"We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
Posts tagged Presumption of Liberty
Welcome to Bravo Section…
Jul 5th
Dear Reader, I have volunteered to help the Center for a Stateless Society as an ombudsman (of sorts, a cheerful sort!) for one of their Introduction to Anarchism classes. Below is a quick bio and break down of some of my anarcho-proclivities. I hope you enjoy.
Dear Friends,
I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your support of the Center and to welcome you to the Bravo Section of An Introduction to Anarchism.
For the next ten weeks I have pledged to make my time, enthusiasm and perspective available to further our growth, understanding and confidence in Anarchism. Warning! Anarchist studies can become an obsessive habit; the more you grow within anarchism the more anarchism grows within you. …
A brief background will offer some insight into my approach to Anarchist Studies.
George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God was my first exposure Aristotelean thought and the word “Libertarian.” From the back cover bio: “Long a student and advocate of the libertarian point of view, George H. Smith studies philosophy at the University of Arizona”
With George H. Smith’s help I was able to become a Post-Objectivist without going through Objectivism and an Agorist/Voluntaryist without going through Anarcho-capitalism. Unfortunately those, and other, philosophical transformations began during a 5 year active enlistment in the U.S. Army. Full fledge acceptance of anarchism happened, for me, during the latter half of a 2 year tour in South Korea. U.S. Army South Korea is an Infernal Wonderland, where up is down, down is up, war is peace, freedom is slavery etc, etc…
Recently it has been the combined, Voltronic, forces of Shawn Wilbur, Kevin Carson, Gary Chartier, Roderick Long, and Charles Johnson that have challenged and encouraged my conceptions of anarchism, theory and practice.
A prospective student asked about my professed “brand” of anarchism (Wobbly-Left-Libertarian-Market-Anarchism) and how much of an influence “it” will play on this class:
“I would like to confirm your definition of Left-Libertarian Market Anarchist. I assume (given the “dues paying Fellow Worker of the Industrial Workers of the World”) you believe in the redistribution of wealth, as opposed to the Left-Libertarian view promoted by Konkin.
Although I realize it is impossible for a person to be 100% objective, how much of your course will be devoted to this side of anarchism? Or, put another way, how open is the class to a person that does not conform to this form of anarchy?”
My answer was as follows:
“First off, my role is that of a Fellow Traveler and to offer feedback, not to sort or to pigeon hole. I will, personally, determine my job a success if you come away from the class feeling confident about anarchism as a possible and desirous future social arrangement.
My definition of Left-Libertarian Market Anarchism would be a book length project, but I will give it a – standing on one foot – shot.
Left: New Left goals (anti-militarism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, LBGTQ liberation, etc) are not only consonant with libertarianism, but are indispensable for a proper understanding of libertarianism.
Libertarian: libertarianism is the continuous exploration in the application of a non-aggression. For me this translates into a principle of non-aggression, a presumption of liberty, and a historical perspective of liberty vs. authority.
Market: for me the fullest flourishing of human happiness is found in an open exploratory space. Trade is a natural and rewarding relationship between individuals with incalculable social value. The concept of market, for me, is tantamount to an endorsement of the values of peace, progress and harmony.
Anarchism: anarchism, for me, is a perpetual social critique. It knows no limits and gives no ground. It values liberty, equality and solidarity, but it only honors them by repeating three questions: “Is that really liberty?” “Is that really equality?” “Is that really solidarity?” It is up to us to answer these questions, then answer them again, then answer them again.
I do not regard redistribution as a value “in and of itself.” I do think that in a freed market you will see a massive redistribution of wealth from its current accumulations. Think of the current capital distribution as an upside down pyramid that is kept aloft by the state. If the state is removed and the forces of gravity (or market and social forces) are allowed to assert, then the pyramid will right itself.
My status as a dues paying, Fellow Worker of the Industrial Workers of the World is determined by a feeling of solidarity with working class people as a working class person. I approach the employee/employer relationship with suspicion; the labor contract as a contested or aggravated contract and not as some sort of performance bond or title transfer; and the industrially organized, fighting union as revolutionary force with great potential for peaceful social transformation.”
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.
