Raise a Family to End the State

The nuclear family, which is a monogamous pair bonded couple raising their mutual offspring, is the first and last defense of private property. The establishment of the nuclear family with the use of land as private property is the cognitive innovation that established civilization as we know it, but the destruction of private property norms through Cultural Marxism is currently threatening that foundation.

The Neolithic Revolution, as described by Hans Hermann Hoppe in A Short History of Man was a human intellectual breakthrough of the highest magnitude.

“The institution of private land ownership and of
the family and the practice of agriculture and
animal husbandry is explained as a rational
invention, a new and innovative solution to the
problem faced by tribal hunters and gatherers of
balancing population growth and increasing land
scarcity.” [2]

Before this cognitive achievement humans survived in hunter-gatherer societies that were parasitic to the nature provided goods of their environment. Hunter-gatherers only depleted the supply of goods, they did not produce but only consumed.

This means then each individual is in direct competition for nature given goods with every other individual, but this is tempered with the recognition of the benefits of cooperation based on the division of labor. As Hoppe explains, the division of labor increases productivity because there exists tasks which exceed the power of any single man and require the combined efforts of several men, also individuals and their abilities are different, and finally because time is scarce.

“Given the peculiar, parasitic nature of hunter-gatherer
societies and assuming land to be fixed, invariably
the moment must arise when the number of people
exceeds the optimal group size and average living
standards will fall, threatening whatever degree of
intragroup solidarity previously might have existed…
This situation is captured and explained by the
economic law of returns…that states that for any
combination of two or more production factors an
optimum combination exists (such that any deviation
from it involves material waste, or “efficiency losses”). [2]

There exists a point of (absolute) overpopulation that Mises terms the Malthusian law of population. [3]

To avoid physical conflicts and successfully deal with the emerging over-population issues,

“The technological invention, then, that solved the
problem of a steadily emerging and re-emerging
“excess” of population and the attendant fall of
average living standards was a revolutionary change
in the entire mode of production. It involved the
change from a parasitic lifestyle to a genuinely
productive life. Instead of merely appropriating
and consuming what nature had provided,
consumer goods were now actively produced
and nature was augmented and improved upon.
This revolutionary change in the human mode of
production is generally referred to as the “Neolithic
Revolution”: the transition from food production
by hunting and gathering to food production by
the raising of plants and animals…The new
technology represented a fundamental cognitive
achievement and was reflected and expressed in
two interrelated institutional innovations, which
from then on until today have become the
dominant feature of human life: the appropriation
and employment of ground land as private
property, and the establishment of the family
and the family household. [4][5]

Before the establishment of land as private property, land was just a part of the environment, but with the advent of agriculture and animal husbandry it became necessary to have objectively defined boundaries on land to prevent conflicts with other families resources. Original appropriation and voluntary exchange were recognized as the objective means of avoiding conflicts over scarce land and resources. But the appropriation of land as property for use in agriculture and animal husbandry solved only half the increasing population pressure. The use of land to increase productivity did not address the issue of the costs of reproduction. It is important to realize that before the Neolithic revolution that children were considered everyone’s and part of the tribe, therefore each individual had no responsibility to bear the cost of producing enough resources for the children each produces. Hoppe explains further

“Instinctively, by virtue of man’s biological nature,
each woman and each man is driven to spread and
proliferate her or his genes into the next generation
of the species. The more offspring one creates the
better, because the more of one’s genes will survive.
No doubt, this natural human instinct can be
controlled by rational deliberation. But if no or little
economic sacrifice must be made for simply following
one’s animal instincts, because all children are
maintained by society at large, then no or little
incentive exists to employ reason in sexual matters,
i.e., to exercise any moral restraint.” [6]

Thomas Malthus in an Essay on the Principle of Population, explains then that,

“the most natural and obvious check (on population)
seemed to be to make every man provide for his own
children; that this would operate in some respect as a
measure and guide in the increase of population, as it
might be expected that no man would bring beings
into the world, for whom he could not find the means
of support; that where this notwithstanding was the
case, it seemed necessary, for the example of others,
that the disgrace and inconvenience attending such
a conduct should fall upon the individual, who had
thus inconsiderately plunged himself and innocent
children in misery and want. — The institution of
marriage, or at least, of some express or implied
obligation on every man to support his own
children, seems to be the natural result of these
reasoning’s in a community under the difficulties
that we have supposed.” [7]

So by the formation of monogamous families then the hunter-gatherer’s tribal lifestyle was transformed into separate families separately owning sections of land in which they produce the resources they need accordingly. The monogamous family owning land in which to produce the resources they need to ensure their own survival, either by agriculture or animal husbandry, or a combination of both, was the foundation of civilization. The private property norms of original appropriation and voluntary exchange formed the basis of a non-aggressive yet competitive society based on the mutually recognized benefits of division of labor.

