Loving Non-Libertarians As If They Never Hurt You…
One of the greatest challenges in the libertarian movement is reaching out to non-libertarians. Some people within the libertarian movement – due to frustration no doubt – have developed a rather scornful attitude towards non-libertarians. I believe that this is the greatest inhibitor to our eventual success as a movement, and I would like to make the case here for benevolence and respect towards non-libertarians.
As an intellectual movement, we will only succeed if we change the mind of others, and so discovering the most effective methods of communication is essential. And before asking how we should change other people's minds, it is well worth asking: what changed my mind?
I believe that the answer to this question will not only new breed more effective communication, but will also foster a growing benevolence towards non-libertarians.
In my own case, libertarianism was an “instant high” for me – and was also almost totally accidental! A friend of mine listened to the rock band Rush, whose drummer was a fan of Ayn Rand. My friend passed me a copy of The Fountainhead, and I fell in love with the ideas within about two pages.
Almost all libertarians that I have ever talked to had a similar kind of “instant epiphany,” wherein they felt that a new world opening up for them, and that they were able to start really using their minds the first time in their lives.
When you really take the time to sit down and ruminate on this process, it is very instructive. Most of us became libertarians because we loved the ideas when we first encountered them. Our passion for the ideas led us to develop the logic of the position. The passion, the pleasure, the excitement – all these emotional experiences came first. The elucidation and rational verification came later.
It seems impossible that within reading a few pages of The Fountainhead, I was able to rationally grasp and process objectivist philosophy. What Ayn Rand called “a sense of life” spoke to me from the pages of her novel. A deep aspect of my personality responded to the passionate individualism of her characters and language. As I learned more and more about objectivism and libertarianism, I confirmed all of my initial impressions, but I was driven to study philosophy because of my pleasure in the process. I became more rational not as a result of logical arguments, but rather because I enjoyed studying logical arguments.
This is a crucial distinction, and something that is essential for libertarians to understand. There are certain souls in the world that are naturally drawn to liberty, and all that is required is that these souls be exposed to rational ideas, and everything follows from there. (There are also certain souls in the world that are naturally hostile to liberty, and no amount of exposure or argument will ever change them!)
What should most concern us as libertarians, are those in the middle – those who are neither naturally drawn to, nor naturally averse to, ideas of liberty. It is these people that we must reach if we are to succeed as a movement.
Once we understand that it was our passionate and pleasurable initial reaction to logical arguments that drew us down the road of philosophy, we can also begin to appreciate that such a reaction is very uncommon. I did not voluntarily choose to find philosophy so pleasurable – it was a complete surprise to me! Thus I cannot really say that my lifelong study of philosophy is the result of listening to rational arguments, but rather from following my own pleasure. I believe that the study of philosophy has granted me a certain virtue and wisdom which I would not have possessed otherwise, but I did not possess those attributes at the beginning of my journey.
If a love of philosophy is to some degree innate, than it cannot be a source of personal pride. If I am prone to weight gain, but work hard to maintain a healthy weight, I can take pride in that accomplishment. If, however, I am naturally thin, then maintaining a healthy weight cannot logically be a source of pride. Most libertarians are “naturally philosophical”, in the same way that Mozart was “naturally musical”, and so for it to be a source of pride and superiority is fundamentally irrational.
Now Mozart would probably have been just about the worst piano teacher in the world, since what came so naturally, easily and pleasurably for him comes very hard for other people. If Mozart wanted to become a good piano teacher, he would have to understand that his own natural talents and capacities were not shared by the general population, and that he would have to approach things slowly and respectfully in order to transfer his knowledge effectively. If Mozart kept calling his students stupid for failing to grasp musical concepts and write symphonies at the age of seven, they would probably not find the experience very pleasurable, and would probably not end up learning a whole lot about music!
The emotional approach of many libertarians to non-libertarians is similar – concepts that come easily to libertarians are very hard for non-libertarians to grasp. This does not mean that non-libertarians are stupid, corrupt, evil, stubborn – or any of the other lovely epithets often bestowed upon them by libertarians! If you are trying to transfer knowledge to someone, and they reject that knowledge, that is always and forever your responsibility. Either you chose someone incapable of understanding what you're trying to tell them, or they were capable of understanding it but you have failed to communicate effectively. Blaming the listener is irrational.
It is also important to understand how libertarianism looks to non-libertarians. It remains sort of a “fringe belief,” of which there are far too many in this irrational world! When the average citizen considers libertarianism, he or she will look to the experts, just as most of us do when surveying unfamiliar fields. What will he see? Well, when he flips on CNN, he sees no libertarians on panel discussions. When he opens his newspaper, he sees no almost libertarian editorials. When he looks at universities, he sees almost no libertarian professors. When he reviews expert literature, he finds very few libertarian positions. When he looks at the thoughts of many of the most intelligent members of the human race, such as Einstein, Russell, Mill, Keynes and so on, he finds socialism or statism advocated in many forms. When he thinks back on his own state education, he recalls no libertarian positions, but endless streams of pro-state “facts.” Can we rationally condemn him for his skepticism? Because he equates “capitalism” with child slavery and the Great Depression, we appear to him like a doctor arguing against antibiotics and for a return to leeching!
Furthermore – and this is a very a very important fact – most individuals will face significant social – and probably professional – repercussions for accepting libertarian positions. Conversations with their families, friends and colleagues will probably become quite uncomfortable. If they have children, they may have to “de-program” them – and reversals in parental moral instructions can be very difficult, both for the parent and child (or, heaven forbid, the teenager!). And what if the person you are trying to enlighten is a public school teacher, or a professor? If he accepts your position, he will have to realize that the vast majority of his career has been spent communicating falsehoods – and thus also punishing the rare student who spoke the truth! This would be quite a bitter pill for any educator to swallow!
Furthermore, even if they switch their positions, we cannot tell them "then, we will triumph, and the power of the state will be curtailed". We really are asking for a lot – ostracism, endless social and professional conflicts, a reversal of all prior ethical beliefs – and for what? Some possible victory in the far future! From a cost/benefit standpoint, it is a pretty tough case to make!
People are responsible for their beliefs, of course, and I am not saying “no one is accountable,” but I think that we need to approach non-libertarians by sharing enthusiasm, not radiating superiority. We all spend good portions of our lives – whether we are teachers are not – communicating about moral and philosophical issues. Asking people to reverse their positions in these areas is asking them to accept that they have hitherto lived their lives communicating falsely about the most essential issues in the world.
This is not to say that we should not try – or that because we have natural abilities in the realm of philosophy that philosophy is subjective, or requires these natural abilities – but it is very important for us to retain our humility in the face of our talents, and not damn those who struggle with what comes so easily to us. Contempt or hostility towards those lacking abilities in a particular area is not a mark of confidence or superiority, but rather insecurity and vanity, and will not save the world. If we are to be the teachers of mankind, we must first and foremost respect our students.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Grave Danger of Self Defense
I get scads of emails about two positions I hold.
A communicator must always take responsibility for misunderstandings, so, as a clarification, here is a more detailed description of what I mean.
I perfectly support the principle of self-defense, but view it to be an unimportant – and, frankly, dangerous – principle in practice.
People who support “self defense” usually view it as a very important principle, central to life in society and crucial to questions of ethics.
I could not disagree more – and my disagreement is fundamental, since it deals more with methodology than conclusions.
To develop my ideas, I try to work empirically, from my own life to the lives of those I know, to general evidence, and then on up to the logical abstract world of concepts and principles. I think this is a more scientific (and anti-Platonic) approach, more grounded in real life, which eschews abstractions not derived from “real world” examples.
So when I think of the “right to self defense”, I think: “OK, when has this right been useful in my life? How many times have I had to stare down 12 ninjas with holding only a broken bottle and found this moral principle to be valuable? Conversely, when have I been in situations of imminent violence and worried about the principle of self-defense?”
And I have to say: well, never!
I grew up in a rough neighborhood, with lots of bullies, and let me tell you something – the principle of self-defense never really comes up with bullies, since they never attack anyone really capable of, or willing to, defending himself. (For more on this, see Bush’s approach to Iraq versus North Korea.)
I was only bullied a few times in my life, and each time the bully was approximately 12 times my size, or I was outnumbered approximately 12-1. “My lunch money? Absolutely, here you go, would you like a kidney too, sir?”
No possibility for self-defense. A nice idea in principle, but in reality…
I was also sent to boarding school, where you got caned for disobedience. Self defense? Impossible. Your best hope was self protection – i.e. put a comic book down your trousers and pray!
Now I have to pay 50% of my money in taxes. Self-defense against the state? Impossible!
Thus, when I look at my life, I find that I have never been in a single solitary situation in my life where self-defense was even a remotely viable strategy. Now I could be an anomaly, but I also have never met anyone who was ever able to use personal self-defense as a viable strategy.
Of course, I recognize that such situations do exist – just as agonizing decisions exist regarding brain function and euthanasia – but they are scarcely the norm, and surely not at – or even near – the top of most pressing moral issues.
And why is this issue even important? Why is focusing on “self defense” dangerous?
Well, because it’s so often used as a justification for the state. The argument runs something like this: “We all have the right to self-defense, but some people cannot defend themselves, so we need an agency that will defend them, which is the state.”
The logical – and moral – problem with this is, of course, that if people exist who cannot defend themselves from mere individual criminals, how on earth can they possibly defend themselves against the state? In other words, if you’re afraid of being exploited by violent people, is armed might of the modern state less dangerous than a mugger?
Turning to the state for self-protection is like avoiding a bee by running off a cliff.
Criminals exist, of course, and can be dangerous, and can do great harm – and it is the very fact that sociopaths exist that makes the creation of a state such a deadly mistake! Imagining that you can create a monopolistic agency of pure violence and not automatically attract sociopaths to populate it is one of the greatest illusions of the species! The more that you fear criminals, the less you should ever support the existence of the state! If criminals are dangerous, the state will be totally deadly. If criminals are not so dangerous, the state is unnecessary.
In order to preserve the right to “self defense”, we get the following absurdities:
Does that mean that we give up on the principle of self-defense? Of course not. But the real goal of “self-defense” should be the prevention of violence, rather than the affirmation of our right to shoot attackers. Moral philosophy is like medicine – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and currently, our doctors are on the verge of “healing us to death.”
This is very common – and interesting – argument. Of course, when I ask such people how the state is protecting them now, they tell me that it isn’t protecting them at all! What happens when she call the cops? Nothing! And is there welfare, drug gangs, public housing, government schools and so on in her neighborhood? Of course!
Thus her objection to a stateless society is fascinating, and speaks volumes about the effectiveness of state propaganda.
Such people see no contradiction between these four positions:
This would be akin to a sick person saying:
Do you see what a “death spiral” this sort of logic represents?
Either violence is not common in your world, in which case you do not need a state, or violence is common in your world, in which case the state, as ‘educator’ and ‘protector’, is primarily responsible for the dangers you face.
Either way, we need a new doctor. And time is running out.
- The principle of self-defense is relatively unimportant, and
- You live a peaceful life, so you are proof that a stateless society can work.
A communicator must always take responsibility for misunderstandings, so, as a clarification, here is a more detailed description of what I mean.
- Self-defense is a red herring
I perfectly support the principle of self-defense, but view it to be an unimportant – and, frankly, dangerous – principle in practice.
People who support “self defense” usually view it as a very important principle, central to life in society and crucial to questions of ethics.
I could not disagree more – and my disagreement is fundamental, since it deals more with methodology than conclusions.
To develop my ideas, I try to work empirically, from my own life to the lives of those I know, to general evidence, and then on up to the logical abstract world of concepts and principles. I think this is a more scientific (and anti-Platonic) approach, more grounded in real life, which eschews abstractions not derived from “real world” examples.
So when I think of the “right to self defense”, I think: “OK, when has this right been useful in my life? How many times have I had to stare down 12 ninjas with holding only a broken bottle and found this moral principle to be valuable? Conversely, when have I been in situations of imminent violence and worried about the principle of self-defense?”
And I have to say: well, never!
I grew up in a rough neighborhood, with lots of bullies, and let me tell you something – the principle of self-defense never really comes up with bullies, since they never attack anyone really capable of, or willing to, defending himself. (For more on this, see Bush’s approach to Iraq versus North Korea.)
I was only bullied a few times in my life, and each time the bully was approximately 12 times my size, or I was outnumbered approximately 12-1. “My lunch money? Absolutely, here you go, would you like a kidney too, sir?”
No possibility for self-defense. A nice idea in principle, but in reality…
I was also sent to boarding school, where you got caned for disobedience. Self defense? Impossible. Your best hope was self protection – i.e. put a comic book down your trousers and pray!
Now I have to pay 50% of my money in taxes. Self-defense against the state? Impossible!
Thus, when I look at my life, I find that I have never been in a single solitary situation in my life where self-defense was even a remotely viable strategy. Now I could be an anomaly, but I also have never met anyone who was ever able to use personal self-defense as a viable strategy.
Of course, I recognize that such situations do exist – just as agonizing decisions exist regarding brain function and euthanasia – but they are scarcely the norm, and surely not at – or even near – the top of most pressing moral issues.
And why is this issue even important? Why is focusing on “self defense” dangerous?
