Congratulations to me and Ricardo once more for getting work put on the wonderful site that is C4SS. Special congratulations to Ricardo on this one, he really outdid himself.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Center for a Stateless Society: Romans 13: Ordained by Sin, Ordered by Love
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Romans 13: Ordained by Sin, Ordered by Love
by Ricardo Rodriguez and Brennan Lester
There it began – the Roman Emperor Theodosius I signed the decree, and all of Rome was coerced into Christianity. Ever since then, as economist Ludwig von Mises notes very well, Christianity has never been able to put down the sword on a large scale.[1] For politics eats away at a man – the politicization of something profoundly changes a man and his ideologies. Politics has changed Christendom as well – deeply and profoundly – and the end result is contradictions, as well as complete alienation. Romans 13, history shows, has been a central tenet of this politicization much like the tribute episode. Romans 13, however, by being interpreted with the intent of supporting the State, or seeing Christianity as supporting the State, lends itself as such to contradictions, alienation, misinterpretation, and most definitely mistranslation.
One should keep in mind how crucial this text is for the Christian anarchist – one cannot escape discussion of its contents when talking about anything involving Christian anarchism. Further, the anarchist movement is not very fond of it, and for very good reasons – it has been used for the Divine Right of Kings,[2] as well as the Christian Right for justifying government.[3] Monarch King James I called on its authority when he wrote in Chapter 20 of his Works (1609) that "[t]he state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called 'gods.'" Similarly, and more recently, US evangelical John MacArthur wrote that the principle of subjugation to governing authorities is "unqualified, unlimited, and unconditional... [t]he text makes no distinction between good rulers and bad rulers, or fair laws and unfair laws": all the same "[e]very one of us should get in line to submit to those who are commanding us"[4]. It is not a pretty sight – the anarchist movement is very well justified in being naturally alienated away from really existing Christianity as a result. However, this alienation is not at all substantiated by the actual facts, and much to the movement's detriment, as will be explained in detail before the end of our analysis.
This interpretation created great hostility for Christianity in most anarchist circles throughout history, regarding the State and religion as one beast-- that one cannot have church without state, that both are part of the same enslaving principle-- perhaps most famously expressed by Mikhail Bakunin when he wrote, "[t]here is not, there cannot be, a State without a religion"[5], that under Christianity, "all men owe [the "legislators inspired by God himself"] passive and unlimited obedience; for against the divine reason there is no human reason... Slaves of God, men must also be slaves of Church and State, in so far as the State is consecrated by the
Church" (emphasis Bakunin's) -- "his existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him," [6] and as such offered the now infamous inversion, “if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.”[7] This opinion has been widely adopted by anarchists of most stripes, such as Benjamin Tucker, who translated Bakunin's God and the State for English audiences and the criticism of religion by egoist Max Stirner. [8]
Not only has it enraged atheists, but it has also caused scorn among Christian anarchists; most notably Leo Tolstoy, in his 1882 work Church and State, who asserts that Christianity "excludes the external worship of God [rulers and statesmanship]" and "positively repudiates mastership" but says that the link between the State and Christianity is a deviation and that "[t]his deviation begins from the times of the Apostles and especially from that hankerer after mastership Paul."[9] This criticism is also echoed by figure of great significance to anarchist and modernist thought, though not an anarchist himself, Friedrich Nietzsche in The Antichrist (1888) who criticized the Apostles, and namely Paul, for falsifying the history of Christianity, Israel, and mankind for his purposes.[10] But this is all due to a lack of proper understanding, both the rejection of Christianity itself and the rejection of Paul's message in the book of Romans by the anarchists is of detriment to a fuller understanding of Scripture, an understanding that this paper will assert comes to the aid of anarcho-pacifism, and rejects the notion of allegiance to a State ostensibly ordained by God.
What we intend in doing, then, is to take the Greek text of the verses, and begin translating and giving analysis of the passage.[11] We do not intend to critique other interpretations per se, as literature exists or will exist that does this better than we can. (see the “Further Reading” section) Rather, our intent is to show a historical-grammatical interpretation of the text – that in which necessarily ends at a position of Christian anarcho-pacifism – and attempts to to a conclusion immense both in its strength as well as its general cohesion. A theological analysis of a text is never perfect, but we do intend it to be strong enough to persuade another to get rid of their views that to be Christian must necessarily mean to support a State ordained by God.
One must start by making clear a few things. Romans 13 – as far as one can tell - was not written with any type of Stoic use in mind.[12] There is no exact metaphorical or allegorical way of looking about this text. In fact, some scholars consider Romans chapters 12-15 to be the “imperative” part of the book, as one can see by historical-grammatical analysis what Paul writes to the Christians.[13] Not only that, but this entire section of the book of Romans is written in such a manner that it is cohesive,[14] with each verse bound inextricably with the other; as a letter to Roman Christians, no fragment should be overlooked in analysis.[15]
It is therefore first important for us to notice Paul's reiteration of Christ's teachings of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt, 5:38-9, NIV) at the end of chapter 12: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21) To review the contents of Romans 13 without understanding Romans 12 is to strip away the context of the lessons preached-- for at the heart of Romans 12 is the divine idea that the Christian must love one's neighbor as one's self, and to not resist evil with evil. It is not to love those you prefer to love but to even "[b]less those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." (Romans 12:14) Those principles are the very foundation of Christ's teachings, Christian pacifism, and Paul's philosophy.
And that leads us to Romans 13:1 (NIV), a line that seals the deal for most in favor of statism: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” It appears to be a dead end for the Christian-- thus we must bow to the State. But this is not what it seems, as shown by John Howard Yoder's treatment of the passage in his stellar The Politics of Jesus. To start, it is wise to view the text in its Greek form and work from there:
Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν:
One of the words one must concentrate on, even if one can't read it, is τεταγμέναι, which is normally translated as “ordained” or “established” in the King James and New International Version. In actuality, the word is a perfect passive participle of the word τάσσω, which one can conclude means to “order”, to “arrange”, or to “put into place” more so than it is translated as “establish”, or “ordained”. This changes the underlying implication, for as we go back to Chapter 12, one reads:
"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.” ~ Romans 12:19
One can begin to see a point to what Paul is exemplifying - submit because God arranges and fixes all, because for a Christian, God is ultimately in control. One reads in Yoder:
"God is not said to create or institute or ordain the powers that be, but only to order them, to put them in order, sovereignty to tell them where they belong, what is their place. It is not as if there was a time when there was no government and then God made government through a new creative intervention; there has been hierarchy and authority and power since human society existed. Its exercise has involved domination, disrespect for human dignity, and real or potential violence ever since sin has existed. Nor is it that by ordering this realm God specifically, morally approves of what a government does. The sergeant does not produce the soldiers he drills; the librarian does not create nor approve of the book she or he catalogs and shelves. Likewise God does not take responsibility for the existence of the rebellious “powers that be” or for their shape or identity; they already are. What the text says is that God orders them, brings them into line, providentially and permissively lines them up with divine purposes."[16]
One can see Yoder's point verified in 1 Samuel 8, which is the first time a government is truly mentioned in the Bible, as well as Hosea 8:4.
However, let us go back to the Greek analysis of Romans 13:1 – we are not quite finished examining the vocabulary, as there are some more crucial things we must keep in mind: ὑποτασσέσθω in particular also comes from τάσσω, but combined also with the word ὑπο, which means “under”, which then leads itself to mean to be “ordered under”, in a sense of voluntary submission – rather than the common dogma of being told to do it because it is a commandment. This harks back a few sentences in the text to the text of Romans 12. This does not give any implication of an absolute obedience – rather a very conditional, voluntary obedience.
