No turning back, no turning back
If you look down to the previous post, you'll see that almost two years has passed since I've written anything here. No point in going over everything that has happened in the interim, but strange to say, it can more or less be summarized as "We left one Presbyterian church and joined another. Again. And I finally got out of consulting, and into a stable job with a 'blue chip' software company (Oracle) where my maximum commute is 30 minutes each way. Oh, and I totally love my wife and daughter!"
So... what has brought me out of blog retirement, you ask? Something quite new, something quite unexpected. It all began like this: On March 30, Marshall Mitchell, a fellow member of the 247th Class (aka Class of 1988) of Central High School, posted the following as his Facebook status:
"Marshall Mitchell thinks that if citizens took on crime, poor education, and drugs like people in Fargo are taking on the floods, we would have a different urban America in less than a year! Change I can believe in...and it costs a lot less too!"
The very first comment on this, a mere three minutes later, was from George Donnelly (who I now know/remember is a member of the 248th Class at Central):
"Good point. The solution is through voluntary action by people working together. Not government force."
So, ok-- total honesty time: my first thought was, "Ah! That wack-a-doodle right wingnut who hates public education and doesn't think all citizens have a right to minimal health care. How nice for him to chime in here, with-- hey, surprise! 'government shouldn't be involved in dealing with urban social ills'!" Re-reading this stream now, I am embarrassed to see how wacky my own response to his statement was. (Something about how involved governments in America were in upholding slavery and Jim Crow, via force. Never mind.) It was wacky because I totally, utterly misunderstood what his intention was in alluding to "government force". In my defense, I think that most if not all of the people who read Marshall's statement, also had no clue what he was talking about, not really.
Remember that incredible moment in The Matrix where Neo is talking to Morpheus in this weird antique sort of room, and Morpheus offers him a choice of two pills to take? I can't remember much of the actual lines that led up to it, but it was basically something like:
Morpheus: So weird things have been happening to you lately.
Neo: Yeah.
Morpheus: Well, reality is not really what you thought it was. If you'd like to go back to your old life, without weirdness, take this pill. But if you'd like to really find out what's going on, take this other one. There will be no return, however, from the rabbit hole you will go down.
And Neo took the "other one" (red?) And the rest is history. (Yeah, I know, pretend history. And it's a little unfortunate that I apparently find myself in the company of the Neoconservatives, who it's been sneeringly said about, in one or more high-profile Op-Eds, that they "believe the Matrix is real". Oh well.)
To try and summarize what ensued after that first exchange with George: The "government force" he was talking about, was NOT really government poverty or community development programs themselves, but taxation. He was talking about the fact that all governments, everywhere, at all levels (i.e. local, state, federal), extract taxes from their citizens under threat of force against any noncompliant individual. And, furthermore, no government can exist without taxation, because if it doesn't tax, it's not a government. (Not a "state", strictly speaking.) And taking something from someone with the threat of force is what is commonly called "stealing". Or "theft". Which is immoral.
Ergo... the only truly consistently moral stance that one can take is... to oppose the very idea of, and existence of, the State. You know-- the government.
Wow. So, um... can I change my mind, and take that other pill now?
Anyway, in case this all seems overly cryptic to you, here's another way of saying it. I have embraced a political view that can be variously called libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, agorist. It is the most radical stance that I've ever encountered, and so far I have exactly one other acquaintance who embraces it. (That would be George.)
Gee, Joel, what are you smoking? Why take up wack-a-doodle ideas about the illegimitacy of all governments, at this late stage in the game (class of 1988-- I ain't in my twenties anymore)? Where is this coming from? Well, from the basically anarchist practice of the early Christians, before they became so "acceptable" to Romans and before Constantine coopted them to help unify the empire (gah!). From the Levellers during the upheaval in England during the 1600s. From some of the great thinkers on liberty around the time of our "revolution".
