What I can’t figure out from this article, and I don’t have time to dig into the underlying documents, is what they’re defining as “right wing” versus “left wing.” And where do radical (i.e., those who actually follow the Koran and submit to the dictates of Mohammed) Islamists fall?
As for the fools in comments who say that both the Islamists and the “right wingers” in America want a theocracy, where is the evidence? (And no, Glenn Beck doesn’t want a theocracy.)
Me, I’m a simple sort of guy. I think that people who like big and powerful government, for whatever purpose, whether running peoples’ economic or personal lives, are left wingers. Those who value the liberty of the individual are on the “right,” and by that definition (unlike the nutty ones that the leftists come up with) I’m happy to be called a “right winger,” and even a “wingnut.” If we can’t agree on that, then the whole concept of “left” versus “right” is pretty meaningless. The only issue is where to put the so-called anarchists? The reason I say “so called” is that they don’t believe in a limited government to protect the natural rights of individuals. They don’t seem to believe in much at all, other than violence.
People who are State-cultists complaining about “theocracy” make me smile derisively.
Religious “right wingers” who take their religion very socially seem to me to be more left than right. Though they can be very anti “government socialism” they can be very pro their brand of “religious socialism”, for want of a better description. Right verse left is usually individual verse group – whatever that group may be.
Considering libertarianism, what I really favor is a system that promotes optimal competition between individuals, and governments – a free market for individuals and separately for governments. The competing state theory is one reason suggested for why Europe took off instead of Asia, and is a principle we may wish to ensure at a constitutional level.
Within this model, states would be obliged to prevent monopolies within (monopolistic business enterprises, unions, etc.) and maintain free and open competition (minimal regulation) – a fairly typical libertarian position. However states would also be competing at say the “hive” level against other states, and so should have the liberty to work to improve their own survival as a state. This might include things like improving the competence of its citizens by encouraging constructive public education, selective immigration, encourage R&D, collective military, etc., anything that improved its own survival odds. This would also include libertarian values between states – the avoidance of external monopolies that discourage competition between states and the long term reduction in survival odds that they bring. Obviously there is a demarcation between the libertarian rights of an individual and the libertarian rights of a state.
I have never really seen this concept expressed before and at this stage can only best describe it as libertarianism between competing states and the adoption of an international playing field that ensures and promotes ongoing evolutionary progress of the state (including individuals within). Basically, what is the best structure to promote and ensure the ongoing evolution of states and individuals – one that ensures free and open competition within all levels of society, from the individual level to the state level (charities, local governments, companies, religions, academic institutions, sporting teams, etc., all similarly constrained by free and open competition).
The left likes to claim they are just as religious as the right and I believe that is actually true. It’s one of the things that makes it funny when some wacko does something and without a shred of evidence the left immediately says they’re right wing… and usually the wacko turns out to be left wing.
But do they all have to be as creepy as Pelosi?
Anarchy is a different scale. If you think of left and right as being about control of others lives, anarchist are on a separate scale regarding control of their own lives. Some are very in-control and others are out-of-control, but not measured on the scale of controlling others.
I find it peculiar that you claim to appreciate anarchists like Hayek but then say that anarchists don’t seem to believe in much at all, other than violence.
I know a few anarchists, read a fair amount of anarchist literature and consider myself a kindred spirit. True anarchists don’t espouse violence. A core precept of anarchism is the non-coercion principle. Anarchists are opposed to the monopoly on the use of force which the state holds.
The state is defined as that entity which has a monopoly on the use of force. Being opposed to the state is not the same as being opposed to government, governance or voluntary contracts between people and groups. You can have multiple overlapping levels of governance in a society without any single one have a monopoly on the use of force.
True anarchists don’t espouse violence.
This is pure public relations. Anarchist are not a monolithic group, they come in many flavors; including those that are violent.
Can one have anarchistic governments? What might they look like?
