Many of our subscribers and libertarians in general are likely already well acquainted with the abbreviation “SB” or the term “stationary bandit.” But despite their familiarity to us, most people have still not really encountered them. This also applies to new participants of our resource, who often do not understand what this means. Perhaps some of you accidentally came across a repost, started reading, and are now wondering: “Why do they constantly call the state some kind of bandit? What conspiracy theory is this?”.
Let us first note that such a term is not just some fantasy of ancaps written on a knee in a basement. This is an absolutely mainstream, classical theory of the origin of the state by Mancur Olson, which is recognized and respected in official academic science. But what does this theory imply and how did it arise in the first place?
So, imagine the early Middle Ages. A dense forest, a small village, peasants peacefully plowing the land, raising children and piglets. Suddenly, a gang of armed thugs flies out of the forest. In academic works, they are also called roving bandits. They slaughter half the village, burn the houses, take 100% of the grain, steal the livestock, and disappear into the sunset. But there is a small problem. When this same gang returns a year later, there will be nothing left to rob! The peasants have either died of hunger or scattered. As a business model, it is a complete failure, since this provides no long-term profit.
And here, one of the bandit leaders, a guy with an entrepreneurial vein and a sufficient level of intelligence (let’s call him, say, Rurik or some Frankish chief), begins to think: “What if we don’t go anywhere? What if we settle here?”. Instead of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, this genius of criminal thought offers the peasants a “deal.” He declares himself king (or a duke, prince, or someone else) and gives a speech: “From now on, you give me not everything, but only 20% of your grain. In exchange, I will simply not kill you. Moreover, if other roving bandits come from the forest, I will protect you from them. Because you are now my cow, and only I am allowed to milk it!”
It is at this moment that the Stationary Bandit is born on the historical stage.
Over time, he realizes: in order to be able to take more, the economy must grow. He begins to build roads (to make it more convenient to collect taxes and move his retinue), introduces courts (after all, a peasant who dies in a knife fight does not pay taxes), and, most importantly, invents an ideology (so that people think less about the situation they have found themselves in). And after a couple of generations, he is no longer a racketeer who seized power by force, but the “Lord’s anointed,” the “father of the nation,” or the “guarantor of the constitution.”
Why is this concept popular among libertarians? It brilliantly tears off all the romantic masks from the face of Leviathan! Since our school days, we have all been brainwashed with fairy tales about the “social contract.” Allegedly, one day wise people gathered in a square and voluntarily decided to establish a state. Yeah, sure, maybe you can show me where I personally signed up for this? And even less so did those subordinated by military means sign up for it (remember that state borders on the map were historically formed precisely by wars).
We call the state a stationary bandit because, in its essence, it is no different from a mafia “protection racket.” It attempts to impose its monopoly on violence over a certain territory. And taxes are just legalized tribute so that you are simply not thrown into a cage.
Of course, for many, realizing this fact is like finding out as a child that Santa Claus doesn’t exist, only a hundred times more bitter. We are used to believing in the benevolence and caring nature of the state. But understanding the truth is necessary, because only by taking off the rose-colored glasses can one begin to ask the right questions. On what grounds does someone interfere in my private life? Why does a handful of bureaucrats decide what I can watch on the internet, who I can trade with, and how much of my money to take for “important projects” (i.e., replacing paving stones in a circle, palaces, or another bloody clash with a neighboring SB)?!
The recent case of the seizure of power in Afghanistan by the Taliban movement only further confirms the theory of the stationary bandit, according to which states arise not through a mythical social contract, but because nomadic bandits decide to settle down and move from irregular looting to stable tribute (or taxation) and the subjugation of people. Even the most liberal and democratic states continue this tradition, as in their case as well, a person has no right to disobey the orders and tax rates established from above—disagreement with this is punished by violence, exactly as in the case of a bandit attacking an unarmed and defenseless victim. And even the provision of certain socially useful services by the state does not change the essence—it is the same as so-called “protection rackets,” where you either agree to pay bandits for some form of protection, or they will attack you.
