Category Archives: anchorage anarchy

THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUIVALENTS, LABOR FOR LABOR; THE MOST DISAGREEABLE LABOR, ENTITLED TO THE HIGHEST COMPENSATION.

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

The following essay was written and published as a pamphlet by Josiah Warren in Boston in 1865.  The author participated in a number of anarchist communities in the nineteenth century, and wrote and lectured extensively, advocating non-statist solutions to social problems and economic rather than political methods of social change.  He also strongly influenced writers such as Stephen Pearl Andrews and Benjamin Tucker, who perhaps did more than anyone else to disseminate the ideas of the anarchist individualists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

I have corrected apparent typos and changed some of the archaic spelling found in the original, but have left the punctuation, italicization, and capitalization as the author intended them to be.

A direct exchange of Labor for labor between the laboring or useful classes, measured by the time employed and according to the disagreeableness or Costs of the labors performed, would convert Time into capital; and all would have an abundance [of] “capital.”  Money would represent Labor or its products as bank notes now represent metals; and, instead of being the blind, stupid, unintellectual accident that it now is, the holder of Labor Notes would know what he could get for them from day to day and from year to year.  Estimates of the labor in different products once obtained  by investigation, might remain unchanged for many years, unless new and better modes of production should reduce their Costs.  Consequently, all ruinous fluctuations in prices would be at an end, and all speculations upon them would be knocked in the head; and “profits in trade” being abolished, ruinous competition and the principal cause of modern wars would cease to be.

The burthen of necessary labor would be reduced to from one to perhaps three hours a day (according to the style of living,) for each person.  All anxiety about future sustenance would be dispelled—with this security of condition, the motive for large accumulations would die away, and the degrading scramble for “money making” would come to an end.

The hardest worker would be the richest person, without reference to sex, color, or nation, and in the common, vulgar estimation, would be the most  “respectable”: then there will be as great a rush into the useful pursuits as there has been to shun them and force them upon the weak and defenseless.  We now see the origin of all forms of slavery and the legitimate remedy for them.

It is folly to expect that men will prefer starved, ragged, insulted labor, however useful it may be, rather than an easy situation with a sufficient income and the respect of their fellow men; nor is it surprising that the ranks of respected professions are crowded till they are forced to live by fraud, that we are over run with speculators, thieves, defaulters, counterfeiters, burglars, robbers, incendiaries, rapacious officials and other vagabonds, or that the bible is tortured into the defense of slavery and poverty by those who are revelling in idleness and luxury; or, that when the opportunities for speculation and office holding opened by one war are all filled, the nest step is to get up another war.  This pandemonium miscalled “society” will continue as long as men are tempted to live by profitable crimes, rather than starve in useful pursuits.

Let not this word Cost be misunderstood: it has no reference to the money that has been given for any thing, but it refers to the trouble it has cost; whether it be painful exertion of body or mind—anxiety, sacrifice of any kind; in short, the endurance of any thing that is disagreeable is here called Cost.

This idea or principle would probably give the highest salary to the scavenger; because he is least respected and because his labor is otherwise, perhaps, the most disagreeable; while it would give comparatively nothing to ignorant officials because they get compensated in glorification.

All will be workers or live upon benevolence.  The whole burthens being thus distributed, the share of each will be so light and so “fashionable” people will prefer to do that little, rather than take the trouble of encroaching upon their neighbors; then the great excuse for aggressive governments will not exist, and their very costly if not very valuable services can be dispensed with.

Labor for labor, is not labor for land nor for any of the metals found in it, nor for wood or coal nor for any other of nature’s spontaneous products except so far as labor has been bestowed upon them, or in transferring them; but it opens the prospect of homes and comforts to those who have been deprived of them by the want of a principle for the regulation of prices.   In short, a direct, equitable exchange of labor between the useful classes, just in proportion as it progresses, will cheapen common money and finally render it worthless, and invest Labor with all its products, and all the power and  “respectability” that material wealth can confer; and all that constitutes good or successful society will be within its reach.  None need be excluded—those who have no useful business can learn one when opportunities are opened and this principle opens the opportunities.

The greatest of all considerations is, that by making the cost of labor the limit of price, every one becomes interested in co-operating to reduce the cost and consequently, the price of every thing; and thus men will be employed in lightening each others’ burthens through mere self interest, which is now so destructive.  Thus does this simple but sublime justice out strip the sagacity of legislators and solve for humanity the greatest of all human problems—turning every man’s hand to work For, instead of against his fellow man!

Harmonizing the material interests of men will harmonize the feelings and action of individuals and nations; and the reign of permanent peace, plenty and successful society will have found their root in simple, scientific Justice to Labor!

It is this harmonization of interests that has always been aimed at by the profoundest statesmen, and it is the great central ideal of Communism; but it has been mistakenly sought in Combining or Uniting those interests!  But, where interests are United, all have a right to a voice in the management of them; but the natural and inevitable diversity of minds growing out of the Individuality of each, immediately develops itself and inaugurates conflict and confusion that have only two possible terminations—Despotism or Disintegration.  If despotism is adopted, its first act is to make war on this natural Individuality and to demand unhesitating obedience, loyalty or conformity; the governed must have neither eyes, tongues, brains nor life; they must all suddenly become of one pattern according to the master’s orders, like so many dried herrings upon a stick, and those who decline the prescription are gentiles, schismatics, heretics, outsiders, outcasts, rebels, traitors, outlaws; to be expelled, crucified, excommunicated, imprisoned, shot or hung; and whom any may plunder or murder with impunity, or perhaps “make money” by taking them alive to be murdered or tortured according to the will of the master!  Government by a “majority” is worse than that of some despotisms, because it annihilates Individual responsibility; which, is the  only reliable regulator of human intercourse.  All these evils are the natural consequences of the first blunder or “original sin” of Uniting instead of harmonizing the interests of men!

If the planets were all united or bound together by artificial means, it would result in collisions, darkness, destruction and death, corresponding to what are now seen and always have existed in all artificial organizations of men, from that of the smallest partnership to that of a nation, just in proportion to the number and magnitude of the interests at stake and the mental diversities of the persons involved.  War has been waged against this diversity from first to last, for thousands of years and every means to enforce conformity have been exhausted; and now, there is more individuality than ever, and it is more clearly seen than ever that it is the very germ of all improvement, order and peace among men–that this is the stone so long rejected by the builders that is to become the head of the corner—that it is the very “key to the age”; that to persecute it is to deny the persecutor’s right to differ from the persecuted and it is making war upon humanity’s instinctive struggle to correct its own most fatal blunder.  But personal individuality being adverse to artificial organizations, they must be abandoned before much progress can be made.  They originated in the purposes of attack or defense; but the principle of equivalents neutralizing all motives for attack, would render defense unnecessary.

What we want is Co-operation or coincident action between all the human race without “entangling” our materials interests or our responsibilities, and thereby subordinating man to the ignorance and cruelty of man.  The principle of equivalents enables us to attain these long sought and unspeakably important ends.  It lifts us up out of the chaos of political systems, into a clear, bright atmosphere that enables us to discern the direct road to true order and repose.

The subject is inexhaustible, but a very few words must suffice here.  What has been said against organizations was thought necessary as caution against the continuance of a dangerous and costly mode of defeating the ends in view.

Coincidence of thought, feeling or purpose, makes us society for each other; but there is no power on earth that can make us so beyond this limit.  The principle of Equivalents producing this coincidence in our material interests, abolishes the principal elements of repulsion and contest and gives us a reliable basis of calculation which will continue for a long time to surprise the student of human problems with solutions too beautiful and too sublime for expression here.

