Governments need to be reminded (at least annually if not constantly)…that [their] overthrow…by a disgruntled minority is always a possibility. I would like to see most if not all politicians and their minions paying for their power and privilege by being forced to live in a constant state of nervous anxiety. – “Guy Fawkes Night”
I only call myself a libertarian because it’s the only popular term which has some general resemblance to the way I see the world. Technically, what I am is a minarchist, someone who is to an anarchist what an agnostic is to an atheist; I’m also more or less an agorist. But use either of those terms to most people, even to many libertarians, and you’ll be greeted with blank stares; I had to add both of them to the Microsoft Word dictionary while writing this. For most uses, “libertarian” is good enough, though it means that I have to endure opprobrium from semi-literates who write for sites like Think Progress, Alternet and Salon and seem to believe that “libertarian” means “caricature of a fundie plutocrat” or even “whatever I don’t like”. The demonic misnamed “libertarians” in these yahoos’ tiny minds are like cartoon distortions of Ayn Rand characters, mustache-twirling (excuse me, “beard-stroking”) villains who are perfectly happy with the system except insofar as their own power-plays are disrupted by the good, noble, valiant white knights in government. Not counting the cops and the military, of course; those are bad parts of government, totally and completely disconnected from the good parts who only try to “help” people by telling them how to live, why to fuck, whom to associate with, where to shop and what to eat, wear, buy, watch, say, do and think. Said directives are of course implemented by laws (for our own good, naturally) and enforced (look carefully at that word) by the cops they pretend to disapprove of and locked up in the prisons run by powerful crony-capitalist corporations they pretend to hate (in Facebook posts made on their iPhones).
In truth, I’m as far from many libertarians (especially Libertarians) as I am from most Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Socialists; the main difference is that the vast majority of libertarians, no matter what their flavor, respect my right to have different beliefs from them and different opinions about which issues are most important. And that makes them in my estimation vastly better human beings than those who assert the right to ownership over my person, my time and my effort, even if I disagree with them on a lot of issues and just can’t get terribly excited about the trials and tribulations of people who’ve made more money since breakfast than I will in my entire life. One important way, perhaps the most important way, in which I differ from most libertarians (especially Libertarians and “libertarian-leaning” anybodies) is that I do not believe our current system is salvageable. Unlike most people, I harbor no delusions about American exceptionalism and no 21st-century chauvinism; I refuse to comfort myself with the childish belief that the culture and time in which I live is magically different from all others that have gone before, because of God or science or “democracy” or “feminism” or mass communications or what-have-you. As a pragmatist and a student of history, I recognize that all cultures – every last stinking or shining one of them – are as mortal as the humans who build them, albeit on a slightly larger time scale. No culture is immortal; all of them are born, grow, mature, sicken, decline and die, usually over a period of a few centuries to a millennium at best. And pretending that wholly different cultures are the same merely because they occupy the same territory and call themselves the same thing is as absurd as insisting that Elizabeth II is actually Queen Victoria. The United States of history, the patriotic fiction to which so many believe they owe fealty, is as dead as the dodo; it was born with an ugly birth defect which doomed it from the start, and the monstrous doppelganger which grew like some loathsome fungus inside of its carcass would not be worthy of saving even if that were possible. Nor are the majority of modern Western nations any better.