“Private ownership in the means of production is the
regulating principle which, within society, balances
the limited means of subsistence at society’s disposal
with the less limited ability of consumers to increase.
By making the share in the social product which falls
to each member of society depend on the product
economically imputed to him, that is, to his labor
and his property, the elimination of surplus human
beings by the struggle for existence, as it rages in
the vegetable and animal kingdom, is replaced by
a reduction in the birth-rate as a result of social
forces. 'Moral restraint,' the limitations of off spring
imposed by social positions, replaces the struggle
for existence.” [8]

Community life, or closely proximate families, increased productivity for all due to the division of labor that had its effect on both production of resources as well as defense from external threats. It follows then that the nuclear family is the first defense of private property, because of the establishment of agriculture and animal husbandry, along with corresponding privatization of the costs and benefits of producing and raising offspring.

It takes time and resources from both parents to raise children successfully. Children, especially infants, are entirely dependent on the resources provided by their parents. They are incapable of doing any of the necessary work to sustain their own lives at first, and as they grow, they acquire the skills necessary to be entirely responsible for themselves. This means that the minimum requirement to raise a child is two parents that produce more than they themselves consume. The resources that a child requires is often more than any one parent can provide alone, due to the scarcity of time. It’s mutually beneficial for the parents to divide the labor in order to successfully raise their children. Children raised in a stable two parent households also learn the value of choosing the right monogamous partner. Making the wrong choice in who to start a family with is one that negatively affects multiple lives and has far reaching ramifications throughout society. The absence of either parent greatly increases the likelihood of that family turning to the State to provide the resources necessary to live.

The State’s forced redistribution of wealth negatively influences people’s decisions on who to start a family with by subsidizing irresponsible choices. The State’s welfare programs are ostensibly to help the poor and downtrodden but in reality they are a de-civilizing force that undermines the nuclear family. The State redistributes wealth from productive two parent homes, in the form of taxes and inflation of fiat currency, that it then gives to single parent homes. Therefore a single parent no longer faces the prospect of being without enough resources to survive, so they are less likely to care about making a bad decision when choosing a potential mating partner. Without State welfare programs, individuals were forced to make a good decision on whom to start a family with, because if a bad decision was made and one were left to raise a child alone, the consequences would have been disastrous. The single parent is faced with the problem of producing enough resources for the children alone.

Also,

“children raised by single mothers are far more
likely to live in poverty, be abused, commit aggression,
go to jail, suffer from drug addiction and alcohol abuse,
be the victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, drop
out of high school, murder, commit suicide, run away
from home or become homeless” [9]

So clearly it benefits a civilized society to have two parent households. Despite the clear advantages of nuclear families, the State incents the single parent homes by subsidizing their costs. The State will step in and provide some of the basic resources that a single parent needs, but the State cannot replace a parent’s time investment in the child’s development and the absence of that time investment is what leads to the issues listed above. Without the supposed safety net of State welfare programs, all individuals would be far more concerned with finding a potential monogamous partner that was far more likely to be a loyal, and resourceful parent. Individuals would seek out a mating partner that promised to work towards raising their offspring in a stable two parent home. The consequences of choosing a bad potential mating partner would be far direr situation without the promised resources of the State. Absent a State welfare program, anyone who wished to raise a family would spend considerable time and waste no effort in making sure that their potential partner shared their values and was one that they could count on to stay productive for their potential family.

In the respect that the State is the leading contributing factor to the erosion of the family and the subsequent de-civilizing effect that follows, it’s evident that the nuclear family is also the last defense of private property. To prevent a total breakdown of civilization it is important to recognize the importance of the nuclear family and to advocate pair bonded monogamous nuclear families in order to preserve our society based on private property. The best way to contribute to actions that can bring about a Stateless society is to find a monogamous partner that understands the importance of the nuclear family, produce more than each of you consume, plan out the division of labor for the family, and then reproduce and raise your offspring to know and understand private property rights. A monogamous pair bonded couple raising a family is one of the best ways of taking action to end the State because the nuclear family is an objectively effective means defending private property norms that form the foundation to civilization.

[1] A Short History of Man, Hans Hermann Hoppe, p18; [2] Ibid., p42-43; [3] Human Action, Ludwig von Mises, p127; [4] A Short History of Man, Hans Hermann Hoppe, p47-48; [5] Understanding Human History, Michael H. Hart, p139; [6] A Short History of Man, Hans Hermann Hoppe, p62-63; [7] Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Robert Malthus, chapter 10; [8] Socialism, Ludwig von Mises, p282; [9] The Truth About Single Moms, Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio, 2015