Why the key libertarian goal is to de-legitimize the State

No other libertarian goal can become meaningful until the key impediment to a free society is overcome. Namely, de-legitimizing the State in the public mind.

This essay reviews numerous thinking patterns among libertarians that tend to go unquestioned. I believe these patterns impede the key goal (de-legitimizing the State) from “rising to the top” ¹.

The perceived need to focus on laws

Somehow political law holds a reverence in our minds, perhaps because we equate it with natural law which is consistent and immutable. Libertarians may advocate for/against laws, or for/against candidates who will influence the law, all intended to bring us closer to liberty. And, to be sure, there can be specific cases where a law’s presence or absence, at least temporarily, makes significant difference to human liberty. Advocates who are passionate about such specific issues, should always follow their conscience.

But it helps to keep in mind that political law is not immutable.

The law is nothing more than whatever an agent of the State says it is, in a given moment, in the circumstances at hand.

Whatever may happen to be in legal code, a law book, or a constitution, in and of itself has no causal efficacy in practice. At most it is a guide that an agent of the State uses to gauge the parameters within which he will act, given his own values in the moment and the circumstances of the situation. Law is nothing more than that.

So, understand that the effort you expend in changing laws is one thing; its effect on the State, now or later, is unknown.

Focusing on alternatives to the State

We often feel we must provide people private alternatives to the State. And in many conversations, this is necessary.

But at best this is a second step for your listener. They cannot fully accept your alternative until they overcome their belief in the legitimacy of the State.

Consider what keeps a person in a cult.

His attachment to the cult is not explained by a lack of better choices. Indeed, he is generally aware he has alternatives. Rather his mind is impeded by the very idea of the cult’s legitimacy. Until that idea dissolves, what is outside the cult is utterly meaningless.

So it is with the statist. His mind does not permit him to conceive of existence without the State. He must be enabled to conceptualize this, and once he does, this impediment can fall.

Focusing on defending against specific State actions

It is unarguable there are times when we must respond to State action. But these should be infrequent, and chosen carefully. If the efforts of your messaging focus on responding to the State, you are always on defense.

Perceiving reason and logic as a primary

This can be especially difficult for libertarians to accept, because they are by and large rational and logical.

The appeal to facts and reason is important, but insufficient. If one thing has been made patently clear over the last decades, it is this: reason and logic are not generally persuasive. You can see the proof of this by examining your own personal rate of success. A fraction of your audience is actually persuaded.

This is not a fault in your logic. This is the reality of the power of the single indoctrinated belief that the State is legitimate.

This is why the key goal should be psychologically helping others out of the myth of political authority.

Focusing on the transition to a free society

Numerous factors need to be in place to reach or sustain a free society (a NAP-based adjudication framework and private currency, for example). And these factors are important. Experts in these fields should continue their efforts.

But they mean nothing until the key impediment of State indoctrination is overcome.

Failing to see the essential role of fear

Fear is the State’s key tool to maintain public indoctrination. Fear of an outside threat, and fear of what happens if the State is not empowered to deal with it.

When a person no longer sees the State as legitimate, they can more easily resist the fear of State propaganda. Moreover, they have less apprehension about alternatives to the State.

Failure to notice psychological parallels

The State embodies three of the most hateful human behaviors: slavery, cults and abuse.

Slavery: the very belief in this institution made it possible. Slaves, for the most part, complied due to their lifelong indoctrination. Similarly, the perceived authority of the State permits people to disregard their self-ownership. Their mental enslavement to an idea legitimizes the State’s use of their life and property.

Cults: the dynamics that make a cult possible essentially match those required for the State. At the root is unquestioned faith in an authority, replacing one’s critical thinking.

Abuse: underneath a victim’s quiet obedience to family abuse or bullying, we find the threat of aggression. Whereas this tends to be more explicit with a human abuser, it is nonetheless available to the State as needed.

These situations persist only if the victim accepts the situation as normal. And aggressors of all flavors prefer this; their victims’ silent compliance meets their needs at little cost.

But, with time, once the victim finally recognizes the situation as illegitimate…slavery dissolves; cult members and the abused leave. On a larger scale, the same applies to the State.

The most critical message needed to end the State is undermining the indoctrinated belief in its legitimacy.

1. To clarify: a sufficient number must look upon the State as an immoral and invalid institution. They must overcome the indoctrinated belief that the State has legitimate authority. It is anyone’s guess what a sufficient number would be. But it seems plausible to be from 5-20% because that percentage of a population would sufficiently disregard the State so as to make enforcement virtually impossible.