The MSM likes to label hooligans destroying property as anarchists. That is a reflection of the biases and ignorance of the MSM. Anarchism as a philosophical movement is, by definition, inherently non-violent. Anybody who commits violent acts and claims to be an anarchist is not an anarchist. There is a treasure trove of anarchist reading at this site:
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm
P.S. A small correction about Hayek. Though he was a market anarchist; he was never willing to completely forsake the state. His analysis does lead that direction though.
There has to be a distinction between philosophical anarchists and the activists who call themselves anarchists. I don’t know much about their philosophers but the activists use violence on a regular basis. Aside from traveling the world to riot they also beat up Republicans from time to time.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36584
http://exposethemedia.com/2010/04/13/gop-official-boyfriend-beaten-badly-at-a-political-event-anarchist-protesters-may-be-responsible/
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20100410184018103
I think there is a tendency for violence when one group demonizes their political opponents to the point of making them sub human, which is what is happening with the stereotyping of conservatives a racists who want to return to the days of slavery.
Rand, I don’t think your definition is going to serve you well in a European context. If you go back to the original appearance of the political terms of left and right, you had a spectrum between egalitarianism, dynamism and secularism on one side and elitism, stasism and government support of a particular religion on the other. And a lot of that still maps pretty well to the left-right spectrum as Europeans see it.
So you can have a self-defined right wing who wants to have people have less liberty to live where they want, and a self-defined left wing that favors more liberty in people’s sexual conduct.
Can one have anarchistic governments? What might they look like?
I wrote about this in a one-time guest-blog at Samizdata (on Guy Fawkes Day/my birthday in 2006). This portion answers the question with a resounding “no.”
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/11/vendetta_vs_jus.html
Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed features a self-contradictory anarchist government.
Somalia is a good case of anarchy in action. There is actually a considerable amount of economic development occuring outside of areas state or UN Control. Within areas of UN and state control, chaos and violence reins.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia
I was thinking more in terms of dispensing with federal government in favor of an anarcho-syndicalist commune of states. Perhaps each taking it in turn to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
But seriously, federal government seems to be the source of much discontent. Experimentation and competition between state governments is perhaps part of what made the US great, continually encouraging individual state governments to up their game and compete for the best US citizens. Federal government is perhaps now significantly suppressing that competition to the detriment of all states.
European “paring of the safety net” is nothing compared to this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4cd17af4-bf5e-11df-965a-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
If true, Cuba, 85% of whose workforce is government-employed, will be cutting that back by 10%.
Wow, the irony is staggering…
Communist Cuba will shift hundreds of thousands of state employees to the private sector in 2011 as the government prunes more than 500,000 workers from its payroll.
Cuba has a private sector? What would Marx think?
Somalia isn’t quite an anarchy: “Most of the order was provided by Somalia’s customary legal code, the Xeer, which was interpreted by clan elders and informally enforced, mainly through ostracism.” It has a formal law and an informal government (clan elders).
The arrangement wouldn’t work if Somali culture weren’t firmly attached to the Xeer. Americans are quite the opposite – we regard huge chunks of the law as abomination, and we don’t agree on which chunks. If the US ever had to resort to informal government, no two local jurisdictions would honor the same set of Supreme Court decisions.
That arrangement can last as long as Somalis dont’ splinter over the Xeer, and as long as it doesn’t have to face foreign or insurgent hostility. I’d rather see that sort of informal government in Monaco or Luxembourg than on any of the other continents.
Alan, anarchy doesn’t necessarily preclude formal codes or governance. The only pre-requisite for anarchy is the absence of a single entity which has an exclusive monopoly on force or violence.
Random thoughts on this post and the comments:
1) Jardinero1 – I’m amazed somebody can write a “serious” article about Somalia without mentioning the word “pirate.” Especially since piracy is Somalia’s only cash industry or “export.”
2) Will McLean’s comments about European left/right are spot on. The reason the American conservatives embraced small government is that it afforded to the rich the same power and privilege afforded to European nobility. It’s no accident that the robber barons of the Gilded Age bought European castles and crated them to America.
