It, State, Uberstate

On the Psychogenesis of the State, by Hans J. Feiertag

The central theme of libertarians has always been the State. Murray Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State"¹ is arguably the quintessential starting point for libertarian thought. However, his book is essentially based on an earlier work of another author: "Der Staat" by Franz Oppenheim². Oppenheimer, who described the ontogenesis of the state itself and sought to condense the essence of the state in all its chronological stages tracing back to its germ: as the "organisation of the political means". The political means - that is, robbery. For Oppenheimer, the state is therefore always a latecomer; not a creator and maker, but a usurper, a violent user of what has already been created through the "economic means."

With the economic and the political, Oppenheimer created an extremely sharp and clearly understandable dichotomy. There are always moments when one can be grateful for this distinct clarity in order to arrive at a decisive judgment. However, as with any overly sharp concept, an artifact has been created that may not always fully fit the observed reality, leading to a sense of inadequacy that needs to be addressed.

The author would now like to complement Oppenheimer's static dichotomy with a more fluent triad - it, state, uberstate - which he believes brings us closer to the psychodynamic reality of the state. In doing so, he clearly draws on another thinker from Oppenheimer's time: Sigmund Freud, who attempted to decipher the human personality with his "id, ego, superego"³. In the end, every concept can be understood in terms of its psychogenesis, as can "the state". The state here is consciously understood as a concept and thus as a mental state. Every concept is embedded in a temporal process: On the one hand, it has emerged from original affects and, on the other, it relates to other, often even more abstract concepts, i.e. it draws them after itself at an increasing distance from the actual.

It always begins with the lowest, subconscious instinct level (it/id). This is where the most basic stimulus of interest, the will to survive, reigns and with it the affects, fears, aggressions and reflexes for which names were only found much later and concepts after a certain repetitive routine. It wants to preserve itself and instinctively chooses the most obvious way to do so. This is the primal drive, so fundamental that it exists without any consciously grasping or even rational conception, i.e. aiming towards a more distant future. It lives in the flow of moments.

At the other end of this primal drive stands abstract reason and insight as transcendentally derived morality, as the uberstate. Abstract, because it is completely detached from personal advantage and fate, and transcendental, because it is conceptualised as a necessary precondition for collective action. The ultimate goal here lies in the most far-reaching curtailment of the it through insightful self-restraint to the point of self-abandonment in favour of a higher purpose.

The individual mind mediates between the two, i.e. the state lies between the it/id and the uberstate, analogous to Freud's mediating ego. This concept of the state is obviously different from the one commonly used by libertarians. This state is a mutually and consciously entered into relationship between the actors, essentially manifested in a contract and congealed into something fixed. Something that promises a gain in stability and reliability and therefore security for all those involved. However, the individual interest still remains intact here, indeed it is the entire foundation which this relationship is founded. The ego calculates, is rational, i.e. it considers costs and gains in a personal context. Its first and last question is always: "What's in it for me?" The part always takes precedence over the whole.

What the libertarian typically refers to as "the state" is the uberstate – a collection of oughts that have become detached from personal interest and have taken on a life of their own. This represents a narrative, mythologizing overlay that serves to legitimize events within an abstract "community" or "society." Where the state, as a conscious, interest-driven contract, still promises a tangible benefit to all involved – i.e., remains a reciprocity without metaphysics – the uberstate goes far beyond this, indeed, it has completely detached itself in its fully developed form. It promises the ultimate step of development, an immense progress or even a noteworthy purpose for the first time, provided the individual gives up their narrow, small personal interest and merges into the whole, recognizing and accepting a purpose beyond themselves. They just have to disarm for the purpose, relinquishing their resistance.