Well, because it’s so often used as a justification for the state. The argument runs something like this: “We all have the right to self-defense, but some people cannot defend themselves, so we need an agency that will defend them, which is the state.”
The logical – and moral – problem with this is, of course, that if people exist who cannot defend themselves from mere individual criminals, how on earth can they possibly defend themselves against the state? In other words, if you’re afraid of being exploited by violent people, is armed might of the modern state less dangerous than a mugger?
Turning to the state for self-protection is like avoiding a bee by running off a cliff.
Criminals exist, of course, and can be dangerous, and can do great harm – and it is the very fact that sociopaths exist that makes the creation of a state such a deadly mistake! Imagining that you can create a monopolistic agency of pure violence and not automatically attract sociopaths to populate it is one of the greatest illusions of the species! The more that you fear criminals, the less you should ever support the existence of the state! If criminals are dangerous, the state will be totally deadly. If criminals are not so dangerous, the state is unnecessary.
In order to preserve the right to “self defense”, we get the following absurdities:
- To protect their persons, people submit to states that draft them, declare wars, provoke attacks, and arrest and imprison citizens for non-violent “crimes”.
- To protect their property, people submit to states that strip that property through taxes, subject them to endless regulations, destroy their currency, load them with public debts, and openly that that property through the force of law.
Does that mean that we give up on the principle of self-defense? Of course not. But the real goal of “self-defense” should be the prevention of violence, rather than the affirmation of our right to shoot attackers. Moral philosophy is like medicine – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure – and currently, our doctors are on the verge of “healing us to death.”
- You live a peaceful life, so you are an example of a stateless society.
This is very common – and interesting – argument. Of course, when I ask such people how the state is protecting them now, they tell me that it isn’t protecting them at all! What happens when she call the cops? Nothing! And is there welfare, drug gangs, public housing, government schools and so on in her neighborhood? Of course!
Thus her objection to a stateless society is fascinating, and speaks volumes about the effectiveness of state propaganda.
Such people see no contradiction between these four positions:
- There is too much violence in my neighborhood to get rid of the state.
- The state is responsible for most of that violence.
- The state is not protecting me from the violence it creates.
- Therefore getting rid of the state is impossible!
This would be akin to a sick person saying:
- I am too sick to get rid of my doctor.
- My doctor is poisoning me.
- My doctor is not giving me an antidote to that poison.
- Therefore changing doctors is impossible!
Do you see what a “death spiral” this sort of logic represents?
Either violence is not common in your world, in which case you do not need a state, or violence is common in your world, in which case the state, as ‘educator’ and ‘protector’, is primarily responsible for the dangers you face.
Either way, we need a new doctor. And time is running out.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Murdering the Group; Saving the Individuals
Once more, bombs rain down in the Middle East, Arabs and Jews hurl fire and murder children, the world turns pale with horror and empty words pour from televised heads – and as usual, the obvious and effective solution can never be discussed!
The saddest thing is that we know exactly how to bring peace to the
It’s embarrassingly simple, of course, but you’ll wear out the batteries on your TV remote scanning for a mention of it anywhere.
What is the solution to the problem of collective violence? Why, just this:
Stop believing in groups!
“Groups” don’t exist, any more than a “forest” exists independently of the trees it describes. A “Jew” doesn’t exist. An “Arab” doesn’t exist; neither does “
If people surrender their moral independence to some “morally-superior” collective (or, more accurately, some madman claiming to speak for such a non-existent entity), then of course violence is the inevitable result. Irrational and collectivist moral absolutes are the fundamental WMDs of our species. Believing you are part of the “master race” because you’re Jewish, or the “chosen of Allah” because you’re Muslim, opens the path to blood, tears, flames and graves. Such delusions are both false and absolutist – the most deadly combination. Irrational moral ideals which must be enforced always end up murdering the innocent and the not-so-innocent en masse.
Beliefs that are irrational, required, universal and absolute will always put swords in the hands of men. Illogical and anti-empirical beliefs cannot be validated by external and objective factors. Two scientists who disagree on a theory can resolve their dispute via the scientific method; they can defer to logic and reproducible experiments – they do not have to bomb each other into submission. Mathematicians can disagree over a proposition, but in the end it is not personal – it is not the dominance of one over the others, but of logic and proof over one, or all.
The free market runs on the same principle. “Value” is not decided by committees, or leaders, but by individual decisions. If I think that my product is better than yours, I don’t have to blow up your offices, just appeal to the consumer, the final arbiter. Consumers don’t have to burn down a Ford plant if they prefer Volvos – individual decisions determine the value and success of each company.
In religion, politics and nationalism, things are very different, because no objective method exists to resolve disputes. Who can prove that “Jewish” is better than “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Buddhist”? How can these absolute and irrational fantasies ever be reconciled in reality? They are impervious to logic and experimentation. Universal truth is willed, not proven. This irrationality creates instability, hostility and the endless desire for expansion. The more collectivist a society becomes, the more expansionistic it becomes. Witness
The solution to the crisis in the
If we cannot break our addiction to our fantasies of collective virtue, the slaughter will only increase. And so we must say to the warring tribes of the
“As long as there are Arabs and Jews and Americans and Iranians, our natural brotherhood remains drowned in bloody tribal fantasies. If we refuse to give up our gods and groups and leaders, we will forever live in war and fear and hatred. If we can find the strength to outgrow this madness, we may not all find heaven, but at least we will be free to escape hell. The solution to violence is not vanquishing our foes, but our own illusions.”
Monday, July 10, 2006
Despot Cagematch: George III vs George III
If the Declaration of Independence were written today…
In June of 1776, when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he took great pains to detail the abuses heaped upon the Colonists by George III, then King of England.
Now we have another ‘George III’, the third President to bear that name. How do the abuses the original George III was charged with compare with our current administrations?
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
George III has invaded Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, and has suspended the Geneva conventions for ‘enemy combatants’. Violations of signed treaties include the UN Charter, the International Court of Justice, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and so on.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
George III has used Federal Marshals to interdict against Marijuana users in California (where, as a state, the substance is legal as a medicinal drug). Then there's the needle exchange plans many large cities wanted to implement, that was blocked by George III. After the Terry Schiavo case had been heard by 19 judges in six courts and been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the Fed intervened. State-level decisions on euthanasia, minimum wages, medical insurance, food contamination and warning labels, financial privacy laws. The Federal government regularly uses the blackmail of the federal income tax to “force” states into adhering to all sorts of Federal regulations – the speed limit, the education standards, OSHA regulations, and on and on.
Last but not least, you might just remember the obscure Fed-influenced Supreme Court decision to overturn Florida’s court-ordered vote recount in 2000.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
The U.S. Constitution applies on Guam, as do all federal laws, but Guamanians have no voting representation in the electoral college for the selection of the President, and no U.S. senators. Guam is represented in Washington by one non-voting congressman in the House of Representatives. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands both have diminished representation in Congress. And how much does the average Iraqi’s vote count for anyway?
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
If you are willing to brave the violence of Washington, you can go and visit the White House and Congress. Just keep your voice to a murmur. And if you want to trail George III around the world to his various tight-security conferences, you’d better have some frequent-flyer miles.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
George III claims the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. The “Decider” can now directly bypass military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, “whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Bush is also fast becoming the grand master of “States Secret Privilege” – it was invoked only four times in the first 23 years after the U.S. Supreme Court created the privilege in 1953, but now the government is claiming the privilege to dismiss lawsuits at a rate of more than three a year. Some of the targets include a lawsuit striving to penetrate the fog of secrecy regarding ‘torture extraditions’ and a post-9/11 investigation.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
If the danger that Jefferson was most concerned with was civil revolt, or foreign attack, then surely by shipping hundreds of thousands of troops overseas, and provoking a rather excitable Muslim population, George III has ‘exposed’ the US to both external attacks and internal convulsions.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Well let’s see… You are soon going to need a passport to get into the US from Canada, the Mexican border swarms with guards, and the process of getting a Green Card has become about one chicken entrail away from pure voodoo.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Not only has George III said that the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper!”, but he also appointed the freedom-loving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – who, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
Well judicial appointments come straight from the White House, and we are not exactly facing a buffalo stampede of independent judgment here.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
Gosh, where do we even begin? The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the new drug prescription program, the expanded war on drugs, and deficits that will swallow future generations whole.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
Fortunately for this point – but not fortunately for us – George III has sent a good deal of our standing armies overseas. Yay, I feel safer already.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
I think that this has, by now, become a bit more than an affectation! George III has declared that he alone will decide on when – or whether – to inform Congress about how the FBI is implementing its expanded powers in the new Patriot Act. His “guiding compass” is the “unitary executive” power of the commander in chief – thus neatly avoiding his oath to abide by the Constitutional separation of powers.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Does anyone really take the Constitution seriously any more? What with the Israeli lobby the Saudi hand-holding, and the Middle East nation building, it’s hard to imagine that US electors really have the ear of the president these says.
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
Don’t bother checking your basement for Marines – just check your personal bill for national defense – or, more accurately, foreign offense. Oh wait, that cost is actually going to your children, who can’t vote. “No taxation without representation?” Right.
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Iran, Panama, Haiti, the War on Drugs et al. Note that Jefferson was not attacking the ‘rank and file’ British soldiers – he went straight for the leader, King George III. Under our George III, the rank and file go to jail; the leaders are rewarded.
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
The Federal Registry currently lists hundreds of thousands of statutes controlling foreign trade. U.S. import tariffs on clothes and shoes average 11 percent and go as high as 48 percent. (In 2001, clothes and shoes accounted for only 6.5 percent of US imports, but contributed nearly half of the $20 billion of tariff revenues!) In the first three years of his presidency, George III punished foreign companies 25 times for ‘anti-dumping’ violations – i.e. they were punished for selling goods too cheaply, a crime that enrages consumers no end! Add to that the 2003 imposition of 8-30% tariffs on foreign steel imports (ruled illegal by the WTO), and the general trade problems created by a weakening US dollar, and I think the Jeffersonian arrow hits this particular bulls-eye square on!
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
There wasn’t even an income tax in Jefferson’s day! If we could resurrect ole Tommy J and show him the current US tax code, his head would surely explode.
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
Well, we have the Patriot Act, and Gitmo, and all the gulags in Iraq. George III doesn’t even need a court order for wiretapping any more. Search warrant? Yawn – how passé!
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
George III is very keen on ‘torture express’ airplanes which regularly ferry victims to allies with more, ahem, flexible legal systems. These cases of “extraordinary rendition” are even worse than what Jefferson describes, since few of these victims end up being tried at all. Why bother, when you can go straight to torture?
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
Iraq. ‘Nuff said… A whole other article could be written about how Jefferson’s objections to arbitrary despotism apply to the average Iraqi’s view of the US occupation.
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
This process has been occurring ever since the early 20th century in America, but George III has sped it up just a notch! The Patriot Act, extraordinary renditions, the scorn for the Constitution, the abandoning of the Geneva Convention, the unilateral breaking of international treaties, growing disdain for property rights and the separation of church and state etc. etc. etc.
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
Sadly, our own Legislatures have not been suspended, but feel quite comfortable passing laws affecting a single high-profile individual, such as Terri Schiavo. Going to war without a Congressional declaration might just qualify in this area though.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
More than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in the vile and overcrowded ‘rape rooms’ of government jails. Deficits and national debt are at all-time highs. And if you think the government is not interested in ‘waging war’ against you, try to stop paying your taxes! And let’s not forget the wire-tapping, the no-fly lists, the profiling, and all the lying…
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
Those in New Orleans might have something to say about this, as would those trapped in the welfare state, the mind-numbing state educational system, and the non-violent offenders entombed in the dungeons of state prisons.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
True enough, except the mercenaries are going overseas, rather than being deployed at home. So far, at least…
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
No draft yet, although it would be interesting to see how many people would pay for the War on Terror if they got a monthly bill for their personal share of the expenses. And if you talk to a new recruit, ask him how accurate a story he got about his obligations before signing up…
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
No particular problems here, although the treatment of the Native Americans by the Federal government continues to be horrendous.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Petition for redress? Perhaps if your house is seized through Eminent Domain, or through Asset Forfeiture, you can get it back with an apology and something to sweeten the pot. Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out.
The Colonists underwent terrible struggles to throw off the yoke of George III’s oppressive tyranny – and it took less than a century for Lincoln to undo most of what had been achieved, and less than another century for America to turn into just another colonial warlord nation.
It is for this reason that we anarchists keep saying that government is an evil that can at best be only temporarily restrained. It is at best a dangerous servant inevitably becoming a terrible master. Power corrupts. There are no exceptions.
Every generation faces an age-old tyranny that must be overcome. Previous generations successfully ended slavery, reversed the subjugation of women and children, broke the unity of church and state, extended both property rights and the rule of law, and began the process of restraining government power.
Now it is our turn. As unimaginable and unprecedented as the extensions of human freedoms have been in the past, we are not done yet!
Now, instead of striving to cure the state of its corruption, we aim for prevention, which is the dismantling of the state itself, so that its power can no longer tempt and destroy the souls of men. Naturally, this is a shocking idea to many, but there is no reason to be alarmed. Once, slavery had lasted as long as mankind, and ending it was almost unthinkable. The state is not a law of nature, but an invention of mankind, and its legitimacy – the only source of its power – can vanish in a flash of honest thought.
In June of 1776, when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he took great pains to detail the abuses heaped upon the Colonists by George III, then King of England.
Now we have another ‘George III’, the third President to bear that name. How do the abuses the original George III was charged with compare with our current administrations?
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
George III has invaded Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war, and has suspended the Geneva conventions for ‘enemy combatants’. Violations of signed treaties include the UN Charter, the International Court of Justice, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and so on.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
George III has used Federal Marshals to interdict against Marijuana users in California (where, as a state, the substance is legal as a medicinal drug). Then there's the needle exchange plans many large cities wanted to implement, that was blocked by George III. After the Terry Schiavo case had been heard by 19 judges in six courts and been appealed to the Supreme Court three times, the Fed intervened. State-level decisions on euthanasia, minimum wages, medical insurance, food contamination and warning labels, financial privacy laws. The Federal government regularly uses the blackmail of the federal income tax to “force” states into adhering to all sorts of Federal regulations – the speed limit, the education standards, OSHA regulations, and on and on.
Last but not least, you might just remember the obscure Fed-influenced Supreme Court decision to overturn Florida’s court-ordered vote recount in 2000.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
The U.S. Constitution applies on Guam, as do all federal laws, but Guamanians have no voting representation in the electoral college for the selection of the President, and no U.S. senators. Guam is represented in Washington by one non-voting congressman in the House of Representatives. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands both have diminished representation in Congress. And how much does the average Iraqi’s vote count for anyway?
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
If you are willing to brave the violence of Washington, you can go and visit the White House and Congress. Just keep your voice to a murmur. And if you want to trail George III around the world to his various tight-security conferences, you’d better have some frequent-flyer miles.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
George III claims the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. The “Decider” can now directly bypass military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, “whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Bush is also fast becoming the grand master of “States Secret Privilege” – it was invoked only four times in the first 23 years after the U.S. Supreme Court created the privilege in 1953, but now the government is claiming the privilege to dismiss lawsuits at a rate of more than three a year. Some of the targets include a lawsuit striving to penetrate the fog of secrecy regarding ‘torture extraditions’ and a post-9/11 investigation.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
If the danger that Jefferson was most concerned with was civil revolt, or foreign attack, then surely by shipping hundreds of thousands of troops overseas, and provoking a rather excitable Muslim population, George III has ‘exposed’ the US to both external attacks and internal convulsions.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Well let’s see… You are soon going to need a passport to get into the US from Canada, the Mexican border swarms with guards, and the process of getting a Green Card has become about one chicken entrail away from pure voodoo.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
Not only has George III said that the Constitution is “just a goddamned piece of paper!”, but he also appointed the freedom-loving Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – who, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.”
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
Well judicial appointments come straight from the White House, and we are not exactly facing a buffalo stampede of independent judgment here.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
Gosh, where do we even begin? The Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the new drug prescription program, the expanded war on drugs, and deficits that will swallow future generations whole.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
Fortunately for this point – but not fortunately for us – George III has sent a good deal of our standing armies overseas. Yay, I feel safer already.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
I think that this has, by now, become a bit more than an affectation! George III has declared that he alone will decide on when – or whether – to inform Congress about how the FBI is implementing its expanded powers in the new Patriot Act. His “guiding compass” is the “unitary executive” power of the commander in chief – thus neatly avoiding his oath to abide by the Constitutional separation of powers.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
Does anyone really take the Constitution seriously any more? What with the Israeli lobby the Saudi hand-holding, and the Middle East nation building, it’s hard to imagine that US electors really have the ear of the president these says.
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
Don’t bother checking your basement for Marines – just check your personal bill for national defense – or, more accurately, foreign offense. Oh wait, that cost is actually going to your children, who can’t vote. “No taxation without representation?” Right.
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Iran, Panama, Haiti, the War on Drugs et al. Note that Jefferson was not attacking the ‘rank and file’ British soldiers – he went straight for the leader, King George III. Under our George III, the rank and file go to jail; the leaders are rewarded.
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
The Federal Registry currently lists hundreds of thousands of statutes controlling foreign trade. U.S. import tariffs on clothes and shoes average 11 percent and go as high as 48 percent. (In 2001, clothes and shoes accounted for only 6.5 percent of US imports, but contributed nearly half of the $20 billion of tariff revenues!) In the first three years of his presidency, George III punished foreign companies 25 times for ‘anti-dumping’ violations – i.e. they were punished for selling goods too cheaply, a crime that enrages consumers no end! Add to that the 2003 imposition of 8-30% tariffs on foreign steel imports (ruled illegal by the WTO), and the general trade problems created by a weakening US dollar, and I think the Jeffersonian arrow hits this particular bulls-eye square on!
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
There wasn’t even an income tax in Jefferson’s day! If we could resurrect ole Tommy J and show him the current US tax code, his head would surely explode.
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
Well, we have the Patriot Act, and Gitmo, and all the gulags in Iraq. George III doesn’t even need a court order for wiretapping any more. Search warrant? Yawn – how passé!
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
George III is very keen on ‘torture express’ airplanes which regularly ferry victims to allies with more, ahem, flexible legal systems. These cases of “extraordinary rendition” are even worse than what Jefferson describes, since few of these victims end up being tried at all. Why bother, when you can go straight to torture?
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
Iraq. ‘Nuff said… A whole other article could be written about how Jefferson’s objections to arbitrary despotism apply to the average Iraqi’s view of the US occupation.
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
This process has been occurring ever since the early 20th century in America, but George III has sped it up just a notch! The Patriot Act, extraordinary renditions, the scorn for the Constitution, the abandoning of the Geneva Convention, the unilateral breaking of international treaties, growing disdain for property rights and the separation of church and state etc. etc. etc.
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
Sadly, our own Legislatures have not been suspended, but feel quite comfortable passing laws affecting a single high-profile individual, such as Terri Schiavo. Going to war without a Congressional declaration might just qualify in this area though.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
More than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in the vile and overcrowded ‘rape rooms’ of government jails. Deficits and national debt are at all-time highs. And if you think the government is not interested in ‘waging war’ against you, try to stop paying your taxes! And let’s not forget the wire-tapping, the no-fly lists, the profiling, and all the lying…
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
Those in New Orleans might have something to say about this, as would those trapped in the welfare state, the mind-numbing state educational system, and the non-violent offenders entombed in the dungeons of state prisons.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
True enough, except the mercenaries are going overseas, rather than being deployed at home. So far, at least…
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
No draft yet, although it would be interesting to see how many people would pay for the War on Terror if they got a monthly bill for their personal share of the expenses. And if you talk to a new recruit, ask him how accurate a story he got about his obligations before signing up…
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
No particular problems here, although the treatment of the Native Americans by the Federal government continues to be horrendous.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Petition for redress? Perhaps if your house is seized through Eminent Domain, or through Asset Forfeiture, you can get it back with an apology and something to sweeten the pot. Good luck with that. Let us know how it works out.
The Colonists underwent terrible struggles to throw off the yoke of George III’s oppressive tyranny – and it took less than a century for Lincoln to undo most of what had been achieved, and less than another century for America to turn into just another colonial warlord nation.
It is for this reason that we anarchists keep saying that government is an evil that can at best be only temporarily restrained. It is at best a dangerous servant inevitably becoming a terrible master. Power corrupts. There are no exceptions.
Every generation faces an age-old tyranny that must be overcome. Previous generations successfully ended slavery, reversed the subjugation of women and children, broke the unity of church and state, extended both property rights and the rule of law, and began the process of restraining government power.
Now it is our turn. As unimaginable and unprecedented as the extensions of human freedoms have been in the past, we are not done yet!
Now, instead of striving to cure the state of its corruption, we aim for prevention, which is the dismantling of the state itself, so that its power can no longer tempt and destroy the souls of men. Naturally, this is a shocking idea to many, but there is no reason to be alarmed. Once, slavery had lasted as long as mankind, and ending it was almost unthinkable. The state is not a law of nature, but an invention of mankind, and its legitimacy – the only source of its power – can vanish in a flash of honest thought.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
A Forced Marriage, A False Freedom
So one morning your daughter comes to you and says that she is engaged to Bobby, a boy she has been dating.
“That’s great,” you say, giving her a hug, “but you have to marry Dave instead.”
She wriggles out of your embrace. “Excuse me?”
“You can’t marry Bobby, pumpkin. You have to marry Dave.”
“I will marry who I want!” she says indignantly.
“Of course you will. You are free to marry whoever you choose!”
She blinks, bewildered. “Then I’m going to marry Bobby!”
You smile indulgently. “You don’t understand. You are free to marry any man you choose, but you are going to marry Dave.”
“You aren’t making any sense. I am not going to marry Dave!”
“Oh, but I’m afraid that you have to.”
“Oh really? And what happens if I don’t marry Dave?”
You sigh. “Well, I’ll have to lock you in your room and feed you bread and water for the rest of your life.”
“What? But you say I am free to choose my husband!”
“Of course you are! But you have to choose Dave!”
She bursts into tears. “Then how am I free, daddy?”
Does this conversation seem rather strange to you? Contradictory? Almost incomprehensible?
If so, then you have just experienced the essence of arguing with a statist.
Many libertarians feel that they have to convince people that the government is dangerous, or that the welfare state harms the poor, or that the war on drugs destroys civil liberties and so on – and that if other people can’t be convinced of the evils of government programs, libertarians will never be free of state control.
Nothing could be further from the truth! You don’t have to convince a single person about the evils of government in order to prove your right to live in a free society. Even if everyone else continues to live in the fantasy camp of government virtue, you can still be free.
But you have to establish one little thing first.
Let’s take the invasion of Iraq as a nice, non-controversial topic.
Some people think it’s great, some people think it’s tolerable, some ‘support-the-troops-but-not-the-war,’ and some hate the whole damn mess.
And we can all live together in relative harmony, as long as one condition is met.
People try to convince me that the Iraq invasion is just, wonderful, great, necessary, required for the defense of the realm and so on. I generally don’t let them get too far down this road, but rather interject the following:
“I understand your reasons for supporting the invasion – and you could be correct. You tell me that the invasion will protect my freedoms and keep me safe, but I disagree with that. I believe that my personal safety is not enhanced by my government lobbing bombs all over the Middle East, staffing hundreds of military bases worldwide, funding dictatorships, supporting coups and so on. But wouldn’t you say that the fact that we can disagree with each other – and with our government – is one of the freedoms that make this country great?”
Sure, the person responds.
“Now would we be living in a free country if every time I disagreed with you, or the government, I got thrown in jail?”
Of course not.
Then I tell the above story of the man and his daughter, and say:
“Do you see how this story applies to our situation? I disagree with the size and scope and use of our military, but I am forced to fund it anyway. Thus, like the girl who is ‘free’ to choose her husband, but must obey her father, I am ‘free’ to disagree with government programs, but I am forced to fund them anyway.
If it is dictatorial to throw people in jail for disagreeing with the government, then forcing people to pay taxes for programs they disagree with is also dictatorial, a violation of both the sovereignty of the individual conscience and freedom of association.
If the military supposedly exists to protect our freedoms, but we are forced to pay for it even if we believe our freedoms are threatened by its actions, then obviously our freedoms are not being defended, but rather violated.
Thus whenever a man tells you that he supports the invasion of Iraq, all you have to do is ask him one simple question:
Am I allowed to disagree with you?
If you are not allowed to disagree with him, then you are not free, so he cannot claim that your freedoms are being protected. In fact, there’s no point in debating with him at all.
If you are allowed to disagree with him about the invasion, then surely you have the right not to pay for it! If you are forced to pay for it regardless of your opinion, then you are not allowed to disagree in reality. Just like the hapless daughter in the above story, you must obey, or go to prison.
You can use the same argument about any government programs (or the government itself, as I prefer!). If someone tells you that the welfare state is helping the poor, you don’t have to convince him otherwise – all you have to do is ask him: am I free to disagree with you? If so, then you can obviously withhold your taxes and give them to charity instead, or start a company or buy goods to create jobs.
This approach is very liberating, because you don’t have to convert a single person into a libertarian or an anarchist in order to clinch the case for freedom. You and your friends can have utterly opposing views about the value of government programs – as long as your friends support your right to disagree with them not just in theory, but in practice.
“That’s great,” you say, giving her a hug, “but you have to marry Dave instead.”
She wriggles out of your embrace. “Excuse me?”
“You can’t marry Bobby, pumpkin. You have to marry Dave.”
“I will marry who I want!” she says indignantly.
“Of course you will. You are free to marry whoever you choose!”
She blinks, bewildered. “Then I’m going to marry Bobby!”
You smile indulgently. “You don’t understand. You are free to marry any man you choose, but you are going to marry Dave.”
“You aren’t making any sense. I am not going to marry Dave!”
“Oh, but I’m afraid that you have to.”
“Oh really? And what happens if I don’t marry Dave?”
You sigh. “Well, I’ll have to lock you in your room and feed you bread and water for the rest of your life.”
“What? But you say I am free to choose my husband!”
“Of course you are! But you have to choose Dave!”
She bursts into tears. “Then how am I free, daddy?”
Does this conversation seem rather strange to you? Contradictory? Almost incomprehensible?
