|
Call Me an Abolitionist, Please by Glen Allport Exclusive to STR December 18, 2006 Imagine
two groups struggling to win (or, in one case, to retain) public support
for their respective, opposing causes. The dominant group has managed to
define the other’s name to mean “violent, uncivilized destroyers of
property and enemies of functioning society” in the public mind, despite
that definition being the polar opposite of the truth. Still,
the slandered group continues using the pejorative name to describe
itself. “We are violent, uncivilized destroyers of property and enemies
of functioning society!” proclaim members of the group. “And we’re
proud of it! You’d join us if you only understood us better!” Strangely,
the public does not respond in a positive fashion. -
- - - - Of
course, this is only a “what if” scenario. No group in the real world
would be foolish enough to continue calling itself by a name that meant
something so negative in the public mind. It would be like the Republicans
or the Greens renaming themselves the “Child Molester Party.” A more
counterproductive tactical or marketing move is difficult to imagine. -
- - - - I
was just kidding about “no group in the real world” being so foolish,
of course: anarchists continue using a descriptor that actually does
mean “violent, uncivilized destroyers of property and enemies of
functioning society” to 99% of the public. We can rail all we want about
how wrong and unfair that is, but the fact remains that nearly everyone
defines “anarchist” differently and far more negatively than we do.
Thanks to more than a century of media effort (aided and abetted by
violent idiots who have called themselves anarchists), “anarchy” has
been relentlessly and successfully defined as, essentially: “chaos and
violence, and destruction of property rights and civil order.” In short:
“anarchy” = “chaos” or even “terrorism” in the public mind.
This is not a label I want attached to myself, especially during I
see negative and hostile views of “anarchy” frequently and am certain
you do as well. A few examples:
The
anarchists: For jihadist, read
anarchist From
The Economist print edition "Repression
did little to stop anarchist violence. But eventually the world moved on
and the movement withered THE
BUSINESS OF TERROR: Anarchist
outrages By
Rick Coolsaet "TERRORISM
is ancient, found in every age, every continent, every religion. So why
the current obsession with security, the suspicion that a monstrous hidden
enemy is behind every attack in the world? History has had many eras when
terrorism and fear were rife in events much like those of today. By
Robert D. Kaplan Atlantic
Monthly February,
1996 "How
scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly
destroying the social fabric of our planet "One
week ago, experts and observers warned that Afghanistan
close to anarchy, warns general "The
most senior British military commander in Breakdowns
Marked Path From Hurricane to Anarchy By
ERIC LIPTON, CHRISTOPHER DREW, SCOTT SHANE and DAVID ROHDE Published:
"The
governor of -
- - - - What
does anarchy really mean? In a
practical sense, the term has no
meaning; with so many conflicting definitions, the word means whatever
someone thinks it means. There is no universally accepted definition for
the word. Of course, there are
dictionary definitions of anarchy. Here’s the entry from The
American Heritage Dictionary: an·ar·chy
(²n“…r-k¶)
n., pl. an·ar·chies.
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard
or purpose. [New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos,
without a ruler : an-, without; see A-1 +
arkhos, ruler; see -ARCH.] Definition
#3 is especially disturbing, as it absolutely negates the principled
adherence to nonaggression which lies at the heart of “anarchy” as I
understand the term. Another
way to highlight the nearly random usage of the term “anarchy” is
found at the WikiPedia page
on Anarchy, which lists these different anarchist schools of thought
in a sidebar:
Capitalist
• Christian Collectivist
• Communist Eco
• Feminist Green
• Individualist Mutualist
• Primitivist Social
• Syndicalist The
goals, definitions, and methods of these groups vary widely, and not all
of them acknowledge the nonaggression principle. I do not see how any
person could find themselves in full agreement with even two or three of
these, much less with all these versions of “anarchy” at once. By the
way, note that “libertarian/market anarchist” – Strike The Root’s self-description
– isn’t even listed. Here’s “Strike
The Root is a daily journal of current events and commentary from a
libertarian/market anarchist perspective.
