To Alter or to Abolish


	Simple Liberty

	Essays Books Treatises Research Home

	To Alter Or To Abolish Chapter 38 The Current Struggle Written by Darrell Anderson. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy There have been numerous revolutions throughout human history. Some were peaceful such as the Copernican, Newtonian, and Einsteinian scientific revolutions. Some revolutions were religious in nature such as the founding of Christianity or Islam, the Papal Revolution, Protestant Reformation, or the Enlightenment. Some revolutions were violent such as the English, American, French, and Russian revolutions. Every revolution changed various aspects of human interaction — political, legal, economic, religious, cultural, or social.[1] The next revolution, whether confined to the United States or global, will provide similar changes. Based upon the previous discussions, one can conclude that the Great American Experiment has failed, or from a more narrow perspective, has exposed glaring deficiencies that desperately need attention. Conflict continues to increase and another revolution is inevitable. Unknown is whether the next revolution will be peaceful or violent. What is known is that the revolution is unstoppable. All revolutions are unstoppable.[2] The only thing people in control of the status quo can do is merely delay the inevitable, but the more they resist the more popular the revolutionary ideas become. The more they resist the more likely the revolution will turn violent. Revolutions are unstoppable because at their core are ideas, and unlike humans, ideas cannot be killed, murdered, or imprisoned into silence. One cannot un-ring the bell of introducing an idea. The ideas of the Industrial Age are now fading and being replaced with new ideas. A casual study of history indicates that social and legal systems evolve according to the needs and discoveries of each society of people. Although history demonstrates that humans will protect self-interests — often at the expense of others, the acts of ancestors must be judged and interpreted within the context of their own environment and understanding of the universe. Just as today, those past actors were creatures of limited knowledge. Judging those people outside the context of their immediate life and understanding is unreasonable. Hindsight helps posterity learn from ancestors, but the beliefs and actions of those ancestors must be evaluated appropriately. The conflicts witnessed today indicate that humans are once again at a critical transition point in their history. The concept of the nation-state and supporting processes no longer provides an atmosphere promoting mutual survival. Because of (1) increasing population, (2) the technological ability to create virtual communities, (3) true global trade and commerce, and (4) the ability to share information easily, the world becomes smaller and people encounter more conflict because the foundations of the nation-state do not satisfy the needs of a global society. In hindsight, one can argue that the nation-state concept never was a satisfactory model for human social and legal systems, but only in the past several generations with the increased pressures of population dynamics have the flaws of that model been readily exposed. People learn new customs and worldviews as different societies mix and interact. Every group of people adopts some of the ways of other people and loses some of their own unique identity. The people of this world are becoming more alike, but also possess a natural desire to maintain local customs and traditions. Because the nation-state model is based upon satisfying needs and wants through adversarial raw acquisition, people using that model create numerous artificial barriers that prevents peaceful interaction and denies free association and voluntary exchange. Whereas arguably the nation-state model at one time provided some degree of stability in the world, that stability no longer exists. The nation-state model is the problem, not the solution. In short, the nation-state model is little more than a process of individuals using the political means to sustain energy flows and violently promote various worldviews. The principles driving the nation-state model encourage trespass rather than a willingness to observe knowable boundaries. When people are prevented from pursuing their definition of happiness through free association and voluntary exchange, and subsequently experience artificially created coordination challenges, out of frustration they too often resort to adversarial raw acquisition to sustain their energy flows and worldviews. Indeed, one of the most fundamental challenges of any social system is that of coordinating human action. There are only two fundamental ways of coordinating human action: voluntarily or coercively.[3] In a global environment of human interaction, the latter method increases social disorder. Several straightforward observations reveal why human conflict continues and is increasing: The process of living entities sustaining energy flows is a physical law. Any process interfering with that physical law necessarily increases uncertainty and fear and provides a foundation for increased conflict and violence. The instinct to sustain energy flows creates a desire for self-defense. That desire can be shared with others but never relinquished. Quashing the power of self-defense necessarily increases uncertainty and fear and provides a foundation for increased conflict and violence. Although adversarial raw acquisition is a bona fide biological option for sustaining energy flows, such a focus within humans creates an environment of violent destructive competition instead of peaceful cooperative competition. Humans mask adversarial raw acquisition in many ways, thereby hiding knowable boundaries and increasing trespass. Masking adversarial raw acquisition and not having knowable boundaries necessarily increases uncertainty and fear, thereby increasing conflict and violence. All worldviews are