Archive for December, 2007

DIY – “Do It Yourself”

Monday, December 31st, 2007

In a previous post (How About Some Honesty?) I touched on a subject of immense importance: honesty when arguing a political point of view. But honesty is a much more important concept than I maintained in that previous post. Actually, when arguing for a certain state of things, i.e., a normative, there is no reason to assume someone else will do the work. If you really want something to change in a certain direction with a specific end goal, then why would you not invest time, labor, and money into making it happen?

Normatives usually include how to organize society, how people should act, morals, ethics, the meaning of liberty. They almost always involve people and how people act or in what ways they are allowed to act. When this is the case, would you say it is consistent, that the person arguing a normative is believable, to not act the way explicitly preferred or even prescribed?

In the previous post I argued many so-called “pro war libertarians” are inconsistent because they do not in any way act or take part in the war they advocate. They don’t join the army. Many of them don’t even pay the taxes that finances the war. (I do pay such taxes, I’m afraid.)

This might seem as a dishonest argument, but I don’t think it is. When arguing for normatives, for how people should act, then the least one could expect is for the person supporting and arguing for a certain point of view acts that way. Why do you argue you know what others must choose while not making the same choice for yourself? Actions speak louder than words.

This is not to say there aren’t circumstances that could make it impossible to act the way one would prefer. It might also be too costly. In such cases it might not make sense. But to argue for a normative without even trying – or consider trying – to act that way yourself? That is hypocrisy.

Advocating killings without yourself killing (or trying to kill) is hypocrisy.

Advocating rape without yourself raping (or trying to rape) is hypocrisy.

Advocating theft without yourself stealing (or trying to steal) is hypocrisy.

This type of behavior can be summed up as politics. Politics is about making others act a certain way without oneself taking the lead; politics uses force and coercion to make people act according to someone’s preferences without demanding that that someone acts the same way. We see this all the time: politicians prohibiting or wanting to prohibit private health care or health care insurance while making sure to have the most expensive insurance themselves; politicians raising taxes while not paying them themselves; politicians advocating torture while they would never use such methods themselves (or subject themselves to such horrible treatment); politicians advocating war while never themselves ever risking a bullet (or killing someone).

Hypocrisy.

The reasoning above shows clearly the beauty with the anarchist position, which does not have the intrinsic contradictions of most statist positions advocating “liberty,” and the methodology of direct action – do it yourself. This position, at least in theory, is non-hypocritical: it does not include contradictory statements (it includes only your right to do with your life as you please as long as you do not restrict others’ doing what they wish with their lives) and it ultimately requires that you act yourself rather than make others act on your behalf. This is the only moral position (at least for as long as it does not include force/violence/coercion).

This is, however, a theoretical view of the anarchist position. There are plenty of anarchists who do not “do as they preach” or that even act in a way directly opposite to their expressed ideals. In such cases the anarchist is a hypocrite.

Nevertheless, anarchists tend to be less hypocritical than others. For two reasons:
1) Anarchists don’t support a coercive system thought “necessary” for liberty; and
2) Anarchists don’t believe in political means.

Let us take a look at these two specific points.

Liberty and the State. Liberty is the absence of restrictions, the absence of force, coercion, fraud and involuntary hierarchy. How can one combine such a concept with the concept of a state, which is ultimately defined as a “monopoly of [the use of] violence”? Imagine a society in which people only act voluntarily, add a structure with monopoly power – what do you have? It is difficult to imagine the result is more liberty. The result is necessarily less liberty.

This is, very simply summarized, the reason most political movements are developing dogmatic terminology and their own definition of words, struggling with trying to limit language in such a way that the fundamental lie will never be exposed. Liberty under a state is always, and can only be, liberty at the mercy of power. Liberty under the state is limited to actions accepted by its rule(s).

Political means. I have previously discussed the implications of engaging in the political process, i.e., using politics as a means, on many occasions. Political means, in the sense of using the state to achieve certain goals, always means using power to force people to act in a certain way. Be it removing a certain restriction or regulation or enacting another law to outlaw available alternatives.

Politics is a methodology of hate – it makes people rulers on all levels, and teaches people to obey those higher in hierarchy. It makes people develop brown noses and hard feet – in order to “succeed” or accomplish anything you need to brown-nose your superiors and keep inferiors in line (by force, if necessary). Even in local chapters of political organizations people “secretly” band together in factions and fight each other for “influence” or power.

