Access to all free articles and posts in one place.
Log in
Share
Tell people about this page...
Subscription Tiers
FREE
Free Subscriber
1 subscriber
$5
per month
Supporter Tier
Access to all of my premium and free content in one place.
0 subscribers
Features
- Regular articles and essays dedicated to building a freer world of peace and prosperity.
- Access special, premium content for just £5 per month.
Public post
The Libertarianism.UK Podcast: Duncan Whitmore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhHqFzKXZLw
I chat to Andy Duncan about one of my recent articles, Toward a Libertarian Political Strategy.
I chat to Andy Duncan about one of my recent articles, Toward a Libertarian Political Strategy.
Timecodes
- 0:00 – Intro
- 3:05 – Why do libertarians need a political strategy?
- 6:05 – Leonard Read and pushing a magic button on removing the state
- 10:46 – The end of East Germany
- 12:54 – Duncan Whitmore’s central political strategy for libertarians
- 13:58 – What is decentralisation?
- 16:22 – The consequences of Brexit
- 19:10 – The problems of Boris Johnson
- 20:26 – How do we persuade people to give up the state?
- 23:07 – Should we retreat and wait for the collapse?
- 27:42 – A summary of the strategy
- 28:56 – Do we seek allies?
- 30:37 – Jeff Deist and “Better, Not Perfect”
- 30:49 – How can individuals help push the strategy?
- 32:59 – The compliance demonstrated in lockdowns
- 34:52 – Wrap up
Some quotes from the Podcast:
“You’re asking people to still have faith in this institution [the state], to give them their liberty, even though this institution is the biggest threat to their liberty.”
“People have to want their liberty. There’s no way of getting around that.”
“The reason we’re bombarded 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with so much propaganda, is because they [the state] know they have to win the ideological war.”
“The actual reason why the [Berlin] wall came down when it did, is because some bureaucrats mis-announced a new travel policy.”
“As Murray Rothbard said in the anatomy of the state, [the state] is a separate institution. The state is not us.”
“I think [decentralisation] is probably the most realistic way of going forward.”
“The people have to want to take power [back] for themselves.”
“[In the UK], last year was the year of two queens, two monarchs, three prime ministers, [and] five chancellors.”
“Boris Johnson should be the final lesson to anybody who’s even modestly in favour of greater freedom, that trying to elect the right people is not going to really work.”
“[We must] try to decentralise political power as far away as possible from their existing concentrations.”
“The motivation for Brexit was not to create a libertarian paradise.”
Please like, share, and subscribe!
If you want to see more content like this, please like, share, and subscribe to this content and click the notification bell.
Like(0)
Public post
Toward a Libertarian Political Strategy
[An Article from Free Life]
In my most recent article for Free Life, I discussed a number of ways in which libertarianism differs from many statist philosophies at the fundamental level. One of these ways is the fact that it is more accurate to regard libertarianism as a behavioural ethic rather than as a grand, political system. This present article will echo and develop this particular theme in order to lay some basic groundwork for a libertarian political strategy.
In my most recent article for Free Life, I discussed a number of ways in which libertarianism differs from many statist philosophies at the fundamental level. One of these ways is the fact that it is more accurate to regard libertarianism as a behavioural ethic rather than as a grand, political system. This present article will echo and develop this particular theme in order to lay some basic groundwork for a libertarian political strategy.
Can we “Push the Button”?
The dedicated libertarian should want to see an end to statism in the quickest manner available. For those who adhere to more of an “anarchist” philosophy, such a desire would mean consigning as much of the state as we can to the dustbin of history in the shortest possible time; for those who lean more towards minarchism or to some other level of tolerance of a “nightwatchman” state, it would entail confining the state’s functions to the provision of defence, law and order, and to one or two minor roles.
A fitting example of this kind of fervour came as early as 1946 in a lecture given by Leonard Read entitled I’d Push the Button. Read imagined that, if there was a button in front of him that would release all wage and price controls immediately so as to restore the genuine free market, he would push it, without question. While Read’s preoccupation was with the specific kinds of state interference he specified, the symbolism of a giant, red button bringing about instant, radical change was likely to make a lasting impression during an era in which the very real spectre of the nuclear button was at the forefront of everyone’s minds. Decades after Read’s lecture, Murray N Rothbard advocated extending the notion of button pushing beyond wage and price controls, demanding “the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty”.
It is true, of course, that any form of injustice should be removed by the quickest means possible, taking precedence over any other consideration. When confronted, for instance, by the institution of slavery, it is difficult to argue that the emancipation of those toiling in bondage should rank below the welfare of the slave masters, or the “practical” concerns of transitioning to a new labour system. Moreover, twentieth century examples of where free markets have flourished, such as in Hong Kong under John James Cowperthwaite, and in New Zealand under Roger Douglas, succeeded precisely because they were radical and uncompromising in sweeping away socialistic rot.
In stating this, however, we should remember that the adjective possible is as operative as the word quickest. Thus, while the notion of “pushing the button” may serve as a useful symbol, or metaphor, for keeping our eye on the ultimate goal, we cannot allow a literal interpretation of it to blind us to the realities of working towards a freer world. To analogise, a lottery win would very much “push the button” on one’s own lifestyle, delivering untold riches in an instant. But if the lottery player was to eye only the glittering prize, whiling away his days spending all of those millions in his head, then he would end up discarding all reasonable and practical steps towards becoming wealthier over time. Given that the cold, hard reality of probability all but guarantees his loss in every draw of the numbers, this kind of gambler consigns himself to the status of a romantic dreamer rather than that of a practical person.
Like(0)
Public post
Leave Me Out of It!
Lost in these kinds of exchanges is the fact that libertarianism is a norm concerning the application of violence and nothing more (and, ultimately, all political philosophies are theories concerning which rights to property may be enforced by violence). Libertarians do not, therefore, necessarily stand against any kind of social or economic organisation per se; even socialised or communal property is perfectly fine so long as all of the participants in the commune have contributed their shares voluntarily, and have agreed to abide by its rules of distribution. Rather, our strenuous objection is to the use of use of violence to enforce these forms of social organisation upon unwilling participants.
There is, of course, much that the state does which is irrevocably violent and, thus, indefensible to libertarians, whether its offensive wars, assassinations, spying on the citizenry, and so on. Indeed, most of these things are simply indefinable without reference to their violent nature, and so whoever perpetrates them on whichever terms would be breaching the libertarian ethic.[1] But there is a whole lot else that the state does which is not necessarily violent, and could be carried out peacefully or voluntarily: healthcare, policing, roads, and so on. Carrying out these functions becomes violent only through a) the fact that people are forced to pay for them through their taxes, and b) competing services can be forcibly prevented from (or otherwise hindered in) operating.
With this in mind then, let us suggest some novel retorts in debates that may cause one’s opponent – whether the latter is either part of the statist intellectual bodyguard or merely an Average Joe expressing a casual opinion - to sharpen his/her mind towards consideration of the fact that what they are really asking for is unilateral, violent enforcement by the state.
1. Healthcare.
Statist: “All healthcare should be run by the state. It should be free. The NHS is a great thing”.
Libertarian: “I have no problem whatsoever with you paying into something called the “National Health Service” if you want to alleviate the burden of you falling ill. But why do you want to force me to do it as well when I don’t want it?”
2. Roads
Statist: “Of course we need the state to build the roads!!!”
Libertarian: “If you want to pay the state to build your roads then go ahead and do so. I, however, would like to patronise privately built roads, and I won’t go anywhere near the roads that you are paying for. Why do you want to force me to pay for the roads that you want when I don’t want to force you to pay for the ones that I want?”
3. Railways
Statist: [Ignoring the fact that Britain’s railways are emphatically not privatised]: “Bring back British Rail! The railways should be state owned!”
Libertarian: “I’m perfectly happy for you to choose to pay this organisation that you call “the state” to run railways you want to travel on. But I don’t want to travel on those trains. Why must I be forced to support them?”
4. Police
Statist: “Of course we need the state! What would happen to crime if there wasn’t the police!”
Libertarian: “If you wish to make contributions to the state’s policing so that they will protect you from crime then go right ahead. I really don’t want to stop you at all, it’s your money. But I would rather pay someone else to protect me from crime. Why do you want to force me to pay for your preferred provider and not mine?”
5. Taxes
Statist: “Taxes should be raised to provide vital funding for important state functions”.
Libertarian: “If you want to write a cheque to the Treasury then go right ahead, the freedom is all yours. But why are you forcing me to pay for an organisation that I despise and wish to have nothing to do with? I’m perfectly happy to let you spend your money just the way you want it, but when I want to spend my money just the way I want it you’re saying I should be thrown in jail! Why?!”