But it is also important to note that the legitimacy of a specific group on the world stage, that is, its recognition as a state by other states, is purely a question of victory and the seizure of power. Some states are already ready to recognize yesterday’s Taliban terrorists today, and there are even talks of cooperation, including from Russian government structures at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similarly, in their time, the Bolshevik bandits were recognized; after they seized power, the representatives of the previous Tsarist government suddenly became the bandits.
The winner is recognized and always spoken with, even if they were a mad bandit only yesterday. And this is the only thing, rather than any “social contract,” that distinguishes a “legitimate” and recognized political force from an “illegitimate” bandit-terrorist. But the essence itself remains the same.
It’s been a while since we’ve delighted you with fresh videos from the Libertarian Band! Today’s video concludes the second part of the cycle on libertarianism. In the first part, we started with the fact that the state has failed, and then discussed how libertarians try to eliminate it through various means. In the second part, we explained various terms and concepts popular among libertarians. And now we have returned to where we began, talking about what the state is, all its pros, cons, and pitfalls.
In the third part of our long cycle, we will proceed to explain how a stateless society is organized and how it works.
I commented on Bitark’s column about promoting libertarianism through the theory of the stationary bandit to the effect that this is largely knocking on an open door: the bandit nature of the state is quickly recognized by any interlocutor, and from there, discussions begin about the lesser of two evils. In particular, in Russia, there is a popular theme of appealing to the experience of the nineties of the last century, when there was a dominance of nomadic bandits.
All three conditions for the stability of anarchy according to Hirshleifer were not met in Russia in the nineties, meaning there was no libertarianism in the nineties.
To this, I am forced to state that Bitark is again knocking on an open door, and there is no question that there was libertarianism in the nineties, unless, of course, you are arguing with a troll. The point is that to promote libertarianism through the theory of the stationary bandit, one needs to present arguments on how to prevent the dominance of nomadic bandits after abolishing the stationary one.
Also interesting is the criticism from Vladimir Zolotorev, who quite rightly points out that a stationary bandit is more dangerous than a nomadic one, because he is capable of inflicting far greater damage on society, and at the same time ensures that society is left with no strength to fight any bandits whatsoever. He does not write it explicitly, but it follows from this premise that returning to the era of nomadic bandits is an acceptable price for society to pay for the destruction of the stationary bandit, although, ideally, the choice should be not between stationary and nomadic bandits, but between the presence of a bandit and their absence.
So, we seem to have agreed: the bandit is not needed, let’s get rid of him, we need to ensure a balance of violence potential in society, and we will have stable anarchy. But then, from a reader with the nickname Holon Synergetic, came criticism of the proposed mechanisms of the deterrence doctrine (the text arrived via private channels, and I am publishing it on Telegraph, which serves as a neutral platform).
The text is very long and difficult to perceive, so I will provide a brief explication:
1. As follows from Mazarra’s article on the deterrence doctrine, the translation of which I recently posted, the perception factor is very important for successful deterrence. The opponent must understand that when a potential victim shouts, “I’ll pull your eye over your ass if you take one more step,” the victim is actually ready to carry out their threats because they are backed into a corner and have no way out other than to unleash their arsenals for pulling eyes over asses. At the same time, the potential aggressor must by no means be put in an equally desperate position where they have no choice but to risk an eye and take a step forward. However, the more successfully such a doctrine is implemented, the more often threats will be a bluff—simply for reasons of economy. 2. The state also implements a deterrence doctrine regarding members of society who wish to destroy it. One of the most reliable ways for it is to take society hostage. Every member of society must understand that any threats or, God forbid, real actions against state representatives will only make things worse for a conditional city like Voronezh. Thus, the state invented the concept of extremism, and now extremists are to blame for any tightening of the screws; all these security measures are undertaken precisely to protect society from them. Rare successful actions against the state only confirm that extremism is not a fiction and state security measures are justified. 3. Attempts to propose increasingly technological weapons for fighting state representatives, such as micro-drones and the uberization of violence, will lead to the state starting to protect citizens from micro-drones and uber-violence with great pleasure, and for this, completely totalitarian methods of control over all aspects of life will be required. In the limit, this arms race leads to a situation where doomsday weapons become available to everyone, and then it’s just coffin, coffin, cemetery, game over. 4. As a dessert, there is a historical excursion into medieval Saxony, where something very close to my described concept of uber-retribution was successfully practiced. Nevertheless, the system did not survive its time, like all other medieval elements of panarchy, and gave way to the state monopoly on judgment and punishment. The author suggests thinking about whether such an outcome was inevitable.