It is believed that this idea of labor for labor originated in England.  Its practical development in this country has been an unwavering life purpose during the last thirty eight years, in a series of noiseless experiments, as the chemist conducts his analyses in his laboratory or as the mechanic tests his machine in his own sanctum before he presents it broadly to the public.  There is scarcely any kind of business between men, to which the principle has not been successfully applied.  The conclusion from these experiments is, that as this principle, together with others necessary to its operation, require to be studied like any other exact science, in connexion with practical illustrations in the business of life, the best way to inaugurate the movement is by establishing Industrial Colleges for young and old, right among the people in any or every town and neighborhood, upon Individual responsibilties and with Individual means, with such aid as may be voluntarily offered free from all defeating conditions.  Not attempting to form or organise societies any more than we would organize or form the fruit upon a tree: but inviting all people to look into the movement and co-operate with it so far as they may find it for their moral or material internal interest to do so, but no farther: trusting to the Coincidence of these interests to change, by degrees, the character of what is now called civilization.

Cultural Incompetence

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

We hear an awful lot of talk about culture and its importance these days.  There are workplace cultures, all kinds of religious cultures, good and bad corporate cultures, and any number of ethnic, sexual, and criminal cultures and subcultures.  According to people who conceptualize the world in this manner, any time people who are like-minded, similar looking, have sexual tastes in common, or are working on a common project come together a culture is formed.  And once this culture comes into existence, it somehow acquires the power to dictate the ideas and actions of those who are part of it.  Believers in this model of human behavior seem to think that one can therefore find out important information about someone just by learning about their “culture.”

Multiculturalism or Individuality

This reliance on culture to explain people’s motivations and behavior underlies the currently faddish theory of multiculturalism, which has generated an entire industry of self-proclaimed experts who conduct “diversity” trainings, write “cultural competency” texts, and “manage diversity” in corporations.  Although it was developed with the intent of increasing understanding among people, multiculturalism in fact only serves to promote inaccurate generalizations and stereotypes about people.  Multiculturalists believe people are simply the products of the various cultures of which they are a part and that learning about other cultures helps people better communicate and work with other people.  But they are wrong.

Each person is a distinct individual, about whom one can learn only by asking, listening, and observing.  Surely, people are influenced by all the other people in their lives.  But that does not mean that everyone exposed to the same kinds of influences turns out the same.  Even within a family where all the children are raised in the same neighborhood, participate in the same religious rituals, speak the same language, and attend the same schools, each will likely turn out quite different from the others.  One becomes an anarchist, while a sibling joins the navy; another prefers homosexual sex, while his sister finds pleasure in heterosexual relations; one is an atheist, and her brother a devout catholic.  If the experience of growing up in an institution as intimate, and sometimes overwhelming, as a family does not determine a person’s beliefs and activities, it is absurd to think that one can learn much of value about any individual person simply by gaining knowledge of their “culture.”

But that does not stop some from continuing to push the idea that cultures are monolithic and that people who are part of them can be expected to think and act alike.  Here in Anchorage a group called Bridge Builders has published a booklet titled Passport to Anchorage.  In it they list what they believe are the habits of members of various ethnic and immigrant groups.  It includes such absurd blanket statements as: women from india do not drink alcohol; displays of affection between filipino men and women are considered inappropriate; and people from laos are frank, open, and friendly.  Since these descriptions are seen as either positive or neutral, people may not be as likely to question them as they would be if people from a certain country were described in more negative terms, but that does not make such generalizations any less stereotypical or inaccurate.  While the authors of this booklet clearly recognize that americans come in all sorts of varieties and flavors, they often fail to see that this is true of people in other countries and among the different ethnic, religious, and immigrant groups within this country.  Indians, laotians, and filipinos vary among themselves as much as americans do, and people from these countries who live in the united states are as likely to identify and be seen as “american” as they are to feel and be considered representatives of their country of origin.

Any sort of sweeping statement about cultural or national characteristics is unlikely to give an accurate picture of an individual person from a nation or ethnic group that is made up of millions of different people.  This does not, however, stop the diversity trainers and authors of books such as the Passport from continuing to promote such nonsense.

Cultural Relativism and Cultural Supremacy

Some believers in the cultural view of people’s behavior do not stop at providing simplistic and inaccurate pictures of individuals.  They use  culture as a means of justifying disparate treatment of people who are considered to be from different cultural groups.  Advocates of this view argue that actions and beliefs that would otherwise not be acceptable can sometimes be justified if they are part of a person’s cultural traditions.

For example, jewish basketball players have sought to be able to wear yarmulkes on the court, practitioners of an american indian religion have argued that they should have the right to use peyote in rituals, and muslim students have sought the freedom to wear islamic headscarves in schools.  Whatever the merits of any of these practices, their advocates do not argue that dress codes or drug laws interfere with individual freedom of choice, and that anyone should be free to dress as they please and ingest whatever substances they like.  Instead they contend that yarmulkes, peyote, or headscarves are of cultural importance to some group of people and therefore members of this group should be allowed to do something other people continue to be barred from doing.  When someone asks for special treatment based on their culture, the clear message is that the traditions of groups are more important and valuable than individuals’ beliefs and preferences.

Although advocates of cultural competence might argue that these are instances where a dominant culture is showing sensitivity to a minority culture, what is actually taking place is that one culture is being valued more than another.  This is inevitable in a setting where people are seen as cultural representatives, not unique persons whose choices are respected just because they are those of peaceful human beings.  If arguments for or against such practices are based on group traditions, the conflict inevitably comes down to one between different traditional—“cultural”—practices.  And only one culture can win in such circumstances.  Favoring the traditions of a minority cultural group is no better than elevating the practices of a majority to a special status and disregarding the needs and wants of those who differ.  Inevitably, someone will feel their culture or group identity has been slighted.

Another result of looking at the world through the lens of culture is that it can lead people to believe some cultures are superior to others.  Often they consider their “own” culture to be the best, but some look around and find another that they think is better in some way: more humane, more eco-friendly, more peaceful, or some such.  But, although various groups have differing histories and current practices, there is no culture that is all good or all bad.  Members of every cultural, religious, ethnic, and national group have engaged in atrocious behaviors over the years.  The european invaders of the americas killed and enslaved indian people, but so did the aztecs and tlingits.  White people have engaged in barbaric wars and attempted genocide, but so have asian and black people. Muslims have murdered infidels and christians have slaughtered heretics and witches.  Women have been treated differently from, and considered inferior to, men in virtually every society that has ever existed.  And most human throughout history have treated, and continue to treat, other animals abominably. Despite these horrid actions, of course, people in every land and of every religion and skin color have also done wonderful, kind, and humanitarian things.  People who favor one culture over another pick and choose the things that they think best represent a culture and tend to ignore (or explain away as unimportant aberrations) the blemishes.

People who believe a certain culture is superior to others will at times go so far as to celebrate certain traditions of one group, while condemning the same practice when it is engaged in by others.  This culturally relativistic view is quite common.  For instance, one of the speakers at a couple of anti-war rallies in anchorage over the last year or so, proudly stated that she was part of a “warrior people,” the tlingits.  She and those of her listeners who applauded her speech did not see the dissonance between this statement on her part and their participation in an event supposedly organized to oppose war.  The implication was clearly that there are good warriors and bad warriors, the tlingits among the former group and the american military people waging war in iraq in the latter.  While the speaker and protestors rightly condemned the murderous behavior of united states troops in iraq, their sensitivity to “cultural” differences led many of them to romanticize the war-like traditions of another group.  This double standard serves only to dilute the anti-war message of such protests and call into question the ethical consistency of the participants.

Some actions are acceptable and some are not, and the fact (or belief) that a practice is part of one’s cultural heritage is not what makes it right or wrong.  What matters is whether it harms other people or restricts their freedom to peacefully live as they please.  Any person who leads a nonviolent life and does not interfere with the freedom of other people should, at a minimum, be tolerated and left alone.  But someone who engages in violent or otherwise coercive activities directed at others should be considered a threat and isolated, boycotted, or resisted by others, even in circumstances where they invoke their culture to justify bad behavior.