6. Industry
Statist: “All industries should be nationalised and run for the people, not for greedy profit-seeking shareholders”.
Libertarian: “It’s perfectly fine for you to pool all your money and your possessions with those of like-minded people so as to set up socialised industry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with mutual organisations, co-operatives, or even communes if that’s what you want to do yourself. But I want to invest my money in profit-making industry and earn a return on my investment. I’m more than willing to leave you alone to do what you want with your money, just leave me alone to do what I want with mine.”
No doubt many other examples could be imagined by the reader, but, in short, your reply to all of them is “just leave me out of it!” The key effect of this is your opponent’s realisation that, whereas you, the libertarian, are advocating peaceful co-existence (and have absolutely no problem with organisations that they may champion), they, on the other hand, are arguing for the violent imposition of what they want on you. Few who argue in favour of statist intervention are likely to understand that they are, in fact, proposing a solution of violence to society’s alleged ills, and that they are, therefore, thoroughly violent people.
So next time you, as a libertarian, are stuck in such a debate, see how kindly your opponent takes to the realisation that, when laid bare and shorn of any fanciful rhetoric, their arguments are advocating nothing more than for society to be run by guns pointed at the many by the few.
---
Notes
---
Notes
[1] The state itself is also an organisation defined by its use of violence, i.e. its claim to the right to levy taxation and to enforce its decisions violently over a given territory. As such, the state is the one institution which libertarians oppose by virtue of its existence.
Like(0)
Public post
Every State is in Anarchy
One of the most frequent objections to positing a world without states is that a free society will be devoid of any kind of law and order. Wouldn’t we all descend into lawless chaos? Isn’t it part of human nature that we will all up fighting each other? Can a free society actually work, or is it just a utopian dream?
Most likely, the libertarian will reply to this searching question with an explanation of how private security and justice firms will work to keep the peace. In addressing the further allegation that such entities could themselves end up fighting each other to the bitter death (until one of them emerges victorious as a new “state”), he might explain how any wanton use of violence will simply lead to a loss of customers and revenue, well before much damage can be done.
While these answers may be cogent, they are still unlikely to proceed beyond the point of mere speculation that never quite does enough to dispel every last shred of doubt. (This is, indeed, a general difficulty with any practical argument in favour of freedom; whereas socialists and statists can lay out impressive blueprints for the production of everything, our aim is to set people free so they can fulfil their own plans. As such, we have no precise idea how any particular industry will be run in a free society.) This is exacerbated by the fact that “anarchy” – which, technically, a world without states would be – is, indeed, always associated with chaos, disruption and disorder. Thus, we always seem to be on the back foot.
Fortunately, a solution is at hand; the best way to dispel the question “how will a free society work?” when it comes to the matter of law and order is, in fact, to redirect it by asking: how does the state work? Just why does the state structure apparently create order yet any alternative is unlikely to do so? What is so special about the state?
The typical answer to this is that the state acts as some kind of extra-societal “umpire” or “final arbiter” that would simply be lacking in a free society. Without the consolidated authority of the umpire in a cricket match, or the referee in a football game, the calling of sixes, outs, goals or whatever would be a free for all.
But this raises the question: why does anyone listen to the umpire? An umpire in, say, a cricket match is obeyed only because the combined weight of players, spectators and cricket associations serves to cement his authority on the field. If all of these, or just a significant number of them, were to withdraw that endorsement then the umpire could shout “Six!” and “Out!” until he was blue in the face, but it would have no effect on the game.
Similarly, therefore, why is it that, in Great Britain, the relatively insignificant number of 650 MPs (and, in practice, just a few dozen government ministers) can declare a rule to be a “law” which is then implemented, enforced and adhered to by a population of 65 million? Why is it that all of the different components of the state – Parliament, the judiciary, the police, the civil service, etc. – together with the general public work towards enforcing and obeying what a bare handful of them has written down on a piece of paper? Why don’t the state agencies just feel free to ignore each other and do their own thing, and why don’t the public – which outnumbers them heavily – just ignore all of them? If all of this was to happen, who would step in as the “umpire” to resolve the situation, and how would he enforce what he says? When framed in this manner, does not the prospect of the state “working” seem to be the absurd proposition?