The main conclusion I would draw from this tangle of arguments is the following consideration. No single doctrine is a panacea. The state is in the minds. This means that although in some cases the problem of the state can be successfully simplified by cutting off particularly obstructive heads or the threat of such decapitation, the decisive importance still lies with the means of indoctrination in freedom. These, in turn, must be selected individually.
Don’t know where to start promoting libertarian ideas to your mother or a friend? I’ll be blunt, because I’ve tried it myself more than once: don’t talk about the advantages of the free market, the absence of taxes, and regulations. Firstly, your interlocutor is unlikely to understand anything. Secondly, you must know the theory perfectly and avoid mistakes, as everyone has Google in their pocket now. You shouldn’t talk about personal freedom right away either, because a person’s views on drugs and gambling may not be libertarian at all.
What should you talk about then? The Stationary Bandit Theory (SBT). Your story should begin with the phrase “The state is a stationary bandit.” You need to instill in your interlocutor a sense of guilt for supporting the stationary bandit, as if they themselves are an accomplice to state violence and therefore a “complete maniac.” Turn them into a modern German, who feels guilt not just for themselves, but for ancestors who died long ago. The “state” structure exists only in the head; it is a quasi-religion (meaning the belief that people belonging to this structure have a “legitimate” right to initiate violence, while others are not allowed to). If a person feels guilt for supporting aggression, they will change their behavior, the state will begin to weaken and eventually lose its territorial monopoly, which is exactly what we are striving for.
If you haven’t read our article on SBT, I advise you to do so and give it to everyone to whom you are promoting ideas of freedom.
Although, it is quite possible that a slightly simplified but emotionally charged explanation of SBT will be more effective:
“States are organizations that unjustifiably appropriated supreme power over a certain territory through conquest, placing its population in direct subordination to themselves. The state arose not from freedom of association, but through a violation of the non-aggression principle.
You do not question the state’s right to kill, carry out confiscations, or arrest. Yet, if private individuals do this—you would call them murderers, thieves, and bandits. Don’t you find this hypocritical?
States are highly organized criminal organizations, like gangs that “racketeer” a particular territory, imposing their rules on its residents, collecting tribute (protection money) from them, and occasionally fighting other gangs for spheres of influence. The state has the same basis as any organized crime group—the violent imposition of its rules on captured territory. And today, there is nowhere to run from these gangs. They have divided the entire Earth among themselves.
How does the “Islamic State” group fundamentally differ from the states of “Saudi Arabia” and “Iran”? After all, their laws are roughly the same. The only difference is that IS is not recognized by other states. International recognition—that is the difference between a “legitimate” gang and an “illegitimate” one.
The main grievance against bandits is that they are bandits and take land or other goods from their victims through aggressive violence. These same bandits then write laws to create the feeling among others that what was looted belongs to them by right.
If people came to a wild land and began to develop it—they are colonists.
If they came to a land where other people lived and took it from them by force—they are bandits.
If they hold other people on their land by force—they are bandits, even if they refer to a “law” that they wrote themselves.
When you tell people that the state is a stationary bandit, it is quite possible that you will be asked one of the following questions. Be ready to answer them.
1) There is a “social contract” between citizens and the state. How can it be a bandit if it happens with the consent of the citizens?
If such a contract exists, show me the text! The Constitution is not a “social contract,” but one of the “laws” (which are actually orders, i.e., the arbitrary will of the stationary bandit); it’s not for nothing that it’s often called the “basic law.” Even if just one person in the country did not agree to this constitution, it cannot be considered a contract (which, by definition, requires the voluntary consent of all parties).
2) People are not protesting, which means they are satisfied with the status quo. Can’t the “social contract” be implicit?
Suppose a girl is raped by a maniac, and she is unable to put up a proper fight. Will you say that everything between them happened “by mutual consent” too?!
3) The state is not necessarily a “stationary bandit,” since there are examples in history of the emergence of proto-states—entities with a territorial monopoly not through violence (conquest), for example, like some poleis in Ancient Greece?