based upon presumptions because there is no proven theory of origins. Conflict and violence increase when worldviews are embraced as unchangeable truth. Uncertainty and fear increase when worldviews clash violently. Humans produce and exchange in an effort to satisfy energy flows and their pursuit of happiness. To facilitate that process, they use common mediums of exchange. Debasing a common circulating currency necessarily erodes future exchange power, necessarily impedes the ability to sustain energy flows and satisfy happiness, and increases uncertainty and fear about the future. Capital — wealth that is used to create additional wealth — is a feedback mechanism in the overall process of sustaining energy flows (refer to Appendix A). In a world without a common medium of exchange — pure barter and trade, wealth must be produced first before that capital can be returned to the production process. In such a world capital always exists in the past with respect to production. In the current world, creating capital is projected into the future domain through the political privilege of creating currency and monetizing debt. There is nothing wrong with the process of capitalizing production with respect to the future domain, but that process is unnecessarily distorted beyond the natural boundaries of linear production through exponential compound interest. Because modern capitalization is fueled almost exclusively through modern banking practices, the cost of compound interest is passed globally to all human production and consumption, and necessarily increases the cost of sustaining energy flows in an exponential manner although humans only can produce linearly. That distortion necessarily increases uncertainty and fear about the future and necessarily requires everybody to continually overproduce and overconsume to satisfy the agendas of a privileged minority. Land is a fundamental element in sustaining energy flows and any artificial manipulation of that element necessarily creates artificial scarcities. Land title distribution today is politically controlled and manipulated, having roots in conquest (adversarial raw acquisition) rather than production and exchange. That manipulation creates artificial scarcities that need not exist. Those artificial scarcities necessarily increases uncertainty and fear about the future as access to those resources are restrained. Legal fictions mask the natural relationships of human action and increases uncertainty and fear because boundaries no longer are knowable or predictable. A most devastating legal fiction is the concept of incorporation. Corporations, both business and political, receive the same legal standing as a naturally existing human, providing numerous opportunities for nefarious actions. Trespass therefore increases under the color of law, necessarily increasing uncertainty and fear. The legal fiction of incorporation violates the concept of being equal before law when resolving disputes, and creates artificial scarcities with respect to land and natural resources. Because of the concept of legal fictions and the existence of political systems through which people coercively redistribute wealth, the concept of property is rendered meaningless and is defined by fiat by those exercising political power. Uncertainty and fear increases. Taxation is a coerced redistribution of energy flows and necessarily increases uncertainty and fear because people must overproduce to counter the theft occurring under the illusion of law. All of these processes increase uncertainty and fear. Recall the various characteristics of personalities within healthy social systems and notice how unhealthy environments increase conflict and violence: Trust vs. Mistrust — Mistrust displaces trust. People lose their sense of recognition and feel estranged, separated, and abandoned. Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt — feelings of shame and doubt increase instead of self-determination. People lose their ability to distinguish approved and unapproved behaviors within certain social environments. The concept of justice diminishes. Initiative vs. Guilt — feelings of guilt replace initiative, people lose their sense of purpose and being, and are discouraged from pursuing valued goals. Industry vs. Inferiority — feelings of inferiority override industry, and people lose their sense of competence and workmanship. Identity vs. Identity Confusion — people become more confused about their identity and lose their sense of fidelity and commitment. Intimacy vs. Isolation — people feel isolated and lose their sense of love and community. Generativity vs. Stagnation — people lose their sense of caring and contribution to others. Integrity vs. Despair — people lose their sense of order and meaning within a larger order, and discount wisdom and perspective. A sense of identity and recognition does not equate to anonymity. A sense of stimulation and satisfying curiosity does not equate with boredom. A sense of security does not equate with anxiety.[4] The principles of the modern nation-state encourages continuing conflict by increasing anonymity instead of identity; through fiat political restraints creates automatons, which produces boredom instead of natural stimulation; and through destructive competition produces anxiety instead of security. An unhealthy social system witnesses mutual distrust and hostility, a common desire to use and exploit one another, a lack of personal identity, and people acting as automatons rather than self-directed individuals.[5] The result of such systems is alienation, from our bodies, our minds, our vocation, our communities — our very essence.