It seems to me that things are terribly wrong and that my fellow citizens are slipping back into the abyss of subjection and slavery. This is a non-partisan observation. I am not laying the blame at the door of any party, but rather I make the claim that all are culpable, and negligent in their duty.
Many others have recognized our seeming inability to affect the type of change that will stop the political and economic juggernaut that is going to destroy us all. “Change” has been the clarion call of late. “A return to the government of the founders” the cry of others. But I say to you that the single mechanism for individuals to make real change happen has all but been abandoned. It is simply the deliberative meeting where people speak, debate, vote and commit to actually do something. Congress pretends to do this, but it is for the most part just a show. It was to overcome the scourge of tyranny that the founders of this country developed a government based on the common sense rules for conducting a meeting that have their beginnings in ancient Greece and in the tribal councils of the fifth century Anglo-Saxons. Courtesy and justice for all is the goal. Let me describe how it works.
You come to a meeting dedicated to some important subject, for example a meeting about whether to support or oppose an increase in taxes. The person, who has called the meeting, may have a strong opinion about what needs to be done, but if her solution is to be introduced, it will be by someone else; perhaps a friend. Because the meeting is so important, she has volunteered to remain impartial, to ensure that every other voice is heard. This is the first rule.
People do not just talk about their feelings at this meeting. Neither is it devoted to giving out information. The first rule of this meeting is that only action will be discussed, and only one action at a time, so as not to become confusing. There are no enlightened leaders, no big shots, and no party bosses. Everyone is a leader, from poorest to the richest, from the dullest to the brightest, and the person who gets to speak first is the person who stands first and calls out, “Madame Chairman!” Every one is equal, and that is the second rule.
So it happens that the poorest and dullest fellow in the group stands first and addresses the lady who has agreed to be the chairman. “Madame Chairman!” he says, “My name is Louis Rose and I move that we should do this”, and tells her in a few words what he thinks should be done. Someone seconds the motion proving that at least one other person thinks his idea is worth talking about. Then everyone who wishes may speak for a brief time as to whether they think the proposed action is a good idea. They may support or oppose, they may suggest changes. They may speak passionately but they must always speak politely. This is the third rule.
After all those who wish have spoken, the chair calls for a vote. Now everyone understands what everyone else thinks, and they know for a fact precisely on which points they are unified and on what they must continue to learn about so that they may be unified. They vote. This is the exciting part, for here in these small assemblies money means nothing, power means nothing, lying and backstabbing have been swept away in the bright light of reason and debate and they vote! Now they are unified and energized and best of all now they know what they must do, and have committed to do it. This and only this process can bring change for the good. Meetings that do not follow this process are not worth attending. Groups that do not follow this process are at best nothing more than a social club or at worse a bunch of pawns manipulated to believe that those above them really care what they think.
There are no really smart men. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Truman, Lincoln, and the drunkard in the gutter have much more in common than that which sets them apart. Aesop tells us that “the tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny” if only for the fact that it is easier, and safer for the tyrant to do it that way. The inspired leader has the courage to let the will of the people prevail and more than that, to equip, and encourage even the weakest member to rise up and take the lead. No one is smarter than you and a group of your friends and neighbors and no one more able to effect change, if you will only follow a few simple rules. Some time ago a group of men met to decide what to do about another man who was taxing them unfairly. When they finally decided what to do they mutually pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. I am unconcerned which party you are a member of. I am confident that as a group of citizens you are as good and as competent as those men were. Join together and make decisions to act effectively, and fairly. Act. Together we can fix what is wrong.
This article also appeared in the Jacksonville Observer on July 11, 2009
(Louis William Rose is a political philosopher and the parliamentarian of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Northeast Florida.)
Lou, first, I hope all is well with you (I haven’t heard from you in some time). Before I continue with my (perhaps overly critical) remarks, I should offer the following caveat. From what I know about the Republican Liberty Caucus (and their affiliation with the Libertarian and Boston Tea parties) and your own political views, I hope you meet with some measure of success in your political struggles. (Although, I reserve the right to be suspicious of your social conservatism.)
In brief, you say the solution to our ruinous state happens to be the, “deliberative meeting where people speak, debate, vote and commit to actually do something,” but that it has, sadly, “all but been abandoned.”
Free and candid speech, and open and honest debate, are the hallmarks of any interaction of rational agents. So, with that, I am unable to find fault.
However, it is my belief that voting and “actualling do[ing] something” via various political means is precisey the cause of our woes. Our government ostensibly was created “by the people and for the people.” Thus, it follows that the government may act only insofar as the people individually may act. In other words, if I myself do not have the right to do A, B, or C, then I am unable to grant the right to do A, B, or C to some other person. One, it is true, may retort that rather than individuals, majorities possess the right to do A, B, or C, and thus it is precisely majorities that may confer such rights.