If so, then you have just experienced the essence of arguing with a statist.
Many libertarians feel that they have to convince people that the government is dangerous, or that the welfare state harms the poor, or that the war on drugs destroys civil liberties and so on – and that if other people can’t be convinced of the evils of government programs, libertarians will never be free of state control.
Nothing could be further from the truth! You don’t have to convince a single person about the evils of government in order to prove your right to live in a free society. Even if everyone else continues to live in the fantasy camp of government virtue, you can still be free.
But you have to establish one little thing first.
Let’s take the invasion of Iraq as a nice, non-controversial topic.
Some people think it’s great, some people think it’s tolerable, some ‘support-the-troops-but-not-the-war,’ and some hate the whole damn mess.
And we can all live together in relative harmony, as long as one condition is met.
People try to convince me that the Iraq invasion is just, wonderful, great, necessary, required for the defense of the realm and so on. I generally don’t let them get too far down this road, but rather interject the following:
“I understand your reasons for supporting the invasion – and you could be correct. You tell me that the invasion will protect my freedoms and keep me safe, but I disagree with that. I believe that my personal safety is not enhanced by my government lobbing bombs all over the Middle East, staffing hundreds of military bases worldwide, funding dictatorships, supporting coups and so on. But wouldn’t you say that the fact that we can disagree with each other – and with our government – is one of the freedoms that make this country great?”
Sure, the person responds.
“Now would we be living in a free country if every time I disagreed with you, or the government, I got thrown in jail?”
Of course not.
Then I tell the above story of the man and his daughter, and say:
“Do you see how this story applies to our situation? I disagree with the size and scope and use of our military, but I am forced to fund it anyway. Thus, like the girl who is ‘free’ to choose her husband, but must obey her father, I am ‘free’ to disagree with government programs, but I am forced to fund them anyway.
If it is dictatorial to throw people in jail for disagreeing with the government, then forcing people to pay taxes for programs they disagree with is also dictatorial, a violation of both the sovereignty of the individual conscience and freedom of association.
If the military supposedly exists to protect our freedoms, but we are forced to pay for it even if we believe our freedoms are threatened by its actions, then obviously our freedoms are not being defended, but rather violated.
Thus whenever a man tells you that he supports the invasion of Iraq, all you have to do is ask him one simple question:
Am I allowed to disagree with you?
If you are not allowed to disagree with him, then you are not free, so he cannot claim that your freedoms are being protected. In fact, there’s no point in debating with him at all.
If you are allowed to disagree with him about the invasion, then surely you have the right not to pay for it! If you are forced to pay for it regardless of your opinion, then you are not allowed to disagree in reality. Just like the hapless daughter in the above story, you must obey, or go to prison.
You can use the same argument about any government programs (or the government itself, as I prefer!). If someone tells you that the welfare state is helping the poor, you don’t have to convince him otherwise – all you have to do is ask him: am I free to disagree with you? If so, then you can obviously withhold your taxes and give them to charity instead, or start a company or buy goods to create jobs.
This approach is very liberating, because you don’t have to convert a single person into a libertarian or an anarchist in order to clinch the case for freedom. You and your friends can have utterly opposing views about the value of government programs – as long as your friends support your right to disagree with them not just in theory, but in practice.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
A Terminal State
It is the worst day of your young life. Your doctor has just told you that you have terminal cancer. You have a few months to live, maybe six. Your skin crawls, your mouth is bone-dry. Lists of everything you have to do scroll by endlessly in your mind’s eye… Finances, my will, a long line of goodbye’s…
“My God,” you stammer, trying to swallow. “Are you sure? Can I get a second opinion?”
“Of course,” nods your doctor sympathetically, gesturing at the brown folder on his desk. “The tests are pretty conclusive, but… Take them across the hall, there’s an oncologist over there. Have a chat with him, see what he thinks.”
You walk out of the office, almost feeling as if you’re floating. Miraculously, you get an immediate appointment with the new doctor. You sit down, and before you can open your mouth, he says: “What are you doing here? You look as healthy as a horse!”
“Well I was sent over here by my doctor. He says I’m sick, really sick…” Yeah, verily, unto the grave¸ you think involuntarily.
“What nonsense!” cries the doctor heartily, snapping his fingers. “Nothing wrong with you at all!”
“But…” Wordlessly, you hand your file over. The doctor glances at it.
“Well sure, there are some problems, naturally. That’s be expected. But you’re sound. Fundamentally sound!” He jabs his finger onto his desk for emphasis.
“But it’s spread to my…”
“Yes, yes,” he says impatiently, glancing at your file from the corner of his eye. “I can see that there are some problems. But you’re going to live to be 90!”
“How?”
The doctor pauses very briefly, then waves his hand dismissively. “Oh, you’ll pull through. Something will come up…”
Against hope, you ask: “Do you know of a cure?”
The doctor cocks his head and narrows his eyes, obviously confused. “A cure?” he asks slowly. “For what?”
Question: What is your opinion of this oncologist? Would you put your treatment in his hands? Or would you think he was an incompetent lunatic – or worse – and back out of his office slowly?
With all due respect, this is how many anarchists feel when dealing with statists.
You see, the state might look healthy, but there’s this little matter of the national debt. It’s not just a US phenomenon, but let’s look at it from an American perspective.
We’ve all heard the scare statistics. $8 trillion dollars of debt. $110,000 per US adult.
$47 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities… And picture all the people who are never going to help pay that debt – stay-at-home parents, students, retirees, criminals, soldiers, public employees, mimes and countless others who live hand-to-mouth.
Fiscally, the state is completely terminal. There is no way in God’s green acre that the national debt is ever going to be paid off – we’re going in completely the wrong direction for that! And all debts that escalate end up in bankruptcy.
So when a statist says to me that we need the government, or the government should do ‘X’ or ‘Y’, it could be arguable I guess, but it seems rather… irrelevant. It’s like getting a call from a man who’s jumped naked out of plane telling you he needs a parachute. Sure you do. But you haven’t got one, and it’s far too late to reverse that now, isn’t it?
The facts are clear, the math is clear, the lack of political will is clear, the self-interest of our rulers is clear – the government is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Sure, might look OK from the outside, but it’s already starting to smell.
So when people tell me they want a small government, I just ask them: OK, what programs will you cut to pay off the national debt?
The interest on the national debt alone is over $380 billion a year. Can we cut every single dollar from public education? That’s about $60 billion – barely makes a dent in the interest payments. What else? Defense? Over $400 billion – OK, now we’re getting somewhere, but we’re still not dealing with the principal…
You can go on and on – and, as the statist whittles down the functions of government in order to pay off the national debt, you know what happens?
You start to get a society that looks pretty anarchistic!
One of two things can occur. Either the statist won’t support spending cuts, in which case he’s just like the second doctor in the earlier analogy, blindly declaring the health of something that is dying. Or, he does find the money to pay off the national debt – in which case he not only ends up about 3 microns away from anarchism, but he also implicitly admits that the state has been ripping people off horrendously for the past hundred years or so!
If the government can effectively function with, say, 5% of its current budget, then it has stolen trillions upon trillions of dollars from the past few generations. And the state cannot survive on, say 50% of its current budget, because that won’t be enough to pay off the debt.
So the state is either unnecessary, or a vile thief. Or both.
In every medical drama known to mankind, some Type-A surgeon always ends up trying to resuscitate a patient who has clearly shuffled off to join the choir invisible. Some gentle and rational soul always has to touch his shoulder and say: “He’s dead, Jim. He’s dead…” Someone else calls out the time of death.
As anarchists, this is our role. You can argue as frantically as you like about the role of the state, but we will continue to patiently put our hands on your shoulder and say: “Let it go. Stop electrocuting a corpse. Come with us, so we can choose the dance songs for the funeral, and work together to create what comes next.”
“My God,” you stammer, trying to swallow. “Are you sure? Can I get a second opinion?”
“Of course,” nods your doctor sympathetically, gesturing at the brown folder on his desk. “The tests are pretty conclusive, but… Take them across the hall, there’s an oncologist over there. Have a chat with him, see what he thinks.”
You walk out of the office, almost feeling as if you’re floating. Miraculously, you get an immediate appointment with the new doctor. You sit down, and before you can open your mouth, he says: “What are you doing here? You look as healthy as a horse!”
“Well I was sent over here by my doctor. He says I’m sick, really sick…” Yeah, verily, unto the grave¸ you think involuntarily.
“What nonsense!” cries the doctor heartily, snapping his fingers. “Nothing wrong with you at all!”
“But…” Wordlessly, you hand your file over. The doctor glances at it.
“Well sure, there are some problems, naturally. That’s be expected. But you’re sound. Fundamentally sound!” He jabs his finger onto his desk for emphasis.
“But it’s spread to my…”
“Yes, yes,” he says impatiently, glancing at your file from the corner of his eye. “I can see that there are some problems. But you’re going to live to be 90!”
“How?”
The doctor pauses very briefly, then waves his hand dismissively. “Oh, you’ll pull through. Something will come up…”
Against hope, you ask: “Do you know of a cure?”
The doctor cocks his head and narrows his eyes, obviously confused. “A cure?” he asks slowly. “For what?”
Question: What is your opinion of this oncologist? Would you put your treatment in his hands? Or would you think he was an incompetent lunatic – or worse – and back out of his office slowly?
With all due respect, this is how many anarchists feel when dealing with statists.
You see, the state might look healthy, but there’s this little matter of the national debt. It’s not just a US phenomenon, but let’s look at it from an American perspective.
We’ve all heard the scare statistics. $8 trillion dollars of debt. $110,000 per US adult.
$47 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities… And picture all the people who are never going to help pay that debt – stay-at-home parents, students, retirees, criminals, soldiers, public employees, mimes and countless others who live hand-to-mouth.
Fiscally, the state is completely terminal. There is no way in God’s green acre that the national debt is ever going to be paid off – we’re going in completely the wrong direction for that! And all debts that escalate end up in bankruptcy.
So when a statist says to me that we need the government, or the government should do ‘X’ or ‘Y’, it could be arguable I guess, but it seems rather… irrelevant. It’s like getting a call from a man who’s jumped naked out of plane telling you he needs a parachute. Sure you do. But you haven’t got one, and it’s far too late to reverse that now, isn’t it?
The facts are clear, the math is clear, the lack of political will is clear, the self-interest of our rulers is clear – the government is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Sure, might look OK from the outside, but it’s already starting to smell.
So when people tell me they want a small government, I just ask them: OK, what programs will you cut to pay off the national debt?
The interest on the national debt alone is over $380 billion a year. Can we cut every single dollar from public education? That’s about $60 billion – barely makes a dent in the interest payments. What else? Defense? Over $400 billion – OK, now we’re getting somewhere, but we’re still not dealing with the principal…
You can go on and on – and, as the statist whittles down the functions of government in order to pay off the national debt, you know what happens?
You start to get a society that looks pretty anarchistic!
One of two things can occur. Either the statist won’t support spending cuts, in which case he’s just like the second doctor in the earlier analogy, blindly declaring the health of something that is dying. Or, he does find the money to pay off the national debt – in which case he not only ends up about 3 microns away from anarchism, but he also implicitly admits that the state has been ripping people off horrendously for the past hundred years or so!
If the government can effectively function with, say, 5% of its current budget, then it has stolen trillions upon trillions of dollars from the past few generations. And the state cannot survive on, say 50% of its current budget, because that won’t be enough to pay off the debt.
So the state is either unnecessary, or a vile thief. Or both.
In every medical drama known to mankind, some Type-A surgeon always ends up trying to resuscitate a patient who has clearly shuffled off to join the choir invisible. Some gentle and rational soul always has to touch his shoulder and say: “He’s dead, Jim. He’s dead…” Someone else calls out the time of death.
As anarchists, this is our role. You can argue as frantically as you like about the role of the state, but we will continue to patiently put our hands on your shoulder and say: “Let it go. Stop electrocuting a corpse. Come with us, so we can choose the dance songs for the funeral, and work together to create what comes next.”
Monday, June 12, 2006
Market Anarchism: Are You Guys Crazy, or Just Nuts?
After twenty years as a ‘small government’ libertarian, I have spent the last 18 months or so strenuously – and unsuccessfully – resisting the implacable logic of ‘market anarchy’. I started out thinking it was a rather odd theory, but I have come to appreciate some of its finer points, and thought it might be interesting to share some of them with you. If these approaches are correct, then they may help you. If they are incorrect, perhaps you can rescue me from the error of my ways!
‘Market anarchism’ is a broad term referring to the theory that voluntary free market relationships can – and should – replace all existing coercive state relationships. It is derived from taking the principle of the non-initiation of force to its ultimate conclusion, and accepting that if using violence is wrong for one person, then it is wrong for every person. If stealing is wrong for me as a private citizen, then it is also wrong for everyone – including those in the ‘government’.
Much like the theory of relativity, the consistent application of this simple principle can produce rather startling conclusions. If the initiation of force is wrong, then governments as a whole are immoral institutions. Since the only moral agent is the individual (governments don’t ‘act’), then no individual can claim opposing moral rules based on a membership in a certain ‘club’ such as the government. Logically, a man can’t be subject to one moral rule while sitting at home (thou shalt not kill), and then be subject to a completely opposite moral rule when he puts on a uniform. The same is true for property rights. If all men have property rights, then no man can morally take the property of another man.