I’m not calling for a revolution; I’m saying that a revolution is inevitable, whether we like it or not. The powerful have made it inevitable, despite the best efforts of those philosophically-inclined revolutionaries we call the “Founding Fathers” to minimize the extent to which the power-hungry could take control over the less-able, less-connected, less-ambitious and less-evil. They wanted to make it impossible for anyone to gain very much power over anyone else; they failed. It was partly due to the toleration of an institution in which one human being could literally own another (the birth defect to which I alluded earlier), partly due to oversights and errors in the legal instruments they created, and partly due to new and horrific disguises for totalitarianism developed by successive generations, but mostly due to the fact that what they wanted was flat-out impossible; any system of government can and will be remade by the evil to give them power. Last December, Clark Bianco of Popehat wrote a powerful polemic about what our system has become; in it he refutes the common argument that the system is “broken” (which implies it can be “fixed”, a contention he and I both deny). It’s well worth your time, but here’s a sample:
Twenty years ago I was a libertarian. I thought the system could be reformed. I thought that some parts of it “worked”… whatever that means. I thought that the goals were noble, even if not often achieved. The older I get, the more I see, the more I read, the more clear it becomes to me that the entire game is rigged…the system is not reformable. There are multiple classes of people…the bottom of the hierarchy…can, literally, be killed with impunity…Next up…are…regular peons…[who] can have our…rectums explored at the roadside…because the cops got permission from a dog…Next up…are the…disciplined-voting-blocks…[then] the cops…judiciary and…prosecutors…and…at…the [top]…the true ruling class: the cabal of (most) politicians and (some) CEOs, conspiring both against their own competitors and the public at large…The system is not fixable because it is not broken. It is working, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to give the insiders their royal prerogatives, and to shove the regulations, the laws, and the debt up the asses of everyone else.
Burn it to the ground.
Burn it to the ground.
Burn it to the ground.
The fires have already started, though the Powers That Be are expending considerable effort to extinguish them while simultaneously denying that they exist. Sooner or later they will develop into a conflagration which will consume the current edifice; with any luck those who next build on the site will be able to salvage a few sound parts of the old structure to incorporate into the new one. Maybe the next experiment will get a bit closer to the goal and last a bit longer before it, too, degenerates into tyranny. But history teaches us that is rarely the case; things have indeed slowly improved over the ages, and there’s no reason to suspect that trajectory will change. But the improvements always come from virile young cultures learning from the mistakes of the old ones, not from moribund old ones too obsessed with past triumphs to bother gazing upon their own decaying visages in the mirror of time.
Gotta wonder about your final note of optimism there Maggie. As a student of history you would probably realise the main thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. It’s pretty inevitable we will see the society that engendered us as superior to ones that are not part of our very make-up, whether the separation is cultural or chronological, but it’s an open question as to whether current ones are an ‘improvement’. If you equate improvement with say, health and happiness, it seems pretty unlikely that any contemporary societies are up to the mark of the hunter-gatherer ones that human beings are probably most biologically and psychologically adapted to. Even in terms of life expectancy it took until the 20th Century for the West to catch up with it’s pre-agricultural forbears and much of the world is still yet to do so. And it’s starting to look like the increased birth rates that came with agriculture will ultimately fuck us all regardless of our economic or political system.
I also have severe doubts about both minarchy and agorism (if you mean the non-mutualist anarcho-capitalist sort). They both have a problem in that certain groups will be granted institutional power over others (political in the first case, economic in the second). Power always seeks more power. So I’d suggest that both are extremely unstable and will inevitably degenerate into the same old tyrannies.
Indeed.
Hence the need for what the Marxists call ‘permanent revolution’ – not that a centralised authoritarian system like Marxism ever had a hope of delivering it.
BTW, I don’t think you can call people “semi-literates” for using ‘libertarian’ in the same way most people who call themselves ‘libertarian’ do. The English language has no Académie Française. She is as she is spoke. If there’s wrong meanings of the word it’s the ones used by linguistic dissidents such as yourself.
(P.S. I loved the Bianco rant).
The level of violence has steadily shrunk throughout recorded history, and the level of individual freedom continues to rise, albeit jerkily and backslidingly, with freedom sometimes moving from one group (eg whores) to another (eg gays). I think that’s room for guarded & qualified optimism over the course of the next three to four millennia if the species survives that long.
And no libertarian I’ve ever met uses the term to mean “crony capitalist”, “authoritarian plutocrat” or any of the other ridiculous things those writers use it to mean.
Well that kinda presupposes that ‘improvement’ = ‘declining violence’ doesn’t it?
We could probably almost wipe out violence by keeping everyone locked in individual cells and fed via automated systems, but would that necessarily be an improvement? It’s pretty hard to promote both increased personal freedom and decreased personal risk.
