|
Does the History of Racism Preclude Ancapistan? Exclusive to STR August 31, 2007 “What,
to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals
to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and
cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a
sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness,
swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your
denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty
and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and
thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him,
mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to
cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a
nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are
the people of the “Go
where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and
despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out
every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side
of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that,
for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a
rival...” ~
Fredrick Douglass
from “What to the Slave Is The 4th Of July?” One
of the things about which I have written that strikes both my statist
friends and my black liberal friends as the most unbelievable, bordering on
complete, unmitigated, barking lunacy, is a society existing in anarchy
without certain members of that society falling victim to violence from
roving groups. We've all heard the questions: "But what
if some armed mob decides to invade?" "Without an army,
your anarchic utopia would be overrun, wouldn't it?" My
answer has always been, “No, of course not.” (Even
those who support the state are beginning to admit, in even greater
numbers, that anarchy
provides the most peace.) There
are many standard anarcho-capitalist answers to this objection. (For
the record, no version of an anarchic society I’ve ever studied could be
described as a utopia, but that’s for another essay.)
For minorities in particular, the experiences at places like Rosewood
seem to support the view that without protection – generally from the
State – certain racist groups might take to lynching, burning crosses,
or other activities. One would
have to have been sharing some naptime with Rip Van Winkle to not
understand that such concerns are legitimate, particularly given history
of the Some
might argue that you can have your "own" town -- and you’d better
be armed -- or you need the State to protect you from a**holes who will
take the law into their own hands. More than one prominent
libertarian philosopher has seemed to imply that society might be better
off if we rounded up all the [place sexual orientation here] and the
[place political orientation here] and expelled them. Yes, I'm
over-stating for effect, but I don't think by that much. (If I hear
the phrase, "forced association" one more time, I may snap.
I’m joking!) Call me
crazy, but if people began to act on such suggestions, it might lead to,
shall we say, some unpleasantness. Seriously
though, it occasionally seems that some libertarians think Ancapistan,
should it ever exist, will be a land of individual city-states, each with
a unique – and quasi-enforced
– ethnic mix, and its own peculiar vision of anarchy.
Since I’m
not omniscient regarding the future, I really don’t know, but I am
curious. I
posed the question that titles this essay on a discussion group of which I
am part. I posed it on Stef
Molyneux’s FreedomainRadio
Forum as well. I figured I
would get a wide variety of well-reasoned responses from which to launch
my exploration. I was not
disappointed. I present a
smattering of them below – unedited except for clarity – to provide
even more context and content for this exploration. Feedback
from an Internet List-Serve One
of my fellow travelers on my libertarian list-serve felt that any
suggestion of State-provided protection was flawed.
He said: The
State hardly precludes lynching, etc. and in many cases throughout history
has played a central role in ethnic cleansing. So even if violent racism
is a threat in anarchy, it could be argued that a people inclined toward
violent racism are even more dangerous with a state helping them spread
the cost of their violence amongst the indifferent masses. This
is correct. The State provides
a way for any evil that lurks in
the heart of an individual to find expression while simultaneously
externalizing the cost of that aggression.
Simply put, if racists can spend taxpayer money versus their own
money, they are even more powerful. Hitler
is a great example of this truism. Another
forum member echoed these thoughts. He
said: My
view is that the number of hateful bastards is a very small portion of the
population anywhere. Most people just want to be left alone and get on
with their lives. The hateful people have to use flashy rhetoric to
inspire those who might be sympathetic to their point of view and thereby
get them to perform acts of violence.
If you had a purely voluntary society, at least in theory, you
would have much less stuff for people to get riled up about in the first
place. But
is this true? Does a voluntary
society provide less fodder for racial dispute? Another
poster seemed to agree. He
further opined that he didn’t foresee the history of racism posing any
type of long-term problem for the formation of a truly free, anarchic
society. He said: Essentially,
the State uses its ability to propagandize the public to encourage
bigotry, and that is the major cause for racially-based violence. In a
world without the State, people will initially tend to segregate
themselves according to lifestyle. I suspect that initially this
segregation will be cultural/religious, but that would not be static.
