The fundamental concern of libertarianism is the question of what constitutes the acceptable use of force. The primary objective of reactionaries is to correct bad decisions and undo the damage done by them in order to establish, secure, and advance a healthy and stable social order. Adherents of these political ideologies thus share an interest in determining the optimal level of force needed to maintain civilization. Finding the correct balance is the overarching question of proper statecraft as applied to domestic policy. Let us attempt to do this by defining scales of force usage, considering the role of a sovereign with regard to use of force, and examining their interrelationships.

Scales of Force

Let us construct scales to measure the amount of force used in a society. Like a Spinal Tap amplifier, these will go from zero to eleven, but unlike Nigel Tufnel’s explanation, the reasons for this unconventional range will make sense. There are three categories of force to consider: force used by government agents (official force), force used by private actors in accordance with the law (officially sanctioned force), and force used by private actors in violation of the law (criminalized force). In all real societies, the boundaries between these three categories are somewhat fluid. Laws and customs are changed over time, which alters the use of official force and the categorization of legal versus illegal uses of force by non-governmental actors. Even so, they rarely change quickly, and those exceptions will be handled in our definitions of the zeroes and elevens. Corruption of the governance structure also blurs the lines when official and/or sanctioned force does under color of law that which should be criminalized. Finally, it must be understood that the scales are qualitative and particular, not quantitative or universalizable. There is no constant value by which force must be added or multiplied to reach one number higher on the scale. The range of forces that a society can withstand depend on culture, genetics, and even the weather. Force that would be a five in North Korea may be an eleven in the United States; force that would be a six in winter may be a seven in summer.

The first scale is that of official violence, the force used by the governance structure of a society to punish criminal behavior and enforce social norms. If too little force is used, then acts of aggression against people and property will not be sufficiently deterred and criminals will run amok. If too much force is used, then officially sanctioned acts of aggression will tear the social fabric. A zero on this scale means that there is no officially sanctioned use of force. Because a governance structure must have some control over the use of force, sanctioning some uses and forbidding others, zero means that no such structure is present. This value is thus outside the realm of human civilization, describing instead a Hobbesian war of all against all in a primitive state of nature or a post-apocalyptic ruin. (A utopian civilization of angels in which no one uses aggressive force to get what one wants would also be at zero on this scale and the others, but let us deal with the world as it is.) An eleven on this scale describes a dystopian totalitarian state in which minor crimes are met with wildly disproportionate and brutal punishments, so much so that the civilian population decides to violently revolt because they reasonably believe that the state will murder them anyway. Stable civilizations occupy the one to ten range, with one being the minimal amount of force needed to maintain order and ten being the maximum amount of force that does not cause a collapse.

The second scale is that of officially sanctioned violence, the force used by private citizens to further the cause of civilization. If too little force is used, then both criminality and statism will grow. If too much force is used, then excess violence will destabilize the social order. A zero on this scale typically means that the governance structure has taken over all responsibility for the use of force by banning any private defense, which inevitably results in totalitarianism. It could also mean, as before, that there is no governance structure to allow or forbid anything. An eleven on this scale means that the governance structure has failed and that private citizens may use force as they see fit because no one sits in judgment. To permit anything is to yield sovereignty to whomever would take it, and thus eleven comes full circle back to zero in the latter sense. One represents a minimal legal right to self-defense, while ten represents the limit of private violence that a civilization can withstand. It is important to remember that legally sanctioned forms of mutual combat also belong on this scale.

The third scale is that of criminalized violence, the aggressive force used to harm people, steal wealth, and destroy property. An important aspect of statecraft is to keep this value small by both suppressing crime and defining it correctly. A zero on this scale typically means that crime has been improperly defined, as true zero is beyond the possibility of human nature. It could also mean, as before, that there is no governance structure to allow or forbid anything. An eleven on this scale means that the governance structure has failed and the criminal element is destroying civilization. One represents the realistic minimum of crime in a healthy society, while ten represents the maximum amount of crime that will not break the social order.

Note: A fourth 0–11 scale could be used to measure the force used outside of a society in terms of defending against external enemies and engaging in foreign interventionism, but the scope of this article is internal use of force only.

Turning the Knobs

So far, we have described the possibilities of existence, but a useful social theory must be not only descriptive, but prescriptive and proscriptive as well. Let us consider the relationships between each category of force and a ruler’s role in these relationships.

