From the White-PillBox: Part 24
The State needs the public to keep its juggling act going. But what happens when the public ignores the show?
The State persists by leveraging the public in several ways: participation and obedience.
Participation fools the public into thinking they are actually an important part of the juggling act. In fact, the participant is superfluous to the show. Their involvement simply makes the participant feel they are essential to the act; it keeps them hooked.
Obedience, on the other hand, is not superfluous to the State. The juggling act may not need participation, but it does need attendance. The State needs obedience, and it needs a whole lot of it.
There are big problems for the State in each of these categories. It turns out both are pretty flimsy, in their own ways. This is our White Pill.
Participation
To keep up the facade of democracy, the State hopes for active voluntary participation. Superficially this gives the illusion of consent.
The State points to a significant percentage of people who are participating in its activities and rituals (such as voting). It uses this to support its claim to legitimacy.
But we can easily see how weak this logic is.
Voting: uninspired participation
Whatever positives the State may try to interpret from voting metrics, the public itself is generally less than enthusiastic about it. They well understand that an individual vote holds virtually no power. They know it is large groups that influence the State, not voters. They know control of State power switches back and forth between the major parties 1.
So regardless of all the trappings of representative government, the public does not feel their participation is particularly meaningful.
This undermines the alleged legitimacy of the State.
Voting: not exactly majority rule
Furthermore, voters at best account for under half the actual population. The rest are either not sufficiently interested in participating, or simply cannot vote, by law.
This makes the State’s case for legitimacy that much more flimsy.
Democracy: the corner the State painted for itself
Of course, any participation at all presupposes some form of democracy (the predominant form of government today). But the State has a real PR problem here.
As I’ve argued before, democracy is on its last legs. And unfortunately for the State, it is stuck with democracy because any other form cannot even claim the already-weak justification of public participation.
But the public also participates by using State services (and the services of its handmaidens)
Voting is the most explicit and immediate evidence of the public’s belief it is legitimate. But there are many other areas that prop up the State myth. As people disregard these options (to the extent it is permitted), the State becomes less relevant as an institution.
Public School
Sending one’s children to public schools is an acknowledgement the State ought to be part of their growth. Fortunately private schools, home schooling and unschooling are growing in popularity. Every parent who keeps their child out of public school is disregarding the State.
Academia
Higher education provides the State the illusion of intellectual support, and solidifies the indoctrination of the generation that is moving into adulthood. But the facade of real value in a higher education is slowly being unmasked. With time, students and parents alike are coming to a realization: they are better served by disregarding traditional academia in favor of entrepreneurship, on-the-job training or apprenticeships.
The counter-economy (agorism)
Any product or service that is traded without government knowledge is part of the counter-economy. Contrary to popularly belief, these are not merely illegal exchanges such as sales of prohibited drugs. Cash or barter transactions for landscape work, painting, car repair, garage sales, professional services, etc. happen every day, independent of government. These examples of disregarding the State have the added benefit of depriving it of revenue.
The corporate media
The traditional media outlets are essentially mouthpieces for the State. The public is slowly but surely disregarding these outlets in favor of decentralized alternatives such as podcasts and smaller Internet news groups.
…
The public’s steady withdrawal of participation from the State and State-supporting institutions is revealing its juggling act for what it is: a crude amateur side-show.
A generous gift from the public
Whatever level of voluntary participation remains is a bonus for the State. People do not have to act in support of the State…yet they do, by choice. But as history makes clear, public involvement is not essential for the State.
The juggling act goes on, with or without audience participation.
Disobedience
The State has a different problem when it comes to public obedience.
Unlike participation, obedience is essential to the State. It needs the public to obey. The juggling act shuts down without attendance.
And it is even worse for the State than the metaphorical juggling act. Compliance must be almost total. A simply majority, or even a large majority, is insufficient. The State cannot persist without near universal obedience.
This is the State’s true Achilles Heel.
The numbers
A hidden gem in this White Pill reveals just how numerically weak the State really is. The necessary number of disobeyers (resisters) is smaller than you may think. And that is because the number of armed enforcers available is also smaller than you may think.
This means: a surprisingly small number of resisters would overwhelm the State’s ability to enforce their laws 2 3.
Let’s start by examining the State’s resources…
The only State resource that counts: trained, armed enforcers
The State has only so much resource to enforce its laws. Guns, tanks and ammunition are important tools to enforce obedience, of course. But they mean nothing without human enforcers, that is, actual people trained to use actual weapons. Those who work for government in any other capacity (administrators, accountants, lawyers, etc.) do not count as enforcers…they are not the ones who physically compel obedience. Indeed, it is laughable to imagine a politician or bureaucrat personally doing it 4.
So how many are there?
Counting the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies at all levels, there are about 1.14 million armed enforcers in the U.S. 5 I’ve increased that by over 20% to 1.4 million, to help eliminate any debate over minor adjustments.
It is eye-opening to ponder this: only 1.4 million persons across the United States are available to physically enforce laws. Out of over 300 million.
Every single enforcer is outnumbered in the general population by more than 200 to 1.
Let that sink in.
The movies have it wrong
Unlike the way it happens in movies, they cannot fully take over. 1.4 million enforcers is too few for a country the size of the U.S.
