This article could be seen as a follow up to my previous article, Without Adjectives. In further discussion with a few people, talking about the extra-anarchistic aspects of various forms of social justice, I said “Anarchism is necessary, but not sufficient, to create a just society.” It seemed like a statement that warranted a bit of expansion, so here we go.
Anarchism is necessary, we can say, to create a just society. As far as I can tell, the best definition of anarchism is “the belief that no one has any special authority to do anything that anyone else doesn’t have.” Anarchy, then, is a society in which this principle is widespread enough to be a truism. If one group of people can arrogate special authority to themselves to rule over others, this alone is a vast injustice in and of itself. But it also creates a cascade of further injustices.
Under statism, the overall socioeconomic system tends to divide into classes, some more privileged than others. This allows people in the more privileged classes to use their power to bully others or manipulate them, even without direct coercion. An example of this is “survival prostitution”. There are people who are so abject and miserably poor that they are willing to do anything for enough money to survive until tomorrow. They do not have the option to say “no”, if they want to live, they must say yes. Wage slavery in the modern corporate capitalist world is, for many people, merely a more extended version of this.
Now yes, the state can and does sometimes offer marginalized groups protection from some of the worst effects of their marginalization, but it is the state which put them in the position of needing that protection in the first place. It is the state which makes people economically dependent. It is the state which destroys the wealth of the lower middle class and poor. It is the state which shifts the supply/demand balance of the labor market so workers are chasing jobs, rather than the other way around. And though everything in our world is not economic, in the sense of being about trade and production, economic freedom gives people more space to carve out social freedom. It is difficult if not impossible to wield social power if you’re barely subsisting.
Also, the state even at best is a double edged sword. If you’re an LGBT person in the USA you know what I’m talking about. Laws against sodomy, laws against gay marriage, indecent exposure and attempted solicitation laws being applied unjustly against MTF trans people, and much, much more. Let’s not forget schools. Public schools under statism are state schools. If a pressure group can take over the school board, they can impose their will on the curriculum, as they have in Texas. This pattern applies to just about anything in a statist society. The immigration laws in Arizona are a good example. Even though there are plenty of nice, non-racist people in Arizona, they aren’t the ones in control over the state, and they still have to live under those laws, or dare to defy them. And even when the state passes a law that most people believe will bring about “justice”, some innocent people are going to get fucked over by it. There’s no getting around that, because justice is situational and fluid. There is no centralized legal code that can avoid fucking people over.
And then there are the ethical implications of statism itself. Statism tends to favor the social manipulators, the bullies and the ass-kissers of the world. It rewards the fraudulent and the corrupt, and creates a myth of elitism that is not removable as long as there is a state. The primary view of humanity that the state espouses is Neo-Hobbesian. That humans left to their own devices are inherently self destructive and deplorable, but that there is an elite group of people, such that if they are in charge of the world, they can uplift the rest of us, or at least force us all to live relatively peacefully with one another.
Over and beyond all that you have the problem of selective enforcement. When the rubber meets the road, the state means cops. This means that the law gets enforced when the cops want it to. Every state in history has eventually reached a point where the sheer volume and overlap of contradictory laws allows the police to act as local dictators of a sort. Most people of color will know just what I’m talking about. Anecdotes abound about getting pulled over for DWB: Driving While Black. Arrest to Conviction ratios clearly seem to show a pattern of racial and class bias. And this is not likely to change as long as there is a state. Sure, some places might be better than others, but no matter how fluid, the state holds a territorial monopoly over law enforcement, and so there will always be a certain scale of injustice built into the system. There aren’t many, if any statist societies I’ve seen in which “resisting arrest” isn’t a crime, for example.
Under anarchism, people at least have a fighting chance to achieve widespread justice. However, anarchism alone is not enough. There might still be racists and homophobes under anarchism, there might still be sociopaths and liars. Without a statist economy, and a centralized code of laws, it will be much harder to get away with unjust acts on a large scale, over a long period of time, however.
But the question of selective enforcement and/or selective defense will still exist. Transgendered people, for instance, make up a very small fraction of the overall population. Even accounting for the fact that transgenderism is vastly underreported due to the current social milieu, it will still most likely be a tiny fraction of the human race. It would not be impossible for systematic crimes against transgendered people to go largely unpunished, even in anarchy.
And the question of population distribution also matters. A pocket of black people who live surrounded by white people who are determined to make life difficult for them will have a hard time fighting back even without a state imposing on them.
In the thinnest of thin anarchisms, in which there is no state, but nothing develops in the vacuum left behind, packs of extremely clever sociopaths could roam the land, draining community after community of their resources and good will, like a vampire gang.
So there will still be a need for social awareness and ethical debate even after the concept of “the state” has been destroyed. The arguments between the ancaps, ansocs, and the rest of us anarchists about how a valid anarchic society deals with money, contracts, property, ownership and various torts will go on after the state has become a ridiculous fiction in the mind of most people.
The good news is that a stateless society synergizes with all these other things. The amount of energy that your cause puts into getting the state to protect you from some other aspect of statist society will do much, much more good in direct action without the state getting in your way. And the amount of solidarity you’ve seen from other people is a fraction of what you’d see if people weren’t crushed under the heel of the state. A person who is slaving away to keep themselves going does not have the time or energy to help other people very much, even if they are sympathetic. And the “I gave at the congress” mentality prevails. In a statist world, where people expect the state to provide for them, even kind and sympathetic folks will expect the state to provide justice, as rough and unjust as it may turn out to be.