Individuals and cultures

Despite claims to the contrary, each human beings is one of a kind.  We each have our own desires, ideas, aspirations and habits.  While we may share some of these with others from the same country, region, tradition, or religion, there are many ways in which we differ from our neighbors as well.  This can be demonstrated just by looking at the people we live or work around.  Each individual thinks and lives in ways that make them different from every other person, even those with whom we allegedly share a culture.  People embrace any number of religious faiths, support various social or political movements, eat different kinds of foods, and engage in a multitude of sexual practices.  But when people are encouraged to view culture as the determining factor in what makes a person who they are, all too many let their own common sense experience of the infinite variety among people be pushed aside.

Those fighting discrimination and wishing to improve communication and cooperation among people of different skin colors and heritages at one time encouraged them not to make assumptions about others based on their complexion or culture, instead suggesting that they evaluate people based on their character and behavior.  We need to return to this outlook and strategy.  The only way to determine what another person believes or does is to engage them on a personal basis and learn about their unique qualities and activities.  While this may not be as easy as sitting in a cultural competency class and learning what “those people” do and think, interactions between individuals, unsupervised by “experts,” can provide real knowledge about others, instead of the inaccurate assumptions and general nonsense offered by the diversity hacks.  Only such personal interactions can lead to the respect, tolerance, and trust between people that is necessary if we are to have the kind of mutualist and voluntary society sought by anarchists.

 

The War Parties Fight It Out

By | | , , ,
Leave a comment

In preparation for the election in November, Bush and Kerry are each trying to convince voters that he and his party are the better warriors.  As the carnage in iraq goes on, with the abuse and murder of non-combatants and prisoners by the american military there, Kerry is making it clear that, if elected, he will continue the occupation and do his best to expand the military.

Most of the opponents of the war who vote will, of course, vote for the democrats, despite their pro-war positions.  Too many believe there is an important difference between the parties and will thus try to elect Kerry the war-monger because of their hatred for Bush the war-monger.

During the last democrat presidency, the united states military invaded haiti, bombed innocent people in serbia, sudan, and afghanistan, and continued the bombing and sanction campaign that devastated and impoverished iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands of regular people.  In fact, during most of the decade preceding the September 2001 murder by airplane of hundreds of people in new york and pennsylvania, it was democrats who controlled the american military and foreign policy establishment.  It was their meddling in the affairs of other countries created the loathing for the united states government that led to these killings.  Meanwhile, at home, Clinton did his best to get his own version of the patriot act passed in order to make it easier for the government to monitor residents of america who speak out against government murder and repression.

Whatever their differences, and there are some, the parties are united in their contempt for individual freedom and their dedication to violence to get what they want.  It is foolhardy for anyone to believe that a  democrat president will end the war, free the prisoners held and abused in secret in iraq, cuba, or the “homeland,” or make anyone more free.  By voting, people simply strengthen the institutions of government and give aid and comfort to the enemies of liberty.  The time spent campaigning for Kerry (or Nader or Sharpton or Kucinich) by those who seek an end to war and a freer world is being wasted.  The state will never be a friend of freedom or a force for peace.  Even if the candidates were motivated by the best intentions, which is clearly not the case, they could not accomplish good ends by using the evil means which would be at their disposal as president.  Taxation, the police, the military, and the laws, rules, and regulations by which the lives of people both here and abroad are ordered, restricted, and sometimes ended, are what make government what it is.  Force and violence are its lifeblood, and nobody elected to office can change the basic nature of politics and government.  Nobody can use the military, police, and legal system, institutions based on hierarchy, servile obedience, and violence, to expand anyone’s freedom.  Only by abolishing government can we advance the cause of liberty.

Nobody who runs for office will end the war, abolish taxes, dismantle the FBI, or make you free.  So don’t waste your time, vote for nobody.

 

Ethnicity, Skin Color and Individuality

By | | , , , ,
Leave a comment

In the united states, as in much of the rest of the world, people are frequently thought of in different ways depending on their skin color or perceived membership in this or that ethnic group. This happens for a variety of reasons. Sometimes people simply harbor a hatred for anyone who is a different color or ethnicity from themselves. Others have had a bad experience with another person and assume that all other people who share some superficial characteristic with this person will behave in a similar way. And there are people who are simply naïve and inexperienced and believe some inaccurate story that they have heard or read about people whose ancestry is unlike theirs.

Ideas, of course, lead to actions, and bigoted beliefs can result in discriminatory behaviors. These can range from some people’s unwillingness to befriend, do business with, or live near people whose appearance or language they do not approve of, to physical attacks against people the assailants see as somehow alien and undeserving of the freedoms other people enjoy. While few people’s prejudice is extreme enough to lead them to assault other people, great damage can be done to others when the bigotries of individuals are given a group expression through the state and the institutions it creates.

American governments have always practiced and promoted discrimination both directly and indirectly. They have legitimized, at various times, slavery, segregation, and prejudicial immigration practices. In addition, they have promoted unfair practices in the private sector by favoring businesses that practice discrimination while disenfranchising the targets of prejudice and preventing them from setting up alternative institutions of their own. It is nearly impossible, for instance, to start up an alternative to a bigoted store in one’s community if the banks refuse credit and a government monopoly of money prevents alternative financing arrangements. Over the years, government action has resulted in far more inequitable and harmful treatment of people than any bigoted individuals could ever hope to inflict.

Ethnic Preferences and Social Engineering:

How Not to Fix the Problem

Many people, of all colors and ethnic groups, reject discrimination and would like to see a society free of prejudice. Unfortunately, it is common for those who seek to eradicate bigotry to share some of the outlook of those they oppose, both in their view of differences between people and in the means they favor to eliminate ethnic inequity. They tend to share an unwillingness to see others as individuals instead of members of groups and both camps favor the use of government action and coercion to promote their agendas. Until such attitudes are replaced with a commitment to individuality and a rejection of force, efforts to create an equitable society are doomed to failure.

Whether assigning people to groups is done with the intention of discriminating against or helping someone, classifying individuals based on the color of their skin or their parentage conflicts with the individualist idea that each person is unique. People’s beliefs and behavior are not determined by such superficial traits as ethnicity or primary language, and to assume that they are can only lead to misunderstanding. Individual personalities, desires, and habits are the result of an enormous number of different influences and people shortchange others when they try to reduce them to simply a sample of a larger group.

Viewing people as representatives of some ethnic “community” instead of as individuals leads opponents of inequity to support solutions to discrimination such as affirmative action. In such schemes, diversity is seen as more important than individual merit or fitness, and in order to make the ethnic numbers look good, institutions like colleges and corporations will give people “points” for their skin color when making admission or hiring decisions. Once upon a time, “tokenism” was looked down upon as a misguided “liberal” attempt to mask systemic discrimination, but now when a law school seeks out black students as tokens representing other black people so that the resulting ethnic mix “improves” the educational environment for others, it is seen by many as virtuous. If affirmative action programs focused on improving the lot of capable individuals by eliminating discrimination in hiring and admissions decisions they would be a worthy endeavor. Instead the emphasis is on how many tokens of how many different groups can be added to the mix to produce the right percentages to qualify as “diverse.”

The problem with such programs is that when someone is helped by assigning value to physical characteristics, others are necessarily disadvantaged. Discrimination is discrimination, and when people are judged and rewarded differentially because of their ancestry, not because of something they have done or achieved, a sort of injustice has been done. And anyone who holds an individualistic or any other humanistic outlook cannot but oppose such essentially illiberal behavior.

Some defenders of ethnic preferences in hiring and university admissions claim they are justified because non-white and non-asian-descended people are poorly prepared by horrid public schools and therefore perform poorly on conventional measures of ability. Clearly this is true. But this does not justify giving preferences to less qualified people just because they have been subjected to a lousy school system pervaded by bigotry. When people of one color are expected to perform up to a certain standard in order to demonstrate their ability to do a job or complete a course of study, so should all others. Any other means of choosing workers or students are discriminatory on their face.