You also seem to be implicitly suggesting that steadily improving ‘systems’ are what’s reducing the violence. Stephen Pinker identifies that as a secondary factor at best, citing growth in civilising influences such as education and more tolerance due to greater intercultural exchange.
Pinker also claims we’re getting more intelligent but for a psychology professor he seems to have a poor grasp of what IQ tests actually measure. If you’ve read your copy of Guns, Germs and Steel you’d know that Diamond contests that more violent societies such as tribal PNG actually produce higher levels of intelligence than the ‘civilised’ West due to both greater selection pressure and higher personal incentives to ‘get smart’.
Brava! Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I sometimes ask myself, “What would Jesus do?” and then I have the urge to go out and beat the crap out of a banker. Banker…CEO…plutocrat, whatever.
The fact that few Americans learn in school is that the American revolution was a revolution of the rich- Most of the founding fathers were men of property whose large concern was protecting that property. Only a minority of people in their new nation could vote,
The fiction of the USA has always been better than the reality.
But I cannot join you in calling my self a Libertarian, Maggie. I believe that like Marxism, it’s a system better in theory than in practice, affording no protection from the more ravenous in the world.I do share your anarchist leanings.
If I have any hope at all, politically, it’ in a form of anarcho-socaiism.
“Property” – is the cornerstone of LIBERTY.
I’ll just leave it at that.
The problem with “protection from the more ravenous” is that its machinery is routinely seized by the more ravenous.
I’m and Anarcho Syndicalist.
American Libertarians are I think close to American Anarcho Capitalists (an oxymoron), but not that close to the more historical flavor of Anarchism, since it misses certain key elements (the difference between ownership of property and possessions).
Its always interesting debating with Libertarians since frequently they assume they have much the same beliefs as myself.
I think you misunderstand some of us “patriots”. We are patriotic to an ideal … to an attempt to improve the human condition. Of course the system created by the Founders wasn’t perfect – it was created by men, afterall. But it WAS the greatest democratic achievement of mankind up to that date. So when I hang the flag – I’m not doing it to pay fealty to Obama (who is the cretin that controls it at the moment) – I’m paying homage to the tradition of TRYING and FIGHTING to improve the human condition through democratic principles and liberty.
I TOTALLY AGREE THE SYSTEM HAS TO BE BURNED TO THE GROUND. I don’t call for revolution either but yes, you are right – it’s coming. Maybe I would call for revolution if I had the slightest doubt it WAS NOT coming … but I don’t.
But since you “threw-down” on this topic I would like to ask you if you believe in the saying … “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must” ???
Because, if you DO … as I do … then you realize that there will always be strong and weak – and you must recognize that YOU (or WE) have to be one or the other.
I prefer to be strong. I prefer to enforce my will on another man rather than to see him enforce his on me – or the people of my “tribe” (which I think “tribalism” is something else you don’t like – I think anyway). But to me, my tribe encompasses the entire free world’s peoples.
Now, when I say I want to enforce MY WILL on others, rather than vice versa … I don’t mean being a bully. What I mean is … the rest of the world can do as they wish (even JOIN us) … but if they covet anything that belongs to this tribe – I WILL FUCK THEM HARD!
Because, in my experience – this is the only way to live in this world.
I want to put an indestructible “umbrella” of strength over OUR people that CRUSHES anyone who even thinks about abusing them. The debates, the arguments, the revolutions – they can all happen within that umbrella of strength.
But without that umbrella … then debates, arguments, and revolutions only weaken us and incite some other “strong man” to come in and enforce his will over all of us. I believe this “live and let live” philosophy that most Libertarians subscribe to – is dangerously hilarious fantasy, given the fact that there will always be STRONG MEN that will demand our surrender. Libertarians, by and large, don’t want us engaged in the rest of the world and want to open our doors to all comers – even if those “comers” are bent on eventually tearing down the principles of liberty and democracy that MOST OF US in Western Civilization at least believe in.