Anarchism, and generally also anarchists, do not condone the state nor political means. This should always be the case for those advocating and championing universal liberty. But it is not.

As has already been mentioned, some anarchists have no problem with engaging in party politics. Also, there are a lot of so-called libertarians – “minarchists” – supporting both a state and political means as necessary for liberty. What about this position?

It should be fairly obvious by now that the minarchist position is strictly hypocritical. The so-called minarchists claim to be champions of liberty while advocating a centralized power with the monopoly to use force; they claim people have “a right” to do whatever they wish “as long as they don’t hurt anyone” but use political means (effectively striving to acquire the power to “legitimately” force others) to accomplish their goals.

If one were to construct a way to calculate the “level of hypocrisy” for a political or philosophical position, I have no doubt minarchists would end up with a “high score.” As a matter of fact, the level of hypocrisy should be lower the more “open” and undisguised the advocacy for power is. Nazism and fascism, for instance, would score low – being less hypocritical – simply because they advocate force openly and use forceful means to acquire the power to use it. Republicans and democrats are, in this respect, more hypocritical than nazis and fascists.

Having said this it is not difficult to realize why it is so uncommon to “do it yourself.” The ideologies and political programs themselves are fundamentally hypocritical. What you wish to achieve is usually an end goal for society where others act as you want. You want the power to make it happen, i.e., the power to force others to act the way you want. I despise nazism in every possible way, but at least they are not hypocritical – they want power to use it, they are explicit about it, and they attack, abuse, coerce and kill to get it.

The way I see it, anarchism and anarchists (in general, there are exceptions – especially when engaging in violent action against people and/or possessions) are superior morally and philosophically. Not only because of their belief in themselves, in man, and in freedom – but because they advocate freedom and they take it on themselves to achieve it. Collectivist anarchists generally do it in clubs (not seldom with internal structures of hierarchy) whereas individualist anarchists do it individually or organized in networks. In either case, they want freedom and they do what it takes to get it – and they do it themselves.

It is my personal opinion that the late Samuel Edward Konkin III – SEK3 – had the best theory on how to achieve a free society. But no matter what you believe of his theory, he was not hypocritical: he advocated freedom through counter-economics (SEK3 on counter-economics here) – where market anarchists take it on themselves to act on the market out of reach of the state’s oppressive apparatus.

SEK3 also recognized that it might not be possible to advocate liberty, in the purest sense, and act 100% freely. There are costs of acting in an oppressive state society. Such costs can make it practically impossible to act the way one would like to. Konkin recognized this impossibility and simply stated that it is every market anarchist’s moral obligation to act as much as possible without the realm of politics.

Each and every one of us is to some extent acting hypocritical – this is a necessary condition in a society so totally entrenched with state control and state power. What separates the hypocrites from the non-hypocrites is whether the advocate for liberty makes sure to act as little as possible in the political realm or not. If you take it on yourself to change the world, not just talk about it, you are not a hypocrite – even if you are “forced” to accept some oppressive measures. If you talk of changing the world and strive for the power to force that change on others rather than acting yourself, then you are indeed a hypocrite.

Posted in Philosophy | 4 Comments »

On the “Ron Paul Problem”

Friday, December 28th, 2007

My previous Strike the Root article on libertarianism and Ron Paul’s campaign for the republican nomination for the presidential election (here) has gained some attention. I expected to receive a large number of e-mails from “Ron Paulians” about how Ron Paul and the “rEVOLution” is about to save the world. To my surprise, most e-mails I received were from libertarians sharing my analysis.

This fact should mean, and I am generalizing of course, that the support for Ron Paul is real in the sense that it is not only a libertarian phenomenon. The thousands of people supporting Ron Paul’s campaign are not simply libertarians calling themselves republicans only to vote for “their” candidate. There are no doubt many such people too, but I suspect a large number of his supporters are actually republicans or “independents” in the party political sense. His support is real.

All comments I have received, however, are not positive. In a debate on Strike the Root following the publishing of my article, a number of points have been raised about the analysis in my article and arguments have been articulated to show how I am wrong. I dedicate this post to discuss two such points that I find particularly interesting – and that I think strengthens my view.

