Leftover Links
The first Leftists were a group of newly elected representatives to the National Constituent Assembly at the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789. They were labeled “Leftists” merely because they happened to sit on the left side in the French Assembly.
The legislators who sat on the right side were referred to as the Party of the Right, or Rightists. The Rightists or “reactionaries” stood for a highly centralized national government, special laws and privileges for unions and various other groups and classes, government economic monopolies in various necessities of life, and a continuation of government controls over prices, production, and distribution.
. . .
The majority of the original Party of the Left had been opposed to concentrated power regardless of who exercised it. But the violent revolutionists in their midst, led by Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, were opposed to concentrated power only so long as someone else exercised it. Robespierre, who represented himself as spokesman for the people, first said that the division of the powers of government was a good thing when it diminished the authority of the king. But when Robespierre himself became the leader, he claimed that the division of the powers of government would be a bad thing now that the power belonged “to the people.”
. . .
Most of the original Leftists protested. So they too were soon repudiated in the general terror that was called liberty. But since the name Leftist had become identified with the struggle of the individual against the tyranny of government, the new tyrants continued to use that good name for their own purposes. This was a complete perversion of its former meaning.
I revere Leo Tolstoy as a great and exemplary man not only for his principled anarchism and non-dogmatic Christianity, but also for his enthusiastic endorsement later in life of the “Single Tax” advocated by Henry George, as described by Tolstoy’s personal friend and secretary Victor Lebrun:
In giving his extreme and sympathetic attention to other thinkers and writers, the great Tolstoy differed essentially from his colleagues — the geniuses of all countries and all centuries. But nothing shows the complete honesty and surprising liberty of his spirit more than his attitude towards Henry George.
It was at the beginning of 1885 that he happened to lay his hands on the books of the great American sociologist. By then the moral and social doctrine of the thinker had been solidly and definitely established. Man’s supreme and unique duty was to perfect himself morally and not to co-operate with the wrong. Thus the social problem would be automatically solved when the majority has understood the true meaning of pure Christianity and when it has learned to abstain from all crimes which are frequently and commonly committed. All reasoning about the precise nature of the citizens’ rights, about laws, about the organisation of governmental compulsion for their protection is anathema to the great thinker.
But … hardly had Tolstoy had a glance at “Social Problems” and “Progress and Poverty” and he was completely captivated by George’s outstanding exposition.
. . .
And the thinker does not hesitate any longer. From this encounter on he resolutely and enthusiastically takes George’s side, and to his last breath for a quarter of a century, he makes every effort without relaxation to make his discovery known.
Georgetown professor John Hasnas wrote in The Obviousness of Anarchy a couple things I’ve tried to say on this blog:
Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also
used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian
newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively
narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of
order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order.
And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state.
For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive
of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.. . .
No one believes that we can transition from a world of states to
anarchy instantaneously. No reasonable anarchist advocates the total dissolution of
government tomorrow. Once we turn our attention to the question of how to move
incrementally from government to anarchy, it becomes apparent that national defense
would be one of the last governmental functions to be de-politicised. If my argument
for anarchy is flawed and anarchy is not a viable method of social organisation, this
will undoubtedly be revealed long before doing away with national defense becomes
an issue. On the other hand, to the extent that the gradual transition from government
to anarchy is successful, the need for national defense continually lessens.
David Gross at The Picket Line links to a good meditation on the dangers of lifestyle purity perfectionism by Claire Wolfe, who writes:
Kitty Antonik Wakfer whacks all of us who say we support WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, but who haven’t cancelled our Amazon and PayPal accounts or cut up our MasterCards and Visas.
. . .
Now, I don’t know Kitty Antonik Wakfer. She may be a terrific human being. I hope she is. Her heart’s in the right place.
But I would ask all the “more pure than thou” freedomistas of the world: Have you walked a few years in my shoes?
. . .
For 15 years, I increasingly lived according to my principles. I did those hard things. Went without numbers and ID. Became an exile in my own land. Got by with a little help from my friends (and sometimes a lot of help from them). And every one of those friends was less “pure” than I; but they should kick my ass if I ever have enough nerve to damn them for their lack of purity.
. . .
I no longer live like that. Got tired. Went broke. Became weary of being an outcast — weary of knowing I’d have to fight through every little tiny thing that others take for granted. I’m older and ready for a little calm and comfort. I don’t regret one minute of trying to live free. I’m glad I did it. But it didn’t make the world freer. And for me, that time is done.
. . .
Thing is, even in my most hardcore days, I wasn’t as “pure” as some folks. Go to the Mental Militia forums and look up the postings of suijurisfreeman if you really want to see hardcore. And I defy anybody to find me one, single freedomista on this earth who never violates a principle — never pays a sales tax for a purchase, lives on property which is neither taxed nor subsidized, totally ignores the existence of the state and all its works, drives boldly down the highway sans license and registration and doesn’t bother to stop when the red light flashes in the rear window because to stop would be to obey the unjust state. Show me the person who goes through life without a single compromise of principle. Show me.
. . .
And unless you are that perfectly pure person whose life is the epitome of principle every moment of every day, then don’t go around condemning others for failing to take a step that you consider proper and necessary — but that also doesn’t cause you any huge inconvenience.
Follow