The master of a territory has differing abilities with respect to the three scales of force. His hands rest upon the knobs that adjust the scales. A sovereign, whether over a single hectare or a vast kingdom, decides the level of force that he and his agents will use to maintain the code of conduct that he considers appropriate in his lands, as well as the level of force that he deems prudent to let others use toward the same purpose. The effect on the first scale is direct; should he change his mind about the necessary level of force, he may escalate or abate. If his agents do not perform according to his wishes, he may fire them. The second and third scales can only be affected by a ruler indirectly in the form of setting limits on force used by citizens. With this power comes the responsibility to govern properly by keeping all three scales from going to zero or eleven.

We now turn to the goal of finding the optimal setting on each scale. Let us begin by reviewing the extreme settings we have already discussed. 0–0–0 is anarcho-primitivism before civilization develops or a post-human utopia. 0–11–11 is a street war between citizens and criminals that the governance structure cannot stop. If the criminals win that civil war, the result is 0–0–11, a failed state in which criminals do as they please and everyone else lives in fear without the means to stop them. If the citizens win that civil war, the result is 0–11–0, which can either result in the establishment of new governance structures, continued civil war along new factional divides, or both. 11–0–0 is a totalitarian state that goes too far and destroys civilization, thus leading to a situation which could be described as either 11–0–11, 11–11–0, or 11–11–11 as the citizens try to overthrow the state out of desperation. This is because the lines between citizen and criminal are blurred in a violent revolution against the established order.

With the extremes out of the way, let us turn to the force levels that society can withstand, one through ten on each scale. The third scale is the easiest for which to find the ideal setting; in a healthy society with proper behavioral norms, criminal uses of force should be mostly suppressed. That being said, having no crime to speak of can lull people into a false sense of security and make them wonder about the necessity of maintaining defenses, especially if no foreign enemies are present. This may lead to more crime in the long run than if a minimal amount had always occurred. Just as a person’s immune system can become weak if it never encounters pathogens, a society’s security apparatus can become weak if it never encounters any situation that is not a drill. Therefore, the ideal level of criminality may be between one and two rather than at zero. In other words, there should just enough crime (or attempted crime) to remind people that crime exists and must be countered, but no more.

In a healthy society, the first two levels work in a complementary fashion; a certain level of force is necessary to suppress crime, and this quota must be met by the combination of official force and legal extra-official force. Maintaining a proper balance between these two levels is the essence of successful statecraft, libertarian or otherwise. This is easy in the short-term but much more difficult in the long-term. As crime rates naturally crest and trough, the defensive use of force must adjust to meet the enemy, and therein lies peril. It is through incorrect adjustments here that societies become unhealthy, i.e. the governance structure becomes monopolistic and tyrannical, eventually causing the very problems that it is supposed to prevent.

Historical Systems

In traditional societies with weak central states, the second scale was mostly free to adjust to keep pace with the third scale, with the first scale aiding one or the other, depending on whether the local chieftain was just or unjust. This makes the force reading of traditional societies low–X–X with a derivative of stable–fluctuating–fluctuating, with X being a variable dependent on a multitude of environmental and sociological factors. This can be sustainable for long periods of time if no outside force conquers the society, and is only broken if the weak central state collapses or if an unusually powerful ruler is able to found an empire or nation-state.

In imperial systems, the state is stronger but still reliant on some private assistance to maintain order, hiring privateers and mercenary companies in war while using private firms to handle some aspects of security and administration. The force reading of empires tends toward medium–medium–X in the beginning, with a derivative of up–fluctuating–fluctuating. An empire can fall to foreign conquest, but it can also collapse internally when official violence goes off the scale or when private forces and/or rogue legions manage to sack the capital. The most frequent historical cause of this outcome has been famine, which lowers the amount of oppression that the masses will tolerate.

In modern nation-states, crime spikes tend to be met with an increase in official force and a restriction of private defense which moves moral behavior into the category of criminalized force. This combination is called anarcho-tyranny. When crime declines due to increases in private defense, credit is never given where it is due. Private contractors still exist but are primarily servants of the state, forming a powerful military-industrial complex. The force reading of modern nation-states is high–low–X with a derivative of up–down–fluctuating. This is unsustainable; when the first scale reaches eleven or the second scale reaches zero, the social order will collapse.