In an anarchist world where people feel like the buck stops with them, they’ll be more able and willing to help each other.
And there is one other factor to consider. Over time, people in an anarchist society will tend to begin to develop their own quirky interests. That thing you’ve always been into, but never had the time or money to pursue, well you will now. This unleashing of the inner weirdo that lurks within us all will tend to make people more tolerant of differences in general.
Under anarchism, if you have an idea you share with other people, you can put it into practice NOW. You don’t need permission; you don’t have to force other people to agree with you, you can just start doing it. Then you will find out what it’s like in practice.
As Allan Thornton said, “What will happen under anarchism? EVERYTHING.”
Now sure, some people are sociopaths or psychologically crippled by irrational hate and fear. And those people are always a threat. They might get together and form a small pocket of hell. But in a sense, they’ve imprisoned themselves. On that note, I can imagine anarchist “extraction teams” developing who extract people from communities in which they are being held against their will.
Again though, a lot of this psychological corruption comes from living in a state which imposes its values on you. Not only are the state’s values inherently corrupt because of the built-in elitism and hero worship and hatred of the “masses”, but those who resist this early indoctrination are tortured and torture often makes people psychotically hateful and sadistic. A world in which most children grow up without forceful indoctrination, will yield a much healthier, more positive group of people.
There is another aspect of things that I have hinted at before, but I think hasn’t really been totally understood or accepted. I believe that large scale, widespread economic injustice is impossible under anarchism. This is at the heart of the matter. I believe that economic anarchy is its own economic system, apart from what most people think of as either “capitalism” or “socialism”. It will have aspects of both, in the best sense of each of them. But it will also be much fuzzier and less rigid than either of those systems in their statist form. Public will no longer equal “owned by the state” and Private will no longer equal “owned by a small elite (who happen to run the state)”. Basically, to put it crudely, an anarchist doesn’t let a corporation or a syndicate or a commune tell them jack shit. Things like property rights and debts and contracts will be much more nebulous than they are in a system where they are predefined by a strict centralized law code enforced by cops, but more tangible and solid than they are in a system where an elite group can willy-nilly revoke them at will.
It will be much harder to hold onto capital in some places, but much easier in other places. A lot of it may depend on good will. Likely, any sort of currency, no matter what it’s backed by ostensibly, will practically function much like “obs” in E.F. Russell’s wonderful “And then there were none”. The economy will be situational, fluid and creative, like we will be. There will be trial, and there will be error, but there will be change, and we will learn how to “do it right”. Because we will be able to.
I really appreciate this piece, and how it addresses things that I think some libertarians are too single-mindedly anti-statist to touch. I particularly like the bit about the LGBT community, in part because as a queer anarchist I’ve been planning to write a piece on the state vs. our community for a while.
Excellent! I think we need to see Anarchism as a starting point for all sorts of other important good things that we want to see in the world and yes, as a trans-woman, with many peeps all over the queer wavelength, the LGBT issues tend to loom large for me.
Libertarians don't say anarchy or liberty is "sufficient". We are not just libertarians, after all. We need society, friends, food, shelter, commerce, art. And we need liberty as well–freedom from aggression. To be anarcho-libertarian is to oppose all aggression–both private, and public (state or institutionalized aggression). It does not mean we are only libertarians, or that we think this is "sufficient."
Thickism is a very confused doctrine. As far as I can tell to the extent it's true, it is just stating what all libertarians know: that we are not just libertarians; that libertarianism as a discipline is connected in a variety of ways to other intellectual disciplines–for example knowing history can help support libertarian arguments, but this does not mean history is just a branch of libertarianism.
""A pocket of black people who live surrounded by white people who are determined to make life difficult for them will have a hard time fighting back even without a state imposing on them.
In the thinnest of thin anarchisms, in which there is no state, but nothing develops in the vacuum left behind, packs of extremely clever sociopaths could roam the land, draining community after community of their resources and good will, like a vampire gang.""
This argument does not make sense to me. By this argument, in thin anarchism, for example, there would be no museums either–after all we didn't make up a thick theory about art! After all being "against the state" is not "sufficient" to …. guarantee (?) that there "will be" (?) museums?
If we eliminate the state it's because we are against all aggression, not just public aggression. So we would be against private aggression (crime) too and fight it as well. There is no reason whatsoever to assume there is something wrong with thin libertarianism.
Great piece Anna, I'm glad more anarchists are looking through things in a "thick" manner then this ridiculous thing libertarians that Kinsella and other right-libertarians subscribe to.
I am prepared to be called many names by Kinsella but I will address his arguments nonetheless to see if I can make any headway:
"Libertarians don’t say anarchy or liberty is “sufficient”. We are not just libertarians, after all. We need society, friends, food, shelter, commerce, art. And we need liberty as well–freedom from aggression. To be anarcho-libertarian is to oppose all aggression–both private, and public (state or institutionalized aggression). It does not mean we are only libertarians, or that we think this is “sufficient.”"
This is very true, however some radical libertarians/anarchists are not as consistent in the private realm, some of these libertarians see no problem with discrimination, contracts that could in effect make people a slave if they'd want to be if they're "stupid" enough to do that. To let people who are racist and so forth let their preferences be pushed on to others even if they promote racism. Not only that but allowing a non-free culture to flourish in a free society may soon lead to a not-so free society.
