Be sure to see Murray Rothbard’s piece up this morning on LRC: Sell Out and Die. He argues that compromising principle is ultimately self defeating for any ideological movement. It causes the movement to be absorbed into the regime and lose the edge that is necessary for bringing about real change. It originally ran in a publication called CADRE which probably had a circulation of half a dozen. In any case, now it is available for all.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3871/sell-out-and-die/
Sell out and die
Previous post: Nixonian Socialism
{ 7 comments }
The alternative, then, is to “hold out” (don’t budge from paleolibertarianism) and what? I haven’t noticed that uncompromising anarcho-capitalists have much influence on public policy, whereas practical free-marketers have had influence (e.g., the deregulation movement). What’s the point of holding out if the result is nothing?
I have been a faithful reader of LRC for some time now. I relate all the principles to my wife, and she, being an intelligent and practical woman, questions me about all the difficulties involved in getting to an ideal state-less situation. “If there is no state, what takes it’s place? Who owns the roads? Do the private courts and security agencies develop before or after the state is dissolved? How could the state be dissolved? Who could do it? Do we simply empty the prisons? If not, who takes custody? If we dissolve the state, what happens until the necessary private organizations resolve all these questions?” Etc., etc.
We complain about the Bush administration not having an exit strategy for the War in Iraq. Do we have an exit strategy for the federal government? Who could do it: a president? SCOTUS? Congress? The states? Of these four, it seems to me only the states themselves could dissolve the federal government. But would they? After all, they are STATES. Would they dissolve themselves at the same time? If not the states, do we wait for a political uprising? That generally does not happen until things become unbearable, and people seem to have the capacity for a great deal of pain before they are ready to exchange the known for the unknown.
I am not arguing against the principles, or for a regime libertarianism. I am sincerely appreciative of the article today by Murray Rothbard, “Sell Out and Die”, where he describes the long-term strategy: the development of a cadre and the formation of single-issue coalitions. Is there a cadre? Who is in it? Are there coalitions? What are they? Is there any indication that this strategy is getting us closer to the goal? Am I doing all I can to help?
I was reading the document of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council (1962-65) over the weekend, the one about freedom of conscience known by the Latin name “Dignitatis Humanae” (Human Dignity). Article 2 says this:
“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”
“The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.”
If you drop that last qualifying phrase “within due limits” from the first paragraph, you have a statement entirely in agreement with the basic principles of libertarianism. I would wager that the phrase was inserted to calm the nerves of those who were upset by the strength of the rest of the paragraph, since without the qualification it could be argued that the Church council was advocating the overthrow of the status quo with regard to all existing states. And what does the qualification “within due limits” really mean in the minds of the council fathers? The very last phrase in Article 2 clarifies its meaning: “provided that just public order be observed”. In other words, the council fathers were only voicing one of the persistent concerns regarding libertarianism: that chaos in society not be the result of the relaxation of coercion. The council was thus balancing the human right for a government that was not coercive when it came to matters of conscience (and what does that not touch?), with the need for peace within society. Does any libertarian deny the need for police and courts within a free society, that is, for some degree of coercion as a proper and just response to violence? Neither do the bishops.
So again, the question: what is our exit strategy from coercive government? We cannot continue to speak of the dissolution of states without describing the creation of organizations within society that will continue to ensure that chaos will not result.
What forces are we up against? Inertia, fear, and, perhaps most deadly of all, laziness. After all, it is so much easier to have the state do everything for me. (Save for retirement? Don’t know how; better have the state take a big chunk of my earnings so it can give it back to me later. Besides, I can’t be trusted to save. I’ll just fritter it away on essentials like food and cigarettes and lottery tickets.)
The argument for “no state” makes no sense to me. What I want is a government without coercion, except as a measured response to violence. That can only happen if government is voluntary, non-coercive, non-monopolistic. This simply requires (if only the realization was so simple) that government at every level allow secession. Then, those who like the current situation (they are legion) can have it their way, and those who do not can live according to their consciences. I don’t demand that all must live responsibly, but only that I may.
Looked at this way, what we are seeking is a civil right. We demand the right to secede from every government, without the requirement that we move from the territory that the government claims exclusive control over. I am demanding the right to choose my government, and not have a government that chooses me.
