A cherished belief of many schools of thought which seek to limit government to a minimal, hands-off, 'laissez-faire' condition is that a free economy is possible within a nation-state. Adherents of this theory consider this laissez-faire state to be an attainable ideal. They commit much energy to theoretical debate in its favor. Many organize committed political action to achieve it within the democratic political process of governments whose centralized power is monumental, with the idea of dismantling and limiting that power from within the system. Is it perhaps hypocritical or compromising to make use of the system one opposes, rubbing shoulders in politics with politicians and activists you consider to be abusing power? That question presupposes that the goal can be achieved at all by political organization from within. Is it strategically wise to participate in a system which abuses power in order to limit it, implying support in the process? Others advocate the same laissez-faire state but disdain politics, choosing instead to educate others in the wisdom of their laissez-faire capitalism, or hoping to found new states to support free markets.

But these ethical and strategic concerns over means and methodology are actually the subject of unnecessary debate. All advocates of a laissez-faire state with a free economy have already made the erroneous assumption that some government can exist which is minimal enough for the economy to be a free market. This is the myth of a laissez-faire free market. It has never existed, and it can never exist. It would require the government to exist independent of economics — that is to say, the government could never interfere with individual economic interests, decisions, and productivity. Conversely, individual economic decisions would have to fail to interfere with public policy. This ideal is impossible in reality.

There is no way to separate government and the economy in a state, a society founded on political power embodied as government. In contrast to power to achieve, or capability, which always lives in the individual (and by extension, in cooperation and exchange between individuals), political power is leverage based on belief, which is supported ultimately by force. The foundation of the government is social control, which extends always to economic control as well. Just as an economy is indivisible from all the personal experiences and actions which comprise a society, control over economies has always been part of social control. There is no line that can ever be maintained, in any state, between personal interests and maneuvering to advance them using the power of the state, through the political process.

The very existence of the political state even with the most minimal powers implies eventual forced control over individual achievement and exchange, which is the basis of any economy. But even without the possibility and tendency of political power to be expanded, which is always a factor, the essential powers of the state which are regarded as minimal necessarily involve interference with economic activity and economic exchange. All states, that is to say all areas ruled by central governments, have no possibility of having free market capitalist economies in the fullest sense. The freest condition possible for any of them is a minimal fascism. This is because even the most minimal government, which is theoretically prohibited from direct economic interference, has a footprint. In order to function, government owns and purchases, even if it that government is limited to the roles of defense and arbitration, for example.

Of course, governments which exist today are not minimal in any sense. But let us suppose that the laissez-faire statist advocates have somehow gained the upper hand in popularity and power, and that they are invulnerable to temptation. They turn to the problem of instituting a free market, and hope to make it sustainable if they can. A relatively basic power of their hypothetical state is to regulate trade with those who live outside of it. But control of trade allows for political influence to be applied in favor of some internal business interests in favor of others, which leads to the integration of business with political power, which is economic fascism. Suppose they dispense with that power, and limit that interference explicitly to foreign policy and diplomacy. The same thing will still occur, foreign relations will be influenced in favor of certain business interests and fascism will be reasserted. They dispense with that power as well, somehow — still the establishment and maintenance of basic infrastructure require interconnections between government and business, which is fascism. So, they dispense with the maintenance of infrastructure, decentralizing these needs to the trust of voluntary organizations. Still, any government entrusted with a monopoly on printing money, considered a basic power, actually possesses a choke hold on the essential means of exchange, effectively a nucleus of fascism. They dispense with that power too and decentralize money, but continue to tax for strict defense, arbitration of disputes, and the maintenance of civil order — and they find that to conduct and supply these functions still requires that same fascist interaction and interdependence. In fact, all functioning of the government, no matter how limited its power, requires that a fascistic link exist between business and government, which will always become corrupt, and tend to expand control, and create monopolies. But they are sure they have finished when they reach taxation — they realize this power will always be manipulated to show favoritism, and that taxes will likely be increased in the future to consolidate power. So they dispense with taxation and the state has no funding, so they establish voluntary contribution to support it. At this point they would find to their dismay that even a exceedingly minimal government which does not print money for itself or tax, receiving voluntary support akin to a non-profit organization, does not compete with alternatives and still has low incentive to be effective and efficient in its roles. Any government is based on a monopoly of force, even the most minimal governments. A government can never exist like a private business or a private non-profit organization, both of which must compete with alternatives, and are subject to choice.

