Regarding this post post: Tank Man and Tank Commander over at Lawyers, Gun$, and Money. Noting it's post date, I imagine the subsequent event of Neda being gunned down by Iranian statist thugs makes the point that enforcers willing to shoot can de-legitimize regimes, but I also suspect that it also served to reinforce in Robert Farley's own mind why he pays taxes.

The gist of Farley's post addresses the "Hobbesian State of Nature" problem in the context of the "modern nation state as an extremely efficient killing machine." At issue is the advancement of information technology coterminous with this evolution of the State that periodically exposes the underlying brutal core of State legitimacy to a global audience. The willingness of enforcers to shoot lies at the core of the legitimacy any State, "liberal" or authoritarian. However, the very act of shooting itself, if done in the open, and not intra muros, can serve as a de-legitimizing action. Hence, the Hobbesian Catch-22.

Farley nonetheless accepts the brutal nature of the State, indeed embraces it, because he finds the coercive State necessary to solve the "State of Nature" problem and the "Collective Action" problem.

The modern nation-state is nevertheless tolerable because it substantially reduces private coercion (replacing it with less arbitrary public coercion), creates a relatively safe space in which commerce and the production of wealth can be undertaken, provides regulation necessary for the conduct of a modern (socialist or capitalist) economy, provides social services, and because it creates a sense of identity and political efficacy. Its murderous tendencies notwithstanding, I'd rather live in a nation-state than not, and would prefer a more complete and capable state to the rump that libertarians envision.

An interesting thing about those who ascribe to the "Hobbesian State of Nature" problem is that they tend to nonetheless dismiss Hobbes solution to the problem, namely the requirement of an absolute Leviathan. Hobbes rejected the idea that a constitutional government, or politics itself, resolved this problem. Frankly, if humans were actually so arbitrarily uncooperative, Hobbes would have a point. Constitutions and separation of powers would hardly constrain a naturally brutish people.

The Hobbesian State of Nature is in no small part rooted in biblical concepts of original sin and a fallen human race. We really should be progressing beyond such nonsense at this point in terms of our understanding of the human evolutionary dynamic. It should be clear that a human race consisting of psychopaths is not evolutionary stable. The ability to abstract cooperation, in the end, IMHO, lies at the heart of the explanation of human evolution. Authoritarian coercion, no doubt, can produce collective action and engender cooperation. However, given the ability of humans to reason abstractly, there may be a point of contention that violent coercion is the only way to ensure cooperation. The likes of Farley are quick to accept the "murderous tendencies" of the State, just as long, I suppose, they don't have to bear the brunt of such tendencies. If the gun turns against them, i imagine they might have a different opinion on the matter. If Farley found himself in the role of the "tank Man," I suspect he would suddenly have a higher opinion of the "libertarians."

H/T to TGGP for pointing at this post.