No thick libertarians don't favor violence but instead want to use peaceful social and economic pressures to make such traits among people at the very least useless to have.
"Thickism is a very confused doctrine."
It seems pretty worked out to me by people likes Johnson:
http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/10/03/libertarianism_t…
"As far as I can tell to the extent it’s true, it is just stating what all libertarians know: that we are not just libertarians; that libertarianism as a discipline is connected in a variety of ways to other intellectual disciplines–for example knowing history can help support libertarian arguments, but this does not mean history is just a branch of libertarianism."
I'm glad you at least recognize the validity of "thickness" in libertarianism but you seem to have a disconnect with the people who practice it as if it's going to fuck up a free society somehow. If anything I think it'll cause an even more free society to prosper than without such a brand of libertarianism.
"This argument does not make sense to me. By this argument, in thin anarchism, for example, there would be no museums either–after all we didn’t make up a thick theory about art! After all being “against the state” is not “sufficient” to …. guarantee (?) that there “will be” (?) museums?"
It's not about having a "thick" theory about everything Stephan it's about opposing authority and oppression on a consistent basis. You seem to think most libertarians do and I disagree, I think some do but I think most are either misinformed or apathetic, which is dangerous for any free society.
"If we eliminate the state it’s because we are against all aggression,"
This is a pretty common fallacy, as libertarians it's good to be against all aggression, public, private, state, corporate, etc. but aggression isn't the only form of oppression in the world.
"not just public aggression. So we would be against private aggression (crime) too and fight it as well. There is no reason whatsoever to assume there is something wrong with thin libertarianism."
There's plenty of reasons and I think Johnson, Anna and other libertarians have pointed it out.
Nick:
They are consistenc,e precisely because the private realm is different than crime or the state.
If a libertarian has "a problem" with some forms of "discrimination"–and I do; I find the bigotry, racism, prejudice, narrow-mindedness, are abhorrent, but not all forms of "discrimination"–it is as a person, not as a libertarian. This is because libertarianism specifies what type of laws are justified; but it's not a guide to living or morality in general. That is not to say that there is no connection. Sure, some social practices are more decent and more conducive to a free society and more compatible wtih the typical motivations and values that make you a libertairna in the first place. And vice-versa–if you are an honest person you have good reason as an honest person to be libertarian–does that make me a "thick honest advocate"?
"To let people who are racist and so forth let their preferences be pushed on to others even if they promote racism."
this talk of "let" and "pushed onto" is vague and imprecise, and subject to equivocation and miscommunication.
"I’m glad you at least recognize the validity of “thickness” in libertarianism but you seem to have a disconnect with the people who practice it as if it’s going to fuck up a free society somehow. If anything I think it’ll cause an even more free society to prosper than without such a brand of libertarianism."
No, I just prefer to think cleanly have have distinct categories and classifications. Mixing things together in careless, slapdash fashion results in sludge.
"It’s not about having a “thick” theory about everything Stephan it’s about opposing authority and oppression on a consistent basis."
yes, well libertarianism is about opposition to aggresison, not opposition to authority at all. As for "oppression," this is another vague word subject to equivocation just like "harm" is.
"You seem to think most libertarians do and I disagree, I think some do but I think most are either misinformed or apathetic, which is dangerous for any free society."
I am not opposed to authority in the slightest. And any libertarian that is, does so in his personal capacity and most definitly not qua libertarian. I even think an argument can be made thickishly that it is, if anything, unlibertarian to oppose "authority." But then, that's what you get when vague metaphorical language can be used that can be interpreted in many ways–confusion, or equivocaiton.
"This is a pretty common fallacy, as libertarians it’s good to be against all aggression, public, private, state, corporate, etc. but aggression isn’t the only form of oppression in the world."
You can fight oppression too, but its not a libertarina project. If aggression is a type of oppression, libertarianism opposes and is concerned only with that type of oppression, not oppression in general (esp. b/c other forms of "oppression" may not even be bad–depending on what you mean by it).
I agree with most of what you say here. I suspect that without the apparatus of a leviathan state attempting to impose uniform values and legal codes, what we would get is the proliferation of a much wider diversity of cultural, political, and legal norms. I think the absence of centralization would also tend to foster extremes. Liberal communities would become much more liberal, conservative ones more conservative, and so forth, and there would also be a proliferation of the kinds of "neither fish nor fowl" outlooks of which libertarianism tends to be one.
I think the key to protecting the well-being of otherwise outcast or despised social groups is through upholding the inviolability of sovereign communities and private associations, with a very widespread and decentralized control over property and resources. I became interested in this subject while studying the drug, prostitution, and "criminal" subcultures in my own city in the 1990s and comparing with what I found in Amsterdam when I was first there in the early 2000s. The "red light districts" in Amsterdam function as kinds of mini-cities where traditionally outcast people-prostitutes and other sex workers, druggies, etc.-have achieved some level of independence and autonomy. In fact, the last time I was there was in March of this year, and while I was there I saw an interview on Dutch television with Lady Gaga who was in Holland at the time talking about how the sex workers she met in the RLD has the status of essentially owning their own bit of territory where they are supreme. The RLD's aren't perfect, of course, as they're still submerged in the wider state system and economically often operate on a crony capitalist basis, but it's still a glimpse of future possibilities.
I'd recommend the autobiography of Zora Neale Hurston regarding this question, as she talks about growing up in an all-black town in Florida where he father was mayor, and where blacks had achieved some level of self-determination even at the height of Southern segregation.
