Skip to main content

A Democratic Pursuit of Anarchy

Addressing the juxtaposition of majoritarianism and horizontalism as natures of democracy, I think they are both accurate and both end up describing what's wrong with democracy as practiced. That is, systems only democratic in their vote-based system of government. Elections feel fair to us in a very simplistic way. There's nothing essentially just about making decisions about how people live by vote other than the one vote per person part of it. If we vote on how you ought to wear your hair, it doesn't change the fact that it's an intrusion (or invasion to use Benjamin Tucker's terminology). In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick creates an interesting analogy for society with a joint-stock company where we all own a share in one another that forces the reader to face what it means to vote on the decisions that shape someone else's life.

Democracy, when indicating "shared power" exerted directly without State interference, is synonymous with anarchism. When the people are allowed to rule themselves in this way, they learn will learn the value of liberty and the truest form of Self-Government. That's what I see as the true American Dream.

When "democracy" instead is indirect, perhaps in a popularity contest where we determine who wins the right to play the roles of representative and ruler, it's a very poor example of "rule of the people". With voting, we simply play a game every once in a while to choose which kids get to set the rules on the playground and which ones get to enforce those rules. The best part is the lead enforcers pick a very special few kids who get to do to decide what the rules actually mean, and that select few gets to do that for life.

Don't forget, all of these rules were made up by a few guys who took over an interstate trade convention of our initial Confederation. Rather than consensually coordinate trade, which they knew would erode all of their economic privileges, they came back with a proposal to implement a National government over all of the States of that Confederation (co-equal by their language, but with unelected Federal Supremacy in the courts, of course). 

But I digress.

As I once semi-plaigerized on the my English teacher's wall (apologies to Alan Moore), "words are the means to meaning." They're the operating system of the internal monologue that makes us human. Those words evolve with us, and through the propaganda of their use, we get to define them and redefine them. I think human history reveals a beautiful story of how we have used language to redefine ourselves.

I think the old Republic died with the Articles. Its spirit lives on, but when we traded the Confederal requisition system for a system of Federal taxation, our States were no longer truly free. Yet, we are still blessed to have the Revolutionary War in our heritage. We rid ourselves of Arbitrary Rule once, and I have faith that we will do it again.

While we must defend ourselves via the ballot, because it does exist, the greatest efforts for freedom will lie in giving ourselves the ability to dissolve the State into the economic organism and the self-assembled social relationships of production. This is impossible as long as the State keeps the economic organism in its control. Its prerogative to define our means of exchange, enforce rights over what is and can be exchanged, give only a privileged few the right to issue that currency, and then tax us in that means for the right to produce has us hopelessly ensnared beyond the wildest dreams of the men who once rebelled against Ole George.

I'm inclined to agree with the idea of Exodus. I don't think the State will lose a direct fight. It was created to be the most efficient fighting force. The British Empire lost America because it wasn't worth enforcing their formerly assumed rights, and they couldn't eradicate a guerilla population effectively.

I think that is what the path to anarchy will look like. More and more people will choose to give to Caesar what is truly Caesar's - nothing. If Caesar protests, he will find himself with nothing at his disposal but his complete personal freedom.


Popular posts from this blog

The man who walks lightly

The man who walks lightly is the one living for Virtue. He perceives the difficulty in his path, so he moves to his destination with ease. He produces ten thousand things, but he owns very little. He would rather yield a foot for what is right, than gain an inch by the wrong means. He never takes offense, but defends swiftly and surely. He requests his needs from others, served by many while commanding none. He is seen as a leader, because others follow his example.

Free Land, or the ideal mean for a Location Value funded Citizen's Dividend

If we want to liberate ourselves from one another, we can buy into the idea that we can more effectively share this planet. We can do so for the purposes of maximizing human autonomy and the experience of equal liberty for every citizen of the Earth, through each of their local communities. We have the means today to voluntarily buy into a federation of neighborhood scale land trusts with a global reach. Existentially, our birthrights are the greatest lottery of all of history. We can make that a game with winning odds for everyone. The desire to be free, to choose to live how we each wish to live, is strongly felt within each of us. But those who experience it most, unfortunately, value it least. They become so accustomed to protecting or jealously expanding their own experience of it that they have created a system of enforcing their own privileges at the cost of others. I believe all people ought to choose whosoever's service they wish to enter, but I do not believe any of

An Unapologetic Paraphrasing of Bastiat's Apology for Landed Property

This is my admittedly snarky paraphrasing of Bastiat's rambling apology on Landed Property in his Economic Harmonies . I think by translating the verbiage into modern terms, which I couldn't help but do so with a pinch of sarcasm, it becomes clear he didn't prove much of anything at all. Instead, a reader feels underwhelmed by its points and overwhelmed by the verbosity of his rather banal parables. Even though he shows what actually causes land to increase in value when he describes the improvements of a city/town growing around land, he insists that all the gained value obtained by landlords by that mechanism is actually just the fruits of their past labors, ignoring his own supposition that value comes from the service provided, in the case of Land, by a better site to occupy, not labor. If it pleases you, enjoy the following: The economists of all sorts say that landlord's charge rent for value they did not create. Most say it is unjust, but some begrudgingly ad