Can Politics Be The Answer?
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp on Jun 22, 2009 in Commentary • 22 commentsThat depends, I guess, on what the question is.
The “freedom movement” — a broad movement which exists here in the US and around the world in every country not yet ruled by governments so degenerated into totalitarianism that they crush actual or prospective dissent at an exceedingly granular level — has always been split on the issue of whether participation in electoral or party policits is an appropriate, moral or effective approach to seizing liberty.
Among “minarchists” (those who desire a much smaller, less powerful role for government), participation in electoral politics is usually regarded as a morally acceptable activity. Libertarian political parties, or libertarian caucuses within existing parties, constitute a visible and powerful part of their activities. Some minarchists do, however, raise the question of whether this approach is effective, and may opt instead to pursue education or propaganda efforts without themselves putting up or endorsing candidates for public office.
Anarchists, of course, want to do away with political government entirely: To smash the state and create a society in which there are no “public offices” to support the election of candidates to. Surprisingly, however, some anarchists do support “political activity” in pursuit of a stateless society. I’ll get to why they might do so in a moment, but first I’d like to briefly explain the opposite position.
Anti-political anarchists advance a number of convincing arguments against participation in electoral politics.
The argument from effectiveness is fairly obvious: The state, they say, will never allow itself to be voted out of existence, and participation in its institutions is therefore not only a dead end road, but a distraction from the first important task of raising “revolutionary consciousness” among the masses.
From the standpoint of morality and propriety, the anti-political argument is that participating in the state’s rituals of self-legitimization undermines the argument for a stateless society and corrupts the advocates of that argument. To vote or to run for office is to implicitly consent to the continued existence of the state. Should an anarchist actually win office, he or she will be caught in a conflict of interest — a duty to support the state on one hand, advocacy of its dissolution on the other.
One of the standard anarchist arguments in favor of political involvement, advanced by libertarian philosopher and strategist Murray N. Rothbard, is the “self-defense” argument. The state exists, said Rothbard, and it does bad things. If it is possible to use its own tools to slow it down, to minimize the harm it does, to fight back against its depredations, then there’s no moral problem: One is effectively in the same position as a man under assault. He does not act immorally if he seizes his assailant’s weapon and uses it to defend his own life.
My own two favored arguments in support of “political activity” by anarchists are as follows:
First, because political activity is the established and widely accepted avenue for discussing “social questions,” it constitutes the most direct avenue to the ears of those interested in such questions and in answers to those questions.
A libertarian political party, even if (perhaps especially!) if it never gains power, has the potential to reach people who, as indicated by their interest in politics, are already interested in the “social questions” … and reaching them is a prerequisite to radicalizing them.
Secondly, a libertarian political party can act as a gateway to a different approach by, in action, graphically demonstrating the inefficacy of its own activities.
In case this sounds perverse, let me re-phrase it: By offering sound (in other words, pro-freedom) solutions to the “social questions” and then demonstrating through failure at the polls that those solutions will never be implemented through the political process and political institutions, a libertarian political party can open the eyes of precisely the people who are in, and need to be led out of, or at least convinced to think beyond, that process.
If the question is “how do we do away with the state?” then politics is not the answer. If, however, the question is “how do we demonstrate that the state should be done away with?” it may well be an answer.
Thomas L. Knapp is Senior News Analyst and Media Coordinator at the Center for a Stateless Society (c4ss.org).
As Yogi Bera said, nothing succeeds like success.
I think your last proposition is a convenient excuse for not having a real transition plan – one that takes us from the state to freedom. Of course, to get there, one must accept the moral necessity of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate – or with a separate surtax – in order to retire the national debt and liquidate the Federal Reserve. If you don’t do that, than you advocate either recessionary economics (a form of reverse class warfare where the poor and middle class are taxed more heavily to finance the wealthy) or abrogation of the debt – which is theft from federal bond holders. (Or for that matter – people who have paid into Social Security).
You also need to find a way to satisfy the demands of workers to a just wage and commit to restorative justice for those who have been ill served by the education system. Finally, there must be some means identified to educate youth – which involves a huge transfer of income from the general population to those with children (or a methodology by which someone besides the society – say an employee-owned cooperative or corporation – provides for the funding of either the students or the schools). You also need to replace state-based retirement systems with systems to transfer the ownership of companies to their workers, with dividends financing retirement (and allowing employers who have made all past employees whole to opt out of FICA taxes).