Initial remarks

Before beginning the discussion I would like to make one thing very clear in order to avoid confusion. I do not in any way support politics or political means, neither as a possible nor a moral means of change or liberty. In my view, I do not see politics as something that could ever bring about liberty – politics is a game of and for power, and as such it is utterly immoral and evil. This does not, however, mean I do not recognize differences between regimes; I would certainly be better off in one of the fifty united states under the constitution as it is written than in, e.g., Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.

But I find those differences only different in degree, not in principle. The American constitutional republic is an oppressive state system of power just as Stalin’s USSR was, it is just that the systems grant their subjects different sets of rights and “freedoms.” Call it what you will, but both are state systems and as such I do not support them. One should not refrain from calling things what they are – and one should certainly not support something that is evil but “less evil” than other possible alternatives.

Some say it is a matter of semantics to not support but be “against but not as much against as other alternatives.” That statement is a mistake: support means action in favor of, whereas I have dislike for Stalin’s and Hitler’s state systems just as I dislike the constitutionalist union (federation). There are degrees to dislike without “less degree of dislike” necessarily transforming into support.

Having said this, I should admit that I would of course rather see Ron Paul as president than any other republican or democrat candidates. It is rather obvious to me that Paul might cause a lot less harm (perhaps even some good) to me than the others. But this doesn’t mean I support him as president – I don’t. Choosing between evils means you choose an evil, and I refuse to take on such responsibility. The fact that the political system is a system for creating a sense of legitimacy for power and rule should make it clear to all libertarians that the involvement in such a system (and thereby support of it) is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

Now, to the points raised. The first one is about Ron Paul’s rhetoric and what he can possible do – and why he supports certain things simply because they are in the constitution. I call this argument “He is against the state – but follows the law.” The other argument is more practical and claims Ron Paul as president would make a hell of a change.

He is against the state – but follows the law

It may very well be true that Ron Paul is a man who is strictly opposed to the state. I personally doubt it, but I don’t know him and therefore I won’t say it isn’t true. However troubling the statist libertarian (read: minarchist) view is, I find the supporting argument much more annoying. “Ron Paul follows the law.”

Of course, this argument is usually not stated this way, but rather in terms such as “he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution” or that “he uses the constitution as an argument against his fellow law-makers.” It is true that presidents and members of Congress alike take an oath to uphold the constitution. But it is equally true that very few throughout history have ever taken that oath seriously. So why would anyone who is against the state take that oath seriously, with the only effect being to restrain one’s possibilities to get rid of the state once and for all?

Since no one else on “the Hill” cares at all about the constitution and they frequently move to enact laws contradicting it only to further the state’s (their own) powers, then what good does the only person opposed to such behavior taking the oath seriously do? If this is really the case, if the libertarian on “the Hill” is really pro liberty, then the oath has only one real effect: it stops moves for liberty while having no effect whatsoever on those working against liberty. That should be reason enough to not care about the oath nor the constitution.

Another reason for working to uphold the constitution while not really believing in it might be that the person in office takes his or her word seriously. This is a ridiculous argument – if the person elected for congress is really for “more liberty” than allowed by the constitution, then being a member of congress itself is so evil and contradictory a position that breaking an oath to uphold something one does not believe in doesn’t change a thing. It only means tying one’s own hands – for what reason?

In either case, the libertarian on Capitol Hill has no reason to obey and uphold the constitution. It could be a strategic move with underlying good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are no arguments for working politically for the constitution unless one either 1) believes in it or 2) has as [sole] aim to “stop the others” – or both. If one believes in the constitution, which I believe is the case for Ron Paul, one cannot be anti state (and thus the argument above falls). And if one is only trying to stop the ongoing destruction in Washington, DC, then there is no reason to believe this person is at all libertarian – what are the ideals and ideas?

I believe that Ron Paul fits both – he both believes in the constitution (and is thus not anti state) and works mainly to stop the “madness” in the federal government.

Now to the second and final point:

He can and will make some real change

There should be no doubt this statement is only possible to make if one has a fundamental belief that change is, in fact, possible through the system. Without such a belief the statement simply wouldn’t make sense. At all.

It isn’t enough to claim the system has, indeed, been changing – I do admit to the factual statement that the system isn’t perfectly stagnant, it changes all the time. But I realize that the system continuously changes for the worse, not for the better. The system, no matter how “system” is defined, has never worked to strengthen liberty or roll back the powers of the state (these are really synonymous statements).