I’m not interested in arguments about “fairness” or “how would you feel if it were done to you? … I know how it REALLY WORKS in the sand box. And the way it works is … either I AM the one wielding the sword – or someone is wielding it on me.
So when all this revolution talk sprouts up I say fine – but don’t forget that you can’t build another system if you tear down the one you have and allow someone else to come in and supplant it with their own.
We have to always … always … be strong.
And yes … even FEARED.
How broken is the system? Very.
I think we need to be talking about what kind of system should replace the current one. We need to be writing a new Constitution now. Waiting until a revolution occurs just ensures that it will be usurped and corrupted as different factions war over power.
One of my thoughts is to have a similar set up, but with some changes, like doing away with elections in the House. Instead, if you would like to be a representative for your district, you get twenty signatures from people in your district that you are of sound mind and integrity , allowing you to put your name in the hat for a random drawing. This would ensure that average people could serve in government, acting as a check and balance from power interests.
I say or system is broken because when I’ve suggested this to people, they rejected it because they don’t trust their neighbors to in such a role. If you don’t trust your neighbors, the idea of a democracy or a republic is a failed and broken proposition.
And by the way – the most perfect political system would be a MONARCHY – with ME in charge of it.
I’m not even half-joking here.
I would handle the shit and keep things in line. I would allow you all to self-rule as long as you abide by my boundaries – on things like … NO prohibitionist laws. You can fuck whoever you want – as many times as you want – for whatever reason you want. You can have property – I won’t take it … well, other than what I need to keep the military going – I don’t know how you get away without that. Smoke or shoot up whatever you want.
But absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Not in my case – there’s a solution. I am prolly the only guy in the world who covets women more than power. I only want the power to get the chicks – not to exercise the power itself. So as long as I have a huge harem of hot chicks – life will be great … AWESOME actually! The chicks don’t have to be “forced” … I’m not gross, some chicks DO dig me. And, what I lack in looks … I’m sure the palatial digs and the threads of monarchy will make up for!
Big harem – all I need.
Okay … and maybe a Mustang GT with twin turbo chargers.
I’ll be set.
Vote for me!!!
“King Krulac “
I don’t disagree with anything you say, Maggie, til you get to the part about the system being unsalvageable. I’m a bit more optimistic because I see so many of my students open to libertarian ideas. They realize they were fooled by Obama and have no use, most of them, for “progressive” ideas. They clearly see the bankruptcy of those ideas.
Perhaps revolution is iinevitable in the fullness of time, but no timetable is guaranteed. It can be forestalled indefinitely.
Arnold Toynbee was correct.
In the immortal words of Captain America,
“I’m loyal to nothing, General.. except the Dream.”
Keep up the good work, Maggie.
Maggie, maybe you and/or Clark ought to consider going on Stefan Molyneux’s program some time. I have also come to realize that choosing either extreme socialists and the extremely religious; does this country deserve to be saved?
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-capitalism-is-better-than-socialis
Thought that this was worth sharing.
every society is doomed to the eventual trash heap of history as every society is eventually perverted to the will of the masters. Every new society begins with the purest of intentions but soon ends up top heavy by those who covet nothing but power and are not above trying to buy their “authority” by offering more and more to the takers of society. leading to a larger and larger underclass until the society can no longer afford the benefits and hungry people do desperate things leading to a period of anarchy followed inevitably by the greatest society ever. Until we can genetically engineer people this will be inevitable.
I find myself growing rather attached to the idea of geographically dislocated nations- You dont belong to a country because you live in a place, but because you share a culture and philosophy with your fellow citizens.
That kind of system is obviously far away in the future (if it ever comes to be), but I kind of like the idea that nations will need to compete with each other for citizenship and negotiate treaties on how to deal with infrastructure.
Agreed. I particularly like Neal Stephenson’s take on this concept in The Diamond Age. Though not all results were positive, I’m not sure they were worse than the current world status.
Science fiction, while often glossing over the details, provides good touchstones for ideas like decentralization of power. L. Neil Smith, a execrable and polemic as his writing tended to get, had some great ideas on representation methods based on non-geographical conditions which would make most of the current uproar over campaign financing moot, but would require some high technology to implement.