Many libertarians also advocate legalizing drugs without at the same time providing a regimine for treating addicts and alcoholics – who have in a very real sense lost their freedom to their favored substance. If one is addled by controlled substances, one’s liberty is impaired with one’s thinking.
Often, Libertarians simply advocate closing programs without replacing them or cutting taxes without finding alternative financing first. That is not liberty – that is irresponsibility.
Irresponsibility does not win elections. People tend to see through it eventually.
Michael,
You write:
“I think your last proposition is a convenient excuse for not having a real transition plan – one that takes us from the state to freedom.”
I don’t need a “real transition plan” — I’m not an advocate of central planning
“Of course, to get there, one must accept the moral necessity of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate”
There can be no such thing as a moral necessity for an immoral act, especially one committed by an illegitimate institution.
“in order to retire the national debt”
Why would it be “necessary” for me to provide for retirement of a debt I did not incur, nor approve of, nor promise retirement of?
“or abrogation of the debt – which is theft from federal bond holders. (Or for that matter – people who have paid into Social Security).”
I didn’t sell the bonds to the bondholders, nor did I promise benefits to the payers of Social Security taxes, nor did I collect the proceeds of the bond sales or the Social Security taxes. We could argue about whether the bondholders and taxpayers have a moral claim to repayment from anyone, but it’s a simple fact that they don’t have any moral claim to repayment from me.
Consider the Irish at Westminster, from the time in the 19th century when they (we – these are among my forebears) got more effective representation until independence. The political arm of the struggle adopted a “join and sabotage” approach, clogging up the political system as much as possible and rendering it less functional, then bargaining for ever more separate arrangements – all the while without being co-opted and legitimising the political process. Also, these activities in no way undercut carrying on others outside the system, peaceful or otherwise.
On Michael Bindner’s points, while those are not moral obligations (as Thomas L. Knapp pointed out), nevertheless it would be wise to look out for clean transitions to clear away these old messes. That is both to make it easier to undo the (deliberate?) bind they create, locking in interests to support the status quo, and to make conditions easier afterwards, without a lot of distress and collateral damage around among the very people we want to help. That is one reason why, for instance, I recently advocated various reform measures for Australia in a submission to the Henry Tax Review. Its appendix C (the body of an earlier submission, about retirement systems) may be more relevant to this. Another reason for making those submissions, along the lines Thomas L. Knapp described, was to demonstrate how useless the political process is for actually achieving anything.
Hmm. There has been some link rot while a blog was changed, so appendix C has moved a bit.
My goodness, Michael Bindner is an authoritarian. May his chains set heavily upon him, may his manacles chafe and bind, and may no one ever give him any power.
Before he was ousted in 1991 by the Somali people, dictator Siad Barre had borrowed $2.6 billion from the international community, including $333 million he borrowed from the IMF for the express purpose of slaughtering civilians in his country. His troops massacred about 30,000 civilians, mostly women and children, in Berbera in 1988. He also used the money to set up torture chambers for his chief of secret police Dahir Riyale.
Since 1991, the Somalis have not set up a national government and not paid any taxes. This infuriates the UN and, no doubt, scum like Bindner. How dare they steal from the bond holders? Well, very easily, it turns out.
The USA national debt doesn’t belong to the American people, it belongs to those politicians who voted to increase it and to the bureau-rat filth that spent it. My transition plan includes repudiating the national debt. It isn’t my problem.
Bindner fakes concern for “people who have paid into Social Security” but I wrote about those people many years ago in my essay at ncc-1776.org in 1996 or so, “Defrauding the Elderly or Enslaving the Young.” The Socialist Insecurity system is a Ponzi scheme. All the money paid in over the years was spent right away. There is no “trust fund” and there is no reason to believe that all of those who pay in are going to get back what they paid in.
People of my generation, in a national poll, responded that they were more likely to be kidnapped by extraterrestrials than receive Social Security “benefits.” When you rob from working age people to pay money to the elderly, terminating that system of fraud is the first step toward a more ethical approach. Sure, the Ponzi scheme operators screwed over a lot of people, so charge them with criminal fraud and recover what you can from their possessions. I could see making the politicians and bureau-rats work off the debt as compensation for their criminal behavior. Compensatory justice has merit.
