Organization and Conflict: Free Association vs. Politics

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

[cross-posted at Brainpolice at The Mises Community]

Free association and competition resolves conflict while politics, especially democratic politics, enables and ultimately depends on conflict. All disagreements between people about how to organize can theoretically be resolved through free association, as they have the choice to either disassociate/secede or come to a mutual agreement (in short, to voluntarily intregrate). The result is inherently polycentric/pluralist. Free association essentially leads to increased complexity and smaller social units.

In contrast, in a political atmosphere everyone within an arbitrarily and unjustly claimed and controlled territory battles eachother over which particular interest group imposes their preferantial type of organization onto everyone. The result is inherently monocentric or monopolistic. Politics essentially leads to imposed uniformity and very haphazard and blockish social units. It's inherently a "one size fits all" approach to organization that eliminates competition, and hence all meaningful alternatives.

In an atmosphere of free association, noone may legitimately impose their preferential form of organization on anyone else, either directly (through rulership itself) or indirectly (through democracy). Instead, a diverse array of types of organization and an intricate pattern emerges precisely as a consequence of the lack of a singular imposed power monopoly. An atmosphere of free association could be thought of as being more conductive to favorable social evolution than politics because the increased complexity involved allows for more possibilities, while politics limits the possibilities and therefore creates stagnation.

There would be no reason, in an apolitical society, for there to be conflicts over matters such as what should be taught in schools, gay marriage, the ten commandments on the court house steps, who should be allowed in or out of political borders, who will build the roads, who should own the means of production, what goods and services are allowed and not allowed, and so on. For people would be free to associate and disassociate in order to each get what they prefer for themselves without anyone else being forced into it, and therefore they compete on a voluntary basis.

From the perspective of someone who accepts the principle of free association, they cannot rule anyone else and noone else can rule them. There is no need for them to institutionalize their preferances, for they can persue their preferances by associating with likeminded people, persuasion and intregrating their ideas with that of others. But in the democratic political mindset, one's preferances must be binding upon everyone and institutionalized. From the perspective of politics, it is legitimate and necessary for there to be a monopolistic standard, and the only alternative would allegedly be complete chaos and destruction.

So long as someone consistantly accepts the principle of free association, it should become rather clear that everyone's personal and cultural preferences do not necessarily have to lead to conflict and violence, but may instead be rendered rather neutral if not meaningless by merely taking a "live and let live" approach. Socialists, capitalists, primitivists, racists, multiculturalists, feminists, religionists, atheists and any other group among the endless slew of groups out there can all mutually win through free association without any need for coercion.

It is only when politics enters the picture that conflict is institutionalized and enabled on a large scale. Since the alternatives of free association are disincentivized in a political atmosphere, the individual has little choice but to either engage in civil disobedience or asquiesce to the political process and consequentially take a more active role in the conflict. Endless conflict takes place over who will control the reigns of institutional power and what they should impose onto everyone. Political means are inherently opposed to the voluntary or social or economic means of free association.

Reformism, An Impossibility: Applying Misesian Principles to Reformist-Libertarian Compromises

[Cross posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You]

In the general context of the libertarian movement there seems to exist two patterns of strategic theory to achieve the end goal of Anarchist activism – alibertarian society. On one side there exists the reformist menace, a group so insecure and cowardly that they rely on the fading strength of parliamentary wash-ups and political opportunists to do the work that each individual ought to do for himself; on the other side breathes a powerful and growing camp of revolutionaries leading the way of change by combining their contempt for politics with a new wave of agitation for direct action. This situation argued elsewhere, however, the current point of interest does not so much hinge on dramatic poetry and passionate rants, as other articles have[i][ii][iii][iv], so much as it attempts to take a look at theoretical axioms commonly agreed upon by both camps of libertarian strategists. Yes, this article’s intent directly appeals to the more conservative/reformist camp and their enthusiastic love for the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises and especially his theory of the impossibility of socialist calculation. Far from being a discussion of political economy, however, the question of state-socialist economies will here be applied to the reformist plan to achieve the societal liberation that free market Anarchism aims at. Proving that reformism, once applied to Mises’ implications of socialist calculation, cannot possibly be looked at as any kind of path to freedom then, hopefully the reformist camp will see the light of reason emersed in Misesian spices.

First, however, to address the arguments proposed by the reformists properly, their very plan for achieving the libertarian society, a society absent a state, must be revealed. Indeed, the reformist’s plan comes down to a step by step process of small reforms within the United States government aimed at an attempt to restrain the politicians from acting within their nature. Delegating down to a plan of fighting government internally to break it down entirely, the reformists speak mostly of “steps” to gaining their liberation from the cold clutches of the state – though the ad hoc nature of their arguments seem to make the details of their intentions slightly more ambiguous (see a comparison between the Ron Paul movement’s goals in late fall and early winter[v] to its claimed goals in early spring[vi]). Conflating their system with one of incrementalist phases, claiming a monopoly on a realistic approach to change, the reformists, narrow minded and pompous, shut off completely to external logic and consistency in favor of the compromise of a crazed lunacy that suggests the nature of an entity can be overcome by the will of a handful of old men spitting and drooling into their couch cushions every night in their father’s mothball filled coats – still that’s progress from not knowing where they were sleeping to begin with.

Yes, this strategy certainly belongs to the reformists, conservative-libertarians usually associated with Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, but curiously enough, the support for a Ron Paul type step by step approach to decreasing the size of the state appears to be a direct contradiction of the Misesian background that almost all Free Market Anarchists – regardless of conservative or leftist creed – share. To understand this, take an excerpt from Mises’ Planned Chaos, a book devoted to the explanation of how middle of the road policies and rhetorical devices of conservative jargon lead to state-socialism. According to Mises, when the state intervenes in the market economy on behalf of one market variable, essentially fixing prices and wages, it must,

go further and further, fixing the prices of all factors of production – and forcing every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages. No branch of production can be omitted from this all-round fixing of prices and wages and this general order to continue production. If some branches of production were left free, the result would be a shifting of capital and labour to them and a corresponding fall of the supply of the goods whose prices the government had fixed. However, it is precisely these goods which the government considers as especially important for the satisfaction of the needs of the masses, (24).

Adding still,

Price control is contrary to purpose if it is limited to some commodities only. It cannot work satisfactorily within a market economy... Production can either be directed by the prices fixed on the market by the buying and by the abstention from buying on the part of the public. Or it can be directed by the government’s central board of production management. There is no third solution available. There is no third social system feasible which would be neither market economy nor socialism. Government control of only a part of prices must result in a state of affairs which – without any exception – everybody considers as absurd and contrary to purpose. Its inevitable result is chaos and social unrest, (25).[vii]

The conclusions drawn by the great, free market economist Ludwig von Mises seem clear here. Given the involvement of the government in one area of the economy, unless it is removed entirely from all market variables at once, one step towards a free market economy in the marsh of state-socialism will only result in a further sinking towards the bottom of an unpleasant floor laid with the stench of mud and feces.

Indeed, to deny that state-socialism only results in planned chaos where every single move contradicts every other move displays a surprising lack of understanding, or perhaps just a willed ignorance, for the principles of Mises. Even in an instance where the general tide swings towards liberty, without instant and total abolition of the state the blame for all the damage felt by the people, an inevitable in a state-socialist economy, will fall squarely on the shoulders of those in power – the reformist libertarians. As demonstrated by Mises, by attempting to play in the mud of the state’s economy, no matter what intentions to clean up the marsh, the murk’s victory is a certain one forever creeping up the body of those that jump gleefully into its muck. By cutting off one head of the hydra-leviathan, not only do libertarians drain themselves in a flare of roundabout activity, but they cause ten more to grow in its place. Indeed, the harsh fall of the government is a guarantee and with it must come considerable pain to the people, but if that pain is accompanied with a continued existence of the state, with the incompetent boobs in the reformist camp of libertarianism sitting on the throne, no victory for liberty will ever occur – only reactionary hate for the philosophy and those claiming its name. Absolutely, the best that can be hoped for is a revolution walking the lines outlined by Samuel Edward Konkin III in his New Libertarian Manifesto – where the use of the counter-economy doubles as a weapon against the state and as a crutch for the innocent to rely on when the state-socialist economy inevitably collapses.

