On Dec 13, 2009, my friend wrote a reply to my signature quote: "No State known to history originated for any other purpose than to enable the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another" - Albert Jay Nock:
Yes, there were those who wished to create yet another State to exploit the masses for their own good. (Sadly, this is how America turned out to be,) but the original intent is clear to any who read and understand ALL of the discussions from that time and place.
I think you're going by what was written, and not by what actually happened. Governments are always as big as they can get away with. At the time of "the founding", Americans were sick of government interference in their daily affairs, so the constitution had to be kept very modest. Politicians' words also had to be kept quite moderate, as far as any call for state power. But we shouldn't judge government by what politicians say openly or what politicians write, we should judge government by what politicians do. Actions not words.
The very first US government immediately twisted the constitution to its needs. The Whiskey Rebellion illustrates this perfectly. Politicians interfered with local commerce, taxed one group unequally (the tax rate was lower for big producers), used martial law and federal troops on civilians during peacetime, - that adds up to at least 4 violations of the constitution by my accounting.
In promoting the taxes and urging Washington to lead troops to put down the insurrection, Hamilton admitted that he wanted this tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." Hamilton also admitted that he "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." So much for that "original intent" of which you speak so glowingly. Their words were one thing; their "intent" was another. And even when politicians' intent is honorable and fair, they throw away honor and fairness by their compromises. And why do they feel compelled to compromise? Like all politicians, they don't want to lose the upper hand, so they have to compromise.
If you ever have been on a committee, you'll recognize this as a universal principle of human "group behavior". The loudest, often the most ignorant voices get heard, while there is no time or patience for the quiet, more contemplative suggestions. At the rock and roll show, when you say "what do you want, a slow one or a fast one?" - who do you think always wins? The ones who want "loud and fast". People who want slow and quiet might even be in the majority, but they're not the ones shouting out. This is politics 101 in action. Every defect of the "big organization" is multiplied up the ladder of political power. It reaches it's zenith in Washington D.C., where no one knows what the hell is going on, but everyone pretends to have "the" answer. And, they will compromise that "answer" in order to maintain their position of power.
I was always a closet anarchist (though the word has horrible baggage, and I prefer "voluntaryist", or the adjective "a-political"). But, I didn't get radically and openly anarchistic until I read a couple little books (1 2) about the history of the US Constitution and its Amendments, and the court decisions that twisted the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. I also read this small book, twice in a row. That was only about 10 years ago.
The "founders" of the USA did not have consent from any kind of majority. It was mostly "greedy" businessmen. The "patriot" founders were some of the biggest property owners, bankers, and businessmen of the time. As far as the fraction of the populace who were politically involved; it was white protestant males over 21. There was no popular mandate or consent, much less agreement on the details.
Morality doesn't look at intentions, morality looks at actions. Hitler wanted to make a better world for the "best of the best". His ends did not justify his means. Lots of the most evil geniuses in history had great ideals and intentions. Everyone can get behind "good intentions" and "ideals"; I'm sure we have very little disagreement over that. Our disagreement is in the methods that ought to be used to implement those ideals. I also think we probably disagree on some word definitions. And, we probably disagree to what degree long-term ideals should be compromised in defending ourselves from short-term effects.
And that is what is wrong with ALL politics; people justify their brutal methods by holding up their "intentions". That's a road to hell I don't want to continue on. If there were no better ways to interact socially, there might be some sense to arguing that intentions are the primary "good" that we should consider in making our future choices, but I doubt it.
There ARE better ways. We find examples in our daily lives, in other cultures, and in history. We can use persuasion, the scientific method, education, fairness, free association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, property rights, and civil rights to interact. We don't need to add "taxes", "government mandates", "wars", "more prisons for potheads", "more barbed wire at the borders", ... as if those things are a "last resort" because we've exhausted our attempts at using those non-government means. We've barely started using those things, and we can't claim to need "lifeboat scenario" measures.
I won't quote or give links here- you've heard all the words before. I will say that I see very little difference between current Anarchist thought and the original American Ideals. Point out the differences to me, Sir?
It doesn't matter what the "ideals" were. It matters what actions were taken to compromise those ideals.
The bigger question for me is "how did all these 'original American ideals' work out for us"? It has grown into a state whose brutality towers above every other brutal regime in history. So we have it good here in our little lives? - Teetering on the lower edge of the middle class; so what? What is the cost? Millions dead overseas, millions displaced by wars under both Republican and Democrat administrations, hundreds of thousands of wounded, hundreds of thousands of families torn apart by US wars, millions languishing in US prisons because they did "politically incorrect" drugs, gambled, or paid for sex. And on and on.
The part of the cost that we don't see is all of the lost opportunities from the heavy burden of taxes, regulations, licensing, silly laws, quotas, mandates, tariffs, fees, and paperwork, that the state puts on each individual and every business. I can't hold these lost opportunities in front of you to show you that part of the cost. Every time the state adds an expense to the cost of business, all in the name of "controlling" greed, those costs are passed on to customers, tenants, and employees. Much of the cost of using state power to "do good things" is hidden and unable to be tallied.
This is what it boils down to: You can't do long-term good with violent force, so statism is impractical and inefficient. You can justify the means by the ends, so statism is morally wrong.
"Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here."
-- Michael Coughlin
Amen.
ReplyDelete