|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllThe Problem of Collective DefenseWritten by Darrell Anderson. Like many anarchists and minarchists, I have spent some time pondering about the challenge of providing and financing collective defense against intruders and attackers. I have read proposals by other people. Some proposals are simple, some are elaborate, and many discuss the economic aspects that would hypothetically drive decisions. Often the topic of “free riders” will arise. Various solutions include small group defense organizations, insurance agencies, and lotteries. I have concluded that there is only one solution to this challenge, but sadly, I doubt that a sufficient number of people would sponsor the solution. My solution is what Eric Frank Russell, in his short story . . . And Then There Were None, called “the mightiest weapon ever thought up by the mind of man.” Before I share this common sense solution, I would like to review the essentials of the problem. People are concerned about large-scale collective attacks and invasions. Accelerating this concern the past several decades is the rise around the globe of statism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the support of the military industrial complex. The first question I ask is what motivates the general classes of people toward supporting this collective killing process? There are several economic, psychological, and sociological reasons, but I believe the primary root reason is rather simplistic. Self-interest, specifically amplified through the monetary exchange system. The monetary system is merely the means through which people express their desire to satisfy needs and wants through a process of exchange. Many people buy weapons, but excluding James Bond stories, only people within political systems buy weapons of mass destruction. Only people within such systems possess the monetary exchange power to buy such weapons. That demand subsequently creates a market for weapons of mass destruction. People then build weapons, not necessarily agreeing to what those weapons would be used for, but because the sale (exchange) of such weapons provides the means to further satisfy needs and wants. At the lower levels of this process are people who learn how to use those weapons — soldiers and mercenaries; again not necessarily agreeing to the bloody final results, but to create a self-serving avenue for providing the means to satisfy future needs and wants. People get paid to kill other people. As many people are aware, modern statism exists largely because of an ability to create monetary currency not necessarily backed by wealth. Generally, the global economy is so fantastically large that the inflationary effects of this currency creation are felt slowly, albeit continually. Thus, most people tend to look the other way or not even concern themselves with the problem. Although central bankers easily buy fictitious debt to supply politicians with the necessary exchange power to buy weapons of mass destruction, that process nonetheless is indirectly supported by general consumers and investors. Like those people who supply and use weapons of mass destruction, people who invest do not necessarily agree with where the investment revenues are spent to generate returns, they only look out for Number One and merely expect a return on their investment. If manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction provide a return on investment, then people invest. Thus, to stop creating weapons of mass destruction that help create the concerns about large collective invasions, the straightforward solution is to stop manufacturing the weapons. Not possessing the destructive power from weapons of mass destruction would not stop some people from collectively attacking other people, but at least the absence of weapons of mass destruction levels the battle fields to basic face-to-face combat. Gruesome, and not as antiseptic as firing missiles to locations where the initiator need never see the results, but returning to face-to-face combat at least greatly reduces the probability of people attacking one another. So the key seems to be that people need to stop providing politicians the means to buy such weapons. However, if politicians can create currency out of thin air, such a proposal seems rather naïve. Not so. The key is that people need also to stop providing funds indirectly. That means stop investing in statist debt, and stop participating as a direct or indirect member of the military industrial complex. If manufacturers who supplied weapons could find no outside investors — or employees — then the means is greatly limited in building new weapons of mass destruction. When politicians create their own currency to buy weapons, the weapons manufacturer still faces a challenge. Manufacturers must employ the labor of other people to mass produce those weapons of mass destruction. Employees and contractors of such companies could refuse to accept the politicians’ scrip in exchange for goods and services. How could such companies exist if everybody refused to provide labor and goods to those companies? Just like that, the politician has no ability to build weapons of mass destruction, no matter how fast the printing presses rolled. Without those weapons, politicians no longer possess the impudence to waltz around the world instigating trouble or trying to implement fiat “foreign policy.” The nonsense ends just like that. Some people will argue that