![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
choco_frosh…the assumption that free men and women are genuinely self-governing, personally responsible citizens, able to run their daily affairs without the intrusive therapies of the bureaucratic, social service state. Consequently, [we] will seek to reinvigorate and revive the authority of the traditional institutions of civil society - families, schools, churches, neighborhoods, and entrepreneurial enterprises - that cultivate and provide room for the exercise of citizenship, individual responsibility, and strong moral character.
One of my coworkers is a libertarian. Not one of the fairly sane ones either: the kind who thinks, for example, that the privatization of the courts and the military would be a good idea. Basically an anarchist by any other name. He came to my mind as I was reading the above passage, which I came across while searching through the Foundation Directory the other day.
Because while I agree, or at the very least sympathize, with many of the views expressed above, the sort of people who say things like this provoke a reaction in me similar to that that my coworker does. That is, a strong conviction that they have lost their minds, or at least their sense of morals; coupled with the desire to find some sort of weapon.
I agree that personal freedom is an essential right, and duty, of individuals. I feel that governments frequently interfere in these to an excessive degree. I admit that the traditional organs of civil society are in decay, and that many of our current societal problems are a result of this. But I have some basic problems with their other, sometimes unspoken assumptions.
1) Yes, humans have the capacity for self-government. They can have moral codes, feelings of mercy, good citizenship, the intelligence to think about the consequences of their actions. But do they always?
2) And whatever ones views on that question, it is clear that corporations are not so capable. They are mindless, amoral, shortsighted, and devouring, for they recognize only one good: profit and expansion. If they act otherwise, it is generally through the hard work and determination of motivated individuals of unusual foresight or moral determination: as though the rider on a dragon managed to rein it in. But in the great dragon race that is capitalism, the beast being thus managed will generally not run as fast, at least in the short run; and it will be of enormous temptation for the owners to find a new jockey.
Hence why you need bureaucratic interference with them--a fact, I should add, which those who advocate personal responsibility will frequently do everything their power to obscure. My coworker would say: the consumers will vote against dubious firms with their dollars; the unions will vote against unfair firms with strikes. But if consumers are lazy about checking up on whom they buy from (and they generally are), who else will restrain them? (OK, yes, consumers should also be less lazy. But still.) And without government oversight of labor relations, what’s to stop a corporation dealing with its union troubles by fraud, or simply by shooting anyone who gets uppity?
3) How is healthcare (for example) going to run without a bureaucracy, in a world of expensive diseases?
4) How, realistically, do you revive the traditional institutions of society when they have broken down? And how do you persuade citizens to be responsible, moral, and thoughtful in a world where their leaders, idols, and neighbors, their philosophies and their corporate enterprises, are typified chiefly by greed, sloth, the relentless pursuit of transient goals, and passing the buck when anything goes wrong? This is somewhat less a criticism than an honest question that I have wrestled with myself. But if we are to have a revival of governing ourselves, who is to do it? Especially in a society that is now (if it was not always) sufficiently fragmented among subcultures that our despised, intrusive government is about the only thing we have in common?
5) In the real world, my friends, moral revivals, like competition, are played out with blood.
My coworker and I are united in employment, in misfortune, and in traffic accidents. But if (as both of us hope in our darker moments) our society and our union finally break apart and expose the deep rifts that run in every direction beneath a crust of pretense, we will almost certainly be on bitterly opposed sides in an ensuing civil war.
Which is good in a way, because I don’t want to have to fight alongside a man I’d murder so cheerfully.
One of my coworkers is a libertarian. Not one of the fairly sane ones either: the kind who thinks, for example, that the privatization of the courts and the military would be a good idea. Basically an anarchist by any other name. He came to my mind as I was reading the above passage, which I came across while searching through the Foundation Directory the other day.
Because while I agree, or at the very least sympathize, with many of the views expressed above, the sort of people who say things like this provoke a reaction in me similar to that that my coworker does. That is, a strong conviction that they have lost their minds, or at least their sense of morals; coupled with the desire to find some sort of weapon.
I agree that personal freedom is an essential right, and duty, of individuals. I feel that governments frequently interfere in these to an excessive degree. I admit that the traditional organs of civil society are in decay, and that many of our current societal problems are a result of this. But I have some basic problems with their other, sometimes unspoken assumptions.