Applying the principles of Mises to revolutionary strategy seems to create an obvious glass through which to look here. With the reformist strategy supporting a state-socialist whack-a-mole game, where one step towards a free market results in three more towards continued oppression, the only other option, and fortunately the most efficient one, must be pursued. Direct action, specifically Agorist action[viii], then seems to be the train that each and every self-respecting liberty lover should embark upon if he wishes to establish and maintain a libertarian society in the near to distant future. Absolutely, if one rightfully understands that reformism is an impossibility and a counter-productive one at that, then one must also understand that revolutionary Market-Anarchism is a fast sailing ship, powerful and decisive in its course of action.

---

[i] de Cleyre, Voltairine. "Direcet Action." Molinari Institute. 1912. Molinari Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[ii] Adami, Niccolo M. "Purge the Parlor Revolutionaries." Polycentric Order. 27 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[iii] An Apolitical Approach to Libertarianism." Brainpolice. 5 Apr. 2008. Ludwig von Mises Institute. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[iv] Molyneux, Stefan. "The Ron Paul Revolution – A Postmortem (& Prescription)." Freedomain: The Logic of Personal and Political Freedom. 6 Feb. 2008. Freedomain Radio. 29 Apr. 2008 .

[v] Murtaroe, Kathryn. “How a 'Third-Tier' Candidate Wins the Primary.” Lewrockwell.com 9 Nov. 2007 .

[vi] Sunwall, Mark. “Ron Paul as Prophet.” Lewrockwell.com 3 March. 2008 .

[vii] von Mises, Ludwig. Planned Chaos. 6th ed. Irvington-On-Hudson, NY: FEE, 1977.

[viii] Adami, Niccolo M. "The Virtues of Agorism: A Direct Action." Polycentric Order. 16 Apr. 2008. 29 Apr. 2008 .

Monday, April 28, 2008

The Myth of "The Rule of Law"

[cross-posted at Brainpolice at The Mises Community]

The theory of a republic is essentially that, in contrast to democracy in which there is tyranny of the majority and in contrast to monarchy in which there is the rule of a single man or oligarchy, the law itself is what rules rather than men. In essence, a republic is supposed to be a model for government that avoids being both both democracy and monarchy, and allegedly replaces the adminstration of men over men with the adminstration of the law itself over men. In a republic, the law is supposed to restrain the lay public from creating tyranny of the majority (I.E. a democracy) and simultaneously restrain the institutional agents of the state from functioning as an elite of rulers imposing their will on the lay public (I.E. an oligarchy).

But a basic understanding of how human beings work and a rational analysis of how the state functions as an institution, including so-called republics, renders this theory of government as a rather blatant absurdity. How can a law be self-enforcing? By definition, a governmental law is drafted by men and must be enforced by men. No political system can escape the rule of men, for all political systems are created and run by men. At the same time, no political system is the result of the decisions of everyone within a society, for at a fundamental level all political systems are oligarchies in which a small percentage of the overall population are those with direct control over the state apparatus, those who actually make and enforce the laws.

The absurdity of the notion that a piece of paper with words on it in and of itself will fatalistically or pre-emptively stop human beings (including those within the state apparatus itself) from engaging in certain actions should be rather obvious. In terms of the lay public, they may theoretically engage in such actions anyways and their actions may be rather unpredictable. A piece of paper isn't going to restrain a mob. And in terms of those within the state apparatus themselves, they have most leeway of all in the matter, for it is ultimately they who make the laws and may choose to enforce or not enforce them. Since they are not really bound by any higher external 3rd party institution, they may theoretically function in a lawless manner. The law maker is effectively and seemingly paradoxically "above the law". For since they have a monopoly on law, they may theoretically interpret it and defy it as they please. The law is not binding on them. Rather, the law's content and applicability is actually bound to their whims as the ones with power.

So it would seem that an attempt at a republic will always reduce to some kind of oligarchy, most likely a representative democracy with a constitution. The constitution is merely an additional feature of the democracy that is meant to restrain both the people and the government. Except a constitution cannot really be effective in any consistant or long-term sense. It will not fatalistically restrain institutional agents of the state from using power and the lay public from engaging in majoritarian or mob behavior. As the decades and centuries pass, it becomes less and less meaningful and effective as a society evolves (or devolves). At best, it functions as a lame rationale to provide legitimacy to the state while its alleged function as a restraint is rendered meaningless by the ability of the state's institutional agents to exercise their power. A constitution does nothing to actually restrain or take away the oppurtunity or ability for institutional agents of the state to use power.

The notion of the rule of law would only make sense if the state was an entity external to human interaction, as if it were not made up of human beings but was enforced through some natural or supernatural mechanism. But the state is quite clearly created and administered by acting human beings. It is not some sort of intrinsic mechanism of nature that functions independantly of human action, or the result of the will of some deity. The only laws that can be said to rule all on their own irrespective of men are natural laws. But natural law is not something that political systems are based on, as political systems are the synthetic creations of men. At best, natural law is an independant standard of justice that currently existing political systems may be held up to and discredited with. While some early natural law theories were used to legitimize states, a properly formed and applied natural law theory can only be used to delegitimize states.

There is good reason to be quite skeptical towards the effectiveness of governmentally created laws to begin with. Not only is it absurd to propose that laws can rule on on their own, but the ability of human beings to enforce them is quite limited due to a certain factor of unpredictability in the behavior of human beings. That is, the mere existance of a law illegalizing certain actions and even the existance of an institutional apparatus that attempts to have humans enforce such a law and threatens punishment for defying it does not gaurantee that people will not in fact defy the law and that people will not in fact get away with defying the law. While this has obvious implications with respect to laws prohibiting economic interactions (which are miserable failures in light of their own alleged goals), it is even true with respect to laws against basics that everyone pretty much agrees are wrong like murder, rape and theft.

The notion that most people generally don't murder, rape and steal either solely or primarily because there is a governmental law against them is rather absurd if one accepts the premise of free will (at least some kind of compatibalism). The existance of a governmental law in and of itself is not the cause of good or ethical behavior, and some people do engage in the shunned actions in question despite the existance of a law against it. If someone is truly determined to engage in such an action, they are going to do it regaurdless of whether or not there is a governmental law against it. Criminals are criminals precisely because they have an extremely high time preferance, I.E. they want what they want now regaurdless of potential negative consequences that may come about in the future. If someone does not engage in such an action, it is mostly likely primarily because they themselves find it ethically impermissable. Social convention itself, combined with the natural incentives towards social cooperation, is the primary reason why most people tend to generally be peaceful in interpersonal relations.

In a fundamental sense, a society truly cannot be planned or socially engineered in the long-run, even by laws. A society is the sum total of interactions between the individuals that make it up, and such interpersonal relations are so complex and diverse that it would be impossible for a single individual or organization to truly predict and absolutely control their behavior. No human being or group of human beings has the mental capacity, let alone the physical ability, to deterministically control and pre-empt the behavior of everyone within a society. They would have to be omniscient to do so. The mere fact that one can only be at one place at one time renders any attempt to efficiently exercise such control ridiculous and pointless. So it could be said that all government is fortunately limited by definition, limited by the natural limits of human ability and the unpredictability and diversity of human behavior.

Quite clearly, the law is not something worthy of putting much of one's faith in, even with good intentions.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Purge the Parlor-Revolutionaries

[Cross Posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You]


Quite often, especially in these post-Ron Paul days, I am asked by my comrades why I so detest the reformists in the broader libertarian movement. After all, they say, are we not all working towards the same goals? Are we not all libertarians? Are we not all fighting the same enemy? If only such were the case, but unfortunately it is not. Unfortunately, to reach victory we, the revolutionaries, must follow a path of truth, and though truth may be less kind than the reformists' compromise, its path of success is undeniable.


