Forming the Structure of the New Society Within the Shell of the Old
(The title of this post is borrowed from the Wobblies.)
A comment by Ryan from Absurd Results on this post about the Georgist “Single Tax” and Thomas Jefferson’s “Ward System” gave me the opportunity to once again formulate, summarize, and clarify my political wish list. Ryan wrote:
As for Georgism, I have to admit, I find it intriguing—even more so when combined with Jefferson’s ward system. Actually, I think the ward system (which sounds a lot like Michael Rozeff’s panarchy) would be essential for a single tax regime, for it would more likely keep closed the door to statism by making the wards compete for citizens.
Still, the ward system worries me a little because the political class—that is, those that have the power to tax, taken collectively—has a knack for finding ways to expand its jurisdiction. It’s for this reason that I’m partial to Hans Hoppe’s notion of a private law society. Under his conception, security is provided on a subscription basis instead of on a jurisdictional basis. This takes a so-called “public good” like security and moves it into the private sphere, thereby eliminating the need for taxation. I have to think that by taking away the two hallmarks of Statism—taxation and jurisdiction—freedom would flourish.
I replied [links added]:
I’m not sure that even under conditions of “anarchy,” or a state of nature, that we could get away from the need for territorial defense, security, and “government.” A single landlord, or landholder, is in a sense a “government,” claiming jurisdiction over a particular territory, and having the need to secure his claim. By what right would he maintain his claim? I’d suggest that Georgism might form the conditions for establishing the justice of his claim vis-a-vis other landholders and would-be landholders in the immediate area, as well as the fund by which the people in that area might defend their claims relative to each other and relative to external threats. The need for so-called “national defense” is to my mind the strongest objection to anarchism (though I’d clarify it’s not so much the need to defend the “nation” as it is to defend a would-be anarchic territory from existing nations). The anarchic impulse, and the impulse of the ward system, is to devolve the authority and responsibility for such defense to smaller and smaller areas, ultimately vesting it in the individual landholders themselves, who would likely find it advisable to confederate with others for their mutual defense, keeping their confederacies as small as is consistent with the needs of territorial defense (recognizing that the larger the confederacy and the more concentrated its power the larger the threat to the freedoms of its constituents). As I see it, these base-line confederacies formed strictly for territorial defense could co-exist with the kinds of associations and private law systems envisioned by Rozeff’s panarchy.
I have to credit “Our Enemy, the State,” by Albert Jay Nock, who considered himself an anarchist, for selling me on both Georgism and Jefferson’s “ward system.”
How might we ever get from here to there? First and foremost, by puncturing the pretensions of the State. And I can think of no better authority to quote on this score than Martin Luther King, Jr., for whom a federal holiday is named for Christ’s sake:
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Follow
John,
I certainly can’t disagree with someone who proposes a system that could co-exist with my preferred system! But I guess that’s what makes us libertarians—no matter if one might label you “left” and me “right.”
As for the national defense argument, however, I’m not particularly convinced that a territory-based system is necessary (although it can be sufficient). After all, if a Swiss can tell the German Kaiser that a quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would “shoot twice and go home” if invaded by a half million German soldiers, why couldn’t individuals subscribe to a security provider that promises to shoot on your behalf and then go home?
1The utility of labels is famously limited. Nock, for example, who if I had to choose is probably my favorite political philosopher, is regarded as an exemplar of the “Old Right.” My second favorite political philosopher might be Karl Hess, who is regarded as an exemplar of the “New Left.”
If the threat is an army of a half million invading soldiers, is your average individual homeowner really going to be able to afford to pay the sum necessary to enable and induce a private security provider to muster the force necessary to fight that army? The quarter of a million militiamen committed to the defense of a particular territory, and paid for by neighbors whose security interests naturally overlap, sounds like a far more viable defense.
2re MLKing quoting Augustine:
I see it this way. The government enforces social law; the Creative Forces of the Universe enforce moral law. As Jesus said, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God’s.” God owns your immortal soul, if any; Caesar (the MICFiC) owns your life, the life of all your friends and family, and whether one stone remains on top of another in any city, town, or hamlet anywhere in the world.
3I assume you got here from IOZ’s blog. I thought all the regular commenters there were anarchists, as I am, but the sentiment you’ve expressed here is quite to the contrary, unless I misunderstand you. Caesar may believe he owns your life, but in reality he’s just a man like other men. Same for the men and women who “make up” the United States and its subsidiaries.
4Yes, I got here from IOZ’s blog. I do not consider myself an anarchist. Although i have enjoyed some anarchist creations (most keenly Rudy Rucker’s novel Software) I have done what I can to conform my mind to the Python Creed, which mentions “not enough hats” and goes on to assert that the soul is brought into existence through a process of “guided self-observation”.
In asserting that the MICFiC own my bodily existence, and every building in the world, I mean own in the sense of “can dispose of as they please”. They destroy whomever and whatever they wish – no one can stop them, or punish them afterwards.
Generally speaking, though, life goes on as usual – until it doesn’t.
5