Unfortunately, there is no good rhetorical counter to dreams of state-society.

I would not even Grant them this much. The government in a hypothetical state-society would be, by definition, the most rigid possible. They may have few laws, but those laws are set in stone. And since every law is legislated morality, the foundational belief of a state-society must be that morality has been settled, forever. The only way that such a belief could have any logical validity is if we believe 1.) we have attained perfect knowledge and 2.) morality is objective—which are quite possibly the two most absurd ideas in the world.

But sadly there are no quality treatises written on limited government theory. All we have are the rationalist writings of the anarchists. Political science is still in its infancy. And Reactionary politics are little more than a renewed authoritarianism driven by a disgust of Leftism (which I can sympathize with).

Alraune:

Libertarianism does not conceive of the state as an entity separate from the people who live within it, it conceives of the government as an occupying power which represents an interest foreign to the people who make up the state.

And you’ll be sure to share how “entity separate from the people” and “occupying power of foreign interest” are totally different things, right?

“Fortunately, speeches and majority decisions don’t actually decide things in the long run. For that you need iron and blood. “

“Out of necessity the state has to be manned by humans, but this is not ideal. Indeed, robots programmed to follow the Constitution precisely would probably be better.”

It seems even ardent Libertarian defenders would have to concede this point, thus admitting once and for all that contrary to the John Locke fetishism, their ideas are in fact totally irreflective of any kind of ‘state of nature’. Evola would certainly cry ‘INORGANIC’! and rightly so. While feigning to be of the purest humanity, the Leftist modes of governance are as anti-human as you could possibly get.

The state being imagined as above and apart from the nation at large seems indicative of what I wrote about in ‘the Illusion of Neutrality’. The whole purpose of this appears to be to put that which actually matters (the mode structure of governance) above the realm of partisan politics. We can only debate whether we get to wear red or blue slippers today, not whether we could abandon slippers altogether and opt for boots.

“That doesn’t stop the ruling class from pretending, of course. In this world, the Constitution and the various decisions of the state are supposed to express the will of the people, but only on those matters where there is widespread agreement. You’ll usually see this version expounded by Leftists in order to justify their latest pet project, usually invoking an “evolving consensus” in which your opinion is, of course, not included.”

I am reminded of one of one of Dávila’s aphorisms, “Love of the people is the aristocrat’s vocation. The democrat does not love the people except during election season.” It’s all a game of pretend and to link back to the recent episode of ‘Ascending the Tower’ a ‘will of the people’ holiness spiral. Inevitably this process forgets the slow trudge of the people entirely, and jumps straight to the loudest radicals at the front of the march. Why wait for public opinion to catch up anymore, now that nobody is paying attention? Just silence the humble dissenters and it will look as if we already have a majority! FORWARD!

I particularly like the ending of your piece. Always end on a high note. All deviations will inevitably fold back in on the regal current. Those few staunch loyalists who have endured will be the benefactors of this transition, while the detractors in power for so long will find themselves in the merciless clutches of the ‘laws of Gnon’. There will be nowhere left to hide one day.