3) The “American theocracy” idea comes from the Moral Majority and related organizations, not (directly) from Glenn Beck. These fundamentalist Christian movements affliate themselves with the Republican Party (which claims to be conservative) and advocate using their religious ideals as basis for law. Beck comes into play when he tries to wrap himself in their banner.
Chris, I think the wikipedia article mentions pirates. Piracy exists because nation states prevent merchant vessels from arming themselves.
“The reason the American conservatives embraced small government is that it afforded to the rich the same power and privilege afforded to European nobility. ” Sure, that’s the reason, CG. Another history lesson from Chrs Gerrib, Ph. D. in Bogus History. Sources, CG? I’m sure you’re very well read in conservative intellectual history; in fact, your grasp of the subject is probably on the level of your grasp of economic
“These fundamentalist Christian movements affliate themselves with the Republican Party (which claims to be conservative) and advocate using their religious ideals as basis for law. . . .” Gosh, not like you at all!
Chris Gerib writes: “The reason the American conservatives embraced small government is that it afforded to the rich the same power and privilege afforded to European nobility.” Sources, CG? Or are you just mind-reading?
He adds:
“The ‘American theocracy’ idea comes from the Moral Majority and related organizations. . . . These fundamentalist Christian movements . . . advocate using their religious ideals as basis for law.” Gosh, not like you at all!
Sorry for the duplicate posts. First it seemed like it was not taking my comment; then it told me I had made duplicate comments; then it took them both. About as much logical consistency as a Chris Gerrib argument.
Jardinero1 – let’s not get stuck on stupid. Merchant ships worldwide are unarmed, but only off the coast of Somalia are they in danger from pirates. Your article from the Independent News doesn’t even mention piracy, which is the only economic engine in the country.
Bilwick1 – So you want to argue that the same men who hired private detectives to shoot strikers, or paid their workers in script good only at the company store, were really freedom-loving patriots?
Chris Gerrib, Master of the Straw Man argument, responds to my request for sources on his statement that “American conservatives embraced small government is that it afforded to the rich the same power and privelege to the rich afforded to European nobility*” with the statement:
“So you want to argue that the same men who hired private detectives to shoot strikers, or paid their workers in script good only at the company store, were really freedom-loving patriots?”
Assuming that historical scenario is accurate, and not from the Chris Gerrib School of Bogus History, I would say: Only if they were acting in self-defense and in defense of their property, and if the workers knew when they were hired they were going to get paid in script. Otherwise they were engaging in fraud and aggressive force, which puts them on the same reprehensible level of morality as you and the rest of your scummy State-shtupping gang of thieves and theocrats.
But of course I wasn’t talking about the rich. I was talking about American conservatives, some of whom have been rich but many, if not most, not. I’m not a conservative myself but I’m pretty familiar with the literature, past and present. Which I suspect you are not. No matterf. Your purpose, as always, is to throw in a straw man and divert the narrative. You’ve done your bit, so now you can go back to your cocooon. Those Hive party-lines won’t memorize themselves, so I’m sure you have work to do.
*Not sure how an alleged “small government” would “afford” power and privelege to the rich, but this is is coming from Chris Gerrib and . . . well, need we say more?
Chris, You should read the wiki article and the source materials for it.
Piracy in the Straights of Malacca is a vastly greater problem than in the Horn of Africa and pretty much always has been. Piracy in the Straights doesn’t get as much attention as the Horn of Africa; thus many people, ahem, think piracy is a problem having something to do with Somalia and the anarchy therein.
Bilwick – if you want to go down swinging defending the rights of rich men to shoot strikers, be my guest.
Jardinero1 – err, wrong. The Straits of Malacca, although having a piracy problem, was never as big in terms as number of attacks as Somalia. Also, thanks to a number of factors, including the recent tsunami and Indonesian naval activity, Malacca is much better than it used to be.
Well, if you’re going down swinging at a straw man, so…