There are nevertheless events to the benefit of liberty, usually as a result of popular distress and risk of revolution or “losing control” or “chaos” (the latter two are usually used to describe such times when the masses no longer accept the authorities’ oppressive measures). But these events are only temporary setbacks for those with power – they realize they have tried to increase their powers a little too fast, and thus “take it back” only to do the same thing again at a later time when people aren’t watching (or have calmed down or are focused on something else).

The fact is that real change in society to the benefit of liberty only comes about as revolutionary leaps forward rather than gradual change. Such leaps may be the result of a tipping point having been reached, but the change is always great and happens almost all at once. Lady Liberty never approaches taking baby steps.

That said, what could Ron Paul do as president? With George W. Bush having made the U.S. presidency more powerful than admitted in the constitution, there should be some possibilities of change. Setting aside the fact that all such powers are unconstitutional (and thus president Ron Paul, taking the oath seriously, wouldn’t be able to use them – only to abolish them), Paul could make use of the presidential power as commander in chief and stop the slaughter and bring all troops home.

But what about spending? What about the welfare state? Those are matters for Congress and for president Paul to accept Congress’s decisions. Will Congress change because Ron Paul is president? He seems to think so, and maybe it will. But will it change radically? Hardly.

It seems to me what people in general hope for is that Ron Paul as sworn president means something much more than someone taking the oath seriously. It means the whole American society has changed, that the people has gotten sick and tired of government and wishes to abolish most (or all) welfare state programs. With such a change Congress will no doubt change radically as well – the reps and senators love their privileges too much to have ideals, and thus would throw out whatever agendas they have in order to stay in power and keep the people’s “confidence.”

But such a change really has nothing to do with Ron Paul and it has nothing to do with his presidential campaign. Rather, a Ron Paul presidency would then be an effect of a radical change that has already happened. So radical change by president Ron Paul is not an option – radical change would happen anyway, not depending on who is president. And if this is really the case, then why would Ron Paul have to adopt the view that he must restore the constitution (assuming the claim that he is in reality an enemy of the state)?

If there is no such radical change, which to me seems a lot more plausible, then Ron Paul as president would have to work with a lot of resistance – from both the people and Congress. Why anyone would believe such a presidency would mean real and concrete change I do not know. Politics, after all, is a means for oppression and destruction of liberty – not a means for liberation.

Posted in Politics, Published Articles | 23 Comments »

On Anarchist Forum Statism

Tuesday, December 4th, 2007

In a recent article published on Strike the Root, I discuss another inconsistency in the anarchist movement. The issue discussed is, at least from a greater philosophical or political point of view, neither important nor big – it is about how anarchist web forums are managed. And the problem I discuss is that they are, in fact, managed.

Of course, it may not be a problem to moderate or censor or even require personal information when you have a forum. As I mention in the article, one reason such “managerial” behavior can be legitimized is, for example, if the anarchist believes in property. It is also, I guess, possible to claim the forum is in the “owner’s” possession and thus certain restrictions on what other people can do with it are justified.

However, the point I wish to make with this article is that if you are strictly against control, against property, against censorship and thus pro free speech, yet moderate your forum, then you are a hypocrite.

Despite this fact, and the point being pretty clear (at least, I would like to think so), there has been some criticism toward the article. I agree that it is probably not one of my better articles, it is absolutely not the best, but the point I try to make should be very clear. Also, it should be read in a context – I explicitly link to another article on a certain kind of “anarchist statism” – that many anarchists have a rather statist mindset, at least with regard to certain issues, and generally engage in what I prefer to call blueprintism.

The point I make is not that all forums aren’t the way I would like them. It also isn’t a disguised way of advertising my own very open anarchist forum on the Anarchism.net web site. I personally don’t care what people do with their web sites, but I do care about ideas and principles. As a single issue it might not be a big deal that an anarchist forum is moderated, censored, and only open to registered users. But from the point of view of principle it sure is.

Are these anarchists moderating and censoring the forum the same people who demand freedom to express themselves, to choose for themselves, and even “freedom” from private property? In many cases they are, yet they treat their web sites – especially the forums – exactly the way as they accuse capitalists of treating their property: controlling, excluding, and as a means to make a profit. Is this consistent? Hardly. Is it legitimate? From a principle point of view – absolutely not.