I submit, what would be the point of even building a new system (even if that system is ‘no’ system) at all when this one burns down?
If every system that is created is doomed to perversion and corruption by the evil people within it, then mankind is the biggest joke ever to exist. All the knowledge, all the ‘culture’, all the objects of art, it’s all meaningless. Even worse than meaningless, because it’s allowed us to have the audacity to think that we aren’t just apes wearing scraps of cloth, jumping at shadows and flinging our waste.
Like Cabrogal, I’m not sure how you’re still optimistic after writing that Maggie (and I really don’t know how Mr. Bianco gets through his days after reading that essay of his and the epically long comment thread that follows it), because the conclusion I am drawing is that the only way out from this trap, this endless cycle of idealistic people saying “This time we’ll do it right because we have the examples of history” while the evildoers say “This system will soon be ours because we have the examples of history” is just to end it. All of it, forever and always. Set the nukes off, reduce this miserable planet to a burned-out cinder, and have done with it. Maybe the cockroaches or some organism deep in the ocean will have better luck and the fortune not to gain our level of intelligence and self-awareness….
I find it helpful to think of human ‘progress’ as being similar to the stock market – I like the trend I can see – and at any given moment the volatility of a real close look at the data can discourage anyone from imagining that there is any useful trend at all.
Great article…
Maggie, I’m pretty sure your well acquainted with men’s rights…
I’m put off by the whole AVfM crowd…
In my opinion if they really wanted to help a large group of men, they’d rally against draconian drug laws instead of shouting loudly at feminists and ironically becoming a parody of what they claim to hate…
Early on MRA’s were said to be “right wing.” As guys like Bernie Chapin were expunged (or is purged a better word) they seemed to take on a “marxist/leftist” bent as Esmay rose as Elam’s right hand man…
Allot of people will say feminism is a leftist movement but historically, feminists have been right wing. Aligning themselves with prohibition and puritanism/censorship with their views on pornography…
I’m beginning to think the bigger fight is authoritarianism vs. anti-authoritarinism…
What did Marx, Mao, and the Soviets think of sex work?
A bourgeois disease to be eliminated through “re-education”. Communist & former communist countries make up most of the other non-theocracies outside the US which criminalize the act of prostitution itself.
well here’s a few quotes from Marx and Engels…
http://espressostalinist.com/2012/02/27/marx-and-engels-on-prostitution/
I agree in principle, the system is rotten to the core. This does not mean either that I’d support revolution or that I’d shun politics as a way to get better results — for a whole mix of reasons, both moral and practical.
History shows that, from the view of most who engage in them, revolutions usually backfire. This is because when there’s enough of a power vacuum (or is about to be one) that revolution may be possible, lots of groups know it and one of the others may very well be better prepared than you.
A news source I trust says the Obama administration did try to use the recent protests in Ferguson, MO to incite a race/class war, so they could use it as an excuse to raid, and disarm, everyone on the right side of the political spectrum. On the other hand, the right did quite well in yesterday’s elections, and it looks like the administration is going to allow those results to stick. So I don’t believe it’s in anybody’s interest to fight anytime soon. (But if you do arm yourself, do it so that nobody knows about it.)
On the other hand, if I were a fighter and wanted to incite a revolution right now — I would do it in some land that is now a nasty dictatorship, so that even if it backfires and turns the place into another Soviet Union, people won’t be worse off than when I started.
Why the hell would you want to incite revolution in someone else’s country? As Iraq and Libya have recently demonstrated, no matter how fucked up a country is, foreign intervention can always make it worse.
R2P has only ever been a very thin veil over the supreme Nuremberg crime of conducting aggressive warfare.
You could start with North Korea
I remember joking with a friend on how corporations and government had become so entangled and bureaucracy so bloated that the only way to truly save America was to nuke everything and start over, but then we remembered that the Library of Congress is in Washington, D.C. and we couldn’t bear the thought of losing all those books.
This may be the best thing you’ve ever written, and that’s saying a lot.