This obedience is fleshed out in the word ἐξουσίαι, which is translated as “authorities”. N.T. Wright and Clinton Morrison both point out profoundly that the authorities in which Paul mentions is not a clear distinction between earthly and heavenly.[17] This does not simply account for Paul, but one can see the pervasive nature in even Roman currency, where the denarius stated, “Tiberius Caesar, Worshipful Son of the God, Augustus.”[18] This incredible mix makes it a confounding word to translate. Further, more specific words like ἀρχαὶ and δυνάμεις - “rulers” and “powers” respectively – can indicate one half behind the meaning of the word ἐξουσίαι, and should be examined carefully.
One sees these rulers and powers in Romans 8:38-39, showing profound contempt for them. In this vein, Paul writes that Christ has “disarmed the rulers and authorities (ἀρχὰς and ἐξουσίας) and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.”(Colossians 2:15) Paul never stops to show that nothing stands between the Christian and God [19] – the authorities are disarmed and rendered useless. This voluntary submission proves itself to be a profound expansion of what Paul wrote after – with the submission of authorities occurring due to the fact that God puts them in their place, that Jesus has disarmed and rendered the authorities ineffectual, that one should save revenge for God, and resist evil not with evil: "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)
This line of thought does not lose its strength as one goes along, but rather continues to develop in Romans 13:2, which reads in the NIV:
"Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
And in the Greek:
ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται.
The word mentioned earlier which means “order”, “put into place”, “arrange”, etc. - τάσσω – is in this verse as well. The word τάσσω is a very crucial part of this entire passage, as one can tell – further, it is used here in the word ἀντιτασσόμενος, which combines both τάσσω and the participle ἀντι, which is connotative to “anti” thus leading to a combination which means literally to be “against order”, or to be against the order established by God.
One should be able to see the obvious at this point – this too harks back to what Paul was saying just before hand. Everything is falling into place – a Christian is in fact a person who should believe that revenge is God's alone, and to not put anything into one's own hands. A Christian must be pacifistic towards authorities. The question begs, however, if this voluntary submission is contingent to also allowing them to reign and submitting to whoever comes by with a big gun.
It is simple: Resist evil not with evil means exactly what Jesus meant for it to say. It does not mean that one should not resist evil at all, as Adin Ballou points out wonderfully,[20] but to resist evil with good – with Christian love. Paul explains this heavily in Romans 12 – but what does this entail per se? It entails turning away from evil, and to love one's enemies and pray for them. Early Christianity is known for martyrs that never fought back, but certainly many were running, fleeing, while preaching, praying, and loving.[21] This is what it means to resist evil not with evil – very much so must a Christian turn away from what the Bible teaches as evil,[22] and to pursue one's faith in God. One must not forget that last part, for as Acts 5:29 states: "Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than human beings!' (NIV)
One need not harken back to the Greek to see that again and again is the topic of resistance to evil through evil means addressed by Paul. This point of resisting evil with evil is further exemplified in the translation, for the NIV reads in verses 3-5:
“3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
So it is here that the contents of the first two verses become intertwined: resist evil not with evil, but instead let God have revenge, for it is His to take; and He will take it “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52) . It also connects itself to many things, especially the idea that a soft answer turns away wrath (Proverbs 15:1), along with many other verses showing that love stops evil. There is a profound idea here that Paul is showing, and it is to resist evil not with evil, which will set one free.
Additionally, verse four says essentially to do right and not transgress Jesus' teaching, for they do not wear their swords without a cause ( εἰκῇ is the word that is translated to “no reason”, though one could have a stronger wording with “without a cause”). Another mistranslation is in verse 4 - “They are God's servants”, in which the word servant (διάκονος), is actually singular. It is more or less translated to “He is God's servant”, with the word “rulers” not even being in the Greek text for verse four. Further, the fourth verse does not mention rulers, but rather making it clear that whoever does have a sword is under God's control and arrangement (vengeance and all), and that transgressing resist evil not with evil will carry consequences.
The fifth verse then seals the lid on this interpretation, showing why we should voluntarily submit to authorities – possible punishment, but also conscience for not letting God handle the situation. One should turn away from evil, but do so in love, for it is God's commandment.
One is not left with clean air after this, however, for one has one more obstacle to overcome before having a completely clear understanding of the text – that is, Romans 13:6. However, this obstruction shows itself to be illusory when subjected to closer analysis, where a massive mistranslation befuddles what is the true expression of the text.
It reads in the NIV:
"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.”
However, one reads in the Greek:
διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ φόρους τελεῖτε, λειτουργοὶ γὰρ θεοῦ εἰσιν εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο προσκαρτεροῦντες.
One should see two things missing here: “authorities”, and “governing”. The former is translated from λειτουργοὶ, however this has nothing to do with authorities. Rather, this has everything to do with a minister, a priest, or a servant – nothing of authoritative power. “Governing”, on the other hand, seems to come from εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο, which translates to “with this very thing”, while “προσκαρτεροῦντες” translates to “adhere to”.
The icing on the cake is that this passage turns into, “For this is why you pay taxes, because God's priests (or ministers or servants) adhere to this very thing.” For supplementary proof of this translation of “εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο” without any Greek grammatical explanations, one can cross-reference with 2 Corinthians 2:3, Philippians 1:6, and 2 Corinthians 5:5 – all of which uses “τοῦτο αὐτὸ”, “εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο”, or plain “αὐτὸ τοῦτο”, but it also translates to “this very thing”.
It is clear that this passage cannot be a pro-taxation statement. Even if one were to take the translation as it is, one would find major historical inaccuracy considering the amount of resources showing that taxes did not go to governing in the Roman Empire. Rather, it should be a known fact that the taxes went to military expansion before concentration on governing [23]-- to recall the advice Emperor Septimius Severus gave to his heirs, "live in harmony; enrich the troops; ignore everyone else."[24] As early as Nero did emperors debase the currency in order to fund the increasing costs of military and bureaucracy.[25] This indirect tax on cash balances became worse and worse under succeeding emperors Aurelius, with prices higher than ever before in the Empire's history when Severus's heir, Carcacalla took over.[26] The Roman Empire would periodically confiscate property, and towns would be forced to feed, lodge, and provide transport for the troops-- the soldiers were even allowed to loot as they pleased.[27]
To give solidify the interpretation of 13:1-6, one should look at the concluding verse right after the passages - “Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor”. This drives the point home– to voluntarily submit and to resist evil not with evil. Give to everyone their due – which is in the end is summed up in the Golden Rule of loving one's neighbor as yourself. It is clear that in the book of Romans, Paul is outlining how the pious Christian is to deal with those who it is hardest to love: the corrupt, violent, and degenerate "authorities" who make up the State, they are a test of the Christian's obedience to God's command of universal love.