“You also need to find a way to satisfy the demands of workers to a just wage”
It is very easy to find a just wage. A willing buyer and a willing seller make a market. If third parties did not come in and confiscate about 15% of the wage plus withholding for income taxes, the seller would have a much better time selling his labor. If we took out the $5 trillion a year in national, state, county, and local spending that burdens the $14 trillion national economy, everyone would be much wealthier.
“and commit to restorative justice for those who have been ill served by the education system.”
Educating yourself is your obligation, not mine. The most you can expect to be taught by others is how to locate information. The learning of it is up to you, and always has been.
“Finally, there must be some means identified to educate
youth”
And here it is: The youth educate themselves. The parents of children educate their children with unschooling and homeschooling as they see fit, and the children get tired of it before long and just learn things on their own. Learning is easy and natural.
“– which involves a huge transfer of income from the general population to those with children”
Well, having children is fun. The general population could have children, too. But there is no need to transfer income. The children, ultimately, are responsible for any learning that gets done. Forcing them to sit in rooms full of desks and listen to bozos lecture isn’t teaching them anything – except how stupid some adults are.
“provides for the funding of either the students or the schools”
Schools are superfluous. Unschooling works great. Home schooling works great. The results are in and the home schooled kids spell better, do better at math, have higher reading comprehension scores, etc.
Students can fund themselves. Or were you thinking of imposing a child labor law? In which case, why?
“You also need to replace state-based retirement systems with systems to transfer the ownership of companies to their workers,”
I don’t. I would replace state-based retirement systems with nothing. Individuals are responsible for their retirement, or they can work. I’m not responsible for their retirement. I never was.
Transferring ownership of companies to their workers sounds like theft. Unless the workers want to buy shares, and the owners want to sell. How companies are owned and managed is up to those who own them and manage them, not me.
“with dividends financing retirement (and allowing employers who have made all past employees whole to opt out of FICA taxes).”
Many employers opt out of FICA anyway. There is a huge and growing underground counter-economy based in cash. People get things done for money and don’t pay taxes. Shocked? Perhaps you’ll die of shock from all these revelations.
“Many libertarians also advocate legalizing drugs without at the same time providing a regimine for treating addicts and alcoholics”
There are many existing private sector services for treating addicts who want treatment. As I recall the Alcoholics Anonymous program is free and open to the public, serving about 2 million persons in over 106,000 communities worldwide. Ending the governmental authoritarianism with regard to drugs is right and proper and better than continuing it.
Drug addicts can solve their own problems. Or leave the gene pool.
“If one is addled by controlled substances, one’s liberty is impaired with one’s thinking.”
So what? That isn’t my fault. And having cops kick in doors, slaughter household pets, beat children and adults senseless, and take all their property for allegedly selling some of the trees bearing fruit or herbs bearing seeds which God gave to mankind to be as meat (Genesis 1:29) seems rather harsh.
How does putting two million people in jail every year for non-violent non-crimes help addicts in any way? It doesn’t. But you like the drug war, Michael Bindner, because you are authoritarian filth.
If yer happy and you know it, shake your chains!
If yer happy and you know it
Tell your friends not to blow it
Be a good little slave and shake yer chains!
If yer happy and you know it show ID.
If yer happy and you know it
Shut yer mouth and just stow it
Be a good little slave and show ID
If yer happy and you know it sell yer guns.
If yer happy and you know it
Empty holster’s how you show it
If yer happy and you know it sell yer guns.
If yer happy and you know it pay more tax.
If yer happy and you know it
Empty wallet’s how you show it
If yer happy and you know it pay more tax.
Or, you could just go f#ck yourself.
Thomas,
You as a person did not contract for the debt – but if elected you as the voice of the nation cannot say the same thing.
You can have change or you can engage in Mental Masturbation. Your choice, however I think the chaffing has got to be a bit tiresome right about now.
Election means taking responsibility for the affairs of the state. If you are unwilling to do that then running for office is stealing money from your contributors and time from your volunteers. People generally engage in politics to win. If you have no plan for winning than your actions are as much a cover for the status quo as any majority party stooge.