And from the Hebrew bible, in the passage in I Samuel where the Israelites demand that Samuel give them a king, so they won't feel so different from other nations, and God tells Samuel to tell them in precise terms how they will be oppressed by their king if they get one. (Hint: they'll have their property taken for the king's purposes, and they'll be pressed into his military, and into tending his vineyards and flocks, etc. etc.) And God says (paraphrasing): "Don't worry, Samuel, they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting me. But go ahead, anoint a king for them. When they cry out from his oppression later, I'll ignore them." Seriously-- it says that in the bible. That God considered the Israelites' desire to be governed "properly", to be a rejection of God.
And how about the First Commandment? And how about Nebuchadnezzar and his compulsory worship of the great statue (which was not about religion, but about government)? So, ok, I'm getting a little obscure with these last two, but I'm serious.
So, to sum up: I need to oppose the government, I don't know exactly where to start taking actual practical steps (e.g., there's no way I can keep the Feds from sucking mucho thousands from my pay each year, and still work for Oracle), I'm reading a lot about it, I'll probably be writing a good bit more about it, and trying to get more of y'all to take the red pill, and join this scary, but (I believe) real, life.
So... what has brought me out of blog retirement, you ask? Something quite new, something quite unexpected. It all began like this: On March 30, Marshall Mitchell, a fellow member of the 247th Class (aka Class of 1988) of Central High School, posted the following as his Facebook status:
"Marshall Mitchell thinks that if citizens took on crime, poor education, and drugs like people in Fargo are taking on the floods, we would have a different urban America in less than a year! Change I can believe in...and it costs a lot less too!"
The very first comment on this, a mere three minutes later, was from George Donnelly (who I now know/remember is a member of the 248th Class at Central):
"Good point. The solution is through voluntary action by people working together. Not government force."
So, ok-- total honesty time: my first thought was, "Ah! That wack-a-doodle right wingnut who hates public education and doesn't think all citizens have a right to minimal health care. How nice for him to chime in here, with-- hey, surprise! 'government shouldn't be involved in dealing with urban social ills'!" Re-reading this stream now, I am embarrassed to see how wacky my own response to his statement was. (Something about how involved governments in America were in upholding slavery and Jim Crow, via force. Never mind.) It was wacky because I totally, utterly misunderstood what his intention was in alluding to "government force". In my defense, I think that most if not all of the people who read Marshall's statement, also had no clue what he was talking about, not really.
Remember that incredible moment in The Matrix where Neo is talking to Morpheus in this weird antique sort of room, and Morpheus offers him a choice of two pills to take? I can't remember much of the actual lines that led up to it, but it was basically something like:
Morpheus: So weird things have been happening to you lately.
Neo: Yeah.
Morpheus: Well, reality is not really what you thought it was. If you'd like to go back to your old life, without weirdness, take this pill. But if you'd like to really find out what's going on, take this other one. There will be no return, however, from the rabbit hole you will go down.
And Neo took the "other one" (red?) And the rest is history. (Yeah, I know, pretend history. And it's a little unfortunate that I apparently find myself in the company of the Neoconservatives, who it's been sneeringly said about, in one or more high-profile Op-Eds, that they "believe the Matrix is real". Oh well.)
To try and summarize what ensued after that first exchange with George: The "government force" he was talking about, was NOT really government poverty or community development programs themselves, but taxation. He was talking about the fact that all governments, everywhere, at all levels (i.e. local, state, federal), extract taxes from their citizens under threat of force against any noncompliant individual. And, furthermore, no government can exist without taxation, because if it doesn't tax, it's not a government. (Not a "state", strictly speaking.) And taking something from someone with the threat of force is what is commonly called "stealing". Or "theft". Which is immoral.
Ergo... the only truly consistently moral stance that one can take is... to oppose the very idea of, and existence of, the State. You know-- the government.
Wow. So, um... can I change my mind, and take that other pill now?
Anyway, in case this all seems overly cryptic to you, here's another way of saying it. I have embraced a political view that can be variously called libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, agorist. It is the most radical stance that I've ever encountered, and so far I have exactly one other acquaintance who embraces it. (That would be George.)
