Against Anarchism

[George H. Smith]

For years you have said the above, that anarchy is never going to happen in America. Lately, you have hinted, though in a sarcastic voice, of also moving away from calling yourself an anarchist, (I could not find the quote but you were obviously saying, “no I won’t” to Shayne, you bow to his brilliance, etc.) but even to bring that up?

I'm not moving away from anything. In normal situations I call myself a "libertarian." If someone is familiar enough with the libertarian movement to ask whether I am a minarchist or an anarchist, I tell them the truth.

If it will make you all feel better, I will call myself a "voluntaryist" when dealing with concrete bound mentalities who suffer allergic reactions at the sound or sight of certain words.

I was the one who introduced the labels "voluntaryist" and "voluntaryism" into the modern libertarian movement when I founded "The Voluntaryist" (along with Carl Watner and Wendy McElroy) during the early 1980s.

"Voluntaryist" was the label coined and adopted by opponents of state schooling in 19th century England. (See my heavily documented article "Nineteenth Century Opponents of State Education: Prophets of Modern Revisionism," in The Public School Monopoly: A Critical Analysis of Education and the State in American Society, ed. Robert Everhart, Ballinger, 1982.) The label was subsequently picked up by Auberon Herbert, a disciple of Herbert Spencer and former MP who advocated "voluntary taxation."

While trying to think of a distinctive name for the anti-political views that were to be explained and defended in a new newsletter, I decided to call it "The Voluntaryist." The label stuck, and "voluntaryism" has become accepted as the label for anti-political libertarians.

Hence, if the label "anarchist" induces spasms, drooling, and uncontrollable farting in you and Shayne, I will call myself a "voluntaryist" instead.

The rest of your post is crap. If you keep writing that kind of garbage, I will stop responding to your posts, period.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Also what would improve George's magnificent piece is to add an additional emphasis about how the American Antifederalists are the true Founding Fathers, and encourage Americans to read select works of theirs to renew a proper kind of American patriotism. Actually, a small book by George with this as the lead-in, and followed up by selections of his from the Antifederalist papers and other writings to buttress his points about true American values would be even more magnificent.

What about it George? If you can't find a publisher I'll donate some time to help you self-publish it.

Shayne

No thanks. Finding a publisher has never been a problem for me. The problem is paying my bills while writing a book.

Those OLers who purchased my Files Project will find numerous plans for books in the first disc alone. These include detailed outlines, tons of notes, and in some cases sample chapters. As I recall, the first disc has material on books with the titles Sovereign State, Sovereign Self; Tracking Freedom; A History of Freedom; and more. On a later disc I think there is material about a book on early American history titled From Revolution to Counter-Revolution, which would have been a history of the United States up to the Civil War.

I've pretty much given up on projects like this, because no foundation has been willing to finance them, and I am not willing to live in poverty for the privilege of writing books. If I had been a trust-fund baby or if I had won the lottery at an early age, I probably would have published at least a dozen books by now. C'est la vie.

Ghs

[sjw]

I've pretty much given up on projects like this, because no foundation has been willing to finance them, and I am not willing to live in poverty for the privilege of writing books. If I had been a trust-fund baby or if I had won the lottery at an early age, I probably would have published at least a dozen books by now. C'est la vie.

Ghs

Reading the subtext, it seems to me that the problem is that people aren't buying enough of these kinds of books to recoup your investment, otherwise it's irrelevant what the initial outlay is.

On the one hand, I think it would be a fantastic book that should sell, on the other, you may be right. Even among "libertarians," ideas aren't that important, in evidence is the anti-ideological magazines and such. E.g., Reason Magazine did a piece some months back defaming Lysander Spooner for being too ideas-driven. They didn't say he was wrong mind you, they attacked him on principle for being principled. It was very shameful. (Reason Magazine does do a lot of good stuff on the drug war though).

I don't know George, what's the problem here?

Shayne

[sjw]

Voluntaryist is a fine label, it just means associations (including government) should be based on consent. It doesn't mean anarchy.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Well I agree with Peter on one thing: American Antifederalism suits George far better than anarchism. This anarchism stuff is an aberration that should be cast off.

