Outline

• the two state bulwarks are:
  • money
  • intellectual control
• money control is threatened by cryptocurrencies
  • “can’t beat em, so issue a CBDC” central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc
• intellectual control is threatened by encryption (“crypto” as wider industry) + the internet
  • find new avenues of control
    • public health
  • just go straight coercion, mask off

what the state needs to keep its foothold:

ref_anatomy-of-the-state_murray-rothbard_book:

Amidst the flux of expansion or contraction, the State always makes sure that it seizes and retains certain crucial “command posts” of the economy and society. Among these command posts are a monopoly of violence, monopoly of the ultimate judicial power, the channels of communication and transportation (post office, roads, rivers, air routes), irrigated water in Oriental despotisms, and education - to mold the opinions of its future citizens. In the modern economy, money is the critical command post.

The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever. Perhaps new paths of inquiry must be explored, if the successful, final solution of the State question is ever to be attained.
(Certainly, one indispensable ingredient of such a solution must be the sundering of the alliance of intellectual and State, through the creation of centers of intellectual inquiry and education, which will be independent of State power. Christopher Dawson notes that the great intellectual movements of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were achieved by working outside of, and sometimes against, the entrenched universities. These academia of the new ideas were established by independent patrons.

intellectual control today:

the-cathedral-vs-the-blue-church

rothbards-view-of-state-intellectual-control-and-cathedral-blue-church

if Hall’s idea of the Blue Church’s crumbling is right, then intellectual control is seriously threatened.

What would the state do?

try new avenues of intellectual control?

• mis/dis/malinformation misinformation-disinformation-malinformation

give up on intellectual control and seek legitimacy in other ways?

• “public health” - if the State is the only thing that can be relied on to keep people “safe”, it would want to make this clear. like maybe with a pandemic. Rothbard:

Another successful device was to instill fear of any alternative systems of rule or nonrule. The present rulers, it was maintained, supply to the citizens an essential service for which they should be most grateful: protection against sporadic criminals and marauders.

…and now, protection of their ”public health”

give up on legitimacy and use more coercive force?

public health

GPT:

However, it’s important to note that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the state’s actual ability to deliver on public health promises. Mismanagement or failure in this area can have the opposite effect, exacerbating challenges to the state’s legitimacy. Additionally, this approach must be balanced with respect for individual freedoms and rights, a concern central to libertarian perspectives like Rothbard’s. Overreach in the name of public health can lead to criticisms of authoritarianism or paternalism, which might further erode state legitimacy, especially among those who value individual liberties highly.

The State’s covid response was seen as fumbled (by some). two options:

• it’s true. the grasping State’s attempt to re-legitimize via public health didn’t go well and the illigitimacy is further revealed
• the “fumbling” is over-stated by anti-state actors: antistatists are trying to make their case clear by attempting to (disingenuously) convince people the Covid response didn’t go well.

if they (the antistatists) are wrong, the state is saying “fuck you, you actually need this, don’t ruin yourself”
if they’re right, the state is saying “shut up, we want to keep control at the expense of the people, don’t show them this error”

GPT Stuff:

If Jordan Hall’s assertion about the breakdown of the “Blue Church” narrative control is accurate, it would have significant implications for a Rothbardian interpretation of the State, particularly regarding its reliance on intellectual control to maintain legitimacy.

• Shift in Intellectual Influence: Rothbard argues that the State relies on intellectuals to promote and sustain its legitimacy. If the “Blue Church” narrative is unraveling, this could indicate a shift in how intellectuals influence public opinion. It might mean the traditional channels and messages that the State has used are losing their effectiveness. This change could lead to the State seeking new methods or platforms to disseminate its ideology.

• Emergence of Alternative Narratives: The breakdown of a dominant narrative structure, like the “Blue Church,” would likely lead to the emergence and strengthening of alternative narratives. These new narratives could challenge the State’s traditional ideological foundations, leading to a more pluralistic or fragmented intellectual landscape.

• Rethinking State Legitimacy: In a Rothbardian view, the State’s legitimacy hinges significantly on intellectual support. If the conventional means of securing this support weaken, the State may face a legitimacy crisis. This could force a reevaluation of how the State interacts with and influences society, potentially leading to more transparent or direct forms of engagement.

• Increased Public Skepticism: A key aspect of Rothbard’s critique involves skepticism towards the State and its justifications. The breakdown of a dominant intellectual narrative could amplify public skepticism towards state actions and policies, leading to increased demands for accountability and transparency.

• Diversification of Intellectual Discourse: As the uniform narrative control dissipates, a more diverse range of voices and perspectives might gain prominence. This diversification could challenge the State’s traditional narratives and require it to engage with a broader range of intellectual viewpoints.

In summary, the disintegration of a dominant narrative structure like the “Blue Church” would likely lead to a more complex and diversified intellectual environment. For a Rothbardian State, this could mean adapting to new modes of securing legitimacy, facing increased public scrutiny, and navigating a more pluralistic intellectual landscape. This shift could ultimately lead to a reconfiguration of the relationship between the State, intellectuals, and the public.

(after my prompting:)

Yes, a state facing challenges to its legitimacy could indeed seek to re-legitimize itself by emphasizing its role in providing public goods that smaller or decentralized entities may struggle to deliver effectively, such as public health. This strategy aligns with traditional views of the state’s responsibilities and can be a powerful tool in reinforcing state legitimacy for several reasons:

• Demonstrating Competence and Necessity: By effectively managing public health, the state can demonstrate its competence and the necessity of its role in society. This is particularly relevant in times of public health crises, such as pandemics, where the state’s ability to coordinate large-scale responses can be crucial.

• Fulfilling a Fundamental Role: Public health is often seen as a fundamental responsibility of the state, central to its social contract with citizens. Successfully fulfilling this role can strengthen the perception that the state is fulfilling its basic duties.

• Building Trust and Confidence: Effective public health measures can build trust and confidence in the state among its citizens. This is especially true if these measures lead to tangible improvements in the quality of life and well-being.

• Highlighting Limitations of Decentralization: In contrasting its capabilities with those of smaller or decentralized networks, the state can highlight the limitations and inefficiencies that might arise from decentralized public health efforts, thereby justifying its centralized role.

• Public Health as a Unifying Force: Public health initiatives can serve as a unifying force, rallying citizens around a common cause and reinforcing a sense of national identity and purpose, which can bolster state legitimacy.

However, it’s important to note that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the state’s actual ability to deliver on public health promises. Mismanagement or failure in this area can have the opposite effect, exacerbating challenges to the state’s legitimacy. Additionally, this approach must be balanced with respect for individual freedoms and rights, a concern central to libertarian perspectives like Rothbard’s. Overreach in the name of public health can lead to criticisms of authoritarianism or paternalism, which might further erode state legitimacy, especially among those who value individual liberties highly.