Lately, I've come to respect the idea that a libertarian society will
require no political revolution, but, rather, it will require a moral
revolution.
A key argument in favor of polycentric law is that I want to keep my
freedom more than you want to take it away from me, and that I'll
reveal that preference relative to yours in the market, so our rights
will be maintained according to our revealed preferences.
But this is not so; there are people who want to control you (in
certain ways) much more than you want to have control over yourself.
Every day we reveal our preference for living peacefully under a
government rather than fighting a revolution. As some people are fond
of pointing out, in a weak sense, we're already living in anarchy. In
particular, we're already living under anarcho-capitalism, in a weak
sense.
Of course I realize that if you try to start up your own private
protection agency and stop paying taxes, you'll probably be shot. But
those are simply the most economically efficient rules for this area.
For comparison, try starting a PPA; see how efficient this turns out
to be.
But we don't just want anarcho-capitalism in this weak sense... we
want it in the stronger sense, under which no one will shoot us for
starting one's own PPA or arbitration organization.
If so, and you bought my argument above, MUCH more needs to change
than simply who holds the guns. The revealed preferences of most of
the entire population in this area has to change. People have to want
their own freedoms more than anyone else wants to take them away. We
all have to believe that this is morally right.
This is quite a change from a society in which most citizens routinely
vote for legislators who intend to govern over them. The citizenry
not only believes that government is acceptable; they believe it is
morally right.
In poverty stricken despotic countries around the world, the deepest
problem isn't political: it's moral. Corruption runs rampant amongst
the police, and not, in many cases, on account of excessive power.
You might expect that the dictators would be corrupt, but the police?
They're just police, with no more no less power than the police around
here. But still, the police are corrupt.
Think about it. How can you have a society that follows rules when
the very POLICE are corrupt?
Now, maybe the problem here is that the wrong people are the police,
and if someone managed to stage a successful revolution, this would
all get better. But I doubt it, in most of these cases. Instead, the
society sees it as the right of the mighty to oppress their lessers.
If they want a revolt at all, they don't want a revolt so they can
replace the government with honest people; they want a revolt so that
THEY can be the corrupt police.
A simple revolution is inadequate in these areas. The people would
have to see that it's not only wrong for the police to oppress THEM,
but that it's wrong for anyone to oppress anyone else. Their revealed
preferences altered, they would then choose to revolt, if need be.
Similarly here: people would reveal their preferences for polycentric
law or a minimalist government if they wanted it. But they don't want
it. Until they want a libertarian society, they'll never get it.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT