In this 1997 speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, now available as an ebook from the Mises Institute under the title What Must Be Done, Hoppe presents a plan of action for anarcho-capitalists
against the modern state.

Hoppe begins by examining the nature of the state as “a monopolist of defense and the provision and enforcement of law and order.” Like all state-mandated
monopolies, the monopoly of law enforcement also leads to higher prices and lower quality of services. Why is this state of affairs tolerated? The modern
democratic states, much more than the monarchies and princely estates of old, are seen as moral and necessary despite ample evidence to
the contrary.

In this initial analysis, we find much of what Hoppe eventually expanded into his 2001 book Democracy: The God that Failed, which systematically dismantled
modern arguments in favor of the democratic state.

In the final portion of his speech, Hoppe turns to discussing how a modern partisan of liberty might act to counter the march of centralization and the
destruction of property, culture, learning, and natural social hierarchies.

A Bottom-Up Revolution

$7.00 $4.95

At last to the detailed explanation of the meaning of this bottom-up revolutionary strategy. For this, let me turn to my earlier remarks about the
defensive use of democracy, that is, the use of democratic means for nondemocratic, libertarian pro-private property ends. Two preliminary insights I have
already reached here.

First, from the impossibility of a top-down strategy, it follows that one should expend little or no energy, time, and money on nationwide political
contests, such as presidential elections. And also not on contests for central government, in particular, less effort on senatorial races than on house
races, for instance.

Second, from the insight into the role of intellectuals, in the preservation of the current system, the current protection racket, it follows that one
should likewise expend little or no energy, time, or money trying to reform education and academia from the inside. By endowing free enterprise or private
property chairs within the established university system, for instance, one only helps to lend legitimacy to the very idea that one wishes to oppose. The
official education and research institutions must be systematically defunded and dried up. And to do so all support of intellectual work, as an essential
task of this overall task in front of us, should of course be given to institutions and centers determined to do precisely this.

The reasons for both of these pieces of advice are straightforward: Neither the population as a whole nor all educators and intellectuals in particular are
ideologically completely homogeneous. And even if it is impossible to win a majority for a decidedly antidemocratic platform on a nationwide scale, there
appears to be no insurmountable difficulty in winning such a majority in sufficiently small districts, and for local or regional functions within the
overall democratic government structure. In fact, there seems to be nothing unrealistic in assuming that such majorities exist at thousands of locations.
That is, locations dispersed all over the country but not evenly dispersed …

$35.00 $25.00

But what then? Everything else falls almost automatically from the ultimate goal, which must be kept permanently in mind, in all of one’s activities: the
restoration from the bottom-up of private property and the right to property protection; the right to self-defense, to exclude or include, and to freedom
of contract. And the answer can be broken down into two parts.

First, what to do within these very small districts, where a pro-private property candidate and anti-majoritarian personality can win. And second, how to
deal with the higher levels of government, and especially with the central federal government. First, as an initial step, and I’m referring now to what
should be done on the local level, the first central plank of one’s platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in
particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not
equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid.

Further, all public employees — teachers, judges, policemen — and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation
matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these taxes are. With this platform one cannot of course win
everywhere; you cannot win in Washington, D.C. with a platform like this. But I dare say that in many locations this can be easily done. The locations have
to be small enough and have to have a good number of decent people.

Consequently, local taxes and rates as well as local tax revenue will inevitably decrease. Property values and most local incomes would increase whereas
the number and payment of public employees would fall. Now, and this is the most decisive step, the following thing must be done, and always keep in mind
that I am talking about very small territorial districts, villages.

In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local
government assets must be privatized. An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that is not that much — schools, fire, police station,
courthouses, roads, and so forth — and then property shares or stock should be distributed to the local private property owners in accordance with the total
lifetime amount of taxes — property taxes —that these people have paid. After all, it is theirs, they paid for these things …

Without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air. Yet this local support and
cooperation is precisely what needs to be missing. To be sure, so long as the number of liberated communities is still small, matters seem to be somewhat
dangerous. However, even during this initial phase in the liberation struggle, one can be quite confident.

It would appear to be prudent during this phase to avoid a direct confrontation with the central government and not openly denounce its authority or even
abjure the realm. Rather, it seems advisable to engage in a policy of passive resistance and noncooperation. One simply stops to help in the enforcement in
each and every federal law. One assumes the following attitude: “Such are your rules, and you enforce them. I cannot hinder you, but I will not help you
either, as my only obligation is to my local constituents …”

Comment on this article.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian School economist and anarchocapitalist philosopher, is professor emeritus of economics at UNLV, a distinguished fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and founder and president of The Property and Freedom Society. Send him mail. See Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Hans-Hermann Hoppe via this RSS feed.