I suppose we need to change our name to C4SSWBOTRTLNS — Center for a Stateless Society and a Whole Bunch of Other Thickish Related Things Like Nonoppression and Stuff.
Thanks Stephan, "C4SSWBOTRTLNS," Fan Fav T-Shirts anyone?
Mr. Kinsella, I'd like to respond to your initial comment, because the rest of it doesn't seem to be in response to my actual essay.
First, a breakdown:
Your first paragraph is utterly in agreement with me, basically a reiteration of my point.
Your second paragraph, while mostly true, seems slippery on the phrase "what all libertarians know". Firstly, these articles aren't simply written libertarian to libertarian (though they often end up working out that way). Secondly, it seems like a lot of libertarians don't know all of this stuff, or they haven't worked out the implications yet. (You might counter claim that they aren't really libertarians then, but that also seems a bit fishy to me.)
Your fifth paragraph is where a substantial criticism of my piece comes in. Noted, but I never claimed that some sort of "thick theory" should be worked out in advance, in fact my article implies almost the opposite.
Your sixth paragraph is not exactly a criticism. It says essentially "there's nothing wrong with thin libertarianism qua libertarianism" which I agree with.
At first your comment surprised me because it seemed to be not really objecting to my actual thoughts but carried the tone of objection. Then I realized (after your last comment) that you sort of inferred that the "but not sufficient" part of my article, in the context of this site, was a criticism of thin libertarianism qua libertarianism. This is a bit amusing because my last post was accused of being a criticism of thick libertarianism.
What I said, and I hope I was clear enough, in my original article was:
1. Anarchism is separate from other social justice movements. (If you didn't get that, well, I don't know how you'd miss it.)
2. Anarchism is *primary* to other social justice movements – one reason being that within the context of a statist society, the state corrupts those movements.
3. Whatever your extra-anarchist goals are, you should be an anarchist, because anarchism will enable you to pursue those goals more effectively, and without screwing other people over.
I think this argument fits very well into the mission of promoting a stateless society.
Thanks Anna! It's all good!
As an ethical subjectivist who finds amoralism to be a valid concept, I approach this very similarly to Anna. Almost all people, including psychopaths or "amoralists," have a general degree of overlap in value systems, which is why arguments similar to David Friedman's would seem to have the most universal appeal: it allows for variation in value systems. The purpose is to de-legitimate the overreaching locus of control and decentralize to tenable, functioning societies.
However, as a libertarian (as derived from my theism), my values are incompatible with many of the values others would hold. Since I believe my values make more sense, the point of holding them in the first place, it makes perfect sense that I would try to spread my them. That value is liberty and to extend that liberty and the self-determination it offers to the greatest degree possible.
But anyone with any value system should be aware of its fallibility. And the more precise the value judgments become, the less likely they are to represent any sort of "truth." Ethics is like shooting blindly in the metaphysical realm just hoping to hit something correct. And the bigger that metaphysical universe is, the hard it is to hit the mark. That is why I'm simultaneously favorable to the concept of thick libertarianism and wary of it becoming too dogmatic, preachy, and alienating. The proposition that X, Y, and Z are "true" is inherently less likely to actually be true than the proposition that X is "true." I don't think any ideology based off false premises is likely to bring positive results and so acknowledging that fallibility in rhetoric and in practice seems essential.
Stephan, the reason, I suspect, you don't find the validity in "thickness" is because of your conflation of "liberty" with "property." And no, I'm not referring to "property in self." Any justification for acquired property and its rightful use involves a "leap" of faith. Liberty is in relation to choice and determination, not over arbitrary/ambiguous standards such as "use" and "labor." Of course, acquired property and it's rightful ownership is a very important component of choice and liberty, but to equate them is fallacious.
Chris: "Stephan, the reason, I suspect, you don't find the validity in "thickness" is because of your conflation of "liberty" with "property." And no, I'm not referring to "property in self." Any justification for acquired property and its rightful use involves a "leap" of faith. Liberty is in relation to choice and determination, not over arbitrary/ambiguous standards such as "use" and "labor." Of course, acquired property and it's rightful ownership is a very important component of choice and liberty, but to equate them is fallacious."
No, it doesn't require a leap of faith. Faith is irrational belief–belief in things without evidence or reason. It has nothing to do with adopting values and norms and preferences. If I value peace and cooperation, this does not require any belief; it is just what I prefer and demonstrate that I value by my actions.
The libertarian view about ownership of rightfully acquired property comes from (a) his choice to adopt basic civilized values (peace, cooperation, conflict-avoidance, and so on); (b) his realization that to be consistent and to achieve these things, the basic Lockean homesteading approach is necessary–only it permits conflict to be avoided by assigning rights of control to scarce resources based on objective, non-arbitrary, non-particularistic criteria.
@Stephan Kinsella: I don't argue that 'opposing authority' in some axiomatic manner is ridiculous and the vagueness of the term requires clarification if it's to mean anything, but so does this:
"I even think an argument can be made thickishly that it is, if anything, unlibertarian to oppose 'authority.' "
Can you please go further into this? Perhaps as close to what you would view as a 'grey line' if there is one in your analysis?