Gee, Joel, what are you smoking? Why take up wack-a-doodle ideas about the illegimitacy of all governments, at this late stage in the game (class of 1988-- I ain't in my twenties anymore)? Where is this coming from? Well, from the basically anarchist practice of the early Christians, before they became so "acceptable" to Romans and before Constantine coopted them to help unify the empire (gah!). From the Levellers during the upheaval in England during the 1600s. From some of the great thinkers on liberty around the time of our "revolution".
And from the Hebrew bible, in the passage in I Samuel where the Israelites demand that Samuel give them a king, so they won't feel so different from other nations, and God tells Samuel to tell them in precise terms how they will be oppressed by their king if they get one. (Hint: they'll have their property taken for the king's purposes, and they'll be pressed into his military, and into tending his vineyards and flocks, etc. etc.) And God says (paraphrasing): "Don't worry, Samuel, they're not rejecting you, they're rejecting me. But go ahead, anoint a king for them. When they cry out from his oppression later, I'll ignore them." Seriously-- it says that in the bible. That God considered the Israelites' desire to be governed "properly", to be a rejection of God.
And how about the First Commandment? And how about Nebuchadnezzar and his compulsory worship of the great statue (which was not about religion, but about government)? So, ok, I'm getting a little obscure with these last two, but I'm serious.
So, to sum up: I need to oppose the government, I don't know exactly where to start taking actual practical steps (e.g., there's no way I can keep the Feds from sucking mucho thousands from my pay each year, and still work for Oracle), I'm reading a lot about it, I'll probably be writing a good bit more about it, and trying to get more of y'all to take the red pill, and join this scary, but (I believe) real, life.
posted by Joel GL at 2:23 AM
9 Comments:
I don't think that Libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism are the bottom of the rabbit hole. Proudhon argued that property is theft. To him, it didn't matter if the government was forcing you to turn over a portion of the fruit of your labor as taxes or a wealthy landlord forcing you to do the same as rent. Coercion is coercion. In my opinion, those in the US who would call themselves libertarian are very much in favor of a state continuing to support their power by continuing to support their property rights. I tend to think that if libertarians got their way, we would be trading a government for an oligarchy of the wealthy.
The closest thing that I've seen to the bottom of the rabbit hole is what I would call true anarchism which would support possession over ownership, voluntary association, consensus decision making, etc. I'm still not sure what I think about anarchism except that it generally gets a bad rap and other people dismiss you out of hand when you start talking about it.
Mostly these days, I think of freedom not so much as something that you acquire but rather as something that you inhabit. For example, our constitution grants us free speech (mostly) but it doesn't create for us a society where all feel that they are safe to speak freely. The former is useless without the latter and yet we seldom talk about the fact that minorities in our society are very often not free to speak or that their voices are very often downed out by the majority that is in power. When we do talk about it, there is immediate backlash from those in power, often siting a threat to their own freedoms. I've come to the conclusion that to be truly free we need to live in a free society and, in order to live in a free society, heterosexual white males like me are going to have to lay down some of the things that we have traditionally considered our freedoms.
Ok, this is a bit long but I think about these things a lot and, like I have mentioned before, there is almost no public discourse around topics like this, so opportunities to talk tend to result in a rush of thought that previously had no outlet.
Joel, congratulations! Welcome!
Government force is more than just taxation. Every single act of government is an initiation of force. It's the only way they can operate.
Regarding "the only truly consistently moral stance that one can take", I would say opposing governments is only a part of it. The root phenomenon to oppose is the initiation of force.
I like that passage from I Samuel. Good stuff!
I think the first step in opposing those who regularly initiate force against their fellow men and women is to withdraw your moral support of them. Don't defend them. Condemn equally the little dictators doing business as the "The Government" and the thieves, the murderers, the rapists and similar.