Of course, most people feel very uncomfortable with the idea that society can exist without a government. It might be worth understanding the ‘market anarchist’ responses to typical objections, just for the sake of clarification.
For instance, market anarchists are always asked how a stateless society could deal with violent criminals. We have some excellent answers, of course, but the most relevant is this: The vast majority of evils in this world are not committed by private criminals, but by governments.
Or, to put it another way: The greatest danger to human life is not private vice, but public ‘virtue’.
In the 20th century alone, credible estimates for the numbers of citizens directly murdered by governments stands at 262 million people.
Picture this: if the average height of each victim was 5’, laid out end-to-end, the corpses would circle the globe 10 times. This number is 6 times the number killed in all wars in the 20th century. To this figure we can also add others, such as the number killed by wars - 38.5 million, as well the 60 million killed by malaria as a direct result of worldwide governmental bans on DDT. There are many other ways in which people get killed by government policies, such as:
- general poverty due to central planning
- increased infant morality
- decreased life expectancy
- illnesses resulting from poor public sanitation
- malnutrition
- lack of access to medical supplies/services
- …and countless more!
We could add other crimes as well, such as the endless kidnapping and imprisonment involved in police states and the ‘war on drugs’? The
Do you see what I mean about prioritizing risks to human life and security?
State crimes are also qualitatively different from private crimes. There are many steps that a citizen can take to reduce the likelihood of being victimized by private criminals. From security systems to doormen to moving to a better neighborhood, citizens can directly reduce their risks. For instance, about two-thirds of murder victims knew their murderers – so just hang with the right crowd, and your risk drops significantly. 75% of recent murders in
Contrast that to government crimes. What can you do to protect yourself against taxation? Nothing. Everywhere you go, you are taxed. Want to take up arms against the Gestapo? Good luck. Want to escape senseless regulations? Pray for a libertarian afterlife.
Of course, the opposing argument is that criminal violence is like an inverted bell-curve – lots of state power = lots of violence, and also no state power = lots of violence. However, statistics rarely bear that out. For instance, In 1900, when the government was many times smaller, the
In general, within each country, the smaller the government, the lower the violent crime rate – and so who can definitively say that ‘no government’ will naturally produce more crime? It would be like saying: my health improves when my cancer shrinks, but will surely worsen if it disappears completely!
If we are truly concerned with human suffering, we must rank threats rationally. We must deal with the most life-threatening problems first, and only then proceed to lesser dangers. What would we think of a ER doctor who treated a hangnail before dealing with a spurting artery? When citizens face far more danger from government officials than private criminals, is it rational to use our fear of criminals to shy away from exploring the possibility of a stateless society? Of course not! Refusing to consider market anarchism for fear of criminals is like refusing to treat a man dying of cancer because he might someday be hit by a bus.
“Sure,” you might say, “I understand that dictatorships kill lots of people, but we’re all against totalitarianism – just because ‘too much’ state is bad doesn’t automatically mean that ‘any’ state is equally bad!”
I fully understand and sympathize with the intellectual appeal of a ‘small state’, and would find it very compelling, except for historical and current realities, which show that governments never ever stay small. Like a cancer, they continually expand. The smallest state that ever came into being – the American Republic – lasted less than a century before dissolving into internal wars, state-run banking, foreign entanglements, ever-escalating taxation and crushing national debts. For example, the graph below shows US government spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP since 1929.
And, of course, the vast majority of spending increases are on social programs – or, more simply, voter bribing:
Naturally, this rise in government spending increasingly displaces private (voluntary) sectors, just as a cancer displaces healthy cells:
The shortfall in US spending ($47 trillion dollars as of 2004) will inevitably result in either totalitarianism or bankruptcy (or both!).
There are many reasons for the inevitable increases in state power and corruption, but the main point here is that even if we were able to magically reduce state power to purely Constitutional levels, it would take less than a generation or two for the self-destructive growth to start again.
The government, as an agency of violence, can never be controlled. Like slavery, it can neither be reformed nor ‘managed’, since its very premise – the initiation of the use of force – is immoral, irrational and, in the long run, utterly impractical.
In my view, the libertarian movement is floundering not because we advocate too much freedom, but rather because we do not advocate enough freedom. Our moral vision is constantly compromised and diluted by the violence we advocate for the sake of our ‘small state’ position. But either violence is right or it is wrong. If it is right, how can we quibble about the degree of violence used by the state?
If it is wrong, how can we approve of even a small state?
I look forward to your feedback!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Inviting Freedom: Releasing Everyone's ‘Inner Libertarian’
Has this ever happened to you? You’re discussing liberty with someone, and you say something like: “The government shouldn’t take care of the poor.”
The response you get is: “Oh yeah? Well then who would take care of the poor?”
Ah, you reply, there will be more charities and job opportunities and everyone cares about the poor since everyone asks the same question and besides the government is not helping the poor now anyway and so on and so on.
And as you speak, the recipient of your wisdom asks endless skeptical questions until you end up having to prove the value of everything from the gold standard to getting rid of the minimum wage…
I’ve offered a way around this before, in my article ‘Forget the Argument From Efficiency’, but I would like to offer another solution to the problem of defending liberty in the face of skepticism.
I believe that Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) could replace the core functions of governments, but the idea is usually countered with the accusation that DROs would just turn into mini-governments. In this case, I was asked: “But DROs would force me to carry an ID card, just like a government!”
I had all my pat answers ready, but I tried a different approach. I simply replied: “That’s an excellent question! Let’s try answering it this way. If you’re a DRO and you want me as a customer, and I tell you I hate ID cards, how could you solve my problem?”
There was a pause. Gears began turning. “Well, you might not have to carry an ID card per se I guess… We could use fingerprints if we had to. Or retina scans. Or voice imprints.”
“But what if I said that I hated all those things too? Or they were too expensive?”
“Well I don’t know,” my former opponent said. “I guess if you were buying something, your ID would be your credit card. Or bank card. Huh. Or I guess you’d have to register whatever you bought to get a guarantee, so…”
And I swear, he went on for five minutes, brow furrowed, teasing out all the possibilities of how DROs avoid forcing customers to carry ID cards.
And he only forgot one solution. And I couldn’t resist…
“But tell me this,” I said. “Why would DROs want to have you carry an ID card in the first place?”
“Because it would be more efficient for them I guess.”
“Sure, but how could they make it more efficient for you?”
“Huh?”
“I mean, they want you to carry the ID card, right, so how are they going to get you to do it?”
The brow furrowed again. It’s so hard for people to think ‘outside the state’…
“By… incenting me?”
“Perhaps. How might they do that?”
The furrows deepened. “Well, like coffee shops I guess, with those 6-for-5 cards I always lose. Or that Air Miles thing. Or gas stations. Or local computer stores, where if you pay cash they knock off a few points…”
And off he was again, for another few minutes. But then he stopped short. “But what if it’s not worth it for DROs to give me rebates for carrying an ID card?”
“Well what would that mean about the ID cards?”
“That… that they’re not that valuable I guess.”
And there it was! Instead of me being stuck in the position of defending liberty, we were exploring it together, and he was coming up with dozens of solutions.
And it was fun!
I left him without stating the obvious, although it wasn’t easy! The obvious fact was this: look at how much intellectual creativity energy is unleashed in the absence of State coercion!
So the next time you’re talking about liberty with a skeptic, if you’ve never tried it, try switching sides. You might be surprised how quickly you end up on the same team.
The response you get is: “Oh yeah? Well then who would take care of the poor?”
Ah, you reply, there will be more charities and job opportunities and everyone cares about the poor since everyone asks the same question and besides the government is not helping the poor now anyway and so on and so on.
And as you speak, the recipient of your wisdom asks endless skeptical questions until you end up having to prove the value of everything from the gold standard to getting rid of the minimum wage…
I’ve offered a way around this before, in my article ‘Forget the Argument From Efficiency’, but I would like to offer another solution to the problem of defending liberty in the face of skepticism.
I believe that Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) could replace the core functions of governments, but the idea is usually countered with the accusation that DROs would just turn into mini-governments. In this case, I was asked: “But DROs would force me to carry an ID card, just like a government!”
I had all my pat answers ready, but I tried a different approach. I simply replied: “That’s an excellent question! Let’s try answering it this way. If you’re a DRO and you want me as a customer, and I tell you I hate ID cards, how could you solve my problem?”
There was a pause. Gears began turning. “Well, you might not have to carry an ID card per se I guess… We could use fingerprints if we had to. Or retina scans. Or voice imprints.”
“But what if I said that I hated all those things too? Or they were too expensive?”
“Well I don’t know,” my former opponent said. “I guess if you were buying something, your ID would be your credit card. Or bank card. Huh. Or I guess you’d have to register whatever you bought to get a guarantee, so…”
And I swear, he went on for five minutes, brow furrowed, teasing out all the possibilities of how DROs avoid forcing customers to carry ID cards.
And he only forgot one solution. And I couldn’t resist…
“But tell me this,” I said. “Why would DROs want to have you carry an ID card in the first place?”
“Because it would be more efficient for them I guess.”
“Sure, but how could they make it more efficient for you?”
“Huh?”
“I mean, they want you to carry the ID card, right, so how are they going to get you to do it?”
The brow furrowed again. It’s so hard for people to think ‘outside the state’…
“By… incenting me?”
“Perhaps. How might they do that?”
The furrows deepened. “Well, like coffee shops I guess, with those 6-for-5 cards I always lose. Or that Air Miles thing. Or gas stations. Or local computer stores, where if you pay cash they knock off a few points…”
And off he was again, for another few minutes. But then he stopped short. “But what if it’s not worth it for DROs to give me rebates for carrying an ID card?”
“Well what would that mean about the ID cards?”
“That… that they’re not that valuable I guess.”
And there it was! Instead of me being stuck in the position of defending liberty, we were exploring it together, and he was coming up with dozens of solutions.
And it was fun!
I left him without stating the obvious, although it wasn’t easy! The obvious fact was this: look at how much intellectual creativity energy is unleashed in the absence of State coercion!
So the next time you’re talking about liberty with a skeptic, if you’ve never tried it, try switching sides. You might be surprised how quickly you end up on the same team.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Life Without Government: It’s Not As Distant As You Think
I am always astounded when someone rejects even the possibility of a stateless society by demanding that I supply proof such a society has ever existed, or could ever work.
“But I can give you an example of a perfectly functioning non-violent society right this minute!” I reply.
“Oh yeah?” my interrogator will demand skeptically. “Where?”
“Well, it’s… you!”
A great flurry of confusion always follows this very simple statement. “What are you talking about?”
“Well, are you married?” I say.
“Yes, but…”
“Did you force your spouse to marry you?”
“What are you talking about?”
“When you proposed, did you hold a gun to her temple and threaten to pull the trigger if she didn’t marry you?”
“No, but…”
“Do you have a job?”
“Yes…”
“And when you went to that job interview, did you hold a knife to your interviewer’s throat until you got the job?”
“No…”
“Did you go to school?”
“Of course! But what…”
“And if you wanted an ‘A’, did you work hard, or did you kidnap your teacher’s daughter and hold her hostage until you got the grade you wanted?”
“No, but…”
“Do you shoplift when you go to stores? Do you leave restaurants without paying the bill? Do you ‘pump and run’ at gas stations? If you want to have a party, do you herd your guests up at gunpoint?”
The answer is always the same. Of course not! Over the past twenty years, over thousands of conversations, I have never once met anyone who regularly used violence. I’ve met a few people who’d been in bar fights, heard tales of a few bad marriages and seen some fairly nasty parents, but I have never once met a single person who regularly and systematically used violence to force obedience out of others.
So naturally, I am quite confused when people demand that I produce historical proof of functioning non-violent societies. It’s like a panting man asking me to produce proof of the existence of air.
You do not use violence in your life. You do not force people to do your bidding. You do not shoot or stab or poison people who disagree with you.
And I would guess that you don’t know anyone else who does.
Just think about that for a moment. Think of your close and extended family, everyone at work, all your managers, employees and customers. Think of the man who flies your plane, the woman who fixes your car, the teenager who delivers your newspaper. Think of the thousands and thousands of people you have met during the course of your life. How many of the people you have met as an adult have ever used violence against you?
I bet none.
Now that’s quite remarkable when you think about it. Just looking at your own life, you can see a community of hundreds or thousands of people composed entirely of pacifists. A community composed of people who resolve all their disputes without pulling out knives or guns.
People generally respond to this, of course, by arguing that people don’t use force because the State has courts and the police and so on, and without State protection we’d be in that mythical state of nature, stealing and killing each other at will.
That’s an interesting objection, but I have a hard time taking it very seriously, because all I have to ask in return is this:
“Have you ever actually tried to use the State justice system?”
Of course not. If they had, they wouldn’t speak so blithely about how the ‘thin blue line’ is all that separates us from cannibalism. And it’s not fear of the police that keeps you from dumping your garbage on the lawn next door, but rather a natural desire to live in peace with those around you.
And sure, there are people who use violence to get their way – but you can protect yourself against criminals. You can’t protect yourself against the State.
