Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Mark Belling and Anarchy


Recently (late September of 2008) Mark Belling made a startling statement on his WISN afternoon radio referring to Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura as “anarchists.” He was using it in the context of describing extremism wherein he referred to those on the extreme political left as “elitists” and then described the above two gentlemen as extremists on the right and “anarchists.”

I realize that Belling has little use for libertarians and he may very well be using the term simply as a pejorative. But maybe he isn’t. Maybe he believes that Paul and Ventura really are anarchists.

That being a possibility, I will address his statement.

Anarchy is an interesting subject that I find most people do not understand, which probably includes Belling. One reason for the confusion I find, is that like God, there is no clear singular definition of “anarchy.” There are several definitions for anarchy that I will describe, starting with:

True Anarchy

This can best be described loosely as “the law of the jungle.” Animals in their natural state, “in the wild,” live in a state of true anarchy. Murder, rape, theft, destruction are carried on, even within the species, and no one voices an objection. No courts are held, the group does not react to protect the individual animal that was wronged. Each just carries on, numbly, attempting as best he can to survive.

Social scientists state correctly that Man at no time in history lived in a state of true anarchy. There was always some sort of agreed upon social structure to the society in which he lived. There was always a modicum government, even if it was limited to self-government. Wanton murder, rape and theft have always been resisted and punished. Man in his rational state instituted enough self-government to live in reasonable peace with his fellow man even with no formal government.

So I can say with certainty, agreeing with the social scientist, that Man, even in the smallest communal groups, has never lived in a state of true anarchy.

No Central Government

Living without a formal, central governments is as close as Man gets to living in a state of “anarchy,” and is the most common definition of “anarchy,” probably a result of the condescendence of the general population to those in power. Those in power do not acknowledge “self-government” as government. They attempt to degrade it as an “anarchy.”

The Middle Ages has been described as such a state, in Western Europe, anyway. Historian Dr. Carroll Quigley, in his 1300 page tome Tragedy and Hope describes it as follows, “In the West, the Roman Empire disappeared in 476; and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about 900 [years], when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure. This experience had revolutionary effects.”

This hard won lesson (it took nearly 900 years) is being lost today.

Belling’s co-host (same radio station, separate show), Vicki McKenna, has a confusion about this distinction. On a recent show she criticized some 9/11 conspiracy buffs as being unpatriotic. What? What has distrust of the government got to do with love of the country?

It is this confusion that brings an individual to believe that without massive amounts of government control, with genuflection to that control, one has a state of anarchy.

There certainly is no evidence that if centralized government is totally eliminated that Man descends into true anarchy. There is evidence that without a centralized government of any kind, the individual would operate at a high state of self control and responsibility. His nature is to act in concert, socially, with his fellow man. And with no central government to interfere with this inherent trait, he would tend to do so on his own.

Government the Referee

The next level of “anarchy” would be government as a referee. A referee makes no rules and does not partake in the game at all, favoring none of the players. The owners of the game make the rules. (In pro sports, the “owners of the games” are the team owners. They make the rules holding regular meeting to do so when the rules need changing. They own the leagues—American League, National League, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.) The referees only call the fouls and penalize accordingly. The referee does not even determine the penalties for the foul, penalties being determined by the owners of the game.

Government the Referee is the most radical state of libertarianism—but the most moderate state of “anarchy.” It really isn’t anarchy, as a government exists.

Most libertarians are not aware of the possibility of this state existence and, I find, disagree with the possibility of living with such a minimal institutionalized government.

In the context of government today Government the Referee can be difficult to envision in reality: Imagine a government that does not make any rules (passes no laws—there would be no legislature) and establishes no penalties for violation of laws.

If government is only a referee, then in such a state, the owners of the game must be the people themselves. That doesn’t sound too bad to me. I like the idea that the owners of the Game of Life are the people—not the government. The owners of the game should make the rules. The Declaration of Independence alludes to this state.

There would be no legislative body in this state of “anarchy.” That is tantamount to all the rules being according to common law. (“Common law” is simply the customs and practices of a people.) Murder, rape, theft, destruction of property are all recognized as evil under the common law. We all know that. We don’t need legislated law against those things.

In the state of Government the Referee, the owners of the Game of Life establish the penalties. The owners—the people—would do that through the jury process. That is where the decision to “hang ‘em high” or “let him live” would be decided.

I am sure that Government the Referee is a state of anarchy to Belling. And he has a lot of company in that opinion, particularly amongst lawyers and judges.

This state of “anarchy” really is a pure democracy… not to be confused with the “majority rule” democracy, which really is not democracy at all but a form of fascism. In a Pure Democracy, as described above, rule really is by the people.

Above are the three states of “anarchy.” Below that we have rule by government wherein government also owns the game.

Constitutional government

The government is the Sovereign in this state of existence. Here the government makes the rules, establishes the penalties, and calls the fouls as it sees them.

Under a Constitutional government the government is restricted from certain activities concerning individual rights. That is, there are certain areas in which the government is not allowed to infringe. But these restrictions (e.g. the American Bill of Rights) does not make it an anarchy. In this state the individual is still recognized as the progenitor of the government.

That is a bit of a paradox. I find it difficult to comprehend how the individual creates the government, yet the government is the sovereign.

Still it works that way.

This is where Ron Paul sits—you might call him a constitutionalists—far from anarchy. There is a lot of government under a constitution.

Populism

When government can enter all areas of human activity, even the restricted areas that would be prohibited by a constitution, but is careful to do it only to the degree that people want that government, you have populism. Here the government somehow manages to watch out for everyone, making sure that even the most humble and meek, lives a reasonably comfortable life, yet leaves people alone sufficiently to have some individual liberty. A difficult tight wire to walk.

This is where Jesse Ventura sits—a long, long way away from any form of anarchy—and sitting on a ledge from which no society has managed to keep from falling into the depths of statism, and the last two forms of government discussed here.

Fascism

Fascism was originally called “The Third Way.” It was the moderation point between free market capitalism (libertarianism, where Ron Paul sits) and socialism (described below). Benito Mussolini gave Fascism its name, practicing the third way in his Fascist party in Italy. Fascism drew admiration from the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and others around the world (Mussolini made the trains run on time) to where it is the most widely idealized socio-political ideology today.

Fascism is most easily described as that system wherein private ownership of property is allowed, but it is controlled and regulated by the government. Thus you get such things as taxes and zoning, with rules and regulations that fill large libraries with books of court decisions and authors like Rush Limbaugh, trying to figure out just how to properly manage such a society.

Belling and McKenna are both fascists.

Socialism

Socialism steals the last vestige of freedom that the fascists permit: ownership of property. Under socialism the government not only owns the game, makes the rules, established the penalties, enforces the rules and penalties, but it also takes over the playing of the game. Here government tells everyone what to do, how they should think, how they should play the Game of Life.

The general population is just the herd, led to the water, then the feeding troughs, then to the slaughter pens. People are production consumption units to be used by government to attain its utopian goals.

The left wing elitists of which Belling speaks are socialists.

Back to Reality

At socialism you have come full circle from the madness at True Anarchy around the circle finding various levels of sanity and back to madness at socialism.

At Man’s current state, he will probably do best under fascism. Loosen up is chains a bit, give him some latitude by the slow process of reducing the size and scope of government and he could rise up to the state of limited constitutional government.

Should Man ever achieve the state of total personal sanity, he would do best, be most productive, under a system wherein government is only the referee. But that is for a day of a much saner “Man” and is only an incomprehensible dream at this point in Man’s evolution.