Responding to angst and anarcholibertarians

dr. elsewhere here, again.
Comments on my second angst piece were fascinating for their division into at least two distinct camps, camps reflected in the piece itself, though clearly not articulated well. I resist setting up divisions that way, as folks tend to do that freely without any assist. Furthermore, as per Hume’s dictum (“If you can name it, you can divide it), there’s always a way to split a concept, so any division – be it male/female, old /young, Republicans/Democrats, Christians/heathens, Muslims/infidels – can easily be supplanted by another for whatever purposes, good or ill.

To those of you who seemed to be reflecting from a similar angle as I was targeting, I thank you for your kind, supporting, and ever-insightful words. Though it is always good to learn of kindred spirits, it is also good to learn that one is not merely preaching to the choir.

One ultimately dissenting (though apparently confused) comment presumed that my position was “anarcholibertarian,” which could not be further from the truth. The long quote m.jed shared proceeded to spill abundant contradictions and counter-positions to my own, so it may be that m.jed did not read my words too carefully, or that I did not present them carefully enough. Either way, his (I’m assuming) raising the issue of anarcholibertarianism, and his inclusion of that long quote, made me realize that those sentiments have a real and powerful following within our borders (I choose that image intentionally), and that certain elements of that philosophy have had a disturbing influence on the American zeitgeist in recent decades. I would therefore like to respond directly to that long, anarcholibertarian quote m.jed shared, and attempt to more precisely frame my position, with respect to both the libertarian notions and the persistence in framing our current situation in repub/dem, conservative/liberal, right/wrong dynamics. It is my opinion that all these dichotomies, as well as the others listed in my first paragraph, miss the mark by miles, and in so doing dangerously risk a perpetuation of our ills rather than a transcendence of them.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

First, here is the long quote submitted by m.jed, from http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3564:

What egalitarianism attempts to do is remove social tensions, the very source of societal dynamism, in order to create a society where all will be equal in every conceivable way.

From that ideology comes the theory and concept of "social justice". It is a theory that believes desired outcomes can be implemented through government which [sic] will ultimately reshape human nature.

Thus the belief that since a "right" to home ownership, "living" wages, "free" education and health care and a certain level of retirement are desireable [sic], society (and thus human nature) should be reshaped to achive [sic] those desires since all will be better off for that. These are things to which we're all entitled, whether we earn them or not, so the group, as a whole, is better off, even if certain segments and individuals in the group aren't.

To be implemented, social justice requires the acceptance that, in the name of equality, somebody should have the power to determine what to take away from you in order to give it to others who receive it without any obligation to earn it. The natural inequalities of nature require this unnatural solution to create the leveling required by the ideology. It cannot happen any other way. Without some measure of totalitarianism (or authoritarianism if you prefer), social justice is unachievable.

Point one, the aim of egalitarianism is NOT to ease social tensions, although it is a predicted and desirable outcome. On the other hand, to see such tensions as essential for societal dynamism overlooks other, less destructive sources of dynamism, and presumes that the absence of these particular tensions leads to stagnation, both patently absurd notions. Just as importantly, though, both the presumption and the aim of the notion of equality – as expressed in both our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, just as examples – are social justice. The quoted libertarian position is a crude distortion of the philosophical process that supports the assertion and ideal of human equality, a philosophy dating back to at least the early Greeks. The stated libertarian position situates social justice as some afterthought, like so much ideological fallout, when it is, in fact, the original motivation and point of egalitarianism. Moreover, notions of human equality – which the founders of our democracy posited as a “self-evident” truth – waste no time whatsoever with the absurd idea that “all will be equal in every conceivable way,” as the libertarian author is quoted to say. Nor do the founders’ notions presume that government can reshape human nature in an attempt to force a “desired outcome” of equality. On this latter point, because that equality is a “self-evident” truth, it is the starting point of their philosophy and cannot also be a desired outcome; it just is, and is not even questioned or even anticipated as a future potential, desired or not. Any “outcome” would simply be that this self-evident truth be preserved in the assurance of equal social justice for all beings. The point regarding reshaping human nature to a desired outcome will be taken up directly.

