Our Enemy, the State

by Albert Jay Nock

What does one need to know about politics? In some ways, Albert Jay Nock has summed it all up in this astonishing book Our Enemy the State, the influence of which has grown every year since its publication. Albert Jay Nock was a prominent essayist at the height of the New Deal. In 1935, hardly any public intellectuals were making much sense at all. They pushed socialism. They pushed fascism. Everyone had a plan. Hardly anyone considered the possibility that the state was not fixing society but destroying it bit by bit. And so Albert Jay Nock came forward to write what needed to be written. And he ended up penning a classic of American political commentary, one that absolutely must be read by every student of economics and government, Our Enemy the State. Consider his opening two paragraphs: If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power. It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power. The theory is good enough and strong enough for the forging of an entire apparatus of libertarian thought, which he does here. But then he pushes the envelope. He discusses American history in a way that you will never read in the civics texts. He praises the Articles of Confederation as the closest model of American freedom. And he blasts the men who hammered out the Constitution as nothing but usurpers engaged in a coup d'etat. Far from heralding the drafters, he exposes them as public creditors, land speculators, money lenders, and industrialists looking for privilege. They tossed out the Articles and used unscrupulous methods to ram the Constitution down the public's throat. It was in this stage of American history, Nock says, that the state was unleashed. Next came the party system, and the dynamics of statism that causes "every intervention by the State" to enable another so that "the State stands ever ready and eager to make" interventions through deceit and lies. One realizes many important points about Albert Jay Nock when reading this. First, he was brilliant, original, and courageous. Second, he hated politics -- indeed he hated politics so much that he wanted a society that was completely free of it. This is why he is often described as anarchist. Third, he surely was one of the great stylists of the English language in the history of 20th century writing. Those who have read Nock know that there is something about his writing that tugs very deeply on one's conscience and soul. This book will linger in your mind as you read the daily headlines. He makes his points so well that they become unforgettable. This book is the ultimate handbook of the political dissident. If you aren't one yet, you may find that Albert Jay Nock is a very persuasive recruiter into his informed army that makes up the remnant who know.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Economics, History, Nonfiction, Political Science, Law

226 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1935

About the author

American libertarian author, Georgist, social critic of the early and middle 20th century, outspoken opponent of the New Deal.

He served as a inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements.

He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as "libertarian"

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ckank/Ful...

Reviews

[Pastor Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book isn't what I thought it would be. I thought he would attack the government of his day (1935) and point back to a time when we went astray. I expected to learn some fundamentals with the hope of seeing what a better way forward might be from a libertarian point of view.

I was delightfully confounded, especially in the conclusion, by Nock's complete lack of hope. The State has got you by the balls and you're not going to wiggle out of it and don't even try to get hopeful ideas about winning the next election and righting the ship! Why is this delightful? Isn't this just base cynicism? When you consider the history lesson he gives from his vantage point under FDR, and you line that up with America under Obama, it makes a good deal of sense. Obama isn't the cause, he's the logical result of the system. His predecessors did the very same kinds of things. Perhaps he's been worse in degree, but not in kind. And this is liberating because I don't have to obsess over the political game. Because the State is going to grow no matter who wins and liberty will shrink. Hope is not found in a country. Look for hope in your family and in your faith. Live like a free person to the extent you can and don't obsess over what's beyond your control.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is available for free from Mises.org in audio and pdf format.

This book was pretty cynical and didn't offer any solutions (be prepared to be depressed after reading it). Written in 1935 it was fascinating to read pretty much exactly what has transpired since then. It makes you realize that we do just repeat history, over and over again. This book is a must read for anyone that wants to have a deeper understanding of human nature and "the state". Understanding history and philosophy is definitely important in understanding the political system around us. I would like to add that it doesn't matter what system of governance we have, if the people are wicked so shall be the government and its destruction and vice versa.