My view is that there is nothing about bare-bones libertarianism, spelled out as a negative rights doctrine and in terms of its anarchic conclusion of statelessness, which inherently equates to a remotely desirable social order. The establishment of negative rights does not necessarily mean that you have an ethical society. But it seems like once one really goes deep into the "thickness" thing, it's more than just that. You can't even achieve a society which meaningfully implements and sustains negative rights in a way that is completely detached from these allegedly "non-anarchic" questions. I see no way to completely separate them.
In a nutshell, I think that in the absence of sufficiently egalitarian ethos, as well as sufficiently egalitarian conditions as concretely realized in a social order, libertarian anarchy is a utopian pipe dream. Without addressing power disparity, "liberty" seems like a pretty empty abstraction. I don't see this as some kind of secondary question, an optional preference inside of an open-ended stateless framework. Rather, it is vital for anything that can remotely be called a "free society" to actually be obtained and sustained. Whether or not such an ethos is "subjective" is beside the point of its consequentialist link with the viability of anarchy.
@Brainpolice, I suppose each of us thinks the other is putting the cart before the horse.
Faith is not, strictly speaking, irrational. As you say, it's believing in something without evidence. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reason. Reason is tool to hone information. The fact that you lack information is in itself information. Believing things without evidence (and certainly without substantial evidence) is by no means an element removable from human thought and behavior.
If it's just a preference, then stop moralizing. No one goes around saying: "You like chocolate ice cream over vanilla?! Well, I never!… Evil!"
There's nothing that conclusively demonstrates that the kind of property arrangements you support will create peace, cooperation, conflict-avoidance. Anarcho-communists certainly don't seem to think that such outcomes would arise from your version of property. Therefore the position requires some amount of acknowledged ambiguity.
OK, but you don't even adopt the Lockean approach. You adopt the "non-Proviso Lockean" approach, removing the qualifier which is meant to preserve liberty. One could easily claim "possession" to be based on "objective, non-arbitrary, non-particularistic criteria." What's more objective than "Go away, I'm using it right now."
"@Brainpolice, I suppose each of us thinks the other is putting the cart before the horse."
Well, if you are more or less taking the position that abolishing the state inherently leads to egalitarian outcomes, then I do think you're putting the cart before the horse. While there is a level of analysis showing how the state creates and intensifies inegalitarian conditions, I don't think this is sufficient as a complete picture. Rather, I think the other level of analysis is that the existence of a state comes from inegalitarian conditions and those conditions feed political power. It's sort of both, but I ultimately think that the question of the general social conditions and cultural ethos is primary.
@Brainpolice, I do think that destroying the state (we probably both have a different idea of what that means) will lead to a more egalitarian economic outcome for sure. I don't think that anything resembling equality can be sustained without getting rid of the state. Thus the title of this article.
[...] Anarchism: Necessary But Not Sufficient [...]
Chris,
This seems to me to be an imprecise attempt to define what reason is. My point is that if you have good empirical evidence for OR a good reason to believe in X, then it’s not faith. Faith is believing in something for which you have no reason or evidence. And that is precisely what is going on with religious or other mystical, irrational beliefs. But that is a religious debate, which is mostly orthogonal to political theory. As a libertarian I’m tolerant of others’ irrational beliefs and bizarre preferences, so long as they are able to sufficiently compartmentalize it and act rationally in interpersonal relationships, which most religious people seem to be able to do.
I don’t know what is supposed to be the point of muddied thought is supposed to be. I’ll let it pass.
It’s not “merely” or “just” a preference–what else could it be? It’s a deeply held value. And of course in light of these values we do see and judge things as evil. Sure we do. By my values, and those of most of civilized society, and even yours presumably, the actions of some people are deeply evil. I don’t care if these evil people have a contrary world view that castigates me as evil. If they don’t join our side, they are treated like animals, criminals, technical problems. That’s just the way it is. NOt to say there is no role for persuasion, etc, but still, ultimately, it can come down to that.
This is a bizarre comment. You guys strongly criticize oppression, say. It’s wrong from the perspective of your values. So what. This is just a distraction.
Ah, there we disagree. See Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty and MES w/ Power and Market; and Hoppe, Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, the first 2 chapters and chapter 7.
Why would I care what those cretins think?
yes, that’s objective, but a rapist could say that during the act, as well, to justify the rape. A right to possession has to be something more than brute force. If you possess property and someone ousts you, or squats on it while you go to town to get staples, you need the right to eject them. An undersatnidng of how legal systems have dealt with the distinction between possession, the right to possess, and full ownership, and various procedures, assumptions, and remedies, would be helpful for libertarians who are somewhat ignorant and feel compelled to reinvent the wheel in an amateur, unlearned, hamfisted way. SEe e.g.
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/02/a-critique-of-mutualist-occupancy/
http://mises.org/daily/3660 (notes 21, 25 and accompanying text, et pass)
http://blog.mises.org/10004/homesteading-abandonment-and-unowned-land-in-the-civil-law/
http://blog.mises.org/10395/inability-to-abandon-property-in-the-civil-law/
Once you recognize possession is more than just current dominion and control, you realize there is a “right to possess” that goes beyond mere physical, actual control. This is waht ownership is: the “right to possess”. But the law is smart enough to recognize the bare right to posses is merely a right to undo an ouster or squatter. The real full right to ownership is what is justified by libertairan/Lockean principles. Even the law gets this, even if some left-libs, with their bizarre, antiquated views on labor, “workers,” employment, alienation, the division of labor, industrialism, modernity, capitalism, do not.
"A pocket of black people who live surrounded by white people who are determined to make life difficult for them will have a hard time fighting back even without a state imposing on them."
