The weakness of he state is that it is an aggregate of humans;
its strength lies in the general ignorance of that fact. From earliest
times the covering up of this vulnerability has engaged the ingenuity of
political power; all manner of argument has been adduced to lend the
state a superhuman character, and rituals without end have been invented
to give this fiction a verisimilitude of reality. The divinity with
which the king found it necessary to endow himself has been assumed by a
mythical fifty-one percent who in turn ordain those who rule over them.
To aid the process of canonization, the personages in whom power resides
have set themselves off by such artifices as high-sounding titles,
distinctive apparel, and hierarchical insignia. Language and behavior
mannerisms -- called protocol -- emphasize their separatism.
Nevertheless, the fact of mortality cannot be denied, and the continuity
of political power is manufactured by means of a awe-inspiring symbols,
such as flags, thrones, wigs, monuments, seals, and ribbons; these
things do not die. By way of litanies, a soul is breathed into the
golden calf and political philosophy anoints it a "metaphysical
person."
But Louis XIV was quite literal in proclaiming "L'etat c'est
moi." The state is a person or number of persons who exercise
force, or the threat of it, to cause others to so what they otherwise
would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. That is, the
state is political power, and political power is force exerted by
persons on persons. The superhuman character given it is intended to
induce subservience. The strength of the state is Samsonian, and can
be shorn off by popular recognition of the fact that it is only a Tom,
a Dick, and a Harry.
The Only Cure
We must disabuse our minds of the thought that
that state
is a thief; the state are thieves. It is not a system
which creates privileges, it is a number of morally responsible
individuals who do so. A robot cannot declare war, nor can a general
staff conduct one; the motivating instrument is a man called king or
president, a man called legislator, a man called general. In thus
identifying political behavior with persons we prevent transference of
guilt to an amoral fiction and place responsibility where it rightly
belongs.
Having fixed in our minds the fact that the state is a number of
persons who are up to no good, we should proceed to treat them
accordingly. You do not genuflect before an ordinary loafer; why
should you do so in the presence of a bureaucrat? If someone high in
the hierarchy rents a hall, and with your money, stay away; the absent
audience will bring him to a realization of his nothingness. The
speeches and the written statements of the politician are directed
toward influencing your good opinion of political power, and if you
neither listen to the one nor read the other you will not be
influenced and he will give up the effort. It is the applause, the
adulation we accord political personages that records our acquiescence
in the power they yield; the deflation of that power is in proportion
to our disregard of these personages. Without a cheering crowd there
is no parade....
The Doctor's Responsibility
Social power resides in every individual. Just as you put personal
responsibility on political behavior, so must you assume personal
responsibility for social behavior. It is your own job. You think
poorly of legislator Brown not because he has violated a tenet of the
Tax Reform Society to which you belong, but because his voting for a
tax levy is in your own estimation an act of robbery. It is not a
peace society which passes judgement on the war-maker, it is the
individual pacifist. All values are personal. The good society you
envision by the decline of the state is a society of which you are an
integral part; your campaign is therefore your own obligation.
You are ineffective alone? You need an organization before you can
begin? Individuals think, feel, and act; the organization serves only
as a mask for those unable to think or unwilling to act on their own
convictions. In the end, every organization vitiates the ideal which
at first attracted members, and the more powerful the organization,
the surer this result. This is so because the organization is a
compromise of private values, and in the effort to find a workable
compromise, the lowest common denominator, descending as the
membership increases, becomes the ideal. When you speak for yourself
you are strong. The potency of social power is in the proportion to
the number who are of like mind, but that, as was said, is a matter of
education, not organization.
Let us try social ostracism. It should work.