Rule does not necessitate singularity of position, title or robes. The state of being ruled is defined by action and structure. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 9, 2010
An interesting aspect of mainstream political views is the assumption that somehow conservative and liberal viewpoints are not Stateist. That somehow the conservative goal, to control the state in a way that promotes their ideals of strong defense, subsidizing the controlled corporate enterprise system, an encompassing prison system that controls not simply criminal but moral standards and the liberal goal of control of the state to institute social welfare, build infrastructure, fund public {and private} education, somehow does not involve stateism.
If the state utilizes a monopoly of force to control a region, then it follows that the struggle to gain access to control of the state and its activities is firmly embedded in stateism. The achievement of particular goals no matter how worthy they are credited for, does not intrinsically legitimize the means used to attain those goals. If the state is used as the means and the state is needed to maintain those goals once they are achieved, then obviously involvement in the process is stateist.
Why then do political partisans from both big government liberals and big government neo-cons to the incorrectly labeled "limited" government advocates shy away from the "Statist" moniker, even though that is exactly what they propose: the use of the force of the state to compel humans to act in a manner that they, as decision makers, deem necessary and appropriate?
All sides shy away from any reference to stateism simply because they wish to believe that what they do and what they propose is the way things should be and what all reasoning humans would want, not the result of coercion. They also believe that there could not possibly be an "alternative" that might serve people as well or even better than what they propose. They are true believers and if it takes force and the state to "show the way" for the rest of the country and world, then let's get the show on the road.
However, the recognition of the force necessary to install any worldview is a realization of the possibility that just and equitable means may exist and could emerge if this same force were removed. If it takes the tremendous force of a state to keep your world functioning in a way that is acceptable to you, then it is evident that "your way or the highway" may not be the only road to human fulfillment.
Both the state liberal and state conservative attempt to divorce themselves from the notion that their worldview not only includes and advocates the monopoly of stateism, but is impossible without it. The fact that all people will not "naturally" be inclined to live in a way that is approved by either the collective views of conservatives or the collective views of the liberals is not something either is willing to face head on. It is much easier to dismiss opposing views as "spaced out" tax and spend liberals or "uptight" heartless conservatives, than to face the reality that many folks out there don't align with either camp and don't need someone else instructing them on how to conduct themselves in day to day life. .
How these less easily defined politicos would live is unknown, but apparently it would be a nightmare for both the liberal and conservative. To the liberal, the world would be one big sweatshop with uneducated and unthinking folks starving on the streets while the ultra rich relaxed in their mcmansion castles. The conservative fears an amoral and/or immoral world in which the poor folk can exist without the guidance and instructions of the rich, not to mention the predicament the well off would be in, attempting to find good, cheap help.
Even that sacred institution of "democracy" as we know it, is a form of statism. After all, what good is a majority vote in a nation as large as ours with no way to "enforce" it? The minority must be made to follow the dictates of those who know best, the majority. Who better to enforce this righteous doctrine than the state.
Democracy of course, can also exist consensually. We only need to remove the rule of force. The problem we are left with is that it is extremely difficult or even impossible to have any effective consensual democracy on a large scale. In the case of democracy, it seems the more the less merry.
There is an excellent example of participatory democracy in my hometown. A local public school teacher had a class that had a large number of immigrant students from a region near Nepal who had formed their own school club. They had organized a number of events and gatherings and he was surprised at their initiative and success.
What he was most taken by was their ability to solve problems. When they brought up issues, they would often vote on a decision. But, they would never act until every member of the group agreed to the decision. They would continue to discuss alternatives until each child came to the same conclusion as the rest of the group. When the teacher asked about this process, the kids told him they didn't believe in reaching a conclusion until all members of the group agreed.
What these children know that state liberals and state conservatives don't is that governing is not a process by which the minority serves the majority. Governing is the process by which all governed are served. Those who govern are not preordained to impose their will upon those governed. They are solely representatives of all those governed.
Our state conservatives and state liberals are not representatives of the people, they are representatives of a system. It is not a system that governs, but a system that rules. While systems that govern do require a government, systems that rule only require a ruling class, although some semblance of a government may remain in place to keep up appearances. Conservatives and Liberals represent only the ruling class and will continue to represent and be this class until the basic structure of the system has disintegrated or is fundamentally reformed.
To expect our votes to alter systemic structural reality is a poor investment in false hope.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: December 12, 2010 02:57:26 PM
Hi Gene,
Good article, as usual. I agree with most of what you said but I have some glaring holes to point out.
1. You focused on two "isms," liberalism and conservatism but I believe your critique applies to libertarianism, Islamism, Christianism, Anarchism and every other "ism" imaginable. The same blind spot you can readily identify in liberals and conservatives is just as evident to me in proponents of every "ism." The blind spot stems from ignoring human action as so beautifully espoused by Ludwig von Mises. This common trait results from attempts at substituting an "ism" for a system of government.
2. No "ism" can thrive without limits on the forces that would obliterate them. Removal of said limits allows the "isms" to engage in open aggression against adherents to ALL other "isms."
3. I'm not sure of your premise regarding "mainstream" views but I'm willing to let that stand while offering only my own personal perspective as a counter example. Perhaps I'm not a mainstream proponent of limited government by your reckoning. It is impossible to validate your premise as stated.
Personally, I acknowledge that certainly force is necessary to implement a system which allows for any individual rights to exist. Libertarians tend not to examine the "how" that is absolutely required to move an academic exercise into the real world. I have yet to encounter a explanation from anyone, including the revered Rothbard for how, without force, to deal with dissent in a stateless society. I stand as the example that demonstrates the fallacy underlying the "non-initiation of force" directive touted by libertarianism's congregation, clergy and choir. The very moment a utopian libertarianism realm is conjured from thin air, I would unite with my neighbors to create a community and enforce our mutual local interests even against folks who disagree with the tenets of our community. Only constant, overwhelming force could prevent me from doing so. Sounds like stateism to me, by your definition.
