The Tyranny of the State
The Tyranny of the State
None of us agreed to live like this, but still we do. Consent is implied.
As soon as you are born, you are made subject.
Automatically, you are submitted to various forms of institutional constructs — the patriarchal family, the modern city, a specific brand of religion, a certain economic ideology, and so on. No artificial composition, however, appears as oppressive and extensive as the State.
Your entire life is spent conforming to its sets of laws, rules, and moral judgements. This social contract requires no signature, no explicit consent, not even tacit acknowledgement — it requires merely your existence.
Several objections might be raised against this subjugation. Some might even argue for violent resistance as appropriate and necessary.
Marriage to the State
In his essay Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness from 1793, William Godwin, by some considered the first explicit anarchist, posed the following questions:
Who are the parties to the social contract?
For whom did they consent, for themselves only, or for others?
For how long a time is this contract to be considered as binding?
If the consent of every individual be necessary, in what manner is that consent to be given? Is it to be tacit, or declared in express terms?
It is my opinion that the forced-upon social contract between every individual and the State is one of those ideas that, were it to emerge today, would be considered utterly infantilizing, internally inconsistent, and deranged. So, I am to live my life — my only life — under patronizing top-down rule? I am to conform my morality to bourgeois rules written down or implicitly agreed upon centuries before my birth, or else made and changed by a select socio-economic class? And I am to have no choice, none whatsoever, in all this?
Insanity.
If you are reading this, you might be an anarchist. Find out here:
Generational tyranny
The first substantial problem regarding the social contract appears in the following line of thought:
Our ancestors, upon the very first institution of government, agreed on a select system of laws and implicit rules. This system, they proclaimed, is to be the system. They assented to live with and under these laws, defining morality in the process, and, then, boldly asserted and condemned all subsequent generations to do the same.
In the US (but not only there), there exists a curious idolization of the founding fathers and the piece of paper these slavers and war-mongerers produced. Via this constitution, they, in principle, gave themselves to right to define a way of living and prescribe it for all that followed. In short: they bartered away their ancestors’ independence and freedom.
Is this equality and justice?
However, if, on the other hand, the social contract would have to be renewed by each subsequent generation, then how would we decide what periods of time would be appropriate for such purpose? And upon what principle would this obligation to renew (and live under the ‘old’ rule until that time comes) be founded? Wouldn’t this pose just another form of generational subjugation?
The absurdity of the social contract becomes ever more apparent.
More on generational conflict, particularly under consumerist capitalism:
Quiet acquiescence (and suffering)
The next issue is found in the exact type of consent I am to give to this political and socio-economic contract. Acquiescence, political scientists declare, is sufficient and inferred from your living (or suffering, if you are like me) under the fruits and protections of the State. John Locke, commonly known as ‘the father of liberalism,’ affirmed so in his Two Treatises of Government. He coined the term ‘tacit consent.’
In essence, as William Godwin criticizes, the following statement is then declared true:
Every government that is quietly submitted to is a lawful government.
It doesn’t matter if you live under liberal Western democracy, authoritarian monarchy, or fascist dictatorship — as long as you do not actively and violently resist, consent is inferred.
If I were to be particularly cynical, I could highlight how rape, in the case the victim does not actively resist but instead ‘submits,’ could, in this way, be declared lawful. Another absurdity.
Is it not rather the case that quiet acquiescence, even to those of us deeply troubled and disillusioned by the system, appears merely the lesser evil? We do not have the power to live under a different set of rules as the idea of the nation-state has become a global phenomenon. To put it simply: there is no land to live freely. To reject one dictatorship of the State would be merely to accept (and move to) another.
Quiet acquiescence, of course, poses a stark contrast to the persistent propaganda of freedom, liberty, and justice every State, in particular the capitalist one, monopolizes upon. Acquiescence cannot be construed into consent, and certainly not informed consent. Thus, our lives become unfree.
Find my comprehensive and troubling discussion of capital’s rise here:
The contract is invalid
Have you ever written a contract yourself or witnessed a lawyer doing so? Have you ever read the ‘general terms and conditions’ of your internet provider?
Every contract, we have agreed upon, must detail all terms, conditions, and eventualities. Under what circumstances does the contract apply? For what period of time does it apply? Everything must be written down, and both parties must then agree to this contract in an informed manner — terms and clauses must be put simply; must be comprehensible to even the layman.
Well, not so in the case of the single most important contract in your life.
Have you ever read your nation’s constitution? Are you privy to all the laws, regulations, and proceedings? — No, you are not. You cannot be by design.
Hence, you are subjected to terms and conditions you neither explicitly agreed to nor are able to understand. You are thrown into the grinder, your school years serving as conditioning tool.
But the absurdity goes further: not only are you forced to agree to all existing laws and rules, no, but also to all future ones.
In the case of liberal-capitalist democracies, decisions regarding future laws and regulations are relegated to representatives. Thus, by committing an act of voting every couple of years, you give implicit consent to whatever your representative (or, in the case another wins the election, a representative you did not even vote for) does or does not. However, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted:
“Will cannot be represented. […] The deputies of the people cannot be its representatives; they are merely its attorneys. The laws which the community does not ratify in person, are no laws, are nullities.”
Hence, this essay:
The will of the people?
There is one last argument to be made to truly drive home the absurdity of our seemingly eternal status quo:
By common description, government is founded upon the consent of the people. It represents the will of the people — yours and mine, of all of us, every single one. But if that is indeed so, then we must conclude that the State cannot exercise any power over those who, in fact, do not consent neither explicitly nor by quiet acquiescence. If tacit consent is tyranny, as we have established, then subjugating those who voice explicit refusal is even more so.
Even democracy, supposedly the freest form of government, merely constitutes a dictatorship of the majority. Always, must a minority — and it can be as small as a single individual — be subjugated, their opinions invalidated.
Thus, we conclude that government, no matter which form it takes, is, well, tyranny. The only differentiation appears in the specific amount of tyranny one is subjected to.
Are there alternatives, or are we destined to live this life, over and over? A surreal journey through humanity’s history:
If you want to support my work, you can do so by subscribing:
You can also support my pursuit of freedom on Patreon, starting at $2 a month, or leave a tip and some coffee money on PayPal. Capitalist means to escape capitalism, and so on, and so forth.
Anyway, thanks for reading. It truly means a lot!
Wow. I was just talking to someone about these same ideas. I’ve only recently been exposed to the work of thinkers like the author, but I think I’ve been something of an anarchist my whole life. As far as I can tell, the author is correct, and there is no more space to live free. Or is there? Are there people just opting out? People choosing to live like nomads within the state? Is that a thing?
Excellent writing, Antonio. I've enjoyed your work since first finding it, but the more I read, the more I see that we agree. Keep it up, my friend.