Indeed, reformists are everywhere a disease, a terrible virus leeching off of the strength of Anarchist youth while injecting a poison into the veins of the libertarian movement. Extinguishing the burning flames of liberty within our comrades, those that may once have been fully hostile to imperial-collectivism and completely willing to die for their beliefs in freedom and justice, they spread their wings of preclusion and barrel their beaks into the fresh streams of Anarchist power snapping up the minnows of our movement like a hawk from the high hills of Gareb.


Oh, but the reformists tell you that they desire the same thing; they tell you that we are all in the same boat. But are we really? Are victory and defeat really so similar? But of course the reformists will not admit to being defeatists; they will not admit to their compromise, their abhorrent corruptions! They will lure you with a soothsaying tongue of deviation; they will attract the weak like a pedophile predator offering candy in a white van outside of the elementary school. Yes, the father of Agorism, Samuel Edward Konkin III, warned us of these defeatists.


Advises our dear comrade from his book the New Libertarian Manifesto,

since few libertarians are very consistent yet, deviationism will run rife and tend to overwhelm activism. “Get-Liberty-quick” schemes from anarchozionism (running away to a Promised Land of Liberty) to political opportunism will seduce the impatient and sway the incompletely informed. All will fail if for no other reason than Liberty grows individual by individual… The strategy of the first New Libertarians is to combat anti-principles which strengthen the Stare and dissipate anarchist energy uselessly. The general strategy outlines previously applies; get libertarians into counter-economics and get the most active of the Agorists to get counter-economists into libertarianism, (61-62).

Yes, driving the movement to its knees with their false promises, the reformists are the bearers of bad will and lost hopes; they are the essential definition of counter-revolutionaries in a war where no time or resources can be wasted. Indeed, as it almost seems they are too destructive to be true, we can almost wonder if they were sent by the state to deliberately destroy the product of years of our hard work - such would be the speak of a conspiracy theorist!


Like the never-ending story of man’s fatal demise, the counter-revolutionaries prattle on with their soothsaying and their bloodied knives neatly nestled next to their bags filled with their thirty pieces of silver. Oh, the reformists speak of changes brought down by votes calling them steps to a path, while knowing fully well that not only are these merely the exceptions to the rule – and counterproductive ones at that! – but that such “victories” can only be accounted for as the initial results of the radicals’ direct action forcing governments into a bind where the only two options are to concede liberty, as we desire, or appease a few of the “libertarian-junkies” with momentary relief while simultaneously derailing the entire movement all together! With the government on the libertarian-junky’s side then, it is no wonder why our libertarian movement, despite all the professed progresses pointed to by the reformists, continues to flounder in the puddles of despair with a bunch of parlor revolutionaries sitting sea-sick at the helm.


Indeed, the reformists, bromidic as they are, find it all too easy to praise themselves for maintaining “repeals” and libertarian “progresses” while ignoring the actual engines that support the continuously undermined revolution. Pointing towards the repeal of the Corn Laws in the 19^th century, for example, the reformists, dressed in their usual cloth of deceit, speak highly of the politician credited for the repeals, Robert Peel, while completely ignoring such valiant examples of direct action as the continued riots in London after the initial imposition of the acts, the common harassment and assault against the dreaded extortionists that attempted to collect the fees of intimidation for their king, or the rampant counter-economic acts of smuggling shipments bypassing British law. Clearly, despite this pompous back patting, any attempt to claim victory by the incompetent hands of the parlor revolutionary is a slap in the face to the radical – and a most comical one at that!


However, not to take the credit for these moments of clumsy self-defeat, made by mere drunkards, rakes, and fools claiming the good name of libertarian, we radicals by no means find any particular pride in these specific conclusions to our momentous actions. Much like an inebriate adolescent stealing his father’s new car, a car used to further the health of his family, and crashing it in a dramatic blaze only to roll out reeking of rum and whores, the reformists ruin our movement’s diction and utterly destroy its potential. Taking the incentive and hope away from our comrades, substituting it for eased lullabies of a soothsaying Satanist in politician’s clothing, the reformists are collectively a rapist of the movement, a defeatist on the battle field, a deserter, a Benedict Arnold, a cross to bear, and a beast of burden that can neither be reasoned with nor converted.


The words of Voltairine de Cleyre resonate here,

The words of resonate here,But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!

Absolutely, it is the reason why our libertarian movement so consistently fails today. Packed primarily with the weak, the paltry, the timid, we have a movement filled with few more than parlor revolutionaries – reformists! Working towards the complete demise of the Anarchists’ cause then, these beasts of burden, these cowards, these fools can be defined in no better terms than as counter-revolutionaries. They are the snakes, the sniveling brats of the family, and the frightened daughters of liberty walking demurely into the black night well behind their more radical siblings. A Tory in drag, the reformists identify primarily with the conservatives and so thus will their demeanor dictate – conservatively, frightened of change, and far too weak to be granted a place in this revolution!

So, when my comrades, my friends, and my allies ask why I detest the parlor revolutionaries, I reply thus: There is no greater burden to a movement than compromise – it is an ultimate corruption of the spirit, a sapping of hope, and a disenchantment with principle. Here, I can only say that I, as the brother of a movement thieved and kicked to the ground in a huddle by the reformist, identify with the brother of a sister raped by his supposed ally. Indeed, the reformists are a disease, a cancer, and a virus, so only after this cancer is purged, only after this tumor is removed by force, can the body of the libertarian movement succeed; only after the radicals stand up to the reformists, only after the counter-revolutionaries are beaten back to the swamps will there ever be a realization of libertarian principles.




So then let this be a beginning of a beginning of a revolution. Let this commence a New Libertarian Alliance, not just against the state, but against all enemies of freedom and radicalism. Make no doubt about it, our revolution will be sweet, our revolution will be pure, but this can only be so after the disease of compromise is purged and the trials of the reformists resolved.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

The Nail in the Coffin of "The Right"

[cross-posted at Brainpolice at The Mises Community]

It is common for many libertarians, especially those in America, to assume that they have a natural alliance with "the right". This is based on certain assumptions, such as the notion that contemporary libertarianism grew out of the old American conservative movement and that "the right" is generally supportive of less government and more free markets in comparison to "the left". In short, the libertarian who makes such assumptions is at least partially buying into the way in which the political spectrum is typically framed in contemporary public discourse, with "the right" standing for less and less government control and "the left" standing for more and more government control, with "the left" standing for collectivism and communism and "the right" standing for individualism and capitalism. One would think that the libertarian should know better than to buy into this false dichotomy. It eradicates all nuances.

I find such assumptions to be mistaken for a number of reasons. In historical terms, libertarianism predates the existance of contemporary American conservatism altogether and the term "libertarian" itself actually derives from certain socialists from the 19th century. And, the term libertarian itself aside, the bulk of those who are considered to be the forefathers of libertarian ideas were originally considered to be on "the left", including free market proponents. Furthermore, it seems to me to be the case that the bulk of self-identified "rightists" do not actually support a free market or any consistant philosophy of individualism. I see no serious compelling reason to assume that "the right" necessarily supports state power any less than "the left". Conservative devotion to individualism and free markets is largely rhetorical, not substantive. These are campaign slogans, not seriously or consistantly held philosophical positions.

If viewed in terms of the original meaning of the left-right political spectrum, the meaning that it had centuries ago, libertarians are actually on the "far left" while the conservatives are on "the far right". For the left originally was supposed to represent anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism and revolution, while the right was supposed to represent the status quo, the oligarchy and reactionaries. Taken in its original context, conservatism has always been the polar opposite of libertarianism or liberalism. Libertarians are often mislead by the modern assumption that "the left" is necessarily in favor of statism and opposed to free economic interaction. Since this is assumed about "the left", the libertarian may make the mistake of then concluding that "the right" is therefore their natural home on the political spectrum.

