Re: The Question of Violence and the Poverty of Libertarianism

[Brian Carnell <briand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:13 AM 2/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Brian --
>
>May I begin by suggesting that you take the time and effort to figure out
>where the different folks on this list are coming from before you jump with
>all of your assumptions?

I didn't just jump in with my assumptions (at least I tried not to).  I
merely took the words at their face value and responded.  Sorry if I labeled
you a Marxist rather than a radical democrat.  What is the difference (not
being sarcastic, seriously want to know what you consider the distinction to
be).  Such as one of the following:

>Now to your points:
>>Clearly this is wrong. In fact technological improvements in
>>armaments has led to citizens having a much greater ability
>>to combat the state, IF citizens were allowed access to such
>>weaponry, which they currently are not.
>Maybe you might want to visit the streets in which I live and work, where
>assault weapons are a dime a dozen, and terrorize every decent person who has
>no escape. Even in classical liberal theory such as Hobbes and Locke, the
>state has the minimal function of  protecting the life and safety of the
>citizens. And what meets the condition for the Hobbesian state of nature, a
>war of all against all in which no one's life is secure, if not communities
>in such a state of seige? Why do I think that this libertarianism is
>developed at great length from the inner city?

Well you were right about one thing -- that is a reasoned response to my
inquiry, and I'll attempt to
answer them.

You claim you see a lot of assault weapons (I assume you see them, because
you imply they are common).  I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I
cannot verify the veracity of your subjective claims.  I apply this equally
to my own subjective claims -- it is my perception that there are almost no
assault weapons even in high crime areas.  I would not expect you to accept
this at face value.  What we need is an objective measure, and we have those
in measures such as crime statistics, and those clearly show "assault
weapons" are way down on the totem pole of weapons used during commission of
a crime.  If you'd like detailed stats I'll gladly post them.

I believe some form of the minimal state is justifiable (see Robert Nozick's
_Anarchy, State and Utopia_).  However, I think you're wrong in concluding
that the problems of the inner city are the result of a libertarian state of
nature.  In fact they what happens after 60 years of the welfare state.

I want to make clear what I mean by welfare state, however.  I do partially
mean those programs that transfer income to the poor, but I mean mostly the
constant intervention of government beyond the minimal functions necessary.
Want to understand why America's inner cities are so violent?  Look at
statist economic policies that give incentives for companies to divest from
American inner cities.  Look at state-enforced economic policies that grant
supremacy to big corporations over small business, even though the latter
would benefit those in the inner city more.

The problem is not so much when the state intervenes to help the poor,
though I am opposed to that, but that the state intervenes to help the rich.

>
>>The proper balance being that individual rights should
>>never be sacrificed for the common good.  We've seen
>>where that has gotten us in this century.
>Which is to say that you recognize no claims of the common good, since there
>is no balance and every claim of individual rights must take precedence over
>the common good.

This is correct.  I think the notion of a common good is an incoherent concept.

> Such as the right to bear a gun over the need to establish
>the basics of community life, or property rights to do what wants with one's
>property, regardless of the destruction to the environment caused by
>pollution and the exploitation of working people. I don't understand why you
>are on this list, because I don't see any basis for conversation.

Well, for one I do enjoy the debate between those who are pro-Shining Path
and those who are not.  And, of course, what good would it do me if I
believe I am correct as a libertarian if I merely go off and read
libertarian newsgroups and libertarian mailing lists and subscribe to
libertarian periodicals like a good philosophical wonk??  I would much
prefer to know what the other side believes and why, if only for my further
education, and as an insurance against error (unlike the Pope, I don't claim
infallibility for my claims).

> Modern
>democratic political theory is based on the balance between individual rights
>and the common good, between liberty and equality. The danger in Marxism has
>been to promote the common good at the expense of individual rights, equality
>at the expense of liberty. It is hardly the place for someone who would
>eliminate, by fiat, the common good and equality.

Actually I don't oppose equality, as long as it remains equality in liberty,
rather than some vague positive right to an equal outcome.

>>Which is great if it were conceivable that *everyone*
>>would respect my right to life and liberty, but somehow
>>I'd put more faith in a Glock to preserve that life and
>>liberty than some flowery phrase...beside it's not the size of
>>the weapon that counts, but the killing power and skill
>>in its use that makes for a good deterrent or method of force.
>I am always amazed at how un-self-consciously adult male (and rather
>predatory male at that) this perspective is. Just how was the five year old
>child attending the elementary school next to my high school supposed to
>defend his life -- which he lost -- when he had the misfortune to wander into
>the crossfire of two drug dealers with their Tech 9s? And what of the adults
>who don't envision themselves in the model of the wild west? Talk about a dog
>eat dog world -- this is capitalism at its worst, preying on the youngest and
>oldest, those unable or unwilling to defend themselves with force, and you
>glorify it.

I see your point, believe me.  For a long time I held beliefs very close to
yours (don't worry this isn't an attempt to prosyletize), and I have worked
through these problems with serious introspection.

But I think it comes down to something like this.  It seems as if there are
only two options (well, three, but I'm going to leave the utopian "change
the culture" option out for now).  You either let people have guns, which
means everyone including the drug dealers are going to be able to get them,
or you only let the state have guns.  I believe the former is both the
philosophically and practically better idea.

Is it a wonderful, beautiful world, however?  Maybe not.  It all depends on
what people make of it.  While it is true people use this freedom to violate
people's rights, they also use it to create beautiful things.  I don't
pretend that a world with only a minimal state is going to be a wonderful
world where everyone gets along perfectly, but then I don't believe the
statist world we inhabit now is either, and I don't believe the Marxist
alternative would be either.

The similarity between the three is that there will always be crime, always
be poverty, etc., etc., but at least in the minimal state option we also get
to promote human freedom.  Maybe that's not as good as utopia, but I think
it's the best alternative we've got.

>>BTW...how do you think Marxists seize power in capitalist
>>countries??  Do you think they do so with paraphrases of
>>Martin Luther King???
>The Shining Path couldn't have said it any better. Welcome to your new
>comrades.

Well, if you're not a SP supporter, then the above really doesn't apply.
The point was that it seems to be the SP's very doctrine and the doctrine of
those that support them that this sort of revolution comes only thorugh force.

>>You mean they maintained a little bit wary of the state,
>>rather than accept the Marxist kow towing to anything
>>that pretends to authority???
>No, I mean that democrats insist that the state provide the same protection
>of life, liberty and property for the residents of the inner city as they do
>for those contemplating libertarianism in the safety of an university campus.

Hahaha.  First, I live very close to a university, and trust me it isn't
very safe.  In fact I had three criminal acts committed against me last week
(although they were all property crimes and I guess under the Marxist or
perhaps even radical democrat idea I probably qualify as bourgeoise).

Second, what do you mean by "same protection of life, liberty and property
for residents of the inner city"???  If you mean by that that these
residents should have the same right to be secure in their property, etc., I
couldn't agree with you more.  The thing where I disagree is that this is a
problem that can be solved by the state -- it is a problem CREATED by the state.

I know what it means for inner city residents not to get the same treatment
as others.  I see it everyday as my neighbors, who are good hard working
people, are treated as potential suspects rather than community members by
the police and by the city.  But that is because the city gives them
incentives to view their fellow citizens this way.

Could this happen under a libertarian system?  Of course, but it would not
be as centralized and accepted as on of the ways the state corrupts
individual rights is through the moral authority most people think it has
even if it acts immorally.


>>Let me get this straight...you are teaching children that
>>non-violent action has brought down racist power
>>structures in America...Puhleeze.  Ever looked around you?
>1. Seventeen year old African-Americans and Latino/as are _not_ children.
>They are young adults thoroughly capable of thinking for themselves, who can
>and do think for themselves all the time. How revealing that you can only see
>them as mouthpieces for my ideas.

I'm sorry.  I didn't realize from your post that the children were that old.
And I didn't mean to imply that teaching was indoctrination...I just meant
that I couldn't believe you actually held that opinion and would teach it.

>3. Yes, it is my view, which I articulate in conversation with my students,
>that it was the democratic mass movement of African-Americans, commonly known
>as the civil rights movement and organized around campaigns of non-violent
>protest and civil disobedience, that brought an end to Jim Crow segregation.
>If you take the time to read what I wrote with even elementary care, neither
>I nor my students would ever make the preposterous claim that the end of Jim
>Crow segregation was the end of racism in America. Why does your libertarian
>discourse constantly read African-Americans as passive recipients and
>victims, and never as active historical subjects?

Well let me make two distinctions here.  First, most libertarians I have
read would agree with your assessment, though of course they also mix in the
economics, which I think is important but perhaps overrated by some
commentators.

I pretty much reject that whole interpretation, and ironically adopt a
position you probably will think would be better suited to the Shining Path.
The threat of violence is what brought about changes in the South.  African
Americans willing to stand up for their rights scared the hell out of a
statist power structure that didn't know how to handle a non-passive African
American movement for civil rights.

BTW, I don't mean here that the civil rights leaders threatned violence
literally, but clearly it was the perception of many whites that such a
movement would eventually lead to violence, if only if because for once they
actually saw the brutality perpetrated against African Americans in the name
of the state and realized no people would take that for very long even when
dedicated to nonviolence.

I also think this is a clear example of why I would reject anything but the
minimal state.  The U.S. used every legal sophistry and trick in its book to
use its central political and moral authority to thwart African Americans'
attempts to gain equal recognition and opportunity.  The civil rights
movement succeeded not because of a supra-minimal state, but *in spite of
it* and after more than a century of work -- and then it succeeded only
partially against the state-imposed apartheid.

Left to its own devices, the market never would have produced these sort of
conditions.  It was only government, which essentially subsidized Jim Crow
that this sort of inhumane system was allowed to grow to the levels it did.

I hope you find that a bit more calmed down and not quite as bombastic.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell                                   Coming, Feb. 20...Human Freedom
briand@xxxxxxxxxxxx                             pages (libertarian) at          
                                                                        
http://www.carnell.com/




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------