Unnecessary Evil
Norm Pattis posts today a fascinating account of the early history of New Haven, Connecticut, and observes that that early history suggests that Albert Jay Nock got it right when he wrote in Our Enemy, the State: “The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation.”
I have one minor quibble with Norm’s post, however: He opines that the State is, among other things, a thing of “tragic necessity.” But Nock distinguished between what he called “government” and what he called the “State.” The distinguishing feature of the State is its origin, which is in conquest and confiscation, and its purpose, which is to perpetuate and enshrine that conquest and confiscation as the status quo. The purpose of “government,” on the other hand, is, as Thomas Jefferson said it was, “to secure these rights.” As Nock observed, the Native Americans who were displaced by, among others, the colonists of New Haven, had “government.” Unfortunately, the history of the United States of America, including the history of New Haven, clearly demonstrates that its character and purpose, from its very origins up until the present day, is that of a State, and not of a government, notwithstanding the Declaration of Independence.
Government is a “tragic necessity.” It is tragic that it is necessary, in this fallen world, in which criminality abounds, to organize with others to secure our rights. The State, on the other hand, is not necessary, and is itself criminal in its origin and in its intention.
Follow
J
I confess that Nock’s distinction between the state and government seems artificial and contrived.
1Perhaps. But is that because we doubt there has ever been a government that limited itself to securing rights? The Indians warred against each other long before the white man got here, and I assume their intentions were not always defensive. Perhaps the real distinction would be between a government that has no pretensions that its dictates are morally binding and a State which lives by that pretense. Not sure how well the Indians fare by that distinction. Perhaps the real distinction is between a government which is constrained to the necessary and by consensus and a State which is not. Perhaps the distinction is between a government which recognizes the equal right of all to the land and a State which does not.
2A further thought: I suppose the point of Nick’s distinction is that if government or the State or whatever we call it is necessary we need to distinguish between the necessary and the unnecessary. If government is a necessary evil it should be limited by the understanding of the people to the necessary.
3John:
I am not sure it can be solved so neatly. I am inclined to thinks we are simply appetite-driven creatures that will forever feed on one another: Government and the state are just another and larger predator.
4