If anarchism alienates itself away from religion – never accepting its existence, but always wanting it to push it away, then there is no reason to be an anarchist. A political ideology that pushes away over 3 billion people in the world should not be a political ideology worth having. The ideas that anarchism must be absolutely contingent with any type of personal conviction – whether irreligious or religious – is one in vain. Anarchism is about the factual order of human beings and understanding how human beings order naturally. For as David Hume said, “... the stability of possession, its translation by consent, and the performance of promises. These are, therefore, antecedent to government.”[28] One must not forget that anarchism is about the natural order of human society – to say religion is not a part of human society would be horribly ignorant of thousands of years of civilization. To say religion naturally does harm to a society is equally ignorant – for history shows profoundly that it was never religion that has caused the problems, as much as it was the political power absorbing religion. Theodisius I is just one example of many, along with well thought out arguments for as to how Christianity's desperate need to seek political power hurts the church more than anything. [29]
Christianity necessarily goes in line with anarchism; Christianity necessarily is anarchism. It is a form of anarcho-pacifism – it submits to pacify, but resists in love, compassion, and with deep religious introspection. It shows that there is no genuine authority but God, and everything
is under God's control – wrath and revenge is His, not the Christian's. Anarchists should welcome the chance to connect Christianity with anarchism, or any religion for that matter, as it pushes forward the importance of peace and the fundamental understanding of the benefits felt from cooperation, as opposed to the parasitism of the State. To ignorantly toss away an entire group of people is to defeat the purpose of spreading information. With love, respect, and keen understanding can anarchists truly spread the basis of anarchism. Fear of confronting religion only leads to fear in accepting anarchist ideology, and a bitter rejection of what is held dear to many of "the people" is to insulate the movement of the people with intellectual dogmatism.
In desperation to conform to society's ways of thinking, many Christians – whose main objective should be to obtain salvation – desperately cling onto the State. With amazing leaps of apologetics, many Christians will attempt to justify the State through the use of Scripture, no matter what the costs of doing so may be. The deaths of millions upon millions of innocent people in history matters not – one will still assume the State does not directly attempt to hinder their relationship with God. The desperate attempt to use the sword to express Christianity is in vain – in the end, it will push people out of faith completely. If one must love Christ, one must abandon the sword, and by abandoning the sword, they must abandon their allegiance with any State, whose origins start by forcing others into fear and submission to a singular human will; the State elevates its law above all else, its supremacy over the land it possesses lays claim to a totality over the spirit that could only be rightfully claimed by God-- and no Christian can preach fidelity to a force such as that. By breaking down Romans 13 into a passage of resisting evil with Christian love, the Christian should reflect on who their allegiance truly belongs to. The question then remains: Does the Christian tacitly give more allegiance to the temporal State, or allegiance to their faith in an eternal God? The former asks for allegiance until death, and the latter asks for all your heart, mind, and body, and condemns the idea of being lukewarm. The choice is for the Christian – choose wisely.
Further Reading:
Stark, Thom. Peace and Security: Two Rival Gospels in Romans 13 (A History of Interpretation and Critical Appropriation). Pickwick Publications, forthcoming.
---Bibliography---
[1] Mises, Ludwig Von. Theory and History: an Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2007. 43. Print.
[2] One can see some defense in this in Martin Luther's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.
[3] An interesting sermon indicating that "Christians have a holy obligation to be the best citizens we can possibly be": "God and Country Sermon, God and Country Sermon by Brian La Croix, Romans 13:1-13:5 - SermonCentral.com." SermonCentral.com - Free Sermons, Illustrations, Videos, and PowerPoints for Preaching. Web. 06 Feb. 2011. .
[4] MacArthur, John. "The Christian's Responsibility to Government--Part 1 -- John MacArthur." Bible Bulletin Board. Web. 09 Feb. 2011. .
[5] Bakunin, Mikhail Aleksandrovich. God and the State. [S.l.]: Cosimo, 2008. 84. Print.
[6] Ibid., pg. 24.
[7] Ibid., pg 27-8.
[8] Tucker, Benjamin R. "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree and Wherein They Differ." Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism. Adamant Media Corporation, 2005. 14. Print.
See also Stirner, Max. The Ego and its Own.
[9] Tolstoy, Leo. "Church and State." Wikisource, the Free Library. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
[10] Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols/The Anti-Christ. Tr. R.J. Hollingdale. pg. 165-169 for a brief overlook, though Paul is mentioned many more times.
[11] One can join in and follow: http://www.greekbible.com/ offers a very well done Greek Bible, at the same http://biblelexicon.org/ is a strong lexicon. However, as Ricardo did when writing the Scriptural analysis, it is best to buy an authoritative lexicon, along with Google searching continually and cross-referencing. Immense scrutiny and thought should be applied at all times.
[12] There is a lot of back and forth thoughts on how much (or if at all) Stoicism is used in Paul's writings, but there is hardly anything at all giving evidence that Paul used it for Romans 13. One can see this in Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations, where authors Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko try to use Stoicism in the core of Paul's teaching, but give no reference to Romans 13 using Stoic terms. Further, there is a strong rebuttal on the notion that Paul used Stoic language at all by Joseph Spencer called “Stoic Influence in the Writings of Saint Paul”. In James Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, he writes that “[Paul's] views of the divine birth of Jesus, and of His resurrection...are unintelligible except in terms of Stoicism”, bur give no reference to the notion that Paul's political views should be viewed in such a way.
[13] Thorsteinsson, Runar M. Roman Christianity and Roman Stoicism: a Comparative Study of Ancient Morality. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford UP, 2010. 92. Print.
[14] One should not forget that verses and chapters were not in the original manuscripts of the Bible, and was developed after. There are many different ministries that offer an overlook of this development, for example Rowland Croucher's “Chapters and Verses in the Bible”.
[15] Bear in mind our scrutiny of the verses stops at 13:7, however, and that one can give analysis later in the chapter. Thom Stark wonderfully points out in The Human Faces of God, pg. 201-202, that Romans 13 also had much to do with the eschatological viewpoints Paul had, which is shown later in the chapter.
[16] Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus; Vicit Agnus Noster. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. 203. Print.
[17] See N.T. Wright's “Paul and Caesar: A New Reading of Romans”, along with Clinton Morrison's The Powers That Be.
[18] Tolstoy, Leo, and Constance Garnett. The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006. 11-14. Print.
[19] Smith, Mahlon H. "Tiberius." Virtual Religion Network. Web. 31 Jan. 2011.
[20] Romans 8:38-39
[21] Balasundaram, Franklyn J. Martyrs in the History of Christianity. New Delhi: Publ. for The United Theological College, Bangalore by ISPCK, 1997. Print.
[22] 1 Peter 3:11, Psalm 34:14, Psalm 37:27-29, Proverbs 3:7, Zechariah 1:4 to name a few passages.
[23] Bartlett, Bruce. “How Excessive Government Killed Rome”. The Cato Journal, Volume 14 Number 2, Fall 1994.
[24] Peden, Joseph R. "Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire." Ludwig Von Mises Institute. 7 Sept. 2009. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
[25] Bailey, M.J. "The Welfare Cost of Inflationary Finance." Journal of Political Economy 64(2): 93-110.
[26] Schuettinger, Robert Lindsay, and Eamonn Butler. "The Roman Republic and Empire." Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls: How Not to Fight Inflation. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation, 1979. 19-20. Print.
[27] Haskell, H.J. The New Deal in Old Rome: How Government in the Ancient World Tried to Deal with Modern Problems. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1939. 216. Print.
[28] Hume, David. "Book III." A Treatise of Human Nature. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, 2005. Print.
[29] Boyd, Gregory A. The Myth of a Christian Nation How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church. Grand Rapids (Michigan): Zondervan, 2005. Print.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Not Sold on the Campaign Against Amazon: A Case for the Practice of Boycotting... Just Not Here
Or; I Quote a Lot of Rothbard.
I am in no way suggesting that Wikileaks ought not to be defended, quite to the contrary, but I don't believe boycotting Amazon is the answer here. It is pretty much universally recognized, at least among the libertarian circles (but most certainly elsewhere), that corporations and the state often move hand-in-hand in order to better pick the pockets of plebeians-- but let us not forget, as Stephan Kinsella rightfully pointed out, that this is the same Amazon that has allowed for people to escape the sales tax. Not every action a corporation makes is made out of pure evil and a desire for expropriation-- everyone gets threatened or extorted by Statism at some point or in some way. And I think many are plenty aware of this, but not everyone recognizes that Amazon is being threatened, not collusive.
A Defense of the Practice of the Boycott
First off, I think it is important to make a statement on general principle and strategy regarding the practice of boycotting. It is well known that boycotting is a perfectly legitimate and libertarian form of action, no matter what one thinks of its effectiveness, where "A urges B not to make an exchange with C, for whatever reason. Since A's and B's actions are purely voluntary and noninvasive, there is no reason for a boycott not to be permitted on the unhampered market."[1] The act of not buying from someone "is strictly within the realm of free speech and the rights of private property," and it seems to impose some threat against special interests, explaining why "labor laws have infringed upon the right of labor unions to organize boycotts against business firms... [or] to spread rumors about the insolvency of a bank."[2] It shouldn't be disputed that a boycott is a legitimate action-- but a boycott is not necessarily an effective strategy, as may be the case here. I don't think the folks who oppose boycotting as a strategy argue at all that boycotting should be illegal or is in anyway invasive, but its important to touch base on those fundamentals and to build off of it.
In his blog, Rockwell says that commerce is a blessing and that boycotting suggests that it simply stifles trade and its positive beneficence. I love trade, too-- but a boycott in no way has to damage trade as a whole, but rather makes trade more prosperous and more in tune with consumer demands, especially if that boycott is popular: one could argue that laws against fraud and adulteration suppress exchanges on the grounds that the threat of responsibility urges carefulness, thus drawing sellers out of the market.
Of course, Rockwell and others wouldn't argue against laws against fraud for obvious reasons, because they make trade safe and accountable-- actually, in all honesty, its not 100% clear what some of these intelligent persons think of boycott as a whole, but I think its important to elucidate on the matter of its worth and practice. But I digress, quite a few among this group have also commented in their works on the role of businesses seeking to maintain a good reputation, which seems very much in line (if it is not identical) with what a boycott can communicate to various sellers as to what actions do create profit for their shareholders and what actions hurt their bottom line. Or, perhaps the boycott can foster or spread an ideological movement that would inspire the shareholders of a given corporation to stand by the side of free speech and thus Wikileaks. Boycotts are a more extreme, but just as necessary, tool of voluntary organization that give information signals throughout the marketplace: which means, that if a boycott is considered "to be morally reprehensible, then it is within the rights of those who feel this way to organize a counter-boycott to persuade the consumers otherwise, or to boycott the boycotters."[3]
The Law Merchants of the Middle Ages, frustrated by the inadequacies and petty feuds of statist law, turned to voluntary formations of law, "[enforcing] its decisions solely by means of boycott, and... it was enormously effective."[4] The "Law Merchant relied not on state-imposed penalties but on credit reports; those who refused to abide by the system's rules and decisions would have a hard time finding other merchants willing to deal with them."[5] Within customary legal systems, the only real power invested in an arbitrator or mediator is that of persuasion: the law is enforceable due to the threat of ostracism by the community, "the adjudicated solutions tend to be accepted due to fear of this severe boycott sanction"[6] (emphasis mine). They avoided violent forms of resolution by means of giving strong incentives to participate in cooperative interactions, and those cooperative means of legal restitution typically took the form of ostracism or boycott sanctions.[7] Indeed, those systems of resolution that do not reply on authoritarian sources of power "must rely on threat of expulsion, ostracism, and other forms of boycotting."[8]
So, if we see that boycotting, a legitimate form of action in itself, is also a crucial aspect of voluntary orders (and, it seems, a constant aspect empirically speaking), it seems to me that it only makes logical sense that it also serves as a useful tool for achieving the voluntary society. This is not to say that boycotting is always the right thing to do-- it is not an "axiomatic principle" as Sly Olivia puts it. The tough thing with strategy is that its application must adapt to the dynamic nature of reality-- what works here may not work there. And indeed, the energy, organization, and self-control required in pulling off a successful boycott requires special consideration, and that (as Olivia says) "if you try to consistently tailor your spending and consumption habits to reward or punish people based on how you perceive their support for your politics or ideology, you’re just making yourself miserable for no reason." She has a point here: boycotting as a strategy in the state run world must be applied carefully and contextually. It is not something to be carried out by everyone on everything across the board, especially in a world overgrown with state injustice, but rather a strategy to be saved and executed in order to land the hardest blow possible.
While boycotting has played a part, say, in the case of dismantling segregation during the Civil Rights Era; the success of the protesting and boycotting of Nike shoes for utilizing child labor resulted in those children taking employment in the brothel instead. The child labor in Third World countries is indeed a problem-- it is not just "freedom of contract," if that were so then there would be a far different conversation. The problem lies in the displacement of the peasantry and their land by statism and neoliberalization-- so it by no means closes the question, but it shows that strategies are not universally applicable.
And though boycotts have their failures, there is also a strong case for their possible effectiveness. Most particularly in the case of Revolutionary America. In the face of the Revenue Act there was a boycott against the purchase of any goods obtained through the illicit statist means.[9] Again, when confronting the Sugar Act and other mercantilist measures, merchants tried to bypass the regulations by trying "to encourage self-sufficiency in manufacturing in the colonies... as a means of reducing dependence on a foreign trade that was now crippled."[1o] Associations in Boston boycotted British manufactures and of the consumption of lamb (to allow for the growth of domestic woolens), and in New York intellectual support of such programs were taken up by American Liberals in the form of the Society for the Promotion of Arts, Agriculture, and Economy of New York City in 1764.
"All these popular actions tended to unite the people against British
legislation."[10]
The boycott was built to compel the ceasing of economic privilege. The repeal of the Stamp Act was made all the easier because of the efforts of the boycott led by the Sons of Liberty and leading American merchants. Against the Stamp Act was the use of "secondary" boycotts, the protest was applied similarly to any exports to American ports where the tax was observed-- and hence, the Charlestown Fire Company organized a large boycott against all exports coming from Georgia.[11] Unfortunately, these protests sometimes led to the use of coercion against those who did not subscribe-- but that is by no means a fundamental aspect of boycotting, its just something that inevitably happens. What the boycott did do well though, was that it "helped to cement and intensify the clamor of British merchants to repeal the Stamp Act" and aid to "the stoppage of some of the civil courts that enforced debt payments to English creditors."[11] "A nonimportation boycott promised to be the best means of fighting the Townshend duties as well."[12]
The list goes on and on, and the general principle remains the same. The successful implementation of boycotts have allowed for the subversion of oppressive statist actions and the swaying of affected business interests-- whether out of principle or out of their want for money-- in the direction of liberalization. A similar technique could be used against Amazon, but of course, thats a question of specific consideration.
Where I Become Less Sure of Myself
I have found myself in a similar position as Brad Spangler and Butler Shaffer, who have (at the time of this writing) voiced largely skeptical and well-thought-out sentiments towards the idea of boycotting Amazon. Like myself, they don't "think it’s best to separate one’s personal business from one’s politics" as Olivia does-- and as Bradley Manning and Julian Assange do not. I have to agree with Chris George when he commented sarcastically, "I too think it's important to separate my morality from my daily life." The claim against mixing the two is vulgar, but thats not the main crux of the situation at hand.
The fact of the matter is that Amazon is largely being bullied by the State, and I think Kinsella may be correct in saying that in punishing Amazon we are punishing the victim. Though, as I said above, the act of boycotting sends information to the business world for their need to readjust, it is information often sent in the package of fewer customers and lower property values-- hence, part of the reason why the tactic must be used carefully. According to Antiwar.com (see link above), "Amazon.com got a call from Senator Joe Lieberman who threatened to start a boycott. Other officials reportedly leaned on Amazon." Lieberman's boycott, backed up by his position in the Department of Homeland Security, approval from Democrats, Republicans, pundits, and near everyone else in the position of power or control, sounds incredibly familiar to the "voluntarism" of Herbert Hoover and other American business leaders all agreeing upon various governmental controls, with the threat of political force always backing it up.[13] Lieberman is interested in, as Glenn Greenwald writes, blocking Wikileaks from American consumption. In this act, Lieberman is trying to block American citizens from reading information read freely throughout the rest of the world, helping usher in the authoritarian regime he has always dreamed of.
If it is the State that is pushing Amazon into this censorship decision, then threatening to boycott Amazon ourselves simply puts Lieberman and the Libertarian movement at opposite sides of Amazon as we take turns shoving it back and forth-- there are bigger fish to fry than Amazon, we need to cut to the State. However, according once more to Antiwar.com, Amazon's excuse for cutting off Wikileaks is that the website is "hurting people" (which is, of course, not true) and that Lieberman's threats had nothing to do with it. Since, as the article points out, Amazon's decision to abruptly cut off Wikileaks occurred only a little bit after Lieberman's call and that Amazon was well aware of what Wikileaks was all about, I find this doubtful myself. Sure, Amazon may not have waited for a court order or put up some sort of fight, but I can't blame them when the threat is coming from (and all courts are run by) an institution that claims the right to murder people en masse. This institution, with all of its regulatory agencies and security departments (OSHA, IRS, FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.), there is no limit to the number of ways Amazon could be punished for continuing to provide Wikileaks server space. However, even if we assume Amazon's flimsy statement to be true, it is not hard to see how Amazon couldn't come to this conclusion. Like all rational actors, the people at Amazon.com must work off of information-- and what pollutes the airwaves? Newt Gingrich wants Assange declared an enemy combatant; Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Jonah Goldberg, and countless others in both Tory parties are calling for his murder. The entire establishment is buzzing with anti-Wikileaks hysteria.
To me, this indicates that attacking Amazon is what Thoreau would call hacking at branches, instead of striking the root of the problem. As Michael Rozeff says, "If Amazon has rolled over beneath the power of the State or because its Board is cowardly or because it is regulated or because it is in league with the government, that to me is a secondary matter to the fact that such a tyranny exists in the first place." The State is the root problem here, the propaganda is the basic, foundational piece that allows for this injustice to be carried out. If Wikileaks is perceived to be a threat to the international community-- according to the Secretary of Identity Theft, Hillary Clinton-- than it shouldn't be surprising that the managers of Amazon.com would think their shareholders wouldn't appreciate the commitment.
As Brad Spangler pointed out on his Facebook page, our resources are scarce, and they should be used carefully-- and I think those resources should go straight to the root of the State propaganda machine, and not to the bullied branches. There are other ways to send information to Amazon.com and other firms-- how about we attack Lieberman's new censorship bill? Or we go all out on these Tories on Fox AND MSNBC that rattle their swords at Assange? Amazon may be suppressing the speech of whistle blowers, but they aren't seeking to murder them altogether. But there is also another consideration that Spangler also wisely points out, one dealing very much with pragmatism, and probably cements me more deeply in the anti-Amazon-boycott camp: a boycott from the Anti-War movement probably wouldn't affect Amazon as much as we would like it to. This isn't 'Nam-- not only are there rules, but we aren't as large or pervasive a movement as we, well, should be-- and thats of no fault of Antiwar.com and the others, considering the endless number of variables at play here, its amazing Antiwar.com has done as much as it has... and it has done a lot. But if our boycott were to face Lieberman's boycott, I assure you the fear-mongering State would outdo us here while they still control the conversation via the mainstream media, and the fact of the matter is that all the resources we use to propagate this campaign against Amazon (for whatever indeterminate span of time), the fewer resources we have dedicated to fighting the disease at the heart of the matter. And in regards to sending information to Amazon, I'm unsure that the boycott would send the right message: Amazon did host Wikileaks for quite a while, fully aware of its controversial activities. This boycott does nothing to address the copious number of firms and corporations who have never and would never host Wikileaks to begin with. There is a serious and substantial threat that this boycott will simply keep businesses from lending any support to any possibly dubious character.
It seems unquestionable that Amazon, Paypal, and others are being pushed around by the State: the "requests" by the likes of Lieberman and other criminals are veiled threats. Putting up a fight would not have done anything except have the State's hammer brought down on the corporation. This is 21st Century America, we're all living under Jim Crow now.
UPDATE 12/08: It seems similar threats were levied against PayPal, who have also stopped supporting Wikileaks. I imagine the same might be for MasterCard and Visa.
UPDATE 12/09: Now, if you want a boycott for me to get behind, try Mastercard and Visa who were exposed by Wikileaks to have the American government work on their behalf to cuddle up with Russia. "Illegal activity," my ass.
---------
[1] Rothbard, Murray. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, pg. 179.
[2] Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty, pg. 117.
[3] Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, pg. 131.
[4] Long, Roderick. The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights.
[5] Long, Roderick. The Nature of Law.
[6] Benson, Bruce. The Enterprise of Law, pg. 15.
[7] Ibid., pg. 36.
[8] Ibid., pg. 342.
[9] Rothbard, Murray. Conceived in Liberty, Volume 3, pg. 62.
[10] Ibid., pg. 67.
[11] Ibid., pg. 144-145.
[12] Ibid., pg 168.
[13] Rothbard, Murray. America's Great Depression.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
I'm a Terrorist, Depending on Who You Ask
It has been a while since I last updated the blog, so I figured I'd throw in a quick little update. Yesterday this page on "anarchist extremism" from the FBI website was brought to my attention, and I couldn't help but write a short little piece on it. I didn't spend a lot of time on this, so there are bound to be mistakes in my English, and I forgive any sparseness of detail in some areas or a lack of citation-- I'm just throwing this out there.
The thing about this article that sparked my interest was the bit of personal application it holds for me: I've been known to joke, calling myself a "terrorist" or (when I am feeling more clear) "I am a terrorist depending on who you ask" (hence the title). Probably not the wisest joke to make-- but I also have a tendency of referring to myself as a "risky motherfucker."
Of course, I'm not a terrorist. But documents such as this one on the FBI page illustrate how law enforcement may construe me as such, and lock me away if I (or anyone else) become a threat to their position of power and illusion of necessity.
"[the 1999 WTO riot] resulted in millions of dollars in property damage and economic loss and injuries to hundreds of law enforcement officers and bystanders."-- this figure is sketch at best. The real cause of concern is in the claim that there were injuries to many members of law enforcement and to bystanders. Largely, the claim that law enforcement was damaged is put in perspective a lot when we remember that these officers were committing illegal arrests out the ass-- so any violence that may have been delivered to them was likely in retaliation. Conveniently left out is the damages incurred by police officers when they attacked peaceful protesters with copious amounts of pepper spray.