[6] The history of human social and legal systems is a story of continual adjustments and enlightenment. Current times are no different. History reveals that past political revolutions merely replaced one form of tyranny with another. The presumptions and equations driving modern social systems remained in place and little changed from the revolution. New principles are needed if humanity is to survive peaceably. The alternative is to continue the existing violence and conflict. Violence always brings change, but also much destruction and grief. History is a ruthless but unbiased teacher. Responses to such discussions vary. Some individuals advocate returning to the foundations established by the original Framers of the Constitution. Other individuals advocate altering the status quo and establishing a new breed of the “limited state.” Still other individuals advocate completely abolishing statism and centralized rule and relying on the spontaneous order of free association and voluntary exchange. Historically, people have chosen to live under many guiding principles. The lure of a “limited government” certainly looks like several steps toward paradise compared to the environment witnessed today. However, an objective appraisal demonstrates that any attempt at a “limited” solitary centralized political system is ultimately futile. Hobbes correctly observed various elements of human nature, but derived an incorrect conclusion and thus, an incorrect solution. Humanity is now paying a price for failing to have investigated the flaws in Hobbes’ arguments. Many individuals will respond that a social and legal system based upon the spontaneous order of free association and voluntary exchange also is doomed to failure because some people will choose adversarial raw acquisition (the political means) to satisfy energy flows. The choice seems to be between the technology of production and the technology of raw acquisition.[7] In either case, humans seem doomed to continual conflict and physical violence. Careful analysis demonstrates that meaningful change does not arise from changing the political structure but from changing social order. After all, the concept of government is a natural outgrowth of social systems whereas political systems are outgrowths of the desire to bypass naturally existing principles. Because the focus must be on social order and not the structure of providing for government or law, some simple observations are necessary. Minimally, people form groups and cooperate with one another to improve the quality of life and to avoid conflict. Nonetheless, there always will be individuals who choose adversarial raw acquisition instead of peaceable production and exchange. Thus, as repugnant as the idea might be, the old adage that “some folks need killing” likely is true. However, such an observation need not mean killing should be the norm, but only that the uncertainty of death is the norm. The instincts for sustaining energy flows and self-preservation provide clues for selecting proper underlying principles. Human social systems are noticeably stable when:[8] There exists a high level of uncertainty and fear with respect to using adversarial raw acquisition and the political means for satisfying energy flows. There exists a low level of uncertainty and fear with respect to providing adequate mutual access to satisfying energy flows. Maintain these two social and biological attributes and both individual and aggregate wealth increase, further reaffirming peaceful coexistence. Conversely, reduce the uncertainty and fear of acquiring by violence, or interfere with the ability to sustain energy flows, and the potential for continual conflict remains high. As discussed in this book, one of the easier ways to reduce uncertainty and fear about using adversarial raw acquisition is to create and promote a political system whereby theft under the color of law is easily masked. One solution is to increase uncertainty and fear with respect to using adversarial raw acquisition and the political means of sustaining energy flows. Another solution is to decrease uncertainty and fear about being able to sustain energy flows through mutual production and exchange. Fear within a group of people encourages conforming behavior. Fear from without the group leads to cohesiveness and unity of the people within the group.[9] Fear manifests itself in several ways: Anxiety about outside attack. Apprehension about being ostracized from a group. A desire to avoid punishment. A desire to avoid pain and suffering. To promote peaceable mutual survival requires converting the previous observations into a simple two-pronged philosophy: All humans, regardless of age, status, ethnicity, or class, possess an absolute right of self-defense. All humans, regardless of age, status, ethnicity, or class, possess an absolute right to sustain energy flows and pursue their happiness. Principle number one raises indecisiveness with respect to people who might choose adversarial raw acquisition or the political means to satisfy energy flows. If the outcome of such confrontation is highly uncertain and unknowable, then most people are less likely to use that option to satisfy their energy flows. People then will choose free association and voluntary exchange as the path of least resistance. This principle applies both individually and collectively. This right can be contractually shared with others, but never relinquished. Principle number two implies that social and legal processes must be equitable for all humans, not just a privileged few. People will sustain their energy flows, either through production and exchange or adversarial raw acquisition. People will choose the latter if that choice is the only perceived option to sustain energy flows, or if that option is condoned under the color of law. These two principles coincide with the boundaries for human action: the pursuit of happiness and the desire to prevent trespass. Only one legal principle is necessary to help avoid and resolve conflict — the concept of trespass. This principle does not mean trespass never will occur, only that if trespass does occur there is a common known boundary that can be examined to promote and reconcile personal and social order. All humans are fallible and creatures of limited knowledge. Thus, trespass will occur, most often unintentionally, regardless of the adopted social