The book is broken up in six parts:

1) It goes over how the state gains power. He also makes observations about the US (one interesting one was how the two party system started from the beginning and how, since 1910, the two parties are not any different).
2) Then he goes over the difference between government and the state.
3) The then goes over the early history of the U.S. and it's experiences with Britain. He then goes on to tell how the State took over the U.S.
4) He then goes over the relationship of the state and land rights.
5) He then goes over how people consider the state to be social in nature but is truly anti-social.
6) He continues to go over how the state gains more and more power over the mindless masses taking every opportunity to increase its power. He says there is nothing you can do about it and that eventually it will topple just like all the other great civilizations of the past.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nock's book is a good summary of the laissez-faire liberal ideology. It is extremely readable and lucid. For someone who is relatively new to these topics, this might be a good starting point - or might HAVE been 70 years ago. Today there are probably better alternatives.

My main issue is that it doesn't do much to ADD to the tradition from which it draws its sustenance. It borrows heavily from people like Herbert Spencer, whose collection of essays, "Man versus the State", is not only referenced by Nock quite often (even obliquely in the title), but is morever a better book. If Herber Spencer is "The Beatles" of liberarianism, A.J. Nock is "The Monkees."

Nock's work doesn't offer much in the way of innovation.

But, of course, innovation is not eveything. Sometimes a good popularizer is just as important. And Nock is not a mere "parrot" of received (anti-state) wisdom; his topical insights are often lucid. It is easy to see how his writing could inspire a generation of libertarians after him. Even Ayn Rand.

I just don't see much reason to visit this work today, except for historical interest. Those looking for more substance can go read Spencer, while those looking for modern summaries can go to Mises.org.

[Tough · Rating 5 out of 5]

There should be a warning on the cover of Nock's book stating, "Reader beware, you level of cynicism toward your government will rise exponentially after reading this book." Nock's polemic is a incisive critique of the State. He doesn't offer much hope to those looking for a solution to the State problem--he sees Statism as too entrenched--but, IMO, helps remove any notion that the State is anything but our common enemy against social power (individuals exercising their personal liberties to creatively address/solve societal problems/challenges). Read this book and then join me in cursing the State.

[Vagabond of Letters, DLitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

8.5/10

[Coyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting book, worthy of closer study (I distractedly listened to the audio version). Nock makes several arguments about the nature of the state in general, the nature of the traditional American state, and the planting of the seeds of totalitarianism.
Nock argues that the expansion of state power always comes at the expense of what he calls "social" power. That is, power which exists across the rest of society. For example, before 9-11 (obviously not Nock's example), the need for security on airlines was met by society, sometimes airports themselves, sometimes local communities, sometimes the states, and sometimes private companies. Now, the government does it all, and that social power has been transfered to the state. Nock further argues that:
1) it is in the nature of the state to continually expand its power at the expense of society.
2) it is in the nature of people to allow the state to do so, either out of greed and lust for power (on the part of those in the state working for expansion); or out of laziness (on the part of the rest of us who would rather let it happen, than actively fight the expansion of state power).
(I think Nock misses something here that was true even in his own day: he was using the Fascists and Commies as his model, and applying those lessons to the nascent American welfare state. But, even in the 1930s, the expansion of the American national state was not done out of a lust for power so much as it was done from a misdirected and fuzzy sentimentalism. C.S. Lewis better identified the source of Western liberal tyranny:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

Here at least, I think Nock was off in his analysis.)
The critical stage is the time immediately after the assumption of a new power by the state. This is the point at which civic virtue will either resist the state, or die. In a famous example, Nock discusses the effect of the welfare state on the traditional civic virtue of charity. In the past, he argues, if a man asks you for a quarter, you would give it to him if you could spare it, since it was your duty as a citizen. Once the state has started to tax you in order to support the man, you will no longer give the quarter, considering that you have already given through your taxes, whether you wanted to or not.
From this point, Nock argues that the state will increasingly cement its power first by gradually outlawing the exercise of it by any other institutions (again, re: the TSA). Then it will being to conscript citizens to perform the now "necessary" functions which the state has taken on itself, at which point we are reduced to slavery, in that we are reliant on a service only provided by the state, and simultaneously forced to perform that service.
Nock draws his examples primarily from three places: from the transition of the Ancient Roman Empire from the Enlightened rule of the Antonines to the despotism of the Severan Dynasty, from the rise of the Fascists in Europe, and from the rise of the welfare state in America.

