Anarchy or liberty? Part four, Conclusions and Sources

What has definitely contributed to my radicalism is an understanding of the hypocrisy of the economic authoritarians/"libertarians". Specifically:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
an "anarchist" who thought the police didn't beat up enough homeless people
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
ambivalent about rape
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friedrich_August_von_Hayek
Supported Pinochet and demanded all governments be constitutionally against the welfare state
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
"The poor should know hunger"

So, do we always revert back to liberalism? No.
For example, if we take environmentalism and personal rights to a logical degree we can justify eco-terrorism in the name of self-defence. Also, logically we should be prosecuting war criminals like Tony Blair, but politically this could never happen as any government involved in prosecuting a former prime minister would fear possible prosecution because of their actions, either in the past or a possible future.

Does the state make right regardless? No, because one has to be suspicious of statist/"might makes right" ideas as well as "money makes right". Ethically, this is the same as murder or terrorism.
It is also worth noting that despite claims by economic authoritarians that certain government measures would result in capital flight this failed to occur as a "protest" by capital against the Iraq war and Gordon Brown giving £850 billion to the main banks.

Ethically and politically, one has to be a Social Anarchist.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein
OK, not so much an anarchist but worth reading
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

Anarchy or Liberty, part three. Or, Why I am not a Leftist?

Hello again. I feel like I'm on a roll with this one.

Been starting to realise just how right-wing libertarianism is. Perhaps I should say "economic authoritarianism" to refer to it or Objectivism, assuming the two are the same. The opposite ought to be a form of "cooperativism", perhaps socialism is a misleading term. The left-right divide can be replaced by individualism and cooperativism on the one hand and political and economic authoritarianism on the other.

It is right to use these terms when one extreme opposes any form of non-state or independent cooperation (Objectivism), political parties/activism and the forming of trade unions while the other end can encompass most forms of socialism and forms of political activity, including anarcho-syndicalism and "Lifestylism". I'm not quite sure where to put Fascism on a purely left-right scale so political authoritarianism definitely fits-Objectivists oppose any political activity, putting any other philosophy and ideology to its Left.

Of course, if one disagrees fundamentally with freedom of association then one really ought to oppose all prisons, assuming society doesn't have the right to choose who it associates with. Think about it.

Yes, anyone reading my blog will tell I have an obsession with prisons and criticising a crazed obscure "rightist" ideology.
And I do.
The reason for this is twofold and connected: the right-wing media in the United Kingdom and how often people on the traditional "left" and "right" ends of the political spectrum use the same arguments to support different positions .
I often find myself reading between the lines and it is very clear to me that the poisonous, insidious half-philosophy known as "Objectivism" or libertarianism is a present influence in the editorial content specifically of the Times newspaper, the modern Conservative party and the online magazine "Spiked Online". The latter is generally quite obscure but is often quoted by the BBC, RT, The Times and the Daily Mail.
Even though they support legalising all forms of pornography, including examples of which are too obscene to describe and involve no reasonable measure of consent.
This is not exaggeration, Spiked are fanatically committed to the most extreme forms of free speech while opposing any and all forms of political activism ("Activism equals Anarchy", to quote their God Ayn Rand). Finding objective information on Spiked is difficult, but they actually grew out of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Great Britain. Presumably they decided capitalism will only be overthrown after it has reached its worst excesses and so have to argue fervently for any conservative cause while keeping to a libertarian agenda.
The newspapers mentioned are typical of right-wing newspapers in the United Kingdom, which are highly critical of campaigns on behalf of the Palestinians for example. All journals seem to harbour particular ire towards the campaigns in favour of organising economic and academic boycotts of Israel in order to pressure and isolate their government. Which to The Times is basically against free trade, although surely people have a choice of who and where to by goods from and who they associate or do not with?
This is where contradictions are raised, or ought to be.
I can just about forgive the Hate Mail when it criticises capitalism on moral grounds. This is a very sound argument in fact, as is opposition to capitalism on environmental grounds.
The issue of association and choice is fundamental to the issue of establishing or not trade unions and prisons, I shouldn't make that point further? However I would clarify that a very big problem with prisons is how they are organised and the insatiable reliance on them when there is no clear empirical evidence that they actually reform criminals and deter crime. I think, without contradicting myself, prison is one of those problems that are not easily solved and that there is no clear answer to the situation.
But it is obscenely hypocritical concerning the existence of the state: being that if the state is defined by the legal use of violence that effectively means that murder, in a very real sense, is legal. As is theft or extortion as the state is effectively a huge self-sustaining protection racket. It is important considering the above points to consider this when mainstream conservative and Conservative commentators criticise Social Anarchists for not agreeing with their concept of a minimal state. But: short argument-who builds and maintains the roads? Private individuals could not afford to. Towns and villages could be linked by private railways but many would be unprofitable and the owners would go bankrupt.
So, what happens if the government can tax people, but people can't form trade unions or political parties? Also, no-one is responsible for roads, hospitals and schools because these should all be privately run. And there'd be no prisons because practically everything would be legal.
Like infanticide.
In other words, why listen to the arguments of morons?

