Anarchy

Anyone who’s been paying attention to the economic news has seen this announcement coming from a long way out: Vallejo, California, Officials Vote for Bankruptcy. If that is the start of a trend—and there’s good reason to think it might be—I think it could be a “making lemonade” opportunity for voluntaryists.

I am quite undecided about this turn of events in the housing market. Banks’ mail jingles as borrowers walk is the headline on a commentary by James Saft. For anyone who hasn’t come across the phrase “jingle mail” yet, it describes the phenomenon of homeowners walking away from a home because the debt owed is greater than its current value—and so, they mail the keys to the lender. The unmistakable signal jingle mail sends is, “I’m done here. The house is yours.”—thus breaking the mortgage contract. Is that wrong? I’ve seen a fair bit of commentary arguing both ways; but none of it has been from a pro-freedom perspective.

The Epicurean concept of ataraxia means freedom from mental disturbances. Epicurus taught that such freedom is a necessary component in the lifetime pursuit of rational pleasure which leads ultimately to eudaimonia (the flourishing of one's life).

Epicurus is truly the philosopher of freedom--of the sort that most of us modern lovers of liberty seek--and the fact that he accurately laid out all of the essentials millennia ago is truly remarkable. And what are these essentials?

Strike the Root has published an article titled Vulgar Anti-Corporatism. As readers of Kevin Carson’s excellent Mutualist Blog would immediately suspect from the title, the idea is a riff on Carson’s “vulgar libertarian watch” concept. However, Hogeye Bill’s article wasn’t at all persuasive to me.

Brad Spangler has answered an interesting freedom-oriented meme, and tags me to do likewise. The question is: “What motivated you to start looking into Anarchist/Libertarian thought?” So, here goes my answer.

I see that Walter Block has continued with the deriding of anarchist non-voters for not supporting RP—or, as he puts it, “kicking people in the crotch”. (Yes, I know; it’s a lovely image of tolerance in the pro-freedom family, isn’t it?) He completely missed mine, but offered some interesting new gymnastics in the attempt, so I guess it’s my turn to add to the shouting again.

Presto shared this with me, and I have been remiss in both thanking him for it and sharing the love.

Dale over at Anarchy in Your Head has created an excellent cartoon that very succinctly presents why I cannot support He-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named-Here:

Someone commented on that post that RP is Frodo, which set me to laughing. But then I got to thinking ... is someone like Frodo possible? I don’t think so; I don’t think Gandhi measures up, although he might come closest. I’m not sure that it’s productive to dwell on such questions, because fictional characters operate in worlds very different from ours. I don’t see a lot of value in even trying to emulate characters like Frodo, Howard Roark, Dagny Taggart, or John Galt.

That said, I think most individuals who seek power over others end up like Boromir, even if only metaphorically.

How refreshing—I just read an open letter that I actually liked! No, it isn’t one of those increasingly silly open letters over at RP Central.

No law can give power to private persons; every law transfers power from private persons to government.

From Isabel Paterson.

I’m sorry I don’t have a credit for this picture, because whoever created it deserves thanks. Still, it’s worth posting, so I shall:

It probably goes without saying that I do not blindly nor generally “support our troops”; however, I deeply feel for all the individuals who came to the understanding expressed on that flag via direct experience.

Several days ago, Wendy McElroy mused about a Libertarian Fixation on Guy Fawkes?, with which I empathized to some degree.

If I don’t get this out of my system [I tried taking it out on the tomatoes, and I tried exercise, but I don’t think all of the pounding in my veins was from the workout] I am going to pop a new hole in my head, and that I don’t need. Lest you think this is going to be an “I told you so” rant, put that out of your head. It’s an “Are you people totally fucking insane??” rant.

Oh, and there just might be some strong language along the way.

Yesterday, Retta Fontana served up another insightful essay, titled The Emperor Is Not Naked, Really. It’s actually a list of delusions, or as she subtitled the piece, Things You Must Believe to be a Voter. Her last paragraph sums the piece up fairly nicely [emphasis hers]:

You have the right, but not the obligation, to pursue your own happiness, except where prohibited. Or how prohibited, how much prohibited, or when, what or who prohibited. The pursuit of happiness is subject and limited by a few, simple parameters--suggestions, really, which government kindly lays out for you at every turn. (You must believe this is best; otherwise anything could happen.) Benevolent, selfless legislators everywhere work day and night to see to it that “anything” does not happen. And it’s not because they are high on power and prestige, nor are they profiteering from the legislative process--really. It’s because they wake up each morning wondering what they can do for you today - believe it.

Interestingly, Fontana doesn’t use the term “democracy” once in her entire essay, although she’s implicitly addressing the concept in at least a few items. While out and about, I talked with several people about liberty—abstractly, concretely, its various forms, what it can mean personally to individuals, etc. I thought that at least some of what I and others involved were saying was sinking in ... until a few in the group saw something they didn’t like (a person using a nearby lake as his bathtub), created a large fuss over the isolated incident, and actually said with straight faces, “There ought to be a law!”.

So maybe my friends and I didn’t have quite the impact we wanted ... but then, we didn’t have Jim Bovard’s excellent piece, Deliberative Democracy Dementia, in our bag o’ information. A small sample, emphasis mine:

Professors imply that Deliberative Democracy would allow citizens the chance to take the reins of state. However, Deliberative Democracy is more like the toy dashboard controls with which children pretend to drive.

If government were simply a matter of paperwork or moral calisthenics, then mere deliberations might solve political problems. But the chance to vent at public meetings is scant consolation for the havoc wreaked by government policies. The number of government agencies that can accost, prohibit, penalize, tax, impound, impede, detain, subpoena, confiscate, search, indict, fine, audit, interrogate, levy, wiretap, sanction, and otherwise harass and subjugate the citizen and/or his property has skyrocketed. Few, if any, of the advocates of Deliberative Democracy seem aware that government fires real ammunition into the lives of innocent citizens—from speed traps, to seatbelt checkpoints, to bogus child-abuse investigations, to arresting almost a million marijuana smokers a year.

It is absurd to expect that discussions will resolve differences between people who wish to live as they please and others who demand the power to bring them to their knees. The more power government possesses, the more fruitless deliberations become between aggressors and victims. ....

Deliberative Democracy is a recipe for docility masquerading as a formula for activism. Deliberative Democracy aims to pacify citizens, not leash politicians. Being permitted to talk about politics is no substitute for being free.

I hadn’t heard of this particular political fad until reading Jim’s piece – probably just as well. All the same, it seems to me that much of his critique of it applies to democracy itself when used as a coercive tool of the state.

Independence Day (I refuse to say "4th of July") has become a difficult time for me in the last decade or so. To say that I'm ambivalent - or even downright cynical - is an awful understatement sometimes.

And yet, I can't help but remember history, the fine and lofty hopes and dreams of so many people - past and present. I can't help but be moved when I read the declaration, or consider the incredible sacrifice so many have made to make that declaration live... regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the outcome.