"We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
Archive for April, 2010
Straight Forward and Unenlightening.
Apr 27th
Week 6 of C4SS’s ATP-101 involves a critique of a statist classic:Would private for-profit or not-for-profit providers of defensive services go to war with each other in a stateless society? Why or why not?
The question “would defensive service providers go to war with each other in a stateless society” is a complex question fallacy similar to questions like: “Have you given up your evil ways? Do you still beat your wife? Or Are you still a communist?”
This is not to say that the question is illegitimate, lacking merit or does not require an answer; only that the way the question is framed is designed to illicit a simple answer to a complex series of questions. The audience is supposed feel that the apparent lack of a simple yes or no answer tips the discussion in the favor of the statist position and away from the anarchist’s.
A more honest or genuine modal appraisal of the question would be: Is it possible…? Yes. Is it probable…? Maybe, given the right circumstances. Is it certain…? No.
Straight forward and unenlightening.
But the same spectrum of answers would be given to any other question, e.g “Is it possible, probable or certain that the United States will ever stop fighting wars that kill thousands of innocent civilians?”
Yes, Maybe and No.
There are contextual issues to the question that I find puzzling. What does “go to war” mean in a stateless society? In a very generic presentation, “go to war” is a trial by ordeal. A trial by ordeal leaves the question of authority decided without an appeal to reason. We understand what it means in a state-full society as Karl von Clausewitz so aptly phrased it in his book On War, “War is thus an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will.” The public face of statist war is bombs, guns, crying orphaned babies, toppled buildings, reduced civil rights for everyone, but politicians and capitalist, etc, etc, but does “go to war” mean the same thing in a state-less society? In a stateless society it is more plausible that “go to war” could mean a best 2 out of 3 chess matches or a Step Up/You Got Served dance battle then a locked and loaded, street by street gun battle a la HEAT.
Positing this state-full “go to war” scenario in a stateless society, where the dominant cultural milieu is an explicit rejection of Clausewitzian war, sounds implausible divorced from a drawn out narrative. A spontaneous eruption of violence must be referring to children hashing it out on the playground or adults brawling in a pub parking lot, not bazooka and machine gun carrying infantry setting up a defensive position around client A’s house to protect it from B’s tank platoon.
The question assumes that a stateless society looks and feels the same way as society does today just minus the state. As if you could say “minus the state” and all the institutions that have developed around, along and in spite of the state would also look and feel the same way just minus the state.
It needs to be understood that anarchism is, as George Woodcock explains in his book Anarchism (pg 14.):
“… a system of social thought, aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society and particularly … at the replacement of the authoritarian state by some form of non-governmental cooperation between free individuals”
The phrase “aiming at fundamental changes in the structure of society” must be stressed and one of those fundamental social changes is to embrace direct action and rebellious activity as Mary E. Marcy stresses in Better Any Kind of Action Than Inert Theory:
“Let us remember that discipline and party obedience mean unpreparedness and inaction and that rebellion means initiative to think and to act. And above all we must remember that the revolutionary movement gains strength, experience, equipment and momentum to attack and resist through action alone.”
With this in mind I find hard to consider a society of anarchists standing ideally by while kids or adults pummel themselves, let alone allow defense providers to arm themselves for statism.
So to summarize and answer the question: Would defensive service providers go to war with each other in a stateless society? I would like to see them try; we anarchists need to stay sharp.
The Presumption of Liberty.
Apr 19th
Week 5 of C4SS’s ATP-101 involves a critique of punishment and its place in libertarian theory :Is restitution preferable to retribution? Why of why not?
A unique feature of Libertarian thought is the concept, default or norm understood as the presumption of liberty.
This presumption has been wrested and won from Authority after centuries of intellectual battle, physical sacrifice and, unfortunately, martyrdom. The presumption asserts that we are free, that liberty is our natural and rightful status, and that any and all transgressions against or attempts to limit this liberty must be justified. The Burden of Proof is on the enemy of liberty; they must offer an argument that liberty stands in the way of human flourishing and, therefore, must be limited, restrained or removed. If no argument or a poor argument is offered, then liberty must remain unmolested and unfettered, unless it is the mantle of tyrant and the blade of Brutus that you desire.