To avoid this line of argument, other affirmative action supporters contend that conventional means of judging academic ability, SATs and such other old standbys, do not, in fact, predict either ability or future performance. If this is true, then such testing should be thrown out for all people since it is not a useful tool for evaluating differences between people or establishing whether someone is qualified for some job or educational program. Few recommend this, however, and advocates of ethnic favoritism instead propose to “race norm” such tests, so that people of latin ancestry, for instance, do not need to attain the same score as someone who is white in order to “qualify” on the basis of some exam. This method of discriminating between people based on their ancestry is, however, no better than any other, and holds no logical water. If a certain test is not a valid means of comparing a person of asian descent and a black american, it does not then become acceptable when used to compare individuals of the same ethnicity. Either hiring and admissions exams are valid assessment tools or they are not, and schools and employers should not pick and choose when to use them in order to promote what passes for “diversity.” Doing so simply substitutes one form of discrimination for another.

Historical Inequity and Reparations

There are a number of problems with such proposals. Most important, of course, is that none of the people who actually enslaved others are alive today, so it is not possible to obtain compensation from anyone who directly profited from slavery. Furthermore, many, if not most, americans are descended from people who never owned slaves. Recognizing the problems presented by these circumstances, those who support compensation for the descendants of slaves argue that non-black americans owe their present condition to an economic and social system created on the backs of enslaved black people, and therefore they owe something to the descendants of these slaves who generally are still less well-off than their non-black counterparts. But this argument is based on the assumption that most americans, including millions of black people, are relatively affluent only because of the existence of slavery, an institution which ended in the united states nearly 150 years ago. Although slavery was key to the american economy for centuries in the past, attribution of the impoverished condition of some black people alive today to their ancestors’ status as slaves is based on shaky ground. It is difficult to argue, whatever discrimination or other problems they encounter in making their way in the world today, that any person’s state in life is “caused“ by events that took place generations ago and involved other people long dead.       In addition to the inadequacy of the justification underlying the call for reparations, suggestions for the implementation of a system to make amends present problems of their own. Since any attempt to force money out of millions of people individually would be impractical and likely unsuccessful, reparations activists generally call on the government to make the payouts. Of course the state has no money of its own, so reparations would be paid out of tax revenues, which are extorted from working people of all skin colors and ethnicities. The people thus forced to payoff claimants would include black, eskimo, american indian, and asian-descended people, as well as white people, whether that is what was intended or not. Those calling for monetary compensation for the depredations of slave-holders against the ancestors of black (and many white) americans would force people, at least some of whose ancestors were slaves, to turn over their hard-earned money to make amends to other people they never harmed, and who may well be better-off economically than they are. This is nothing if not involuntary servitude.In addition to other arguments by its supporters, some of the justification for affirmative action from the start has been that it is an inequitable, but necessary, remedy for the disadvantages black people were subjected to in the past. Advocates of this position assign the blame for the problems experienced by black americans on historical discrimination and the “legacy of slavery.” The thinking goes that there would be more integration and diversity today if slavery and other forms of now-outlawed discrimination had not existed in the past, and therefore the descendants of those who were once enslaved deserve special advantages now to make up for earlier mistreatment of their ancestors. Some of those who believe in this line of reasoning have taken their arguments even further, however, and propose that black american descendants of slaves should be given cash payouts as a reparation for the fact that their forbears were held in bondage.

Here again, the root problem is seeing people as group members and not as autonomous individuals. For those with this outlook, the calculus is simple: some people in the past harmed other people and therefore the descendants of the wrongdoers, or at least people of the same skin color as they were, must be forced to make amends to the descendants of the victims. Such a program would declare all white people responsible for, or at least the beneficiaries of, the hardships of all black people, without any need to produce any evidence that any of the parties forced to hand over the cash had ever done anything harmful to the recipients.

Diversity or Freedom?

In a world without ethnic discrimination, it is likely that many of our neighborhoods, workplaces, and social spaces would be far more heterogeneous than they are today. But the fact that people are not segregated in housing or occupation by color or language is not necessarily a sign that bigotry has been eliminated. It could just as well be accomplished by social planners who direct or manipulate people to live in certain places, enter specific lines of work, or pursue some course of study, while dissuading or barring others from doing so, because they are of one ethnicity or another which the experts have decided is too common or too scarce in some setting. Such meddling in people’s choices may well bring about a sort of diversity, but only at the price of individual liberty.

When people are truly free to choose, which is what anarchists seek, they may decide to associate with a variety of other people, or may seek to isolate themselves among others with whom they feel more comfortable because they share an ethnic background. There is no guarantee that opening up all areas of endeavor to all comers, regardless of color or ancestry would create the “diversity” sought by many who allegedly seek to root out discrimination. Living among people who differ from oneself in all sorts of ways may make life more interesting and satisfying for some, but will not suit everyone.

Equality of opportunity for all individuals regardless of skin color or ethnicity should be the goal of freedom-seekers. But it is far from clear that even if this was achieved, every group, occupation, or institution would be made up of various sorts of people in numbers that reflect the exact percentages of people of different ethnicities in the population of the region or city or world at large. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Black people make up a higher proportion of players in the NBA than is true of american society at large, while white people are similarly overrepresented among those in the NHL. Since there is no evidence that this is the result of racism in the recruiting practices of either organization, their relative lack of “diversity” harms no one.

Anarchists and Ethnic Politics

Unfortunately, anarchists are not immune to the appeal of group-based identity politics. In the american libertarian movement today there are some who embrace the nonsense of “whiteness” theory and call for the abolition of the white “race.” Others recently organized a “people of color” conference which excluded white anarchists, while an upcoming forum in New York will present the case for a “black” anarchism. And though much is written in the anarchist press about discrimination and bigotry, all too often these writings, even those by people who reject separatism and anti-white bias, reflect the view that people fit into nice “racial” categories and that meaningful things can be said about people based on their ethnicity, without bothering to evaluate them as individuals. Such an uncritical acceptance of the ethnic politics so prevalent in this country is inconsistent with the anarchist traditions of promoting individuality and rejecting such manifestations of group think as ethnic bigotry, nationalism, separatism, and statism.

Being an anarchist and an individualist, I believe that people should be free to associate with or avoid whomever they like. While I prefer to live, work, and socialize among people of all sorts, if others, including some anarchists, want to live or do business only with others of the same ethnicity, there is no reason they should not be free to do so, as long as they do not interfere with the equal freedom of others to live differently. The fact that libertarians tolerate such voluntary discrimination, however, does not mean we approve of it, and those of us who seek to eliminate bigotry will continue to speak out against anyone who seeks to classify and divide people based on their ethnicity.

An anarchist society would encompass people of many kinds, some of whom would continue to harbor ethnic prejudices, but the lack of a coercive apparatus by which some could disadvantage others would make it unlikely that individuals’ bigotry would result in real harm to others. However, we do not yet live in a free society, and voluntary association or avoidance is not always an option. Many of the institutions we encounter today coerce people into participation in their workings and then proceed to treat them in discriminatory ways. Such bigoted practices should be strongly opposed.

Not surprisingly, the worst offender is the state. Government obtains its lifeblood, the taxes it imposes on working people, by threat of force, and does so whatever skin color a person has, their immigration status, or the language they speak at home. Since the state robs us all indiscriminately, it should not then be free to treat people differently based on some superficial characteristic. Nor should certain other enterprises and businesspeople, such as chartered banks, landlords, and monopoly businesses, since it is difficult or impossible to avoid doing business with these entities which owe their continued existence to the state. Thus, a bank that won’t loan to black people, a hospital that bars employees from speaking spanish, or a landlord that won’t rent to a person from the philippines are all practicing forms of discrimination that anarchists would oppose. But so is a law school which accepts government money and discriminates against white people in its admission practices, or a state-funded university which provides dormitories segregated on the basis of skin color.

It is ironic that so many who wish to end bigotry turn to government to accomplish their goal, when getting rid of the state would be the best means of solving much of the problem. Without government laws, regulations, and police, banks could not red-line, landlords could not deny people a home, and no one would work for a business that presumed to tell them what language they could or could not speak. In addition, universities would not be able to maintain their monopoly on training for certain lines of work, which allows them to pick and choose who they believe is worthy to pursue what career. And, perhaps most important, the loathsome public school system, which provides lousy and discriminatory education and lays the foundation for much of the inequity people face later in life, would be eliminated. As noted above, an anarchist society would not necessarily be free of people with bigoted ideas, but without a state to empower the haters, they would not be able to persecute those they dislike. If some institution in a libertarian community wished to exclude someone based on their skin color, those who felt differently would be free to create their own, non-discriminatory enterprise.

