In part one, I looked at why the "congregational" model of government as practiced by many christian and jewish congregations is neither minarchist, anarchist, or statist, and why this model has been successful for several millenia. Unlike "human government," this model is non-coercive. Let's look at the various points in more detail:
* Voluntary in nature – adults (those who are able to believe and act on their own) volunteering to participate, and remain in association with each other. Generally, since Pentecost, or in the case of Judaism, since AD70 (the Fall of Jerusalem), there has been no legitimate force used in any church or synogogue. God Himself does not command or execute any sort of immediate punishment on those who fail to act as He has commanded - judgment and punishment is reserved for Judgment Day. If a person fails to voluntarily abide by the norms of the community (congregation), the closest thing to coercion allowed is a withdrawal of fellowship (see below) - arguably only a confirmation of something the person themselves has done by refusing to cooperate. Even for those who are supported (financially, physically) so that they can work more on behalf of the congregation do so voluntarily, and cannot be constrained by any action of the congregation to be forced to work. Most important, there is no legitimate force or "automatic" enrollment in this body - the Bible teaches that even though circumcision (for Jews) is done to an infant to mark them as one of the community, they cannot truly participate in the community until they are old enough to decide for themselves (the ritual of bar mitzvah, as I understand it). In christian communities, although some would practice infant baptism, it is clear in the New Testament that belief is essential - which is exactly why those groups that practice infant baptism (not found in the Bible, by the way) have some sort of confirmation of that faith later in life. You are not automatically under the control of some "government" merely by accident of birth or residence or ancestry.
* Organized – as a body, functions are given out and accepted voluntarily, but they are specific in nature, not open-ended nor amorphous. Virtually all human governments are characterized by very vague limits on power and function of offices, agencies etc. This is either "de jure" (such as the British "constitution" which is vague or nonexistant) or "de facto" (such as the American constitution which is very specific but ignored in practice). (Tribal governments and that of most kingdoms are even more loosy-goosy: whatever the market will bear.) In contrast, both rabbinical tradition and the New Testament identify the various organizational elements clearly, and the duties are specific (even if often ignored).
* Leadership is local, collective, limited in power, voluntary, and must meet certain agreed-upon qualifications. This is perhaps the most critical, and apparently the most difficult part of the congregational model. There is no "one-man rule" and there is no wide area of "control:" the elders or directors or shepherds are always plural and responsible for the "flock" in which they themselves are. There are no provinces, colonies, or empires. The other elements have been discussed already, except for the qualifications. Most human government deals with essentially unimportant "qualifications" - age, place of birth, heredity, percentage of votes, etc. The congregational model identifies those personal traits which make for effective and trustworthy leaders: honesty, reputation, fidelity, etc. And they are expected to uphold a certain standard of conduct at least as strict as those they are leading are to follow.
* Power is limited, especially the power of punishment – anything more than withdrawing from the offender (refusing to allow the offender to continue to associate and benefit from the organization) does not exist. As discussed above, there is really only one punishment found in the congregational model. All other power is similarly limited: there is no corporal punishment to force someone to follow the leaders, no loss of freedom to avenge some wrong action. And as pointed out, no one can be forced to join or remain. This is stated again in the next aspect: No use of aggressive force – the members cannot be forced to do anything; persuasion is the only way of obtaining cooperation and participation.
* Justice in resolution of conflicts and righting of wrongs done is by consent – and limited to restitution, not punishment. This is one of the major areas in which "human government" has usurped the responsibilities of the historical congregational governments around the world, to the detriment of society and people individually. Justice, real justice, hinges on this: what was done which was wrong is made right, as much as possible. Failure to do so is "punished" only by those actions necessary to separate the unrepenting offender from other potential victims - not so much to punish them (that is God's sphere) but to protect the community from further harm. This is similar, perhaps, to the modern concept of "restorative justice" and to the ancient practice of "outlawing."
* The scale and scope is limited to a relatively small number of participants in a fairly small geographic area – from a few families and individuals to perhaps several thousand. There is, therefore, competition between the organizations for members, and mobility between organizations without requiring physical relocation. Obviously the limited power of the leaders and of the congregational government dictates this, but this is also important from the point of view of individual liberty: competition in this, as in all other parts of social life, is generally good (although it can get carried away) - for it provides freedom of choice. With a congregational government essentially operating by concensus, it is essential that people are able to move from one to another, or even to organize their own congregation free and independent from any other. Therefore, by necessity, the groups tend to be somewhat small, and thus limited in power - and less likely to be able to effectively become aggressors and build "empires."
However well this model might work, we do have to remember that humans seldom function ideally, and even this limited organization will (and has) become corrupt and stopped following the model. This happened in ancient Israel, when the people demanded a king, "like the nations around us." It happened in Reformation Geneva, and in Pilgrim Massachusetts, and we can see examples in many churches and synogogues today and in very recent history. But the very nature of the model reduces the impacts of such departures, as we shall discuss in the next installment.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Minarchist, Anarchist, or Other? Part I
"The current LP membership pledge does not allow for limited government," writes Dr. Carl Milsted (see link). "Some initiation of force is required for a government to do its job. Some taxation is necessary."
So states Tom Knapp in his excellent article “Yes we have no banarchists” in http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/yes-we-have-no-bananarchists.html.
Well, here is one Libertarian who is also a libertarian who says that Dr. Carl is wrong – and might even argue with Tom about his conclusions (not that THAT has ever happened before, you know).
Now, we are supposedly known by the company we keep, and I admit to keeping some pretty bad company in the form of a whole bunch of anarcho-capitalists (I know, don’t you just hate hyphenated terms, but the Black Flag anarchists have so tainted the name “anarchist” that you really have to specify) like Mama Liberty (www.thepriceofliberty.org) and Lady Liberty (www.ladylibrty.com) and all the rest of my fellow Knights of Non-Agression at www.lrt.org. Most folks probably figure I am an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist – and probably wouldn’t consider me a minarchist, based on my writings of the last four or five years (my word! One-tenth of my life!). Well, they’re wrong. And if they think I’m a minarchist, they are wrong, too.
HEY! Easy there! IF you care to look under the table, you’ll see I’ve already got this little Hi-Point shucked. Just move your hands away from the holsters, pardners, and keep reading. That’s better. No, you don’t need that rope, either, pure hemp or not. Easy, easy. Did I happen to mention that I'm a "small-mouthed" pacifist, also?
Anyway, as I was saying, I really don’t fit into either camp, and I tell-you-three-times I am NOT a statist or anything like that. The reason is tied up in that quote from Dr. Carl. He’s wrong: Neither taxation (please, let us stop with the mealy-mouthed words – neither THEFT) nor any other initiation of force (see “aggression”) are necessary for a government to exist and function. Not to say that 99% of all human governments don’t use one or both of those methods, but it is possible for such to exist, and in fact, they have existed, pretty much continuously, for about 2600 years. No large percentage, but enough to know that they CAN function. Today, there are probably about 10-20 million people (not many, out of 6.5 billion, I know) that spend at least part of their time in voluntary participation in such governments.
To cut to the chase, what I am talking about is the way that hundreds of thousands of congregations, Jewish and christian, have been organized since the Babylonian Captivity and the days of Peter and Paul. It is not quite unique to them, but by far their version is the most successful and best organized of such groups. (And I must point out that not all religious organizations, christian or otherwise, meet the standards and criteria I will discuss here.) There are several keys to their success, and to the reason that they are an apt model for non-coercive government:
* Voluntary in nature – adults (those who are able to believe and act on their own) volunteering to participate, and remain in association with each other.
* Organized – as a body, functions are given out and accepted voluntarily, but they are specific in nature, not open-ended nor amorphous.
* Leadership is local, collective, limited in power, voluntary, and must meet certain agreed-upon qualifications.
* Power is limited, especially the power of punishment – anything more than withdrawing from the offender (refusing to allow the offender to continue to associate and benefit from the organization) does not exist.
* No use of aggressive force – the members cannot be forced to do anything; persuasion is the only way of obtaining cooperation and participation.