1) Yes, humans have the capacity for self-government. They can have moral codes, feelings of mercy, good citizenship, the intelligence to think about the consequences of their actions. But do they always?
2) And whatever ones views on that question, it is clear that corporations are not so capable. They are mindless, amoral, shortsighted, and devouring, for they recognize only one good: profit and expansion. If they act otherwise, it is generally through the hard work and determination of motivated individuals of unusual foresight or moral determination: as though the rider on a dragon managed to rein it in. But in the great dragon race that is capitalism, the beast being thus managed will generally not run as fast, at least in the short run; and it will be of enormous temptation for the owners to find a new jockey.
Hence why you need bureaucratic interference with them--a fact, I should add, which those who advocate personal responsibility will frequently do everything their power to obscure. My coworker would say: the consumers will vote against dubious firms with their dollars; the unions will vote against unfair firms with strikes. But if consumers are lazy about checking up on whom they buy from (and they generally are), who else will restrain them? (OK, yes, consumers should also be less lazy. But still.) And without government oversight of labor relations, what’s to stop a corporation dealing with its union troubles by fraud, or simply by shooting anyone who gets uppity?
3) How is healthcare (for example) going to run without a bureaucracy, in a world of expensive diseases?
4) How, realistically, do you revive the traditional institutions of society when they have broken down? And how do you persuade citizens to be responsible, moral, and thoughtful in a world where their leaders, idols, and neighbors, their philosophies and their corporate enterprises, are typified chiefly by greed, sloth, the relentless pursuit of transient goals, and passing the buck when anything goes wrong? This is somewhat less a criticism than an honest question that I have wrestled with myself. But if we are to have a revival of governing ourselves, who is to do it? Especially in a society that is now (if it was not always) sufficiently fragmented among subcultures that our despised, intrusive government is about the only thing we have in common?
5) In the real world, my friends, moral revivals, like competition, are played out with blood.
My coworker and I are united in employment, in misfortune, and in traffic accidents. But if (as both of us hope in our darker moments) our society and our union finally break apart and expose the deep rifts that run in every direction beneath a crust of pretense, we will almost certainly be on bitterly opposed sides in an ensuing civil war.
Which is good in a way, because I don’t want to have to fight alongside a man I’d murder so cheerfully.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 03:08 pm (UTC)the unions will vote against unfair firms with strikes
Um, yeah, there are going to BE unions in a world without government regulation??
-g
no subject
Date: 2007-10-31 05:51 pm (UTC)I tend to lean libertarian, but less as a "Privatize everything!" philosophy than a "As a default, less bureaucratic interference is better unless there's a compelling reason to have it in each specific case." The difference comes in what strikes people as a compelling reason, I guess. I tend to think most realms can benefit from a bit of free market, especially when interference prevents actual costs from being passed onto the consumer. (I imagine if US citizens had been paying what gas ought to cost for the past few decades, we'd be much further with fuel-efficient/alternative-energy cars by now, as well as public transport.)
That being said, I tend to feel that when it comes to situations of concentrated/present benefit and dispersed/future cost (e.g. Environmental concerns), clearly the free market will not bring an optimal solution left to operate without any oversight.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 12:37 am (UTC)What it comes down to, for me, is that even if you could trust MOST human beings to be good, moral, and tolerant (and tolerance is key - one thing governments do is protect minorities from the whims of the majority) MOST of the time, there will be a handful you can't trust. In a world without governments, individuals who follow a moral code will be at the mercy of those who don't; governments allow the majority, who want the moral code in place, to band together and enforce it. Markets can't operate without the basic assurances provided by governments.
I agree that it's bizarre your co-worker thinks unions could operate without governments, but it's also strange that he seems to approve of unions and other forms of collective organisation. After all, what are democratic governments but big, compulsory, nation-wide unions?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-01 12:54 pm (UTC)Also, as I said before, logic may not be playing as big a part here as it should...
no subject
Date: 2008-01-29 01:02 am (UTC)seriously, amarchism=guys with horses/weapons/whatever coming to steal my crops. I like the King. He keeps the nobles away. (when he does what he's suposed to, and he's not being misled by those evil advisors.)