For example, parents today can be in no way certain that their
descendants will have the same religion, race, vocation, etc. He
went on: The
first 40 years or so would be the worst, since people would still be
concentrated in this way, i.e., cultural/ethnic centers. After that,
though, I really doubt that this voluntary segregation will continue. One
thing which has me most optimistic is that, in light of current ease of
communication and travel, anarchy would probably never lead to states
again, unless that state was externally imposed, such as in Somalia. Since
the He
certainly sounds optimistic! A
side issue raised by these posters is particularly interesting relative to
my initial premise. They posit
that the State encourages
bigotry. If this is true, it
would make Ancapistan less
racist than the statist paradigm. The
posters seem to be saying that state-encouraged bigotry is the ethos of
racial unrest. But how
does the State encourage bigotry? Most
obviously, the State is quite capable of actually employing people for the
specific purpose of inciting unrest. Such
incidents have occurred quite
recently, in fact. As the
linked article states: Over
the past decade, there have been several high-profile public disclosures
that More
abstractly, the existence of a state guarantees the existence of
mechanisms whereby the few can soak the many.
Most often, the lever to activate these mechanisms will rest upon
the stone of special interest. When
the State seeks to guarantee equal opportunity, it generally resorts to
measuring outcome. Outcome-based
state programs always depend
upon ways to differentiate people. Things
like the number of minority graduates; the number of female undergraduate
science majors; the number of left-handed, red-headed guys on the Ultimate
Frisbee team, etc. are typical rubrics. When
these types of measures are used to drive “equality,” the inevitable
result is unrest among those thought to be discriminated against, and
animosity against those thought to be undeserving.
Those who are on the receiving end of this state-enforced gift
don’t always feel comfortable getting it, and those who feel like they
got “short-changed” because
of the gift don’t always go quietly. Without
something like the State attempting to guarantee an outcome, the chips
could fall where they may, and no one could legitimately complain about
favoritism. Call me naïve,
but that’s what I want. Don’t
do me any favors. And don’t
whine when you’re getting a good view of my rear end out in front,
assuming that happens. That’s
all I ask. If
there is no state, and a true meritocracy, no one can blame special
interests for his position in life. No
one will have given [place special-interest group here] anything at the
expense of another. It seems
that the State, as expected, stands in the way of Ancapistan,
but again, what about the existing racism?
Even without a state, does racism preclude a truly anarchic
society? Yet
another of my libertarian list colleagues had this to offer in answer to
that question. He spoke
specifically of the “protection” any group could obtain when he said: I
am not certain that it is “unlibertarian” to get another violent gang
– an even a larger one – to protect oneself from an initial violent
gang. In some sense, this is
theoretically what the Civil Rights Movement, to the extent that it
conformed to the mythology, was attempting to do when they appealed to the
State. I
am sure that you are as aware as anyone on this list the extent to which
racism is a product of the State. I
guess, though, my responses to your question – knee-jerk or not, are: 1.
In a real sense the way to fight racism, much like the way
to fight statism, comes through education and persuasion; and, 2.
History is just that, history, gone, in the past. What
I mean by this last point is that many people, including many on this
list, tend to think the legacy of slavery is not a reasonable cause for
black inner city crime. (By the way, to that particular assertion, I
would respond “B.S.”) However,
that isn't really relevant to the question you ask because we know that,
leaving the legacy of slavery aside, ending the
war on (some) drugs would have a far greater effect on cutting black
crime rate, victimization, etc. than most other suggestions one might
make. The most important thing to take from all this is:
Something may be historically causal without being future
determinative. The
point this poster makes about “getting a bigger gang” is a
not-at-all-uncommon suggestion. In
fact, one could describe the ostensible constitutional view of the To
keep any hired gang from turning on you, you’d have to control them with
more than just money; otherwise, someone else could just offer them more
cash to attack the very ones who hired them!
This is why mystical constructs like “honor,” “patriotism,”
and “love for your country” are vital to having a standing army.
The mystical constructs keep the fighting men in line.
