Societal Change Without Government Force

In Issue 10 Carl shares with us an example of a societal problem that was solved without government intervention: the move to the standard time zone. According to this article, the need for time zones didn’t really exist until the railroad industry began. People were moving faster across the continent which increased the need for accurate coordinated timekeeping, particularly when it came to figuring out rail schedules.

The article goes into detail about how organizations were formed to resolve this issue and although it sounds like it was still pretty difficult and tricky to coordinate, a plan was created. As you might expect, there were those who objected and didn’t want to be controlled by the railroad industry. But in the end, most people saw the benefits of the change which was officially completed on November 18th, 1883.

There are two important points made in this article about government. One is that these time zones were well in place before any government organization made them “official” and the other point is that government force was not used on anyone to get compliance. Carl writes:

“Any old curmudgeon who wanted to continue operating on his old time had the right to do so. He might miss his train or be late for the movies, but no one would throw him in jail for refusing to live by standard railroad time. The fact that the large number of people living around him operated on standard time would be the strongest inducement possible for him to change his habits. Public opinion has the power to change behavior and influence our activities in ways that legislation and government cannot touch. Peaceful, evolutionary change based on the voluntary principle is the voluntaryist way, not the resort to either bullets or ballots. Thus, this history of standard time proves that voluntary social movements can achieve important and long lasting improvements without resorting to governments or coercion.”

This makes me think of one particular societal change that’s happened here locally and in many other areas concerning smoking in restaurants. My biggest disappointment in relation to smoking laws is that I could see that changes were already happening spontaneously simply because society was beginning to demand change. As more and more people rejected smoking, more and more places of business became interested in serving them in smoke-free environments.

Yet there were those who were not content to let this change happen freely and spontaneously, no, they wanted ALL restaurants to change and conform IMMEDIATELY and they were willing to use government force to make it happen. This is too bad because I could see it was happening already and government did not need to be involved at all.

But instead we just ended up with another “example” of why we need government. If only we could have given it more time.

Military Conscription Is Unnecessary

In Issue 9, I see that Paul Jacob is still out and active in his educational efforts against registration for the military draft. This issue contains text of a speech he gave by videotape at a Libertarianism and War Conference, held in the Spring of 1984.

As I’ve read about his activities in these past issues in the early 1980s, it’s difficult to go back to the thought processes people may have had then because now, after the events of 9/11, the idea of conscription doesn’t even seem necessary.

This terrorist attack, and the continued government manipulation of the event, changed everything.

We see evidence of this all the time. As I write this, a controversy is heating up as to how much we are willing to take in order to prevent another terrorist attack on a commercial airplane. As it stands now, if you want to fly, you might have to choose between a “naked” body scanner or an “enhanced patdown” by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees.

But I’m not here to discuss that controversy, I want to explore how 9/11 has gone deeper into our body cavities, so to speak. Are you ready?

The attack led Americans to think in a totally different way. We were forced to be much more engaged and aware of the violence in the world because it finally came here.

And how did we react? Well, exactly like all people around the world who have been facing large-scale violence in their countries react. We suffered through deep sadness from the death and destruction. We became angry.

People were ready to retaliate or fight back in some manner. Many wanted to “kick some ass.” These feelings ripened the natural inclination many people have of wanting to protect and defend. Young men and women joined up to fight willingly. Conscription was not necessary.

Even as time moves on, a military draft is still not necessary because society does its part to keep certain emotions and feelings alive. The idea of automatically classifying any member of the military as heroes is stronger than ever. This hero worship is based on no action other than joining this group.

Society’s job is to continue to commend military membership itself as virtuous, even to celebrate this membership for those in the past who only became members against their will due to conscription.

If we celebrate the military service of these veterans too, it helps us ignore the fact they were conscripted. This helps us create an illusion that overshadows the truth of the past. Just in case anyone starts thinking about it too hard.

This myth making, on top of the continued manipulation of 9/11, lessens the need for military conscription. But it increases the need for war.

A Long Campaign of Education

The feature article in Issue 9 of The Voluntaryist is an edited excerpt from a book published in 1896 by Francis Dashwood Tandy. The book is titled “Voluntary Socialism.” (Carl explains the title in his introductory remarks. Also, the original version of this entire book is available online here.)