"And during the 1970s, the FBI investigated anarchist extremists such as the Weather Underground Organization, which conducted bombing campaigns."
Apparently, the FBI didn't investigate hard enough, or they would have uncovered that the Weather Underground consisted largely of a bunch of Leninists. Anyone who knows any of their history knows that anarchism has been unilaterally opposed to Bolshevikism, being vociferous critics of the USSR (Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, and Peter Kropotkin, just to name three). Lenin called "left communism" (which, of course, puts anarchism in its umbrella-- though not all anarchism is communist) an "infantile disorder." Anarchists and Leninists are not allies-- though to the ruling class, which owns the FBI, this is strategically beneficial.
But the big thing I want to point out is this line, perhaps deceptively reasonable to some: "Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means. A small minority, however, believes change can only be accomplished through violence and criminal acts…and that, of course, is against the law."
I say this is deceptively reasonable because, well, to most readers "violence and criminal acts" consists of murder, theft, and the like. Naturally, if a group of people rallying under a black flag went down the streets of Washington shotgunning people, there would be much reason to fear "anarchist extremism" (and indeed, the anarchist community as a whole would also reprimand such actions). However, remember that we are talking about an institution that labels people who are outspoken constitutionalists as potential terrorists-- this means Ron Paul may be a terrorist, for all we know.
"Criminal acts" has had a pretty long history of meaning "that which is dangerous to the way we're running things" to the powers-that-be. "Criminal" does not mean, as Lysander Spooner defined in his "Vices Are Not Crimes," the damaging of another person or his or her property-- what constitutes a "criminal" act is "any action that has not been approved by our legislation." The FBI document insists these radical ideologies are "perfectly legal" but this claim becomes more than suspect when we see what happens when these ideals begin to threaten the machinations of the political class. When Eugene Debs was arrested during the first World War, he had not attacked anybody, he had not stolen from anyone, he had not violated anybody. But, how can this be? Surely Debs must have done some monstrous act that caused Woodrow Wilson to refuse to ever release him. What he did was violate the Espionage Act-- he did that which was not approved by their legislation: he defied the GREAT WAR. Even when all the other Western countries released their political prisoners, Debs was condemned to prison by Woodrow Wilson-- thankfully, Warren G. Harding had at least a little bit more humanity than the psychotic Wilson, and released Debs.
The Espionage Act also worked to arrest the anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman for their "criminal" opposition to World War I in the form of the No Conscription League. The two had their offices raided and were taken to jail and held at ransom/bail for $25,000 each. At the trial, Berkman did not call upon some idea that "change can only be accomplished through violence and criminal acts." He called upon the First Amendment of the Constitution. He asked how the American government can claim to be fighting for "democracy" abroad, when it suppressed free speech:
"Will you proclaim to the world that you who carry liberty and democracy to Europe have no liberty here, that you who are fighting for democracy in Germany, suppress democracy right here in New York, in the United States? Are you going to suppress free speech and liberty in this country, and still pretend that you love liberty so much that you will fight for it five thousand miles away?"[1]
As per usual, the court answered "Yes." The jury declared Berkman and Goldman guilty, landing them two years in prison, a $10,000 fine, and the possibility of deportation after their release from prison-- a possibility that became a reality under the Immigration Act of 1918[2] in the midst of the first Red Scare. J. Edgar Hoover himself was involved in getting Goldman, Berkman, and over 200 others deported for their "perfectly legal" beliefs and loose associations with possibly radical groups. But deportation seems fairly minor when we compare it to the treatment of Sacco and Vanzetti. The FBI document seems aware of this fact, so they hide it: "One of our first big cases occurred in 1919, when the Bureau of Investigation (as we were called then) investigated a series of anarchist bombings in several U.S. cities." The Palmer Raids didn't result in the arrest of conspirators and violent lunatics-- the anarchists and communists were arrested for the beliefs that fueled the shape of their activism against the political establishment, because it was "criminal" to believe such things. When the Supreme Court finally ruled that 'mere advocacy" of an anti-state ideology was Constitutional, the FBI's COINTELPRO campaign was already spying on and seeking to disrupt so-called "black nationalist hate groups" such as the SNCC and Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Just because people pushed on some pretty little Civil Rights Act doesn't mean the State has stopped its persecution of those without privilege-- there is no such enlightenment in the halls of the State's justice.
Things have not changed-- radical belief was not "perfectly legal" then, nor is it legal now. The Espionage Act is still in effect: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales warned that journalists who report on NSA's spy program could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, people under the Bush years were arrested of such a violation, and Mark Thiessen of the Washington Post wants to shut down Wikileaks for violating it. This is not to mention the Patriot Act, in all its oppressive glory. The State has the ability to detain "terrorists" without trial-- but what makes a terrorist? Thats up to the State. A report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center states that people who support Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and anybody sporting paraphernalia associated with the Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or the Libertarian Party are to be labeled as terrorist supporters. The government has also considered defenders of the Constitution, home-schoolers, peaceful protesters, and a host of patriotic organizations and individuals as terrorists.
Its a question of who controls the conversation. The State defines criminality-- and so criminality means that which threatens the current distribution of power. The State defines what constitutes "anarchist extremism"-- and so "anarchist extremism" will be whatever the State is threatened by. The State defines what terrorism is-- and so the State will arrest anyone they think is terrorizing them, among other things. Definitions are perverted: thats why Woodrow Wilson could enslave legions of young men to die in Europe with full support, while the pacifist Eugene Debs was thrown into prison despite the First Amendment. This is why the TSA can subject us to radiation, molest us, and, if we refuse, arrest us for obviously being terrorists, despite the Fourth Amendment. This is why President Obama can assassinate an American citizen despite... well, fuck the Constitution-- thats horrifying regardless of what any useless piece of paper says. This is why statism can kill over 200 million people in the 20th century, while the anarchist movement has killed just about nobody-- the only exception being President William McKinley-- a man who sent 5,000 American troops to kill and be killed to fight the Chinese-government approved Boxer Rebellion in order to safeguard the pseudo-free trade "Open Door Policy" for his mercantile interests, something that resulted in casualties numerous enough to have any private individual put to death for-- who was killed by an "anarchist" by the name of Leon Czolgosz in 1901... who was so ill-informed of anarchist thought that the anarchist press believed him to be a police spy, and warned everyone of such.
And the press had much reason to worry that there may be police informants, police officers had gone undercover as anarchists and started violence themselves. There was a strong belief among the working people of Chicago that it was a government agent that threw the bomb during the Haymarket riot. This was not peculiar to the late 1800s-- modern cops have engaged in the same thing... and thats just cops, to say nothing of false-flag attacks and state-manipulated coups.
To be fair, the anarchists have not been entirely innocent-- there has been violence. There has been injuries, there has been damaged property. But how does this match up to the destruction levied on the world by our supposed protectors? As Murray Rothbard put it in the article "Student Revolution:"
"Everyone gets excited over student disruptions, sit-ins, a few bread crumbs left in rooms, a few blades of grass trampled on; all this leads the general public to a frenzy of denunciation of the "violence" committed by the students. But where oh where is anything like the equivalent frenzy directed at the monstrous engines of violence, slavery, and mass murder against which the kids are directing their protests: the army, the draft, the war, the police? Why not try to tote up the balance sheet of violence committed by both sides and see what comes out?"