(Descriptively, however, this response is not available to an American, for our political construct is predicated upon individual rights. I leave the identification of the obvious, inherent conceptual difficulties of such a response as an exercise to the reader.)
If the government may only act insofar as the individuals who comprise the body politic may themselves act, and individuals do not possess the right to labor and property of their fellows, then it follows that the government does not (nor can it) have such a right.
Nevertheless, in America, men and women alike shuffle into voting booths to cast votes for individuals to whom they wish to grant rights that they themselves distinctly do not have. Somehow, in some political slight-of-hand, you and I, who ourselves do not possess the right to tax and confiscate the labor and possessions of others, grant such rights to our “representatives.”
In short, Lou, within our political construct exists contradictions that permit and give rise to performative contradictions on a yearly basis, that is, whenever elections are held. The real question remains: from whence does your surprise come?
That aside, democracy is institutionalized ownership of all by all. Rather than one tyrant, America possesses millions, and it is democracy that legitimizes their decrees. This past November the majority of the voting electorate met to “vote and actually do something,” and “do something” they indeed did.
Dear Aaron,
It is great to hear from you. I agree with you in principle, with this exception. Just as I can establish the perimeter of my house and enforce my will within its confines, so too may I and my neighbors circumscribe the area of our block, or our farms, or our county and convenant together as to what special rules will apply within those limits. We may control property that we productively use, and as long as we allow free travel in and out of that area, may agree upon laws that will be in force within that area. So too may the various counties join together to form states, and the states form a federal union.
I still do not understand why you cannot apply your principles to limit the activities of these counties, states and nations while allowing for their existence. I think this is possible if individuals will meet and act at the grassroots all over this glorious country.
Lou,
The leap you seem to want to (and in your response do) make from a private defense leagues to government constructs simply does not follow.
You may, I fully recognize, use and transfer your property and labor freely and without limit just so long as you do not physically violate the property rights of or aggress against others. This is to include voluntarily contracting with and assisting other individuals who you deem worthwhile. From this, many complex social interactions are possible (e.g. stock markets and charitable networks).
But, contra Nozick, it does not follow from your right to ally yourself with your fellows that a government necessarily ensues. Nor, for all of that, does it follow that you are at liberty to contract into existence an entity that possesses a monopoly on:
(1) the initiation of force and violence;
(2) the right to collect, via such force and violence, remuneration for their services (taxes);
(3) the right to adjudicate all disagreements between all parties- to include themselves- within its geographical sphere of influence.
In constructing an entity, one constructs an essentially coercive body that ex hypothesis violates the right to life, liberty, and property of others. Political contract theory does much to obfuscate the inherent immoral nature of the state; not to mention it is at its intellectual foundations untenable and devoid of merit. (Of course, we have had the discussion over the so-called “American political contract”, and we have seen how that has failed.)
Nevertheless, my point remains, which is to say that democracy (even a representative democracy) possesses within it the inevitable seeds of oppression of all by all.
Dear Aaron,
It would seem to me that since this is the state of things, that your only alternative would be to make war against such governments, using self-defense as a justification. When I find myself at public meetings arguing against the raising of taxes for the funding of social services, I often consider recourse to such a solution.
But I do not consider it seriously because I have not yet been presented with a workable alternative to such arrangements as presently exist. As I have asked you to do before, will you layout what such an alternative system would look like, and how it would work, and reasonably sustain itself?
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
H.L. Mencken,
Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
“As democracy is perfected… the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” I came across this quote and found it applicable to our current political context. That aside, the quote also highlights the essential point of my initial response: for proponents of liberty, democracy remains an unfortunate political reality.
It is not for me, nor for any other man or woman, to “layout” the framework for an “alternative system.” Rather, the framework is before us already. It is my contention that market forces will provide for the exigencies of social interactions (whatever they in fact may be). What is more, and for many reasons, I believe they will provide for those exigencies in a more productive, efficient, and morally acceptable manner than any government construct. You may find this brief response to your challenge wholly deficient, but it will have to suffice. However, to quickly (and perhaps, again, not to your liking) address what I am sure are concerns of yours over whether prima facie necessary institutions and services such as private protection firms, arbitration services, penal facilities, and complex market phenomena could be provided by market forces outside of government constructs, I refer you to David Friedman’s “The Machinery of Freedom,” Linda and Morris Tannehill’s ‘The Market for Liberty,” and Murray Rothbard’s “Power and Market: Government and the Economy,” to name only a select few. (There are many more.)