Overall, an interesting read. I'm not sure I disagree with the general outlines (his views of the nature of government and of the nature of people I think are spot on). I merely question his application. Liberals (in the modern sense of the word), are not fascists or communists. There isn't the same lust for pointless destruction that so marked the death camps and the gulag.
Having said that, this book is still worth reading for all interested students of American politics.

[Daniel da Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nock, ao distinguir entre governo e Estado, propondo uma finalidade social para o primeiro - a liberdade e a segurança -, disseca posteriormente a natureza antissocial do Estado: "O testemunho positivo da história é que o Estado teve sua origem na conquista e no confisco" (p. 46). Nock acrescenta: "Além disso, a única característica invariável do Estado é a exploração econômica de uma classe por outra" (p. 47). A partir dessas constatações, obtidas a partir do método histórico, Nock avança para reforçar sua tese básica: é um equívoco conceber o Estado como uma instituição social. Esse equívoco tem efeitos nocivos na prática. A primeira consequência negativa é que, ao conceber o Estado como instituição benéfica, nenhuma tentativa será feita para impedir sua ação ou restringir sua esfera de atuação. O entorpecimento nesse caso contribui para o fortalecimento do poder estatal. E como Nock observa, "Não existe, nem pode existir, qualquer fortalecimento do poder do Estado sem uma diminuição correspondente e mais ou menos equivalente do poder social" (p. 14). E o crescimento do poder estatal não reconhece limites. Na realidade, "toda intervenção do Estado provoca outra, e esta, por sua vez, outra, e assim por diante, indefinidamente; e o Estado está sempre pronto e ansioso para realizá-las, muitas vezes por iniciativa própria, tornando-se plausível pela sugestão capciosa de pessoas interessadas" (p. 159). Tais intervenções não somente usurpam o poder social, como também paralisa o indivíduo, tornando-o completamente dependente da iniciativa estatal. Se o problema é a miséria, imploramos ao Estado para que intervenha; se o problema é de infraestrutura, novamente clamamos pela intervenção estatal. Ironicamente, as intervenções do Estado agravam o problema ao invés de solucioná-lo. Mas ainda assim o equívoco de que o Estado é uma instituição social prevalece: "Em vez de reconhecer o Estado como 'o inimigo comum de todo homem trabalhador e de bem', o indivíduo, com raras exceções, o considera não só uma entidade final e indispensável, mas também, e principalmente, benéfica. O homem-massa, sem saber nada da sua história, define sua [do Estado] predisposição e seu [do Estado] caráter como o de um ser social e não anti-social; e nessa crença ele está disposto a colocar à sua disposição um crédito indefinido de desonestidades, mentiras e maus julgamentos para que seus administradores possam usá-los a bel-prazer. Em vez de mostrar desgosto e ressentimento diante da absorção progressiva do poder social pelo Estado, como seria o esperado diante das atividades de organização criminosa profissional, o homem o apóia e o glorifica na crença de ser, de alguma forma, identificado com o Estado" (p. 129). Embora eu não concorde com algumas avaliações de Nock, ainda considero sua obra de extremo valor, especialmente no contexto brasileiro tomado pelo coletivismo e que, por ignorância, confunde o capitalismo de compadrinho com o laissez-faire, escancarando, por consequência, as portas para o socialismo.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Albert Jay Knock's 1935 Our Enemy the State takes to task Paine's statement that government is a "necessary evil." For Nock it isn't government that is evil, it is the state that is unnecessary and evil, and we are better off without it. Jefferson's Declaration recognized the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of government once it becomes abusive.

Nock distinguishes between government, the means by which living together we ensure our rights and duties to one another, and the state which exists solely to protect itself, enriching a minority of the population. The state's authority is a monopoly on the use of force; for Nock its very existence violates people's rights, for no other reason than its own authority. In reality the state depends on the consent of the population, implicitly or explicitly. The rulers of the state being a parasitic institution have to be a minority of the population who depend on the population to both enforce and obey the laws. Nock distinguishes social power from state power, the former owing to cooperation for mutual benefit and the later to exploitation of one group in favor of another. The former is the economic means of accumulating wealth and the later is the political means of accumulating wealth. As the state grows, people become more dependent on state functions and shirk responsibility, such as Scrooge's justification of not giving to charity: are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Nock endorses the view of Henry George that private ownership of land beyond what one occupies and what improvements have been made is illegitimate, a rent which would not exist without state power which deprives those who work the land the fruit of their labor and those who need somewhere to live due to absentee perpetual ownership. This may sound socialistic but common ownership of land amounts to an exercise of the people’s right over unimproved land or to auction to its most productive use in lien with no legal right above usufruct.