Another dickhead is Friedrich Hayek. Thatcher was a massive fan (no surprise there) due to his book "The Road To Serfdom" (not read at present but do I need to?) which basically argues that welfare systems are wrong and interfere with individual freedom because there is no fool proof way of objectively determining how much money an individual would need to live off or proving if they have other sources of income. But how can one decide, similarly, if a criminal is guilty or even, say philosophically, if a crime has even been committed, so the argument goes round in circles? All it proves really is that the arguments against communism or socialism used by Hayek, Rand and Thatcher are the same for opposing any kind of centralised coordinating authority one could think of.
Besides, a welfare state is not the same as socialism.
Also, surely any idiot could give a reasonable guess on how much an individual's living costs would be? Say, by estimating or working out by statistical means the total cost of a loaf of bread, two bus tickets and a pint of milk then multiplying that amount by seven to give a low but reasonable cost of living. Money or vouchers or credit could also be supplied to cover the cost of clothes, heating and rent over a certain period. Welfare costs hardly make up a large amount of government spending and most forms like pensions and child support are provided to people who do or used to work. Welfare is not paying people not to work and abolishing unemployment benefits while maintaining a prison system is effectively rewarding criminal behaviour as desperate individuals would be forced to commit crimes simply in order to receive healthcare or a roof over their head.

Other forms of anarchy face the same arguments against them as well as hostility from other Leftists.
Anarcho-primitivism and green anarchy support a return to a pastoral or even hunter-gather society. In so many obvious ways this is evidently backward and counterproductive but does hit a chord with conservative arguments, especially conservatives critical of relentless progress at a Human cost. It also supports a non-hierarchical alternative to industrial capitalism while consistently keeping to the traditional arguments against socialism. In terms of bringing it about, many Primitivists consider it inevitable considering recent historical developments, the suicidal reluctance of governments and corporations to work towards a sustainable future for Humanity (a heinous crime of non-action in itself) and the obvious absence of "The Revolution", alongside the perpetual bickering, splintering and infighting that plagues left-wing organisations.

Agorism is sometimes called "anarcho-capitalism" even though "anarcho-capitalism" is non-anarchic and Agorism is not exactly capitalism in the traditional sense. However, like Mutualism (another branch of political anarchism) it defines what Objectivists confuse capitalism to be, being straight-forward equal trade between consenting, rational individuals. Do I need to explain why this isn't really capitalism?

Lifestylism is pretty self-explanatory in itself, based on the belief that the life choices of individuals can bring about real social change. This, perhaps again, is (probably) what people often limit or confuse anarchism with. Murray Bookchin, among many others, was a critic.
But what is the alternative? "Getting a Job like a Good Communist"? Isn't this Lifestylism? Or is it just surrendering one's autonomy to the state or an employer who lives off your labour. Another subject that just goes round and round and never gets satisfactorily resolved.

Anarchy or Liberty, part two

Hello again.
By the way thank you for taking the time to read my half-baked crazed ranting.

An important concept that many liberals/moderates and conservatives miss is that of justice. Perhaps on first hand this seems strange for me to say. Of course these people believe in justice. But are we talking about justice in a legal or economic sense? I think the point is to think about both.

A conservative would conclude that some form of centralised authority is needed for legal justice. They would also conclude that any attempt to create economic justice i.e. equality would create a disincentive for capital to invest in the economy, the richest and most creative people would leave the country, the economy would collapse and so tax revenues would decrease. The decrease in state coffers would affect it's ability to maintain law and order and so justice would be denied.