Given my quest to rid myself of delusions – of which the State is
but one – I’ve no interest in protecting myself with deluded
mercenaries. The
last sentence quoted above is powerful enough to deserve further emphasis
by itself: Something
can be historically causal with being future determinative.
People learn. They
adapt. The injustices
experienced by their forebears, while possibly limiting in the short run,
do not need to limit the long run. It
seems like nothing inherent in society generally, or mankind taken
individually, should preclude Ancapistan, certainly nothing racial. Feedback
from an On-Line Forum I
pursued the question in other venues as well, as I mentioned.
From a frequent poster on FreedomainRadio
(FDR) I got this: This
is hairy territory to be sure. I disagree with the view of some
libertarian philosophers that Ancapistan will consist of a bunch of ethnically separatist
communities. I would think that the incentives for social cooperation
would be so high that there would be quite a degree of integration. I
think that the only way to achieve ethnic isolationism in the
way that some seem to predict would be through protectionism. While
it is undeniable that there will be some degree group-based banding
together, it is impossible to sustain such a situation in the absolute if
we are allowing free market activity to reign. Simply
put, there will always be willing sellers and buyers outside any such
group. The only way to achieve ethnic isolation of the sort envisioned
by the separatists would be to forcibly, coercively stop willing sellers
and buyers from engaging in trade. So,
the only way to keep people from buying and selling without regard to
supposed differences is to impose rules that promote or force such
actions? The Montgomery
Bus Boycott, while pretty widely heard of, is often misunderstood in
this context. Without support
of the State, this boycott would have been less necessary and not lasted
as long. First
of all, it was the rules of the State that were being implemented vis-à-vis
where people of different races could sit on “public” transportation.
(Certainly, the individual tendencies and beliefs of racists were
finding expression, but the rules
and the enforcement of them came from above.)
The market, and all who would use it, was being directly shaped by
the laws of a group of armed men known as the government. Secondly,
it was the State, via its apparatus of police and people such as the
mayor, who precluded the existing options available to the black citizens
from fully supplanting the need for bus rides. Left
alone, black taxis and other means could have taken the market away from
the bus company. Knowing this,
the city officials used the force of men with guns to keep the free market
from doing what it is “designed” to do:
meet the needs of consumers. The
instant the bus company began to lose significant money from reduced
rider-ship, of which a significant portion was black, there would have
been pressure to “let those Negroes sit wherever the hell they want!”
Only outside influence, in the form of political power, could
preclude this basic economic outcome. Even
if the bus company had been determined to maintain racist policies, other means would
have arisen to take up the slack. Black
bus companies would have been started.
Black (or other) cab companies would have begun special services.
It is only because the
guns of the State were trained on these options that necessitated the
boycott lasting for so long. It
is directly because of the State
that the market didn’t fix the problem. The
poster from FDR went on: While
“Joe Racist” is free to disassociate himself from all ethnic
minorities or any other group that he does not like, and while it is
theoretically possible to form a small community made up of nothing
but Joe Racists, Joe Racist is denying himself – or the community of Joe
Racists are denying themselves – the benefits of social cooperation to
such an extent that he/they could very likely end up poor and exiled.
A
small community made up of people that refuse to sell or buy goods
and services to large groups of people is simply shooting itself in the
foot - it will kill itself off in the same way that a small country that
blocks imports and exports will. Racists lose on the free market. The incentive structure under
anarcho-capitalism will be such that ethnically isolated pseudo-Ancapistans
will be very hard to bring about in the first place and impossible to
sustain for very long. Disassociation
doesn't come without its consequences. I think these separatist-elite
philosophers have it backwards: if anything, it is the people who wish to
be total separatists that will end up exiled in Ancapistan;
not by force, but as a consequence of their own choice to disassociate
with so many people. While
all this certainly made sense to me, I engaged this poster in a bit of a
debate, simply to further tease the point out.
I said, “When you suggest that a locale with a restrictive
immigration policy will lose wealth, I think you are making some
assumptions about: a) how
wealth is created generally; b) why immigration helps/hurts the generation
of wealth specifically; and c) the opportunity costs of ethnic purity.”
