Back in June, I first mentioned a referendum that would put the question of Scottish sovereignty squarely to the country’s people. Six months later, MSNBC reports, “The Scottish and British governments [are] playing a cat-and-mouse game over the future of the 300-year-old union between Scotland and England.”
The government of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a part, challenges the idea of a referendum on Scotland splitting from the U.K. Although Scotland enjoys many traditional powers of an independent, sovereign state, it remains linked to London, and many in the British corner argue that it has no legal right to secede.
As novel and thorny as the legal question may be, there is another, far more crucial question at play, one that goes to the very meaning of self-determination; it inquires as to the foundations of control and compelled relationships.
“Political order,” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said, “rests fundamentally on two contrary principles: authority and liberty.” Contrasting the two, Proudhon observed that authority is at all times “tending to hierarchy, centralization, [and] absorption,” while liberty, a principle “supplied by the mind,” he described as “personal, individualist, critical, the instrument of dividing” (emphasis added).
Proudhon was a master of language, finding understanding and insight in the interaction of opposites. The first self-styled anarchist, he saw the lack of a state not as an avenue to chaos, but as coextensive with a different and better governing system — that of self-government based upon a continuing “division of power.”
Such indeed was the Principle of Federation that Proudhon so spellbindingly suggested, a radical partitioning of political power, on and on until each individual deals with every other on equal terms — secession pushed to its limit.
Now, as in Proudhon’s time, political authority remains the source of societal problems ranging from starvation and exploitation to war. The state’s coercive powers, the concrete instruments of authority in practice, hold resources and productive capacity out of reach, protecting the manufactured “rights” of powerful elites.
The false prophets of “free enterprise,” those revered as innovators and captains of industry, strategically position themselves alongside legislators and bureaucrats, suborning them for legally ensconced privileges. Market anarchists, with Proudhon and others as our antecedents, embrace a distinctive view that understands the relationship between consolidated decision-making power in both social and economic spheres. We advocate what is essentially a peaceful, revolutionary secessionism.
A comprehensive treatment of society and the political takes labor and economic reward together with broader questions about justice, personal freedom and autonomy. If centralized power leads to trespass against civil liberties, then so too does it pervert the discretely economic element of human life.
A genuine free market is poles apart from the power- and authority-based relationships that define today’s global economy. The dissolution of today’s political entities and their separation into ever-smaller communities of voluntarily participating citizens would mean the end of all ruling classes. The story in Scotland provides an opportunity to consider in turn what that might mean.
Anarchists, therefore, present a vision for a more authentic “public sphere,” a space for free and consensual associations to accomplish the kinds of goals that the state purports to both more justly and more efficiently.
Society and the state are no more synonymous than are true free markets and corporate capitalism. Networks of independent individuals and groups can provide for their own needs, quite apart from the raptorial domination of the state.
Our consideration of secession as a practical idea needn’t stop at dividing states into smaller states. There is another way, a stateless way. It replaces authority with liberty and in so doing disbands the needless state.
In essence, the secession that any anarchist must seek is the kind advocated by Spooner and la Boitie. The refusal to affiliate with the state at any level of governance. The key to that is precluding any possible objection-which lies in a community supplying all needed infrastructure, whether by a Georgist ground rent scheme or by personal and collective efforts. The moment a community can supply its own electrical and transportation needs, is the moment all justification for centralization ceases.
Just a reminder, the 'true' before 'free markets' is un-needed. Corporate capitalism is only possible with the help of the state.
Well, given uses of the phrase "free market" like Nikki Haley's (endorsing Mitt Romney) this week, it seems to me that it's certainly worth adding the "true" bit for the sake of clarity. You and I may understand what a free market is and the ways that capitalism, as something else, depends on the state, but I'd venture to suggest that most Americans think they're literally synonymous.
Agreed, but the 'true' appellation reeks of what a lot of vulgar libertarians (or right-libertarians generally) say when people point to the horrible things that happen under capitalism. "Oh, well, that is not true capitalism." The appellation 'true' implies a 'false'-which further implies that something exists. The whole point is that a free market doesn't exist, and has never existed. I guess the best way is for someone to write an article-or series of articles-explaining the statist origins of capitalism and corporations.
If one is trying to contrast free markets with capitalism, it is enough to simply say "In a free market, X would be so, as opposed to Capitalism" Or something along those lines. Ultimately, you probably should not follow my advice. Your writing is your business.
A transition to a libertarian society will likely involve political secession, but I would be careful to not simply support secession on principle. It can result in less liberty as local elites are more able to flex their muscles, and secession of a state means that authority will be vested in a smaller state, which is a different principle from secession by individuals. Still, peaceable political secession is certainly something to consider when it will likely result in greater individual liberty and autonomy.
I agree Darian; replacing one tyranny with a bunch of smaller ones doesn't move the ball forward in itself!
It DOES move the ball forward by itself, in that while local tyrants are 'more able to flex their muscles', those muscles are necessarily smaller… and the whereabouts and living arrangements of those doing the flexing are easier to deduce (and their ability to defend themselves is weaker) relative to the set of psycopaths that make up the current megalithic State.
Furthermore, decentralising – even to smaller version of the hated State – renders the operations of the State somewhat less mystical: budgets start to be in magnitudes that the peasants understand, and the direct connection between government promises and the future rape of the peasants' wallets becomes more explicit.
I saw just yesterday (in an episode of Terry Jones' TV series that I managed to get by magic) that the MOST highly taxed 13th century peasant (i.e., BEFORE the peasant's revolt) was requried to spend between 50 and 60 days a year working to pay his 'burthen'… that is: his taxes AND HIS RENT. Imagine that?
As interesting as that vignette was, what was REALLY interesting is what the peasants DID when they took the Tower of London during the revolt… they headed straight for the tax records, and burned them. They also sought out – and were merciless towards – known informants, and they used encrypted communications to organise.
The idea that the State depends critically on its information systems, and that those systems are vulnerable, did not arise with the advent of Anonymous/AntiSec/LulzSec (yay for all those guys!).
I had been aware of all this before now, but seeing it depicted in a TV series presented by a high-profile (albeit somewhat radical) figure was whelming indeed. I was so whelmed that I broke my "No booze until my birthday" oath 2 weeks early.