But what does "the right" of today really stand for? Not to make too hasty of a generalization, as a "rightist" may not necessarily support all of these things, but here's what immediately comes to mind: corporatism, protectionism, monarchy, theocracy, traditionalism, militarism, nationalism and racism. It is important to note that all of these things were strongly opposed by historical libertarians and classical liberals to varying degrees. Classical liberals tended to be cosmopolitans in their worldview, and therefore nationalism does not jibe very well with such a philosophy. They also respresented a radical divergence from past political traditions, which implies an opposition to monarchy and theocracy. And there was always a strong opposition to war and imperialism within the old libertarian "left". Furthermore, obviously any sensible understanding of free market economics would lead one to oppose protectionism and corporatism.

Why do I identify "the right" with these traits? Because as far as I can tell such traits are implicit in their own rhetoric and in the substantive content of their policy positions. Obviously I do not mean to lump all "rightists" together into one arbitrary camp, as there are different factions within the contemporary conservative movement. But each faction represents some selection among the listed traits. Neoconservatives tend to support corporatism and militarism. Paleoconservatives tend to support protectionism, nationalism and traditionalism. The Christian right tends to support theocracy. Furthermore, despite quibbles among different factions of conservatives, they all are united by an irrationalist opposition to anything that is considered to be part of "the left". When it comes down to it, many conservatives are willing to set aside their differences to function as reactionaries to what they commonly oppose. Therefore anti-communism, anti-Islam, anti-multiculturalism and anti-secular sentiments prevail.

The problem is that in the name of opposing such things, the conservative tends to enter into a desperate state in which they will support just about any means in the name of defeating their common enemies. Thus, whatever disposition they may have had towards restraint in political affairs is at least temporarily set aside. The communists, radical Islam, the secularists and multiculturalists must be defeated at all costs first - then, only when the enemies have been defeated, we can worry about restraining the government, freeing up the economy and adhering to a non-interventionist foreign policy. But even when one boogeyman is defeated, it usually is replaced with another one. Thus, when the Soviet Union fell and left a void of rationales for foreign policy interventions, radical Islam was then used as the new rationale.

Even if the conservative is somewhat or even entirely correct in opposing something, such as a communism, they may tend to make the mistake of going on to form or join equally dangerous reactionary movements and end up supporting other things that should merit opposition as well. In short, they fall into the trap of thinking that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". But it does not logically follow that since one opposes communism, one must join forces with the fascists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes social democracy, one must join forces with the monarchists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes the state's discrimination laws, one must join forces with white nationalists. It does not logically follow that since one opposes government ownership of the means of production, one must indiscriminately support corporations.

The economic views of contemporary conservatism are also very warped. For the modern conservative does not support laissez-faire, but some form of a mixed economy or corporate state. Sure, the conservative's rhetoric is often devoted to laissez-faire, but their support for "capitalism" is more often than not merely a knee-jerk apologia for current economic conditions, corporations and the rich, irrespective of wether or not it has anything to do with laissez-faire. In short, the contemporary conservative often ends up using the term "free market" to describe and legitimize what we currently have. But we do not currently have a free market. The average conservative has not read Ludwig Von Mises or Frederic Bastiat. Their support for "capitalism" is more or less merely cultural, not an informed and substantive position. All they know is that they oppose "socialism" and "communism", and "capitalism" is the opposite of those things, therefore they must support whatever "capitalism" is. But their "capitalism" happens to be either the status quo (or elements of it at least) or some romantisized past utopia.

Since the conservative tends to conflate laissez-faire with corporatism or the effects of a mixed corporatist economy with "the free market", actual consistant proponents of laissez-faire may actually be demonized and brushed aside as being "socialists", since a consistant adherance to laissez-faire would naturally lead one to oppose corporatism. The conservative loves to see red where it does not really exist, therefore going on red-baiting witch hunts. The conservative may see red in positions that don't necessarily have anything to do with being a communist, such as opposition to political borders and support for multiculturalism. They accept an absurd false dichotomy: either you support the conservative agenda or you are a "far leftist". A "far leftist" is defined quite simply as anyone who disagrees with the conservative to any significant extent.

While there certainly are conservative intellectuals, the average conservative does not derive their position from any serious study of philosophy, economics or history. They derive their position from the media, their parents and cultural cliches. They are brought up to believe that whatever the conservative establishment happens to be supporting equates to small government, free markets and individualism - and that everyone and everything else is more or less a representation of big bad communism and "big government". In contemporary politics, conservatism has more to do with one's cultural preferances than any half-seriously thought out political philosophy. Dimwitted talkings heads such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter determines the conservative's views rather than anything remotely resembling a rational thought process.

What does the libertarian truly have in common with the contemporary right? In my estimation, very little. What they have in common is a matter of rhetoric and to some limited degree over what they are opposed to. But the libertarian ultimately has no compelling reason to support what the contemporary right does. For the contemporary right is largely a reactionary statist movement. Figures such as Ronald Reagen and Pat Buchannan are not particularly libertarian, despite any correct positions they may hold to on certain individual issues. Contemporary conservatism is just another brand of statism.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Obedience

An excerpt from a recent AP article about the Latter Day Saints polygamy situation reads as follows:

An expert in children in cults testified Friday that while the teen girls believed they were marrying out of free choice, it's a choice based on lessons they've had from birth.

"Obedience is a very important element of their belief system," said psychiatrist Bruce Perry, who interviewed three girls seized in the April 3 raid. "Compliance is being godly, it's part of their honoring God."

He also said that many of the adults at the Yearning For Zion Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them.

But, he noted, the sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian."

This is interesting. Now, as far I can determine, “obedience” and “compliance” are not exactly the same thing from a behavioral science standpoint. Nonetheless, the aforementioned psychiatrist uses the two words interchangeably, so I'm left to deduce that only one definition applies. After all, it doesn't make any sense to use two words interchangeably but insist upon incompatible definitions.

This leaves the following possibilities:

Obedience - 1. the state or quality of being obedient; 2. the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance.

Compliance - 1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding; 2. a tendency to yield readily to others, esp. in a weak and subservient way; 3. conformity; accordance; 4. cooperation or obedience.

Essentially, all of these definitions are just alternate ways of describing the same behavior. The difference-maker is what leads one to the behavior. For example, a person might obey or comply out of respect, agreement or a desire to bring about certain ends within a group. On the other hand, one might obey or comply due to brainwashing or the threat or actuality of violence, such as within some oppressive variety of institutional framework.

So I'm reminded of another demand for obedience:

“Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.” -Theodore Roosevelt

Indeed, the very nature of government is authoritarian, not unlike a cult that either trains its subjects to comply or forces compliance by projecting an authoritative air. A cult like the Latter Day Saints appeals to an invisible deity that is claimed to exist while having all the properties of nonexistence, while the state similarly derives its authority from nothing but mystical ideas like “social contract” and “consent of the governed,” yet demands unquestioning loyalty and capitulation.

A notable distinction here is that, in the case of the state, humans at least exist. However, the humans who ultimately enforce the edicts and whims of faceless gods are every bit as corporeal as those who wield pen or rifle in the name of the state.

Ultimately, the million-dollar question is this:

If members of an institution hold obedience to be “a very important part of their belief system,” and this is the cornerstone for a culture that is “very authoritarian,” then what is the logical conclusion regarding a state that operates in exactly the same manner?

It's not that statism is a cult per se. Still, one must engage in brazen hypocrisy in order to condemn the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a cult while defending the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a state.

--

Originally published at LessGovernment.com.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Rights and Entitlements

[Cross-posted on Back to the Drawing Board]

Libertarian conceptions of justice are built around the idea that there are certain things which we may not do to people, because as individuals and ends in themselves, they are not to be used against their will for the benefit of others. These ideas are usually represented through the notion of “rights” that individuals have. But while the concept of a “right” may seem simple, there are some difficulties in understanding exactly how they are supposed to function. Because we will be dealing extensively with issues involving rights, it seems important to pin down precisely what it means to have a right to something.

