Pol. Ideology 42: Anarchy is Impossible Even in Theory

I posted my earlier paper on Minarchy or Anarchy, in the facebook group, Ayn Rand Fans in the Philippines. it attracted comments from some friends. Here are some of our exchanges with some friends. The photo below, I got it from the web and just added it here.
-------------

Mike: Call it what u want. i call it self-governance! cheers we just hit the wall.

Nonoy Oplas Yes, self governance is civil society. Parents, siblings, relatives, classmates, friends, officemates, NGOs, churches, media, private enterprises. The main debate is on promulgating the rule of law, if it can be totally private or civil society. Usually, the main arbitrator in dispute among people is not government but civil society. Like the village association in cases of disputes among neighbors (his dogs bark too loud, his karaoke is too loud too often, etc.). Or referees in cases of sports competition.

But when the civil society arbitration system fails, say one party is unhappy with the ruling of the private arbitrator and resorts to physical violence and brings along his armed friends or clans, that is where a higher arbitrator, the courts, plus the police, can step in.

What is problematic with the anarchist position is that people should not, should never, engage (polidy dialogue, congressional healings, join elections, etc.) with government because such actions only legitimizes an illegitimate entity. So government creates new bureaucracies and new taxes to finance those new offices via legislation, and they are nowhere to be found because they are not supposed to engage with government whatsoever. They are holed in one conference room or chat room and they complain why government keeps expanding.

Froi D. Vincenton Funny, I've seen self-claimed anarchists who advocate regulation of corporations. Actually John Stossel joked about it. He asked: "They're anarchists and they advocate regulation of corporations?"

Should a society fall into anarchism, what would prevent some fringe groups (like those who advocate socialism or fascism or Islamic theocracy, etc.) from forming their own governments, since it is impossible for every individual to embrace Libertarianism overnight? Perhaps the an-caps' answer would be: The markets will magically solve all problems. Well, the markets are governed by systems and people make or invent systems.

For a society to perfectly maintain an an-cap society, all its social members must embrace Libertarianism. Even Ludwig von Mises rejected anarchism by calling anarchists "shallow-minded", "dull", [and suffer from] "illusions and self-deception".

I joined an FB group called 'Small-L Libertarianism' two years ago and I debated with its an-cap members. I posted anti-anarchism quotations by Mises and one an-cap accused me of name-calling LOL.

Nonoy Oplas My co-debater there, David S., initially posted about the move by Sweden to cut corporate income tax from 26.2 to 22%, so I asked why an anarchist would support such move when their goal is zero government, zero tax.

A hypothetical case: Congress is deliberating on a new bill creating a new department or ministry that will cost taxpayers say $50 billion a year at least, and revenue measures like rise in certain taxes and regulatory fees, are included in that bill. Since the policy of the anarchists is "never engage government, do not recognize an illegitimate entity", so they are out of public hearings. The room is dominated by statists and socialists, some would even propose that the price tag of that new department should be $75 billion a year, not just $50 B. That bill later becomes a law. The bureaucracy has expanded, the taxes have increased, and the anarchists are back into complaining why government keeps expanding. It is a lousy attitude.

Froi D. Vincenton Like Harry Binswanger said: "Are we to assume that the country will have been converted to "libertarianism" before anarchism is instituted?"

Nonoy Oplas Anarchy, zero authority, zero government, zero coercion, is impossible even in theory. Coercion is everywhere, happens at the micro and household level, it's just a matter of degree. Examples:

1. Parents who force their kids to stop watching too much tv or youtube and force them to study at night is practicing coercion.

2. Clans who disown a family member for marrying someone outside a specified clan is practicing coercion.

3. Residential condo owners who disallow dogs or other pets inside the building is practicing coercion. There are penalties for violating their rules.

4. A cycling club or rotary club that kicks out members who do not pay their annual dues are practicing coercion, there are penalties for not following club rules.

So coercion is everywhere, they just differ in degree. Thus, a zero coercion, zero government society is impossible. We have to live with certain degree of coercion. When the state declares, "No killing, no murder, no stealing", that is coercion, a kind of coercion that actually expands our individual freedom. We can live with our lives with little or zero fear that any criminal can just shoot and stab us or our family members and friends for no reason at all, if the state will stick to its core function of protecting the rule of law.