I don’t mind if some choose to attach Iraq, as long as my taxes are not supporting the effort. I don’t mind if abortion is the “law of the land”, as long as my taxes are not facilitating it. Let every man choose according to his conscience. Is that too much to ask.
It is not by any means clear that being ‘uncompromising’ is the best strategy for all issues, but some compromises are like a ‘cure that is worse than the disease’, for example, do we really want the political processes involved in the buying and selling of securities AKA social security privatization? Wouldnt most private property then become public property? I dont think there is an easy black/white solution to these problems.
If I may… Mr. Johnson, it really isn’t a matter of the Bush administration “not having an exit plan”, the simple fact is they don’t want to leave, EVER. They never planned to leave. “Not having an exit plan” is a result, not a cause.
A way to answer your wife on these things is to ask her to think about what people did before government did these things. Individuals built roads, individuals built warships (well, let’s say “armed merchantmen”), individual kings raised the money to supply their own armies, Lysander Spooner ran a better post office than the USPS which led directly to the USPS being granted a legal monopoly on 1st class mail, etc etc etc. I can suggest the book, _How Capitalism Saved America_ by the Mises.org’s own Thomas DiLorenzo as excellent discussion on the subject.
Mr. Conti, there is a substantial difference between physical compromise and “compromising principle”. For example, if someone runs a red-light, I will do what I can to let them proceed through the intersection even though I have the right of way. That is physical compromise, and each of us does it every day in ever interaction with others that we have.
To compromise principle is entirely different. Only a fool will refuse to vote in favor of a tax decrease *merely because* it is still a tax. The principle is firm, to reduce (hopefully eliminate) taxation.
That is not to say that the libertarians do not have their fair share of extremists who will tolerate nothing less than instant abolition of all coercive government. Many more would accept such a result if it came up, because they agree with it in principle, but are willing to work for the non-state as quickly as possible but no quicker.
I hope my limited words help resolve any misunderstandings.
These are some excellent comments on a difficult issue.
Dwight Johnson asks the question “What forces are we up against?” and answers “Inertia, fear, and, perhaps most deadly of all, laziness.” I have a different take on the fundamental forces at play. The most insurmountable force which we are up against is our informational disadvantage. As long as the State can control the way that history is taught and lord over the media to the degree that it does, it will always skew the attitudes of the masses in the direction of state-worship. Another critical but latent force that is working against us is age; revolutions are carried out by the young, not by the massive bulge of aging baby boomers who will see to it that, among other things, their social security and medicare will not be cut.
Unfortunately, the only way that the inertia will be overcome is if it is forced to happen due to desperate circumstances.
The average American has his head down, shoulder-to-grindstone 50-60 hours per week, and has neither the time or inclination to reflect that the primary reason he has to work so hard just to keep up is the Great Social Overhead. He has neither the time, nor any other resources available to think about how, if this Overhead was reduced or removed, he or she would be free to make a life which had not been denuded of deeper meaning.
Dwight, thank you for your excellent comments. I have some responses to your questions.
Excellent point. No one wants chaos except those that profit from it (i.e., governments and terrorists). But much of what we seek already exists outside of government control, even if said control is officially paid lip service.
It is incumbent upon each of us, in our own capacities and interests, to prepare the way for the stateless/voluntary society. We can do this by questioning governmental authority in our own realms of expertise and setting up businesses and organizations that operate without government patronage, thereby strengthening civil society. Should a government fall, families, businesses and civil organizations should be able to pick up the slack.
I think the most important preparation of all, though, is to be unafraid of change.
I’d say the second one is the most deadly. Fear is what allows governments to make the people dance to its tune. Fear is perhaps the strongest human emotion, and it makes us vulnerable to anyone who would allay that fear. Perhaps that’s the most potent argument against simply shooting the bastards: one would add to the chaos that allows governments to increase their power.
You don’t want much, do you?
It seems like what you are describing is a polycentric legal order, and such order can be established by civil institutions that operate independently of any coercion, such as insurance companies, arbitration courts, and private security firms. All of these things exist now, and the use of them is not necessarily restricted to the wealthy. An orderly, stateless society is attainable if we want it.
Comments on this entry are closed.