And also: that post of George's needs to be published as an independent article. If I had a magazine I'd buy it myself. Of course, I don't know who else would buy it but anarchist circles, and only if he put an anarchist spin on it.

Shayne

I will say this one more time. My political ideology is properly described as "libertarian." As I thought I made clear in my "Thoughts" thread, anarchism is a subset of modern libertarian thought. It has theoretical significance only in the context of a fairly specialized controversy over the idea of sovereignty. If I were to convert to minarchism tomorrow, it would make no difference to my basic outlook.

As for American Antifederalism, it was not a coherent ideology. Antifederalists shared a common opposition to ratification of the Constitution, but their political philosophies varied widely. For example, some were "hard money" money men, whereas others were big on paper currency. Some drew the libertarian distinction between vices and crimes, whereas others were in favor of legislating virtue, e.g., through sumptuary laws, outlawing gambling, etc. Some shared the hardline views of Jefferson and Madison on the separation of Church and State, whereas others did not.

The same variations can be found in proponents of the Constitution.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Voluntaryist is a fine label, it just means associations (including government) should be based on consent. It doesn't mean anarchy.

Shayne

"Voluntaryist," as this label is used in the modern movement, signifies libertarians who oppose electoral politics. The vast majority of these anti-political libertarians are anarchists. Although it is theoretically possible for minarchists to reject political means as a strategy to achieve a free society, they are relatively rare.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here is the statement of purpose that I wrote for the first issue of The Voluntaryist .

Statement of Purpose

The Voluntaryists are libertarians who have organized to promote non-political strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the co-operation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

If there are minarchists who wish to "delegitimize the State through education" and who "advocate withdrawal of the co-operation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends," that is fine with me -- but I don't think you will find very many of them.

Ghs

[Selene]

sump·tu·ary

adj \ˈsəm(p)-chə-ˌwer-ē\

Definition of SUMPTUARY

1 : relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury <conservative sumptuary tastes — John Cheever> 2 : designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds <sumptuary laws> <sumptuary tax>

Origin of SUMPTUARY

Latin sumptuarius, from sumptus expense, from sumere to take, spend — more at consumeFirst Known Use: 1600

New one for me - thanks George.

[sjw]

I'm more interested in my other question than in how you've tacked this or that meaning beyond the connotation of "voluntary" onto "voluntarism." I guess you don't want to answer...

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

I'm more interested in my other question than in how you've tacked this or that meaning beyond the connotation of "voluntary" onto "voluntarism." I guess you don't want to answer...

Shayne

What "other question" are you talking about?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

sump·tu·ary

adj \ˈsəm(p)-chə-ˌwer-ē\

Definition of SUMPTUARY

1 : relating to personal expenditures and especially to prevent extravagance and luxury <conservative sumptuary tastes — John Cheever> 2 : designed to regulate extravagant expenditures or habits especially on moral or religious grounds <sumptuary laws> <sumptuary tax>

Origin of SUMPTUARY

Latin sumptuarius, from sumptus expense, from sumere to take, spend — more at consumeFirst Known Use: 1600

New one for me - thanks George.

The issue of "luxury" was a major controversy among Radical Whigs. It was commonly believed that luxury has a corrupting influence on the virtues needed to sustain a free society, so you will find many Americans during the revolutionary era, such as Sam Adams in his call for a "Christian Sparta," calling for sumptuary laws.

The main counter-current to this way of thinking arose from the "private vices, public benefits" school of Bernard Mandeville. The following excerpt, which is from an article I wrote for the Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, touches on this fascinating controversy:

Bernard Mandeville

George H. Smith

Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733), a Dutch physician who settled in London shortly after earning his degree in medicine at the University of Leyden, is best known as the controversial author of The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (6th ed., 1729). This work exhibits a number of themes, such as the role of self-interest in generating a prosperous spontaneous order, that would play a crucial role in later libertarian thought.