Carl chose the chapter on Methods where the author talks about various means that could be used to reach the goal of a voluntary society. Tandy explains in this chapter why revolution and political action won’t work and his reasoning matches up with current Voluntaryist thought. He then discusses the benefits of nonviolent resistance. (NOTE: Tandy uses the term “passive resistance,” but Carl edited this to the more modern “nonviolent resistance.”) Here is an excerpt that certainly appeals to all Voluntaryists:

Nonviolent resistance can never pass a law. It can only nullify laws. Consequently, it can never be used as a means of coercion and is particularly adopted to the attainment of Anarchy. All other schools of reform propose to compel people to do something. For this they must resort to force, usually by passing laws. These laws depend upon political action for their inauguration and physical violence for their enforcement. Anarchists are the only reformers who do not advocate physical violence. Tyranny must ever depend upon the weapon of tyranny, but Freedom can be inaugurated only by means of Freedom.

Tandy seems quite enthused about the possibilities of nonviolent resistance and uses the example of the Quakers refusing to serve in the army during the Civil War. However, he also points out that nonviolent resistance on its own isn’t going to be nearly as effective without accompanying education.

And the biggest educational hurdle is society’s belief in the State, which is an abstract idea that exists only in our heads. This is the essence of the problem and why it’s so hard to change. Tandy writes:

The State Is king only because we are fools enough to stand In the relation of subjects to it. When we cease to stand in the relation of subjects to it, it will cease to be king. So that in order to abolish the State, it is necessary to change people's ideas In regard to it. This means a long campaign of education.

We have more than an entire century between the publishing of this book and the publishing of this blog post. A lot has happened since then. How are things different? How do the various events of the 20th century change or validate what he says?

We certainly still have the vast majority of people believing in the state. This belief, this superstition lives on in most people’s minds.

How do we battle something that is inside people’s minds?

Education is the only way and so far I'm wondering if we aren't just spinning our wheels because the focus has been on trying to re-educate. AFTER the idea is settled like concrete in our minds. Once that happens it’s hard to break out.

Maybe we need to focus our educational efforts on ways to make sure the idea doesn’t get enough traction into into minds of the young in the first place. How can we do this?

Homeschooling or some free form of institutionalized private school (which I’m not sure exists) is one obvious option but I also want to mention three examples I’ve also had some personal involvement with that seem like good attempts to help jump this hurdle.

One is Brette Veinotte, who hosts a podcast called School Sucks, where he brings down the illusions of our government-controlled education system. His main intended audience is teenagers but his podcasts are worth a listen no matter what your age.

The second example is Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio.com who is trying to educate people BEFORE they become parents so they can raise children without such mind baggage.

My last example is the more enlightened younger crowd itself trying to educate. Pete Eyre, Jason Talley and Adam Mueller have been traveling around the country in an RV, connecting and engaging with the younger crowd. The three of them participated in the Motorhome Diaries Project and as we speak Pete and Adam are still on their current Liberty on Tour RV project.

It is indeed a long campaign of education but these are just three examples of things I’ve observed that make me feel as if more positive change might begin to occur.

What do you think? Do you agree that more attention should be focused on reaching the young? Do you have any ideas or are you currently working on a project that you would like to share?

Voting: Channeling Mass Discontent

Considering we just emerged from the muck of another election season, I thought I’d begin my posts about Issue 9 of The Voluntaryist by discussing Carl Watner’s book review of Benjamin Ginsberg’s “The Consequences of Consent.”

Carl says this book caught his interest because even though the author really knew nothing about voluntaryism, his conclusions match Voluntaryist thought about voting and elections, particularly the part elections play in helping government maintain its power.

Carl writes:

Throughout much of the world’s history mass political disruptions and outbursts, such as riots and revolution, have been the real threats to government. Those in power finally realized that they could channel away potentially disruptive political activity by introducing formal means of controlling such mass protests. Elections enable governments to substitute institutional mechanisms for non-electoral sanctions (such as nonviolent resistance or revolutionary violence), which might otherwise be used by a disaffected public. Political party activity turns attention away from non-electoral strategies and forces those who oppose the government to operate by the government's own rules.

I’ve noticed the election process is often used to shut people up and control behavior in between elections. We are told we do have power, that we can have direct influence on the government – just wait until the election. Then by golly, you can show ‘em. You can really register your opposition, your discontent.

Every time a law or government action occurs that someone approves of, and someone always approves, one way they defend it, particularly to those they know will never really like it, is to tell the discontented that they still have the power to change things, just work on electing new people to office.

All sides of the political spectrum take their turn in doing this, even the Libertarian Party which hasn’t even ever had any control.

Many people have bought the “If you don’t like it, then get involved and work to elect others” line. The discontented start focusing all their energy on the next election, as they develop strategy and plans. Working and waiting for the next election.

And if that energy does pay off in electing “new” people, then the system has just created a whole new set of discontented people with energy that needs channeling and where will it go? To the next election. Back and forth. Back and forth. “Change” to “change.”

But it’s all fake. It’s not real change. It’s just taking dirty underwear, turning it inside out, and back again.

I’m ready for real change, how about you?

