Furthermore, there is to be recognized the legal norm that contracts must be lived up to. Obligation comes into existence when obligations are "consciously and voluntarily assumed";[698] and the other party thus acquires "a right."[699] To be sure, the obligatory force of contract is not without bounds. "Contract is a very serviceable and most important tool, but its usefulness has its limits; no man can employ it for the abdication of his manhood";[700] therefore "the constituting of an association in which each member waives the right of secession would be a mere form."[701] Furthermore, no one can employ it for the invasion of third parties; therefore a promise "whose fulfilment would invade third parties"[702] would be invalid.—"I deem the keeping of promises such an important matter that only in the extremest cases would I approve their violation. It is of such vital consequence that associates should be able to rely upon each other that it is better never to do anything to weaken this confidence except when it can be maintained only at the expense of some consideration of even greater importance."[703] "The man who has received a promise is defrauded by its non-fulfilment, invaded, deprived of a portion of his liberty against his will."[704] "I have no doubt of the right of any man to whom, for a consideration, a promise has been made, to insist, even by force, upon the fulfilment of that promise, provided the promise be not one whose fulfilment would invade third parties. And, if the promisee has a right to use force himself for such a purpose, he has a right to secure such co-operative force from others as they are willing to extend. These others, in turn, have a right to decide what sort of promises, if any, they will help him to enforce. When it comes to the determination of this point, the question is one of policy solely; and very likely it will be found that the best way to secure the fulfilment of promises is to have it understood in advance that the fulfilment is not to be enforced."[705]
4.—THE STATE
I. With regard to every man's self-interest, especially on the basis of the law of equal liberty, Tucker rejects the State; and that universally, not merely for special circumstances determined by place and time. For the State is "the embodiment of the principle of invasion."[706]
1. "Two elements are common to all the institutions to which the name 'State' has been applied: first, aggression."[707] "Aggression, invasion, government, are interconvertible terms."[708] "This is the Anarchistic definition of government: the subjection of the non-invasive individual to an external will."[709] And "second, the assumption of authority over a given area and all within it, exercised generally for the double purpose of more complete oppression of its subjects and extension of its boundaries."[710] Therefore "this is the Anarchistic definition of the State: the embodiment of the principle of invasion in an individual, or a band of individuals, assuming to act as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."[711]
"Rule is evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule."[712] "The theocratic despotism of kings or the democratic despotism of majorities"[713] are alike condemnable. "What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies."[714]
2. "In the first place, all the acts of governments are indirectly invasive, because dependent upon the primary invasion called taxation."[715] "The very first act of the State, the compulsory assessment and collection of taxes, is itself an aggression, a violation of equal liberty, and, as such, vitiates every subsequent act, even those acts which would be purely defensive if paid for out of a treasury filled by voluntary contributions. How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man's earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire?"[716]
"And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing."[717] For "in the second place, by far the greater number of their acts are directly invasive, because directed, not to the restraint of invaders, but to the denial of freedom to the people in their industrial, commercial, social, domestic, and individual lives."[718]
"How thoughtless, then, to assert that the existing political order is of a purely defensive character!"[719] "Defence is a service, like any other service. It is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand. In a free market this commodity would be furnished at the cost of production. The production and sale of this commodity are now monopolized by the State. The State, like almost all monopolists, charges exorbitant prices. Like almost all monopolists, it supplies a worthless, or nearly worthless, article. Just as the monopolist of a food product often furnishes poison instead of nutriment, so the State takes advantage of its monopoly of defence to furnish invasion instead of protection. Just as the patrons of the one pay to be poisoned, so the patrons of the other pay to be enslaved. And the State exceeds all its fellow-monopolists in the extent of its villany because it enjoys the unique privilege of compelling all people to buy its product whether they want it or not."[720]