It isn't clear to me that this is so. It seems to me that as pockets of anarchists, many of us have experienced similar situations. The main thing that those who oppress us continue to count on is our forbearance. We forebear to use violence against those who oppress us. We forebear to find their homes by looking up their address in whitepages.com. We forebear to kill them in the night and burn their homes to the ground.
We forebear to do these things for a great many reasons. We don't have to do so, given the doctrine of self-defence. Once someone has used the force of the state against anyone, there is nothing in the zero aggression principle that prevents anyone from using up to deadly force against that person. Once a pig has hit one person over the head with his baton, shot one old woman in her night clothes, stopped one person for a non-violent non-crime to feed the maw of the state, that pig is fair game, forever. Well, they could pay compensation to make it right with their victims by way of an act of contrition, and that should bring them back from beyond the pale – but that never happens, and it is a part of the arrogance of the system that oppresses us that it is never expected.
Why must a smaller group of persons always be subjugated by a larger group of persons? Firearms, explosives, camouflage, encryption, and many other technologies exist to make it difficult to find, let alone subjugate, a distributed population. History is filled with excellent examples of smaller groups defending a territory though they give up every post, making a region un-liveable , and ousting conquerors. In the case of Vietnam, from 1919 to 1979 they ousted French, Japanese, French, USA, and Chinese aggressors.
Tolerance, decency, a philosophy that embraces life rather than death, and a spirit of voluntary cooperation are all excellent things. I think these are amongst the reasons many of us are pursuing a stateless society as a goal. We want to live without oppression and terror.
Well damn, Jim. That's well said. I stand somewhat corrected.
Excellent article. James, I would totally buy that t-shirt. I'd also like one that says "Anarchism: Unleashing the Inner Weirdo."
Stephan,
"They are consistenc,e precisely because the private realm is different than crime or the state."
I do not think that oppression is so different or at least widely different in most cases, oppression needs to be opposed no matter what realm it takes in.
"If a libertarian has “a problem” with some forms of “discrimination”–and I do; I find the bigotry, racism, prejudice, narrow-mindedness, are abhorrent, but not all forms of “discrimination”–it is as a person, not as a libertarian. "
No it's not as a person, you can advocate oppression of others as human many have, a human who holds libertarian values however must necessarily put the individual before collectives that impose themselves on the individual, regardless of the realm.
"That is not to say that there is no connection. Sure, some social practices are more decent and more conducive to a free society and more compatible wtih the typical motivations and values that make you a libertairna in the first place. And vice-versa–if you are an honest person you have good reason as an honest person to be libertarian–does that make me a “thick honest advocate”?"
It's not about being an honest person but a consistent libertarian in opposing aggression not just in physical sense but in other senses as well that can be just as destructive to individuals and their freedom.
"this talk of “let” and “pushed onto” is vague and imprecise, and subject to equivocation and miscommunication."
"No, I just prefer to think cleanly have have distinct categories and classifications. Mixing things
yes, well libertarianism is about opposition to aggresison, not opposition to authority at all. As for “oppression,” this is another vague word subject to equivocation just like “harm” is.
You do this a lot Stephan you criticize my wording of things and my positions but state no real reasons why they are like this, there's nothing vague about the oppression of other individuals and there should be no lack of clarity on this subject especially from libertarians.
The fact that you do does not mean my positions are incoherent but that you need to reevaluate your own positions. Libertarians is in opposition to any illegitimate authority, I don't know how you fit libertarianism into the context of authority otherwise and you don't say how you do either.
"I am not opposed to authority in the slightest. And any libertarian that is, does so in his personal capacity and most definitly not qua libertarian. I even think an argument can be made thickishly that it is, if anything, unlibertarian to oppose “authority.” But then, that’s what you get when vague metaphorical language can be used that can be interpreted in many ways–confusion, or equivocaiton."
Again you make these claims with about as thin of backing as your libertarianism, I don't see how as a libertarian and furthermore as an anarchist you make no mention of authority in your opposing of the government. You're going to have to run by this one with me.
"You can fight oppression too, but its not a libertarina project. If aggression is a type of oppression, libertarianism opposes and is concerned only with that type of oppression, not oppression in general (esp. b/c other forms of “oppression” may not even be bad–depending on what you mean by it)."
What sense of oppression is "appropriate" to you Stephan? I think you're the one who's being inconsistent and vague honestly and at least I've pointed out why.
No, Nick, I think you are simply very confused, and your thinking and/or expression thereof is not very clear, leading to gaps and ambiguities and imprecision and equivocation.
"I do not think that oppression is so different or at least widely different in most cases, oppression needs to be opposed no matter what realm it takes in."
Depends what "oppression" is. Libertarianism is not about opposing oppression. It's about opposing aggression. If as a meta-libertarian you want to have some theory that aggression is a subset of some broader category of "oppression" (or wrongness, injustice, unfairness, inequity, whatever), have at it–but that doens't change the fact that libertarianism itself is concerned with the subset of oppression known as aggression.
"No it’s not as a person, you can advocate oppression of others as human many have, a human who holds libertarian values however must necessarily put the individual before collectives that impose themselves on the individual, regardless of the realm."
Unrigorous, imprecise. We have enough of a job as libertarians opposing private and especially public (institutionalized) aggression.
