In Defense of State Power: A Response to the Critique of the State Leviathan

The Roundup Viewpoint section welcomes student opinions; these views reflect the ideas of the writer and not those of The Roundup or Jesuit.

I begin with a story. Two mothers come to a benevolent governing body, arguing their respective claims to the same child. Both plead their cases, recognizing that the keys of justice only reside in a higher power beyond their individual capabilities. At the end of their debate, this institution offered its summary judgment: the baby should be cut in half and each side given to the mother. One of the women immediately refused and dropped her claim on the child. Out of recognition for her empathy and merit, the judicious ruler grants her the child.

This story arises from 1 Kings 3:16-28, detailing the Hebrew King Solomon’s approach to justice. Solomon’s prudence and justice display the endless necessity of a strong, centralized government whose abilities in foresight, lawmaking, and empathy towards its populace are unique to itself. Thus, in response to a recent critique of strong state authority by Roundup writer Luke Lastelick, I posit the following claim:

The representative government, especially a powerful one, serves as a philanthropic institution that protects the governed body. Only the government can solve existential threats against humanity. A decentralized and toothless federal power, as proven throughout history, fails to ensure the safety of its citizens or to properly address threats to national stability. 

The Government as a Just Actor

“It is natural for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal, to live in a group.”

So says renowned Church theologian St. Thomas Aquinas, a man who possessed the wisdom to realize the necessity of a governing state power. Aquinas succinctly tied together the role of the government in relation to the will of the people, a scholar who rightfully critiqued the excesses of absolute monarchy but realized the ability of governments to guarantee the common good, the commune bonum.

In fact, Aquinas believes that the law is an offspring of “reason alone… by participation as it were,” again solidifying Catholic theological dogma as in support of a representative state.

The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero believed that a mixed government of a head executive power, legislative Senate, and then the people was best to ensure the stability of natural Law. The head executive, Cicero argued, “was the only man who could guide the state in an emergency.”

Next, John Locke – who is so vehemently cited in the previous article – proposed the notion of a social contract. Locke believed in the “inalienable rights” of concepts such as life, liberty, or property which this author endorses wholeheartedly. Additionally, he supported limits on unlimited government control, which I agree risks totalitarianism and oppression.

But Locke agrees with the concept of taxation – that they are a necessary component of this common good outlined by Thomas. As long as the taxes are not overly burdensome, are approved by representation, and are good for the nation as a whole, then they are justified under Lockean interpretations of government.

And under our current federal government, most taxes fit under this description. Compared to other nations, the US has a relatively low federal tax rate, but some states – with the consent of the electorate – may raise or lower their taxes.

“Goods produced by people belong to them, but those goods could not have been produced without the government guaranteeing them.”

Yes, Lastelick may be right that the goods produced by people belong to them, but those goods could not have been produced without the government guaranteeing them their life, liberty, and property. This proves that the government, a co-producer in said goods, has the ability – with the consent of the people – to tax said goods. I will explain this relationship below.

The Government in Guaranteeing the Common Good

Why do Cicero, Aquinas, and Locke all agree on the necessity of an organized state? For Thomas, it resides in concupiscence, for Cicero, political corruption, for Locke, Hobbsian theories of man’s nature, but they all arise from similar roots – humanity has the tendency to commit sin or errors of judgment. Violence and theft are pervasive in human actions, and all three philosophers above, realizing this, advocated for the presence of a strong government.

“The government is the only body capable of addressing threats to the common good.”

I argue that the government is the only body capable of addressing threats to the common good. It can tax the population to drum up funds to create a military, necessary for national protection. It can abolish malevolent crimes perpetuated by citizens, such as murder or fraud. It can regulate or overturn its own overreaches of power – such as the abolition of slavery in the 13th Amendment rendering the Dredd Scott Supreme Court Case null and void. The government is the only means to address the problems it creates.

Indeed, it should be telling that even in cases of secession to resist alleged failed government policies, these secessionists always formulate their own governments to codify new laws to prevent a repeat of their previous political system, such as the founding of the American Republic in response to the failures of the British dual parliamentary-monarchic system.

Lastelick states in his article the following:

“That freedom from coercion is both a fundamental human right… The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are just a few examples.”

But this stands as a glaring contradiction in his critique of state power. I ask him, who created the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Was it made possible by the process of “infinite secession of local communities”?

The answer is glaringly simple: it was the government. And it was a strong and powerful one at that. The English were under the rule of a King and semi-autonomous Parliament during the writing of the Magna Carta, the American Republic had just announced taxes on whiskey during the formulation of the Constitution, and the UN was created with the intent desire to intervene in other countries to regulate their destructive behavior – just as a government does so with its citizens.

Luke makes strong claims about the oppressive nature of some governments, citing China and North Korea’s totalitarian approach to governance. But those countries are not the representative governments that I or the cited scholars above propose. And hopefully, if a more democratic government were to take control of these nations and attempt to reorient them to a more free state, then it would require the use of a legislature, judicial system, and executive power to overturn these abuses of the state.

“The moblization of resources and people [and] long term goals and planning can best be achieved through the utilization of government created institutions.”

The mobilization of resources and people towards a common goal is something only governments can do. Long-term goals and planning, glaringly absent in individual human decision-making, can best be achieved through the utilization of government-created institutions. Some may say that this can be done by small communities, but in reality, a nationwide federal government possesses the only means to conduct these measures through the use of institutions.

The Justice Department institutes a series of judicial courts across the country to mediate disputes and uphold the democratically chosen law. The Centers for Disease Control monitors infectious diseases and proscribes policy recommendations to manage their effects. The Department of Homeland Security manages border protection and domestic terror threats.

