Nock’s War on the State

Knox wore on the state by George Ford Smith.

The stronger the American state is allowed to grow,

the higher its record of criminality will grow

according to its opportunities and temptations.

Albert J. Knox, the criminality of the state.

Albert J. Knox, in spite of his anti-state essays,

was not an anarchist.

He was closer to being a classical liberal

in wanting to keep the state as small as possible,

but not vanquished.

In our enemy, the state, he tells us,

there are two methods, or means,

and only two whereby man's needs and desires

can be satisfied.

One is the production and exchange of wealth.

This is the economic means.

The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth

produced by others.

This is the political means.

Expanding on this, he writes,

Franz Oppenheimer defines the state in respect of its origin

as an institution forced on a defeated group

by a conquering group with a view only

to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors

and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within

and attack from without.

This domination had no other final purpose

than the economic exploitation of the conquered group

by the victorious group.

It's sobering and profoundly shameful

to realize social reality consists of two groups,

the bullied and the bullies,

one producing with the other living in grand style

off their production through coercion

or the threat thereof.

The question is the state necessary,

becomes is theft necessary.

Knock also believed it was futile to educate the public

about the nature of the state

since he regarded most people as willingly dependent

and non-intellectual.

In his essay Isaiah's Job,

he skulls a learned acquaintance

about his goal of educating the masses

on sound economic doctrine

and making it his life's mission.

I must encourage to say that he had no submission

and would do well to get the idea out of his head at once.

He would find that the masses would not care

two pins for his doctrine

and it's still less for himself

since in such circumstances the popular favorite

is generally some barabas.

The essay was published in 1936

when people had been suffering from the depression

and looking to the state

in particular President Franklin D. Roosevelt

and his new deal to grant them deliverance.

Since the most educated brains had declared capitalism

a failure and had warned of a communist takeover,

the beloved FDR gave them government by decree

and cartilization of the economy.

Roosevelt's anti-capitalist measures

were meant to save capitalism

in case you are wondering why so little of it exists today.

FDR became the new barabas in the guise of a savior.

Nox saw the state as constantly encroaching on social power

by which he meant individuals in their capacity

to get along with one another voluntarily.

As an example of social power

he cites how volunteers responded

to the Johnstown flood of May 31st 1889

when a dam broke 14 miles upstream

from Johnstown, Pennsylvania,

killing 2,208 people from a population of 30,000.

When the Johnstown flood occurred

social power was immediately mobilized

and applied with intelligence and vigor.

Its abundance measured by money alone

was so great that when everything was finally put in order,

something like a million dollars remained.

If such a catastrophe happened now

not only is social power perhaps too depleted

for the like exercise

but the general instinct would be to let the state see to it.

Voting for knock was little more than a ritual

for legitimizing state power.

The common man might be willing to be bossed around

but he votes and to that extent

he hopes for a better boss or less bossing.

It would appear we are then ruled by his votes

rather than the state directly.

While this is true to some extent

it overlooks the state's control of elections.

Why for instance is none of the above

never an election choice?

Why don't we see a ballot entry

for eliminating the income tax

or the Department of Education or the Federal Reserve?

Relying instead on the promises of politicians goes nowhere.

Once in office they can and have acted contrary

to what got them elected

as demonstrated by the Democratic Party platform

of 1932 that called for eliminating extravagance

and government, a balanced budget

and the preservation of a sound currency.

Some young Maga voters are finding

they didn't get what they voted for either.

Knox 1939 essay on foreign affairs.

The criminality of the state

makes his view of the state eminently clear

beyond its dark title.

All our institutional voices he writes,

the press, pulpit, forum

are pitched to the note of amazed indignation

at one or another phase of the current goings on

in Europe and Asia.

He continues.

This leads me to believe

that our people generally are viewing

with wonder as well as repugnance

certain conspicuous actions of various foreign states.

For instance, the barbarous behavior

of the German state towards some of its own citizens,

the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian state,

the ruthless imperialism of the Italian state.

I am cordially with them on every point but one.

I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation,

disgust, but not an astonishment.

The history of the state being what it is

and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is,

I'm obliged to say that the naïve tone of surprise

wherewith our people complain of these matters

strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence.

Suppose someone were impolite enough

to ask them the gruff question,

well, what do you expect?

What rational answer could they give?

I know of none.

He then offers a recommendation that should have been adopted

if we had had a state independent media

and oxymoron of the first order.

It's nox answer on how to fight the gang

in charge of our lives.

Polite or impolite, what do you expect

is just the question which ought to be put

every time a story of state villainy appears in the news.

It ought to be thrown at a public day after day

from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform

and radio station in the land.

And it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history,

a simple invitation to look at the record.

Imagine if you can, the legacy media attacking Israel

and its backers for its genocide in Gaza.

Clearly, it's not just totalitarian states

that are engaged in savagery.

The totalitarian state is only the state.

The kind of thing it does is only what the state

has always done with unfailing regularity.

If it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever

its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient.

He makes it clear that democratic state practice

is nothing more or less than state practice.

It does not differ from Marxist state practice,

fascist state practice, or any other.

Conclusion.

Knox wore on the state was always to keep it from growing,

not to shut it down completely.

But himbring the state would require a vigilance

and personal attributes in rare supply among the electorate,

which he acknowledged, perhaps because he

didn't understand the power and incentives

of an unhampered free economy, he was unable to call

for the state's elimination.

For more content like this, visit mises.org.