Mandeville had good reason to characterize The Fable of the Bees as “a rhapsody void of order or method.” Written over a period of twenty-four years, it began as a brief poem, “The Grumbling Hive: or, Knaves Turn’d Honest” (1705). In later years (beginning in 1714), Mandeville appended a number of essays, remarks, and dialogues to subsequent editions until what began as a poem of 433 lines came to fill two substantial volumes. This later material -- which includes the important theoretical essays, “An Enquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue” and “A Search into the Nature of Society,” as well as six dialogues that comprise the second volume -- are extended commentaries on themes presented in “The Grumbling Hive.”

This allegory extols the social benefits of self-interested actions, such as avarice, greed, and other traditional vices. But it is not always clear what Mandeville means in claiming that “private vices” produce “public benefits.” He depicts the hive as a limited monarchy in which the King’s power “was circumsrib’d by Laws”; and in the “Moral” of the poem, Mandeville states:

So Vice is beneficial found,

When it’s by Justice lopt and bound…

This suggests that Mandeville regarded as socially beneficial only those vices that do not violate the rules of justice. This is the interpretation given by F.B. Kaye in his definitive edition of the Fable (1924):

Vices are to be punished as soon as they grow into crimes, says Mandeville…[T]he real thesis of the book is not that all evil is a public benefit, but that a certain useful proportion of it (called vice) is such a benefit (and…is on that account not really felt to be evil, though still called vicious)...

This is a problematic interpretation, however, for Mandeville also discusses the social benefits of unjust actions, such as theft and fraud, which provide employment for those in the criminal justice system, as well as for those artisans and laborers who are needed to replace goods that have been destroyed or stolen.

This ambiguity in Mandeville’s poem (which appears in his explanatory essays as well) partially accounts for the hostile reception he later received even from those who sympathized with his defense of self-interest. For example, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith notes that Mandeville’s arguments “in some respects bordered upon the truth,” despite “how destructive this system may appear.”

...

One of Mandeville’s most influential arguments was his defense of “luxury,” which had been widely condemned for its supposedly enervating effects on social mores. Many of Mandeville’s points about the economic benefits of luxury, as well as his criticism of this concept as excessively vague, would later reappear in the writings of David Hume, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, and other liberal individualists.

...

Ghs

[sjw]

I'm more interested in my other question than in how you've tacked this or that meaning beyond the connotation of "voluntary" onto "voluntarism." I guess you don't want to answer...

Shayne

What "other question" are you talking about?

Ghs

"If I had been a trust-fund baby or if I had won the lottery at an early age, I probably would have published at least a dozen books by now."

Basically my question is: why can't you write these books for a profit? I guess you chose the career track of a college professor, without actually being one, which makes it difficult in our age. Also as a related issue, I would guess that the level of serious treatment you give is just not in demand by the public in general.

Shayne

[Selene]

The issue of "luxury" was a major controversy among Radical Whigs. It was commonly believed that luxury has a corrupting influence on the virtues needed to sustain a free society, so you will find many Americans during the revolutionary era, such as Sam Adams in his call for a "Christian Sparta," calling for sumptuary laws.

This is a problematic interpretation, however, for Mandeville also discusses the social benefits of unjust actions, such as theft and fraud, which provide employment for those in the criminal justice system, as well as for those artisans and laborers who are needed to replace goods that have been

Ghs

George:

Fascinating. Any connection to the foundation to the Puritanical "Blue laws" that still exist?

[George H. Smith]

I'm more interested in my other question than in how you've tacked this or that meaning beyond the connotation of "voluntary" onto "voluntarism." I guess you don't want to answer...

Shayne

What "other question" are you talking about?

Ghs

"If I had been a trust-fund baby or if I had won the lottery at an early age, I probably would have published at least a dozen books by now."

Basically my question is: why can't you write these books for a profit? I guess you chose the career track of a college professor, without actually being one, which makes it difficult in our age. Also as a related issue, I would guess that the level of serious treatment you give is just not in demand by the public in general.

Shayne

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be cute. The posts have been flying quickly today, and I lost track.

