A Matter of Faith

Government justifies its existence because of the "anarchy" (that is, "chaos") that would ensue without it.

Does the theory fit the reality?

At its best, the State's institutions prevents the pitchfork-mob "let's get him!" mentality so often parodied in The Simpsons. Without the State, Michael Vick may well have been lynched a year ago.

Then again, because of the State, Michael Vick is in prison, although he violated no one's rights.

The occasion for mentioning last year's news is the Democrat sell-out last week of the Fourth Amendment.

It suggests that The State is worse than the diseases - crime, disorder, insecurity - that it is supposed to fix. If The State can violate your rights at will, that is worse than stateless anarchy, because at least then individuals have a chance to band together and protect themselves.

But the problem is, the debates go back and forth:

• Who knows if the War on Terror saved more lives and property than a more freedom-friendly approach would have? Maybe some bad guys really were caught?
  
• The 1,000 deaths per year in the Iraq War is dwarfed by America's domestic murder rate, which makes it seem not so bad after all. Compared to most major wars, it looks like a success.
  

This kind of thinking plagues domestic policy as well. After all:

• It would be said that without government aid to industry, we'd be a third-world country;
• It would be said that without welfare programs, we would have had a more extreme, communist revolution;
  
• It would be said that without regulations on business practices and personal behavior, we'd have lower standards of living from business exploitation and lower life expectancies from uncontrolled, indulgent behavior.

Never mind, then, that the State is the most active thief, killer, and polluter in society, because without it things would supposedly be worse than they already are. Tens of millions of people believe this.

And I don't know if that position will ever be refuted with logic or any other form of persuasion. Perhaps Statism really is a religion, and at the core of all religion is a paradox:

• Religion at its best encourages peace and harmony, both within the individual and within society, brought about by a genuine love for one's self and one's neighbor;
  
• But religious discipline can warp one's mind into waging war against one's own flesh, and defers to others (Authorities in Organized Religion) on matter of faith, doctrine, and conduct, leading to abuse of power by those with Authoriy.

So critics of Religion say: "Yes, Religion fostered a few good things, but leads to so many bad things that have destroyed humankind's happiness and hope for survival," whereas advocates of Religion say, "Yes, Religion has fostered a few bad things, but leads to so many good things that have led to humankind's current standard of living, and is our only hope for survival."

Religion is the enemy of civilization, or is its foundation. People view The State the same way: it is the cause, or the destroyer, of civilizations.

Which came first, love or sacrifice? Which comes first, freedom or force?

However one may answer such questions, it is probably most important for the individual to make peace with an imperfect world, a world that won't conform to one's ideological beliefs and moral convictions. Recognizing that, the next question is, do we want inflict even more death and destruction on the world, or less? Because if we choose less death and destruction, we may actually look at facts on the ground, and investigate other people's beliefs, cultures, and histories.

The world you feel on the inside is the world you see on the outside. Is it a world at war, or a world at peace? If you are at peace with yourself, you are already free, and the biggest war has been won. Nobody can make the world free and peaceful, but individuals can choose to be free and peaceful. Perhaps the most important victories for Freedom are not seen in political change but in personal transformations.

Progressive or Classical

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The progressive would say that the discovery of right and wrong is an evolutionary process. We used to believe some cultures were better than others, now we believe all cultures are equal; we used to believe slavery was fine, now we believe it is wrong. Likewise, we used to believe dogfighting was fine, now we believe it is wrong. True, there is hypocrisy about prohibiting some forms of animal cruelty while tolerating others, but that's because society as a whole hasn't evolved to the point of outlawing all animal mistreatment. In the meantime, we should do what we can. Democracy is the means by which we evolve.

The classical liberal position on Michael Vick has been courageously advanced by Ilana Mercer over the past couple of weeks. Classical liberalism holds that everyone is equally free, so long as they respect the equal freedom of others. Cultures that respect individual freedom and private property are superior to those that do not. If more and more people become persuaded that something is wrong, they will stop doing it, but they shouldn't forcefully prevent their neighbors from doing it. It may well be true that morality and ethics may further develop through an evolutionary process, but individual freedom, not democratic coercion, is the means.

A Defense of The State

UPDATE: In light of the first comment, I should clarify that this post was more a "musing" than an argument. My intention was only to say, "I can see this side of it," a defense of the State, not the defense of the State. In any case, I don't see what's so "silly" in my argument that anarchism rests on people respecting the rights of others. Here's the original post:

Will an anarchic society be total chaos, "every man for himself?" I doubt it; I suspect there'd be a great deal of cooperation, as that is how human beings are. But when the mores or sensibilities of the community are violated when the public becomes aware of an individual not living how they think he ought, what will happen?