Government Benefits From Prison Slavery

Issue 8 of The Voluntaryist has a note apologizing for the newsletter being delayed, so this issue consists entirely of one item, a scholarly article Carl wrote about prison slavery. The main thrust of this article is to share the history of prison slavery from a Voluntaryist perspective.

Before becoming a libertarian, it never really bothered me that prisoners had to work while in prison. I always thought of it as a common sense way to help pay for their incarceration.

But after being exposed to libertarian ideas, I realized this system was doing nothing for the victim and I began thinking more about restitution. I thought it was strange that we didn’t have a good system of restitution and this article helped explain why that may be so.

The state benefits much more if criminals work for them instead of working to repay those they have actually harmed.

Carl writes:

“… the prospect of increasing State revenues through the administration of criminal justice at the expense of the criminal and his victim was one of the principal incentives in the transformation of private justice from a mere arbitration between parties to a significant part of the "public" criminal law.”

Carl goes on to explain how the 13th amendment ended private slavery but included the exception of force prison labor and makes the interesting point that, as usual, the government exempted itself from the laws everyone else had to follow.

Carl maintains that it wasn’t about having the prisoners do work to support their expenses of being imprisoned; it was about forcing labor for the profit of the state.

Carl mentions a fellow named Cesare Beccaria who in 1764 wrote a book called Of Crimes and Punishments. This book apparently did much to change views on the penal system and Thomas Jefferson followed his ideas closely. Carl says Beccaria’s ideas led directly to UNICOR, which is the name for the federal prison industry.

I did some research on UNICOR on its website and found out this program began during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. Why does that not surprise me?

The organization makes a big deal of saying they don’t want to compete with private business and labor. Throughout its history those private groups have criticized the program and one result was that UNICOR only sells to the federal government. Interestingly criticism continues because private groups would also like to sell to the government.

The most disturbing aspect I discovered while reading their history is that they played a big part in providing products for U.S. war efforts. So this program uses prison labor to make it easier to engage in war. Not a good idea.

The one piece of information I found that was even remotely positive was that apparently some of the inmate’s earnings go toward restitution. But what are they earning? In a set of minutes from 2005, it said the inmate wage scale had not increased since 1989 so we can be pretty sure they’re not being paid much, certainly not minimum wage which of course gives us yet another instance where government ignores its own laws.

All of this is a direct result of the consequences of government interference in arbitration and restitution. We put people in prison where they are idle. This causes lots of problems. So the government solution is to create a prison slavery program that causes more controversy and problems. But it benefits the state so it continues.

Finally, perhaps worst of all, if this system were not in effect, victimless crimes would be much more glaring and obvious to all.

Hanging Around In Political Bars

The final item in issue 7 of The Voluntaryist is a letter written to Carl by a fellow named Timothy Dove. Mr. Dove is another person who experienced first-hand what the government is all about (he got into trouble with the IRS) but in this letter he spends much of his time discussing his experience with the Libertarian Party in Alaska.

Mr. Dove, at least at the time of writing this letter, tells Carl that he’s not quite as anti-party as Carl. He believes that he owes a lot to the LP because it did introduce him to libertarianism.

I’ve noticed that people who say this often refer to various discussions they had with other individuals they met through the party. It appears that the benefit of finding the LP, from those who end up leaving it, is not about participating in the political process itself; it’s about finding people who helped them further develop their understanding of the philosophy.

Maybe the Libertarian Party is kind of like a bar where people can go to meet libertarians. But it’s dangerous because in a bar, you have to be careful about who you meet. You might meet someone who only wants to use you.

Just like a bar might not be the best place to find people if you are interested in long-term fulfilling relationships more than the excitement of short-term sex, the LP might not be the place to find people if you are interested in long-term societal change, rather than the excitement of short-term political gains.

Mr. Dove says he enjoyed participating when the goal was education and when the purpose was to “utilize the political forum to spread libertarian ideas.” but was disappointed as the party moved towards thinking the purpose is “to elect people to office.”

I wish I could have a dollar (no wait, make that a piece of gold) for every time someone said or wrote that to me whenever I questioned an action in the LP. This has become the standard line to any criticism and I guess it’s true. But it also shuts down any real discussion of libertarian thought and how, or if, it can apply in the political realm.

In his letter, Dove admits that based on that new purpose, the Alaska LP did have success by electing a fellow named Dick Randolph to the State House. But then he goes on to explain a few things Randolph did that, according to Dove, were in no way libertarian.

Here’s what Mr. Dove says in his letter after detailing some history of what Randolph did:

“Gone are the long philosophical discussions of a society without the state. Gone from the Party are all the radicals who created it. All that's left is a bunch of chamber of commerce types, empty rhetoric, and expensively purchased advertising hoopla.”