Nock defends the Articles of Confederation as a free government, as opposed to the constitution which began as an attempt to amend the Articles. What turned out was a document that over time centralized government in favor of creditors and speculators. Nock notes that once government intervenes this both creates new problems for the state to intervene in and justifies further future intervention.

[Dusan Vilicic Held · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro muy bueno que tiene muchas reflexiones y ejemplos interesantes sobre la voracidad y prejudicialidad del Estado. Parece argumentar en favor de una especie de Estado mínimo (que Nock llama "gobierno" en contraste con un "Estado"), pero no deja muy en claro su extensión ni forma. Al ser georgista, tiene una fijación excesiva con la propiedad de la tierra, lo que lamentablemente le deja ciego a varios temas interesantes de abordar, además que a veces parece guiarlo a conclusiones al menos incompletas. Un buen libro en todo caso, lectura fácil y amena.

Sobre la edición de la Editorial Innisfree, considero que la traducción deja mucho que desear. Comparé varios segmentos con la versión original en inglés y encontré una buena cantidad de errores graves. Segmentos omitidos, traducciones deficientes que no transmitían el sentido del texto original, errores de escritura, y hasta al menos un caso en que la traducción decía lo contrario que lo que decía la versión original.

[Yogy TheBear · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very harsh, pragmatic and pessimistic critique of the (concept of) state.
Basically he rejects all forms of state from state as a bunch of thieves who manage human resources (feudal) to the state as an entity that can be tamed in the interest of all.
He argues that as long as there is state humans will be inclined to use it for the political power it gives in order to circumvent the economic way of being prosperous, no state no matter how pure and good it's founding principles can escape this degeneration. But yet humans always choose the political mean and out of a system of government (meaning for the author natural law and only negative interventions; similar to modern an cap and ultra minimal state) a state will arise in a way or another. This is pure pessimism.
Yet even so I personalty found bits of hope in his text. In a way as Nock points out it is our moral duty no matter how futile the cause to promote true morality in society.

[Shane Hawk · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent piece of political writing. Nock is lucid and accessible despite writing this 83 years ago. His discernment of FDR’s policies at the time was spot-on. It is broken down into six parts; each exploring a differentiated “State” from “government.”

One of my favorite bits out of many:

“Thus while the American architects assented ‘in principle’ to the philosophy of natural rights and popular sovereignty, and found it in a general way highly congenial as a sort of voucher for their self-esteem, their practical interpretation of it left it pretty well hamstrung. They were not especially concerned with consistency; their practical interest in this philosophy stopped short at the point which we have already noted, of its presumptive justification of a ruthless economic pseudo-individualism, and an exercise of political self-expression by the general electorate which should be so managed as to be, in all essential respects, futile.”

[Terrence D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely phenomenal in expressing Old Right views of the State. This book, as Nock later expresses, is not meant to be persuasive, but rather an articulation of a position. Those who criticize this book as being inadequately apologetic obviously missed this point. Those who criticize it as being unconvincing suffer likewise from the same illiteracy.

All in all, Our Enemy, The State is a refreshing read for those of us who need to be reminded of our condition as a people who are not living in liberty, among people who've bought into the lie that we are.

[R · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful analysis of the difference between the legitimate government versus the tyrannical state--both philosophical and historical, ranging upon issues such as the state's relationship with religion, property and class interests. Nock justifies libertarian values, but in the end appears pessimistic against the inevitable rise of state control in a sham democracy.

[Ryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Your view of government or The State will likely change after reading this classic. Although written in 1935, the themes ring true today. Have a dictionary on hand when reading this as Nock is a true wordsmith.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beware: your orthodoxy is about to be challenged.