Such entities occupied in total no more than 0.1% of the Earth’s surface; the remaining 99.9% were seized by stationary bandits. Even if we assume that poleis, as voluntary associations, did indeed exist, this does not justify modern states with extensive borders that appeared through violence according to SBT. If we accept a hypothetical situation where stationary bandits never existed, we would now have, for example, 1% of the planet’s territory with voluntary territorial monopoly and 99% without it, with extraterritorial status (like international waters). Agree that this is far better than 100% of the planet under stationary bandits, which we have now. Libertarianism does not forbid the creation of voluntary communities and private cities with territorial monopoly, but this should not happen through violence, and people must retain the right to leave, and owners—to withdraw their land from such jurisdiction. This model is promoted, for example, by Mikhail Svetov.
4) At the moment when the bandits seized a certain territory, there were no laws prohibiting this, so what grievances can there be against them?
At the moment when millions of Jews were sent to gas chambers and burned in the ovens of Auschwitz, there were also no laws prohibiting this—that is exactly what the defendants said at the Nuremberg trials. As a result, they ended their lives with a noose around their necks, as befits any maniac and rapist who rejects the fundamental principles of morality and does not recognize the natural right of every person to life.
5) Yes, I agree, but what do you propose instead? Anarchy?
You can’t just simply abolish the state entirely in one or two steps. This would lead to the creation of a new and more cruel state, which would be an unmasked stationary bandit, as usually happens in a failed state situation. But you can make current states extraterritorial with competition between multiple jurisdictions in one territory. Then the current state will become just one of such jurisdictions (meaning you could choose another jurisdiction for yourself without flying to Alpha Centauri, but while continuing to live in your home in Russia). Such a system is called panarchy.
6) This will cause chaos. Without a monopoly on violence, a war of all against all will begin.
Diplomats for some reason don’t fight, haven’t you noticed? Although they have extraterritorial status (they obey the laws of their own state, not that of the territory they are on). Perhaps people fight among themselves in European cities like Basel and Geneva, where jurisdictional borders run right through houses? I haven’t noticed anything.
7) Personally, I feel more comfortable living in a familiar state with a territorial monopoly; I am a conservative and fear abrupt changes.
Currently, many libertarians would be quite satisfied with the non-interference of state supporters in the creation of new jurisdictions. People would gladly occupy unclaimed lands, experiment there with social orders convenient specifically for them, and not immediately attack capitals. This is a very moderate agenda, from which no one should experience discomfort. Various practices of social organization in these territories could be evolutionarily refined and gradually reach large cities in a mature form, without causing upheavals.
But you must also clearly understand that by opposing such a model, you directly initiate aggression against peaceful people through your support of the stationary bandit. If being a maniac does not cause you remorse, then be prepared for oceans of blood, the destruction of the economy, and the habitual way of life already in the city where you live.
8) Move to another country and build your Ancapistan there.
Why should I move anywhere?! I love my country and I hate the stationary bandit, who forcibly seized the territory and considers it, and everything on it, his property. But can a subject who acquired a thing using violence be considered a legitimate owner of anything? For example, a robber who took your phone on the street? By all principles of law—definitely not!
Comment from Ancap-chan
Everyone has their own experience of offline preaching; some find it more convenient to appeal to the Stationary Bandit Theory, and this text is for them. My practice shows that people usually understand anyway that the state is a stationary bandit, but for them, this means that it is “their own” and already tamed. And if it were removed, nomadic ones would swarm back, like in the nineties, and would act lawlessly. So one should seek an individual approach to the interlocutor, finding out beforehand what they fear.
Hello, give me a minute of your time, and I will tell you how the stationary bandit crucified our Lord Jesus; by the way, happy birthday to him!
For a long time, it was believed that the state is a natural and even god-given condition of society. Later, the roots of the state were traced back to some mythical social contract, or to the immutable laws of economic development. However, modern historical and anthropological data show that all or practically all states are the result of the conquest of a peaceful stateless society by an external enemy—usually a relatively small number of nomadic bandits who were lucky enough not only to carry out a successful raid but also to establish their permanent power over the conquered society. This is the so-called stationary bandit theory, proposed by economist Mancur Olson.