"“That is not to say that there is no connection. Sure, some social practices are more decent and more conducive to a free society and more compatible wtih the typical motivations and values that make you a libertairna in the first place. And vice-versa–if you are an honest person you have good reason as an honest person to be libertarian–does that make me a “thick honest advocate”?”"
"It’s not about being an honest person but a consistent libertarian in opposing aggression not just in physical sense but in other senses as well that can be just as destructive to individuals and their freedom."
I don't think you get my point. Nevermind.
"You do this a lot Stephan you criticize my wording of things and my positions but state no real reasons why they are like this, there’s nothing vague about the oppression of other individuals and there should be no lack of clarity on this subject especially from libertarians."
Oppression is vague. Harm is vague. The opposition to authority is, frankly, stupid.
"The fact that you do does not mean my positions are incoherent but that you need to reevaluate your own positions."
I don't "need" to do anyting.
"Libertarians is in opposition to any illegitimate authority,"
Wrong. This is not the definition of libertarianism. This might sound good in a poem, but for precise communication this says nothing.
"I don’t know how you fit libertarianism into the context of authority otherwise and you don’t say how you do either."
I never talk about "authority" as a libertairan b/c it's not about that. If anyting we are in favor of private authority supplanting the institutions the state has monopolized.
"Again you make these claims with about as thin of backing as your libertarianism, I don’t see how as a libertarian and furthermore as an anarchist you make no mention of authority in your opposing of the government. You’re going to have to run by this one with me."
There is a role for natural elite and authorities, and private institutions, from family, church, local esteemed people and leaders, etc. See Hoppe on natural elites. http://mises.org/daily/2214
"What sense of oppression is “appropriate” to you Stephan?"
I have no idea–the term is so vague who knows? This is the problem with hippie California new age vague liberal artsy-fartsy "hey man don't label me" bullshit.
That's a great idea Broadsnark! "C4SSWBOTRTLNS" on the front and “Anarchism: Unleashing the Inner Weirdo” on the back!
"Depends what “oppression” is. Libertarianism is not about opposing oppression. It’s about opposing aggression. If as a meta-libertarian you want to have some theory that aggression is a subset of some broader category of “oppression” (or wrongness, injustice, unfairness, inequity, whatever), have at it–but that doens’t change the fact that libertarianism itself is concerned with the subset of oppression known as aggression."
I don't see how libertarians can JUST be concerned with opposing aggression, there's a lot more oppression int he world than just the physical kind.
"Unrigorous, imprecise. We have enough of a job as libertarians opposing private and especially public (institutionalized) aggression. "
With statements like this you don't even try to make an argument, you just call an argument bad and don't explain why and then continue to explain your own argument as if I don't know.
"Oppression is vague. Harm is vague. The opposition to authority is, frankly, stupid."
Here you are doing it again, there's nothing vague about oppression, it's when one puts force downwards on someone in an unequal situation.
The opposition to irrational authority such as government and the state is what libertarianism is all about, note I did not say mainly.
"Wrong. This is not the definition of libertarianism. This might sound good in a poem, but for precise communication this says nothing."
I never said it was a definition, I explained this is one of the things libertarians should use their philosophy of libertarianism for.
"There is a role for natural elite and authorities, and private institutions, from family, church, local esteemed people and leaders, etc."
I have no problem with leaders who acquire their roles through acceptance or their skills, etc.
I do however oppose leaders on the basis of force and domination.
"I have no idea–the term is so vague who knows? This is the problem with hippie California new age vague liberal artsy-fartsy “hey man don’t label me” bullshit."
Now you've just lost me, I don't know how you even come to any of the conclusions you do.
"I don’t see how libertarians can JUST be concerned with opposing aggression, there’s a lot more oppression int he world than just the physical kind."
this is the kind of logic leftists use to justify laws against what they call "economic coercion," for example.
"there’s nothing vague about oppression, it’s when one puts force downwards on someone in an unequal situation."
Force? Okay, if it's force, it's aggression. And we are already against that. (not sure about the "downwards" part)
"The opposition to irrational authority such as government and the state is what libertarianism is all about, note I did not say mainly."
We don't oppose the state's authority because it is "irrational". It's because it commits aggression against us.
Except that trusting your senses in the first place is a matter of faith. Knowing that is information. That's what I was trying to say. Ethical theories are by their nature dependent on some degree of faith. If you're interested in consistent atheism, check out Stirner.
Nah, I don't really believe in evil, just stupidity and ignorance. When a snake bites someone, do you call it "evil?" The word "evil" is used to emotionalize topics so that rational argumentation can be neglected.
Good luck with the "if they don't agree with me, then they are animals" mentality.
You don't think there some merit to the idea that "libertarian" might have something to do with "liberate?" Nevertheless, I think "oppression" is pretty ambiguous outside the NAP, but that's no reason to pretend like it doesn't exist or that it's irrelevant and unworthy of consideration.
Yes, because deduction can answer absolutely any question in any scenario.
Have you ever considered that a human may act deterministically or randomly thus violating the human action axiom? Yours seems to be an ideology completely devoid of qualifiers – those things that make an ideology applicable to the real world and the ambiguity entangled with it.
What a magnificent strawman!
If you support rules that result in "peace and cooperation," then why not oppose "oppression." You're cut off at the NAP just seems silly. Arguing as if other cultural elements are unrelated to those goals sounds about as absurd a notion as there is.
Chris,
It's not faith at all. This is one problem with libertarians: they are smart but when ignorant they try to reinvent the wheel. You can do some reasding in this area if you want but there is no need to cobble together some amateur theory like this.