I could write such books for a profit. I am a good writer and could write them in such a way as to sell reasonably well. But none of this happens until after publication. Meanwhile, I need to stay alive during the writing process. Suppose a book takes a year or two to write, which is not a lot of time to write a good book. Unless some foundation is willing to put up a substantial amount of money, the book will never get written.

I am competing mainly against university academics -- i.e., state-subsidized scholars who typically don't need foundation grants to pay their bills. This means that they can write books for far less money than I would need. The grants they get are gravy, so to speak, whereas I must live on whatever money I can get.

I've had academic friends who are delighted to receive 5 or 10 grand for a book project. For them, this might mean a nice vacation for their family. But how long could I live on that amount of money? (This is not intended to be a slam against credentialed academics. This is just the way things are.)

Yes, if I had gotten academic credentials and could sustain myself with a university salary, such projects would have been feasible. But that is not the career path I chose, for better or worse....

I wrote an article about the problems confronting freelance libertarian scholars many years ago for Liberty Magazine. I think it was published c. 1986-87, and it included a biting critique of academic tenure, which I characterized as guaranteed welfare for academics (or something to that effect). I also pointed out that many academic positions would not exist in a free market, and that this might help to explain why we don't see a lot of critiques of the state university system coming from libertarian academics. My article was not well received, to put it mildly.

I searched for this article in the Liberty archives a while back, but it was not available online. I may not even have a copy of it in my files. If anyone has a copy or knows where I could find one, please let me know. It is a very polemical piece.

I had a good job at the time with Knowledge Products, so it was not true, as one vociferous critic charged, that I must have been pissed off at not being able to find work. I was angry, but this was because I was watching Roy Childs, one of the great minds of our movement, struggling to make a living by writing routine book reviews when he should have been working on far more important things.

After Roy died, I got even angrier as I heard many people say what a shame it was that Roy never "lived up to his potential." Right. Let them struggle day after day, year after year, just to pay the utility bills and buy groceries and see how long they last before they burn out.

As you can see, I am not at all unwilling to discuss this topic.

Ghs

[sjw]

I'm sorry George. The rule in present society is: the more potential you have, the more society forces it to be squandered. If you're an average Joe with average ambition, the impediments are often psychologically invisible, even though they're right there in front of everyone. I could list the examples by the dozens.

In other news, Congress is about to pass a law making patents "first to file", which means that if you can't afford to patent everything you invent, then all someone has to do is observe what you did, patent it, and then take it from you in court.

Shayne

[Selene]

I'm sorry George. The rule in present society is: the more potential you have, the more society forces it to be squandered. If you're an average Joe with average ambition, the impediments are often psychologically invisible, even though they're right there in front of everyone. I could list the examples by the dozens.

In other news, Congress is about to pass a law making patents "first to file", which means that if you can't afford to patent everything you invent, then all someone has to do is observe what you did, patent it, and then take it from you in court.

Shayne

Shayne:

Sorry to interrupt, but does this bill about to become a law have a number?

Adam

[sjw]

I'm sorry George. The rule in present society is: the more potential you have, the more society forces it to be squandered. If you're an average Joe with average ambition, the impediments are often psychologically invisible, even though they're right there in front of everyone. I could list the examples by the dozens.

In other news, Congress is about to pass a law making patents "first to file", which means that if you can't afford to patent everything you invent, then all someone has to do is observe what you did, patent it, and then take it from you in court.

Shayne

Shayne:

Sorry to interrupt, but does this bill about to become a law have a number?

Adam

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4213874/-Senate-approves-patent-reform-bill

[George H. Smith]

In other news, Congress is about to pass a law making patents "first to file", which means that if you can't afford to patent everything you invent, then all someone has to do is observe what you did, patent it, and then take it from you in court.

This truly sucks. Why do I get the feeling that some large corporations are behind this bill? I say this because large corporations and their specialized legal teams are far better suited to overcome the hurdles and expenses of patent law than are smaller companies and individuals. The individual inventor/entrepreneur doesn't stand much of a chance in the patent race.

I know nothing about how R&D works in the computer industry, but my guess is that, in that highly competitive and fast-moving world, different people, working independently, will often develop/invent the same technological advances at around the same time. Of course, this possibility has always existed, but I suspect it has become much more common in the modern world of high tech.