Liberals would generally agree with this statement but would be critical of some of the laws that conservatives would support and would more likely to favour a progressive income and/or wealth tax. Making less laws and raising more taxes makes more sense economically as the state could focus on, for example, imprisoning murderers and sex offenders as opposed to banning women and homosexuals from serving in the armed forces and handing out lengthy prison sentences for petty or non-violent offences.  

I think both arguments have merit. However the argument about capital flight and also inflation (which conservatives and libertarians bring up to justify lowering wages and benefits) isn't entirely convincing. If anything, governments are deliberately causing inflation by providing massive direct benefits and state subsidies to the rich.

The amounts of money spent rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq and bailing out the banks could easily be directly distributed to the very poor and low paid workers. In fact this basically makes a mockery of the argument that government cannot achieve equality, at least in highly developed nations. Perhaps this is a point for another blog post, but wages could be capped at say £250 per annum ditto corporate profits. Empty houses could be made available to buy at say £5000 and the government could even give people £25K over a year if they just don't feel like working for a year, or if they need to complete a further year at university, raise a child or care for an elderly relative.

I think the real point about justice is how easy it is to evade prison for certain offences. I'm thinking rape, which is incredibly hard to prove and convict and also tax evasion. Moreover, it is obvious to probably most people how the very rich and particularly current or ex politicians, policemen and military personnel and also celebrities seem to be able to mostly avoid the consequences of their actions that most ordinary people would never get away with. Without getting into this too much I think much of this, certainly in the UK, is the fault of the right-wing press and media. Abroad, one can think of the cases of OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorious.

Anarchy or Liberty, or why I am an anarchist

Weird point, but what if the US gun lobby are right?
I mean they are not, but perhaps it's fair to point out that of all the things you can and can't do in the United States, there are a lot of things which are a lot harder to do than obtaining a firearm. In many cases there are freedoms that most people in the world enjoy that are affectively forbidden in the USA.
Like having a drink on your 18th birthday.
Not being shot by the police or being a victim of a mass shooting.
Obtaining an abortion or healthcare.
Driving while black.
Crossing the road (it's called "jaywalking").
Crossing the road while black.
Public drinking.

The point is, there are often two sides to an argument and in specific circumstances the "liberal" and "conservative" sides to an argument are actually both right and wrong. Being:
guns
abortions
hard drugs
soft drugs
euthanasia
marriage (in general)
killing in defence of self or property
smoking/drinking/having sex/injecting drugs in public
I think it is for society itself to deal with these issues not any government, no matter how democratic or otherwise it claims to be, simply because legalising in effect means official endorsement by the state while there are obvious problems with prohibition which anyone can find arguments for  (They all boil down to the same thing anyway).

Alternately, they could be dealt with on a case by case basis or localities can decide consensus on which is appropriate. This is basically anarcho-communism, summed up by Emma Goldman's phrase

"Society gets the crime it deserves"

It is interesting if one goes back to the issue of firearms how it is somehow considered acceptable in some parts of America, particularly Texas, to openly carry firearms in public while drinking and even smoking in public can result in a fine or imprisonment, let alone open drug use or fornication! Yet, surely being openly armed is a threat while none of the other offences would actually harm anyone directly?

Censorship is another issue.
Libertarians would contend that banning a film is wrong as is putting an age certificate. But what if one simply cannot afford to "go to the movies"? Isn't that basically the same as censorship because poverty, especially extreme poverty, prevents one participating in society and, to be honest and using films again as an example, having an opinion about society?
Which we are all part of.

But, guns.
If people can carry guns in public they could justify that using freedom of speech or even freedom of association. So, banning people from openly carrying firearms is restricting freedom of speech.....
...but by that argument ALL forms of pornography should be legal, while blackmail and even threats to kill are legitimate.
But, all this proves is that libertarianism is basically bollocks. It just gives one the right to intimidate and even be an outright threat to society.

Are libertarian ideas totally wrong or can one be selective?
Maybe.
"Democracy is when three sheep and one wolf argue over what to have for dinner"-an anonymous (well not because it's Facebook) poster on a Facebook libertarian group.
This comment probably sums up Objectivism, which is basically a reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-debate anti-liberal non-ideology. Just like libertarianism! Hah!