In order to establish a free market, and in order to safeguard freedom from the encroachment of power, the necessary functions once conducted under the state must be taken up by voluntary organizations. There is no need for the state at all. If a minimal state can be achieved, there already exists the basis for Promethean capitalism in the minds and hearts of citizens. Clearly, in such a case, they already desire a true free market.

In the transition from a state to a free market, the cooperation of governments will be necessary in dismantling the state and founding Promethean societies. But power must be dismantled quickly or it will corrupt the officials in whom it is invested, become established, acquire popular legitimacy, and inevitably expand into tyranny. If the goal is not a Promethean society without government, but instead a minimal government, there is no chance to actually reach the point at which political power is dissolved. Even if by some miracle something close to the laissez-faire state is achieved, which almost certainly would require violent revolution against the stubborn grip of power, it would quickly become more and more invasive with the accretion of power. The American revolution (not peaceful election) secured something near to the ideal of a laissez-faire state, though not a free market. The early republic is idolized by many laissez-faire advocates. But just consider what has happened since! Today in the United States, abuse of power is rampant, government and commerce are intertwined in tentacles of corruption and control, and public debates edge farther and farther afield into determining degrees of domination. The laissez-faire statists may protest: surely some sort of mistake has been made, laws poorly worded, safeguards not ensured. But tinkering with government cannot ensure freedom if the people who compose government, influence it, and are influenced by it are not convinced that freedom must be preserved. The laissez-faire statists may protest: their ancestors were lulled into a stupor and were not energetic enough in defending freedom in popular opinion. But if anything, their predecessors were more skilled and dedicated advocates of freedom, constantly on guard against oppression. Consider what occurred once the revolutionary founding fathers attained office themselves — even they could not resist the temptation to transgress explicit power once they were called by the titles of office. What superior resistance could arise in the future to surpass theirs? Regardless of its form, the existence of government itself is a problem — it supplies constant temptation to abuse power of election or office to achieve personal goals, constantly putting human nature in a difficult position. Such a society decays into corruption and tyranny as a matter of course.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship."

— Alexander Tyler in 1871

A laissez-faire state still means a lesser fascism, as long as the state exists in any form. That fascism would undoubtedly become worse. If "[f]ascism spells government" as Mussolini said, government also spells fascism. Economic fascism has been a product of the sociopolitical environment of the state, not something removed from it. The worst examples of fascism evolve from democratic states. Hitler's Nazism rose up within the Weimar Republic, the corporatism of Mussolini's National Fascists rose up in Italy, and today America seems well on its way to a democratic corporatism of its own. How much faith in the attainment and preservation of freedom can reasonably be placed in the political process of any democratic state?

There can be no middle ground between a free economy and a controlled economy, because once control is introduced in any way, the symptoms of interference, including corruption and instability, will show themselves. Just the existence of the state, introducing the state just as purchasing agent, owner, and monopoly of force, is more than enough for that. Additionally, there is no known barrier to stop control and interference from spreading, and political power has an eternal tendency to expand. Political societies all tend to experience increasing and inexorable central domination followed by economic collapse, unless that is forestalled by revolution or foreign influence. To escape from the pattern, it is necessary to escape from political power. It is necessary to escape from the state, the primary cause of economic problems and primary tool for economic exploitation, whether by politicians controlling business, or business controlling politicians. All the beneficial services provided by governments today must be provided by private business and other voluntary organizations, individuals and groups of individuals. The free market of Promethean capitalism can only exist and succeed in a society without government, a Promethean society.

"State is the name of the coldest of cold monsters.
... With heroes and honorable men it would surround itself, this new idol! It likes to bask in the sunshine of good consciences — the cold monster!
It will give you everything if you will adore it, this new idol. Thus it buys the splendor of your virtues and the look of your proud eyes. It would use you as bait for the all-too-many.
... Where the state ends — look there, my brothers!"

— from Also Sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

<< Promethean Capitalism contents
< previous, Part Eight: Symptoms of Controlled Economies
> next, Part Ten: Charities