For the past few months I've been trolling around the blogosphere, and I'm being exposed to points of view that I don't usually get exposed to. It's been good and bad.
I came across a kind of... literary style in radical libertarians (like, the kind that believe that basically any state presence is too much). When analyzing whether a particular government action is good or bad, they'll use the phrase "put a gun to your head" to describe the execution of government authority.
Example: "I don't believe it's right to tax people for anything other than what they themselves need. They're putting a gun to your head and screaming 'Give me your money!'"
On one hand, this isn't a bad, or totally erroneous shorthand for state authority. The power of the state is the power to make certain kinds of violence legitimate. Remember the scene in The Dark Knight when the Joker was explaining how some kinds of violence are all "part of the plan"? Same deal. State and military (and/or police) are tightly bound together.
So, on the one hand, that quote is kinda true.
However, on the other hand it's hysterically absurd on it's face. Yes, ultimately total disobedience will result into you being carried away to prison. If you violently object, you may be shot at some point (however, you've almost got to be trying to be shot to reach that point). But that's not the reason why people submit to authority. People buy into the notion of legal authority. They willingly enter into it like a contract. Even if it's just an intangible, abstract notion, authority is still very real - violence aside. As an idea that we all share, it has weight in the real world.
It's easy to forget, but when we grow up we make an implicit decision to accept or reject our society. We go into this thinking we'll play ball (and accept the judgement of society's "authorities") or we go in thinking that we reject it all as bull (I mean "we" as in Charlie Manson, perhaps; Not "we" as in "people reading this blog"). That doesn't mean we have to agree with everything that the authorities do, but it does mean that we have to acknowledge it's right to exist. It means we look at it as real and legitimate, not just some sort of phony illusion.
We collectively legitimize the notion of "Authority", vested in the State.
The State thus legitimizes certain actions taken against individuals or other states.
It's not a case of threating each individuals life everytime you need to get something done. That's not even being implied. It's not the hidden message behind the laws. It should be the case that people obey because they bought in, they accepted their role.
I wish it were possible to institute exile as a "corrective action". It doesn't make sense to force a criminal into a prison life because of their willful disobedience. If they don't want to obey, expel them. See how they do without the benefits of a cooperative society. Send them back to the jungle. Let them fend for themselves in a place where might makes right. As long as they don't find their way back here.
Or, if they don't want to be exiled, they could choose (of their own free will) to go to prison, and freely accept whatever term the court decides is necessary to rehabilitate.
For that matter, it would be nice to make explicit that "decision" that we all implicitly make, regarding whether to accept or reject society. It could be a kind of coming-of-age ritual. Entering the world as an adult and a citizen.
But, the world's too small and too crowded. There is no place that's sufficiently "away" to send the banished. It's just not practical. But it seems like the most just way to correct the system, in response to anti-statists - or, alternatively, anti-social personalities - who believe state power to be illegitimate.
Also: How do you like the new layout?
ReplyDeleteFirst, you're new layout is swanky to the max. I like it. Very easy on the eyes.
ReplyDeleteSecond, exile may have been one of the greatest punishment's we no longer have. It has the effect of capital punishment without the violation of that person's right to live. In conjunction with capital punishment, it can be a great way to save face and still punish someone.
In the Game of Thrones books, they have this thing called "the wall" which is like the wall of China on crack. People who work there/guard it are members of the night's watch and serve for life.
A condemned noble can choose to die, or to "take the black" and go live out his days irrelevant and far away. It would be nice to bring something like that into our society.
Sardakar come to mind.
Otherwise, I think I agree with this blog. I identify a lot with some libertarian ideals. I generally believe more freedom is better than less freedom as it applies to government actions.
But I don't get pissed off that my taxes (if I owned a home) pay for the local public school when I don't have kids or shit like that. We do buy in to society. As long as we do that, we can't be terrible douches about it.
Thanks, buddy!
ReplyDeleteI would say that "authority" is a natural extrapolation of the human need to form communities.
ReplyDeleteThe main function of authority is to identify and preserve the common good. Obviously this will not be exactly what every individual in the community wants, but it would be a decent approximation. Then there'd be those factions who exhibit varying degrees of dissent; people who don't seem to understand that they are part of the community. It is "authority's" duty to deal with these.
Exile and/or imprisonment deal with the retributive element of justice - which is necessarily reparative (besides retributive).
On the other hand, authority must not micromanage the goings on in a community, nor must it interfere too much with the dynamics of the community which it serves. It must, however, be aware of them and know them minutely.
Well written, sir. I agree completely.
ReplyDeleteWhat concerns me the most is that an anti-social person, criminal or no, could make the point that they never chose to be raised in their community, and that the social mores were thrust upon them without their consent. And, naturally, their supposed judges would thus have no foundation on which to judge them. They were being victimized by a majority rather than duely processed by a legitimate authority.
And they'd have a pretty good point, I think.
I don't mean to imply this as a slam against libertarians, or anything of that sort. Libertarian doesn't imply anti-social (although anti-socials sometimes take up the mantle of libertarianism).
"What concerns me the most is that an anti-social person, criminal or no, could make the point that they never chose to be raised in their community, and that the social mores were thrust upon them without their consent. And, naturally, their supposed judges would thus have no foundation on which to judge them. They were being victimized by a majority rather than duely processed by a legitimate authority."
ReplyDeleteI think there might be a certain degree of futility to the point you are making here. Imagine if you heard someone say, "Damn you, Nature! I never consented to being born a human. I would much rather be a dog." This sentiment would be absurd because it is one-hundred percent unavoidable. We see the same principle in regards to authority. Whether you are born in a large nation-state or a small indigenous tribe, you have no choice but to start your life under a system of authority.
In other words, it's really nothing more than just the way human society works. Thinking you (and by "you" I mean anti-social people) have some sort of unique and individual right to self-determination is deluded. A person who really doesn't like the type of society they live in has two choices. He can either move to one he finds more acceptable or he can work towards changing the one he is already in.
Matt -
ReplyDeleteI don't think your analogy is appropriate, because nature makes no claims of individual rights at all. A democratic society does make some.
Society has the power to mete out any punishment it deems fit, but it's not really the exercise of "authority" if the individual in question never bought into that system to begin with.
I would agree that this is all academic. I'm not proposing any real action in this post. But I wouldn't go so far as to call it a futile sentiment. There's an important distinction between immoral and amoral behavior, and I think there's a connection to the concept of authority. Although I'm probably not describing it very well.
John & Matt - I want to introduce Kermenoo. He's been generous enough to tolerate my (uninvited) presence on his blog lately, and now doubly generous for joining in on mine. Salute!