Josh, a landlord-renter relationship is voluntary. One can cancel the agreement at some point, as specified in the lease contract. If it's a contract without an exit clause or expiration or was not agreed to voluntarily, then that's not a contract and can be voided at any moment.
There are two kinds of force, the initiation of force and the defensive use of it. The initiation of force is when a person uses force unprovoked or in a situation where he has no reason to fear that the other is about to use force.
The defensive use of force is when one responds to another's initiation of force in a manner so as to defend oneself or cause the initiator of force to stop.
The initiation of force is always morally wrong. The defensive use of force is always morally right.
Re "property is theft" In order for a piece of property to be stolen, it's required that someone own the property, but if no one owns the property, how can it be stolen? IOW, that's gibberish and is self-contradictory.
"There are no absolutes" is another example of this kind of mind-bending and entirely irrelevant silliness. Isn't the statement "there are no absolutes" an absolute? I rest my case.
Some libertarians in the US are in favor of a state but frankly most of them are also against the initiation of force so it would be trivial to opt out of their ideal state and evolve to de facto anarchy.
BTW we already have an oligarchy of the wealthy (and connected) and they use the government to enhance their position. They use it to steal from us via inflation. They used it in just the last few months to create new money to the tune of $13 trillion (so far), which approaches last year's GDP. The looting and oppression is unspeakable and on a grand scale.
I like anarchism but the only anarchism I can see is individualist anarchism, where each person makes their own decisions free from the initiation of force of others. Voluntaryism is a concept very closely related to this.
"in order to live in a free society, heterosexual white males like me are going to have to lay down some of the things that we have traditionally considered our freedoms."
Such as? Why?
re: "...I don't know exactly where to start taking actual practical steps..."
Sounds like you've had that light-bulb-over-the-head moment that most of us get.
I recommend just starting with familiarizing yourself with, reading about, exploring and discussing these sorts of ideas.
Presumably, you would want to become the most effective advocate for those ideas that you can. Be patient with yourself in that regard.
Welcome aboard! It's great to hear stories like this one.
(I will not be posting or commenting or anything further, until after May 31. Taking a big mental break.)
@Josh: Thanks so much for your words here! Not a "long" post at all--just warming up I'd say! I agree with what you said about anarchism-- Americans are trained from an early age to shudder at the term. Hard to know which word we're more inoculated against, "communism" or "anarchism".
As for the nature of "freedom"-- voluntaryists definitely agree that that term applies to something very internal, or "spiritual" even. But "liberty" has a concrete, real-word application. It means the absence of any initiations of force against your physical person or your property.
"Property" means (I declare here! :-) I realize that plenty has been written about it, and I haven't read most of it) "that which everyone accepts is yours", for all intents and purposes. I acknowledge that there are thorny issues related to what to do about current vast inequities of property, things that people currently hold "legal title" to but were actually taken from someone else by force (With American slavery and its legacy perhaps the most explosive example). But as a newbie voluntaryist, I am confident in the principle of private property (obviously, or I wouldn't have written the post in the first place) as something to build on. I haven't been shown something better to build on, yet. Maybe Susannah will show me. :-)
"Party" libertarians believe in a minimal state, supported financially somehow. Voluntaryists don't-- they are anarchists. As for oligarchy-- the great thing about being a newbie voluntaryist is that you can know the basic principles very quickly. And when you combine the main tenets of voluntaryism together, and don't compromise on any of them, I don't think you need to worry about oligarchy of the wealthy. But addressing that concern is one of the first tasks of my self-education project.
If you (Josh) want to respond to George's questions, please feel free. I just won't respond again myself until after May 31.
@George, Brad, and David: Thanks so much for the encouragement! It's exciting, and then scary... and then exciting again!
By the way, Josh is my sister Susannah's husband-- I'm glad to have at least one comrade/fellow traveler inside the family!
Cheers to you all, and see you again out on the webs, sometime after May 31!