I doubt that many anarchists would agree on these three points. My guess is they can somehow rationalize the fact that they are using what they identify as property the same way as their “enemies” use their property. Perhaps they “must” moderate their forums in order to protect them from the state? Perhaps the capitalist system and the culture it feeds makes it impossible to have an open forum without it being destroyed by “capitalist lackeys”? But some anarchists, I believe, would still agree on some of the points – or maybe even all three.

Of course, most anarchists would not agree on the latter point even if they do agree with the first two. The reason for this is no doubt the use of the word “profit” rather than the real meaning of “making a profit.” As any economist knows, profit is not only a monetary concept; it means to be better off. It doesn’t matter in what way – even if it is but an illusion, you are still better off and thus you have made a profitable choice. It is a matter of utility.

To make a profit does therefore not necessarily mean that you make dollars, pounds sterling, or rubles. It could also mean you do something that gives you satisfaction to some degree – and the reason you do it is simply that it gives you more satisfaction than any other alternative use of your time and energy that you can think of. To moderate a forum no doubt has benefits for the person doing it: you get to be a central figure, a needed person, and you might even become a celebrity in a limited circle of users. And in the forum you have the power.

This is definitely a driver for many of the people having and running forums on the web. And it is certainly a driver for many of the people who run anarchist forums too. They are driven by the profit motive, and it is because of the possible profit they observed or identified they are doing what they are doing.

This should be hard to swallow for many an anarchist, and I would believe it is. This, in turn, sets very human protection mechanisms in motion and thus we will (I presume) hear a number of arguments why this is not true (there is no profit motive), but most such arguments will be but rationalizations of the choices already made. It is difficult to accept that you have acted in the exact opposite way you preach people should act.

Let me add that this should be even more difficult for an anarchist, since statists often find themselves in situations where there is nothing they can do but choose one alternative of many that contradicts everything they have said, written, and believe. The state is itself a contradiction of human life and liberty, which calls for contradictions also in the lives and thoughts of statists.

But the problem here is not the state – it is the dogmatic use of words. There is nothing inherently wrong in the word “profit.” It is only wrong in a certain context and used in certain connotations. Profit is a bad thing for many anarchists not because it means someone is being better off (even though there are some who seem to believe this is the case) – profit is bad because it is the result of acts of exploitation carried out in a system based on enforced privilege. The problem of profit is not what it is, but what it implies.

This is why so many anarchists (and others as well) tend to direct their energy to fight the wrong things. If capitalism is truly a system of privilege making a certain class able to make enormous profits through their “right” to exploit the masses, then it can only be a system existent in a state framework. Which means capitalism, in this form, is necessarily dependent on the state and a symptom of the state. If we were intelligent we would cure the disease, not work to remove the symptoms. The former could make real change, whereas the latter simply makes sure there is an eternal, never-ending struggle.

Actually, you might even claim that it would be dishonest or even hypocritical to try to remove the symptoms without trying to find a cure to the real problem. Painting over the stains does not remove the causes of the problem, just like putting another guy in office doesn’t remove the problems of statism. This equally true with the state and capitalism as well as with saying you are an anarchist while not acting like an anarchist.

Consistency is very, very important. It is not only important for the cause or movement, but – more importantly – it is important for your belief in self and your values. Your self esteem is based on you honoring your principles. I need not say a principled mind is superior to the mind based on contradiction and conflict. A principled position is a strong position – a moral position – even if you are alone against the world.

Also, dishonesty and inconsistency is a problem for the movement. If anarchists aren’t principled in both thought and actions they will try to rationalize their imperfections and the contradictions they discover. Such rationalizations make you vulnerable, and this may very well lead to dogmatism and factionism. And this is what we are seeing in the anarchist movement – people seem more interested in denouncing fellow anarchists who don’t agree to 100% with the views put forth than fighting the common enemy.

In this sense, it is extremely important to do away with “anarchist forum statism.” This may only be a small issue, perhaps even unimportant in itself, but it is a symptom of inconsistency and unwillingness to live by one’s principles. And the result of such inconsistency is an anarchist movement in constant war between factions rather than a strong, united movement that can actually make a change.

Posted in Published Articles | 4 Comments »