Whehter you believe in it or not there are people and actions in the world that others quite resaonably classify as evil in view of their deeply held values.
More amateur philosophy. Evil means deeply wrong. It's not emotionalism. The snake example is ridiuclous since it's not a human actor.
Yes, I'm well aware there are criminals in the world.
again, speaking beyond your expertise. Determinism in the causal realm does not in any way undermine praxeology–see Mises on this. I can give you page numbers if you want.
I see no coherent thought or argument or question here. Sounds like you are musing out loud.
REductios are not straw men.
Descartes and Socrates were engaged in amateur philosophy?
"again, speaking beyond your expertise. Determinism in the causal realm does not in any way undermine praxeology–see Mises on this. I can give you page numbers if you want."
Clarification: I was using "determinism" as derived from "materialism." Ie not purposeful, not rational.
–Mises
Praxeology is a way of understanding the world in the only way it can be understood. That doesn't mean it is truth. If humans do not act purposefully 100% of the time, economic theory does not hold 100% of the time.
"REductios are not straw men."
1) Your rapist example wasn't dealing with acquired property.
2) Given self ownership (which is already granted in libertarian conversation), a rapist could not argue "possession" over his victim because the victim could simultaneously claim "possession" over themselves.
Chris, praxeology is the study of human action. Action is by definitino purposive–intentional. Action is chosen action.
As long as we wish to study men *as* actors, to do praxeology, it is completely irrelevant that we also know that human bodies are made of quarks which are governed by causal laws. I.e. even if we are determined, so what. If we are studying action of humans, we are understanding actors who choose.
"Your rapist example wasn’t dealing with acquired property"
So? you said: " What’s more objective than “Go away, I’m using it right now.” "
I'm showing that this is not sufficient for body rights. Wy would it be for other rights? You need to show there is a relevant difference
yes, that’s objective, but a rapist could say that during the act, as well, to justify the rape. A right to possession has to be something more than brute force
"Action" is predefined as purposive. If not everything humans do is purposive, then not everything humans do can be considered "action."
"If we are studying action of humans, we are understanding actors who choose."
Isn't this kind of thinking dominant in mainstream economics? IE who cares if our models are representative of reality, if we want to use our models we have to pretend like they do apply.
"You need to show there is a relevant difference"
I can describe a hypothetical situation in which it could: extreme land scarcity or externalities.
"A right to possession has to be something more than brute force"
First, you justify a "right." Since we already defined the "right," I don't see where the problem is. Given a right to self-ownership, it follows that rape necessarily violates it. That's all there is.
"First, you justify a “right.” Since we already defined the “right,” I don’t see where the problem is. Given a right to self-ownership, it follows that rape necessarily violates it. That’s all there is."
We are not ghosts. We live in the world. We need material things to survive. These things are scarce. Just as we assign property rights in our bodies (self-ownership) to the person with the closest connection to the resource in question, the same rule is used in the case of external objects.
As Hoppe writes, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/24…
Also:
"We are not ghosts. We live in the world. We need material things to survive. These things are scarce. Just as we assign property rights in our bodies (self-ownership) to the person with the closest connection to the resource in question, the same rule is used in the case of external objects."
Obviously. I don't how this contributes anything. The person being raped has the closest connection to him/herself. The person driving (what was formally) your car has the closest connection to your car.
Conclusions are based on premises and that there's no premise that is conclusively demonstrable.
Stephan,
You continue to conflate leftist-attitudes to the current state of affairs with left-libertarians approach to them and I've already adddressed that.
And speak for yourself for once, stop saying "we" as libertarians in all of these collective statements, there are many different types of libertarians, there are even a lot of different types of statists who support "diffeent" states and means to get it and so forth so please speak for yourself.
Oppression can be emotional or psycological, there doesn't NEED to be any force but it's still wrong and something to be opposed by libertarians.
"It would not be impossible for systematic crimes against transgendered people to go largely unpunished, even in anarchy."
Sorry, it's impossible to have that type of crime unpunished in an anarchy. In an anarchy, you can't agress anybody. Anarchy is not just about "smashing the State", it's about smashing ALL FORMS OF HIERARCHIES!
Interesting piece, though.
No political system can guarantee that people act rationally. But one can minimize the consequences of their irrationality.
When I have been successful at moving people toward libertarianism, support for the state is one of the last of the sacred cows to fall. So as a practical matter, the elimination of the state could be more easily be done as people become more tollerant of others and less obedient to their oppressors.
Cultural concerns aren't additional commitments on top of anarchism. They're part of it.
I agree.
Opposition to political injustice hardly implies approval or even tolerance of social and economic injustice.
It merely means that people will be free to seek solutions to social and economic injustice without interference from the STATE.
Without interference from the STATE, social and economic pressures will be unleashed against private bigotry. These social and economic pressures will not FORCE bigots to forsake their bigotry.
But they will pressure them to forsake their bigotry gradually and inexorably, over the long term, without resort to the initiation of force.
The "necessary but not sufficient" codicil about Market Anarchism is at best superfluous. It is gilding the lily, or as the Chinese say, adding legs to a painting of a snake.
At worst, it risks becoming, however unintentionally, the thin edge of the wedge for the reintroduction of STATIST coercion in the form of "civil rights."
It risks become something akin to the "Promote the General Welfare" clause in the Constitution. We all know how that was deliberately misinterpreted by later generations.