The simplest conception of rights argues that to have the right to something is to be entitled to it, so that its absence constitutes a rights-violation. But this immediately leads to difficulties. For example, as surely as I have a right to anything, I have the right not to have my leg chopped off. But if I chopped my own leg off, it would seem odd to say that my rights had been violated.

Perhaps, then, we would amend our conception of rights to say that to have a right to something is to be entitled to not being deprived of it by forces external to the holder of the right. But this too is problematic. It seems fair to say that just as clearly as I have the right to not have my leg chopped off, I have the right not to be killed. But if I fell ill with a deadly disease, it would seem absurd to say that the pathogens violated my rights.

Accordingly, we might respond that to have a right does not protect us against all external deprivations, but rather against being deprived of the object of our right by other moral agents. But again, we are faced with problems. Returning to the right not to be killed, we find that there are times where others would not act badly if they killed us. The most obvious example is self-defense.If I attack you with a knife, and the only way to stop me would be to take my life, it would surely be permissible for you to do so.

Further sharpening our conception of rights, we might therefore say that to have a right to something means to be entitled against deprivation of it by other moral agents, except when the right-holder has somehow “aggressed” against someone else.But once again, counterexamples present themselves. Joel Feinberg writes:

Suppose that you are on a backpacking trip in the high mountain country when an unanticipated blizzard strikes the area with such ferocity that your life is imperiled. Fortunately, you stumble upon an unoccupied cabin, locked and boarded up for the winter, clearly somebody else’s private property. You smash in a window, enter, and huddle in a corner for three days until the storm abates. During this period you help yourself to your unknown benefactor’s food supply and burn his wooden furniture in the fireplace to keep warm. Surely you are justified in doing all these things, and yet you have infringed the clear rights of another person.

I think that Feinberg is obviously right to say that you would be justified in doing this, even though the victim in this case would not be in any way responsible for your situation. It might be clear by now that what we seem to be working towards is the idea that to have a right to something is closest to being entitled not to be deprived of it by others in the absence of certain kinds of morally significant reasons for doing so.

This conclusion seems fitting when we recall that rights reflect the respect due to others in light of their individuality and inherent worth. Properly respecting someone does not mean that we must avoid infringing their rights at all costs. Rather, it means that we must take their rights into consideration very seriously, and only infringe upon them when doing so is necessary, and when doing so would show due respect to the victims of our actions.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Anarchism = A Global Federation Of Unions?

Over at youtube, Orenazt makes a great video about the problems with the irrationally anti-market segments within anarchism, particularly the anarcho-syndicalists. One has reason to suspect that some or even many or most of them are statists.

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Pragmatism and Radicalism in Public Discourse

Politics and political discourse is largely pragmatic rather than principled. The disagreements between most politicians and political intellectuals are not substantive or qualative so much as quantative and over particulars and application tactics - over irrelevancies even. Political discourse in the media establishes a broad framework of "political correctness" that effectively establishes customary guidelines for debate which narrows the scope of discussion. This creates an ideological status quo, so to speak. It establishes limited cliche molds that people are expected to fit into.

Despite seeming wide disagreements, certain fundamental premises are implicitly supported without any real debate over them. What is quibbled over is a matter of how political power should be used or applied, to what extent it should be used, to which interests it should be used to benefit, who should wield it, and so on. The premise of the legitimacy of political power itself is simply assumed. The necessity of the institution itself, the positions of power within it, their power to decide on such matters in the first place and the formal precedents about how the institution is internally run are all assumed premises before any disagreement may take place.

Essentially all politicians (and the vast majority of people for that matter) support the alleged necessity of the state, taxation, political borders, government provided defense, government courts, the institution of voting and wealth redistribution to some degree. No politician, to my knowledge, advocates the abolition of any of those things. Their disagreements are quantative and pragmatic: how much of them should there be, how big or small should they be, which interests should they be used to benefit, what type of taxes there should be, what the tax rate should be, how the borders should be drawn up, when or when not the military should be used, and so on.

In contrast, the radical addresses the fundamentals and qualative issues. They ask the questions that are mostly overlooked and shunned. Is political power legitimate? Are political jurisdictions or borders legitimate? Is it legitimate to invade countries? Is taxation legitimate? Is the state truly necessary? Is political leadership as a general position ethical? Does voting really work or mean anything significant? The radical, in their persuit of logical consistancy, finds that the assumed premises of political discourse are false. The bulk of political discourse starts to henceforth look like a joke or a swirling pool of irrelevancies.

From the viewpoint of the radical, scruples over what the government should spend tax money on or what policy a government service should adhere to are entirely beside the point, as they overlook the fundamental question as to whether or not the government should spend any tax money at all or whether or not the government should provide those services at all. If, through reason, one establishes that the assumed premises are false or that there is an inconsistancy in the application of principles then then such matters become non-issues that are easily resolvable (specifically, that free association resolves disputes over institutional policies).

The pragmatist functions on the basis of compromise, while the radical functions on the basis of principle. The pragmatist's position may oppurtunistically change over time to appease various conditions or circumstances, while the radical's position maintains the fixity of consistancy and certainty. The pragmatist sacrifices principle A in the name of principle B, or no principle at all. The radical always holds up current institutions and circumstances up to an independant standard.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

The Anarchy Boogeyman

Thanks to the hilarious cartoons made at anarchyinyourhead.com

The Anarcho-Statists

[cross-posted at Brainpolice at The Mises Community]

For quite some time now, Kevin Carson has critisized what he calls "vulgar libertarianism". Vulgar libertarian is a tendency of some libertarians, particularly those with an affinity for "the right", to function as apologists for currently existing economic conditions and corporations as if they came about as the result of "the free market" and even outright advocate statist policies in the name of "the free market". In short, they defend the effects of corporatism in the name of "the free market". For the most part, I find Carson's criticisms in this regaurd to be fairly spot on. Vulgar libertarianism is indeed a considerable problem.

However, there is another tendency displayed by some of the libertarian "left" that sort of runs in the other direction. If the vulgar libertarian could be said to concentrate on anti-statism and anti-socialism while ignoring the problems of corporatism and non-governmental forms of exploitation (or making apologetics for the results of the corporatist economy), a significant portion of social anarchists would appear to display the opposite problem: they concentrate so much on anti-capitalism that they start to neglect the problem of statism and function as a apologists for state-socialism. In short, they underemphasize and seem blind to the degree of power that the state has and how it effects matters.

While the vulgar libertarian functions as an apologist for gigantic corporations, the virtuently anti-capitalist libertarian functions as an apologist for state bereaucracies and coercive labor unions. Indeed, much of the valid complaints that the libertarian left makes about the modern chartered corporation applies just as much so to modern chartered unions. For the most part, modern unions are by no means free associations. They are cartels with government privileges and they function much like corporations (even with mergers). This is a problem that particularly applies to anarcho-syndicalists, who envision unions as their main strategic means to bringing about a free society. 

But the problem cuts much deeper than coercive unions. For while the virulent social anarchist opposes what they see as being "private tyrannies", a temptation arises to view the state as a more benevolent alternative. The prospect that the state's intervention itself brought about such "private tyrannies" to begin with seems dim or unfathomable to some social anarchists. Instead, they tend to see it as an inevitable result of the market itself. Consequentially, it would appear that they can only turn to the state to crack down on the allegedly private sector created problems. The state appears to be a balancing force that can potentially help alleviate "private tyranny". To these people, government provided goods and services is seen as preferable in comparison to private or corporate provision.

Due to this confusion, some social anarchists are actually functioning as state-socialists in disguise. I have seen this myself first-hand. They will defend blatantly statist ideas and policies such as national healthcare, the minimum wage, anti-trust and personal welfare. They are essentially duped by the populist rhetoric behind such policies that panders to sentiments of empathy towards the poor and needy (and derision towards the wealthy and powerful). They fail to see how, if anything, these policies are substantively more corporatist than not. And they fail to see how such interventions would blatantly contradict anarchism. Such policies are supported in the name of alleviating conditions that are thought of as being the inevitable result of private property and the market economy.