I understand the primacy they put on private, voluntary, and civil society mechanisms to settle disputes among individuals or groups of individuals, say between or among huge clans or tribes or political associatons and groups. I believe in such mechanism actually. But there are instances that such mechanism can fail when one group will dishonor the decision or ruling of the private arbitration system and resorts to physical violence or other forms of crime.

------------- 

See also: 
On Liberalizing Gun Ownership, August 26, 2011
Pol. Ideology 34: More on Anarchy or Minarchy, July 17, 2012
Pol. Ideology 39: Thatcherism, April 10, 2013 
Pol Ideology 40: On Social Darwinism, May 23, 2013 
Pol. Ideology 41: Engage Government or Not; Minarchy or Anarchy, June 05, 2013

Rule of Law 17: Justice Without Discrimination

I like this posting today in facebook by FNF Pakistan, reposting it.
#####

These were the last written words we have received from Hasan Jafarey, who died two days ago. He wrote his perception during our IAF Alumni Meeting in September:

Why I am liberal 
Principles of liberalism pertinent to Pakistan
By Hassan Jaffarey

1. Rule of law

The most important function of the Rule of Law is to provide for justice to all without discrimination. This is the only glue that can provide for harmony and equality. When a sense of justice and the existence of a just society exists in polity and the polity is assured that it will be meted out justice in its relations and affairs with equality for all whether rich or poor, high or low, and without racial, ethnic or religious prejudice that society is set on a firm and sustainable foundation for progress and emancipation and empowerment.

Pakistan lacks this sense of justice among its polity. There is a perception and actual reality that the rule of law is not applied equally for all. Different sets and parameters govern different individual and groups in different ways. The disharmony and the application of the rule of law has led to a sense of frustration and alienation in the people of Pakistan as a whole.

It is therefore of paramount importance that a strict application of the rule of law is implemented in Pakistan. The people of Pakistan demand this and not implementing it is a sure recipe for disaster. To achieve this judicial reform backed up by the force of law is required from the lowest ties to the highest in the country.

2. Tolerance

Pakistan is in dire need of having a tolerant society. The absence of the rule of law contributes to intolerance in the Pakistani Society as a disgruntled polity, surfaces its latent frustration and anger upon one another.

Tolerance does not mean giving up one’s beliefs but contributes to accommodate in diversity of opinion and trying to understand other people’s point of view. Respecting the non-violent expression of dissent contributes to a multicultural polity. There should be unity in diversity. Division should be able to grow together. Respect for others gains in respect for each other. It reinforces the environment for a peaceful coexistence. Liberty, indeed, must be with responsibility. My freedom ends where other persons’ freedom begins. This is the recipe for peace and Pakistan needs it badly.
# # # # #

Meanwhile, I gave a lecture yesterday at my wife's two classes in political science at De La Salle University (DLSU), where she is handling four classes this trimester.

The first class was a Freshmen block of International Studies majors, and the second class was a Freshmen block of athletes of the university. Cool guys.

My powerpoint contained  26 slides, showing only half here. The content I lifted from my previous blog posts here under the "Pol. Ideology" discussion series.

Pol. Ideology 37: Collectivism, Conservatism and Liberalism

This will be a continuation and expansion of my earlier paper, Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism posted last March 08, 2010. It is about a discussion paper by Stefan Melnik on Political Values -- Review of Basics, written possibly in 2008-09. These are the three major political mainstreams and the value systems that they preach.

Socialism and its cousin ideology, communism, highlights or focuses on equality and forced collectivism. Equality of outcome, social justice, income redistribution, social security, state welfare and forced solidarity. These are the synonyms of their heavy focus on equality and forced collectivism. Too much individual liberty and private property are not good, according to this philosophy, so they have to be limited and heavily regulated by the state, leading to social or communal ownership of the means of production, central planning by the state and its lower organs and government agencies.

Conservatism focuses on order, tradition and conservation of existing social units.  Thus it highlights discipline, authority, hierarchy, the conservation of the nation, the family, morality. There are some similarities with socialism like the big role of state authority, distrust of spontaneity and importance of managed order. But there are also differences as there is primacy given to non-government social units like the family, clan and private enterprises.

