Stefan Molyneux has come to my attention as a prolific expounder on anarchy. Although this is 2 hours long, it is a wide ranging question/answer in relation to anarchy in action, as opposed to liberal socialism. He has a splendid insight as to how small free states become huge oppressive states, among many other good points. Although I can agree with most of what he says, I see a couple of problems with his interpretation.
1. Defining family as a coercive institution. I think this is an error, it is hierarchical, but it is also a unique institution, so the tag does not quite fit. One clear distinction is families involved obligations, whereas markets involve debts. If a friend or relative invites me to dinner, I should at some point reciprocate. If I order a meal in a restaurant, I must cancel the debt by paying. Families are voluntary institutions, where we learn about anarchy. It is a basis for training to function in the market.
2. Towards the end, he talks about raising kids without violence, as a solution to getting to where anarchy is widely accepted. That is classic anarchist thinking, that be raising children differently we can have a better society. The fatal flaw is any system that requires people be different than they really are will fail. To my mind we do not need people to change to achieve anarchy, we simply need not give our power to others.
I know people who have raised kids "sparing the rod" and producing lovely results. Good work. But I also know kids need to learn "no" and "come here" if nothing else for safety's sake. It may take a well-timed swat to keep a kid safe, as paradoxical as that sounds. A teenager or a grammar school kid who still needs a whipping is more a question of parenting than the kid.
Molyneux points out that kids who learn to obey violence in the family expect it from the state. I don't think so. I think most people sense the difference. What does happen is way too many people see the state as mommy and daddy, sometimes running to mommy (the democrats) when in trouble, and sometimes to daddy (the republicans.) I think they have the same problem as Molyneux, failing to see the difference between the family and the state.
3. Anarchists and libertarians widely subscribe to the theory that private police forces will be necessary and sufficient to maintain law and order. Yes, 2/3rds of uniformed policing in USA is in private hands, but I think the critics' complaint that any organized armed group will eventually introduce tyranny is perspicacious. And as 1 Samuel 8 points out, kings, that to which anarchists object, is what we got when the Israelis asked God for a king to fight their battles for them. The solution advocated by libertarians and Molyneux is precisely the punishment for asking for kings. No, in anarchy the cop is you, and no one else.
4. He mentioned progress, and that it sticks, for example, no politician calls for slavery, which 100 years ago was not unheard of. I do not think there is progress, because we already have all of the elements we need for a peaceful, prosperous, just society. It is a matter of sliding over away from force and fraud, and to freedom.
He asks if anyone can imagine blacks returning to the fields as slaves in USA today? Well, no, only because capitalism has figured out how to monetize people down through their descendants.
All slavery is abominable. Private slavery is what we had until 1865, when it was replaced with state slavery in the US Constitution. All slavery is abominable, but let's compare private slavery, which is outlawed, and state slavery, which is legal in the US Constitution. I am familiar with slavery inasmuch as my great grandparents were slavers, and have the paperwork to show for it. Here on Christmas Eve 1857 my family sells some slaves at auction. No doubt they needed some Christmas money.
In private slavery, slaves had to be bought and sold. To abuse them too much would lead to financial loss. To allow them to use their creativity was to make for private gain. All slavery is abominable, but some slaveholders incentivized their slaves to maximize their own wealth.
After the US Congress legalized slavery, the state never had to buy slaves, so state slaves were commonly worked to death, as in the Patchman farm, which operates to this day in Mississippi. the 13th amendment is no oddity, it was and is an actively employed provision in the constitution.
Private slaves had 3/5ths of a vote, which was very valuable to slaveholders, whereas state slaves, as felons, are not allowed to vote.
Slaves cease to be of economic value if you sell them or they die as private property, or are worked to death as state property.
Now all slavery is abominable, but at some point the value of any slave is relatively minimal if you can figure out a way to monetize the lives of the descendants of those targeted for slavery.
And with capitalism, with fiat credit to lend, and usury to keep it an ever-growing burden, the state can monetize the lives of future generations. Slavery is not gone now because of any Christian scruples, slavery is gone because capitalism found a better way for ever fewer people to exploit the most out of the most. Who wants to mess around with slavery when there is capitalism? Who wants to bother exploiting a few when you can enslave generations of future workers and enjoy the profits today?