Does this approach prove that a stateless society will work flawlessly? Of course not. However, I hope it helps you see that in your life, a stateless, pacifistic society works beautifully! I don’t expect that this approach will convince you of the practicality of a stateless society as a whole, but in the society that you live in – surely the most important to you – it does highlight the simple fact that non-violence is the norm, and that voluntary cooperation is in fact how most people actually live.
In other words, if we actually look at our own lives, and set aside propaganda and fear, it becomes clear that stateless societies are not only possible in the future, but alive and well in the here and now. To see the future of freedom, we need only look in the mirror today.
“But I can give you an example of a perfectly functioning non-violent society right this minute!” I reply.
“Oh yeah?” my interrogator will demand skeptically. “Where?”
“Well, it’s… you!”
A great flurry of confusion always follows this very simple statement. “What are you talking about?”
“Well, are you married?” I say.
“Yes, but…”
“Did you force your spouse to marry you?”
“What are you talking about?”
“When you proposed, did you hold a gun to her temple and threaten to pull the trigger if she didn’t marry you?”
“No, but…”
“Do you have a job?”
“Yes…”
“And when you went to that job interview, did you hold a knife to your interviewer’s throat until you got the job?”
“No…”
“Did you go to school?”
“Of course! But what…”
“And if you wanted an ‘A’, did you work hard, or did you kidnap your teacher’s daughter and hold her hostage until you got the grade you wanted?”
“No, but…”
“Do you shoplift when you go to stores? Do you leave restaurants without paying the bill? Do you ‘pump and run’ at gas stations? If you want to have a party, do you herd your guests up at gunpoint?”
The answer is always the same. Of course not! Over the past twenty years, over thousands of conversations, I have never once met anyone who regularly used violence. I’ve met a few people who’d been in bar fights, heard tales of a few bad marriages and seen some fairly nasty parents, but I have never once met a single person who regularly and systematically used violence to force obedience out of others.
So naturally, I am quite confused when people demand that I produce historical proof of functioning non-violent societies. It’s like a panting man asking me to produce proof of the existence of air.
You do not use violence in your life. You do not force people to do your bidding. You do not shoot or stab or poison people who disagree with you.
And I would guess that you don’t know anyone else who does.
Just think about that for a moment. Think of your close and extended family, everyone at work, all your managers, employees and customers. Think of the man who flies your plane, the woman who fixes your car, the teenager who delivers your newspaper. Think of the thousands and thousands of people you have met during the course of your life. How many of the people you have met as an adult have ever used violence against you?
I bet none.
Now that’s quite remarkable when you think about it. Just looking at your own life, you can see a community of hundreds or thousands of people composed entirely of pacifists. A community composed of people who resolve all their disputes without pulling out knives or guns.
People generally respond to this, of course, by arguing that people don’t use force because the State has courts and the police and so on, and without State protection we’d be in that mythical state of nature, stealing and killing each other at will.
That’s an interesting objection, but I have a hard time taking it very seriously, because all I have to ask in return is this:
“Have you ever actually tried to use the State justice system?”
Of course not. If they had, they wouldn’t speak so blithely about how the ‘thin blue line’ is all that separates us from cannibalism. And it’s not fear of the police that keeps you from dumping your garbage on the lawn next door, but rather a natural desire to live in peace with those around you.
And sure, there are people who use violence to get their way – but you can protect yourself against criminals. You can’t protect yourself against the State.
Does this approach prove that a stateless society will work flawlessly? Of course not. However, I hope it helps you see that in your life, a stateless, pacifistic society works beautifully! I don’t expect that this approach will convince you of the practicality of a stateless society as a whole, but in the society that you live in – surely the most important to you – it does highlight the simple fact that non-violence is the norm, and that voluntary cooperation is in fact how most people actually live.
In other words, if we actually look at our own lives, and set aside propaganda and fear, it becomes clear that stateless societies are not only possible in the future, but alive and well in the here and now. To see the future of freedom, we need only look in the mirror today.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Space Aliens from Luxemburg: A Horror Story
Let us imagine that tomorrow morning, when you flip on CNN, you see Wolf Blitzer being jostled by surging crowds. Everyone is running, staring at the sky in fear. “Space aliens have landed in Luxemburg!” cries Wolf, wide-eyed and almost hysterical, “and they have a message for all mankind!”
There is a burst of static, and then you see a drooling, bulging-eyed monstrosity gripping prepared notes in its slimy sea-green tentacles.
“Citizens of Earth!” it gurgles, “we bring good news! We see that, all over the world, citizens live under the slavery of what you call ‘governments.’ Millions of you are unjustly imprisoned, billions are stolen from you through taxation, and government-owned WMDs threaten the very survival of the planet! This is a moral abomination, and we have come to put a stop to it!”
Well! you think, munching your toast, this might bring my property taxes down a bit!
The alien continues: “We are fully dedicated to freeing you from the monstrous moral evil of these governments, and we have decided to start with the United States of America!”
Although you are not a great fan of the US government, a strange sense of foreboding rises in your stomach. Sure enough, the slavering alien continues:
“Freedom does not come cheap, of course; sacrifices must be made. As we dislodge your existing government, there will be suffering – but no matter! Freedom is worth every tear, every sacrifice!”
Well that’s interesting, you think, stirring your cereal slowly. I don’t see how they’re going to be sacrificing anything, but let’s see what they mean…
“We will use a two-phased approach to set you free,” gurgles the alien, squinting into the camera with at least a dozen eyes. “First, we will impose economic sanctions, designed to force your leaders to relinquish their ill-gotten power. As part of this process, we will use ray shields to block international trade, ground your airplanes, and irradiate your food and medicine.” Two of the alien’s eyes dart down to check some figures. “Based on prior experience, we calculate that this phase will cause the deaths of no more than 5-6 million of your children. Also, about 13% of your newborns will die before reaching the age of 5. But we are willing to make that sacrifice, because we believe it’s worth it. For freedom!”
The space alien frowns and flips some pages. Your mouth hangs open.
“We shall keep these sanctions in place for thirteen or so years. If, after that time, your leaders have not given up their power, we will move on to stage 2. In stage 2, we will directly invade your country, in order to overthrow your existing government and replace it with a better government. This will also entail some suffering. We imagine that approximately 20-30 of your cities will be destroyed, just over a million of you will be killed, about 8 million will be wounded, and tens of millions of you will be rendered homeless. About 50% of you will lose your jobs. Most of your roads, bridges, electrical and water systems will be obliterated. Your food supply will be largely destroyed. But don’t worry – our goal it to replace your existing leaders with new leaders, and we believe that is worth all the blood, sweat, tears and deaths you will experience!”
With a clatter, your cereal bowl falls to the floor, spraying milk all over your legs. Your pregnant wife wanders into the room and asks what on earth is going on.
“Wake the kids!” you whisper hoarsely. “We’ve got to get out of here!”
But the space aliens from Luxemburg are as good as their word. There is no escape. Shimmering purple ray shields spring up around the borders, preventing anyone from entering or leaving the country. The aliens set up ‘no fly zones’ which is pretty much the entire US airspace. Several times a day, heat-rays slice down from buzzing spaceships, burning alive hundreds of citizens as they huddle in their homes screaming with terror.
Every now and then, the space aliens drop leaflets explaining their actions.
“Citizens of America,” they read, “we are not angry with you! We are only angry with your political leaders that subjugate you! Be patient as we work to remove your leaders! We cannot allow them to continue to wield their WMDs – we shall save you from their evil!”
However, you notice, the leaders don’t seem to be harmed at all by the alien sanctions. In fact, their wealth and power seem to grow. As the economy dies, however, your life – and the life of your neighbours – becomes an unrecognizable medieval hell. There is almost no medicine, clean running water, or electricity. Children and the old die like flies, and are buried in empty stadiums. Dysentery and cholera run rampant. People flee the cities to live in tent communities. After your wife gives birth, your baby dies within a few weeks.
As the sanctions wear on, frightening rumours begin to circulate – rumours so horrifying that they can scarcely be believed. One rumour says that the very political leaders that the space aliens claim to hate were in fact funded, sponsored and installed by the space aliens to begin with! Another says that the very same WMDs that the aliens claim to be horrified by were given to your leaders by the space aliens in the first place!
Finally, after thirteen long years – after millions of children have died and an entire generation has grown up knowing only despair, poverty, death, disease and hopelessness – the day finally arrives.
Invasion!
Endless fleets of spaceships flash across the skies over America, turning cities into flames. They claim to be aiming for the leaders, but instead over a million men, women and children get burned up in their own homes, screaming and burrowing for shelter.
The war is relatively short, since electromagnetic rays disable almost all the US defense systems. The space aliens take over the burning wreckage of Washington, and immediately impose rigid curfews. Because some Americans – perhaps those whose children or wives were murdered by the sanctions or the fleets of spaceships – have formed an underground rebellion against the occupation, alien troops start invading homes and dragging men and women into concentration camps without trial.
One night, your door is kicked in and your eldest son is dragged away. His screams are muffled by the black bag over his head, and you stand there helpless, sick with fear. The next morning, you drift around your tent city, asking questions. Most people turn away, terrified that you are an informer for the aliens. But a few tell you terrible stories about the concentration camps. Hushed voices tell tales of torture. And rape. And murder. And you slowly find out that more than a quarter of a million Americans have been dragged into these gulags without trial or access to lawyers. No one knows what becomes of them.
Every day, your wife lines up in front of one of these sprawling camps, hoping for a chance to find out about your son. She is told nothing. He could be alive or dead – there is no way to tell. You are desperate to find him, but are terrified that if your wife keeps asking, she will disappear too.
Then, one sweltering summer day, New York is encircled by spaceships. From blaring loudspeakers, all the women and children are told to flee the city. Any men who try to escape are beaten and turned back. The aliens turn off New York’s water and electricity. After about 2 million people flee New York, the space aliens burn it to the ground with their heat rays. Hospitals are targeted. The screams of the dying can be heard from across the river.
As the occupation grinds on, there seems to be no end in sight. The aliens, who said that their mission was to free Americans, are now building permanent military bases and have installed a puppet government that they control.
One evening, as you sit with the remnants of your family in front of your ragged tent, starving and terrified, you hear a tinny voice coming from a neighbour’s radio. One of the alien leaders is complaining that Americans seem “ungrateful” for their liberation. “I guess there are just some bad apples,” he sighs, “who hate us for our innate goodness.”
And as you close your eyes and try to sleep, you think of your son, missing for years, picturing him bruised and broken in some airless cell, and wonder if he is better off alive or dead.
There is a burst of static, and then you see a drooling, bulging-eyed monstrosity gripping prepared notes in its slimy sea-green tentacles.
“Citizens of Earth!” it gurgles, “we bring good news! We see that, all over the world, citizens live under the slavery of what you call ‘governments.’ Millions of you are unjustly imprisoned, billions are stolen from you through taxation, and government-owned WMDs threaten the very survival of the planet! This is a moral abomination, and we have come to put a stop to it!”
Well! you think, munching your toast, this might bring my property taxes down a bit!
The alien continues: “We are fully dedicated to freeing you from the monstrous moral evil of these governments, and we have decided to start with the United States of America!”
Although you are not a great fan of the US government, a strange sense of foreboding rises in your stomach. Sure enough, the slavering alien continues:
“Freedom does not come cheap, of course; sacrifices must be made. As we dislodge your existing government, there will be suffering – but no matter! Freedom is worth every tear, every sacrifice!”
Well that’s interesting, you think, stirring your cereal slowly. I don’t see how they’re going to be sacrificing anything, but let’s see what they mean…
“We will use a two-phased approach to set you free,” gurgles the alien, squinting into the camera with at least a dozen eyes. “First, we will impose economic sanctions, designed to force your leaders to relinquish their ill-gotten power. As part of this process, we will use ray shields to block international trade, ground your airplanes, and irradiate your food and medicine.” Two of the alien’s eyes dart down to check some figures. “Based on prior experience, we calculate that this phase will cause the deaths of no more than 5-6 million of your children. Also, about 13% of your newborns will die before reaching the age of 5. But we are willing to make that sacrifice, because we believe it’s worth it. For freedom!”
The space alien frowns and flips some pages. Your mouth hangs open.
“We shall keep these sanctions in place for thirteen or so years. If, after that time, your leaders have not given up their power, we will move on to stage 2. In stage 2, we will directly invade your country, in order to overthrow your existing government and replace it with a better government. This will also entail some suffering. We imagine that approximately 20-30 of your cities will be destroyed, just over a million of you will be killed, about 8 million will be wounded, and tens of millions of you will be rendered homeless. About 50% of you will lose your jobs. Most of your roads, bridges, electrical and water systems will be obliterated. Your food supply will be largely destroyed. But don’t worry – our goal it to replace your existing leaders with new leaders, and we believe that is worth all the blood, sweat, tears and deaths you will experience!”
With a clatter, your cereal bowl falls to the floor, spraying milk all over your legs. Your pregnant wife wanders into the room and asks what on earth is going on.
“Wake the kids!” you whisper hoarsely. “We’ve got to get out of here!”
