When corruptible state institutions and processes are created and exist, corruption of those state institutions and processes will inevitably occur.
This is one of the greatest truisms of the state. It’s a logical tautology needing no further explanation or clarification. Where corruption is possible, we often find corruption.
The fact that there are specific laws written by the state in order to dissuade or prevent agents of the state from giving in to corruption is evidence itself of the corruptible nature of the state. There would be no need for such laws if corruption isn’t a real concern. Corruption cases would not be sought and prosecuted by the state against its own politicians and bureaucrats – but we know that they are.
One may ask, “But what if those cases are prosecuted with false and fraudulent charges?”
That would undoubtedly be corruption, and proof of it, itself.
The question then remains: How does the state apparatus protect itself and the people it governs from becoming corrupt?
If it is known that the opportunity for corruption within the state exists, that the laws of the state attempt to address it, and that it occurs within the state anyway, then we can logically conclude that preventing corruption is not an outcome that the state can achieve. The remedy must lie outside of the state.
However, the remedy alone cannot lie outside of the state. If the state is left in place, with the same corruptible institutions and policies, then corruption in one form or another will persist. The remedy must lie outside of the state and the institutions and policies themselves must also lie outside of the state.
In other words: There should be no state institutions and policies.
In even clearer words: There should be no state.
Even if we were to assume that a state is legitimate, a claim that has no logical or factual basis, it is irrational to believe that it can resolve problems that it has created by virtue of its existence alone. It’s equally irrational to believe that a state can even efficiently and equitably provide the most basic functions that are desired by the most staunch state supporters.
The power that many people want to delegate to the state when it comes to safety and security ultimately ends up being used to violate the very liberties that the delegators are trying to protect. This delegation of authoritative power (which individuals do not have themselves and cannot rightly delegate to other people) ends up being used to deny the very rights that individuals want to protect. This power is abused by those who are corruptible and become corrupt.
This is the fundamental nature of the state.
The state is an organization of unjust power, created through false legitimacy, and further corrupted by those who are more than willing to abuse it. The evidence is all around us at all times. It permeates state institutions and spreads like a virus at an increasing pace. Its effects can be seen today throughout systems of education, media, health care, and even the law itself.
If we want corruption and injustice to end, then the state itself must end. There is no logical justification for creating a coercive government (the state) in order to protect ourselves from coercion by other groups or individuals. We cannot create and perpetuate coercive and corruptible institutions and then expect them to refrain from abusing their powers.
Continuing to do this is not “necessary.” It is “evil.“
We can do better.