[Konrad von Pless · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book rings true and has some generally correct predictions, but on the whole it misses a more holistic approach and reduces every issue to that of state power and class division.

[Reed Schwartz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nock was so anti-state that he ended up endorsing the Bolsheviks and their aspirations to "wither away" the state. He maintained this support into the 20s!

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A WELL-KNOWN CRITIQUE OF ‘THE STATE’ (BUT NOT ALWAYS ‘THE GOVERNMENT’)

The Introduction by Walter E. Grinder to this 1935 book states, “Albert Jay Nock … died at the end of the greatest holocaust ever perpetrated on mankind by man and State… he was perfectly situated in history to witness and analyze the metamorphosis of a Leviathan… during this period sub rosa forces were at work … These forces were moving in the United States economy, politics, and government-business relationships, seeming inexorably, into a wholly different character. At least the difference in degree was so great as to make it appear that a difference in kind was in fact taking place. Studying this apparent difference in kind was to occupy a great deal of time in Nock’s later years.” (Pg. ix-x)

He continues, “Nock’s libertarianism … is a natural rights philosophy of inviolable individualism, and a social philosophy of self-responsibility, personal creativity and development, and of unequivocal voluntarism. Nock’s libertarianism, if followed to the letter, would evolve into a set of social relationships and voluntary institutions whose only purpose would be to make it possible to achieve the humane and good life. His libertarianism translates into a radical ‘laissez faire,’ or ‘Old Right’ anarchistic political philosophy, according to which the only purpose of ‘political’ institutions is to negate any and all forceful interventions into the peaceful affairs of the members of society. It is a political philosophy of anti-Statism.” (Pg. xi-xii)

He clarifies, “One serious problem arises in [this book] which has been the source of much contention. The question concerns Nock’s use of the terms ‘government’ and ‘the State.’ He does NOT use them interchangeably. The controversy has revolved around the point of whether Nock’s division of the terms into two separate and distinct categories is substantive or semantic, real or imagined. Nock makes it clear that he believes there can be government without the State. By this he seems to mean that the functions of ‘government,’ which he describes as the protection of peoples’ persons and property, are proper and legitimate functions. As such, these functions should be discharged. It is this set of functions and the institutions necessary to carry them out, that he defines as government. Anything beyond these legitimate functions would be leaving the area of government and moving into sphere of plunder that is of the State. Here Nock is on very weak theoretical ground. The reason is that he does not make absolutely explicit the libertarian stricture that all human interrelationships must be rooted in VOLUNTARISM---the freedom from coercion.” (Pg. xxiii)

Nock explains, “We have two distinct types of political organization to take into account; and clearly, too, when their origins are considered, it is impossible to make out that the one is a mere perversion of the other. Therefore, when we include both types under a general term like ‘government,’ we get into logical difficulties; difficulties of which most writers on the subject have bene more or less vaguely aware, but which, until within the last half-century, none of them has tried to resolve.” (Pg. 17)

He states, “The Marxian dictum that ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ is either an arrogant or a slovenly confusion of terms, which can not be too strongly reprehended. Religion was never that, nor will it ever be; but organized Christianity, which is by no means the same thing as religion, has been the opiate of the people ever since the beginning of the fourth century, and never has this opiate been employed for political purposes more skillfully than it was by the Massachusetts Bay oligarchy.” (Pg. 41)

He asserts, ‘nowhere in the American colonial civil order was there even the trace of democracy. The political structure was always that of the merchant State; Americans have never known any other. Furthermore, the philosophy of natural rights and popular sovereignty was never once exhibited anywhere in American political practice during the colonial period, from the first settlement in 1607 down to the revolution of 1776.” (Pg. 43)

He says, “though the Declaration [of Independence] might have been the charter of American independence, it was in no sense the charter of the new American state.” (Pg. 61)