But the space aliens from Luxemburg are as good as their word. There is no escape. Shimmering purple ray shields spring up around the borders, preventing anyone from entering or leaving the country. The aliens set up ‘no fly zones’ which is pretty much the entire US airspace. Several times a day, heat-rays slice down from buzzing spaceships, burning alive hundreds of citizens as they huddle in their homes screaming with terror.
Every now and then, the space aliens drop leaflets explaining their actions.
“Citizens of America,” they read, “we are not angry with you! We are only angry with your political leaders that subjugate you! Be patient as we work to remove your leaders! We cannot allow them to continue to wield their WMDs – we shall save you from their evil!”
However, you notice, the leaders don’t seem to be harmed at all by the alien sanctions. In fact, their wealth and power seem to grow. As the economy dies, however, your life – and the life of your neighbours – becomes an unrecognizable medieval hell. There is almost no medicine, clean running water, or electricity. Children and the old die like flies, and are buried in empty stadiums. Dysentery and cholera run rampant. People flee the cities to live in tent communities. After your wife gives birth, your baby dies within a few weeks.
As the sanctions wear on, frightening rumours begin to circulate – rumours so horrifying that they can scarcely be believed. One rumour says that the very political leaders that the space aliens claim to hate were in fact funded, sponsored and installed by the space aliens to begin with! Another says that the very same WMDs that the aliens claim to be horrified by were given to your leaders by the space aliens in the first place!
Finally, after thirteen long years – after millions of children have died and an entire generation has grown up knowing only despair, poverty, death, disease and hopelessness – the day finally arrives.
Invasion!
Endless fleets of spaceships flash across the skies over America, turning cities into flames. They claim to be aiming for the leaders, but instead over a million men, women and children get burned up in their own homes, screaming and burrowing for shelter.
The war is relatively short, since electromagnetic rays disable almost all the US defense systems. The space aliens take over the burning wreckage of Washington, and immediately impose rigid curfews. Because some Americans – perhaps those whose children or wives were murdered by the sanctions or the fleets of spaceships – have formed an underground rebellion against the occupation, alien troops start invading homes and dragging men and women into concentration camps without trial.
One night, your door is kicked in and your eldest son is dragged away. His screams are muffled by the black bag over his head, and you stand there helpless, sick with fear. The next morning, you drift around your tent city, asking questions. Most people turn away, terrified that you are an informer for the aliens. But a few tell you terrible stories about the concentration camps. Hushed voices tell tales of torture. And rape. And murder. And you slowly find out that more than a quarter of a million Americans have been dragged into these gulags without trial or access to lawyers. No one knows what becomes of them.
Every day, your wife lines up in front of one of these sprawling camps, hoping for a chance to find out about your son. She is told nothing. He could be alive or dead – there is no way to tell. You are desperate to find him, but are terrified that if your wife keeps asking, she will disappear too.
Then, one sweltering summer day, New York is encircled by spaceships. From blaring loudspeakers, all the women and children are told to flee the city. Any men who try to escape are beaten and turned back. The aliens turn off New York’s water and electricity. After about 2 million people flee New York, the space aliens burn it to the ground with their heat rays. Hospitals are targeted. The screams of the dying can be heard from across the river.
As the occupation grinds on, there seems to be no end in sight. The aliens, who said that their mission was to free Americans, are now building permanent military bases and have installed a puppet government that they control.
One evening, as you sit with the remnants of your family in front of your ragged tent, starving and terrified, you hear a tinny voice coming from a neighbour’s radio. One of the alien leaders is complaining that Americans seem “ungrateful” for their liberation. “I guess there are just some bad apples,” he sighs, “who hate us for our innate goodness.”
And as you close your eyes and try to sleep, you think of your son, missing for years, picturing him bruised and broken in some airless cell, and wonder if he is better off alive or dead.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Stateless Prisons
Containing Danger without Enslaving Citizens
By Stefan Molyneux, MA
Host, Freedomain Radio - www.freedomainradio.com
One of the great challenges of anarchistic philosophy is the challenge of prisons, or the physical restraint of violent criminals. I have dealt with this topic once before, but I am still receiving numerous requests for clarifications on how a stateless society might deal with violent criminals. So - let us examine the punitive mechanisms that might exist in the absence of a coercive state system.
Firstly, we can assume that in the absence of a state, private protection agencies (called here DROs, for Dispute Resolution Organizations) will necessarily band together to deny the advantages of a modern economic life to those individuals who egregiously harm their fellow citizens. Such necessities as bank accounts, credit, transportation, lodging, food and so on, can all be withheld from those who have been proven to have committed violent crimes. Also, in a stateless society, since there is no such thing as ‘public’ property, violent criminals would have a tough time getting anywhere, since roads, parks, forests and so on would all be owned privately. Anybody providing aid or comfort to a person convicted of a violent crime would face a withdrawal of services and protections from their own DRO, and so would avoid giving such help.
However, this solution alone has not been sufficient for some people, who still feel that sociopathic and violent criminals need to be physically restrained or imprisoned for society to be safe.
First of all, before tackling this issue, I would like to point out that if the problem of violent sociopaths is very extensive, then surely any moral justifications for the existence of a state become that much more untenable. If society literally swarms with evil people, then those evil people will surely overwhelm the state, the police, and the military, and prey upon legally disarmed citizens to their hearts content. If, however, there are very few evil people, then we surely do not need a state to protect us from such a tiny problem. In other words, if there are a lot of evil people, we cannot have a state - and if there are few evil people, then we do not need a state.
However, let us imagine what happens to a rapist in a stateless society. All general DRO contracts will include ‘rape protection’, since DROs will want to avoid incurring the medical, psychological and income costs of a rape for one of their own customers. Part of ‘rape protection’ will be the provision of significant financial restitution to a rape victim. (Women who can’t afford ‘rape protection’ will be subsidized by charities - or lawyers will represent them pro bono in return for a cut of the restitution.)
If a woman gets raped, she then applies to her DRO for restitution. The DRO then finds her rapist - using the most advanced forensic techniques available - and sends an agent to knock on his door.
“Good morning, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been charged with rape, and I'm here to inform you of your options. We wish to make this process as painless and non-intrusive as possible for you, and so will schedule a trial at the time of your earliest convenience. If you do not attend this trial, or testify falsely, or attempt to flee, we shall apply significant sanctions against you, which are outlined in your existing DRO contract. Our agreement with your bank allows us to freeze your assets - except for basic living and legal expenses - the moment that you are charged with a violent crime. We also have agreements with airlines, road, bus and train companies to prevent you from leaving town until this matter is resolved.
“You can represent yourself in this trial, choose from one of our lawyers, or we will pay for any lawyer you prefer, at standard rates. Also, as per our existing contract, we are to be allowed access to your home for purposes of investigation. You are free to deny us this access, of course, but then we shall assume that you are guilty of the crime, and will apply all the sanctions allowed to us by contract.
“If you are found to be innocent of this crime, we will pay you the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be funded by the woman who has charged you with rape. We will also offer free psychological counseling for you, in order to help you avoid such accusers in the future.”
The trial will commence, and will return a verdict in due course.
If the man is found guilty, he will receive another visit from his DRO representative.
“Good afternoon, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been found guilty of rape, and I'm here to inform you of your punishment. We have a reciprocal agreement with your bank, which has now closed down your accounts, and transferred the money to us. We will be deducting double the costs of our investigation and trial from your funds, and will also be transferring half a million dollars to the woman you have raped. We also have reciprocal agreements with the companies that provide water and electricity to your house, and those will now be cut off. Furthermore, no gas station will sell you gasoline, and no train station, airline or bus company will sell you a ticket. We have made arrangements with all of the local grocery stores to deny you service, either in person or online. If you set foot on the street outside your house, which is owned privately, you will be physically removed for trespassing.
“Of course, you have the right to appeal this sentence, and if you successfully appeal, we would transfer our costs to the woman who has accused you of rape, and pay you well for the inconvenience we have caused you. If, however, your appeal fails, all additional costs will be added to your debt.
“I can tell you openly that if you choose to stay in your house, you will be unable to survive very long. You will run out food and water very quickly. You can attempt to escape your own house, of course, leaving all of your possessions, and try to make it to some wilderness area. If you do successfully escape, be aware that you are now entered into a central registry, and no reputable DRO will ever represent you. Furthermore, all DROs which have reciprocal agreements with us - which is the vast majority of them - will withdraw services from their own customers if those customers provide you with any goods or services. You will never be able to open a bank account, use centralized currency, carry a credit card, own a car, buy gas, use a road, use any other form of transportation - and gaining food, water and lodging will be a constant nightmare for you. You will spend your entire life running, hiding and begging, and will never find peace, solace or comfort in any place.
“However, there is an option. If you come with me, we will take you to a place of work for a period of five years. During that time, you will be working for us in a capacity which will be determined by your skills. If you do not have any viable skills, we will train you. Your wages will go to us, and we will deduct the costs of your incarceration, as well as any of the costs I outlined above which are not covered by your existing funds. A small amount of your wages will be set aside to help get you started after your release.
“During your stay with us, we will help you, because we do not want to have to go through all of this again with you in the future. You will take courses on ethics. You will take courses on anger management. You will take psychological counseling. You will emerge from your incarceration a far better person. And when you do emerge, all of your full rights will be restored, and you will be able to fully participate once more in the economic and social life of society.
“You have a choice now, and I want you to understand the full ramifications of that choice. If you come with me now, this is the best offer that I can give you. If you decide to stay in your house, and later change your mind, the penalties will be far greater. If you escape, and later change your mind, the penalties will be far greater still. In our experience, 99.99% of people who either run or stay end up changing their minds, and end up that much worse off. The remaining 0.01? Oh, they commit suicide.
“The choice is now yours. Do the right thing. Do the wise thing. Come with me now.”
Can we really imagine that anyone would choose to stay in their own house and die of thirst, unable to even flush their toilet? Can we imagine that anyone would choose a life of perpetual running and hiding and begging? Even if the rapist had no interest in becoming a better person, surely the cost/benefit of the options outlined above would convince him!
There will always be a small number of truly evil or insane people within society. There are far, far better ways of dealing with them than our existing system of dehumanizing, brutal and destructive state gulags, which generally serve only to expand their criminal skills and contacts. Also, it is important to remember that the existing state prisons have barely any evil or insane people in them! The vast majority of those in jail are nonviolent offenders, enslaved and in chains because they used recreational drugs, or gambled, or went to a prostitute, or didn't pay all their taxes, or other such innocuous nonsense – or turned to crime because state ‘vice’ prohibitions made crime so profitable!
Our choice, then, is between a system which removes the tiny minority of evil people from society, rehabilitates them if possible, and makes them work productively to support their own confinement - or a state system which spends most of its time and energies enslaving innocent people, while letting the evil and insane roam free.
By Stefan Molyneux, MA
Host, Freedomain Radio - www.freedomainradio.com
One of the great challenges of anarchistic philosophy is the challenge of prisons, or the physical restraint of violent criminals. I have dealt with this topic once before, but I am still receiving numerous requests for clarifications on how a stateless society might deal with violent criminals. So - let us examine the punitive mechanisms that might exist in the absence of a coercive state system.
Firstly, we can assume that in the absence of a state, private protection agencies (called here DROs, for Dispute Resolution Organizations) will necessarily band together to deny the advantages of a modern economic life to those individuals who egregiously harm their fellow citizens. Such necessities as bank accounts, credit, transportation, lodging, food and so on, can all be withheld from those who have been proven to have committed violent crimes. Also, in a stateless society, since there is no such thing as ‘public’ property, violent criminals would have a tough time getting anywhere, since roads, parks, forests and so on would all be owned privately. Anybody providing aid or comfort to a person convicted of a violent crime would face a withdrawal of services and protections from their own DRO, and so would avoid giving such help.
However, this solution alone has not been sufficient for some people, who still feel that sociopathic and violent criminals need to be physically restrained or imprisoned for society to be safe.
First of all, before tackling this issue, I would like to point out that if the problem of violent sociopaths is very extensive, then surely any moral justifications for the existence of a state become that much more untenable. If society literally swarms with evil people, then those evil people will surely overwhelm the state, the police, and the military, and prey upon legally disarmed citizens to their hearts content. If, however, there are very few evil people, then we surely do not need a state to protect us from such a tiny problem. In other words, if there are a lot of evil people, we cannot have a state - and if there are few evil people, then we do not need a state.
However, let us imagine what happens to a rapist in a stateless society. All general DRO contracts will include ‘rape protection’, since DROs will want to avoid incurring the medical, psychological and income costs of a rape for one of their own customers. Part of ‘rape protection’ will be the provision of significant financial restitution to a rape victim. (Women who can’t afford ‘rape protection’ will be subsidized by charities - or lawyers will represent them pro bono in return for a cut of the restitution.)
If a woman gets raped, she then applies to her DRO for restitution. The DRO then finds her rapist - using the most advanced forensic techniques available - and sends an agent to knock on his door.
“Good morning, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been charged with rape, and I'm here to inform you of your options. We wish to make this process as painless and non-intrusive as possible for you, and so will schedule a trial at the time of your earliest convenience. If you do not attend this trial, or testify falsely, or attempt to flee, we shall apply significant sanctions against you, which are outlined in your existing DRO contract. Our agreement with your bank allows us to freeze your assets - except for basic living and legal expenses - the moment that you are charged with a violent crime. We also have agreements with airlines, road, bus and train companies to prevent you from leaving town until this matter is resolved.