* Justice in resolution of conflicts and righting of wrongs done is by consent – and limited to restitution, not punishment.
* The scale and scope is limited to a relatively small number of participants in a fairly small geographic area – from a few families and individuals to perhaps several thousand. There is, therefore, competition between the organizations for members, and mobility between organizations without requiring physical relocation.
(Continued in Part II)
So states Tom Knapp in his excellent article “Yes we have no banarchists” in http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/02/yes-we-have-no-bananarchists.html.
Well, here is one Libertarian who is also a libertarian who says that Dr. Carl is wrong – and might even argue with Tom about his conclusions (not that THAT has ever happened before, you know).
Now, we are supposedly known by the company we keep, and I admit to keeping some pretty bad company in the form of a whole bunch of anarcho-capitalists (I know, don’t you just hate hyphenated terms, but the Black Flag anarchists have so tainted the name “anarchist” that you really have to specify) like Mama Liberty (www.thepriceofliberty.org) and Lady Liberty (www.ladylibrty.com) and all the rest of my fellow Knights of Non-Agression at www.lrt.org. Most folks probably figure I am an anarchist or anarcho-capitalist – and probably wouldn’t consider me a minarchist, based on my writings of the last four or five years (my word! One-tenth of my life!). Well, they’re wrong. And if they think I’m a minarchist, they are wrong, too.
HEY! Easy there! IF you care to look under the table, you’ll see I’ve already got this little Hi-Point shucked. Just move your hands away from the holsters, pardners, and keep reading. That’s better. No, you don’t need that rope, either, pure hemp or not. Easy, easy. Did I happen to mention that I'm a "small-mouthed" pacifist, also?
Anyway, as I was saying, I really don’t fit into either camp, and I tell-you-three-times I am NOT a statist or anything like that. The reason is tied up in that quote from Dr. Carl. He’s wrong: Neither taxation (please, let us stop with the mealy-mouthed words – neither THEFT) nor any other initiation of force (see “aggression”) are necessary for a government to exist and function. Not to say that 99% of all human governments don’t use one or both of those methods, but it is possible for such to exist, and in fact, they have existed, pretty much continuously, for about 2600 years. No large percentage, but enough to know that they CAN function. Today, there are probably about 10-20 million people (not many, out of 6.5 billion, I know) that spend at least part of their time in voluntary participation in such governments.
To cut to the chase, what I am talking about is the way that hundreds of thousands of congregations, Jewish and christian, have been organized since the Babylonian Captivity and the days of Peter and Paul. It is not quite unique to them, but by far their version is the most successful and best organized of such groups. (And I must point out that not all religious organizations, christian or otherwise, meet the standards and criteria I will discuss here.) There are several keys to their success, and to the reason that they are an apt model for non-coercive government:
* Voluntary in nature – adults (those who are able to believe and act on their own) volunteering to participate, and remain in association with each other.
* Organized – as a body, functions are given out and accepted voluntarily, but they are specific in nature, not open-ended nor amorphous.
* Leadership is local, collective, limited in power, voluntary, and must meet certain agreed-upon qualifications.
* Power is limited, especially the power of punishment – anything more than withdrawing from the offender (refusing to allow the offender to continue to associate and benefit from the organization) does not exist.
* No use of aggressive force – the members cannot be forced to do anything; persuasion is the only way of obtaining cooperation and participation.
* Justice in resolution of conflicts and righting of wrongs done is by consent – and limited to restitution, not punishment.
* The scale and scope is limited to a relatively small number of participants in a fairly small geographic area – from a few families and individuals to perhaps several thousand. There is, therefore, competition between the organizations for members, and mobility between organizations without requiring physical relocation.
(Continued in Part II)
Massa Says We Can Blog!
In the old days, you know, before "democracy" and all that, we had it pretty simple. A "wiring diagram" for 99% of us was pretty simple:
GOD (maybe)
KING
DUKE
COUNT
KNIGHT
PEASANT
US (SLAVE)
There was just one "massa" - yeah, he might have a boss, but as far as we were concerned, when that ol' farmer said jump, we asked how high, and didn't have to worry about what his boss (the knight) or HIS boss (the count) thought - that was way beyond our paygrade.