He points out, “Nowhere in the history of the constitutional period do we find the faintest suggestion of the Declaration’s doctrine of natural rights; and we find its doctrine of popular sovereignty not only continuing in abeyance, but constitutionally stopped from every reappearing. Nowhere do we find a trace of the Declaration’s theory of government; on the contrary, we find it expressly repudiated. The new political mechanism was a faithful replica of the old disestablished British model, but so far improved and strengthened as to be incomparably more close-working and efficient, and hence presenting incomparably attractive possibilities of capture and control. By consequence, therefore, we find more firmly implanted than ever the same general idea of the State that we have observed as prevailing hitherto—the idea of an organization of the political means, an irresponsible and all-powerful agency standing always ready to be put into use for the service of one set of economic interests as against another.” (Pg. 73-74)

He predicts, “Under a regime of actual individualism, actually free competition, actual laissez-faire---a regime which, as we have seen, can not possibly coexist with the State---a serious or continuous misuse of social power would be virtually impracticable.” (Pg. 86)

He states, “The anarchist does not want economic freedom for the sake of shifting a dollar or two from one man’s pocket to another’s ; or social freedom for the sake of rollicking in detestable license; a political freedom for the sake of a mere rash and reckless experimentation in system-making. His desire for freedom has but the one practical object, that men may become as good and decent, as elevated and noble, as they might be and really wish to be.” (Pg. 99)

This book may appeal to Libertarians, some Anarchists, and other critics of governmental activity.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

About as dense as anything I’ve red since the infamous Reflections on The Revolution in France. This book was compelling, but not enough to make a true libertarian out of me.

To me, this book really hinges on a critical distinction: Government vs. “The State”. The former is a necessary body of individuals who work to overcome market failures and organize society. The latter is an, at best, wasteful, and at worst, exploitative, institution that’s erodes the need for “social power” and subtly increases its infringement on freedom generation by generation until it’s robbed society of all that allows man to properly flourish.

On the whole, I agree with Nock’s distinction, and I agree with his permissive view of government and his fiercely critical view of The State. Importantly, however, I certainly disagree with the size of his “government” bucket vs his “State” bucket. To Nock, basically anything beyond a small military and a postal service qualifies as “The State”. I’m okay with a bit more government action than that. To Nock, I’m probably no different than FDR.

[Fabricio Ter★n · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un ataque liberal al liberalismo clásico, o más bien al orden político al que se lo asocia, llegando a conclusiones anarquizantes. Nock ordena el libro con estos conceptos que es necesario tener claro para su correcta comprensión: poder social o medios económicos versus poder político o medios políticos que es una clasificación propiamente liberal, la diferencia entre gobierno y Estado que es la teoría más anarquista del libro, el proceso histórico de pasar del "Estado feudal" al "Estado comercial" que es su análisis de clases sociales, su definición del liberalismo como una teoría de los derechos individuales y el republicanismo como una teoría de la soberanía popular.

Según Nock el Estado comercial nunca defendió los derechos individuales ni la soberanía popular que tradicionalmente se le asocia, pues en tanto Estado su fin es proveer acceso de los medios políticos a una clase a expensas de otras. El Estado comercial ha incrementado su poder inicialmente promoviendo lo que hoy llamaríamos "corporativismo" para desembocar en el intervencionismo asistencialista. Su revisión histórica de los procesos constitucionales americanos recuerda la crítica que Lysander Spooner hiciera al constitucionalismo liberal.

Autores que parecen haber ejercido importante influencia en los conceptos del libro usados en el libro son Herbert Spencer, Thomas Jefferson y Henry George.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nock was an original American libertarian thinker. At the outset fo this work, he juxtaposes social power with state power. He disapproves the latter, consistent with his libertarian position. On the other hand, he supports the notion of social power, in which people voluntarily work with one another. One quotation well illustrates his view (Page 99): ""[The human] desire for freedom has but one practical object, i.e., that men may become as good and decent, as elevated and noble, as they might be and really wishy to be."

An interesting thinker. . . .

[Patris · Rating 3 out of 5]

As an English learner, I found this style of writing is a bit hard to follow.

[Dio Mavroyannis · Rating 3 out of 5]

More rhetorical than argumentative. I think it has been superseded by other books of the kind.

[Juani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing book. Certainly one of the best treatises on the State, its history and role, perhaps in all history. Nock's analysis is deep, elegant, pessimistic and almost poetic. The book really captures you into the first chapters, and the more you read it, the more it makes you think about the actual role of the State in our daily lives, its origins, and our relationship with it.