Old pre-state practices of interaction in society have not disappeared; they still work and are perfectly compatible with modern high technologies. The abolition of the state will only free people, and in order to continue living a free and peaceful life, they simply need to avoid attempting to recreate a regime of political power anew.
Introduction
Much has been discussed regarding the origin of the state, and several clever theories have been devised on the subject. Before presenting one of them, I would like to understand the purpose of such studies.
Why is a theory of the origin of the state needed at all? This is a simple question. A theory is needed to base one’s actions upon it and to examine new facts from its perspective. But for actions based on a theory to be successful, the theory must be functional. A functional theory, first, is capable of explaining existing facts no worse than other theories. Second, it must explain a series of facts that do not fit into previously created theories; otherwise, why invent it at all if the old ones managed? Third, a theory can be used to predict new facts. If the facts predicted by the theory are actually established, this is strong evidence that the theory is functional.
Divine Right
The oldest and most venerable theory of the origin of the state was the theory of divine right, according to which the person who became the head of the state did so by divine will. Additionally, this person could be a god themselves. The theory aligned perfectly with the prevailing views of the time that gods generally determine the fates of people: reasoning purely logically, rulers in this case had to be declared either rivals of the gods or executors of their will. The theory had the flaw that it only explained the past and predicted no new facts. Any usurpation of power within the framework of the divine theory came as a complete surprise, and thereafter one had to search for traces of providence on the brow of the new ruler. Furthermore, the model of distribution of power inherent in polis democracies was completely inconsistent with this theory.
For what purpose was this theory actively promoted? To reduce the costs of suppressing people’s resistance to the ruler’s power. It is difficult to argue with divine authority if the deity is responsible not only for the figure of the ruler but also, for example, for the harvest. However, this could also become an inconvenience for rulers, as crop failures became evidence of the gods’ punishment and a sign that the ruler ought to be overthrown.
Social Contract
The next theory of the origin of the state was the social contract theory. The idea is that in a state of nature, there is a war of all against all, and to end this war, a certain government is established to regulate violence. Obviously, even the founding fathers of the theory did not explicitly state that people gathered in a meadow and agreed to establish a state. It was only said that people behave toward the state as if they had agreed to its establishment.
This theory explained both the states that the divine right theory explained, as well as polis democracies, the Roman Republic, and the like. A logical consequence of the social contract theory was the consideration that if people once established a certain form of government, nothing prevents them from repeating this once the current form ceases to satisfy them. This consequence is explicitly contained in the US Declaration of Independence, and indeed, the USA became a vivid example of the practical application of the social contract theory.
A serious flaw of the theory is that it is based on the rather dubious assertion that a war of all against all is an indispensable attribute of the state of nature. Anthropological research has shown that this assertion does not correspond to reality, and that relations of cooperation precede the appearance of power relations in human communities. Thus, the assertion about the voluntary nature of such an institution as the state turns out to be baseless—no less baseless than the assertion of the divine right of kings to the throne.
Class Theory
Class theory
takes into account the views on anthropology
of the 19th century and one of the directions of political economy
of the same time. The theory indicates that
the state arises as an inevitable
consequence of economic stratification,
which, in turn, is
an inevitable consequence of increased
labor productivity and, accordingly,
the accumulation of surpluses. The state within
the framework of class theory is
an instrument of oppression of subordinate
classes by the ruling class.
Thus, for the first time
in the history of views on the mechanisms
of state formation, it is pointed out
that the state is fundamentally
antagonistic to the vast majority of the
population, and must be abolished.
This is a major plus of class theory,
explaining many observed
facts of people’s oppression by representatives
of power, which both previous
theories failed to handle.
The downside of class theory was that it was based on the labor theory of value, the theory of exploitation, and similar premises later rejected by economic science. Meanwhile, these false premises dictated to the adherents of class theory methods of opposing the state that only reinforced its repressive nature. Many political regimes established by adherents of class theory attest to this: all of them led only to widespread repressions among the population and usually ended in economic collapse.
Thus, although the state is indeed an enemy of its own people, it was not formed through economic actions; therefore, the path to the abolition of the state does not lie through the abolition of natural economic mechanisms.