I believe that when Proudhon argued that "Property is theft" he meant for the statement to be somewhat of an oxymoron. Essentially, Proudhon argued against ownership in favor of possession. If you lived on land and worked it, it was your land. He found it objectionable that another could take what was yours due to a claim of ownership by someone who didn't use the land. Thus, paying rent is theft according to Proudhon. It's not at all clear to me that the position of a lessee is voluntary, particularly when the alternative is often homelessness or the loss of a livelihood. Some people are born with property, others are not. In the same way that some are born as citizens of one state and others are born as citizens of another. This isn't necessarily an argument in favor of a state. Proudhon was an anarchist, he just didn't believe in property rights either.
It's the situation of the world, I guess. I fully admit that the world is currently run by wealthy oligarchs. I simply don't believe that the ideas of Libertarians, if enacted, would result in anything else. I think that the burden of proof is on you in that case.
My basic point about white male privilege is that having laws does not guarantee freedom. For example, providing a Constitutional ammendment guaranteeing free speech does not create an environment where all minorities feel safe to speak. Making a law against rape does not create an environment where all women feel safe to report the crime, or one in which all will be able to recognize it when they see it. Situations like these arise because the word of some will be taken over the word of others. Not because such a thing is legislated, but because of the way our society works. It can be because people are subconsciously more willing to accept the word of a white man or because there are just too many more voices on his side. Again, you may argue that this is simply the status quo. Again, I say that I don't see how individualist libertarianism helps the situation at all and that the burden of proof is on you.
I actually don't think that I have any answers. I'm interested in anarchism. I think that we would do better to move in that direction, but I don't think it can solve all of our problems. These days, I'm very skeptical of magic bullet political theories that will solve all of our problems and Libertarianism feels a lot like that to me.
Holding liberty as your political philosophy is a statement precisely that there are no silver bullets and each person should decide for themselves how to solve their own problems.
Hi, Joel. It was good to talk to you today. I told you I'd probably have a response. I have a number of responses. For now, I have one abstract one and one Biblical one.
Here is the abstract one:
I believe that most of us want to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, some form of cooperative society. As an example, let's say there were no government and therefore no police force. We would want to have a group of members in this society who would assist in protecting us. Since most of us are not especially good at this and might better use our time elsewhere (on division of labor, see Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, chapters 1-2), we would probably want to delegate the matter to people who are particularly good at protecting us. Although they don't need to be paid, the quality of their work would probably be better if they did get paid. In order to pay such people, the cooperative society would need to receive contributions from its other members.
One aspect of any cooperative society, however, is that in order for it to function, it should be able to make decisions even where some members might disagree with those decisions. (There are societies in which every member has veto power. However, societies like these tend to be immobilized by their inability to make decisions. Witness, for example, the "liberum veto" in Poland in the middle ages.) In the case of our cooperative society’s police force, the cooperative society might vote on whether to pay a lot of money for excellent police or to pay instead less money for less good police. Once the society votes on the issue, all members should be bound to it, even those who disagree.
There are many form of governments, and admittedly many are bad. But this cooperative society is also a type of government. And clearly, if it hires the policemen, it is taxing. But that doesn’t make it bad or immoral.
Here is the Biblical one:
If person A takes property from person B against person B's will, that is theft and is unbiblical. However, Biblically, if a government takes property from person B against person B's will, that, Biblically, is the government's prerogative, and it is not deemed theft. The same is true about about killing. If a person kills someone, that is murder. If a government kills someone, that is not murder. The Bible doesn't proscribe killing; it only proscribes murder. The Bible in fact commands both taxes and killing under certain circumstances: taxes in the form of tithes, and killing where someone must be punished for having committed a particularly grievous sin. So theft is against God's will, but taxes are not (or at least not necessarily).
"the cooperative society might vote on whether to pay a lot of money for excellent police or to pay instead less money for less good police. Once the society votes on the issue, all members should be bound to it, even those who disagree."
Why? Do people have to vote on whether to pay a lot for excellent bread or less for just shop-rite bread? If not, why do they have to take the same vote for police or any other service?
Post a Comment
<< Home