In this 1997 speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, now available as an ebook from the Mises Institute under the title
What Must Be Done, Hoppe presents a plan of action for anarcho-capitalists against the modern state.
Hoppe
begins by examining the nature of the state as “a monopolist of defense
and the provision and enforcement of law and order.” Like all
state-mandated monopolies, the monopoly of law enforcement also leads to
higher prices and lower quality of services. Why is this state of
affairs tolerated? The modern democratic states, much more than the
monarchies and princely estates of old, are seen as moral and necessary
despite
ample evidence to the contrary.
In this initial analysis, we find much of what Hoppe eventually expanded into his 2001 book
Democracy: The God that Failed, which systematically dismantled modern arguments in favor of the democratic state.
In
the final portion of his speech, Hoppe turns to discussing how a modern
partisan of liberty might act to counter the march of centralization
and the destruction of property, culture, learning, and natural social
hierarchies.
A Bottom-Up Revolution
At
last to the detailed explanation of the meaning of this bottom-up
revolutionary strategy. For this, let me turn to my earlier remarks
about the defensive use of democracy, that is, the use of democratic
means for nondemocratic, libertarian pro-private property ends. Two
preliminary insights I have already reached here.
First, from the
impossibility of a top-down strategy, it follows that one should expend
little or no energy, time, and money on nationwide political contests,
such as presidential elections. And also not on contests for central
government, in particular, less effort on senatorial races than on house
races, for instance.
Second, from the insight into the role of
intellectuals, in the preservation of the current system, the current
protection racket, it follows that one should likewise expend little or
no energy, time, or money trying to reform education and academia from
the inside. By endowing free enterprise or private property chairs
within the established university system, for instance, one only helps
to lend legitimacy to the very idea that one wishes to oppose. The
official education and research institutions must be systematically
defunded and dried up. And to do so all support of intellectual work, as
an essential task of this overall task in front of us, should of course
be given to institutions and centers determined to do precisely this.
The
reasons for both of these pieces of advice are straightforward: Neither
the population as a whole nor all educators and intellectuals in
particular are ideologically completely homogeneous. And even if it is
impossible to win a majority for a decidedly antidemocratic platform on a
nationwide scale, there appears to be no insurmountable difficulty in
winning such a majority in sufficiently small districts, and for local
or regional functions within the overall democratic government
structure. In fact, there seems to be nothing unrealistic in assuming
that such majorities exist at thousands of locations. That is, locations
dispersed all over the country but not evenly dispersed …
But
what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate
goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one’s
activities: the restoration from the bottom-up of private property and
the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude
or include, and to freedom of contract. And the answer can be broken
down into two parts.
First, what to do within these very small
districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian
personality can win. And second, how to deal with the higher levels of
government, and especially with the central federal government. First,
as an initial step, and I’m referring now to what should be done on the
local level, the first central plank of one’s platform should be: one
must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular
on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners.
Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not
equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the
amount of taxes paid.
Further, all public employees — teachers,
judges, policemen — and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from
voting on local taxes and local regulation matters. These people are
being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these
taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win everywhere; you
cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. But I dare say
that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have to
be small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.
Consequently,
local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably
decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas
the number and payment of public employees would fall. Now, and this is
the most decisive step, the following thing must be done, and always
keep in mind that I am talking about very small territorial districts,
villages.
In this government funding crisis which breaks out once
the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this
crisis, all local government assets must be privatized. An inventory of
all public buildings, and on the local level that is not that much —
schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth — and
then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private
property owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes —
property taxes —that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs,
they paid for these things …
Without local enforcement, by
compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not
much more than hot air. Yet this local support and cooperation is
precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of
liberated communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat
dangerous. However, even during this initial phase in the liberation
struggle, one can be quite confident.
It would appear to be
prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with the
central government and not openly denounce its authority or even abjure
the realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive
resistance and noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the
enforcement in each and every federal law. One assumes the following
attitude: "Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder
you, but I will not help you either, as my only obligation is to my
local constituents …”
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and
anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at
UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and
founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society. Send him
mail. See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's
article archives.
You can subscribe to future articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe via this
RSS feed.
