“Government shutdown.” For sheer beauty, I can’t think of another two-word phrase in the English language that even comes close.
And, as American media breathlessly relate, that’s what we’re going to get come March 4th unless Congress and the Obama administration manage a meeting of the minds on spending.
Well, no, not really. But kind of. Sort of. In a way.
When the organs of of American government come to loggerheads on the federal budget, a temporary shutdown of “non-essential services” ensues until one side caves.
Oh, no, Br’er Bear! Please don’t throw me in the briar patch!
Unfortunately, the compromises usually come fairly quickly. Government shutdowns generally go a few days. The record is three weeks. We’ve seen 15 of these shutdowns since the Carter administration, which should tell us something about how non-traumatic they really are.
If they lasted a bit longer, perhaps more people would think to ask why “non-essential” services are operated by government and financed through coercive taxation in the first place.
If “essential” services were shut down, perhaps more people would re-evaluate just how essential those services are — or at least whether or not political government is the best institution to trust with their operation and maintenance.
So what, pray tell, is the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential?” Here’s an easy way to tell:
If the shutdown of a service irritates and inconveniences ordinary people, but doesn’t really reduce the power of politicians, that service is “non-essential.”
If shutting down a service would actually reduce government’s control over your life, it’s “essential.”
During a shutdown you can’t get a passport from the government. Your ability to travel is “non-essential.” If you show up at the border, though, there will still be a customs official waiting there, demanding to see said passport. The government’s ability to control your travel is “essential.”
The dividing line between “essential” and “non-essential” is fuzzy and only begins to resolve as the length of the shutdown increases.
Early in a shutdown, Social Security and tax refund checks continue to be issued. If the shutdown drags on a bit, the politicians begin to make noises to the effect that these two activities may grind to a halt unless they get their way — and that it will be the other side’s fault, of course. At no point in a shutdown, however, will Social Security or federal income taxes cease to be collected.
Your needs are at least potentially “non-essential.” Their revenues are not just “essential,” but sacrosanct.
It’s all just bad dinner theater … but I’m not sure we’ll get to see the whole play this time, more’s the pity.
The very real “government shutdowns” taking place in the Middle East are making even American politicians nervous. They seem to suspect that you may not be that interested in reprising the role of damsel in distress, awaiting rescue by congressmen in shining armor, yet another time.
What if they held a government shutdown and the public response was a collective yawn? “Yeah, whatever. Take a long lunch. And, you know, really, don’t bother coming back.”
Or perhaps a Bangles combeback: “Walk Like An Egyptian,” anyone?
The whole point of the play is to convince you that you need them. You don’t. Keep that in mind as this “shutdown” kabuki plays out.
Government representatives everywhere, and most definitely in the US too, spend considerable effort in spreading a message of government necessity – that without it all would be chaos. Oh yes, even anarchy! This last is a word that dredges up fear of terrorists, carnage, rape, pillage or at least disease and filth when all it truly means is "without government", but the response of fear is what is desired by those in and supportive of governments
Rulers/governments constantly promote and foster dependency of individuals *on* government and fear of a society without it. Consider all those who are currently direct recipients of monies from government, either by way of wages, direct handouts or services – all of which come from taxpayers, most often some from the recipients themselves. The dependency of many and demonstrated anxiety at the possibility of loss is truly sad to witness. The fact that so many have lost or never developed self-responsibility approaches pathetic.
This idea of government necessity goes back in the US to at least the Federalist Papers#2, October 31 1787, authored by John Jay under the pseudonym when he wrote " Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government". (source: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa02.htm)
I (once again) urge that this assumption that has carried on in the US for at least 223 years be repeatedly brought out into the open and challenged. But in order to do so with any hope of convincing large numbers, a sound basis for a self-ordered society must be provided. I think that only currently exists in "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.h…
Another worthwhile point is that even if a government shutdown causes the government to stop performing a function, you can be sure that it won't stop them from enforcing their monopoly on the performance of that service. If the government stopped performing functions and allowed others to take them over, I'd be the first to say "don't bother coming back." But, since that's not the case, I think that an anarchist can still logically oppose a government shutdown on dialectic or pragmatic grounds. What's more, since the "man on the street" is likely to get the impression that support for a government shutdown means support for ending all the government services (i.e., ending the services themselves and not just government provision of them), anarchists ought to be very careful when/if they come out in favor of what the government refers to as a shutdown.
Good point — good enough that if I hadn't already submitted this piece to newspapers, I'd slap myself up the head for not making it, then go back and re-write to get it in there.
Since I've already submitted it to newspapers, I'll slap myself upside the head anyway, and try to remember to catch it in the next piece on the subject (or remind one of our other writers to do so if necessary when they're the ones hitting the topic).
Regards,
Tom
My recent post Say hello to my little friend
Your point is part of what I had in mind when I wrote, "But in order to do so with any hope of convincing large numbers, a sound basis for a self-ordered society must be provided." It is inherent within the text of "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" and this very principled basis is what is missing in much of libertarian writings.
What about cellar door? But I rather suspect that beauty does not mean what you think it means. That is, I suspect you are not thinking of the beauty of the phrase at all, but of the beauty of what the phrase makes you think of.
Which newspapers did this go to?
Kitty, I visited your & Paul's site and found it interesting but found my reading there hobbled by the quasi-academic prose stylings. I would humbly suggest that you two try writing in plain English if you want more people to openly consider what your site contains. Academic jargon-laden prose is a real snoozer for most everyone I know. I would suggest starting with a rephrasing of anything where you're talking about "meta-" something, and eliminating all personally originating jargon terms.