If all of the problems in society are blamed entirely on private property and the profit motive, it is easy to see why one would tend to view state intervention (backed up by egalitarian rhetoric) as a solution or "lesser evil". But an informed social anarchist should know better than to overlook the institutional role of the state in such problems, let alone see the state as a solution. They should not accept the false choice between state tyranny and private tyranny, or between state-socialism and corporatism. Opposition to corporatism should not blind one to the evils of the state apparatus itself. 

In order to have a more sound view of matters, the social anarchist should temper or modify their position in certain ways. For one thing, they should aschew the Marxist class analysis, which largely neglects the role of the state in class conflict (as well as the role of the enterprenuer in an economy). Furthermore, they should have a better understanding of how modern welfare states formed on the behalf of big buisiness with the purpose of cartelizing economies. They need to understand how government intervention in an economy creates the conditions they abhor and benefits the private groups that they despise. Otherwise, there will be an overwhelming tendency to drift towards state-socialism.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Net Neutrality Is Irrelevant

Originally posted at RationalAnimal.net

I'm sure that, like me, most of you have seen some political buzz on the internet regarding Net Neutrality. For those that haven't, Net Neutrality is essentially a form of state regulation that requires internet service providers provide equal access to all parts of the internet, disallowing them from restricting access or bandwidth to certain sites.

Now to a right-libertarian minarchist, which I used to be a little over a year ago, this comes across as pointless and immoral regulation of the free market. After all, if I am selling access to a given network, don't I have the right to dictate the terms on which I allow access? Isn't this a violation of my property right in my own network that links the end user to the internet?

To a "liberal" statist, Net Neutrality is a defense of free speech and a blow at corporate hegemony. The people have a right to access the whole internet, they say, and the corporations have no right to deny this when they sell internet access.

This is all complicated by the fact that the creation of the Internet was not a private matter but directly the result of state funding and research. Couldn't it be argued that, if our tax dollars helped pay for the internet, that we have a right to access all of it without bias? After all, internet service providers are essentially profiting from providing access to a valuable resource that the American public funded.

So the question we arrive at is, from a consistent left-libertarian perspective, is Net Neutrality good or bad?

Most of the arguments regarding Net Neutrality fall on the false premise that what we have is essentially a free market, and that the debate is over whether or not regulation is necessary over this part of the market.

But we do not have a free market. The entire system is arranged such that large corporations and the state are in bed with one another. Large corporations like Verizon and Comcast get an unfair market advantage due to a number of interventionist economic regulations, such as limited liability, etc. I won't go into the details here but I highly recommend Kevin Carson's book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy for a more detailed analysis.

So what does this mean for Net Neutrality? If such regulation is put into place, the state wins; it has its foot in the door to begin regulating and censoring the internet. If such regulation is not put into place, the large corporations win, they have their foot in the door to begin regulating and censoring the internet.

In either case, none of us win. The myth behind Net Neutrality is that it means that we, the people, will control access to the internet. In reality, it'll simply determine which side of our statist/corporatist ruling class gets to regulate and censor the internet.

As far as personal preference goes, I'd prefer that Net Neutrality regulation is not implemented for the simple reason that right now I can access the whole internet with little to no bias in what I access. Passing new regulation could change that by placing new power into the hands of the state to regulate the internet.

Ultimately though, it's not going to impact anyone outside of the ruling class much either way. It's only a matter of time before the internet starts to see regulation and censorship, and it really doesn't matter which part of the ruling class is doing it. We lose either way.

The Virtues of Agorism: A Direct Action

Cross posted at The Kingdom of God is Within You


On the topic of revolution, the much confused art form devoted to change and progress without the vulgarities of politics, the generic "libertarian" line too often, and disappointingly so, delegates down to a kind of parlor revolutionary stand of "working from within." Even when alternatives are proposed, the very diseased mindset of a parlor revolutionary is such that the infection is often too much to cure. Indeed, though well documented and argued against, the parlor revolutionaries, stuck in the mud of political discourse, ignore the calls for a rejection of political engagements.


Despite the mumblings of an incoherent desire, however, there does in fact exist an alternative. An alternative that does not lead to roundabout ventures and silly campaigns for old xenophobes and a nostalgic fantasy of historic events. No, this alternative, this opportunity for revolution exists well within the framework of libertarian principles. Indeed, the call to a true revolution, a call to a true progress for the libertarian movement can only come through the voice of action - direct action!

Says the exquisite Voltairine de Cleyre,

But the evil of pinning faith to indirect action is far greater than any such minor results. The main evil is that it destroys initiative, quenches the individual rebellious spirit, teaches people to rely on someone else to do for them what they should do for themselves; finally renders organic the anomalous idea that by massing supineness together until a majority is acquired, then through the peculiar magic of that majority, this supineness is to be transformed into energy. That is, people who have lost the habit of striking for themselves as individuals, who have submitted to every injustice while waiting for the majority to grow, are going to become metamorphosed into human high-explosives by a mere process of packing!

Still though, what tactics should be employed? What kind of revolution can we partake in? Shall we settle for the failed plots of mere general strikes or campaigns centered around the concept of propagande par le fait? Or should we plan a new attack, one well defined and capable of successfully implementing a real revolution within the structure of libertarian principles? Indeed, the choice seems clear. But what is this magic philosophy? This strategy for revolution?


Developed by Samuel Edward Konkin III, the philosophy of Agorism finds its novelty in the advocacy of using entrepreneurship to slowly bleed the beast leviathan while nourishing from that blood. By involving the movement in black and grey markets, also known as the counter-economy, the Agorists, the revolutionaries, will build a network of alternative markets both causing an outflow of capital from the state and straining it with pressure from revolutionary cells planning mass conversions, strikes, demonstrations, and retaliations for statist acts of aggression. Even more, by developing a system of apolitical revolution, the Agorist process will so empower individuals in the movement that by the end of the state's reign of terror and with justice rising from the eastern horizon, the comparison in strength between the radical revolutionaries and the statist forces of oppression will be so far apart that it will make state troops look like mere mice against the backdrop of the powerful and glorious Revolutionary Agorist Cadre.


Again, though revolutions are hard, painstaking, and difficult to implement the only way, the only chance the libertarian movement has to win in the war against the state - a war it loses time and time again in parliament - is to rely on the libertarian's one strength, entrepreneurship and the market's superior system of weeding out the ideas of weak and strong.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Two Philosophies of History

[cross-posted at Brainpolice at The Mises Community]

Political philosophies often involve views of history. There seems to be two fundamental views of history, as I have touched on in "Traditionalism as Stagnation" and "Radicalism and Moderation". These two views are what I would call the "conservative" and "progressive" views of history. I would like to elaborate on the ups and downs of both of these views of history and to explain why I ultimately side with a progressive view of history and consider it to be compatible with and perhaps even essential to libertarianism.

The conservative view of history may be summed as either the desire to keep things the same or the romantization of the past. The progressive view of history may be summed up as a desire to see things change or the idea that things progress and evolve over time. By definition, the progressive view is more foreward looking, and as a consequence it is quick to abandon traditions. It easily leads to notions of social evolution. In contrast, the conservative view is pessemstic towards the future and consequentially clings to tradition and even aims at reversing history in some respects. The progressive view could be said to be comparatively optimistic because there is something to possibly look foreward to, and therefore it would seem like it has the potential to be radical and revolutionary, while the conservative view easily becomes reactionary and counter-revolutionary.

The marxist view of history, in which communism is proclaimed without proof as being an inevitable future stage of history, is an example of progressivism. On the other hand, progressivism of a quite different sort was espoused by Herbert Spencer, in which social evolution necessitates adaptation to man's environment through increased individual freedom in accordance with the laws of nature. An example of the conservative view would be rigid religious or cultural traditionalism, in which changes that have occured in recent times, such as the move towards secularism and cultural tolerance, are radically opposed while systems of the past are held up as the ideal.