Stationary
Bandit Theory
When it became clear that the state is not formed through economic oppression but by means of pure violence, a theory was proposed in the 20th century which asserted that the state arose from the confrontation between peaceful sedentary producers and nomads, who preferred to practice looting as a means of increasing their wealth. As long as sedentary residents successfully resisted raids, the bandit remained nomadic. As soon as they weakened, the nomads imposed a regular tribute on them, and then gradually strengthened their power, establishing rules for the taxable population that allowed them to maximize tribute and minimize the population’s opportunities for rebellion. In particular, the divine right of the conquerors to exercise their power over the captured was proclaimed for this purpose.
This theory explained
many historical examples where
the state arose specifically as a result
of external capture, after which the former
nomads became the hereditary
nobility of the people formed in this way.
The theory also asserted
that for the conquered, in a number of cases,
the presence of one stationary bandit
turned out to be more beneficial than a situation
in which they were surrounded by many
nomads who did not limit
their violence in any way. Thus, the famous legend
about the calling of the Varangians to bring
order among the Slavs and rule them fully
corresponds to this conclusion from the
stationary bandit theory. To some extent,
such a mechanism of conditionally voluntary
acceptance of the state converges with the
social contract theory.
However, although for many
it is more beneficial to fall into slavery than to perish,
this does not rehabilitate the slave owner,
for were he not to exist at all, there would be no
reason to choose between death and
slavery when one could remain
free. Thus, even with the caveat that the stationary
bandit could turn out to be more beneficial for peaceful
residents than the nomadic one (and could not be),
this in no way
indicates the undesirability of completely
getting rid of the bandit.
The Great Fiction
A small number of conquerors are unable to maintain their power over the conquered for a long time if their power rests only on the threat of violence. Or, in the words of Talleyrand, bayonets are good for everything except one thing: you cannot sit on them. The longest-term project of purely forceful retention of power in the history known to us is Lacedaemon, better known by the name of its capital, Sparta. The citizens of Sparta collectively owned helots—residents of the areas of Hellas they had conquered—for approximately five hundred years. By the end of this period, the Spartans simply ran out physically, and their state ceased to exist.
Thus, in order for the stationary bandit to maintain his dominance over the conquered for a longer period, he needed his rule to be based not only on the fear of violence, but to some extent on the consent of the governed (hello again to the social contract theory). In different cases, this consent was ensured by different means, but usually to obtain such consent, conquerors shared their power in measured doses. This expanded their social base. The limit of the development of this mechanism can be called modern social democracies. Economist Frédéric Bastiat called such a state a great fiction, in which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone. The oppressed and the oppressors have mixed to the point of indistinguishability; no one can say exactly how much they pay the state and how much they receive from it—in short, the modern state becomes like a sort of sadomasochistic orgy, where even those who do not experience particular pleasure are forced to simulate it so as not to stress other participants, because such are the rules of the game.
What to do?
First of all, you must
stop pretending that you are
enjoying the orgy. Violence for the purpose
of profit is not only immoral
but also unprofitable. The level of productive
forces (hello to class theory!) has
already grown so much that peaceful cooperation
ensures a much faster and
more stable increase in prosperity
than looting. You can continue to support
such rules of the game in which the state
will forcefully provide you with preferences at
the expense of others, but the state will just as
surely provide others with preferences at the expense
of you. Cooperation turns out
to be more beneficial and predictable, and market
competition is safer than war, even if
you are stronger than your competitors.
And when you stop
relying on the state, you will
undoubtedly develop a desire to stop
sharing your resources with the bandit.
There are many recipes for this,
which work for many particular
cases, and your creative thought, of course,
will allow you to select methods
relevant specifically to you.
Finally, your urges
to get rid of the state will prove
much more effective if they are supported
by others. Therefore, it is in your interests to sow
distrust of the bandit in minds and ridicule
the readiness to support him without protest.
Everyone who evades taxes becomes your ally. Everyone who took a bit of property from the state and kept it for themselves is your potential ally, for they weaken the state, which means you too can snatch something. The state is a stationary bandit, and you are mobile, so it is high time to become that very nomad who is perfectly adapted to crushing such stationary constructions. In this way, you will set history in a spiral (hello to dialectical materialism!) and lead humanity to a new level of development.