Mussolini's fascism and Marx's communism are named as two pure examples of the uberstate. Here, the individual is certainly to be preserved as much as possible – as long as they benefit and serve the whole. But they become a means to a higher end. That is, the individual is no longer an end in themselves. Therefore, the uberstate is certainly not an unconditional progress but comes with possible great losses for the individual and brings disruptions up to the potential downfall of the whole. For the uberstate requires a grand, all-encompassing plan that consciously renounces spontaneously formed structures, seeing in them an evil to be eradicated or selectively usurps them and transforms them into the only acceptable state purpose. In doing so, however, it loses an existentially important redundancy, this constantly emerging, private multitude of paths, this apparent waste of resources that pours into countless separate savings pots and private security measures.

The libertarian is the quintessential anti-fascist, the most resolute denier of a state of being conceived as the only possible one, that is, the total state. For him, secession and temporary withdrawal into a hermit-like existence (Jünger´s Waldgängertum) is an existentially necessary possibility, but so is forming partial coalitions in his own interest.

Now, with the bilateral contract, the foundation for an uberstate has been laid, thus presenting a significant danger from a libertarian standpoint. Only a metaphysical element is still lacking. The human spirit soon craves something greater, seeking to transcend narrowness and smallness, desiring a greater purpose that extends beyond the self. People wish to join a mission, dedicating their lives to a demonstrable cause that surpasses mere self-preservation. They want to exist for something. Initially, this might be for their own children, then for their clan, their tribe, their community, their values, and so forth. The primary criticism from conservatives against libertarians is precisely this: the liberal lack of content or transcendence. Conservatives argue that libertarians leave all means without a definitive purpose, maintaining an intentional void. In other words, libertarians largely leave the determination of this purpose to the individual.

The conservative overlooks here that in the formal secession, as envisioned by the libertarian, the conceptual possibility for a culturally and content-filled space of any kind is created. Culture can only exist in difference, that is, in a fragmented world of borders and parts. And secession, from its form, is nothing other than allowing the world to divide into parts and thus allowing for difference. It is only through this division and fragmentation that valuation, and thus worth, becomes possible: by one thing being preferred over another, since it can be distant and different. In the boundless, indifferent whole, there can be no preference, and thus nothing of value remains. Everything becomes - equal. That is to say, the conservative must also make room for others, must allow for life and events to unfold, must in this sense be a liberal. For only next to the other culture does one's own culture become recognizable and tangible.

The libertarian embodies division in its purest form. They cannot dissolve the state as such, but they can break up a concrete state into diverse, i.e. distinguishable parts and thus subordinate it to their own utility calculus. This in turn creates a status as the state, not ascending into the airy total, but as a tangible stalemate between the conflicting parts - as a bargaining mass.

The private, borrowed from Latin, which the libertarian so emphasizes, essentially signifies segregation, detachment, exclusion, and demarcation. The excluded side, the socialist, the social man in the total can and will of course see this as a robbery of the whole, just as the libertarian sees the state confiscation in the name of society as a robbery of the private.

And here again, the libertarian's lack of content becomes a reproach. For at this point the libertarian, like the socialist or conservative, must also come to a content, i.e. go beyond himself and an obvious self-interest. Otherwise his force will not suffice to defend even what is his own. He will have to form a coalition and believe in something. He will raise a common flag. He needs this surplus of ideas, will and furor for a long stay, because the opponent will have it. And they will wrestle with each other to the last ounce and keep asking the question until then: To what end and for what? Why not surrender to the opponent? In the end, only a far-reaching myth can provide this psychological weight.

And libertarians - like all other parties - will have to live with and deal with an internal contradiction. For as enemies of the state per se, they will strive for it - as a stable state and relationship between owners (those who separate and exclude themselves from one another).

In the end, all sides surrender to these movements, thus becoming similar again, between the isolating it and the unifying uberstate; in compromise. Only in the eternal, conflict-laden movement between these poles can life and the living exist, in mediation, in contract, but also in temporary rupture and war. The absolute point of rest as the total state is impossible and unthinkable, because thinking itself is only possible as movement.

1. https://mises.org/library/book/anatomy-state

2. Franz Oppenheimer, Der Staat , 1929

3. Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id, 1923