When understood in their proper context, both views have lead to both erroneous and correct conclusions. The conservative view always faces the danger of becoming primitivism or ludditism, in which more simple, agrarian and tribal living of the past is considered the ideal. And progressivism always faces the danger of becoming unenthusiastic and desensitized to the present, or of becoming overly utopian by basing the allegedly "inevitable" future on false notions about human nature. Hence, the social evolutionist faces a danger of becoming more gradualist. Such was Murray Rothbard's diagnosis of what happened to the social evolutionist Herbert Spencer as he aged.

But there have also been some good tendencies on both sides. The wise progressive possesses the insight that it is possible to improve conditions through both social evolution and revolution. They are aware that there things that have not been tried yet, at least fully. The progressive has reason for optimism toward the future. The wise conservative possesses the insight that there are certain basic principles or laws which are necessary for order to flourish. They are aware that there is much to be learned from the thinkers and writters of the past, and that there are some things that will never go away.

Where the progressive may err is over the question of how to go about changing things and what to change to, and in exessive optimism. Change for its own sake, divorced from context, is not rational. Neither is a utopian view of the future. Where the conservative may err is in the inability to aknowledge the changes and extensions that have been made upon the basic principles and laws of the past, and in their exessive pessemism toward the future. Tradition for its own sake, divorced from context and new information, is not rational. Neither is a utopian view of the past.

However, despite such a neutral comparative analysis, ultimately the progressive view has certain benefits that is lacking in the conservative view. For as Frank Zappa once stated, "progress is not possible without deviation from the norm". All innovations had to result from deviations from, modifications on and the total abandonment or replacement of past traditions. The conservative ends up functioning as an apologist for the status quo in the name of a false sense of realism, while inaccurately demonizing all progressive forces as idealist or utopian. The more successful progressive forces are, the more the conservative enters a state of desperation. At best, the conservative can only be a moderate, while the progressive at least has the potential to be a libertarian. The only thing that the strict conservative could concieve of abolishing is modernity, for when driven to their extremes the conservative effectively becomes anti-modern.

Allow me to apply these two basic views via historical example. When there was slavery in America, there were three basic positions with respect to chattel slavery. There were the slavery abolitionists, the slavery reformists and the outright slavery supporters. In the context of the times, the application of the conservative view of history inevitably would lead one to be a slavery supporter or a mild reformist at best, for this view would treat slavery as if it were virtually an inevitable law of nature that always has been and always must be. In this view surely the abolitionists were far too radical and utopian. Consequentially, the conservative view could only lead to a passive acceptance of the existance of the institution of slavery while possibly trying to minimize its effects if one is slightly generous. Only the progressive radicalism of the abolitionists could truly represent a principled opposition to slavery.

The same principle applies to any other institution or tradition, such as the state. By their own logic, the conservative has no choice but to conclude that because the state currently exists and has prevailed in the past, it inevitably must exist by necessity of human nature. Indeed, the conservative view easily leads to extremely pessemistic notions about human nature that are used to legitimize current conditions and institutions. All inequities can be brushed off as mere inadequacies of nature, and all positions of power can be legitimized as the consequence of inexorable laws of nature. Libertarianism and anarchism, in contrast, questions the alleged legitimacy of the state and consistantly applies the same human principles to state agents as they would to any other individual. It questions whether or not existing institutions and traditions are particularly necessary or ethical or logical at all.

The level-headed progressive does not necessarily have to be a starry-eyed utopian. For the progressive may very well grant that there will always be some degree of inadequacy and suffering in life. What they seek to abolish is not reality itself but the synthetic institutional framework that allows such things to be expanded and traditionalized. The constant charge of utopianism thrown at the progressive by the moderate or conservative thus becomes a mischaracterization. The progressive libertarian is neither a utopian or a conservative. Rather, they are radical bastions of vigilance and certainty. The libertarian stands on the side of social power rather than political power, and they do not cave in to moderate and conservative pressure. Neither would it be accurate to blame the libertarian of being only against things and for nothing, for while they certainly may wish to deconstruct certain things they also propose the construction of new things.

The conservative is ultimately a mere apologist or shill for power, while the libertarian is a delegitimizer of power. While the libertarian has a possible future to look foreward to, the conservative is ultimately doomed because they are attempting the impossible: a static society. Despite their sense of being realistic, the conservative refuses to accept the dynamic nature of reality. The future lies with the libertarians.

Don't Support The Troops!

Originally posted at RationalAnimal.net

I've noticed that it's become popular for people to say things like "I don't support the war, but I do support our troops." This always seemed strange to me; imagine if someone said "I don't support murder, but I do support our murderers." You'd think he'd gone crazy, and rightly so. After all, if you don't support a given behavior, it seems strange to support those performing the behavior of their own free will.

We have a completely voluntary military, and only adults can join. Adults that have the same rational faculty and access to information that you and I do. If I am capable of understanding that the military is a murderous group of thugs that support a violent minarchy-gone-wrong, then they are too.

This of course means that the troops, just like everyone else, are ethically responsible for their decisions and actions. If someone joins the military and commit acts of theft, murder, rape, etc. then they are not a good person, even if they think that they are. Would a random murderer be a good person just because he actually believed his murders were morally good?

I think the "I don't support the war, but I do support our troops," viewpoint ultimately stems from a desire to still believe that the United States of America is good, righteous and just. Pretending that the U.S. government is simply making a judgment error when warring with Iraq makes it easier to rationalize this viewpoint.

If we accept that not supporting the war logically means not supporting those who make war possible (the troops), this leads us down the road of questioning the moral nature of the state itself. After all, if the state is responsible for evil, doesn't that make the state evil? It's easier to not think about this or its implications and to instead come up with "I don't support the war, but I do support our troops."

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Conservative Quandary

The American Right is in total disarray. Proponents of “conservatism” currently find themselves mindlessly repeating familiar old drivel while faced with the unrelenting reality of their failed (and increasingly incoherent) philosophy. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the ever-growing digital landscape of blogs, news sites and discussion boards.

Recently, a Yahoo! Answers user named “Nikki S” posted the following question:

Are today's conservatives the same type of people the Founding Fathers fought to overthrow?

Some of the responses so far have been . . . telling.

bugeyes forever
No. Are you the same type of lib who owned slaves.

Zippy980
Just the opposite my friend. Liberals want to raise your taxes and put the Goverment in control of more aspects of your life. This is what the Revolution was fighting against.

joshsybs
Oh come on!
Are you forced to follow a religion of state and governed by your religious performance?
Read some history books.

joe b
Look into the tangible way these men conducted their lives post Constitution and one can easily see that they were Christian for the most part and used Christian language and prayer within the law making bodies of this country. They used public funds for religious purposes in varying ways. The left wing cannot hide this although they chose to ignore it.

Revisionist Historian
You mean the libs?
Haters of morality
Pseudo-Intellectuals
Slaves to sex, money, and racism
Lovers of Islam

southernmale42
The liberals would be. Our Founding Fathers were very RIGHT WINGED.
Besides, you can't compare then and now, different time, different people, different circumstances.

shutupdummy
todays liberals are, they have no faith in our might as a nation, even the self proclaimed liberal gods like kerry and rockerfeller want nothing more than to damage our military by their actions and words......

The sampling above covers most of the common conservative responses when they are faced with the inevitable contradiction between their purported beliefs and how those beliefs manifest in practice. “Bugeyes forever” and “Revisionist Historian” expertly demonstrate the belligerence that is as popular as it is inevitable. “Zippy980” is in denial, clearly rejecting the obvious fact that the last 7+ years have seen a conservative administration inserting itself into citizens lives in ways never before witnessed on American soil. “Joshsybs” believes that our current lack of witch-burnings and an official state religion somehow justifies the faith-based orgy that is the U.S. Government.