the first nation of people to implement such a strategy would be the first to be invaded by those who still possess weapons of mass destruction. Yes, that possibility exists. However, the question is academic and not realistic. Currently, there is only one nation of people possessing the collective weaponry to attack other nations en masse. Thus, another question must be asked. Without weapons of mass destruction being produced and being used as a bully pulpit, for what reason would other people find standing to attack? If the politicians of that nation are no longer provoking world hatred and discontent, why would people in other geographical areas want to attack anybody? Further, once such an idea was set in motion, the idea would circulate around the globe. Other people then would learn not to support the politicians, and thus, negate the ability of the remaining statist nations from creating weapons of mass destruction. Would such an idea have prevented September 11, 2001? More than likely. Would such an idea have prevented the Taliban from obtaining power? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, at least the latter incident is isolated and restricted to one area. With such a scenario, one has to ask who then is going to collectively attack? With no attackers outside of possible small bands of thieves and bandits, the entire question of collective defense becomes moot and ideas such as insurance agencies or local militias become feasible. The challenge to this entire question is that the question is the problem. That is, people are concerned about collective attacks of other people, but the philosophy of statism itself is the very root of the problem. The very nature of statism requires that people use the political means to steal from others rather than the economic means. Trying to provide collective defense concurrently creates the ability for collective offense. The solution is stop financing statism. Stop supporting the politicians. My solution then as proposed by Russell, is an acronym. F — I.W. Those letters are short-hand for Freedom — I Won’t. At first glance this proposal sounds like nothing more than civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is different from non-participation. Civil disobedience is an affirmative act to disobey a known fiat statutory requirement. Non-participation is refusing to participate regardless of any illusion of alleged requirements. The latter is where F — I.W. comes into play. The strategy essentially means that no matter what the consequences, you refuse to participate as commanded. File an income tax form. I won’t. Pay property taxes. I won’t. Withhold taxes from employees’ pay. I won’t. Build weapons of mass destruction. I won’t. Go kill. I won’t. Use the Fed’s currency. I won’t. Get a driver’s license. I won’t. Register your property with the statists. I won’t. What would be the result of such a collective stand? Initially, a loss of property and death to some. Statists would continue their existing steamroller attitude and never pay attention. However, there is a limit to how far the statists can ignore people who refuse to participate. There is only so much prison space. Concentration camps eventually would fail too. Further, as the strategy gains popularity, fewer people would be willing to provide “enforcement.” The statist then has a choice. Statism can die or the statists can keep trying to kill those who refuse to participate. Eventually, however, the statists find themselves overwhelmingly outnumbered. Some people might even shoot back. Taken to a logical conclusion, the statist basically has to kill everybody because everybody refuses to participate. Almost everybody understands this logical conclusion. All political systems exist entirely by opinion and consent, and when that consent is removed the political system dies. Even the most ruthless dictatorship exists by consent. The logical solution to resolving the problem of collective self-defense is to obey the age-old rule of not trespassing against other people. Participating in collective defense methods as currently practiced is not self-defense but initiating the threat of trespass in order to satisfy needs and wants using the political means of acquisition. Thus, when the statist demands participation, and people respond “I won’t,” the entire topic of collective defense disintegrates. Yes, some methods of collective defense still would be necessary to combat essential human nature. However, those methods need not be large-scale, and likely would be limited to protecting specific local areas. Yet, how many people are willing to collectively support such a strategy? How many are willing to lose property or life by completely refusing to participate in the statist game? Despite the solution to collective defense being so obvious, if you can answer that question then you also know why there likely never will be a near-future peaceful solution to the problem of collective defense. The problem of collective defense is not a practical issue but a philosophical issue. All centralized political systems depend completely upon consent of the governed — even the cruelest dictatorship. The moment people refuse to lend credence to any such centralized process the entire illusion disappears. There is only one rational way to resolve the problem of collective defense. Take action in your own life to stop perpetuating evil by not trespassing against other people. Finis. Next: Capitalism and Socialism |
||