left, people are realizing the futility of trying to grab hold of the machinery of the state to further their vision of the good society. The more widespread the “dropping out” from the use of political methods becomes, the closer libertarians are to their goal of a free society. Alternative schools, alternative economic institutions, alternative social service providers can all help to drain the blood from the vampire sucking at our collective neck.  

The best part is, these kinds of endeavors carry their own rewards beyond just contributing to the demise of statism. People don’t homeschool their kids to fight the state (at least not primarily); they do it to give their kids the best education possible. Working at a soup kitchen or starting a business that provides private security are intrinsically rewarding activities (and legal for the most part!). Philosophers and social scientists have pointed out that involvement in clubs, fraternal orders, churches, and other voluntary associations makes up a large part of a satisfying human life. We should be angry that the state has been taking this away from us!  

The “father of conservatism” Edmund Burke (who was actually closer to a modern-day libertarian) spoke of the attachments to the “little platoons” of life that help define who we are. But it was the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (no libertarian, but definitely skeptical of the value of the modern nation-state) who pointed out how withdrawing our moral consent can help bring down the pretensions of a bloated state. After discussing the moral chaos of modern life in his book After Virtue, he concludes with a vision to sustain us through what may be a new dark ages:  

“A crucial turning point in that earlier history [of the demise of the Roman Empire] occurred when men and women of good will turned aside the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve instead—often not fully recognizing what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that morality and civility might survive the coming age of barbarism and darkness.”  

The variety of private endeavors people can create is virtually unlimited. A flourishing civic life—the web of voluntary institutions and associations, fraternal organizations, businesses, churches, sporting teams, hunting lodges, chess clubs, private educational institutions and so on—provide not only an integral part of a fulfilling life, but the best weapon in the battle against an omnivorous state. Such a flourishing private life will show people how they can get along without the state and choose to do things for themselves, not as rugged individualists, but as social animals cooperating peacefully rather than through the use of force.