The Classical Liberal, occasionally, believed that an argument limiting liberty could be justified, while the Anarchist denies the occasion and the possibility that such an argument could ever have warrant or justification.
This is the context that libertarian discourse takes place and it is this norm that is continually being evoked when consistency is championed or demanded. The easiest way to determine whether or not someone is a libertarian is to see how seriously they take the presumption or consistency challenge.
The Tannehills, on page 88 of The Market for Liberty, rightfully, take the government monopoly over punishment in criminal suits as an unwarranted, unjustified usurpation of liberty and a violation of the presumption of liberty.
“Throughout history, the means of dealing with aggression (crime) has been punishment. Traditionally, it has been held that when a man commits a crime against society, the government, acting as the agent of society, must punish him. However, because punishment has not been based on the principle of righting the wrong but only of causing the criminal “to undergo pain, loss, or suffering,” it has actually been revenge.”
This is also similar to the position taken by Murray Rothbard, in his The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 13, that the principle of non-aggression precludes systems of punishment, retribution or victim restoration that goes beyond a standard of double-restitution. That the victim has a right to not only get their property back, but that the criminal forfeits, to the victim, their own right to an amount of property equal to the property stolen or destroyed.
Even this modest double-restitution by Rothbard was challenged by Samuel Edward Konkin III in his New Libertarian Manifesto (pg 32; footnote 21):
“Murray Rothbard takes the most moderate position here: he advocates double restoration; that is, not only must the aggressor restore the victim to prior unharmed condition (as much as possible), but must become himself a victim for an equivalent amount! Not only does this doubling seem arbitrary, nowhere does Rothbard provide a moral basis for punishment, let alone a “moral calculus” (a la Bentham).”
Without an argument justifying Rothbard’s transgression against the presumption of liberty the theory of double-restitution gives way to a single restitution in a libertarian theory of restoration. As should all challenges to liberty give way to liberty – the norm and default condition of humanity.
“But who will provide…?”
Apr 15th
Week 4 of C4SS‘s ATP-101 involves a critique of Insurance Companies as Defense Providers: In what way or ways would it be most difficult for insurance companies to function successfully as sources of justice and defense against aggression?
In libertarian circles the question, “who will provide the roads, if not the state,” has reached a level of boredom and exhaustion to be almost dangerous. I am certain that “burn out” has been objectively reached by many enthusiastic libertarians after addressing that question for the 900th time to the same person.
With most questions of the “who will provide…” variety, the libertarian has a kind of “live and let live” attitude; acknowledging that such and such innovation or service would be super cool, but since they have no right to force it they repress any feelings of entitlement to have it. This is not to say that some wild eyed libertarian would not be all over it. A libertarian with a smile is a libertarian with an idea and three plans to make it happen – even with Big Brother watching.
It is this lovable and tenacious quality of the libertarian that keeps even the question, “who will provide justice and defense,” the last bastion of “perceived” statist necessity, from keeping me up at night.
But who will provide justice and defense services? The quick and dirty answer: I will, you will, we will. The more drawn out answer: Arbitration Specialists, Philosophers, Mutual Aid Societies, Martial Art Instructors, Detectives, Security Agencies, Justice Entrepreneurs, and Insurance Providers. All playing to their respective strengths and competing with each other for market share in ever decreasing market for aggregated wealth maintenance.
“Hey Murray, Big Bill what kind of security providers do you use?” Diogenes asks.
“I have an insurance policy with Midas Touch, a safety deposit box at Greene’s First Mutual Bank and I am assistant organizer of my Neighbor Hood Watch.” Murray Rothbard cheerfully explains.