and legal system. Trespass occurs even when there is no intent to aggress. The concept of trespass provides a sensible starting point to resolve conflicts. Reducing conflict is possible if the products of labor are not being coercively and covertly captured under the color of law or illusions of various social and legal processes. If humans are prevented from exercising their right to self-defense, then some nefarious individuals will choose adversarial raw acquisition to take advantage of those people denied that right. If people are denied mutual access to sustaining energy flows, then adversarial raw acquisition becomes the obvious choice. This is especially true when one party in a dispute is the legal fiction of “the state” whereby people operating within that framework routinely deny other people the ability to defend themselves and their property, and deny others the ability to quietly pursue their happiness through numerous fiat dictatorial statutes. Sustaining energy flows and seeking general security are two basic goals of life. Those goals are instinctive in nature and cannot be quashed or bypassed. Any perception that either fundamental instinct is being threatened and subsequent discussions about boundaries and associated rights become meaningless. Conflict will increase. What should be obvious is the underlying principles currently driving social and legal process are fundamentally flawed and must change. The challenge for all humans is not to create a conflict-free world because that goal is impossible. The key is to discourage adversarial raw acquisition such that the risk of conflict offers no or little benefit, and to provide an environment where conflict is more readily resolved. Observing nature reveals several principles and boundaries that humans cannot change: All of life is focused on sustaining energy flows. Scarcity and competition for scarce resources is normal and natural. Biologically, raw acquisition is a legitimate and viable means for sustaining energy flows. Conflict is therefore always a potential result of human interaction. Thus, production, exchange, and cooperation are merely responses for reducing potential conflict over scarce resources and sustaining energy flows. The current struggle rests upon an age-old question: are humans essentially good or evil? If most humans essentially are good with only an occasional evil individual, then no coercive political process is necessary to regulate human action and no justification then exists for the coercive philosophy of statism. If humans essentially are evil, then no human can be entrusted to provide protection and all coercive political systems are doomed to failure because of that corrupt nature. Possibly the first individual to publicize that question was William Temple, who wrote “Nor do I know, if men are like Sheep, why they need any government: Or if they are like wolves, how they can suffer it.”[10] Life is not easily resolved by asking rhetorical questions, but either way the only plausible response seems to be to allow free association and voluntary exchange. Because no social or legal system can be flawlessly executed with perfect knowledge, the important question is which models provide the least conflict, not no conflict. Yet, the answer is that humans are neither good nor evil. This is the wrong answer to the wrong question. The correct question is why, despite the risk and potential violence, do humans sometimes choose adversarial raw acquisition instead of mutual production and exchange? The answer lies in understanding the concept of energy flows and the desire of all living entities to obtain as much energy with as little work as possible. From the perspective of understanding the difference between the political and economic means of survival, history teaches there are two fundamental types of people: those who want to live quiet and peaceable lives, and those who want to control other people. The former group tends to mind their own business. They believe in liberty, fundamental rights, the rule of law, and that security depends upon building healthy relationships. They understand that sustaining energy flows and pursuing happiness begins with self-government and reciprocity, and that a reasonable observation toward life is that one does not get something for nothing. The latter group believes otherwise. Fundamentally then, this struggle is the same as every other human struggle. This struggle is about controlling energy flows — and who gets to do the controlling. The latter group of people expect to get something for nothing. Or, to paraphrase Tolstoy, this struggle is between those people who choose to live quiet and peaceable lives and those who choose to be violent. Therein lies a paradoxical challenge: The people who choose to live quiet and peaceable lives, those people who abhor unnecessary regulation and control, those people who prefer peaceable production and exchange, must find a way to discourage those people with violent tendencies to use the political means of survival. Successful change is possible, but only if the underlying principles are changed. Finis. Terms of Use Next: Chapter 39 — Transitions Table of Contents Bibliography Endnotes [1] Berman, Law and Revolution, p. 19. [2] Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 13–15. [3] Friedman, Milton, “Capitalism and Freedom,” 1962, reprinted in Views on Capitalism, p. 44. [4] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 335. [5] Fromm, The Sane Society, pp. 72–73. [6] Gintis, Herbert, “Alienation in a Capitalist Society,” 1972, reprinted in Views on Capitalism, pp. 373–379. [7] Hirshleifer, “Anarchy and Its Breakdown,” p. 27. [8] Hirshleifer, “Anarchy and Its Breakdown,” p. 46. [9] Love, Human Conduct and the Law, pp. 29–34. [10] An Essay upon the Original and Nature of Government (Works, 1751, I, p. 99), cited by Macpherson, Introduction to Leviathan, p. 61.


	Essays Books Treatises Research Contact Me Terms of Use Definitions Search Home

Chapter 38

The Current Struggle