Is it sensible to worry about burning police cars and radicals in black attire when as soon as I wake up tomorrow morning and hop on Antiwar.com, I'll hear about another dozen people in North Waziristan indiscriminately bombed to smithereens? How many citizens have NATO troops taken out today? Or how about another botched drug raid? Why is it that at the end of the week there are horrifying lists of acts of police brutality, all in the span of a single week... and no such list exists for "anarchist extremism" in any respect.
In short: don't fall prey to "sensible" divisions of "non-criminal" and "criminal" anything, the language is always flimsy and the criterion always determined by another-- usually those on the tax-eating end of the existing power relations, such is the case of the FBI. They claim to reprimand any anarchist that breaks the law-- but whose law is he breaking? The law of the empowered class, the class that benefits from the parasitic law! It reminds me of a quote from Voltairine de Cleyre's classic "Anarchism and American Traditions," and I think it a perfect way to end this little note of mine:
"Anarchism says, Make no laws whatever concerning speech, and speech will be free; so soon as you make a declaration on paper that speech shall be free, you will have a hundred lawyers proving that "freedom does not mean abuse, nor liberty license"; and they will define and define freedom out of existence. Let the guarantee of free speech be in every man's determination to use it, and we shall have no need of paper declarations. On the other hand, so long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."
So, excuse me if I don't buy your reassurance, FBI, that my beliefs are "perfectly legal." They just aren't "dangerous" to you yet-- and I apologize for that, I'll be sure to work on it.
UPDATE 1 (12/4/10): State Department spokesman Crowley claims Julian Assange is an anarchist, and doesn't deserve the speech protection afforded to the press. So perfectly legal-- Assange has not called himself an anarchist-- though he most certainly is taking part in anarchist actions-- and those actions are terrifying the political classes.
-------------------
[1]Berkman, Alexander. Trial and Speeches, pg. 55
[2] The Immigration bill that the original Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 was amended into. This bill was not repealed until 1952.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Officer Safety at Any Cost
Naturally, with this widespread malaise of mind, the unfortunate (but ever so useful) belief that the public servant-- the Police Officer-- is the real first-class citizen, the boys in blue make his safety in every way imaginable more important than a whole junkyard full of "human garbage." All must make way for the stronger class of men, much like in the militarized despotism of Bismarck's Germany, where the common folk would have to walk in the gutters if a uniformed man also walked on the road. The guardian can never be at ease, so there are no time for manners or courtesy, for rapscallions await behind every door: whether it be the aggressively-sitting grandmother, the injured old man, the rude fellow, or the notorious ten-year old, the police officer must deal with all of these and more, at his expense, for the protection of you and me. And in a world of rapidly-changing technology and information, new threats appear every day-- and this time, the menace was BUBBLES.
Its likely that you've heard already about Officer Bubbles McButthurt, who (with the swift hand of justice) put a stop to the criminal activities of a bubble-blowing girl at the G20 protests-- perhaps another case of black police showing out for the white cop. It was not too long ago that Anarchy In Your Head ran the CRAP Campaign for a similar occurrence. A single fiber was threatened to be displaced, and Officer Bubbles McButthurt swung into action. Personally, I think it would have been more believable if McButthurt arrested the young lady on the grounds that only the central bank can create bubbles.But it doesn't have to be believable does it? Certainly no one will question the peace keeper, and the few who will never make a difference-- the privileged classes don't need to respond to criticism. And for some, that may be best-- for when the privileged do react, it usually entails violence. In this case, that reaction comes in the form of a lawsuit.
Apparently, officer safety is so sanctified that even a cop's reputation must be protected by force of law. Take no notice of the pile of personal rights violated by Officer Bubbles McButthurt and his ilk at G20 alone,[2] whats important is that authority is maintained and that the police are safe, cozy, and are in high esteem. Meanwhile, whilst our protectors are protecting themselves, there are neighborhoods in Oakland, places in Compton, no-go zones in Britain and France where Islamic thugs rule the roost, and anywhere else featuring powerful drug warlordism where cops are simply bought out and allowed to ignore the situation-- much to their profit and to their safety. This is because monopoly provision of security is not really interested in protecting the people from high-risk/low-profit scenarios (a lot of invasive, violent crimes, really), but instead with the low-risk/high-profit measure of pestering and bullying disarmed citizenry via parking tickets, charging for registration for whatever activity the individual wishes to perform or provide, harassing bums, and busting teenagers for small possession charges (and usually busting a cap in their pets, it seems).
The "War on Drugs" is a textbook example of just this: the State prohibits drugs, creating and perpetually fueling massive drug cartels-- which are too dangerous for the State to try and stop (assuming they want to stop them, which honestly doesn't seem to be the case if we were to consult people such as Kevin Carson, Gary Webb, or Alfred McCoy)-- and instead focus on ganging up on petty criminals, people who dare to decide for themselves what they consume, and the rest of the small time "criminals." It seems quite clear that illegal business controls America; casting a rather large doubt on whether or not the monopolized police actually protects anyone, since it ignores warlords and creates violent cartels, while paying the strictest attention to punishing peaceful citizens for going about their daily routines. It seems that aforementioned security it provided only goes to itself.
The average individual, or at the least the smart one, doesn't actually put their faith in the police to protect them from robbery or invasion. The intelligent individual purchases a gun, and installs a security system-- both courtesy of the private actions of individuals in the market. The official gang of the United States is quite aware of this-- which is why the State goons have done their best to arrest people who defend themselves and their families with guns and harass anyone who attempts to film them (this is pretty much the life story of Cop Block).
What is Law? In the absence of monopoly, in the absence of privilege, it is the carrying out of justice. It is the restoration of wrongfully inflicted losses. Under privilege, however, it is the infliction of losses on the many for the aggrandizement and benefit of the few. It is no longer the restoration of order and justice, but the destruction of and the creation of alienation towards social order. If you were to ask me what law was, then I would have no choice but to answer that THE LAW IS CRIMINAL. It doesn't matter that this trash man of justice, this Übermensch in blue, cannot even use the proper form of "you're."[3] What matters is that if you correct him, you'll be arrested for obstructing an officer in putting something deep on his Facebook. He's entitled to respect, you see, he's protecting us-- protecting us from our rights, but protecting us nonetheless.
---------------
[1] One odd thing I want to point out, that I think is really relevant, is the reversion of the phrase "I'm not your father." I've never before heard this used in a manner other than to express that "you aren't my business, your father can raise you"-- but here, the officer is making it clear that his authority naturally and unquestionably outranks that of the one who feeds, clothes, provides for, and in all honesty does more to protect the child than any policeman (especially this one). "If you give that attitude to me, I'll smack you upside your head."-- pure barbarism. Just as bad is the unhesitant willingness to threaten locking the young man up in Juvenile Hall, with no real pretense.
[2] Not all of the anarchists present are completely innocent, as some of these guys seem to enjoy breaking things. But mass, indiscriminate, violent arrests are still obviously unjust, for reasons we all know why. And if you don't know why, I'm really sorry to hear that.
[3] This isn't surprising though, considering that is known that the Police Force purposefully seeks out people with low, below-average IQ scores:
"Robert Jordan applied for a police job in New London and scored 33 on his qualification exam, equivalent to a 125 IQ. That's one standard deviation above the mean – smart, but no genius by any definition. The city refused to hire him, stating a preference for those who scored 27 or lower; the suggested median for a patrol officer was 21. New London's argument was that smart people would find police work boring, and leave the profession after receiving expensive training. Jordan sued for discrimination – and lost. The court ruled there's nothing discriminatory about a city's desire to ensure only C-students get to carry police badges."
