What is the glue that holds society together? Individual self-interest. Obviously, you can use your self-interest for destructive means. But it's a two-way street. The denial from leftists and other left-leaning individuals to recognize this basic fact of life blinds them to rational analysis. Fundamental truths become mere "tautologies." Truths like: you must produce before you can consume. Or that more is preferable to less. The mainstream gives non-empirical, a priori reality a pass only with math—2+2=4 independent of experience. But human action is also like this.
We can trace the development of money, capital formation, and the division of labour to individual choice. We choose to cooperate because groups are more productive than isolation. It is better to focus on your skills and trade with others than to try and do everything yourself. Yet, for the far-left, the division of labour is a scourge the human race must overcome. But how are we to do this? What would this even look like? And why would this be desirable, anyway?
When fundamental truths about human action are considered tautologies, the result is a political philosophy that is to the real world what astrology is to physics.
The World for What It Is
Without cooperation, the human race would have remained impoverished and likely have died out. Arguably, there is no human race without collaboration. Hunting large animals and cooking meat over fire leads to a massive expansion of hominid brains. None of that would have been possible without cooperation. And sure, you could argue that people work with others for the "common good." But it's clear if that is your rationale, the good of the tribe is in your self-interest. Otherwise, you wouldn't be acting in that manner.
Despite claims to the contrary, the evidence of the human race shows that, yes, there are robbers and murderers among us, but most of us peacefully cooperate. Furthermore, we cooperate out of self-interest, not under threat of imprisonment or fines from the State. We collaborate because we recognize that working together yields better results than working alone. This is a universal truth even hunter-gatherers understood.
And by "yielding better results," I mean higher living standards. A single woman can't defend a cave from a family of bears. But a group of men, women, and children with spears and stone axes could. With shelter secured, they could spend more time developing their tools for more effective hunts. Press fast-forward on the timeline; soon, you've got houses instead of caves—battery-powered impact drills instead of rocks. Wall paintings become literature and the arts. Curiosity about the world leads to the development of science.
At no point in the development of the human race is there an omnipresent State directing human affairs. In fact, having a central political authority has only disrupted society's natural, self-interest-driven development. We're defining a State as a compulsorily-funded territorial monopolist of protection. But consider the alternative means of protection. Historically, we've relied on self-protection and self-defence. We've contracted protection services to private agencies and insurance companies. Whether it's the American "Wild" West (hint: it wasn't so wild) or the Western legal tradition (like the English common law), the human race has relied on the division of labour for security and protection services. The more we relied on each other (civil society), the more specialized the production of security and protection became.
The State's monopolization of this process has disrupted the human race's natural development. Perhaps due to our origins as hunter-gatherer tribes, we still place value on the "strong man" or the leader of the tribe. Of course, regardless of its origins, the State, as a compulsorily funded monopoly, causes a rise in prices while declining the quality of justice and protection.
But suppose the State is inevitable. A local protection agency assumes a monopoly based on their definitions of aggression and defence. They are members of the natural social elite. A lesser-status villager may try to open their own protection and defence agency. The local elite may declare an act of aggression. With recognized authority (and the ability), they move toward monopolization.
But this assumes a functioning civil society gives way to a State - not exactly historical. Perhaps here, it's best to quote Murray Rothbard:
One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.
Monarchy vs. Democracy
You could argue that States are a necessary evil. But evil they are. The main difference between "left" and "right" – as I see it – is in the role of the State. Should the State be a means of last resort, say, universal health care only after we've tried and exhausted every private option? Or should the State be proactive? As in, we've declared universal health care superior regardless of the evidence. Threats of fines and imprisonment forbid any (unapproved) private competition.
I prefer to think of States as a protection racket. Demanding tribute for "keeping the peace" by threatening you, your family, and your property. The State as a protector of private property is a contradiction in terms. In this sense, States are illegitimate. States violate natural laws by their mere existence, no matter how necessary they may or may not be.
Of course, not every State is created equal. Whether you're a Trudeau guy or a Poilievre guy (or neither), you'd likely agree that the Canadian State is preferable to the North Korean State. Likewise, retaining a monarchical element of a State-dominated society is preferable to a pure democratic state. While this stance may be controversial in the age of democracy, Canada's Founders were well aware of the importance of balancing the short-term excesses of populist politicians with the long-term stability of the hereditary monarch.
Consider the words of George-Étienne Cartier:
They [the Americans] had founded a federation for the purpose of carrying out and perpetuating democracy on this continent; but we, who had the benefit of being able to contemplate republicanism in action during a period of eighty years, saw its defects, and felt convinced that purely democratic institutions could not be conducive to the peace and prosperity of nations.
We were not now discussing the great problem presented to our consideration in order to propagate democratic principles. Our attempt was for the purpose of forming a federation with a view of perpetuating the monarchical element. The distinction, therefore, between ourselves and our neighbours was just this: in our federation, the monarchical principle would form the leading feature, while on the other side of the lines, judging by the past history and present condition of the country, the ruling power was the will of the mob, the rule of the populace.