Is this true? If so, the implications of the pending bill are truly horrendous. A few weeks late, or lack of funds, or some carelessness in regard to legal matters, and years of hard work can go down the drain. Then, if all this were not bad enough, you can get sued big time for attempting to market the creation of your own mind.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The issue of "luxury" was a major controversy among Radical Whigs. It was commonly believed that luxury has a corrupting influence on the virtues needed to sustain a free society, so you will find many Americans during the revolutionary era, such as Sam Adams in his call for a "Christian Sparta," calling for sumptuary laws.

This is a problematic interpretation, however, for Mandeville also discusses the social benefits of unjust actions, such as theft and fraud, which provide employment for those in the criminal justice system, as well as for those artisans and laborers who are needed to replace goods that have been

Ghs

George:

Fascinating. Any connection to the foundation to the Puritanical "Blue laws" that still exist?

Now, that is a great question. It is also a dangerous one for me, because my answer might be one of those ten-parters that I never finish. Let's see if I can trim my answer a bit:

Blue Laws are customarily associated with things like Sabbatarian laws, laws against dancing, and so forth. The paradigmatic example of such laws was Calvin's Geneva during the 16th century. This trend then found its way to the Massachusetts Bay Colony and other Calvinistic colonies in early America.

These laws were principally motivated by religious concerns, and this distinguishes them from the proposed laws against luxury that were intended to promote "republican virtue."

In Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws, which is possibly the most influential book on political sociology ever written, we find a famous discussion of republican virtue. Montesquieu divides governments into various forms, with the intention of identifying the "spirit," or animating principle, of each form.

When Montesquieu arrives at republics, he takes up the old problem (found in Aristotle, among others) of how republics become corrupted and degenerate into the mob rule of unlimited democracy. From there, according to this sequential model, the former republic succumbs to despotism, as a strong leader steps forward to restore order.

The key question, which was of great concern to America's Founders, was how this seemingly inevitable collapse could be avoided. Montesquieu maintains that a republic depends on the virtue of its citizens. Without this civic virtue widely dispersed among its citizens, a republic is doomed.

Luxury became widely feared as a major source of corruption among the citizens of a republic. Why? Well, the arguments here can get a little fuzzy, but the general idea is that when citizens become preoccupied with the pleasure-seeking activities that luxury makes possible, they become morally weak (the word "effeminate" was sometimes used) and unwilling and/or unable to defend their liberties. So long as their rulers permit them to pursue their frivolous pleasures, they won't care about much else, and a creeping despotism will eventually prevail.

Solutions to the problem of corruption could differ considerably. A uniform and compulsory system of state education -- one designed to instill civic virtue in all chidren -- was one of the most common remedies. (Readers unfamiliar with this literature will be astounded to find how often quasi-libertarian thinkers extol the virtues of the Spartan model.) Sumptuary laws were another proposed remedial measure, if a less common one.

In any case, my point is that the religious motives of Blue Laws differed considerably from the secular concerns about civic virtue - though there obviously was some overlap when these matters were discussed by religious thinkers.

To be continued in ten parts

Ghs

[Peter]

George wrote:

The rest of your post is crap. If you keep writing that kind of garbage, I will stop responding to your posts, period

End quote

Understood.

I would prefer YOU write about real stuff especially since you know . . .

What’s next? Unicorns?

Peter

[sjw]

In other news, Congress is about to pass a law making patents "first to file", which means that if you can't afford to patent everything you invent, then all someone has to do is observe what you did, patent it, and then take it from you in court.

This truly sucks. Why do I get the feeling that some large corporations are behind this bill? I say this because large corporations and their specialized legal teams are far better suited to overcome the hurdles and expenses of patent law than are smaller companies and individuals. The individual inventor/entrepreneur doesn't stand much of a chance in the patent race.

I know nothing about how R&D works in the computer industry, but my guess is that, in that highly competitive and fast-moving world, different people, working independently, will often develop/invent the same technological advances at around the same time. Of course, this possibility has always existed, but I suspect it has become much more common in the modern world of high tech.