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
In Regards to the South Fulton Fire Department
In regards to the authoritarian-left's pissing and moaning about the most recent pseudo-failure of Libertarianism, the refusal of the South Fulton Fire Department to put out the flames engulfing the home of Gene Cranick, I am entitled to call them out on their baloney. Not that I'm the first, or the best, but I enjoy my mouth more than I enjoy their's. I'll largely be assuming the reader knows some of the basic facts already, seeing as the story isn't that new, others have spoken about it already, and this is primarily a quick little note on the matter.
What far too few seem to recognize is that the fire department's ability to so easily deny service is a symptom of the government department's special, privileged bargaining power. Voluntary association didn't fail here, the public monopoly failed. Should the man have paid the fee if he wanted the protection? Yeah, perhaps-- the service costs money, etc. etc.But it doesn't change the fact that there was no incentive for the only fire department in the area to go the extra mile to save this man's home (an extra mile compensated by some extra dollars, which Cranick eagerly offered). By all means, an "on-the-spot" charge or "penalty rate" could have been easily configured in order to deter not purchasing the fire protection prior to the incident. If we were in a situation that allowed for the existence of multiple providers of fire protection, rather than a single government subsidized monopoly, then the homeowner would have at least had more options-- and not only that, but the various fire departments would have more incentive to put out the fire. Surely, there is some price in which a for-profit agency would eventually jump at the chance to put the fire out for them. Especially if they may lose that money to someone else... and not just the money, but the gain in reputation-- meaning more public confidence, meaning more $$$.
But this analysis can work again with non-monopolistic non-profit provisions of such public services. REAL COMMUNITY, VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. The "choice" of paying for fire protection is illusory in this condition, because the government restricted entry (and therefore choice). Voluntary non-profit organizations still must compete for donations and public support/reputation, and being voluntary community activists, existing on a small scale, they would be more likely to act compassionately than the disconnected members of the State monopoly. I mean, the monopoly fire department has no incentive to help anyone more than the populace's apathy allows. This person's house has been burnt down because the homeowner had no other options except hope for the benevolence of the person who took the call. Whatever happens as a result of this is simply a rearrangement of the existing, uneven conditions of exchange and provision, the statist quo will still be happily intact.
Could a case like Cranick's still feasibly occur in an unhampered market? Feasibly. But its very unlikely, especially once competition and free choice is entered into the equation. Not to mention that Cranick has claimed that he was led to believe that he didn't have to pay the fees beforehand ("I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick)-- whether or not this is true, in a competitive market, the existence of advertising would make such an excuse impossible.
And thats the heart of Libertarianism: free association, free choice, freedom of movement-- and the subsequent bearing of the consequences of those decisions. That is why I am so personally perplexed as to why Libertarianism is being blamed for this, and I can only imagine its because of the factor of payment. Cranick didn't pay the bill, he didn't get the service. But I (and others) have already illuminated as to why this is a bogus strawman against market provisions, as if there aren't costs to bear under the public, centralized, and coerced provision of goods. This strawman of the market as brutal Darwinism and shallow commodity fetishism seems to persist regardless of what anyone writes, corrects, or clarifies.
But these sorts of critics never seem to be willing to pit Reality against Reality, which would be a very exciting and worthwhile intellectual pursuit, but only a Strawman vs Nirvana. The implicit assumption throughout is that somehow monopolized fire protection services will put out all fires with as much grace and efficiency as a team of superheroes-- but they don't tell you what actually occurs, such as in Detroit, where almost every fire is allowed to annihilate every home, because it takes the Government-provided fire department over an hour to reach the destination. Why is it that the private pizza delivery service moves faster than the police, fire department, and other emergency services? The doomsayers of Libertarianism seem to forget that the fire department is state-run: just because you can choose to pay for its services doesn't mean it is somehow a market force.
Even marginally more free-market provisions of fire protection work out much better for the community than straight, uncompromising monopoly. Take, for instance, the Illinois district of Elk Grove. When Elk Grove was faced with a loss of coverage by the municipal fire department-- lo and behold that public compassion-- they formed their own private service. They quickly found empirically what most any economist and/or Libertarian knew theoretically: it was cheaper and more efficient to do it privately. As the provider explains:
"Our first-year contract was $300,000, and we were providing the same level of service the consultant said would cost $1 million," Jensen said. "We continue to provide service as good as that of our municipal neighbors, but because we are private, we can operate more efficiently. We save 30 to 40 percent over what a similar municipal department would cost to operate... We don’t pay the insane salaries that our municipal neighbors pay... Our benefits are more in line with traditional industry. We are non-union, which gives us a lot more flexibility in dealing with our employees. Salaries and benefits are the big savings, but we [also] have a shop where we can rebuild and refurbish fire apparatus for our own use... We save money in purchasing almost anything a fire department would use, just by shopping around. We’re very cost-conscious. We watch every penny we spend..."
And though this isn't necessarily the real market solution, for the private service is still paid for by the government and is the only institution that can provide the protection, it is far more market-oriented than the South Fulton fire department. And since the Elk Grove fire department is provided by the Elk Grove community, that aforementioned compassion is much more able to seep through than in any disconnected state instrument. And even in this situation, the market forces involved here have not condemned the poor to Hell, but has worked flexibly with lower income groups. From the link:
[P]rospective customers are sent a mailing that informs them they are not protected against fire damage—nor are their homes, property and belongings. They are told that the Southside Fire Department can provide them with the protection that they need—and at no net cost to them. In fact, they are told, by subscribing to SSFD for fire protection, they will actually save money, because the savings on insurance that they will realize from doing so will far outweigh the company’s charge for service. The subscription rate varies depending on the value of the house.
The rate of the fire service relies directly on the value of the home the buyer possesses, and the total cost of the fire service subscription will be saved in homeowners or renters insurance, offering a lot of savings for anyone looking for fire insurance, whether they are renting or owning the protected property.
It seems very obvious that the more market you allow, the better things get. Not the opposite. Perhaps one day I will work on a longer explanation of the provision of fire protection and other emergency public goods. But this is fine for now. The people arguing for a universal application of compulsory legislation and provisions need to remember the outstanding work of (or, more likely, finally become acquainted with) Alexis de Tocqueville. It was once the American virtue that the Americans possessed "the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it."[1] It was once the American instinct to turn to Social Power in "associations of a thousand other kinds,-- religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive or restrictive, enormous or diminutive. The Americans would make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools."[2] How far gone is the American spirit if at the very sight of an individual tragedy, the popular circles immediately clamor for the eternal damnation of (usually imagined) individual enterprise and the forceful, top-down implementation of State Power? The people calling for that expansion may not be malicious in their intent, but the practice they are advocating is indeed harboring a kind of malice and condescension.
So remember, when you see Keith Olbermann, acting like the usual pompous social critic-- like some sort of embarrassing pro-state Mencken-wannabe[3], spouting off about the evils of money, remember the real argument, and the real proposed action against this fiasco-- it isn't about the elimination of payment-- but the coercive requirement of payment to a single provider.
[1] Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, Volume II. Second Book, Chapter V, "Of the use which the Americans make of public associations in civil life." Trans. Henry Reeve. Schocken Books, USA, 1961. pg. 129. Print.
[2] Ibid., pg. 128.
[3] It may be a good thing that my blog is new and ignored, because I feel that if Olbermann were to respond, he'd likely neglect the point completely in order to link me to Mencken's politically incorrect beliefs about women, Jewish people, and other ethnic groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)