No, the solution to slavery was to end it, without a war. The way was to make the power to enforce slavery, the state, wither with lack of cooperation. Ending slavery was not progress, for the simple reason we did not end it, we just changed it, and what came after was worse. not better.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
1. Defining family as a coercive institution. I think this is an error, it is hierarchical, but it is also a unique institution, so the tag does not quite fit. One clear distinction is families involved obligations, whereas markets involve debts. If a friend or relative invites me to dinner, I should at some point reciprocate. If I order a meal in a restaurant, I must cancel the debt by paying. Families are voluntary institutions, where we learn about anarchy. It is a basis for training to function in the market.
2. Towards the end, he talks about raising kids without violence, as a solution to getting to where anarchy is widely accepted. That is classic anarchist thinking, that be raising children differently we can have a better society. The fatal flaw is any system that requires people be different than they really are will fail. To my mind we do not need people to change to achieve anarchy, we simply need not give our power to others.
I know people who have raised kids "sparing the rod" and producing lovely results. Good work. But I also know kids need to learn "no" and "come here" if nothing else for safety's sake. It may take a well-timed swat to keep a kid safe, as paradoxical as that sounds. A teenager or a grammar school kid who still needs a whipping is more a question of parenting than the kid.
Molyneux points out that kids who learn to obey violence in the family expect it from the state. I don't think so. I think most people sense the difference. What does happen is way too many people see the state as mommy and daddy, sometimes running to mommy (the democrats) when in trouble, and sometimes to daddy (the republicans.) I think they have the same problem as Molyneux, failing to see the difference between the family and the state.
3. Anarchists and libertarians widely subscribe to the theory that private police forces will be necessary and sufficient to maintain law and order. Yes, 2/3rds of uniformed policing in USA is in private hands, but I think the critics' complaint that any organized armed group will eventually introduce tyranny is perspicacious. And as 1 Samuel 8 points out, kings, that to which anarchists object, is what we got when the Israelis asked God for a king to fight their battles for them. The solution advocated by libertarians and Molyneux is precisely the punishment for asking for kings. No, in anarchy the cop is you, and no one else.
4. He mentioned progress, and that it sticks, for example, no politician calls for slavery, which 100 years ago was not unheard of. I do not think there is progress, because we already have all of the elements we need for a peaceful, prosperous, just society. It is a matter of sliding over away from force and fraud, and to freedom.
He asks if anyone can imagine blacks returning to the fields as slaves in USA today? Well, no, only because capitalism has figured out how to monetize people down through their descendants.
All slavery is abominable. Private slavery is what we had until 1865, when it was replaced with state slavery in the US Constitution. All slavery is abominable, but let's compare private slavery, which is outlawed, and state slavery, which is legal in the US Constitution. I am familiar with slavery inasmuch as my great grandparents were slavers, and have the paperwork to show for it. Here on Christmas Eve 1857 my family sells some slaves at auction. No doubt they needed some Christmas money.
 |
| Spiers 1857 Slave Auction Tally |
After the US Congress legalized slavery, the state never had to buy slaves, so state slaves were commonly worked to death, as in the Patchman farm, which operates to this day in Mississippi. the 13th amendment is no oddity, it was and is an actively employed provision in the constitution.
Private slaves had 3/5ths of a vote, which was very valuable to slaveholders, whereas state slaves, as felons, are not allowed to vote.
Slaves cease to be of economic value if you sell them or they die as private property, or are worked to death as state property.
Now all slavery is abominable, but at some point the value of any slave is relatively minimal if you can figure out a way to monetize the lives of the descendants of those targeted for slavery.
And with capitalism, with fiat credit to lend, and usury to keep it an ever-growing burden, the state can monetize the lives of future generations. Slavery is not gone now because of any Christian scruples, slavery is gone because capitalism found a better way for ever fewer people to exploit the most out of the most. Who wants to mess around with slavery when there is capitalism? Who wants to bother exploiting a few when you can enslave generations of future workers and enjoy the profits today?
No, the solution to slavery was to end it, without a war. The way was to make the power to enforce slavery, the state, wither with lack of cooperation. Ending slavery was not progress, for the simple reason we did not end it, we just changed it, and what came after was worse. not better.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment