Democracy, War, and the Myth of the Neutral State
Edtors Note: This is a selection from The Problem of Security: Historicity of the State and European Realism found in the collection The Myth of National Defense edited by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
The constitutionalist claim to justify the States monopoly of violence has been challenged directly by the radical libertarian tradition (Molinari) and by individualist anarchists (such as Lysander Spooner). However, an important role in bringing the modern State into perspective has also been played by European political realism and, in particular, by Carl Schmitt and the Italian elitist scholars (Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto).
Schmitts importance rests very much on his intuition that in every State there is first a political dimension and then a decision, which cannot be obscured by the so-called impersonality of law and the super-individuality of orders. Beyond the apparent abstraction of the State (as described by Hans Kelsen and other positivists), Schmitt uncovered choices, interests, and, in short, people that impose their will on others.[1]
The constitutional thought of classical and contemporary liberalism has constantly tried to neutralize politics, but it has failed. In Schmitts opinion, the real sovereign is the political group that has the final decision about the critical situation, in the state of emergency.[2] The locus of sovereignty thus becomes the political entity (which in our time is the State), and the decision on the state of emergency is the ultimate test of sovereignty. Legal positivism tried hard to refute the importance of this notion, but critical decision making is paramount in the development of human relations.
Therefore, the liberal neutralization of politics sought by classical constitutionalism is simply impossible. When the State every State is recognized as a structure of decisions and an instrument of domination wielded by some rulers, political modernity displays itself with no clothes and one can understand the illegitimacy, as well the irrationality, of the monopoly of protection. There is nothing neutral or innocent in the power of a group of men that Italian elitists called the ruling class.
Hobbes was wrong (as a philosopher) when he asserted that law comes from authority. However, we can agree with political scientists using Hobbesian theory that State decisions are the result of conflicts of interests and opposing views. In statist societies, where the law is controlled by a monopolistic institution, it is force that dictates law.
This is especially true in democratic countries, where social life is marked by the competition for the control of the political center, i.e., the power to distribute resources, favors, and privileges. Schmitts critique of the hypocrisy of liberal democracy is confirmed by the Italian elitists. The latter were convinced that in every political system there is a small group of men (an organized elite) dominating the large disorganized mass. As Pareto noted,
the corruption of the parliamentary system meant that the interests of the majority were seconded to the interests and passions of a small and highly organized group. These were ready to use any means to extend their influence and dominate the country.[3]
For this reason, democracy exists only as a political ideology devoted to protecting and legitimating the power of a minority capable of taking advantage of its higher organization.[4]
Bruno Leoni adopted political realism (and the lessons of the Italian elitists) in his critique of majoritarian democracy. In his opinion, eliminating all group decisions taken by aggressive coalitions,
Read the original here:
Democracy, War, and the Myth of the Neutral State