Jim,
My point is, your hardcore LP program won’t get you elected. No transition = no credibility. While you are constitutionally free to enter electoral politics, you should make it clear to any new voters that you really aren’t serious – that you are exercising freedom of speech rights but have no desire for real change.
You can be insufferably orthodox or you can actually effect reform. Choose, but if you wish insufferable orthodoxy warn your volunteers and donors that they are on a fools errand.
Mr. Bindner -
Your reasoning implies moral/righteous authority and your willingness to force your views on others.
Any debts not willingly (contractually) incurred are not debts at all…unless we buy into the view that others act in our interest (and we endorse same) without our sanction. The same can be said for your comments on company ownership, retirement, drug users, education and alternatives to status quo.
Your arguments are contrary to liberty, personal responsibility and ownership. Transition from our current state to one where individual liberty is valued does not imply or endorse the election process as a solution; rather the transition must occur on a completely different level…
As Mr. Knapp said, “If the question is “how do we do away with the state?” then politics is not the answer. If, however, the question is “how do we demonstrate that the state should be done away with?” it may well be an answer.”
And…planetaryjim…wow! No punches pulled…I will look for more from you – thanks for taking the time to contrast your views with Mr. Bindner. As one who is slowly becoming aware your efforts are appreciated.
> a convenient excuse for not having a real transition
> plan – one that takes us from the state to freedom.
Well, there are two things a “transition plan” might mean. One is a plan about how libertarians who find themselves in charge of a government ought to go about dismantling the state. I have views about what the most moral and practical way to do that would be — I even wrote a four-part article about it, 87.3% of which I still agree with:
libertariannation.org/a/f24l3.html
– but I also think a) it’s relatively unlikely that libertarians will ever be in that position, at least in the case of a megastate like the u.s., b) dismantling from the top down isn’t the only option, and c) in any case dismantling from the top down would work only in a society that was ready for it, and a society that was ready for it wouldn’t wait for permission from the government — they’d just go ahead and liberate themselves.
The other thing a transition plan might mean is an account of how to get from the state to freedom via primarily bottom-up, counter-economic, non-political means. In that case, although the details need work, I think we have one — since I’m in broad (though not exceptionless) agreement with what Konkin and Carson say here:
agorism.info/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf
members.tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/Chapter13.pdf
Unlike some of my agorist comrades, I don’t reject electoral politics as such (since having some people on the inside can make bottom-up strategies work more smoothly), but in the final analysis the principal mode of liberation has to be bottom-up.
Dean,
I hope I do speak with moral authority, which is different from authoritiarianism, unless on the standard “Are you a libertarian?” chart you inhabit one little square on the top of the diamond.
Unless you wish or expect ill on the society at large, the only way to transition to more liberty is through the electoral process. You can lie to yourself and think that this isn’t so, but such self-deception will not bring you or society one step closer to liberty. If you DO get elected, then by doing so you ASSUME the debts of the prior regime and must satisfy them or abrogate them – and face the consequences for abrogating them. Of course, if you run for office on debt and currency cancellation your chances of winning are not very good – not because some cabal will fix the election but because most citizens will laugh you out of any debate you join.
Some would say this is happening now. Does that work for you? Does it work for liberty? Does it demostrate the problems with the state or your problems with reality? Most will say the latter.
Roderick,
I am all for reconfiguring the mega-state so bottom-up victories are possible. Kevin’s agenda is much more practicable than the usual denial which comes from the right flank of the movement. While the major force has to be bottom up (from the left flank if you will), it has to contend with reality as we find it, not as how we wish it were.
Roderick, I looked at your site. I would suggest an Option G and Option H. G is to shift social insurance contributions to individual corporate ownership and allow firms to opt out if they convert all past employees to the new regime. Option H is to allow companies internalize the activities now taken on by government or seek alternative sources to fund in lieu of tax payment.
If the playing field between workers and employer were truly level, none of this would be necessary – as workers would get the full benefit of their productivity. The sad fact of the matter is, workers don’t get that full benefit, the owners of the firm (either corporate or proprietor) retain some of that productivity. The only way for this not to be a problem is for the workers (and only the workers – from shop floor to the lab to the executive suite) to own the land and equipment of the firm as well. Agrarians call this Distributism, although they flinch from the conversion of large manufacturing entities – which they believe should go away.
