The Market is Our Cornerstone, Not Government

Posted by on May 14, 2010 in Commentary3 comments

Recently, Peter A. Gilbert, Executive Director of the Vermont Humanities Council, aired a piece on Vermont Public Radio (i.e., taxpayer-subsidized statist propaganda), later printed in the Rutland Herald (i.e., customer supported statist propaganda), titled “Rule of Law is Our Cornerstone.” It’s a remarkable if predictable example of statist doublespeak, Orwell-style. Towards the beginning of the editorial, Dwight Eisenhower is quoted as having said: “The world no longer has any choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law.”

Were Ike still alive to read this, I’d be pointing out to him what a preposterous statement this is. First, “law” is force – otherwise it would not qualify as a “law,” but a mere suggestion or recommendation. Or rather, in order for any governmental “law” to be anything other than just ink on paper, there must be police and soldiers willing to use any level of violent force – up to and including deadly force – in order to enforce such politico-bureaucratic edicts.

Secondly, since there is precisely nothing civilized about conducting human relationships in such a manner, “civilization”, as such, cannot even exist while we’re tyrannized by governmental “law.” If we want a civilized society in which to exist and interact, all conduct must of necessity be both peaceful and voluntary. This means no taxation or government, but rather a laissez-faire free market in which individuals trade with each other, save, invest, and otherwise live their lives free from violent intrusion and socialistic or fascistic intervention. Mediums of exchange, such as gold and silver, would also replace government-sanctioned fiat currencies that possess no real intrinsic value, thus opening the door to hyperinflation and high interest rates. No government means stable monies.

But to listen to Gilbert’s deluded expose’ is to visit a bizarre world of the dystopian and surreal:

“What matters is not just the rule of law itself – that system that keeps us from the law of the jungle, that protects people and property, that actually creates freedom by establishing a system of ordered liberty, and that underlies everything from drivers taking turns at a four-way stop sign to the purchases we make.”

If these were not the statements of a shallow thinker, Gilbert would recognize that the very creation of a government automatically threatens both people and their property by its intrinsic nature. With government, things can never be otherwise. And there is neither order nor liberty under government. There is only bungling, unaccountable, wasteful and costly bureaucracy – and there are only infringements upon liberty in virtually every aspect of the individual’s life. I don’t need government to regulate me at an intersection: I already excercise caution so as not to inflict damage on anyone (physical or economic) nor sustain any myself. It’s no business of anyone’s what purchases I make – be it milk, motorcycles, marijuana, or machineguns – except those with whom I negotiate and execute the deal. That’s both order and liberty. Not government.

In short, government “law” is not, never was, and never will be the cornerstone of anything except tyranny and injustice of the most repugnant order. “Our” cornerstone, the cornerstone of a free and equitable society, is an unfettered marketplace absent of all political government. And nothing whatsoever besides.

C4SS News Analyst Alex R. Knight III is an author of horror, science fiction, and fantasy tales, living and writing in rural southern Vermont. He is the author of Victoria's Place and Other Tales of Terror (BareBones Publishing, 2008), and numerous other works, including non-fiction and poetry. He is also a regular contributor to the libertarian journal Strike The Root.

3 comments

» Comments RSS Feed
  1. See also John Hasnas's modern classic, The Myth of the Rule of Law
    http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb….

  2. > If these were not the statements of a shallow thinker

    Can we please analyse this sort of thing without insulting anyone's intelligence? Even though I'm sympathetic towards anarchism, and I like nearly everything you write, there's nothing that triggers my "oh boy we have a nut on our hands where's the fire exit" reflex quicker than someone who insults the intelligence of anyone that disagrees with them. It really *is* possible that a reasonable, thoughtful person can see the same data as you, come to different conclusions, *and* not be retarded.

    The sooner that anarchist ideologues (and I don't intend as a pejorative at all) realise this the better, because calling people stupid isn't a way to win anyone over. That's especially so when there's an enormous bloc of people out there (I'm thinking mainly disaffected conservatives) who talk about the rule of law who would be sympathetic towards anarchist critiques of the system as it exists.

    (Hey, I'm not saying we should keep insults out of political discourse altogether, since I'm all for verbal cock-punching and vicious personal attacks on people who know exactly what they're doing, but that's not the same thing. Sometimes, you catch more flies with a flamethrower, to borrow a phrase from Jason Scott, but sugar has its place, too.)

    >[quoting Gilbert] and that underlies everything from drivers taking turns at a four-way stop sign to the purchases we make.

    I haven't heard the piece and a Google search doesn't turn up any results other than your piece, but, are you really being fair to him? If he we really did — and by that I mean both you in the US and me in drizzly old England — live under the rule of law (and in at least the old sense of it being opposed to "rule of men", then he's dead wrong on that count; see nskinsella's link, and there's also a great piece by Kevin Carson called "The State is Illegal By Its Own Standards", over at this great superb site called "The Center for a Stateless Society" ;) ), then well, he'd be more or less right, because that's almost a tautology to say that whatever system we have will govern the things we do.

    (Two, totally unrelated things technical things here. One, I would love to see a "preview" button for comments; I apologise if I accidentally any of my sentences because I spot such mistakes much quicker when I preview them. Secondly, I can't for the life of me work out how I get a picture next to my comments to make me a bit less faceless…)

  3. Gilbert obviously has positive law in mind, rather than natural law. There's no "he's more or less right" then. He's dead wrong and he needs to be told that we don't need him to buy stuff or drive safely enough.

Leave a comment