I looked up Randolph and discovered something that bothered me because I see a pattern whenever a state proclaims a big libertarian electoral success: he had already held office as a Republican. To me, this is not someone who is elected as a Libertarian. It’s just someone who uses the libertarian party to continue in politics.

It appears the state is still battling this sort of thing. I saw lots of news hits around a Republican Senator who lost in the primary and might possibly be running on the Libertarian ticket. A state Libertarian committee voted this idea down, but once again it shows how people want to use the LP doesn’t it?

Bob Barr is another example. Politicians gain their notoriety by using the Republican Party and then move to Libertarian Party when it suits their purposes. When they get mad, the LP provides them a place to go.

It’s even happened in Indiana with a city councilman. He was a Republican who just changed parties because the Republicans aren’t doing what he thinks Republicans should be doing.

This has nothing to do with consistent libertarian thought and I don’t consider these people to be elected libertarians. Just political hacks doing whatever they can to have some power.

I’ve decided I don’t want to be used anymore and am no longer hanging around the political bars. I now understand that I’ll have more success finding people who match my goals if I start looking in places where people are not constantly drunk and addicted to political power.

Playing The Political Expansionist Game

In Issue 7, Robert Lefevre has an article titled, "Cutting Government Growth." In this piece Mr. Lefevre discusses participation in the political process and how it helps government grow. In particular, he points out that elections cannot happen without thousands of people working as unpaid volunteers. (They might do it for some hoped-for benefits but they are not getting paid.)

He writes:

"Government consists of two types of workers: those who are paid for what they do; those who volunteer their services free of charge. Both groups work for the state. Every individual who begins working within the political system in an effort to accomplish anything enlarges the system by his own presence. When a group is organized and begins to seek reduction as a concentrated unit of pressure, a significant growth of the numbers working for government occurs in the process. This is always true even when the purpose of the activists is reduction in size and scope. The state invariably arranges its structure in such a way that its magnitude depends on the numbers of persons involved, rather than on the political direction taken."

Lefevre tells us that the first mistake made by anyone who finally gets fed up and wants to decrease government is to become a political activist. Going door-to-door, endorsing candidates, registering voters, petitioning, picketing and protesting for a cause that requires government action, etc. are all ways political activists end up working for the government. Even when the goal is less government. The Tea Party movement is the latest example.

Lefevre has a fine way of hammering down the point:

"Those entirely sincere individuals who labor endlessly for the reduction of governmental power are, without intending it, playing the political expansionist game."

Talk about unintended consequences!

Lefevre also discusses voting groups and vote percentages as they relate to legitimacy. In regards to voting categories, I had never really thought of adding to the voter base from the government’s side as a whole. But I realize now that the addition of new voters, (removing land ownership requirements, black males, women, lowering voting age to 18) merely strengthened the legitimacy of the system at large because just the fact that you CAN vote adds legitimacy.

This isn’t good enough though because we know there’s an uncomfortable sensitivity to voter participation totals. Everyone seems to understand that there’s a line where the vote just wouldn’t be accepted as legitimate. We may not know exactly where that line is, but it’s there nonetheless.

As a result we now have groups whose only purpose is to get people to vote. They don’t care who you vote for, just that you vote. Many individuals blindly repeat this message too. People are even rewarded for acting on their civic duty by getting a sticker to put on their shirt that says “I voted.”

(A sticker for good behavior. I guess our education system does a good job of training for this to be effective, doesn’t it?)

Lefevre gives us an example of how voter turnout can affect government action. In 1963, a special election was held in Colorado Springs and the weather affected the turnout which led to controversy (you can read the details yourself). In the end, Lefevre says the politicians were extremely careful about any action, so they mostly just "sat on their hands" because the case was effectively made that they did not have the sanction of the people.

Lefevre admits this is one small example but the main point is that politicians are extremely sensitive about legitimacy so not voting is a good idea even strategically. Who knows if others will follow but, on an individual level at least, as a non-voter I know I’m one person who is no longer playing the expansionist game.

He seems to imply that we will eventually hit that sweet spot where legitimacy is in question but I wonder if this is the case. Non-voters are the majority already and it appears to me that the government promoters have put the spin on their side by saying those people are willing to accept the results of the voters.

They have no evidence of this of course, it’s just their premise. But if they keep repeating it, people will just assume it to be true. Therefore, perhaps there needs to be a concerted effort to change the message.

A truthful message would be one that says we cannot know where those individuals stand. This could create unease about what the large group of non-voters, the real majority, actually think.

Would that do anything to persuade more people to not vote thereby hitting that sweet spot, wherever it may be, which makes the politicians “sit on their hands?"