Posted on

Minimal State


I am one-third of the way through the seminal work of Robert Nozick, “ Anarchy, State, and Utopia,”

published in 1974. It contends with the notion of liberal, conservative and libertarian ideas on politics-that is, what used to be Big State, Small State and Minimal State theories of governance.

Since the 70's however — the time of publication of the work — America's government has snowballed into a mass interconnected web of professionally-knit and morally side-tracked politicians who see, speak, and do and think only Deep State thoughts — seemingly unmoored from both ethics and unlearned of historical lessons or imperatives.

In short, both ignorant and arrogant about that very ignorance.

Mr. Nozick presents a convincing and eminently- readable argument on the topic of the political state and reason for its evolution until today.

He starts at ground zero:

“ Political philosophy is only concerned with certain ways that people may use others,” he offers initially. He brings in larger philosophical sources and precisely points to how we have deteriorated to our present condition. Of the Big State, (which he calls the 'End State') he says, “ An end- state view would express the view that people are ends and not merely means ( if it chooses to express this view at all.)”

In short, in an ' end state' system of governance, people tend to be used — regardless of the damage it does to them.

And this is where we are today in America. We are becoming that very 'end-state,' complete with a bloated gigantic bureaucracy, together with media connivance and high tech billionaire overseers, all complicit in an unholy alliance to drive down the middle class into a uniform peasantry all for the sake of power-grabbing internation-

Continued on Page 5

‘The Wordaholic’ By Robert L.

Hall ROBERT HALL (cont.)

alists and modern-day slavers, all in an attempt to take us all down the path of socialism.

This is a situation that should be shunned as inherently dangerous and damaging. Nozick explains:

“ Had Kant held this view, he would have given the second formula of the categorical imperative as, ' So act as to minimize the use of humanity simply as a means,' rather than the one he actually used: ' Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.'”

Short translation: “Respect the individual.”

Today, however, that's not where we are at. Why? To know that, we have to move to the question of,

“ In virtue of precisely what characteristics of people are there moral constraints on how they may treat each other or be treated?”

Interpreted as asking, “Who should be controlled under the law?”

And if so, then there follows this question:

“ What is the significance of any purported threshold? Is it a reason to specially limit how we treat

In other words, should only smart people above a certain I.Q run the show? Or maybe only those who virtue-signal? Only perhaps only those whose 'victimhood' has been claimed at a certain level, or some 'protected segment of society?” So, if some are advantaged by societal protections and others disadvantaged by having their activities constrained, how do you justify being punished without recourse or compensation of any sort?

And if we give these unlimited powers of punishment and non-compensation to a giant state (we call it today the federal government) which Nozick calls an “unlimited

monopoly,” then it follows that there will be a widespread “imbalance of power,” or injustice-not justice.

For instance, those in highcrime areas would be disproportionately destroyed by the 'Defund the Police' movement, and restrictive gun laws that disarm the public and make it impossible for people to protect themselves or have protection available to them.

Which is where the 50 State Legislatures come in.

Continued on Page 14 ROBERT HALL (cont.)

By making state laws that are targeted and serve their own constituencies, states can craft and make laws that are specially crafted to meet the needs of the people within their separate territories. In doing so, this minimizes the possibility of over-arching Federal decrees, which may be unfair or unreasonable and that would, in fact, be a disservice to the people at large.

Now, we move on to discuss laws that actually do inflict the public at large.

How do you compensate people for unfair law-making and enforcement?

Nozick considers the question.

“ Prohibition without compensation is not a ' split the difference' compromise between two equally alternative positions- one of which is correct, but we don't know which.

maintain those who are either unwilling to support themselves or who are being indulged by having them put in a 'protected category' of persons, of whom nothing is expected or required-all funded on the back of the working American taxpayer. With the government figuratively telling us, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Leaving us wanting for compensation as a result of being unjustly and disproportionately disadvantaged and punished by our own government?

The answer appears to lie in turning back federal political control in order to

monopoly on power, allowing the individual states to be more in charge of local control — thereby minimizing the damage the federal government does to disparate populations under over-broad edicts which enforce unjust policies.

The sooner, the better.

Robert L. Hall is a resident of Marion and has a Bachelor’s Degree in music from the University of Memphis and a Master’s Degree from Florida State University. He is the pianist for Avondale Baptist Church and a writer of fiction on Amazon eBooks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll Up