Why? Because honestly, I can't wade through that site as it's now written. I get a headache.
I don't mean for this comment to be unkind or cruel. I'm just being candid. Based on your comment above I think you have valuable things to share, but based on the website I worry about the audience needlessly being put off by the way the things are presented.
PM,
On those terms, I'm with F. Scott Fitzgerald on both his single answer and his list of ten. But I don't accept those terms. What a phrase makes me think of is part of its beauty.
The piece went out to 1,832 newspapers, all in the United States.
My recent post Say hello to my little friend
I think Tom was too fast in completely agreeing with Miko's comment. I fully agree with Miko's first two sentences and that such point should have been included by Tom – although the enforcing of their monopoly was actually included by Tom as one type of essential (or even sacrosanct) service that government would never shutdown.
However, I do not agree that an anarchist "can still logically oppose a government shutdown" on any principled grounds whatever! Although any service shutdown needs to be examined individually, for most such government functions there are alternates and work-arounds that can easily be brought to bear to solve the problems temporarily as other methods are readied to take over more efficiently if the lack of government service is prolonged. In fact, the major reason why governments always ensure that such shutdowns are not highly prolonged are because if they were then people would develop satisfactory alternate methods and it would be patently clear that such government functions were not necessary or even beneficial.
Since I am the author of what you term "quasi-academic prose" (actually I intended it as *fully* academic:), Kitty suggested that I reply to your important comment. The first thing that you need to understand is that the Theory of Social Meta-Needs and its two implementing methods – the Natural Social Contract and Social Preferencing – are designed to replace the entire government structure including all laws, enforcement, punishment and court systems. It is therefore absolutely essential to use fully unambiguous language (just as in any meaningful/useful contract), which because of the enormously ambiguous nature of vernacular language (particularly English) often requires the use of narrowly defined technical terms (what you have correctly labeled as "jargon"). Note that this is totally similar to such necessities within all sciences and practical specialties – they all have jargon, the meanings of which it is necessary to learn if one is to fully understand the subject area.
Because of its vastly encompassing foundational nature, the Social Meta-Needs treatise is purposefully written for the philosophic and intellectual scrutiny, comment, critique and persuasion of people who would normally be classified as academics. Unfortunately it has so far not attracted a thorough reading by anyone with sufficient philosophical/logical background to give it this treatment.
Since the purpose of the project is so vast, it should be clear that it would take many thousands of additional pages to explain just how all the myriad interactions of individuals would be dealt with by the principles of Social Meta-Needs and their implementations. It our hope to attract first people who can and will read, understand and agree with the basic theory of a self-ordered society which we have presented (the target society to be fully libertarian and ultimately free self-ordered social replacement for the State) and secondly, that such people join us in presenting these ideas for the understanding and persuasion of non-academics. We have been slowing doing this last ourselves in many posted about current events on the Internet (mostly Kitty) and within the Focus section of the SelfSIP website. If you wish to avoid the "headache" of "wad[ing] through the "[a]cademic jargon-laden prose", then I suggest that you start reading in the Focus Section – http://selfsip.org/focus/ If that section is still incapable of your not "being put off by the way the things are presented", then please let us know specifically what it is that is still causing you trouble.
Can someone please tell me what else are non-essential services?!
Don't hit people. Don't take their stuff.
Not complicated.
People working on solutions
The Alternative Market Project Has Been Launched! http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com…
> Don't hit people.
How about gassing, radiating, sound blasting, insulting, cursing, etc?
How about if they are on your property? If they are hitting you? If they are building an a-bomb in their next door basement?
> Don't take their stuff.
How is "their stuff" differentiated from my stuff? Is their image part of their stuff? (as many primitive peoples think)? Their thoughts; their emitted words/sounds; their public writings? Is the volume of space that they occupy always their stuff? Is any volume of space their stuff? If you are lost in the woods, certain (in your estimation) to starve/freeze before reaching civilization and you find a well stocked cabin, do you break and use what is clearly some else's stuff or do you remain outside and die?
And how is "take" determined? Does photographing someone or recording their sounds equate to "taking"? How about trespass on the land of another? How does that relate to "taking stuff" or to "hitting".
What is done for those most often occurrences when someone is hit or their stuff is taken/damaged, purely accidentally? The same when done "carelessly"? How do you define the difference between carelessly, irresponsibly and accidentally? How about when it is done intentionally with benefit in mind, but the recipient regards it as a harm?
..
..
The above is not even the tip of the iceberg of what is not covered by such a reply as yours and/or "The Non-Aggression Principle". This kind of reply and that "Principle" unfortunately are why libertarians are not taken seriously by so very many in society as a whole.
The question to be asked and answered first is "non-essential " to whom?
"Essential/non-essential" is really a personal evaluation – one that will expectedly change with time and location, a fact that is completely disregarded in this age when a large portion of the population is willing and even anxious to turn over to government self-responsibility over major areas of their lives.
Having government or even some voluntary group decide what is "essential" or "non-essential" for its citizens or members, respectively, is a denial of the fact of individuality, which includes a myriad of circumstances for each. At least an individual can remove hirself from membership of voluntary groups but governments in the area of hir residence continue to exercise their self-decreed authority – town (unless outside boundary), county, state, federal – using agents of physical force, those humans willing to initiate it.