To be sure, it is difficult for resistance to “get off the ground”. At first, a show of dominant State force discourages resisters due to the fear from being overwhelmed. But sustained resistance, even if modest, is a major challenge for the State.
This is clear by taking the State’s (in particular, the enforcer’s) perspective. They walk a tightrope: in any given case of resistance, they must outnumber the resisters located in one particular place. But this makes them vulnerable everywhere else.
Resistance leading to violence would be very unlikely, despite dramatic predictions
Keep in mind the enforcers’ own psychology and self-interest. Better than anyone, they understand what potential resistance means to them personally. They know full well they are expected to be ready and willing to engage physically with an opponent who may be armed.
As disregard of the State grows - as it becomes more widely known that people are seeing the State as morally illegitimate - enforcers would be the first to see the futility of enforcing laws.
Out of self-preservation, they will back off well before they become overwhelmed.
So what number makes enforcers think twice?
Enforcers utterly rely on outnumbering resisters. It is a rare enforcer willing to violently engage a resister one-on-one. It is ludicrous to imagine all 1.4 million as willing to do so.
This means that as a whole, enforcers would recognize their job as impossible if they knew they were matched by, say, an equal number of resisters.
But this doesn’t make 1.4 million a magic number
As enforcers know, only some people actually resist.
Therefore I would start by estimating the number needed to overcome the superstition of statism at perhaps 7 million.
This number would convince armed agents that enforcement is a losing battle. If those willing to resist were a mere 20% of the 7 million (who see the State as illegitimate), the enforcers would be outnumbered.
Seven million is realistic
The White Pill in our thought experiment is clear: the numbers game works highly in favor of liberty. We often hear generalizations that “50% are needed to be on board”. But 7 million means that as little as 2-3% of the U.S. population is likely more than enough 6.
Still, although 7 million is a great White Pill number, we are not there. The outright illegitimacy of the State is not yet “in the air”. But we may be closer than we think:
The State is doing great work in helping to delegitimize itself
Regarding the State as a cult is highly compelling and persuasive
Defying authority is contagious
The phrase “all it takes is one” is powerfully accurate in this context...
The Milgram experiments
The willingness to defer to authority was explored in the Milgram experiments. Participants were instructed to harm test subjects for giving wrong answers. So long as they thought they were following the orders of an authority, they imposed greater punishment than if the decision to punish was their own.
A critically significant finding was this: when they witnessed another participant disobeying the order to administer punishment, they were far more likely to disobey.
All it took was one other person to dissent, for the participants to be more likely to defy authority.
The moral strength of seeing others disobey cannot be overstated.
Conclusion
We have before us the genuine prospect of the outright ending of the State. Two factors will contribute to this: decline in participation, and disobedience.
So long as the State exists, some portion of the public will always voluntarily participate in activities that support it. But a steady decline in participation is happening before our eyes. While voting levels may ebb and flow, in the end most voting is done grudgingly, and with a mind toward settling for the lesser of evils. But more important is the public’s drift away from public schools, academia and the corporate media. These institutions are in the process of being disregarded into oblivion.
Disobedience today is infrequent and scattered; it is not yet identifiable as a trend. Instead, this White Pill is more visible in our mind’s eye. A little thought reveals the State’s severely limited ability to compel obedience. This means the percentage who regard the State as illegitimate needs to be decent, but not particularly large. The enforcers themselves will realize this before most others: they selfishly understand they would be powerless against any significant resistance.
This will accelerate two dynamics: the likelihood of resistance itself, and more importantly, the decline in actual enforcers as they see the writing on the wall.
And whether this switching happens because of voting, or despite voting, hardly matters.
I should emphasize that nothing in this piece should be interpreted as advocating the initiation of violence. Resisting the State is a personal matter and, at least at the present time, is possible by means of many peaceful options. Each person should decide how to act according to their own moral conscience.
It is interesting to note that in general, the public does not realize just how mightily they outnumber the State. It is just as interesting to note that many members of the State absolutely do know they are pitifully outnumbered. It is one of their best kept secrets.
Tellingly, even politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, etc. find it odd to think of themselves as physical enforcers. Test this yourself, should the opportunity arise to speak to any government employee whose role does not involve carrying a gun and enforcing laws. Ask them, if a law is broken, if they would personally force a person to comply? They will generally laugh uncomfortably and tell you, “That’s what the police are for”.
U.S. military
There are about 2.2 million people working in the U.S. military branches, National Guard and Reserves. But this includes all roles, not just enforcers trained for physical conflict.
At best, only about 20% of them are enforcers. The rest perform non-combative roles (technical, medical, administrative, supplies, etc.).
This comes to about 440,000 U.S. military enforcers.
Law Enforcement
About 1 million people work for either a local, state or federal law enforcement agency. Of these about 700,000 are sworn with arrest authority.
Total enforcers
This means there are about 1,140,000 armed enforcers (440,000 plus 700,000).
The numbers needed to be “on board” are likely even less than that. I have made the conservative assumption that those willing to disobey are only among them. In fact, anyone at all who disobeys counts. State enforcers have to deal with all resisters, regardless of their ideology.