Even when we got all high-flautin' in this country, it wasn' much different, at least for slaves:
GOD
MASSA
BOSS (Straw boss or Overseer or Foreman)
US (SLAVE)
But in 21st Century America, for most o' us supposedly free descendents of freed slaves, liberated Indians, and paid-off indentured servants, we got mor' massa's than I knows what tae do wit' - we gots Special District massas, and Town or City massas, and County massas, and State massas, and Federal massas, and prolly NATO massas and UN massas, too. And it isn't just one at each level, or even one COMMITTEE at each level: at the County, the massas sit on the County Board of Commissioners, the County Planning and Zoning Board, the County Elections Board, the County Health Board, and the County Environment Board, to name just a few. It's worse at state and federal level. It's not that straight line but more like an inverted pyramid, with one poor guy at the bottom, holding that point, and what seems like half the rest of the world standing on the upside base.
One, mind you, just ONE of those multitudinous massas at Federal level, right here in the good ol' USA, is the Federal Elections Commission, or FEC, which is supposed to make sure that we all properly know how to, and do the right thing to elect a new massa every two or four years, especially the "massa of massas" with that mystic name of POTUS (President of the United States). Well, one of the things which has really been bothering the massas that sit on the FEC and make sure we all do all the elections right is to do with "exemptions" for media and bloggers from all those limits on such triffles as free speech, right to trial by jury, private property, free assembly, etc. (I'm sure that the hoploclasts [gun-haters] will soon come up with a way that the FEC can also weigh in on our right to defend ourselves - maybe by claiming that concealed guns can be intimidating to other voters.)
One of the BIG (read, can be used to raise lots of funds for those lobbying for or against it) issues before the FEC in recent months has been whether bloggers can say anything they want to about political ballot issues and candidates within a certain time, before elections. Those people of the ilk of Senatoads McCain and Feingold don't want people to be able to publish nasty things (or even good things) about incumbents and challengers that might influence an election (read, let the challenger win), and got the rest of their fellow id... Kongrus-kritters to pass it, and POTUS to sign it; and now it was being interpreted to applying to bloggers and little old ladies in tennis shoes writing letters and posting them on-line. I think part of the argument was that, like the radio and TV stations, we are using the "public media" (you know, airwaves, electrical power lines, phonelines which cross or are located on public rights-of-way, and therefore have to be monitored and regulated, lest we create a CRISIS or "take away someone's rights."
It was sounding pretty serious in there, for a while, but... Finally, the FEC has announced that the Internet can have, courtesy of their glorious wisdom and inate modesty and love of the common folk, FREE SPEECH. WithOUT any (undue) government regulation! Wow! Some of our massas have said that it is okay for us to talk about some of our other massas, provided we don't get carried away. (Folks, if you think I'm being sarcastic and rude in this blog, read Paul Jacob's article, but wear an ovenmitt.)
As Paul points out, this is like DoD making a public announcement that they've decided to continue NOT to make private homes provide troop billeting, or the Supreme Court announcing that trial-by-jury can continue (provided they judge only the facts and not the law, mind you). It is stupid, it is insulting, but it is apparently taken at face value by many if not most political commentators on both left and right as being a wonderful affirmation of the way our political and regulatory system works.
Garbage! This, like 99.5% of what comes out of DC (and for that matter, every state capital and the entire Beltway), is nothing more than a sickening affirmation of what slaves we have turned into, of what tyranny we have accepted, and of how brain-dead we have become in this nation. We are indeed a nation of too many "massas" but only because we have become a nation of slaves - unwilling or unable to do anything without first having permission granted by twenty different agencies, boards, and petty tyrants on a stack of paper that demands a forest to make and a landfill full to dispose of. Free speech, on the 'net or anywhere else, is one of those many freedoms that are honored in memory, but only exist when they are not an annoyance to one of the hundreds of thousands of "massas." Including this blog.
