How Democratization of Protection Led to More War

“The US government does not protect us. To the contrary, there exists no greater danger to our life, property, and prosperity than the US government.” – The Myth of National Defense

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson first called to “make the world safe for democracy” as he pleaded with Congress to bring America into war with Germany.   It would be the beginning of an aggressive expansionist policy that would result in a series of foreign conflicts, eventually earning the US its imperialist bona fides.  But its effects would eventually be exposed when blowback from decades of warfare resulted in nearly 3000 deaths on September 11, 2001.  By 2007, George W. Bush’s new strategy would be to” fight them over there, so we do not have to face them in the United States of America”.  His style of interventionist policy, “the War on Terror”, with boots on the ground, propping up and tearing down regimes around the world, would keep American troops busy for decades to come. 

In Hans Hermann Hoppe’s edited book, “The Myth of National Defense”, Hoppe, an emeritus professor of economics, presents a collection of essays proving that state protection is not only a myth but a threat to its very citizens.  With its monopoly on force and its power to tax, any notion that the government is protecting our Constitutional rights is false.  In fact, state-provided protection has only led to more taxes and less security.   In addition to a review of the role of the state and national defense, Hoppe also considers how alternatives to state-sponsored protection will bring about more peace and prosperity.  The theory that democracy resulted in mass armies is the premise of the book. 

In a state of nature, before the creation of the nation-state, anarchy reigned.  With the aid of mercenaries, militias, and other temporary fighters, aggressors were kept at bay.  Eventually, private ships and merchants would be used to disrupt the flow of goods to enemy nations.  Each represented a way to discourage aggression without a massive public outlay.  Even during the reign of monarchs, as kings were impelled to protect their assets, there were fewer wars and less violence. 

With democracy came a monopoly on force, where professional politicians had the authority to decide on how state protection would look, setting prices of their services at whatever they wanted.  Since the consent of the people was unnecessary, war became the inevitable consequence of the establishment of state security, with state intervention resulting in violations of many rights of citizens, both foreign and domestic.  The state must only exploit fears and evoke collective hatred toward the enemy to grow its influence. 

Eventually, the United States and other democratic governments began to fight with one another, each with the monopoly power to tax its citizens to keep conflicts ongoing, leading to chronic warfare.  The result was the coalescing of power towards more centralization, not less.  State-led protection has led to empire-building and resulted in a government that has a monopoly on law and order, not only for its potential foes, but also towards its very citizens.  Not only has the state failed to quell aggression from other nations, but it has often instigated hostilities itself.  If state security is the greatest threat to liberty, we cannot trust them to protect us from threats at home or abroad. 

Frank Chodorov, a classical liberal author, expanded on the problems of government monopoly when he wrote, “Experience has shown that the monopoly we give government can work for disorder; the power can be used to create disharmony and promote injustice. That, in fact, is the record. Throughout history, those to whom the job of rulership has fallen have shown a tendency to use their position to dominate, not serve, the ruled.”  The state that has already failed to protect rights and property for its citizens is not the sole option for producing security.

Gustave de Molinari, a French theorist and originator of “Market Anarchism”, called for replacing the state with civil society backed by markets as the most suitable alternative, believing that if laissez-faire markets worked for other economic goods, it would work for the production of security.  Molinari, in his 1849 article, “The Production of Security,” argued that the ultimate evolution from the nation-state is to a complete laissez-faire society, and that a voluntary society is the source of order that comes from freedom itself.  Since the foundation of protection relies on economic independence, peace will only be possible from a decentralized state and a free market for defense. 

Without a state, the case for free market protection would likely begin with international and national insurance companies charging premiums that are voluntary and subject to competition, competing for clients like every other industry.  Using the nonaggression principle, violent action against another would only be allowed for those who commit violence against us, likely resulting in more peace.  In democracies, governments fight with one another.  In a free society, individuals in their respective countries would be greatly disincentivized to fight with each other.  Also, just as war is a natural consequence of monopoly, peace would be a natural consequence of decentralization.  

Democracy during the 20th century saw 170 million citizens killed by their own governments. Since the state is already a coercive entity, it is unlikely that safety and freedom could ever come from it.  In the US, after two centuries of warfare from state protection, paid for through coercive taxation, the era has only ended with massive debts and an unstable economy.