Although most of those who work for a society free of discrimination and bigotry turn to the state to fix the problem, it is, in fact, the state which allows ethnic discrimination to impoverish so many people and prevent them from improving their living conditions. Only by abolishing the state can we hope to abolish the harm caused by ethnic hatred and inequity. This is the insight that anarchists have to contribute to the debate about bigotry and its remedies.

The Masters of War

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Despite the opposition of most of the world, the united states and united kingdom have subjugated, at least temporarily, the residents of iraq. Of course, as was the case in the american-led war against serbia several years back, most of the claims that were initially used to justify the invasion have proven to be false. There were no smallpox stores. The baathists had no ties to al-Qaeda. The old iraqi government had no capability to attack the united states, britain, or anybody else for that matter except some of its own subjects. It did not buy nuclear materials from niger. There is no evidence of any chemical or biological weapons program conducted by the military. In other words, the case for war was built on lies.

Once they were found out, however, the american and british governments decided that the real reason for the invasion was their desire to liberate iraqi people from an oppressive government. But, just as was done last year in afghanistan, the invaders have replaced one nasty and brutish government with another, after killing thousands of innocent people. The occupiers have declared a group of their puppets as the new government and have stifled any attempts by non-compliant iraqis to form any alternative structures that might challenge their power. They imprison 4400 people they call “security detainees,” who are denied even the limited “rights” granted to official prisoners of war. American soldiers bully, harass, arrest, and kill iraqi civilians who do not obey quickly enough. They invade people’s homes, tie up innocent people, and confiscate their weapons and savings. They shoot at journalists and wedding celebrants. Their kurdish allies expel arabs from their homes in villages around Kirkuk. Religious bigots are free to intimidate women into wearing head coverings and staying off the streets. American agents are rewriting the history books used in iraqi schools to reflect the occupiers’ version of recent history. Corporations whose owners and managers are friends of our rulers are making big money rebuilding a country whose businesses, utilities, and health care services were destroyed by sanctions, constant bombings, and outright war conducted for over a decade by american and british politicians. And then americans wonder why so many residents of iraq seem ungrateful and resistance to the military occupation continues.

After posing as liberators, american troops have shown their true nature. They are conquerors as surely as any other imperial military has ever been. They disarm any locals who do not demonstrate sufficient loyalty to the new regime. They intentionally kill peaceful demonstrators. They “accidentally” kill non-combatants simply going about their lives, and recently slaughtered a group of iraqi police officers trained by americans, shooting up a hospital in the process. They occupy hotels and government palaces and swim in the indoor pools of former rulers, while leaving their new subjects without adequate power, clean water, or medical care.

The “independent” american news media, in general, do their best to portray the occupiers in a positive light, while portraying the opposition as evil religious or “saddamite” zealots. No serious criticism is raised when united states troops use enriched uranium weapons that result in disease and death among non-combatants, slaughter civilians with “misplaced” aerial bombs, or kill motorists who fail to stop when ordered to do so. And no mention is made that the united states military itself possesses vast stores of precisely the “weapons of mass destruction” whose purported possession by the former iraqi government was used to justify the invasion in the first place.

In addition to frank cheerleading for the war, the newspapers, magazines, and TV news anchors choose their language carefully in order to encourage their readers and listeners to look favorably on united states military operations, and harshly at any iraqis who resist or simply do not follow commands. Heroic american soldiers carry out raids.   But iraqi “terrorists” “ambush” occupying troops. American administrators living and working in comfort in buildings confiscated from the former rulers are portrayed as do-gooders, while iraqi civilians who have started a private transportation service in Baghdad with buses the former government bought with money they stole from their subjects, are called “looters.” Iraqis trying to make a quick buck from selling oil on the black market are accused of responsibility for power shortages in Basra, while the destruction of much of iraq’s oil industry and other infrastructure during the continuous american bombing and embargo from the early nineties on is seldom mentioned. Needless to say, the reporters who were “embedded” with the troops are only too happy to listen to whatever they are told by their masters, sometimes reporting complete lies, like the whole fairy tale about Jessica Lynch’s capture and rescue.

While news media coverage has helped convince most americans to support the war and occupation, patriotic supporters of this bloody business should consider what the reaction of the american colonists would have been had some other nation decided to “liberate” them instead of letting them do it themselves. The revolutionaries would not have rolled over and played dead had france defeated the british colonial authorities, instituted a government that they believed best suited the needs of americans, and disarmed the militias. Instead they would have fought the french occupiers, just as so many iraqis are now waging a guerrilla war against the american and british invaders.

In afghanistan, too, where the occupiers have had more time to impose their will, armed resistance to the invaders and their governors of choice continues, as do challenges to the authority of the american-backed government in Kabul. Of course, the united states and afghan governments and their devotees in the news media label resistance fighters terrorists and rival politicians warlords. But none of this alters the fact that people in afghanistan, like those in iraq, do not appreciate being murdered and bullied by americans and their afghan servants any more than they enjoyed the predations of the former tyrants.

Of course the fact that the locals in these two countries continue to demonstrate their contempt for their new masters is unlikely to deter further meddling by united states politicians in the affairs of other countries. Aroused by their recent victories, the american warlords are now making threatening noises directed at north korea, iran, and syria, and ratcheting up the economic war against cuba. It is no wonder the despots in Tehran and Pyongyang, after witnessing what happened in afghanistan and iraq, are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. It should be obvious to any thinking person that the willingness of the american military to bomb and invade any country it feels it can defeat rather easily serves to promote the proliferation of advanced weapons among countries that rightly perceive themselves to be on the hit list of the american government.

The rulers of the united states have taken advantage of their war to launch an assault on our limited domestic freedoms as well. The government has arrogated to itself the power to monitor what we read, where we travel, and what we say in meetings. Utilizing their increased powers under the patriot act, federal agents have carried out hundreds of buggings and surveillance operations and have visited a number of libraries and mosques to snoop around. They refuse to identify prisoners accused of terrorism and deny them access to lawyers or any other semblance of “due process.” People are secretly detained without charges as “material witnesses. Immigrants are being tricked into registering with government agencies and then deported. A judge recently imprisoned someone for creating an “anarchist” website with links to information on bombs, an area of study the government apparently considers its exclusive domain. While Ashcroft dismisses its critics as hysterics, the (in)justice department is seeking to expand the scope of the patriot act, even as the transportation security administration plans to implement a color-coding scheme for air travelers to advise screeners who can and can’t fly and who should be harassed even more than the run-of the-mill flyer. And this is all somehow supposed to preserve the freedoms which “our” enemies supposedly hate.

The former despots in iraq and afghanistan were brutal murderers, who are mourned by few but their families and cronies. And it will be a welcome event when the people in korea (both north and south), iran, and syria find the wherewithal to send their own nasty rulers packing. But that is a task for the residents of these countries, not foreign invaders who will simply come in and set up new tyrannies, albeit ones friendlier to the conquerors.

The best outcome of all, in the view of this anarchist, would be for people all over the world who are oppressed and robbed by governments and their corporate buddies to throw out their rulers and not simply replace them with new, more liberal or democratic ones. Abolishing government and the principle of force in human relations in the only method of instituting and preserving individual freedom of thought, action, and association. But such an outcome requires a complete change in the way most people view the world. Until individual people everywhere come to believe that they themselves are the best, and only, ones suited to make decisions affecting their lives, interests, and activities, the world will remain mired in wars and infested by governments and rulers-in-waiting.