The mission of STR is to advance the cause of liberty, primarily by
de-mystifying and de-legitimizing the State.
STR seeks a world where people are free to live their lives as they
see fit, as long as they don't use force or fraud against peaceful
people.” Now,
that’s a definition I can embrace: the anarchist, as STR sees him or
her, “seeks a world where people are free to live their lives as they
see fit, as long as they don't use force or fraud against peaceful
people.” To be blunt, anything less would be uncivilized. But again,
this is NOT the definition most people find in their mental search engines
when they hear the term “anarchist.” Mark
Davis recently made the point in a
column at Our
opponents have successfully defined “anarchy” in such a way that to
merely say the word is to warn others against us. We
are not merely foolish to allow ourselves to be described by this word; we
are not only setting ourselves up for continued and total failure: using
the term “anarchist” to describe ourselves, especially in
post-Patriot, Military Tribunal America, puts us at peril. -
- - - Abolitionism So:
you’re a “live and let live” person who believes any initiated coercion is wrong. What DO you call yourself? I
have a suggestion. If you want to abolish the use of initiated coercion,
why not call yourself, as I do, an abolitionist? Reasons
for using this term include: Accuracy:
the world “abolitionist” accurately describes a person who wants to
abolish something, in this case the evil of initiated coercion. Positive
connotations:
The term was widely used by those who wanted to abolish slavery, and
slavery is, of course, merely a specific and extreme form of initiated
coercion. This use of the term “abolitionism” is the only one I was
familiar with before doing a web search, and I would wager that most
Americans have never heard of any other: in a practical sense,
“abolitionism” means the
movement to abolish slavery. The movement to abolish all intiated coercion – all forms and degrees of slavery and
attempted slavery, large and small – is clearly a continuation of the
original. Positive feelings people rightfully have for the movement to
abolish slavery are equally well deserved by those who seek to abolish all
forms of initiated coercion. Furthermore, abolishing slavery did not tear
the world apart or cause chaos or misery (the Civil War did, but in most nations slavery was abolished without
resorting to war. Even in Continuation
of a righteous cause:
As long as initiated coercion exists – from government, from the mob,
from organized religion, from home-invasion robbers and rapists, from
gangs of ten-year-old bullies at school, or from any other source – the
cause of abolitionism should and must continue. Explicit
recognition that how we treat each other matters:
Abolishing initiated coercion requires insisting that each person is the
owner and proprietor of his or her own body, mind, property, and life
generally. The abolitionist insists on the rights of others. Abolitionism holds that using force
or threats of force against peaceful human beings is a crime – something
any decent person can support. This explicit concern for others puts
abolitionism in harmony with the ancient Eastern doctrine of ahimsa,
at least where human life is
concerned. It puts abolitionism in harmony with the Golden Rule: do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. That means abolitionism is in
harmony with every major religion I am aware of, and with plenty of
religions most people have never heard of. Abolitionism fits well with
Jesus’ insistence that we should love one another (John
13:34 – 35), because coercion
is the practical opposite of love. Indeed, coercion
erodes and destroys love. Civil
society requires nothing less than complete
abolition of initiated coercion.
If history and current events teach us nothing else, they teach us that
initiated coercion is evil,
and that when used widely and systematically (as every government does) it
becomes, all too often, an evil of epic proportions. All excuses, schemes,
and rationalizations for initiating coercion against others only create
more coercion. We’ve tried “the divine right of kings.” We’ve
tried “dictatorship of the proletariat.” We’ve tried
“democracy.” It doesn’t matter how you dress it up: initiating force
or threats of force against peaceful human beings is a crime, and creates
nothing but injustice, violence, and misery. Using the term
“abolitionism” points out that ALL forms of initiated coercion must
go; belief that it is necessary or benign to initiate coercion for this or
for that reason, or in some special manner, is delusional and dangerous. So
call me an abolitionist, please. I hope you will consider joining me in
use of the term. |