GOD (maybe)
KING
DUKE
COUNT
KNIGHT
PEASANT
US (SLAVE)
There was just one "massa" - yeah, he might have a boss, but as far as we were concerned, when that ol' farmer said jump, we asked how high, and didn't have to worry about what his boss (the knight) or HIS boss (the count) thought - that was way beyond our paygrade.
Even when we got all high-flautin' in this country, it wasn' much different, at least for slaves:
GOD
MASSA
BOSS (Straw boss or Overseer or Foreman)
US (SLAVE)
But in 21st Century America, for most o' us supposedly free descendents of freed slaves, liberated Indians, and paid-off indentured servants, we got mor' massa's than I knows what tae do wit' - we gots Special District massas, and Town or City massas, and County massas, and State massas, and Federal massas, and prolly NATO massas and UN massas, too. And it isn't just one at each level, or even one COMMITTEE at each level: at the County, the massas sit on the County Board of Commissioners, the County Planning and Zoning Board, the County Elections Board, the County Health Board, and the County Environment Board, to name just a few. It's worse at state and federal level. It's not that straight line but more like an inverted pyramid, with one poor guy at the bottom, holding that point, and what seems like half the rest of the world standing on the upside base.
One, mind you, just ONE of those multitudinous massas at Federal level, right here in the good ol' USA, is the Federal Elections Commission, or FEC, which is supposed to make sure that we all properly know how to, and do the right thing to elect a new massa every two or four years, especially the "massa of massas" with that mystic name of POTUS (President of the United States). Well, one of the things which has really been bothering the massas that sit on the FEC and make sure we all do all the elections right is to do with "exemptions" for media and bloggers from all those limits on such triffles as free speech, right to trial by jury, private property, free assembly, etc. (I'm sure that the hoploclasts [gun-haters] will soon come up with a way that the FEC can also weigh in on our right to defend ourselves - maybe by claiming that concealed guns can be intimidating to other voters.)
One of the BIG (read, can be used to raise lots of funds for those lobbying for or against it) issues before the FEC in recent months has been whether bloggers can say anything they want to about political ballot issues and candidates within a certain time, before elections. Those people of the ilk of Senatoads McCain and Feingold don't want people to be able to publish nasty things (or even good things) about incumbents and challengers that might influence an election (read, let the challenger win), and got the rest of their fellow id... Kongrus-kritters to pass it, and POTUS to sign it; and now it was being interpreted to applying to bloggers and little old ladies in tennis shoes writing letters and posting them on-line. I think part of the argument was that, like the radio and TV stations, we are using the "public media" (you know, airwaves, electrical power lines, phonelines which cross or are located on public rights-of-way, and therefore have to be monitored and regulated, lest we create a CRISIS or "take away someone's rights."
It was sounding pretty serious in there, for a while, but... Finally, the FEC has announced that the Internet can have, courtesy of their glorious wisdom and inate modesty and love of the common folk, FREE SPEECH. WithOUT any (undue) government regulation! Wow! Some of our massas have said that it is okay for us to talk about some of our other massas, provided we don't get carried away. (Folks, if you think I'm being sarcastic and rude in this blog, read Paul Jacob's article, but wear an ovenmitt.)
As Paul points out, this is like DoD making a public announcement that they've decided to continue NOT to make private homes provide troop billeting, or the Supreme Court announcing that trial-by-jury can continue (provided they judge only the facts and not the law, mind you). It is stupid, it is insulting, but it is apparently taken at face value by many if not most political commentators on both left and right as being a wonderful affirmation of the way our political and regulatory system works.
Garbage! This, like 99.5% of what comes out of DC (and for that matter, every state capital and the entire Beltway), is nothing more than a sickening affirmation of what slaves we have turned into, of what tyranny we have accepted, and of how brain-dead we have become in this nation. We are indeed a nation of too many "massas" but only because we have become a nation of slaves - unwilling or unable to do anything without first having permission granted by twenty different agencies, boards, and petty tyrants on a stack of paper that demands a forest to make and a landfill full to dispose of. Free speech, on the 'net or anywhere else, is one of those many freedoms that are honored in memory, but only exist when they are not an annoyance to one of the hundreds of thousands of "massas." Including this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)