“You can represent yourself in this trial, choose from one of our lawyers, or we will pay for any lawyer you prefer, at standard rates. Also, as per our existing contract, we are to be allowed access to your home for purposes of investigation. You are free to deny us this access, of course, but then we shall assume that you are guilty of the crime, and will apply all the sanctions allowed to us by contract.
“If you are found to be innocent of this crime, we will pay you the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to be funded by the woman who has charged you with rape. We will also offer free psychological counseling for you, in order to help you avoid such accusers in the future.”
The trial will commence, and will return a verdict in due course.
If the man is found guilty, he will receive another visit from his DRO representative.
“Good afternoon, sir,” the agent will say. “You have been found guilty of rape, and I'm here to inform you of your punishment. We have a reciprocal agreement with your bank, which has now closed down your accounts, and transferred the money to us. We will be deducting double the costs of our investigation and trial from your funds, and will also be transferring half a million dollars to the woman you have raped. We also have reciprocal agreements with the companies that provide water and electricity to your house, and those will now be cut off. Furthermore, no gas station will sell you gasoline, and no train station, airline or bus company will sell you a ticket. We have made arrangements with all of the local grocery stores to deny you service, either in person or online. If you set foot on the street outside your house, which is owned privately, you will be physically removed for trespassing.
“Of course, you have the right to appeal this sentence, and if you successfully appeal, we would transfer our costs to the woman who has accused you of rape, and pay you well for the inconvenience we have caused you. If, however, your appeal fails, all additional costs will be added to your debt.
“I can tell you openly that if you choose to stay in your house, you will be unable to survive very long. You will run out food and water very quickly. You can attempt to escape your own house, of course, leaving all of your possessions, and try to make it to some wilderness area. If you do successfully escape, be aware that you are now entered into a central registry, and no reputable DRO will ever represent you. Furthermore, all DROs which have reciprocal agreements with us - which is the vast majority of them - will withdraw services from their own customers if those customers provide you with any goods or services. You will never be able to open a bank account, use centralized currency, carry a credit card, own a car, buy gas, use a road, use any other form of transportation - and gaining food, water and lodging will be a constant nightmare for you. You will spend your entire life running, hiding and begging, and will never find peace, solace or comfort in any place.
“However, there is an option. If you come with me, we will take you to a place of work for a period of five years. During that time, you will be working for us in a capacity which will be determined by your skills. If you do not have any viable skills, we will train you. Your wages will go to us, and we will deduct the costs of your incarceration, as well as any of the costs I outlined above which are not covered by your existing funds. A small amount of your wages will be set aside to help get you started after your release.
“During your stay with us, we will help you, because we do not want to have to go through all of this again with you in the future. You will take courses on ethics. You will take courses on anger management. You will take psychological counseling. You will emerge from your incarceration a far better person. And when you do emerge, all of your full rights will be restored, and you will be able to fully participate once more in the economic and social life of society.
“You have a choice now, and I want you to understand the full ramifications of that choice. If you come with me now, this is the best offer that I can give you. If you decide to stay in your house, and later change your mind, the penalties will be far greater. If you escape, and later change your mind, the penalties will be far greater still. In our experience, 99.99% of people who either run or stay end up changing their minds, and end up that much worse off. The remaining 0.01? Oh, they commit suicide.
“The choice is now yours. Do the right thing. Do the wise thing. Come with me now.”
Can we really imagine that anyone would choose to stay in their own house and die of thirst, unable to even flush their toilet? Can we imagine that anyone would choose a life of perpetual running and hiding and begging? Even if the rapist had no interest in becoming a better person, surely the cost/benefit of the options outlined above would convince him!
There will always be a small number of truly evil or insane people within society. There are far, far better ways of dealing with them than our existing system of dehumanizing, brutal and destructive state gulags, which generally serve only to expand their criminal skills and contacts. Also, it is important to remember that the existing state prisons have barely any evil or insane people in them! The vast majority of those in jail are nonviolent offenders, enslaved and in chains because they used recreational drugs, or gambled, or went to a prostitute, or didn't pay all their taxes, or other such innocuous nonsense – or turned to crime because state ‘vice’ prohibitions made crime so profitable!
Our choice, then, is between a system which removes the tiny minority of evil people from society, rehabilitates them if possible, and makes them work productively to support their own confinement - or a state system which spends most of its time and energies enslaving innocent people, while letting the evil and insane roam free.
Monday, April 10, 2006
A Free Society and the Ethics Of Emergencies
By Stefan Molyneux, MA
Host, Freedomain Radio – www.freedomainradio.com
A free society is by its very nature based on negative rights – i.e., thou shalt not rather than thou shalt. One common opposition to these negative rights is the ‘saving strangers’ scenario often advanced by statists.
In this moral parable, an onlooker sees a man who is drowning, and has to decide whether to dive in and save him or not. If this onlooker calmly watches the man drown, this is generally considered to be a very bad thing, and creates a first instance of a ‘positive right’ which claims that the onlooker is morally obligated to do something to save the drowning man. Behold, sayeth the statist – here we have an example of a positive right!
From this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ are created a plethora of positive rights such as forced taxation, the welfare state, the right to a job and health care, and all of the other convoluted and destructive messes of modern state programs.
Thus it is probably worth spending a few minutes discussing how the ‘Saving Strangers Scenario’ (SSS) would play out in a truly free society – i.e., a society without a centralized and coercive government.
Objection #1: Priorities, priorities, priorities…
Surely, as taxation and regulation climb into the stratosphere, as the brutality of Western foreign policy reaches a new low, and as the national debt (and large parts of the Middle East) explode – surely, there are slightly more important ethical issues to discuss then how we should deal with a theoretical drowning man that we will almost certainly never encounter. I have never run into an SSS in my life – and don’t know anyone who ever has – thus I would like to suggest that we turn our attention to more immediate moral matters. Given the current state of affairs, focusing on this issue is like being trapped in a burning building and worrying about being hit by a meteor. Thus, if people ask us to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue, we may, I think, politely decline.
Objection #2: General Human Kindness
Whenever I stop my car to ask for directions, I am generally optimistic that people are going to do their best to try and help me, based on the fact that most people are very kind. I often read news reports about strangers helping other strangers out of difficult situations – sometimes even in the face of excessive personal risk. I have never once read a news article describing an easily-preventable death which occurred among a crowd of able onlookers who did nothing to stop it. (I have occasionally read of people deciding against interrupting a mugging, but I find that hard to condemn, since risking injury or death for merely material possessions seems rather unwise!)
Thus, the SSS seems a rather artificial argument, based on the probabilities of occurrence and the kindness of the average person. Certainly as a justification for the existence of a centralized state it seems particularly flimsy!
Objection #3: Show Me The Money!
Obviously, for the SSS to be solvable at all, someone has to be willing to dive in and save the drowning man. Given that in this scenario, the cold and sociopathic onlooker is usually considered to be a real risk, it seems hard to understand exactly what the alternatives would be. If people in general do not care about the dangers that other people are experiencing, then it makes no sense to create a universal monopoly of force which is supposed to ‘take care’ of those in danger – precisely because those ‘cold and sociopathic’ people will run state programs as well!
If people do care, then the only other possible reason that they would not intervene is because they would not gain materially by doing so. In other words, people will act if, like policeman and firemen, they would be well paid to intervene in the SSS scenario.
If payment is the issue, a free society solves it very nicely! Obviously, a company which owns a beach would lose business if its customers kept drowning. Thus this company would doubtless hire lifeguards and string buoys and warn of riptides and restrict swimming during dangerous times and so on. Thus it would be very unlikely that anyone would be allowed to drown without at least some company representative trying to save them! (As far as monetary rewards go, the beach owner would simply pay a bonus to anyone who saved a customer, just as banks pay a bonus to any teller involved in a bank robbery.)
All right, but what about a man hiking in the wilderness who spies a woman drowning and there is no one else around to save her? And what if the only possible incentive he would respond to would be monetary rewards? And what if he (for some strange reason) did not think that the woman would ever pay him any money for saving her life? Would he just then let her drown? Is that why we have a government?
Well, as I have mentioned in my previous articles, in the absence of the state, Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) will spring up to mediate altercations between people and to ensure their safety. Just about everybody in a free society would be represented by some form of DRO – including the woman drowning in some remote mountain stream with a cold-blooded man standing by who only will only save her if he is rewarded financially!
Now, if the woman does drown, then her DRO is out a lot of money – death benefits, loss of future customer revenue, and so on. Thus it seems likely that DROs will be more than happy to pay good money to anyone who saves one of their customers from death, injury, or even fraud!
In this way, even the extreme (and frankly ridiculous) situation outlined above will be neatly solved in a free society. Thus there is no practical reason why the SSS should ever be the basis of an argument for positive rights – and thus one more support for the moral justification for government can be gently removed!
Host, Freedomain Radio – www.freedomainradio.com
A free society is by its very nature based on negative rights – i.e., thou shalt not rather than thou shalt. One common opposition to these negative rights is the ‘saving strangers’ scenario often advanced by statists.
In this moral parable, an onlooker sees a man who is drowning, and has to decide whether to dive in and save him or not. If this onlooker calmly watches the man drown, this is generally considered to be a very bad thing, and creates a first instance of a ‘positive right’ which claims that the onlooker is morally obligated to do something to save the drowning man. Behold, sayeth the statist – here we have an example of a positive right!
From this ‘thin edge of the wedge’ are created a plethora of positive rights such as forced taxation, the welfare state, the right to a job and health care, and all of the other convoluted and destructive messes of modern state programs.
Thus it is probably worth spending a few minutes discussing how the ‘Saving Strangers Scenario’ (SSS) would play out in a truly free society – i.e., a society without a centralized and coercive government.
Objection #1: Priorities, priorities, priorities…
Surely, as taxation and regulation climb into the stratosphere, as the brutality of Western foreign policy reaches a new low, and as the national debt (and large parts of the Middle East) explode – surely, there are slightly more important ethical issues to discuss then how we should deal with a theoretical drowning man that we will almost certainly never encounter. I have never run into an SSS in my life – and don’t know anyone who ever has – thus I would like to suggest that we turn our attention to more immediate moral matters. Given the current state of affairs, focusing on this issue is like being trapped in a burning building and worrying about being hit by a meteor. Thus, if people ask us to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue, we may, I think, politely decline.
Objection #2: General Human Kindness
Whenever I stop my car to ask for directions, I am generally optimistic that people are going to do their best to try and help me, based on the fact that most people are very kind. I often read news reports about strangers helping other strangers out of difficult situations – sometimes even in the face of excessive personal risk. I have never once read a news article describing an easily-preventable death which occurred among a crowd of able onlookers who did nothing to stop it. (I have occasionally read of people deciding against interrupting a mugging, but I find that hard to condemn, since risking injury or death for merely material possessions seems rather unwise!)
Thus, the SSS seems a rather artificial argument, based on the probabilities of occurrence and the kindness of the average person. Certainly as a justification for the existence of a centralized state it seems particularly flimsy!
Objection #3: Show Me The Money!
Obviously, for the SSS to be solvable at all, someone has to be willing to dive in and save the drowning man. Given that in this scenario, the cold and sociopathic onlooker is usually considered to be a real risk, it seems hard to understand exactly what the alternatives would be. If people in general do not care about the dangers that other people are experiencing, then it makes no sense to create a universal monopoly of force which is supposed to ‘take care’ of those in danger – precisely because those ‘cold and sociopathic’ people will run state programs as well!
If people do care, then the only other possible reason that they would not intervene is because they would not gain materially by doing so. In other words, people will act if, like policeman and firemen, they would be well paid to intervene in the SSS scenario.
If payment is the issue, a free society solves it very nicely! Obviously, a company which owns a beach would lose business if its customers kept drowning. Thus this company would doubtless hire lifeguards and string buoys and warn of riptides and restrict swimming during dangerous times and so on. Thus it would be very unlikely that anyone would be allowed to drown without at least some company representative trying to save them! (As far as monetary rewards go, the beach owner would simply pay a bonus to anyone who saved a customer, just as banks pay a bonus to any teller involved in a bank robbery.)
All right, but what about a man hiking in the wilderness who spies a woman drowning and there is no one else around to save her? And what if the only possible incentive he would respond to would be monetary rewards? And what if he (for some strange reason) did not think that the woman would ever pay him any money for saving her life? Would he just then let her drown? Is that why we have a government?
Well, as I have mentioned in my previous articles, in the absence of the state, Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) will spring up to mediate altercations between people and to ensure their safety. Just about everybody in a free society would be represented by some form of DRO – including the woman drowning in some remote mountain stream with a cold-blooded man standing by who only will only save her if he is rewarded financially!
Now, if the woman does drown, then her DRO is out a lot of money – death benefits, loss of future customer revenue, and so on. Thus it seems likely that DROs will be more than happy to pay good money to anyone who saves one of their customers from death, injury, or even fraud!
In this way, even the extreme (and frankly ridiculous) situation outlined above will be neatly solved in a free society. Thus there is no practical reason why the SSS should ever be the basis of an argument for positive rights – and thus one more support for the moral justification for government can be gently removed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)