However, if one ignores the "justification" for capitalism and looks at the arguments for treating human beings equally because they are rational beings than Objectivism can start to make sense.
But.
What is the difference between being forced to eat grass because one cannot afford to eat or pay rent/mortgage on the land they occupy and, say, the state murdering you because you are rich or Jewish? We are humans, not wolves or sheep. We are animals and that is a good thing. Denying one is an animal with feelings, the ability to feel pain and pleasure and the need and desire to survive is illogical and denying reality.
So if we take these ideas seriously one should be free to work or not as one desires and all products and services available to any should be available to all.
Or at least rational people who give a good reason.
But.
A libertarian would say this is communism and an Objectivist would say communism is evil.

I would say that poverty is itself a form of violence AND censorship. I would also say that there is no objective way to allocate a value to labour so the most reasonable way to value it is to think of it in terms of time spent and hours worked.
Another way to put this would be to ask this question: You have two people. they are both on a very low income, say £100 a week. However, the first person only works for two hours a week while the other works for 112 hours a week. So, who is poorer?
I think it is obvious.
The poor worker is the one who barely has time to eat and sleep while the "rich" worker has time to educate themselves, have hobbies, practice their religion, spend time with their family or just sleep in from time to time, get wasted and end up with a hangover in the morning or just look for another job.
Objectivism basically states neither is rich or poor although Ayn Rand would almost certainly state that the second worker is somehow more virtuous.
The ridiculous hours spend by the second example are not used to make a spurious or extreme point but is a direct reference to the "heroes" of 'Atlas Shrugged'. Don't bother reading it, just trust me.

As an addendum to comments on libertarianism and Objectivism; what if one is irrational? For example a child or a very elderly person.
Or someone who is uneducated because all the public schools were closed when they were young and their parents didn't have time to teach them how to read.
Or they are angry because they are unemployed or homeless.
I think people should be allowed to fulfil their potential and all are of equal value. Libertarians (if we conflate the philosophy with Objectivism) would disagree. These people have no value and are practically considered animals along with homeless people, the developmentally disabled, drug addicts, religious people (presumably) and trade unionists. It is that extreme.
It is also hypocritical as it claims to be based on non-violence but effectively justifies if not violence at least neglect.
What we have to remember is that being asked for small change by a beggar is considered equal to asking one to rip both one's arms off and that being "on welfare" is effectively the same as murdering someone. For most rational people this is ridiculous but there is no such thing as moral relativism in Objectivism and no room in Ayn Rand's "philosophy" for compromise.
"A equals A" apparently.
But.
A socialist system based on voluntary association is not inherently violent. Communism is a good idea and need not require central planning or state co-ordination as I hope I have explained.

But what is wrong with government?
It is not all-powerful. In fact I would say it is incredibly weak, feeble and ineffective at solving especially global problems. Or at least without mass deprivation of personal freedoms.

What is the difference between anarchism and libertarianism?
Anarchists are against all forms of authority while libertarians just focus on the government. Libertarians also treat the government like some supernatural agency with wide-ranging powers when, objectively, the state, like money and perhaps God, DOES NOT EXIST. It exists in our minds only. If we ignored it, like perhaps obnoxious people and criminals, it would go away.
The only reality is survival, pleasure, pain and one's ego.
However, some government functions are perhaps necessary and it is not going to just go away because some people want it to. It survives because we allow it to survive. It is also true that necessary social functions like road maintenance and the fire brigade can be performed without need for taxes, coercion or state planning. Especially if they are functions that everybody agrees with or needs.

What about the left-right divide?
Obviously socialists and liberals are more or less on the left while conservatives and reactionaries are on the right. There is also the divide between authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism. But Objectivism is certainly a reactionary ideology despite its pretentions of liberalism and many on the Left have just as much contempt for liberalism, democracy and, more than often, students and the unemployed. For evidence just use the internet, there are plenty of intolerant morons on there.

Psychologically there is the Left, which focuses on the ego. Leftists often agree on many things but detest each other's organisations and fall out due to differences in personality. For example Murray Bookchin in the late twentieth century (his conflict with Lifestylism) and the refusal of the Second International to allow Errico Malatesta (an anarchist) membership. But Mussolini was a member.

In many ways the Reactionary Left is the same as that of the Revolutionary Right.
Oh..
.......I meant....hah!

Rightists disagree about a lot of things and are often most vocal and critical about "The Government" or "The Liberal Agenda", but still maintain loyalty to the main conservative party in their home country. They also have a collective psychology e.g. racists, homophobes, Islamophobes all treat individuals as part of a collective and consider any idea they disagree with as part of some conspiracy by a tiny but somehow all pervasive and all powerful cabal e.g. "The Jews" or "Hippies".