The quoted libertarian, and most of those I have ever encountered, completely misconstrue the founders’ intention of equality. There is nowhere in our founding documents a goal of rendering everyone equal, as in identical with no differences, but instead an understanding that every human should have equal standing in the face of the law, and that laws as agreed upon by the majority or more of a people would thereby prevail over the inherent differences between humans – be these of religion or wealth or lineage or station (and, by extrapolation many years thereafter, by race or gender, and hopefully some day by sexual orientation) – thus maintaining their equal value under the law. In fact, it’s entirely possible, even preferable, for individuals to celebrate their differences at the same time they celebrate their equality under law. This is a point I think the anarcholibertarian credo misses completely, which is all the more telling given how selective they are in bringing up these inherent differences; we don’t see them championing ANYTHING in the name of diversity, mind you. Instead, the bulk of libertarian arguments relying on notions of differences focus on the differences in earning power, which always overlook the many ways in which those differences expose the failures of social justice and our self-evident truth of equality before the law. Their arguments thereby serve the selfish agenda of preserving their hard-earned, riches with a thinly veiled contempt for those they see as parasites, but without so much as a hint of awareness of the possibility that these “parasites” might resent the riches “earned” from the breaking of their hard-working backs.

This notion of entitlement is the second point addressed in the long quote, where the author finds objectionable the notion that anyone should expect such basic survival needs as shelter, health care, education, and a living wage, if a person does not earn them. What child has “earned” an education, such that any fellow human could grant or deny it, other than simply existing? The same question can be asked of health or shelter. The libertarian’s open disdain for granting even the most basic needs to our fellow citizens is a sentiment that the far right has capitalized upon, but one that embodies a blatant contradiction. Nowhere is there a more emphatic insistence on entitlements than in the libertarian rant. They demand “their” possessions, which include resources commonly regarded as the “commonwealth” (such as water; would they own the air we breathe?), while rejecting even the kindergartener’s sense of sharing and refusing to consider the far-sighted importance of responsibilities that must accompany any rights. Entitlement, indeed!

The libertarian fears that “someone” will decide to take his toys away, while simultaneously complaining that someone else who did not “earn” them will benefit. But the libertarian never grasps the fact that the “someone” who agrees to rules of equality under law and “promoting the general welfare” (Preamble to the US Constitution, in case that’s forgotten), this government, is none other than We, the people. We, the people, decide what the rules will be. We, the people, will decide what the consequences will be for infringements. True to their infantile insistence on getting everything they want, when they want it, as if they earned every penny without so much as a hint of exploited social inequalities, they see big bad government instead as that inconvenient and mean old daddy who persists in placing limits on their childish hording.

Third, it seems almost silly to respond to the quoted notion that the theory of social justice (as opposed to a self-evident truth) believes that government can “shape human behavior toward desired outcomes.” Well, of course it does; why would any American deny that? Two simple points: One, rules – explicit or implicit – exist for that express purpose, to shape human behavior toward desired outcomes. Explicit traffic rules exist to reduce collisions. Implicit conversation rules exist so everyone can talk but not all at once, so they can be heard (clearly libertarians dominate the airwaves!). Arguing in disdain against the egalitarian position, the libertarian author takes the twisted tack of social Darwinism that only the fittest are the survivors, the rest be damned because damned is what they are.

The fact is, rules emerge spontaneously throughout all levels of nature, all the way from laws of gravity and electromagnetic forces to social contracts and traffic laws. It is the balance against chaos, which anarchists prefer to rules, but I’ll let them drive in Bombay and see if that makes them feel more liberated. Because anarcholibertarians seem to have such a radical reaction to any rules limiting their “free” range individualism, one cannot help but suspect they have the same reaction to responsibilities and consequences placed on their behavior. Again, this position fits the infantile mentality that drives it; “you’re not the boss of me!” Theirs is not only a decidedly undemocratic and unchristian self-service, it is a bone-chilling nihilism, which is precisely what I felt throughout the drudgery of forcing myself to read Ayn Rand. While championing their “success” in conquering nature “red in tooth and claw,” they expose their veins as void of blood, their hearts empty of humanity.

Fourth, like all radical ideologies, anarcholibertarianism suffers from vacuous arguments based on weak premises that are easily proven wrong, at which point the entire house of cards tumbles. The complaint that social justice requires “somebody” to “have the power to determine what to take away [their toys]” fails for the reasons noted above, but additionally because the same question must also be applied to their own theory. Who decides what “earn” means, or what behavior will be allowed in a society? Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that our libertarian, while driving like a bat outa hell in Bombay, runs over a poor native man, killing him and leaving an ailing widow with four small children and no other means of support. The extreme anarcholibertarian view would say, tough; the wretched are wretched, the rest of us are not, so this is where the chips have fallen. But most reasonable folks, even reasonable anarcholibertarians, would say well, clearly there must be some laws, like traffic laws and consequences for breaking them, and so situations like this one would be covered. Maybe not in Bombay, but certainly in more civilized countries, like America. But (even ignoring the fact that the rules do not always work in America) if they allow for some laws, and not for others, where is that line drawn? And who is that somebody who decides where it is drawn? And who decides who will decide? And so on.