Further, the employer has an incentive to do certain things the government does now. Training each employee to their full potential and paying them while in training is such a practice, since by doing so the employer acrues the risk so can insist on some of the reward. Now, if that employer is also the employee the interests balance and the worker will knowingly accept a lower wage from work and a higher return from profitability of the firm.
For the employer, all things being equal, maximizing the number of childrn born to employees is a good thing, because eventually the larger number of children will yield more possible workers and more consumers. Of course, the rub is that his competitor benefits from his generosity, so some agreed upon rule is necessary – which can either be a government provided tax credit or an accounting standard – in order for competitor to not exploit other competitors.
Children are the ultimate public good for a society. If society does not provide for their increase then what you have is a perversion of Liberty – you have a dying anti-society.
Roderick,
Have you perhaps seen the work of Carl Milsted?
There is, of course, a non-governmental way to do much of what I advocate without government action. (or at any rate, limited government action).
Can you guess how?
Have organized labor do it. If labor transforms its pension fund to buy control of all of the firms where its members work, it could conceivably do much of what I suggest. If there is another shareholder, like Fiat, it could buy up control of that shareholder, working with its European counterparts. There are laws prohibiting some of this, however these are anti-freedom and should be abolished.
Now, if organized labor continues to deal with management like it has been, the whole enterprise would prove disasterous. If it changes its modus opporandi, however, and attempts to maximize innovation and long term profitability, it will attract both the best workers and the most eager investors (assuming it needs investors – in the interim it likely will). That attraction will be all the incentive other firms need to change – adopting the same structures (the kind I suggested above and in other places). Firms that don’t adopt such structures will not retain either investors or a workforce – and likely won’t have many customers either.
If industry is dominated by the system I am suggesting, it will be a small matter to convince the government to enact conforming legislation – ending most, if not all, of its operations, which will be picked up by other actors.
Of course, the right flank of the libertarian movement would consider what I have described to be the Ninth Circle of Hell, since they are irrationally anti-labor. Too bad.
The question also arises if a sole proprietorship or a principal-agent hierarchical corporation with a CEO could do those things that would eliminate the need for workers to look to government for regulation and wealth redistribution. In other words, is there an incentive for such firms to distribute profit accruing to labor as part of the wage – to distribute all of the productivity of work to the workers?
The answer must be no, especially for the CEO representing non-worker shareholders (unless forced by a labor market which is dominated by such firms). Indeed, the rational CEO or owner would attempt to hire only those workers who would not demand a full return – and would form a common front with other such business owners and CEOs to change the labor market so that no worker demands such returns. Blacklisting will be employed. If possible, laws and regulations will be sought to make sure that worker owned firms can’t change the labor market – for example, the Taft-Hartley Act. Indeed, if they can get away with it, business owners will resort to violence against workers who wish to organize, as still happens in emerging economies (whether it be private violence or the violence of the state). The Pinkerton Detective Agency started busting heads and going after workers who tried to organize. The National Guard supplanted militias because militias would not bust heads when workers would strike.
In other words, the current system is an outgrowth of laissez faire libertarianism. To claim otherwise is to be unaware of the economic history of the United States. While reform has softenned some of the rough edges, the basic structure is still in tact. When the White House looks to a firm with big time family ownership and capitalist credentials to manage Chrysler, one cannot claim that the current administration is not in bed with the Capitalist establishment. Therefore the question is not whether the political process can be used to reform the system to enable capitalism, but why claim that this is even required. The skelaton is libertarian capitalism along the lines I just described. While the regime is wearing makeup to look like something else, at the core, Bossism is the rule of the day – and the structures are mirrored in the operation of the Civil Service, which is all principal-agent in the workplace and not at all employee democracy.
Do you think the powers that be would really let anyone use their own laws and methods to depose them?
If this system provided opportunities for real change, people would have taken advantage of them a long time ago. Every day we spend “using the system” is another day longer we’ll have to wait until new networks and better ways of life replace the old ones.
Yes, it often seems like there’s no alternative to working “within the system” if we want to get things done and not keep our ideas quarantined within the narrow confines of the underground. But why keep the underground quarantined to narrow confines? Surely if we put all our energy into expanding the spaces in which we can interact as free, equal human beings, rather than trying to repair the burning machinery of this doomed society, we could make at least as much of an impact.
