"We have done this because we love liberty and hate authority." – Voltairine de Cleyre
Posts tagged statism
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.
“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 2.
Mar 22nd
I present my second week critique of pages 16-42 of the Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty. I feel I most apologies for this piece because it was read and written in one night that ended a full day of flying. The previous week and weekend were spent in the San Fransisco Bay Area attending their Anarchist Book Fair. Needless to say I had a blast, learned a lot and made a couple friends. The Bay Area Wobblies are friendly, open and amazing.
The question being critiqued for this week: “To what extent and in what ways, if any, does government exhibit the problems typical of other monopolies?” (I apologies for neglecting to giving the question being addressed in the first week: “What is aggression? How can we distinguish between aggression and other kinds of undesirable influence?”)
“In their book The Market for Liberty the Tannehills, Morris and Linda, present a theoretical case for distinguishing between two types of monopoly: one benign and one malign.
The benign or market monopoly maintains its vaulted status tentatively and precariously, always contingent on customer satisfaction or competitor disinterest. If the market monopoly were to offend its customer base or draw unwanted entrepreneurial attention, it’s over.
The malign or coercive monopoly is the complete opposite. It “maintains itself by the initiation of force or the threat of force to prohibit competition, and sometimes to compel customer loyalty.” (Pg. 27)
Roderick T. Long, in his Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections, identifies three basic problems that the statist or pro-coercive-monopolist must overcome for their case to have merit: the moral, incentive and epistemic problems.
The moral problem asks the question, “why you; what makes you so special?” Granting someone monopoly use of coercive powers seems rather drastic and dangerous.
“To put it simply, government is the rule of some men over others by initiated force, which is slavery, which is wrong.” (Pg. 35)
The incentive problem asks the question, “in the absence of market forces directing agents towards the production of lowers costs, higher qualities or both, what incentives at work on the coercive monopolist guiding them to similar ends?” If there is no worry of losing market share or market relevancy, then why not set my commodity price, by lowering quality or raising costs, to that point just below where you would prefer to go without?
The epistemic problem asks the question, “even if you found a saint (that had no objection to ruling over other humans?), gave them coercive monopoly powers and they did everything they could to stay along the straight and narrow road of truth and justice, how do they know that they offering the best quality goods and the cheapest price?” Without competition or options, choices or alternatives to compare notes with or contrast services against, how do I know that I am providing a desirable and efficient service? Compared to what?
The Tannehills begin their analysis of the State by defining it as a coercive monopoly in classic Weberian fashion:
“Government is a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own.” (Pg. 32.)
They rightly do not put anything past or any sphere of social interaction beyond the reach of the State; not narrowing it down to night watchmen duties of retaliatory force via police, armies and judges.
The State for the most part interferes with the market through indirect means or the threat of force. The imposition of taxes, regulations, licensing, and credit manipulation skews, suppresses and restricts market actors and participation. The most unfortunate result of this kind of market destruction is the creation of a permanent underclass of poverty level labors. The diminished access to capital and means of capitalization provide ostensible verification for statist apologists to demand more police with greater powers to keep disenfranchised populations under control.
The consequences of one problem becomes the reason for another.”
The Apostasy of the Anarchist Vote
Jan 24th
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal,” declared Emma Goldman in a ringing indictment of the feeble mechanism by which the state claims to be restrained and directed. Of course, in invoking this quote anarchists argue against counting upon elections to change the status quo. We aren’t going to bring about the voluntary society by listening to politicians, casting votes for them, and pressuring them to abolish their own offices. The statist means and the anarchist ends are clearly opposed.
But there’s another argument against voting: that by casting a ballot, one registers endorsement of the state and its violence. Advocates of this argument do not hold that you must have chosen the politician who wields power. They disregard personal intent, interests, and any issues at hand. The argument is quite simple: by participating in the election, one is bound to its results. Given the anarchist view of those results – violence, fraud, and lies – one can only conclude that voting makes one an accessory to the crime.
This constitutes a body blow for those who define themselves by their rejection of the authoritarianism so intrinsic in the state. It’s one thing for voting to be a silly ritual. But a decidedly different attitude must be adopted if pulling the voting lever leaves one with blood-stained hands. Faced with such an awful truth, the task becomes one of avoiding complicity with the system. An absolute break with the state is the only path of conscience.
In theory, this break seems reasonable to achieve: one simply ceases to cooperate with its agents and directives. But the state reaches far into the world we live in. It doesn’t just direct the police, military, teachers, judges, and other bureaucrats that intervenes in obvious ways. The very civil society we seek to unleash through the spirit of voluntarism, mutual aid, freedom, and solidarity seems hopelessly bound up in the state.