So clearly, only the radical extreme version of anarcholibertarianism differs in any significant way from the rest of us who recognize that we do need some rules and consequences for breaking them, and gosh I suppose that means we’ll have to have folks who decide those rules and what to do about them, and so on. Except for those who insist that the reckless driver of that car is free to make the decision that he was responsible, and therefore should of his own free will take it upon himself to care for his victim’s family and their needs. Now, why would he do this? If the answer even leans in the general direction of a moral reasoning, because it is the right thing to do, then the anarcholibertarian argument again fails because this intuitive understanding of what is the right thing to do, this instinct toward a moral response, is in itself an implicit rule, one that exists in every society and culture on the planet throughout history. The fact that there is a moral code puts the final nail in the anarcholibertarian coffin; to beg that argument makes their entire enterprise an oxymoron.

Fifth, the social justice “beliefs” listed in the quote are not only untrue as presented, they all hinge on money and resources, thereby exposing the libertarian’s breathtaking selfishness, as well as a profound lack of foresight and depth, not to mention ignorance of the Constitution. That document announced not only the intent to form “a more perfect union” (can this be interpreted in any other way as a “desired outcome?”), but the responsibility “to promote the general welfare” (can this be understood in any other way than to promote the general welfare??). These determinations were extremely liberal for their time, but they also expressed the moral assumption that found such eloquent expression in the Enlightenment, though it is embedded in the Classics. The listing of these “rights” – to living wages, free education and health care, and home ownership – as if anyone should dare to require such basics of life, frankly took my breath away. The only alternative to these basic rights is that the wretched (one presumes) must remain beholden to the blessed (one presumes) for a roof, a doctor, an education, and a living wage, while the blessed are free to exploit the work of the wretched for their own gain. Pretty picture. And all without obligation to anyone or anything, not even that implicit social contract. The most brazen absurdity in this position is that it completely misses the irony that, while whining about the demand for these basic rights of food and health and shelter as “entitlements,” they are demanding their right to exploit the less fortunate with impunity, and the right to ravage their way to the top with complete disregard for whomever and whatever might be destroyed in the process. Again; entitlement, indeed. There is never even the first thought of “consent” from those at the brunt end of their “liberties,” let alone the immediate consequences, or even the generational future. And the insistence that all recipients of benefits must “earn” them is beyond laughable. Aside from wondering again just who decides how much one must do to earn a roof or an education or a living, one cannot help but wonder if the anarcholibertarian “earned” his wealthy parents, or her quick wit, or his fine intellect, or her beauty, or his lineage, or her social charms, or his or her gender. Most folks have little control over whether or not they come equipped with these gifts, so how do we parse out who is really “earning” anything that is not advanced by such talents? And how do we condemn those who not only missed out on these advantages, but suffer all manner of handicaps? There can only be a moral response to this question, and it must be taken as a social contract invested in social justice. Anything less is intentional social injustice. This point was so richly implicit in Havel’s solution as to be self-evident; I am so sorry that m.jed missed it.

The final paragraph of this quote again follows the hollow logic of assuming errors, as listed above, but it also hobbles toward the absurd conclusion that social justice is only achievable through some measure of totalitarianism. How does one address a conclusion that is a contradiction in terms? Social justice exists only within a totalitarianism?? In addition to concluding an oxymoron, this extreme interpretation of the case again reduces our options to the extremes; either we have individual freedom without social justice (because, gosh, life is not fair), or we have social justice only under an authoritarian government, in which case some segments of the population (presumably the rich) will not be “better off.” Better off than what, than they were before the government (we, the people) taxed their millions at 45%, leaving them with only less millions? Better off than their neighbors? Better off than the Joneses? They should keep their “better off” while the other segments of the population go without their “better off” of basic survival needs? My heart bleeds peanut butter.

