Anarchism: Utopian vs. Practical

Roderick Long on the Non-Aggression Principle as Golden Mean

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 12:25 am No Responses »

Jun 062010

The Non-Aggression Principle is the foundation of libertarianism. It forbids aggression, i.e., the initiation of force against others. While there are many different justifications for the NAP, the simplest argument is an appeal to commonsense morality: we should deal with other people through reason and persuasion rather than violence and coercion.

In his article “The Irrelevance of Responsibility,” Roderick Long presents an Aristotelian Golden Mean justification of the NAP. He argues that a flourishing human life requires striking a balance between the subhuman and the superhuman. Since reason is the essential human trait, a truly human life requires relating to others through persuasion. Dealing with others through force is subhuman; but refusing to use force against aggressors is superhuman. Thus the NAP—using force only in defense—represents a Golden Mean between the extremes of subhuman aggression and superhuman pacifism.

What follows is an excerpt from Long’s article (p. 119, 121-124). Keep reading...

Monarchy vs. Democracy and The Decline of Civilization

Posted by Toban Wiebe at 6:00 pm 48 Responses »

Jun 202009

Social decay Despite incredible advances in knowledge and technology over the past few decades, living standards have actually declined (also see here and here). [edit Aug 2010: In retrospect this statement was too strong, living standards are certainly higher today. It would be more accurate to say that the rate of increase has fallen.] Taken alone, this makes no sense—comparable advances in the past, such as the industrial revolution, have sparked enormous increases in prosperity. On top of falling living standards, civilization is crumbling: war, poverty, crime, debt, disease, social dysfunction, family breakdown, hedonism, etc. Why are so many things going wrong, despite unparalleled advances in knowledge and technology? This is the great unanswered question of our time. Keep reading...

Constitutionalism is Socialism

Posted by Toban Wiebe at 10:50 pm 30 Responses »

Mar 122009

A constitutionally limited government provides the services of security and justice. To accomplish this, it establishes a system of national defense, police and courts—these are the means of production of security and justice. By definition then, limited government is socialist (i.e., state ownership of the means of production.) It’s also socialist in the sense that the provision of security and justice is socialized: the costs and benefits are collectively shared. Furthermore, these services are funded through involuntary taxation and private citizens are coercively prohibited from competing in their provision. Government is inherently a coercive socialist monopoly. Therefore, constitutionalists are socialists, as they support limited government. (To be precise, constitutionalists are coercive socialists—I have nothing against voluntary socialism, which is perfectly legitimate.)

The thing is, they also consider the principles of liberty to be important. Constitutionalists believe that markets are better than central planning, but that government is necessary to protect liberty—that government is a necessary evil. This contradictory position mainly exists because they lack the understanding of the logical conclusion of the principles of liberty: the stateless society. But rather than just rejecting them as statists, we should reach out to them as potential libertarians in the spirit of gain orientation. Fortunately, an open mind and a little education are all that’s needed to arrive at a consistent pro-liberty position. Keep reading...

Against Democracy

Posted by Michael Wiebe at 5:13 pm 37 Responses »

Dec 142008

Introduction

Democracy is universally held up as the sacred political ideal. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that democracy is a secular religion. Observe: We fight wars for it (“Making the world safe for democracy”). We are implored to blindly participate in it (“It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”). And most tellingly, it is taboo to question it. Anyone who claims that democracy is bad is likely to be labeled a Nazi. (Even though Hitler was democratically elected and much of Nazism was promoted with democratic rhetoric.)

Nevertheless, I will attempt to prove that democracy is one of the worst political ideologies, on par with dictatorship and communism. My argument is three pronged. First, democracy is founded on initiatory violence. It is thus no more acceptable than murder or rape. Second, it can be refuted by a reductio ad absurdum; namely, that while we accept democracy for government, we would never accept it applied consistently in our lives. Third, democracy is unnecessary. What is there to vote on? All essential functions of society can be provided voluntarily and competitively on the market. Programs like the minimum wage and rent control are actually counter-productive, and can be eliminated altogether. There are many other problems with democracy: its ineffectiveness, its corruption, its total war, and its decivilization effect; but I will not address these here (see Hoppe). Last, I will address two strategies to undermine and weaken democracy: not voting and secession. Keep reading...