The early modern period witnessed one of the most profound transformations in political thought: the emergence of absolutism and the idea of the raison d’état—the “reason of state.” As Murray Rothbard emphasizes, this shift entailed a subtle but powerful transmutation: what had once been justified as best for the ruler came to be portrayed as synonymous with the welfare of the people. In the hands of thinkers from Machiavelli to Jean Bodin, and ultimately in the practice of monarchs like Louis XIV, the private interest of the sovereign was elevated into the very embodiment of the common good.

From Renaissance Humanism to Machiavelli

In chapter six of volume one of his essential An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, Rothbard traces the roots of absolutism to Italian humanism. The republican tradition of the Italian city-states—where oligarchic elites employed podestà to administer affairs—provided one strand. Yet, alongside republicanism emerged a darker doctrine: that the expansion and preservation of the state constituted the highest good. Niccolò Machiavelli stands as the archetype. In both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Rothbard notes, Machiavelli “preached the maintenance and expansion of state power as the highest good,” subordinating all considerations of morality to that end.

This was the germ of the reason of state: the idea that rulers could and should depart from ordinary ethics for the sake of political necessity. As Rothbard puts it, Machiavelli insisted that “no considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or shame, should be allowed to prevail” when the safety of the state was at stake.

Bodin and the French Apex of Absolutist Theory

While Machiavelli laid the groundwork, Rothbard identifies the French theorist Jean Bodin as the apex of absolutist thought. Writing in the late 16th century, Bodin fused legal theory, divine right, and practical politics into a doctrine of untrammeled sovereignty. For Bodin, the king was the sole and perpetual lawgiver, “answerable only to God.” In Rothbard’s telling, Bodin’s work marks the crystallization of a tradition in which monarchs were portrayed as not merely rulers but incarnations of the public good.

Louis XIV and the Apotheosis of the State

This tradition reached its fullest political expression under Louis XIV. Rothbard is unambiguous: “Even more than Colbert, he totally identified his own private interest as monarch with the interests of the state and with the ‘public good.’” Whether or not the Sun King actually uttered the famous words “I am the state,” Rothbard stresses, he certainly believed and acted upon them.

Louis treated justice as “my justice” and claimed the right to tax his subjects at will. In contrast to earlier medieval rulers—who recognized rights of subjects independent of his own power and authority—to absolutists such as Louis, since the realm was his property, why should he not dispose of it as he pleased? Court propagandists reinforced this logic. Daniel de Priezac described monarchy as a divine light hidden from mortals, while the cynic Samuel Sorbière argued that only absolute submission to the monarch could resolve human corruption.

Louis himself compared his role to the sun, “the noblest of all… producing life, joy, and activity everywhere.” Bishop Bossuet, court theologian, went even further: “The whole state is in the person of the prince… Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the prince.” Here, Rothbard observes, the king ceased to be an individual at all; he became a “public person,” the very embodiment of the state.

The Logic of Statism

What tied these strands together was the doctrine of the reason of state. If the monarch’s private interest was the public interest, then any measure taken to preserve his power was justified as serving the common good. The ruler’s enrichment became national glory; his suppression of dissent became the restoration of order. As Rothbard wryly observes in his discussion of Colbert, “Apparently only the interests of individual merchants and citizens were narrow and ‘petty.’ Colbert had little difficulty in identifying the lucrative feathering of his own nest with the ‘public interest,’ national glory, and the common weal.”

In this transmutation, absolutism achieved an enduring ideological victory. So long as the monarch could portray his own prerogatives as inseparable from those of society, resistance was cast not merely as rebellion against a ruler but as treason against the state itself.

Rothbard’s Verdict

For Rothbard, the rise of absolutism marked a decisive betrayal of earlier traditions that had emphasized law, custom, and the liberty of intermediate institutions. The reason of state was not the triumph of rational governance, but of naked power cloaked in divine and patriotic rhetoric. Louis XIV’s France, in this sense, was not merely an absolutist regime but the prototype of modern statism.

Conclusion

Rothbard’s account of absolutism and the raison d’état is not merely a historical sketch but a cautionary tale. By conflating the ruler’s private interest with the public good, absolutist thinkers and monarchs laid the intellectual foundations for later forms of centralized, coercive power. As Louis XIV’s reign demonstrated, once the ruler is the state, there are no limits beyond his will. For Rothbard, understanding this genealogy is essential for anyone who abhors centralized power and seeks to recover the ideals of liberty eclipsed by the rise of the modern state.