Alaska, the Welfare State

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

In 2002, for every $1 paid by residents of alaska to the united states government in the form of taxes, $1.91 in federal funds was sent back to the state, more money per person than anywhere else in the country. Of course, little of this money, $11,540 per capita, was refunded directly to the individuals from whom it was confiscated. Of the $7,400,000,000 in federal expenditures in the state, $3,100,000,000 took the form of grants to state and local governments, and $1,400,000,000 went to the military, while only $1,000,000,000 or so went to social security, veterans benefits and federal pensions. With all this federal money floating around, it is no surprise that, of approximately 300,700 non-farm alaska jobs as of May 2003, 84,000 positions were in one branch or another of government: 16,900 federal (excluding uniformed military); 24,800 state; and 42,300 local (including 3400 “tribal”). Government programs of various kinds play a huge role in the state economy, with non-military “public” sector jobs comprising 27% of the workforce. In Anchorage, the air force is the largest employer, while 50% of employed people in the state’s second largest city, Fairbanks, work for some branch of government (military included).

And what do we get for all this federal largesse? An army that controls huge tracts of land in the city of Anchorage, which it now plans to fence off so it can more safely practice killing people. A deputy attorney-general who has denied DNA testing that might exculpate a prisoner, because she believes “the legal system needs finality.” An Anchorage assembly that has nothing better to do than restrict the ability of panhandlers to take donations from drivers, while firefighters are allowed to tie up traffic at intersections while collecting money from drivers for some officially sanctioned charity. A state development agency that spent $100,000 a month to keep a failing “private” Anchorage seafood business afloat. A public school system in Anchorage run by bureaucrats who believe failure is success, poverty is wealth, and segregation is diversity. Another school system in Fairbanks where a student whose eyes are red from studying can be expelled for refusing a piss test for drugs. Handouts to property developers in Anchorage who pay only 15% of the cost to prepare lots for building, the rest of the funds coming from those who pay property taxes. And a federal forest “service” that spent $34,800,000,000 to generate revenue of $1,200,000,000, subsidizing the profits of wealthy industrialists

Much of the government operations in this state are dedicated to “managing” wildlife and government-owned park lands, and, as in most areas, the bureaucrats do an abysmal job. The federal occupation of the Pribilof Islands, for instance, has resulted in so much environmental damage, that it will cost $100,000,000 to remove the blight caused by various federal agencies which managed the fur seal trade. Regulators presume to grant monopoly rights to favored seafood processors, and prevent fishers from selling their harvest to the buyer of their choice. Biologists “manage” the fisheries by over-producing salmon which are then stripped of their eggs, ground-up, and disposed of in the ocean. Our parks and recreation areas are plagued with uniformed bullies who believe they know better than the rest of us how to care for and enjoy the land and animals around us and torment so-called inholders who wish to continue living on property the government wants to take. “Experts” drug, tag, collar, monitor, harass, and kill whatever animals they choose, “for their own good,” of course, but then presume to regulate everyone else’s encounters with other species. Government oversight of animals plants, and land has led to environmental destruction, waste and abuse of animals, good salaries for interventionist busybodies and paper-pushers, increased profits for favored corporations, and harassment of people who dare to defend their freedom to live and enjoy nature in ways of which our masters disapprove.

Another product of government action, and one unique to alaska are the so-called “native” corporations, which were formed years ago as part of a settlement of land claims by eskimo, indian, and aleut alaskans. While many individual share-holders in these businesses receive regular dividends, they have served primarily to aggrandize the people who run and control these operations, as well as their business associates and partners, many of whom are not alaskan, “native” or otherwise. Just as in any other corporate enterprise, the directors and officers receive inflated salaries, while regular workers are laid off when it pleases the managers. Besides owing their very existence to government decree, these corporations exploit the preferences they are granted by discriminatory federal laws to win lucrative federal contracts, and reward their “private” sector partners with generous portions of the take. Although they purport to enrich and empower people whose lives and livelihoods were wrecked by both government and private theft and abuse, “native“ corporations have been no more beneficial to their customers or caring to their employees than any other government-business partnership.

While oil production, mining, fisheries, and tourism produce much real wealth, and there is a strong service sector in the alaskan economy, without federal money, and the huge military presence in the state, alaska could not exist in the form it does today. An alaska without government would mean no military, no park rangers, no government schools, and no handouts to corporations. It would also mean no permanent fund dividend and no tax-supported road building. People would be really free to live, work, and play as they choose, but they would not be able to send someone else the bill. Individual liberty requires individual responsibility. Until people decide to declare their independence from government and coercion, alaska will continue to be not a haven of freedom, but a welfare state where the limited freedoms we enjoy are not ours for the taking, but are granted to us by people and institutions that can later turn around and restrict or abolish them if they so desire.

NO WAR

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

It appears that the united states government will soon increase the intensity of the war it has been waging continuously against the people who live in iraq for over ten years. Unable to terrorize iraq’s rulers into unquestioning obedience to the american political, economic, and military establishment, the owner of the world’s largest array of weapons of mass destruction will now use this might to further torment the people and ravage the land of iraq, with the intent of replacing the local tyrants with an occupation government run by american generals. As with any attempt to justify a war of aggression, the threat posed by the iraqi government and military to those in other countries has been wildly exaggerated. Even some in the FBI and CIA have disputed Bush’s claim of iraqi ties to al-qaida. But american politicians have never let the truth get in the way of a good war. Remember the Maine?

It is unquestionable that the government of iraq has robbed, murdered, and brutalized those it rules over, as well as the residents of other countries, especially iran. But none of this domestic and international terrorism bothered those who rule the united states until the iraqi military invaded kuwait in 1990. In fact, the american government considered Saddam Hussein an ally during the many years his military waged war against iran.

While they have fashioned themselves as the world’s head cops for a long time now, it is only in recent years that the united states government and military have been able to fully implement their vision of world dominion. They have announced that those who are not with them in their alleged war against terrorism are against them. Being “with” america means endorsing whatever action its politicians and military leaders engage in, and the united states feels free to do whatever it wishes to torment those who are “against” it. It threatens sanctions against countries whose rulers do not comply, and claims the right to cross international borders in hot pursuit of “terrorists.” Like their pirate forbears, american navy ships feel free to stop and board foreign vessels on the high seas if they suspect them of carrying oil or weapons they have declared contraband, ie, those originating in countries whose rulers the american state is on the outs with. And, always, there is the ongoing threat of military attack to achieve american foreign policy goals.

The united states government calls for regime change in iraq. But, of course the new rulers will not have to be democrats or humanitarians, as we have seen in the case of afghanistan, where prisoners are suffocated to death in containers, women continue to be treated abominably, student protestors are shot in the streets, and foreign TV programs are banned by the government installed by the american military. All that really matters is that the new regime does not step on the toes of the united states in international matters and allows american oil companies to have their way with iraq’s natural resources. What they do to the people they have power over is of little concern to the state department or the pentagon.

The aggressive military posturing of the united states has served to encourage and justify similar behavior on the part of its allies. The australian government threatens “pre-emptive” military strikes, the leaders of the british state practically salivate at the idea of war with iraq, and the russian government justifies its murderous campaign in chechnya as a war against its own islamist terrorists. The chinese rulers label separatists in east turkestan as terrorists and hope to quiet international criticism of their brutal behavior there by saying it is part of the international “war on terror,” while israel continues its slaughter of teenagers and destruction of the homes of relatives of those it considers terrorists. It is the height of hypocrisy that american politicians label the iraqi tyrants as unacceptable threats to world freedom, while they are in bed with the brutes who rule china, pakistan, indonesia, israel, and saudi arabia.

Even when at war, allegedly to protect freedom, the american military and security agencies have managed not to be distracted from their other important work, of course. The coast guard somehow manages to find the time to board and harass cruise ships in alaska and prevent desperate people trying to escape the united states-supported government in haiti from landing on american shores. The DEA has stepped up efforts to prevent ecstasy from getting into the country. The INS still considers it important to harass and deport people who have come from as far away as morocco to Dutch Harbor in order to try and make a living by working in the seafood processing plants there. And the army has not let its desire to increase the number of soldiers fluent in arabic keep it from expelling a number of such interpreters who enjoy homosexual sex. So it should come as no surprise that those with whom the military forms alliances have no respect for individual liberty, either.