The only problem to be mentioned with the book is that, by the time you reach the chapters 3 and 4, it goes deeply into early American history, the British mercantilist model, and an analysis of how early control over land gave way to rent-seeking castes, before moving into the futility of the US Constitution. While Nock was obviously American and writing about the US, for anyone who isn't American or has no knowledge or interest in the country's history, these sections may feel almost totally pointless and like they don't contribute anything to one's reason to read this book.

As for this particular edition, the version I read had many print errors, mistranslations and typos. I'd suggest being wary with it, and I'd usually suggest to always read the original work, either way.

[Andrew Post · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oooooh - wee. I thought I was done having my mind blown. I thought I was as radical a libertarian as I could be. I thought there were no more intellectual event horizons to be crossed, no more philosophical frontiers to conquer, no more groundbreaking ideas to rearrange my worldview. Well, I was wrong. I feel like this slim little volume has radicalized me all over again. But beyond even that, it's caused me to question (nay, reject out of hand) assumptions about American history, governance, culture, and politics that I had accepted as a given ever since I was, not coincidentally, a child. Wow. Truly wasn't expecting that. I'm going to be chewing on what I've read here in these pages for a good year or two, I think, slowly reassembling the pieces of my shattered mindset, rediscovering my identity as an American libertarian, and patching my political and philosophical outlook back into some semblance of internal consistency and coherence. Thanks, AJN. You've really opened my eyes.

[Mad Russian the Traveller · Rating 5 out of 5]

The brick wall at the back of the theater is staring us in the face. With the COVID theater as the excuse to violate all of our liberties, this book is timely. I saw it all coming, but I didn't have enough wealth to get away from the evil bastards.

Here is the truth of the matter:

"There are two ways that human beings can fulfill our needs and desires: the economic means (applying labor and capital to natural resources and producing something useful) and the political means (living off the labor of others). The State – in whatever external form it takes, whether Monarchy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, or Democratic Republicanism – exists for no other reason than to function as a legally-sanctioned organization that enables its members to live by the political rather than the economic means. In other words, to enable one group of people to exploit another group (producers, serfs, slaves, whatever)so that its members can get stuff they want - wealth, power, luxuries, etc. - without working, or at least without working very hard."

Shame on all of you for supporting tyrants, and worshipping the state.

[Arianne X · Rating 1 out of 5]

Libertarian Overreach

The worker, inventor, and creator referred to and defended by Nock needs the protection of the law that only the state can provide. Property is a private good, but property rights are a public good that only the state can uphold. Without the state, there is the risk of tribalism or worse, anarchy. The existence of the state is still a risk but recognizing this is the only way to mitigate it. The danger of having no state is worse than the existence of any state. The belief that no state is a possible condition is infantile. By Nock’s own logic, the state is inevitable. The state develops organically but the risk is that it will be captured by the same tribal interests it is erected to mitigate. Though some of Nock’s insights into human society are still relevant and insightful, I believe that the doctrinaire ideology of “Our Enemy, The State” is what has led to our current condition of political dysfunction. The continued disparagement of the state delivers it into the hands of criminals and charlatans as we can see in the Trump regime.

[Stephen Lockett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nock makes a fascinating distinction between government and the State clearly showing most of us have been labouring under the wrong paradigm by believing they were the same thing. In passing this genius also explains in a sentence or two the reason behind the English Civil war. I read this book during the Covid-19 pandemic and although Nock wrote this work in the 1930s he could just as easily have written it yesterday, suddenly the UK Government’s irrational catalogue of responses can clearly be explained using Nock’s insights and could have been predicted.

[Seburath · Rating 4 out of 5]

Our Enemy, the State is full of references to the USA founding fathers and their time, which makes it difficult to understand.

Maybe after reading more about their history, I'll come back to read this book again because the examples are impossible to understand without previous context.

The ideas are interesting, especially in the last pages where Nock describes the oligopolic turn that this country has suffered.

[Josiah Edwards · Rating 4 out of 5]

A straight forward read that truly made me think. "It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own...there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power."