Imagine there is no State. You know that someone in the neighborhood is running a dogfighting operation on his estate. Would you be willing to personally use physical force - alone or with a group of neighbors - to stop the cruelty? Would you use lethal force to break it up? Once you've broken up the operation, would you then leave the participants alone, or would you lock them in a cage for some period of time? Perhaps torture them? Publicly humiliate them?

Many people would say "Yes!"

Now imagine that the fellow next door sells recreational drugs. Would you take the same measures you did against the drug dealer as you did against the dogfighter?

Again, a lot of people would say, "Yes!"

What if, instead, he engaged in deviant sexual practices?

A smaller but surprisingly large number would say Yes.

What if he drew satirical cartoons about religion? Or desecrated national symbols?

Again, a good number would say Yes.

What if he bought goods from the other side of the world at below-local market value?

Again, a good number would use violent means to destroy his goods and run him out of town.

In a way, this actually makes the State look good. Without the State, who knows how much people would interfere with the peaceful activities of their neighbors. Despite the too-many victimless crimes on the books, the State's armed agents can't be everywhere at once. At the same time, would-be meddlers are themselves deterred by the State from taking violent action against their neighbors for doing things they don't like. They recognize they have no right and no authority to interfere. Their attitude of "the law is the law"and sheep-like obedience is hardly a sophisticated interpretation of natural justice, but it does constrain them.

The road to anarchy must include persuading the vast majority of people to live in peace with their neighbors, including a high degree of toleration of their peaceful activities. Short of that, there is something to be said in defense of the State. It's a paradox: in a free society, Michael Vick would not be headed for jail. But in a stateless society, Michael Vick may well be dead by now, done in by mob justice.

The Lynching of Michael Vick

Ilana Mercer stands up for reason and justice in defense of Michael Vick. This led to an appearance on the Hannity Show and quite a debate on her blog. Some of her critics were downright scary. At least one sounded like he would have lynched Vick and his friends just because, being black and from the ghetto, they must be "brutes" and "savages." Incredible. Whatever this was, I didn't think it was about race. Now I'm having second thoughts about that.

But all in all, it confirms what I suspected months ago. While Mercer's rational argument is airtight, law is not based on reason, but on emotions like sympathy/empathy and fear. A libertarian can not justify the laws that Michael Vick plead guilty to. One can merely try to put an intellectual gloss over what amounts to "seeing animals mistreated makes me feel bad. Somebody should put a stop to it."

But liberty isn't saying "there ought to be a law," but rather, unless you harm other people or their property without their consent, their ought not be a law.

Who Gets To Presume What

"It's not about race, it's about black street culture." Okay, so Neal Boortz didn't actually use those words, but that's how it comes across in his column on Michael Vick and dogfighting." In the same piece, Boortz both denies that dogfighting it's a "black thing" and suggests that it is.

I don't know if African-Americans are disproportionately involved with dogfighting or not. But leaving aside the question whether or not dogfighting should be banned, I know one thing: the argument that anti-dogfighting laws are racist, or that Vick is being prosecuted only because he's black, will not fly with anyone who isn't into dogfighting. It will, in fact, provoke a reverse reaction. False charges of racism actually provoke more racial hostility than had previously existed.

Boortz raises another interesting point, about "innocent until proven guilty":

A person who kills a girlfriend because she merely wants out of the relationship is a murderer as soon as his victim's heart stops beating .. you don't have to wait for a jury to come in with a verdict.

So, where does this "innocent until proven guilty" stuff come in? The presumption of innocence is, in my view, a limitation that is primarily place on government. Generally speaking, only government can use force – deadly force – to deprive you of your property, your liberty or your life. If the government is going to do so as punishment for the commission of a crime, then the government must afford you your constitutional rights and prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the government, then, that must consider you to be innocent until otherwise proven. After the act, the rapist is only innocent in the eyes of government. The victim views him quite differently.[emphasis added]

I don't disagree. The only people who must presume Vick is innocent is the jury of his peers. Everyone else, including employers and others in an economic relationship with the accused, has the right to come to their own conclusions and proceed accordingly, even if the State's verdict isn't in yet.

Unless Vick has a convincing case that he knew nothing about the dogfighting "camp" on on his property, I doubt he will ever play a down of football again. His pariah status will be more of a liability than his athletic skills an asset for a franchise.