Liberalism focuses on liberty or freedom, individual liberty specifically and individual responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are closely and strictly intertwined, one is not possible without the other. With more individual liberty, spontaneity, diversity and inequality are inevitable. Tolerance of such diversity and spontaneity among people, their right and choice to be industrious or be lazy, their private property ownership, are part of human rights that are to be respected under strict respect of the rule of law, equal application of the law on unequal people.

Pilipinas Forum 21: On Ayn Rand and Keynes

This is among the philosophical discourses in pilipinasforum@yahoogroups nearly 8 years ago. Postings in the  PF are raw and written informally, but the content are generally serious. Unlike other PF series here, there are just a few exchanges here, and only more than 5 pages long. Enjoy.
---------

Ayn Rand and Keynes

January 8-10, 2003

Ayn Rand will generally disagree with a Keynesian approach of uplifting human welfare. A rice farmer and fisherman can pursue their individual interests (surplus of their produce they sell to the market) and they end up providing rice and fish in our dinner tables - - welfare for both producers and consumers. This short article below by Ayn Rand (I got from my other egroups) will elucidate this philosophy...

A seemingly perennial and prolonged (1998-2003 and counting...) budget deficit situation is anti-individualism, anti-market, anti- self-interest. Why? A government which can hardly distinguish which public services promote efficiency and which ones promote complacency, even laziness and monopoly, is being kept afloat by sustained borrowings. Its philosophy is: never mind today's debts, tomorrow's taxpayers will pay them.

Should we discourage, even scare, a large segment of the productive sectors of our society -- them tax-paying professionals, entrepreneurs, other skilled workers -- with high tax rates and complicated tax system in the future, so the inefficiencies of the past will be paid?

- Nonoy Oplas
-------

INTRODUCING OBJECTIVISM

By Ayn Rand

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so." 2. "You can't eat your cake and have it, too." 3. "Man is an end in himself." 4. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency — to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them — requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot — nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

Abolish Income Tax 4: Ayn Rand and income tax

A friend reacted to my posting, "Service charges and capitalism", via a quote from Ayn Rand, below:

When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)

I thanked him for such appropriate quote. Ayn Rand was very emphatic of the virtue of free market capitalism. In a free society, individuals are free to do ALL things they want, except for a few explicitly-stated prohibitions (eg, no killing, no stealing, no physical injuries, no rape, etc.). In an unfree society, it's the reverse: unless there are no laws about them, things and actions are PROHIBITED.

For instance, entrepreneurship and job creation is now prohibited -- unless one gets lots of permits and accreditations, and pay dozens of taxes and fees every year, from people who produce nothing but paper work and legal prohibitions.

There is also a noticeable presence of a big number of central planners in modern society -- at local governments, national governments, and foreign aid/multilateral bodies. People who justify existing high and multiple taxes, propose new taxes, to support new bureaucracies and programs that will redistribute wealth and entitlements.

Another friend made this comment:

I think the essence of taxation is that citizens bear the burden of government and its bureaucracies. The question is the proportion that the taxpayers bear from what they earn from the societies they live in and how this tax is determined. In my view, while we cannot get away from income tax, this should be as little as possible because income arises from personal or corporate productivity in general.

Consumption taxation - the other end of the spectrum - taxes the taxpayers' propensity to spend what he or she created from productivity, not productivity instead. I, therefore, think that it is in within governments legal right to tax income or consumption. I just think that government should reward the productive by taxing their consumption and letting them keep most of their income.

I thanked him for his consistency in advocating a zero or very small income tax. Free market capitalism and dynamic entrepreneurshihp cannot thrive in a fiscal environment characterized by envy. So-called "progressive taxation" of higher tax rate for higher income is driven by envy, pure and simple. The lazy and less hard-working won't be taxed while the industrious, efficient, ambitious and hard-working will be taxed to the top margin stated in tax laws.

A zero income tax policy will encourage hard work and entrepreneurship. Retaining various consumption taxes (VAT, excise tax, real property tax, travel tax, motor vehicle tax, amusement tax, etc.) will ensure that the tax-hungry government and its various bureaucracies will be assured of continued supply of sure money. So it is still a positive-sum policy: you encourage private sector entrepreneurship, while retaining the bureaucracies and pork barrel of people running the government.
-----

See also Abolish Income Tax 3: Taxes and Congress, October 08, 2009