The truth of their complaints is that they’re not happy unless they are allowed to decide where their money goes or doesn’t, or what they do or don’t do with “their” property. Ironic in the face of their stated abhorrence of “authoritarianism,” this smacks of a demand to be themselves the authority, the “somebody” that makes these decisions. Because of course the wretched masses should not be allowed to decide what to do with “their” property. Authority is fine as long as it’s theirs; rules are fine as long as they make them. An observation that should, of course, be applied to the wretched masses, as well, but there are differences in the outcomes. When the masses make the rules, those rules apply to the wretched and the blessed alike; when the libertarian makes the rules, they only apply to the wretched to keep their own situation secure and to keep the wretched wretched (any “charity” from this station is only patronizing, by definition; “Where there is justice, there is no need for charity”). Or better stated, they only benefit the blessed. Also, the blessed tend to be a minority, even when we let LaHore fix the calculations. And the wretched tend to be the majority. But in a democracy, as per the very basic notion of a social contract, the majority does rule, not the self-appointed aristocracy.

It is this general presumption – no matter who posits or lives by it – that certain folks, by luck of birth, have the right to exploit others with only bad luck their whole damn lives that truly turns my stomach. It is this fundamentally infantile, astonishingly amoral, and increasingly pervasive attitude in our country that frightens me. It is this ironically authoritarian paternalism of the unenlightened and dominating alpha male, the slave master, that alerts me to the very real dangers we face. It is this extension of “might makes right” and “greed is good” that just leaves me thoroughly dumbfounded that these folks can actually survive in this world, let alone prevail in it. But then I see the state of this world, and their sentiments explain just about everything.

So, no, my position was the furthest thing from anarcholibertarianism that you can get. My position is based on the fundamental premise of the Declaration of Independence, which the libertarian philosophy so utterly distorts as to render them fully un-American, not to mention arguably unchristian. And my position did not encourage government in the abstract to be rendered irrelevant or “quaint,” nor was this the position of our founders or Gandhi or Havel. Each of their situations was expressing a revolt against the governments that were oppressing them, that were violating their basic and self-evident rights to simply survive. Anarcholibertarians, as far as I can tell, spend the bulk of their time demanding their right to thrive, even if it means death – or worse – to the wretched.

My position instead stems only from the observation that we are in a heckuva mess, and it’s not likely we’re going to get out of this easily. Who knows how bad it will get, but let’s assume – as I suggested – that it will get bad, very very bad, and in far more ways than just economical, though that is certainly key to the mix. We may find ourselves oppressed by fascism or feudalism, or fundamentalist fascist feudalism, or even worse versions of these than we already suffer. Even worse than these, we will likely find ourselves at the mercy of nature’s rejection of all the ways we have brutalized her bounty. It could be some combo of both nature and politics, and likely will be. I honestly don’t have much hope that even an economic recovery implemented by the Democratic Party will save us from the worst of the fates that await us, nor do I really have any hope that they can or will do that anyway. The problems of corruption and exploitation have become just so much larger than what one party can do to correct them; it’s going to take local community actions toward recovering both rights and resources.

My position was not intended to suggest that “acting locally, thinking globally” was the answer, nor that my position would protect us, either from Republicans or fascists or the planet’s recovering herself. My position of taking back control of our basic needs for survival at the local level was intended as a coping mechanism for any and all these possible futures. And when it comes down to that crucial survival edge, none of us will be wondering about why the Democrats let our democracy get stolen, or how the Republicans became so corrupt, or why no one heeded the writing on the wall from all the history within our lifetimes and all the science at our disposal. We won’t be blaming the repugs or the Southerners or the fundamentalists or even the terrorists or Bush. Not if we have any sense, as we won’t have time; we’ll be too busy just trying to survive.

And in that bare, raw moment of survival, not just of individuals but of the species, when most animals including humans become beasts, I am hoping that some of us remember what is truly of importance, even beyond food and clean water and shelter, even beyond life itself. I am hoping that some of us remember that the moral impulse is designed to preserve the species if not the individual, and may be our only prayer for surviving our fate, a fate we – as fierce individualists – have blindly crafted for ourselves and a progeny that may never happen. If enough us are to remember what things we truly hold as important, if we are to heed the moral impulse, then it would seem wise to throw ourselves full-throated into discussion at that level, a level the Republicans have co-opted as farce but that is easily elevated to its proper heights by anyone who cares, Democrats and Republicans alike. There is profound reason to fear that more than our survival is at stake.