“Joe b” cites the religious beliefs of long-dead men as a valid excuse for funding religion at the point of a gun today. “Southernmale42” proudly shows the world his sheer ignorance, since the Founding Fathers were extremely liberal in their time; so while one should not conflate classical liberalism with the socialistic statism that passes for it today, it's quite a stretch to assert that Jefferson and company were “right-winged.”

Lastly, “shutupdummy” makes the disturbingly prevalent conservative error of labeling state-worship a virtue — which means he should actually love these liberals, but I suppose his sect worships only the state's war machine, while those evil left-wing heretics have the audacity to pay homage to other gods, like welfare. Yeah, didn't you know? Robbing the people to pay for A is so fundamentally different from robbing the people to pay for B....

This insanity is not limited to Yahoo!, of course. Rush Limbaugh, who has given perpetual head to George W. Bush since before the 2000 election, recently went ape-shit on atheism. He's apparently jumping on Ben Stein's Expelled bandwagon, which has fundies everywhere frothing at the mouth. Resultantly, Rush sees the same godless conspiracy in academia that Pat Robertson has been telling us about for years (and Ben Stein is now repeating). Guess what, Rush? Intelligent design isn't science! Claiming that creationists are victims of unjust discrimination within the scientific community is tantamount to making the same claim about flat-earth proponents.

The coming election should prove interesting. Limbaugh and his ditto-heads have long derided the “liberalism” of crazy John McCain. Now that McCain looks to be the guy for the Republicrat Party, hilarity very well might ensue.

In related news, the current issue of WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine features an exposé titled “The Secret Life of Barack Obama.” This piece purportedly, “reveals [Obama] to be one of the most dangerous men ever to be considered for the presidency of the United States of America.” Granted, WND routinely lambastes left-wing politicians, but what strikes me as odd is that there is very little praise for John McCain to be found amidst all the criticism of Democrats. I think this speaks volumes about the conundrum 2008 has presented to the right wing, particularly religious fundamentalists.

The rhetoric is there as it always has been, but the results — bloated government, oppression and perpetual war — speak for themselves. For all their delusions and fakery, America's confused conservatives might see a raving state socialist in the White House come 2009. I for one think they deserve it. It is regrettable, however, that these rulers who quibble over who holds the gun in a given four-year span flatly refuse to restrict their violence to their own. If that were the case, I could perhaps keep track of political silliness without having my amusement clouded by a dark foreboding.

Originally published at LessGovernment.com.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

A Note on the "Social Contract"

I hear people talking about a social contract all the time. Usually in the context of some authoritarian action by the government, instituted many times by the “will” of the majority (this is really a misnomer in itself, since the majority doesn’t participate in the process). I have referred to this previously as “the common good”, but the idea is really one in the same.

I want to point out, right off the bat, that when I refer to a social contract in this piece, I am discussing the idea of a perpetual social contract. There is nothing inherently wrong with a social contract provided it passes a few simple tests. First, there must be a way (without giving up anything you have acquired) to get out of the contract. Second, it can not be enforced through force against the unwilling. Third, each person involved in the contract must consent to all areas of the contract. Failure to meet at least these three simple tests would render ANY contract null and void.

Rousseau

The actions that are being called a social contract don’t even really qualify as such. Jean-Jacques Rousseau first published his theory on the social contract, “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”, in 1762. The idea was that a perfect society would operate on the “general will” of the people. He suggests that the way to achieve this is for the people to gather together and come to a consensus on the actions the government could take. Without this consensus from the people, any action taken by the government would be illegitimate. The sovereignty of the individual was still paramount, the representatives couldn’t even participate in the decision making process.

Three main points to Rousseau’s theory were;

THE Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.
Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.
The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.

Rousseau, like any intelligent person, knew that it was illogical for a person to volunteer to be a slave. So his vision of a social contract also stated that a person could leave the contract at anytime and be free from the confines of it. He broke the social contract down into two groups; the sovereign (the people) and the government. Another interesting point to Rousseau’s social contract is that the larger the sovereign, the larger the government. The larger the government the more power it would be able to wield. When the government begins to force compliance to this social contract on anyone unwillingly, it has obviously become, not a social contract, but an authoritarian power grab.

John Locke

In Locke’s second treatise on government, “An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government”, he equates a social contract with the laws of nature. In their natural state, man enjoys complete freedom, but there are some confines to what they can and can’t do. He states that people have a natural right to “life, health, liberty, or possessions". Any person that commits aggression against those natural rights is entering into an act of war. Locke’s belief was that a state of war was likely to continue, because each act in a state of war was is an act of aggression on the others natural rights. Whereas a state of nature is absolute freedom, based on morals and not politics, Locke felt that to protect those natural rights it was acceptable for people to enter (again, voluntarily) into a social contract to provide that protect. They could form civil governments, giving up their personal and individual sovereignty, to a body with the authority to punish those who transgress against others.

The important thing to consider with both of these theories of a social contract, the individual enters into them of their own free will and can leave them at anytime they see fit.

Bakunin

There is a great quote by Mikhail Bakunin, in “The Immorality of the State”…

A tacit contract! That is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract: a revolting nonsense! An absurd fiction, and what is more, a wicked fiction! An unworthy hoax! For it assumes that while I was in a state of not being able to will, to think, to speak, I bound myself and all my descendants-only by virtue of having let myself be victimized without raising any protest - into perpetual slavery.

The acceptance of a social contract implies that the state or the originators of the social contract had a superior set of ethics or morals and that their “consensus” was based on an unchanging universal truth. Obviously this isn’t true or even desirable. When we look at the changes in our society, we can see that our forefathers couldn’t see the future. The leaps in technology, manufacturing, the evolution of the market, the accumulation of government power, the blurring of class lines, none of these things were or could have been foreseen. Any social contract based on their circumstances, with their world view, would only be applicable for as long as each of the participants involved wished to participate and nothing in their society was subject to change.

When Bakunin wrote about being victimized into perpetual slavery, he was referring to being bound to a set of rules that you have no choice but to be bound too. The way the government ensures that the “sovereign” people are bound to this contract is through the use of force and the enforced monopoly on the land within its borders. Any contract that you can not opt out of is not only immoral and invalid, but it is nothing more than a form of slavery. Taxation to enforce that slavery is nothing but theft.

The Adulterated Social Contract

The founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, were heavily influenced by Locke. The idea of a social contract was attractive to a group of people that wanted to ensure the maximum freedom for themselves. They wrote up a contract (the constitution) that stated how it would work. When they had finished their work, someone asked Franklin what they had done, his famous response, “A Republic, if you can keep it”, has been widely quoted and often commented on. But the point of the comment shouldn’t be lost. A Republic is a form of government where the supreme power rests in the hands of the power. That part is easy to understand, but the second part, “if you can keep it”, is something we should examine. My belief is that Franklin knew that, minus the informed consent of the people, the Republic was non-existent.

Between the time Franklin uttered that phrase and the civil war, many people decided to opt out of that social contract. Sometimes they negotiated further terms, sometimes they just moved on, but participation was always voluntary and force was not used for the sole purpose of holding them in subjection to that contract. Of course, the great tyrant came along and changed that. Lincoln, contrary to the legitimate powers granted the government, took upon himself the task of destroying the voluntary aspect of the social contract. He set about centralizing all government power to the federal arena and set in motion the destruction of the Republic.

The Bastar-d Children

Today the idea of a social contract that holds the “Union” together is one of the most widespread misconceptions. Most people don’t understand what the concept of a social contract entails. Above all else, it is a voluntary situation. Being able to vote is not the same thing as being able to withdraw. If you can’t withdraw or abstain from a situation, it is not voluntary. Sometimes you will hear people saying, “If you don’t like it, leave it.” Great concept except that it violates the right of the people to their possessions. And there is a balance due. Since Lincoln violated the contract, all laws and taxes that have been forced on the people must be repaid. But that is a topic for another post.

Originally posted on From The Mind of IrishOutlaw