While our limited internal american freedoms have been under attack by the government since September 2001, things will probably get worse in the near future. In addition to causing the death of large numbers of iraqi non-combatants, this “new” war will serve as a pretext for the accelerated growth of the domestic police state, where, already, immigrants from some countries are presumed to be terrorists until proven otherwise, and long-time residents with no criminal history are jailed and deported; prisoners are held without charge or legal representation and otherwise denied due process; legal residents traveling even within states are subjected to inane, insulting, and demeaning “security” procedures which do nothing to increase flight safety; people are encouraged to inform on others based on snippets of conversation overheard at a restaurant or on a plane; armed air marshals are allowed to terrorize airplane passengers; local school systems are required to turn their students’ names over to the military to facilitate recruitment; and domestic spy agencies may readily snoop into people’s mail, listen in on phone conversations, and obtain library and bookstore records simply by claiming a possible terrorist connection. Politicians have also proposed requiring americans travelling abroad to inform the government of their comings and goings, and some are now advocating reinstitution of the military draft.

As always, most of the members of the party in “opposition,” after mouthing a few platitudes, will fall in line to “support the troops” as soon as the massacre starts. War is a bipartisan policy, as evidenced by the relentless bombing of iraq, the murderous assault on people in serbia, and the occasional bomb tossed at sudan or afghanistan witnessed under the previous administration.Beside the increase in military spending that will come at the expense of other government programs which arguably benefit some regular people, the number of civilian federal employees, including those involved in airport “security,” is increasing as well. Government, as always, continues to grow, funded by the money the state extorts from working people in taxes and fees. But, corporate america also continues to benefit from the sweat of working people as the government, blaming the economic difficulties of the american airlines on the attacks in September 2001, has given large amounts of money taken from working people to the airlines so that their stockholders, managers, and consultants can continue to live their extravagant lives while regular workers are laid off or see their pay cut. In addition, the government has agreed to use tax dollars to pay off claims against private insurers that can be blamed on terrorism. And one can be sure that as soon as the dust settles in “liberated” iraq, united states corporations will move right in and extract massive amounts of profit by “helping” the iraqis to extract, refine, and sell the oil and natural gas found in their country. War is the health, not only of the state, but also of corporate capitalist enterprises.

The prompt formation of an anti-war movement here and abroad has brought some hope to the scene. Opponents of american military adventurism in iraq range from some european governments and politicians, the catholic church hierarchy, and former cold warrior and author John le Carré to average people who have gathered on the streets of cities throughout the united states and the world, including Anchorage, to voice their opposition to the government’s plan to slaughter people in iraq. The growing non-compliance of individuals and institutions with the government’s attempt to whip up pro-war hysteria by conducting widespread inoculations against a non-existent smallpox threat has also demonstrated that not everyone has been taken in by the lies and distortions of the state and the news media that, largely, serve it. But the only way that this war will be avoided is if even more regular people begin to question authority, look critically at what they are being told, and stand up and say no.

Anarcho-Libertarianism and the Security Forces

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Few things are more certain to elicit righteous anger from anarcho-libertarians than mention of State security forces: overt and covert police, armed forces, and intelligence agencies. For sure, even when they are those possessed by the liberal democracies and not merely the tools of some outright dictator or particularly vile political or religious creed, there are often very good reasons for this. For example, their enforcement of laws incompatible with individual liberty; their role in suppressing ‘extremist’ ideologies such as anarcho-libertarianism that threaten the status quo; their overly enthusiastic support of many of the world’s despots in the name of ‘national interest;’ and of course their all-to-frequent engagement in abuses of power and outright criminality that even the liberal democracies deplore in principle.

Instead, the real reason for anarcho-libertarians’ hostility to the security forces is not so much what they do, but rather what they are: amongst the most important creatures of ‘the State,’ a concept that anarcho-libertarians simply regard as a fictitious warrant for certain individuals to acquire and exercise aggressively coercive power over others.      But this is to miss what ought to be the real reason behind anarcho-libertarians’ hostility towards the security forces, and it is a trap into which many can and do fall and end up looking like fools. For if one is to take this empirical approach and enumerate all the bad things that State security forces actually do, then honesty requires one to admit that—again at least in the liberal democracies—they also do a lot of desirable things as well, a concept that many anarcho-libertarians find quite heretical. For example, they can detect and apprehend— perhaps even fend off beforehand—those who commit crimes that would be considered wrongs in the most anarchistic of societies such as physical assaults or the theft of personal property; they can deter the armies of a mad despot who has a cowed people and the resources of a country upon which to call; and yes it needs to be admitted that they can suppress terrorist-inclined political and religious movements of a collectivist nature compared to which liberal democracy seems like paradise on earth.

The problem comes when, having rejected the notion of the State and thus regarding as inherently illegitimate any coercive power that an individual or organization exercises in the name of the State, anarcho-libertarians sometimes are perceived to—and sometimes actually do—reject reflexively everything that the so-called State and its agencies do. Anarcho-libertarians also oppose compulsory schooling and ‘public-sector’ healthcare, both of which are funded out of coercively expropriated taxation and which place severe limits on individual choice by, for example, many forms of more-or-less mandatory occupational licensing. Yet we emphatically do not oppose either education or healthcare. Indeed, we say that a freer life will enrich these very things by allowing greater experiment and innovation outside of the straightjacket imposed by the State. What we do say, however, is that no one should be forced to ‘participate’ in these services, whether as a funder or a consumer. So too with the security forces. It is not security as such that anarcho-libertarians reject, but the illegitimately coercive nature of State security.

Another aspect of this is the crypto-world-revolutionaryism and (in its pejorative sense) utopianism that still afflicts many anarcho-libertarians. To put it simply: that anarcho-libertarianism ‘will come about’ (a) very rapidly via some mass uprising, (b) more-or-less simultaneously throughout the world, and furthermore that (c) all of the flaws of mankind will disappear once liberated from the corruption of Statism.

Sensible anarchists and libertarians have long eschewed revolution as a realistic mechanism for advancing their cause. Firstly, at any give stage, there is only so far that even the most ‘liberal State—or rather the individuals who benefit from promoting the fiction—can be pushed, and the asymmetry of power in the even semi-advanced nations—not least from the very security forces under discussion here, of course—is these days such to ensure the revolution’s defeat. Second, that history shows—with the partial exceptions of the three English revolutions in the 1640s, the 1680s, and in the American colonies in the 1770s—that the winning side in revolutions tend to espouse even more despotic beliefs than the various regimes that they overthrew and that furthermore they tend to be led by men with a personal predilection for violence. What this inescapably leads to—except for those who wish and are able to live as self-sufficient hermits away from the world—is the belief in some form of generally peaceful gradualism. This means that at any given moment some aspects of the State might be more sensibly—from both a tactical and ethical point of view—attacked by word and (non-violent) deed than others.

If this is true within our existing countries, then so too is it true amongst the many different countries in the world today. Even if an anarcho-libertarian society was established in a country—or a sufficiently large portion of it so that by that stage the remaining Statist-inclined had accepted defeat in at least that region—there would still most likely remain other Statist countries, often controlled by men and ideologies of astonishing aggressiveness and cruelty. In short, the newly-founded anarcho-libertarian society, having achieved success against domestic Statists, must either now defend itself against often malignant and militarily well-equipped foreign Statists or die soon after its birth. This can only be done—assuming that it is not also a wholly pacifist society—by the retention of troops and hardware in sufficient numbers, training, and modernity to see off the threat. Anarchism is not ‘disorder.’ but voluntary and spontaneous order formed from the one unifying purpose of defending mutual individual liberty.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’  They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally, anarcho-libertarians, in common with most other reasonable observers of the world as it actually is, fully recognize that one does not have to be a Marxist to acknowledge that social systems can have a profound impact on the attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and social psychology of people. This is why, for example, even within the parameters relating to the various political settlements that we see in the world today, corruption tends to be positively associated with (relative) political authoritarianism: despotism breeds distrust and mendacity. Nevertheless, it is credulous in the extreme to think that criminality—the tendency of some individuals to choose to act as invasive human parasites—will wholly disappear in an anarcho-libertarian society. Therefore, some form of security and police—by whatever name they are known—will still be needed.

