Does Social Hierarchy or Economics Make The State Inevitable?
A discussion of the main points of Kerry Baldwin’s article on economics, social relations, and the question of the inevitability of the state in a properly-functioning society. Robert Nozick’s economic argument for the immaculate conception of the state, and Russel Kirk’s social argument for states are both answered. A non-monopolistic view of civil governance is placed in terms of “sphere sovereignty” and a non-individualistic and non-collectivistic view of society.
Main Points of Discussion
| 00:00 | Start |
| 00:32 | Episode description: Article Part 1 on law and order and the question of civil governance legitimacy Part 2 on human sinfulness and the question of civil governance necessity |
| 01:45 | Summary overview of article |
| 03:20 | The economic argument for the state’s supposed inevitability, as presented by Robert Nozick in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia |
| 04:24 | Murray Rothbard’s refutation of Nozick’s hypothetical “immaculate conception of the state” (Audio) |
| 04:43 | Nozick’s false assumption about contract and Rothbard on title-transfer view of contract (Audio) |
| 06:39 | Nozick’s false assumption about dispute resolution and Bob Murphy’s “Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” on the realistic alternative to combat (Video) |
| 07:55 | Nozick’s false assumption about agreements and organizational merger and the counter-example of Ancient Ireland’s non-monopolistic legal order |
| 09:53 | The social argument for the state’s supposed inevitability, as presented by Russel Kirk in his 10 Conservative Principles, from the principle of variety from his book The Politics of Prudence |
| 12:09 | The Reformed Libertarianism statement Why the worst rise to the top of the state |
| 13:10 | The neocalvinist and reformational view of society (sphere sovereignty) as a superior alternative to individualistic and collectivistic views of society |
| 14:56 | Praxeological / methodological individualism (recognizing that only individual persons properly act) is not an individualistic view of society |
| 16:35 | Society is not a single thing, nor something normatively governed “overall” |
| 18:44 | No specific community normatively governs all the others of that same kind, whether familial, ecclesial, or civil (or any other kind) |