Is this true? If so, the implications of the pending bill are truly horrendous. A few weeks late, or lack of funds, or some carelessness in regard to legal matters, and years of hard work can go down the drain. Then, if all this were not bad enough, you can get sued big time for attempting to market the creation of your own mind.

Ghs

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." - Bill Gates

It's impossible already for the individual inventor. There are something like 40,000 software patents filed per year. There is no human way to do reliable "due diligence" (not that this kind of diligence is morally due).

The only thing that "saves" you is when it's a patent troll coming after you. Usually they don't want to kill, they just want to attach to your neck and feed. But if it's some business who wants to maintain their monopoly position, you're dead.

Google has come out and said that in this environment, the only way to protect yourself is to have a huge portfolio:

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/patents-and-innovation.html

So the other approach if you don't want to get smashed is to get bought out by a gigantic corporation. Many pragmatic inventors have this dream, but more principled ones want to run things themselves.

Meanwhile, Objectivists defend corporations and patents.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

A philosophical defense of patents is not the same thing as defending the patent system as it now exists. It's a mess for sure. Right now I'm philosophically agnostic, but why is government involved, philosophically speaking? Where is the initiation of force save when it's out of the arms of government?

--Brant

over 40 years of not thinking much about patents

[sjw]

A philosophical defense of patents is not the same thing as defending the patent system as it now exists.

Indeed. Objectivists do neither. They just blindly support patents, don't say anything about wild abuse of individuals and small business by corporations, and when pressed for a philosophic defense say what you just said. That is all they do because that is all they can do without coloring outside the lines.

It's a mess for sure. Right now I'm philosophically agnostic, but why is government involved, philosophically speaking? Where is the initiation of force save when it's out of the arms of government?

--Brant

over 40 years of not thinking much about patents

In the Objectivist view, when you think of an idea and patent it, then if I happen to think of the same idea and run with it, I've initiated force against you, thereby morally enabling you to get the government to come after me. Don't ask me to explain it, it's utterly absurd. Just like Pete Taylor's totalitarian minarchism. The only way around it is a lot of huffing and puffing to try to cover tracks.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

A philosophical defense of patents is not the same thing as defending the patent system as it now exists.

Indeed. Objectivists do neither. They just blindly support patents, don't say anything about wild abuse of individuals and small business by corporations, and when pressed for a philosophic defense say what you just said. That is all they do because that is all they can do without coloring outside the lines.

It's a mess for sure. Right now I'm philosophically agnostic, but why is government involved, philosophically speaking? Where is the initiation of force save when it's out of the arms of government?

--Brant

over 40 years of not thinking much about patents

In the Objectivist view, when you think of an idea and patent it, then if I happen to think of the same idea and run with it, I've initiated force against you, thereby morally enabling you to get the government to come after me. Don't ask me to explain it, it's utterly absurd. Just like Pete Taylor's totalitarian minarchism. The only way around it is a lot of huffing and puffing to try to cover tracks.

Shayne

Right now I don't know how to protect the inventors of new drugs save through a patent system. The government effectively mandates a drug company spend--what?--a billion dollars. As for the rest of it it seems we might be able to chuck it out of hand, almost, then tackle the idea of what I see as this problem.

--Brant

[sjw]

Right now I don't know how to protect the inventors of new drugs save through a patent system. The government effectively mandates a drug company spend--what?--a billion dollars. As for the rest of it it seems we might be able to chuck it out of hand, almost, then tackle the idea of what I see as this problem.

--Brant

Every time someone points out something like this I point out the drugs that are NOT on the market precisely because of the patent system, to which they reply that "oh, that's just because the patent system isn't perfect."

For the life of me I don't know why the moral issue is not clear on its face. If you think of something, it's yours, period, even if someone else thought of it too. You have to work within this basic moral truth, and you're not going to be able to square the circle.

Now, I could go down various paths talking about how this or that will actually work out for the better in the end, but so long as someone wants to try to square the circle, this never works.

Shayne