Erroneous Liberalism

The view frequently espoused by liberals is that the first level should be minimized, but not so much that the third level is uncontrolled. Views on the second level vary widely; classical liberals typically favor robust private force while progressives typically favor greater state control of arms. Marxists tend to agree with classical liberals for the wrong reason of using arms to inflict communism through a revolution of the proletariat. Charles Krauthammer articulates a standard liberal view of the first and third levels thus in an article about punishment and the maintenance of order:

“It is a mark of civilization to maintain order at the lowest possible level of official violence. One is not supposed to talk these days about higher and lower levels of civilization, but even political correctness would admit that the less a society has recourse to official violence the more civilized it is. We do not cut off the hands of thieves. We do not keelhaul miscreant sailors. We no longer have public floggings. Each abolition represents an advance of civilization. Abolition of the death penalty represents a further advance.”[1]

As is typical among liberals, Krauthammer confuses civilization with politeness and official violence with state violence. The purpose of official violence is to maintain order by punishing crime and enforcing the social norms of a community. The reactionary view recognizes and respects the role of regular brutality in conditioning people against revulsion toward necessary and productive uses of force. It puts aesthetic concerns over the occasional gore of such practices not out of mind, but in their proper place of subordination to the primary concern of maintaining civilization. Furthermore, routine application of force incentivizes the physical training necessary to apply it as well as the teaching of martial virtues like discipline, honor, loyalty, and restraint.

Krauthammer continues:

“If capital punishment could be demonstrated to deter murder, I might be persuaded to tolerate a few exemplary hangings to save many innocents. But there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty deters. Murder rates in states with the death penalty are just as high as in neighboring states without it. In states where the death penalty has been introduced, murder rates do not, on average, go down. And in states where the death penalty has been abolished, murder rates do not go up.”[1]

He presents a false dilemma between the neutered expression of capital punishment in modern America and complete abolition, ignoring both the deterrent effect of cruel and public punishments and the community-building exercise of working together to remove evildoers. This prevents him (and most other liberals) from recognizing the benefits of maintaining a level of force in society above the bare minimum.

Because the world is dominated by nation-states and currently has no examples of sovereign private property owners or traditional monarchs, the liberal assumes that these are past forms discarded in the Whiggish march of progress, never to return. Likewise, Whigs regard the present condition as the end of history, blinding them to possible future innovations, such as anarcho-capitalist private defense agencies. This intellectual and historical myopia, combined with the tendency of modern states to restrict all private uses of force, leads to the interchangeability of official violence and state violence in the liberal mind. This causes them to blur the first and second scales together into a particular sub-type of the former.

Interestingly, it is the ancient traditional societies that liberals disparage as backward and repressive that actually offer the best expression of the stated goals of liberalism. Government was limited because the populace could not economically afford for it not to be, individual liberty was imperfect but less restrained than under modern nation-states, and most people were equal in the sense that they lacked a political voice but could attempt an exit to build a new life out in the wilderness.

Bring Back the Duel

As stated in the definition of the second scale, mutual combat is included in it, and it will not do to neglect the role of dueling in shaping a civilization. To concern oneself only with overt criminality while overlooking its precursors is to hack away at the branches of evil without striking the roots. Criminal acts are frequently preceded by various insults and improprieties which escalate when left unchecked. Forms of honorable combat on equal terms governed by a code of dueling can resolve disputes privately without recourse to official violence, thereby lessening the demand for government. Dueling may also improve the governance structure; what government there is could be staffed through dueling tournaments in order to ensure that unfit officials do not stay in office for long and that all who succeed in attempting power have combat experience before administering a violent organization. The possibility that one must either risk one’s life and limb or acquire a reputation as a coward is a strong incentive against uncivil behavior. The trade of additional violence for reduced incivility has been rejected by liberals from the Enlightenment onward, and modern civilizations have paid the price in greater statism and other dishonorable conduct.

Conclusion

State power has a tendency to grow over time and crowd out private defense until government becomes too large to sustain itself or too onerous to tolerate. This trend must be suppressed in order to form a stable social order, and the only method for doing this is powerful private force that can suppress growth of the governance structure without daring to overthrow the structure to install itself in power. This means that the second scale must be set higher than the first, but not too much higher. The first scale should remain low in order to avoid totalitarian tyranny, but above the level of criminal force so that the governance structure is not overthrown.

We thus arrive at an ideal force range of A–(A+B)–C, where 2 ≤ A ≤ 4, 0 < B ≤ 1, and 1 ≤ C ≤ 2. Should C move outside this range, A must temporarily adjust to meet the threat, but it is most important that B not fall.

References:

Krauthammer, Charles (1992, Apr. 24). “Without the Noose, Without the Gag”. Washington Post.

Support The Zeroth Position on Patreon!

Like this: Like Loading...