The point is that anarcho-libertarians need to be careful that they do not in fact, nor even in appearance, ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ They need to demonstrate that they take security seriously, both in showing that they are not naive about the realities of human nature or international politics, that even in the most anarcho-libertarian society there will be remain a need for security forces to counter both domestic (‘criminal’) and foreign (‘military’) threats, and also that there are in reality only a certain number of effective ways that this can be arranged.

Finally and vitally for the promotion of the cause of liberty, anarcho-libertarians need steadfastly to maintain that effective security most assuredly can be arranged in a voluntaristic way absent of the aggressive and coercive ‘State.’ This needs to be done in a threefold manner: by arguing the theoretical case; by noting whatever examples of voluntaristic security—and, indeed, other ‘emergency’ services—already exist and have survived formal prohibition and informal ‘crowding out’ by the State; and where it might be possible, setting up parallel security agencies that are run in accordance with anarcho-libertarian principles.

Who can it be now?

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

So we’re all like, “Hey, let weapons inspectors back in!” and the Iraqis are all like, “Dude, you pulled out, inspectus interruptus was your idea from the last time you bombed, and you’re like spying on us anyway!” and we’re all like “Shyeah, as if, let us in or we bomb you!” and they’re all like “This is sooo like just a pretext, we say yes and you’ll find something else!” and we’re like “No, dude, we swear, no pretext and we’re serious and we have lots of bombs!” and they’re all like “Let me talk to Kofi Annan, OK?” and Kofi’s all like “Dude, they mean business and they have bombs fer sher, we’ve seen ‘em!” and they’re all like “Jeez, OK already, your inspectors that you pulled out anyway can come in again” and now we’re all like “Psyche, dude!  Too late! Not good enough!  Give us a minute to think of more demands before we bomb you anyway!”  So like, what I want to know is, isn’t that the very definition of pretext?

The State of the State in Alaska

By | | , ,
Leave a comment

Alaska is tightly wrapped in the tentacles of government, authoritarianism, and intolerance. The state is dependent on huge quantities of federal money, corporate welfare is the order of the day, police agencies of various sorts acquire more and more power, and many who live here not only accept the situation but strive to increase the government’s power to interfere in the lives of peaceful residents. While many government entities meddle in the business of alaskans, by far the biggest player is the united states government. In 2001 alone, the feds spent $6,000,000,000 here, $1,500,000,000 of which was a subsidy to the state government.

Alaska’s dependence on government doesn’t end with the armed forces, though. Non-military united states government agencies here employ 17,139 people, the state of alaska has 16,066 people on its payroll, and the University of Alaska, the Anchorage school district, municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks north star school district together employ another 16,843. These government agencies, all funded entirely with money extorted from working people, comprise seven of the top ten employers in alaska, with a total of 71,240 workers between them. The federal government alone accounts for around 10% of all jobs here.Another $1,000,000,000 or so goes to the various military forces based in the state, making them a major force in the economy As the Anchorage and Fairbanks chambers of commerce boasted in a May 2002 brochure, Advantage to Alaskans, there are 17,497 active military and 3695 national guard personnel in the state, as well as 36,605 family members of military personnel. Retirees and their families account for another 44,620 people. That means that 102,417 people, or 16% of the state’s population are at least partially on the payroll of the military. The department of “defense” is the largest employer in alaska with 21,192 employees.

As is the case elsewhere, the politicians who run alaska, on both federal and state levels, are always looking for more power, and have used the supposed “war on terror” to expand their empires. The military plans to place 16 missiles at Fort Greeley and alaska now has its very own office of homeland security. In addition, a new force of “sea marshals” has taken to harassing shipping along the coast, having boarded over 70 vessels, from cruise ships full of tourists to oil tankers, in their first year of operation. And, naturally, alaskans are forced to put up with the same harassment by federal inspectors every other united states resident now faces when travelling by air. Already over $53,000,000 has been spent on “upgrading” the state’s “security” capabilities.

These new measures come on top of the pre-existing policing that people have become all too used to. Here are some examples from the last six months: Anchorage police attacked a 13 year old in September, and beat up and gassed a large number of other young people after a dance just this month. A state trooper notorious for using violence against anyone who does not immediately follow his every order killed a disabled driver on the Sterling highway in January. Police will now be stationed in Anchorage high schools and the superintendent boasts about a 23% increase in suspensions of students, many for non-violent transgressions including “willful disobedience” to their keepers. The state office of public advocacy has withheld the funds of a client the management of whose money they were charged with. An innocent man was arrested in Anchorage and had his name trumpeted all over the media before DNA testing cleared him of charges of rape. People are arrested for bringing alcohol into villages where the guardians of public morality have declared it unlawful, cops are now using a drug-sniffing dog to keep “dangerous” marijuana out of Fort Yukon, a Fairbanks judge recently forced a person convicted of no crime into mandatory “treatment” because he drinks, and Anchorage police have demonstrated their concern for the public health by raiding a local head shop. Anchorage drivers can now be fined if their insurance papers are not produced at the command of a cop, even if they have adequate insurance coverage. But perhaps most absurd, the state highway department has banned the roadside memorials some people place at accident scenes to remember their loved ones, in the interests of public safety, of course. And if one seeks proof that the state applies its myriad of laws, rules, and regulations fairly, one need only consider the fact that 37% of the people in prison are eskimo, aleut or american indian men, while this is true of only 8% of the state’s general population.

Many, perhaps most, alaskans support or are oblivious to such abuses, at least until they are directly affected. In fact, regular people are often advocates for increased state oversight of others, like the busybodies in Fairbanks who advocate that even more drinkers be given involuntary “treatment.” In another case, some Anchorage property owners have become advocates of greater government oversight of residential building since a few Habitat for Humanity houses in Mountain View and an affordable housing development called Strawberry Village have failed to live up to their standards of what makes an attractive home. But they fail to realize that such meddling in other people’s business may come back to bite them in years to come. Wealthy homeowners who have heretofore monopolized exclusive coastal properties in south Anchorage are now upset that the government is planning to exert its “right” of eminent domain to build a coastal trail near or on “their” property, allowing the great unwashed into the neighborhood.

When they are not busy further militarizing the state and pestering the populace, the pols and bureaucrats find time to redistribute the wealth they have taken from productive people and pass it on to their corporate allies and benefactors. The alaska industrial development and export agency specializes in investing state funds in failing businesses and losing millions of dollars. The state continues to invest in new roads to facilitate agricultural schemes despite a history of costly failures. Ketchikan politicians poured $17,000,000 into a paper plant whose owners and investors took the cash and ran. The state has prevailed on the united states department of agriculture to buy $71,000,000 worth of “surplus” salmon over the last seven years and asked them to buy $30,000,000 more last November. Meanwhile, the state outright owns a slaughterhouse run with prison labor in order to subsidize the livestock industry, which then sells much of the meat to the prison system.

The corporations created and funded by the alaska native claims settlement act regularly line up at the government trough, as well. Chenega Corporation has a $300,000,000 contract with the feds and Chugach Alaska, which went bankrupt from bad investments in 2000, will make $1,000,000,000 or so from a “defense” contract. Not to be left out, the alaska travel industry association has asked the state legislature for $14,000,000 to market tourism, while Alaska Airlines, which already received a payoff from the government after the September 2001 attacks, will receive an annual subsidy of $1,650,000 to provide air service to Adak in the aleutian islands. And businesspeople in Anchorage want the city to increase the hotel tax in order to raise the money to build them a convention center.

While none of this in unique to Alaska, it does fly in the face of the independent image many residents here like to maintain. What it means is that the task of anarchists, who hope to convince others of the merits of a stateless society, will be as difficult to accomplish here as it is elsewhere.