Failing at a Basic Level

William S. Lind has written extensively on 4th Generational Warfare and how it is rooted in a challenge to the legitimacy of the State. That is, although the Peace of Westphalia introduced the modern concept of the State--the Leviathan, as Hobbes termed it--and the first generation of warfare for such states, Lind foresees that the greatest threat to States in the 21st century will come about due to the failure of States to maintain their legitimacy. Lind often focuses on the fact that many individuals and groups will begin to give their primary loyalty to non-state entities or movements. It is the crises of legitimacy that has led, and will continue to lead, to 4th Generation conflict.

However, the flip side of that is States losing or giving up their legitimacy because they cease to perform the basic functions of the State. This can happen in several ways, but two of the most significant are the failure to provide basic services, and, relatedly, ceasing to be a neutral party and pursuing the goals or objectives of a few at a cost to the many. It is interesting to me to see the number of examples of this recently in news articles and commentary.

Global Guerrillas reported this past weekend that "militants" had targeted two (2) electrical transmission pylons in Pakistan, which resulted in a cascade a power failures leaving 140 million without electrical power. The author commented:

Attacks like these can be very damaging.  How so?  People don't blame the attackers for blackouts.  They blame the government.  In fact, the inability of a government to deliver the basics of energy and fuel is more damaging to its legitimacy than problems with security (it routinely led the list of reasons Iraqis were angry at the government).

It would be one thing if this failure to provide basic services was limited to a third world hell hole, but it is not. Moving somewhat closer to home, Theodore Dalrymple recently wrote at Taki Magazine about the lights going out over his bit of Europe--literally. From the article:

Last night the streetlights in my pleasant little English market town were switched off at midnight. In fact they’ve been switching them off at midnight for two months, but I have not been here to notice it. However, in this little development (or is it a reversal of development?) may be seen all the economic troubles of the whole Western world. 

The lights are switched off as a cost-saving measure, not because of the aesthetic and cultural advantages of darkness (which, in my opinion, do actually exist), or because there is anything wrong with the electricity supply. Private houses are unaffected. You can still burn the midnight oil if you want to.  

But why do costs need to be cut? A brief description of some of the town’s finances might be helpful. Its most highly paid official receives in emoluments nearly 20 percent of the town’s income through local taxation. The payment of pensions to past employees, which are completely unfunded and must be found from current income, consume another 20 to 25 percent of that tax revenue. Two years ago a former employee took the council to a labor tribunal for wrongful dismissal, and the council spent 66 percent of its income in that year on legal fees. (The employee’s complaints against the council were not upheld, but that was scarcely of any comfort to the taxpayers, for the costs were not recoverable—even though natural justice required that she should be driven into penury and made homeless for the rest of her life to pay for her legal action, which was both frivolous and dishonest.) 

Even if it provided no services at all, the council would still run at a deficit if it continued only with its essential business, which is to pay the salaries and pensions of those who work in it, and the various parasitical rent-seekers, like employment lawyers, who live at its expense. And so the bureaucracy (and its hangers-on) does not exist to serve the public, but the public exists to serve the bureaucracy. ...

But it is not just the bloated bureaucracy of Europe, but that here in the United States. From a recent article at The Daily Signal:

For “Outrageous Government Scam of 2014,” it’s hard to compete with the news of the supersized public employee pensions in California. If you haven’t already heard: In 2013, an assistant fire chief in Southern California collected a $983,319 pension. A police captain in Los Angeles received nearly $753,861. 

Talk about a golden parachute. And the report on Golden State government pensions contains a list of hundreds of “public servants” who have hit the jackpot with annual pensions of a half million dollars a year. It’s like they’re playing the game “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” with taxpayer money. 

By some estimates, the unfunded public-sector pension liabilities in California have eclipsed $750 billion, which means in a few years residents will be paying their already-highest-in-the-nation income and sales taxes not for roads, bridges, schools and public safety, but for retired employees living like Daddy Warbucks.

... Nationwide, public employee pensions are running $1 trillion to $5 trillion in the red, depending on the rate of return expected on stocks and bonds. This could be the next housing bubble to burst. Some states like Utah have smartly moved to head off this crisis by closing down open-ended pensions and putting public sector union members in 401(k) plans that won’t bankrupt the state or municipalities. The unions are fighting this reform everywhere.

I've cited articles over the last several years concerning the pension crises and cut backs in city services in many different cities. Heck, Detroit essentially cut off large sections of itself from even receiving basic services because of budget woes.

Concurrently, governments are continually seeking greater streams of revenue, or even new revenue sources. California, for instance, after years of encouraging people to drive less and use more fuel efficient cars, is now considering a mileage tax as fuel tax revenue declines. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been building a database of motorists, which its "main aim was to seize automobiles, money and other assets to fight drug trafficking, reported the Wall Street Journal." President Obama has suggested taxing college savings accounts to fund his new plan to extend high school by two more years (and does anyone question if the government will eventually start looking to go after retirement accounts?).

At the same time that governments are raising taxes and cutting services, the elites are telling us that our lifestyles are too lavish, and our living standards need to be adjusted downward.

This is a recipe for a crises of legitimacy. What use is the State when the State becomes useless--nay, what use is the State when the State ceases to protect and serve the citizens, and instead preys on them?