These, and similar questions, have been addressed by anarchist philosopher Roderick Long:
Who […] is the “final arbiter” in the U.S. system? The president? He can be impeached. The Congress? Its laws can be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court? Its rulings can be ignored (as Andrew Jackson did), or it can be bullied into acquiescence (as Franklin Roosevelt did). The voters? They can be disenfranchised by state law. The state governments themselves? Ask Jefferson Davis. Sovereignty does not reside at any single point in the governmental structure; any ruling by one part can in principle be appealed, or overruled, or simply ignored, by another — just as under anarchy. If most of the time the various components of government achieve relatively harmonious coordination, what enables them to do so is not a “final arbiter.”
[…]
[G]overnments are composed of people, not impersonal robots; and being part of a government doesn’t make people any less likely to have disagreements […] What happens, then, if, say, a legislature makes a determination […] and a court strikes it down as unconstitutional? Well, sometimes such disagreements lead to violent conflict — civil wars, coups d’état, and the like — but usually they don’t, because the existing incentive structures tend toward cooperation. Economic theory and historical evidence alike indicate that the answer is much the same under anarchist legal systems.
A government is not an individual; it is a large number of different people, with different interests, interacting. And no one member of that group, unless he or she is a Kryptonian, can by his or her own personal might secure compliance from the others. Moreover, all the members of government combined possess insufficient might of themselves to subdue all those they rule, as well. Thus no government can achieve anything unless there exists a substantial degree of cooperation, both within the government on the one hand, and between the government and the governed on the other. If such cooperation were impossible without some higher agency to direct and enforce it, then the higher agency itself would be impossible for the same reason. There is never a “final arbiter.” There is no such thing, actual or possible, on God’s green earth.
What is possible, and often actual, is that an existing pattern of institutions and practices proves stable and self-reinforcing — that people act in ways that give one another an incentive to keep cooperating, for the most part. Certainly no legal system can function unless most disputes end up getting practically resolved one way or another. But in real-world legal systems (whether state-based or stateless), most disputes do not go unresolved forever — not because there is a “final arbiter,” but because the patterns of activity in which most of the participants engage or acquiesce don’t allow the indefinite continuation of disputes.[1]
Thus, if there is no final arbiter holding the state together in harmony, then there is no reason for it to be necessary for non-state social structures to operate either. Or, to put it another way, the kinds of “stable and self-reinforcing” “incentive structures” that cause people to co-operate in making the state “work” are precisely the same kinds of mechanism which will enable voluntary social structures to work too. The cricket umpire and the football referee never “conquered” their respective sports and enforced their authority as a “final arbiter”. Rather, it was in the interests of all the people who enjoy the game to provide a mechanism that prevented “the indefinite continuation of disputes”.
The real difficulty that libertarians face, therefore, is not the “practicality” of keeping peace in a free society; it is dissolving the network of incentives that have wedded people to the state structure. If people were to reject the state while recognising alternative, more liberating social structures to be good and beneficial, then the power of the state will wither, and liberty would prevail. It is not impossible, utopian or contrary to “human nature” – it is solely a product of people being motivated to choose more peaceful social structures over more violent ones. In the words of Étienne de la Boétie:
From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.[2]
But the further upshot of this is that, next time someone tells you an “anarchist” society could never work, you have a ready reply: we are already in one!
---
Notes
[1] Roderick Long, Anarchy Defended: Reply to Schneider, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Volume 21, No. 1 (Spring 2007), 111-21 at 114-5 [emphasis in the original].
[2] Étienne de la Boétie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Black Rose Books [c .1550] (1997), 53.
Like(0)
See something you like? Subscribe to see even more!
The subscription gives you:
- Access to Star's profile content.
- Ability to support your Star by contributing – one-time or recurring.
- Means to reaching out to the Star directly via Instant Messenger.
Star Stats
69 posts
Goals
0.0%
collected
to reach
to reach
The more generous support you can lend me the more time I can invest in producing quality material for you to read and enjoy. Thank you!
Other stars
Two For Tea Podcast
Please note that this SubscribeStar page is not actively seeking donations.
Shad Brooks
I write novels and make Infotainment/gaming/educational videos, and much more
ZeosPantera (Z Reviews)
I'm Zeos, I run the YT channels Zreviews, in-Ear Fetish, Zeos 2nd Channel, ZeosPantera, Z Cooks Consortium. Im here to educate, speculate, eradicate, and master the finer points of life and consumer goods.
Naomi Wu
DIY, Review and Tech Videos
darkalfar
Science fiction, horror, dark fantasy. The new-weird and surreal imaginings of an aging and autistic artist.