I
went on, “Let me posit it this way, as I've heard it presented more than
once. If a particular race is
more creative or more peaceful or more inventive, or hell, just smarter,
that race will not lose anything by keeping other races out.
In fact, they are (likely to be) negatively impacted if they let
other ‘inferior’ races be part of their community.
This is what seems to be at root of a certain philosophers’
statements regarding involuntary association and immigration. If
you know your race is superior
then you correspondingly will believe that allowing any other race to
interact with you will drag you down.” Another
poster joined into our debate and answered my query with aplomb when he
said: Even
if the separatists are better at everything, the theory of comparative
advantage would seem to make it costly for them to isolate themselves.
If they allow (outside) workers and such to provide labor, social
interaction will be inevitable, which will erode racial purity.
There is basically no way these societies will last in some sort of
static form and remain libertarian at the same time. This
anarchy maven concluded with this: It
is possible to sustain racial purity.
It is possible to sustain freedom.
It is impossible to sustain both. This
is absolutely on point. It is
always in the best interest of country X to (voluntarily) exchange with
country Y. (Or community A to
exchange with community B.) Always.
This is one of the simple lessons from very early in Callahan's
Economics for Real People. Even
if your country or community or [place collectivist grouping here] is
supposedly better at creating a certain product, you still
need customers. In fact, you
obtain more customers (and other benefits) from without than within, even
if all of your products are superior and even if that which you might
receive in exchange from those without is inferior to what you might
create on your own. Conclusion So,
does the history of racism preclude Ancapistan?
I say no. Of course we
can’t be sure, but my conclusion is based upon my understanding of both
economics and human action. The
only thing that can preclude self-interested action between willing buyers
and sellers, and the type of free society this interaction brings, is the
State. I’ve already been
pretty clear, in many previous essays, about where I stand on that entity:
Abolish it. Lest
anyone misinterpret my conclusion for a belief that some racial utopia
will rise like a Certainly
history is full of examples that undergirded my initial fear.
In fact, even among libertarians there appears to be an enchantment
with classification of people based upon race and a willingness to use the
coercive powers of the State to maintain a fictitious national border that
I find troubling. (It seems to
me that if Mises’ methodological
individualism is what interests you, worrying about whether or not
“blacks” who stayed in If
it makes my life better to have people who can offer a wider range of
services I enjoy nearer by than further away, regardless of the additional
qualities they may have – racial, sexual, etc. – then I'm likely to
opt for the range of services. (I'm
much more about having my needs met than staying by myself and living less
large!) This is not a
guarantee, of course, just a possibility.
Certainly people's innate desires to be with those of similar [pick
quality here] will remain. I
just don't think those qualities will always be racial.
Let us return to Mises,
who (generally) says it better than I, with my added emphasis: Society
is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other
partner’s success as a means for the attainment of his own. Social
cooperation has nothing to do with personal love or a general commandment
to love one another. People do not cooperate because they love or should
love one another. They cooperate because this best serves their own interest. The
advantages derived from peaceful
cooperation and the division of labor are universal. They immediately
benefit every generation, and not only later descendants. For what the
individual must sacrifice for the sake of society he is amply compensated
by greater advantages. His sacrifice is only apparent and temporary; he
foregoes a smaller gain in order to reap a greater one later. Unless
you want to live in your own little enclave, without at least some
of the niceties that interacting with other parts of society could
provide, you cannot exist in a world surrounded by only those who “look
like” you or with whom you share some other characteristic.
However, it could be argued that as long as people keep to
themselves and don’t infringe upon others, living in separate enclaves,
such as the Hutterites,
is absolutely compatible with anarchy.
It
seems to me that individuals, outside special cases like the Hutterite,
will, over time, learn to enjoy associating with ethnically diverse
peoples for exactly the same
reasons so many non-Asians visit Otherwise,
the law of comparative advantage virtually assures that no society, even
one conceived by supposed philosophical elites, will long last unpolluted
by some type of diversity. I
heard it said a long time ago that no one wants to shoot a customer. This is, in the words of Bill and Ted, “Excellent!”
|