Lost to history (but resurrected by scholars such as Professor Hoppe) is this strain of anti-democratic thought. Demagogues claiming to speak "for the people" are often far worse than the hereditary monarchs who ruled for most of European history. Consider the logic of a monarchical state versus that of one of democracy.
A monarch is incentivized to preserve the value of his or her property (the country) and exploit less today to exploit more tomorrow. Since the ruler hands off the land to their descendants, the goal is to preserve its capital value. Likewise, the expansion of State power and rising taxes are met with more resistance from the population. Since there is no free entry into the State apparatus, and all benefits accrue to the ruler and their extended family – opposition to corruption is fiercer.
After all, you can't throw the bastards out in the next election cycle.
The transition from monarchical states to democratic states has only intensified State exploitation. Under democracy, the territorial protection monopoly becomes "public property" with elected representatives as caretakers. Since entry into democratic government is open to anyone, resistance to State encroachments of private property and civil society is reduced. Politicians begin pandering to people's basic instincts. The State undermines civil society by merging its identity with it and (through "progressive" taxation) hollows civil society out financially.
And rarely do taxpayers hold democratic politicians personally responsible (or accountable) for the country like we would with hereditary monarchs.
A democratic state (backed by mandatory state education) blurs this line between the rulers and the ruled. It's not uncommon to hear absurdities like "we are the government" or "taxes are the price of civilization." In reality, the security of the person and our private property has been significantly eroded. The costs of the State are exorbitant while the quality of justice has steadily deteriorated. (In Canada, it is easier for the chronically ill to receive suicide via the government than to receive timely health care that would make life worth living).
Law and justice have become equated with the State. The idea of a "natural law" or immutable laws of justice has disappeared from the public consciousness. State-funded schools and universities push ideologies that empower the compulsorily-funded State at the expense of civil society and free markets. The State has disarmed us and deprived us of the right to self-defence. Income taxes, once unheard of in the Western tradition, are commonplace. What isn't taxed is inflated away by the central bank. And, of course, the democratic State redistributes wealth based on public sentiment rather than any appeal to justice.
This is the essence of the democratic age.
The freedom to hire, fire, buy, sell, associate or disassociate is restricted. Under the encroaching democratic State, we are closer to Benito Mussolini's ideal than ever: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
There is No Top-Down Solution
I said in a previous post that Pierre Poilievre will fix Canada’s Trudeau problem. He might even defund the CBC, axe the carbon tax, and fund the military. But we’ll see. In the meantime, society still needs protection of private property. We still need laws and enforcement of those laws. But it's also clear that a monopolist handling these tasks will inevitably undermine justice and defence while increasing its (compulsory) price.
This leads us to the essence of Tory anarchism. Our ultimate goal is the de-monopolization of protection and justice, allowing competitive firms to compete with the State. We should reject political centralization. We should support decentralization, segregation, separation, secession, etc.
Of course, getting from A to B is the question. I'll describe how we can't do this "top-down" and then get to the a bottom-up strategy in part two.
Here’s why the Tory anarchist platform won’t fly in the current Conservative Party. It would require forming a majority government on a specifically anti-democratic platform. One of the significant parts of this platform would be legalizing competition in "services" currently monopolized by the State. That includes law enforcement and the courts. Courts already operate outside the state apparatus to some extent. For example, lawyers negotiate with other lawyers to avoid clogged court systems. But legalizing competition to the Supreme Court is another manner altogether.
Despite this, removing the State's monopoly on protection would lead to a greater division of labour in the security industry. Increased competition would create a protection and defence structure catering to individual and community needs. This would fundamentally alter how we deal with protection and defence, likely leading to smaller-scale provinces and territories with greater local control. A Tory anarchist ideal is closer to Sir John A. MacDonald’s vision of Canada of a federalism with no provinces and hundreds (if not thousands) of municipalities.
Suppose sometime in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future, a federal political party runs on the idea of abolishing the State and wins. In the old system of hereditary monarchs, the process would have been simple since the country was essentially the monarch's private property. Under the democratic State, politicians are mere caretakers. State property is "public property." They don't have the authority to abolish the institutions. As well, after decades of mass democracy, we've lost our local, natural elites.
We Canadians can only achieve the Tory anarchist ideal through a bottom-up social revolution, which the leftists and neo-liberals will call a reactionary, fascist movement when, in fact, it is their ideologies and methods that are counter-Enlightenment and authoritarian.
As such, nearly two hundred years of public schooling make the Tory anarchist revolution an uphill battle. The problem isn't that the State claims to be the opposite of what it truly is. The problem is that, for many Canadians, their experiences have become so limited they lack the knowledge to differentiate between significant concepts.
That is the true purpose of public schooling and the corporate press. As George Carlin said, "Governments don't want a population capable of critical thinking, they want obedient workers, people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation."
Stay Tuned for Part Two: A Bottom-Up Tory Revolution