The powers that be will never allow the right wing of the libertarian movement disestablish the government, because they consider that part of the movement bought and paid for – and occassinally sick it on the left flank.
If both flanks work together, we can fart on the powers that be more effectively – or produce something a bit more substantial. For this to happen, I will need to see something a bit more substantial from the right than disestablishing the government in order to give employers more power over their employees.
@MichaelBinder,
Your position (and the position of all statists) is that humans can’t be trusted with their own lives, and must be corralled, cajoled and – in extremis – culled from the herd, in order that… WHAT, exactly?
Notionally, in order that market inefficiencies can be remedied. That is the ONLY justification for a State.
Any discussion of national defence, redistributive welfare, amelioration of nuisance and so on, is predicated on the existence of externalities that can be remedied by collective (coercive) action. And the people who are supposed to lead this coercion – the political class – are supposedly long-horizon planners who are dedicated to the public good.
I mean, come ON. Is there a single sentient person on the planet who actually believes that politicians aren’t self-serving megalomaniacal parasites with a planning horizon that extends only to the next election?
The hierarchy of organised labour behaves exactly the same way as the political class: the moment you give it an opportunity, it gets captured by rent-seeking careerist parasites whose actual long-term aim is invariably pre-selection for a parliamentary seat. They then seek to exclude non-union labour from their ‘territory’ – that is, they seek a monopoly of control over a worksite. So some libertarians are anti THAT type of union.
As to how we ‘get to there (liberty) from here’ … it’s not by being Ghandi. Today, Ghandi would have been killed or corralled before he came to national prominence.
The best way to get the parasite to detach from its human host, is to start doing extreme (defensive) violence to the swaggering thugs that constitute the ‘enforcement’ arm of the political class. Not by massive confrontation with serried ranks – that would be suicide – but by using markets… incentivise someone to perform the violence, earmark a particularly odious thug for ‘treatment’, and then furnish post-treatment incentives… make it known to the colleagues of the thugs who are ‘earmarked’ that the same fate befalls them if they do not stand down.
That has worked everywhere that it has been implemented. It has been implemented in many of the places where the internal security forces mysteriously became highly ineffectice during the planning stages ofg public expressions of dissent… e.g., Thailand. (Interestingly, the absence of Iranian ‘earmarks’ is – to me – prima facie evidence that the ‘Green Revolution’ is fake).
Humans – like all sentient beings – respond to incentives. Raise the relative price of thuggery and fewer people will want to continue to be thugs. Withou their thugs, thepolitical parasite class cannot continue to farm its slaves.
Speaking of ‘elections’ and the unelectability of a particular political program, in a place which specifically argues against politics in toto – as part of its TITLE – is a bit like going onto the site for Yad Veshem and arguing that if only there had been more Germans the Holocaust would have been morally just (since more people could have voted for it). Gang rape does not become validated simply because the majority of the group joins the gang; those who oppose gang-rape have no moral obligation to join the gang and argue for restraint.
.
Cheers
GT
Aaah… found the profile adjustment doohickey. Decloaking in 3… 2… 1…
We tried killing the parasites once. We traded in McKinley for Teddy Roosevelt and set the stage for his neice's husband. Look how well that worked.
The peoples want their bread and circuses and always will. Until we can get them these things without reference to the political class, any attempt to kill the hydra will simply give it more heads. The only way out is to take away both their direct exposure to taxes and their exposure to benefits through the state – while having someone else provide the same benefits.
It takes a realistic plan to untangle the state to get power to destroy it, whether you are doing so by voting or revolution. People like what they get from state too much to follow any other regime.
Great article.
With respect, I believe there is a point that is not being taken into consideration.
It concerns the fierce battle raging within the mind of the tyrants against their own conscience.
Deep down they know that what they are doing is immoral, so they desperately need to deceive themselves into believing otherwise.
When genuinely good people engage them it helps them to deceive themselves into believing that their tyranny is legitimate MUCH more than most people realize.
I believe we should consider doing the opposite by pursuing a strategy of Satyagraha with them – the purpose of which is to continually force them to face their own conscience until they begin acting in accord with it.
Deep down [tyrants] know that what they are doing is immoral, so they desperately need to deceive themselves into believing otherwise.
This, I would submit, is not in evidence.