“All my important papers are secured in a safe at the Black Cat Lodge, one of the benefits of membership, the factory’s doors and gates are secured with Solidarity Steel Locks and some Fellow Workers that live nearby help keep an eye on it and if any would be Mugger tries to shake me down I just present my Red Card and let them know that picking the pocket of one is picking the pocket of all.” Big Bill Haywood smiles as he puffs up his chest.
“What about you Diogenes?” Murray and Bill ask together.
“Well, I have let go of all my possessions and have taken up aikido.”
Of all the possible security providers, the one that I am most skeptical of is the Insurance Company. I don’t see any problem with them providing policies, packages or product reviews, but I don’t see their interests being aligned, in the same way and for the same reasons, with their client. It must be made clear that the client hires a security provider because they do not want their heirloom stolen or their body harmed, but the Insurance Provider wants to manage risk in such a way as to support their bottom line while fulfilling their contractual obligations.
This is what insurance is and it is not unreasonable for an Insurance Provider to “pay out” or settle at the agreed rate, instead of taking steps to prevent theft.
This, along with having to compete with other security providers, puts the Insurance Company in a poor position as sole security provider; though their services will undoubtedly be important to aid other, more direct, security providers in risk management, reputation underwriting and quality assurance.
My Homework, Week 3.
Apr 8th
Week 3 of C4SS’s anarcho-school involved reading pages 44-64 of Morris and Linda Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty and answering the questions: Is taxation theft? Why or why not?
I remember once in junior high civics class the teacher asked, what I suspect was meant to be a rhetorical question, “Who here would pay taxes, if they didn’t have to?”
No one raised their hands.
“This is why we don’t leave the matter up to you,” the teacher said aloud as if to fortify in their mind the righteousness of this position.
Years later, community college, Intro. to American Federal Government, a Prof. asks the same question. I was already well on my way down the anarchist’s path and took a particular interest in the classes response.
“Welcome to American Federal Government. With a show of hands: if you didn’t have to pay taxes, who here, knowing what vital services they provide, would pay them voluntarily?”
A grin pulled across my teeth as I looked around the classroom. Not a single hand. The scene could only be improved if someone asked if raising their hand would count as extra credit.
“No one!” the professor cried, “How many here vote in state or federal elections?”
I couldn’t hold back a laugh when the landscape remained the same: zero hands. Not even the illusion of consent; just placid, bored acquiescence of young powerless adults with better things to do.
The Prof. ran a frustrated hand through their hair and continued, “Welcome to American Federal Government. If you will open your texts to the introduction we will go over what you’re paying for…”
Is taxation theft?
Yes!
All (X) is theft.
Taxation is (X).
Taxation is theft.
(X) is “legitimately held property seized against the proprietor’s will, desire, wishes, choice…”
Every argument in favor of taxation, that I have ever heard, is a consequentialist laundry list of cost/benefit analysis favoring roads, police, defense, prisons, traffic lights etc, etc. Each one an essential, yet creaking levee protecting modern civilization from a raging social chaos. Every argument presented is an argument for justified theft, but it is important for them that it not be theft. It is important to the statist that taxation is not placed in the same category as actions performed by highwaymen, rogues, warlords, cutthroats and pirates. Murray Rothbard in his book For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, draws a bright red circle around both actions. The only practical difference between the politician and the warlord is fashion.
“…if we look at the State naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes. The State habitually commits mass murder, which it calls “war,” or sometimes “suppression of subversion”; the State engages in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls “conscription”; and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which it calls “taxation.” The libertarian insists that whether or not such practices are supported by the majority of the population is not germane to their nature: that, regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. The libertarian, in short, is almost completely the child in the fable, pointing out insistently that the emperor has no clothes.”
The last line of my quoted professor contains an interested phrase: “what you’re paying for.”
This is sanitized political speech and it is a necessary part of politics. I and two class rooms full of humans are not paying for anything in the same respects that we would pay for a movie or a coffee. Taxes are seized. What is seized is used to pay for (X-prison) or (Y-war), but we did not pay for it.
Taxes are theft; please don’t add insult to my injury so you can feel good about your life.