Institutions such as the above are simply not possible at a state level and are mutually exclusive with Lastelick’s view of a government that only guarantees national security and public infrastructure. But they have proven their key role in guaranteeing the stability of this nation. Of course, no government agency is free from corruption or incompetence, but the answer is reform, not wholesale abolition.

An Answer to Unregulated Capitalism

In his article, Lastelick posits that “capitalism is the antithesis of statism,” and is a prerequisite to freedom. I do concur with the belief in capitalism’s beneficial effects upon society through technological innovation and economic freedom in participation, but the notion of a market wholly unregulated is startling.

The purpose of the free market is to increase the profits of its shareholders. Without regulation by the state, this essentially leaves the free market, well free, from government interference. This is proven to be cataclysmic for human dignity and safety, proven in both theory and historical precedent.

“The notion of a market wholly unregulated is startling.”

An unchained profit motive means that the markets – contrary to the state’s purpose of supporting the common good – only seek to advance their own gain. This selfish attitude towards interactions with others means that managers of large corporations always seek to advance their own profit motives before seeking any benefit to the community.

Some may say that increasing profit inherently provides an incentive to create better products for the community, but this is simply not the case. Without a guiding hand of the government, unregulated capitalism can simply produce poorly made and dangerous goods for their own profit. This would include the polluting of milk with chalk throughout the 1800s, the tainting of beef with dangerous PFAS chemicals through their cheap fodder, and toys that risk giving children cancer.

You see, unlike the government – which through the consent of the people can reverse previous errors in judgment – the private market has no such governance. While ethics and policy play a role in a voter’s mind when electing candidates, for capitalism a focus on liberty is ironically replaced with pure profit.

“While ethics and policy play a role in the voter’s mind when electing candidates, for capitalism a focus on liberty is ironically replaced with pure profit.”

Additionally, capitalism is simply incompetent at ensuring long-term stability in the world, a quality only a government through the use of institutions can solve. An insistence by fossil fuel companies to continue burning record amounts of dirty energy, while shunning geothermal, nuclear, and solar/wind technology proves this to be true. The reason is simple: corporations are unwilling to lose profit temporarily, even if it guarantees the survival of the human species in the long term. The government, with the nigh unlimited revenue from taxation and its meritocratic structure, has no such impediment.

Only a combination of the two, to provide both an efficient private market that guarantees high-quality goods and a responsible governing body to regulate any excesses, can guarantee Natural Law is protected. President Teddy Roosevelt’s “trust-busting” in the early 1900s is an example of this, protecting the integrity of the free market whilst correcting its failures.

“Only a combination of the two, to provide both an efficient private market that guarantees high-quality goods and a responsible governing body to regulate any excesses, can guarantee Natural Law is protected.”

Lastelick decries that “[true] capitalism has never been implemented,” as if that can justify the present failures of the market. The same argument that is so often utilized by proponents of socialism falls flat on its face and only serves to make one’s idealogy look weak and impossible to implement. We can’t see what a completely anarcho-capitalist world looks like, but we can see what an unrestrained profit motive has done throughout history with lackluster government regulation.

Responses to Libertarian Alternatives

Lastelick proceeds to drum up three alternatives to centralized state authority, all of which fall victim to the maxims outlined above. First, infinite cession, a policy of “infinitely regressive secession to limit tyranny,” may provide security from government interference in Washington, but it would not guarantee the Natural Rights of its citizens. Only the current Federal and State Government’s Bills of Rights adequately protect the life and liberty of their constituents.

Breakaway regions throughout American history, such as the Confederate States of America or the Mormon Deseret Theocracy, were created to continue their own violations of human dignity, without risk of government interference. Ensuring infinite secession would invite any breakaway group, whether it be Branch Davidians, the KKK, or cartels along the border to not only violate local citizenry but also to pose a security threat to the rest of the country.

Next, a second proposal listed is the limiting of federal power. In some aspects, I can agree with this that the structural reform of several federal agencies and branches would be necessary to increase efficiency and make them more democratic. One such example would be to increase the size of the House of Representatives to make it truly proportional to the American population, or to abolish America’s domestic spying networks.

However, the idea of limiting federal power just to a military and judiciary branch would fail, namely in that there would be little federal authority for crises such as pandemics, economic collapse, or mass tax evasion.

Finally, the concept of “free cities” is brought up. Free cities fall to the same tragedy as unregulated free markets do – the desire to compete for consumers lowers the quality of services provided for those not in the market, as well as charging for public utilities such as police or fire departments that many Americans simply could not afford. Additionally, there is no democracy present in these free cities, it is only the corporation that decides the rules. As Forbes author Wade Sheperd argues:

“There are no requirements for a democratic process in private cities—ultimately, what the company says goes—and the main avenue for people to vote is with their feet: to decide whether or not they want to live there or not.”

“There are no requirements for a democratic process in free cities.”

Unfortunately, while nearly every adult in America can vote, not everyone can pay for expensive services. The classic argument of “vote with your feet,” ignores structural impediments to fleeing these abusive private cities for people who lack the financial means to do so. Ultimately, without direct representation, private cities turn into the same dystopian authoritarian that Lastelick critiques.

Conclusion

Although the desire to reduce or reform federal power is sensible, a wholesale rejection of the state only spells doom to the world. Allowing private corporations, only concerned with their own welfare, to unabashedly exploit the population whilst having no clear vision for the future means that a world without a strong federal government is ultimately a world that lacks the same provisioning of Natural Rights and freedoms that critiques of the state hold dear.

In my opinion, reforms of the US federal government are urgently needed to elevate the democratic process and to guarantee efficiency when responding to threats. But even as I claim that one – whether we are a philosopher, economist, or student newspaper editor – can still respect the state for what it has done in guaranteeing the common good.