Genius or Folly?
Freedom. It rolls of the tongue like an incantation we whisper, or shout, to ward off the evil spirits of Marx. Not that any of us know what Marx wrote, or understand the relationship between the kissing cousins of communism, capitalism and democracy. No, we need not understand our ideology, nor our national scripture, nor the high priests who interpret its veiled and unknowable sections and amendments. Those who would dare question whether the twin gods of efficient resource accumulation or the ability to ‘do as thou wilt’ are the zenith of the human condition, are simply unpatriotic. While the near deification of the founding fathers is slowly coming to an end, the increasingly trendy position to take is one of the political agnostic. The usual talking point revolves around the Whiskey Rebellion and the fact that any act of governance, no matter how slight, is anathema. For many reading this post, the invectives against the gradual creep of our ‘democratic republic’ ring true, but those willing to burn a few more brain cells may start to wonder if the results were a feature or a bug.
The two schools of thought with any philosophical consistency surrounding the whole concept of the rebellion against England are anarchy and traditional monarchy. The former school of thought demands that we didn’t go far enough with the Declaration and later, the Constitution. It was rebellion, but not enough rebellion. The entire structure of society, from constabulary to King, needed to be ripped down and the founders could have ushered in a very Rousseau-esque era of the ‘bon sauvage.’ The latter school would posit the entire thing was an enormous misstep in the history of western civilization, and it has created a Leviathan of such proportions its collapse will be a civilizational-ending event. Democracy and the wholesale implementation of it after America has lead to the gradual, but certain cultural rot and social, moral, and economic collapse of nearly every country it’s been foisted upon. The current birth rates and culture seem to increasingly lend weight to the latter. I leave it to our children’s children…the handful that will actually exist…to better judge the matter than anyone today.
The question before us that is worth mulling over when a quiet moment arises, is the fundamental difference between those two schools of thought. Both are in extremis positions. I dare say the adherents of either would agree that the seeds of the tree we see bearing fruit before us were planted on, or close to, the very day we are celebrating. There is no doubt we live in a world created by the Lockean tabula rasa philosopher-kings of Philadelphia, Mount Vernon and Boston. However, both come to wildly differing conclusions, because of one or two presuppositional differences. I would be hard pressed to think of a better, or more timely, illustration of how important our foundational beliefs are. While I certainly have strong opinions on which side seems to have the mountain of historical and philosophical evidence supporting it, the purpose of this is not to simply rail against anarchy. I give most of them credit for at least staking a position that isn’t rooted in a desire to click their heels together three times and wind up in 1950. We aren’t in Kansas anymore, Toto. No, I want you to sit back today and consider what exactly are the results of this grand experiment.
I spoke with an older gentleman this past week who quite soberly confided ‘there is no doubt in my mind I lived during the zenith of American society, and no one your age or younger will ever experience anything like it.’ I don’t know if this day was a victory or a tragedy for America and western civilization. We have made incredible advances in science, technology and virtually every other intellectual discipline. Yet, we have our children raising money for the holocaust of their peers. Sixty million odd children and it’s nothing to us as a people. We burned and enslaved a sizable portion of the ‘separate but equal’ states in the name of freedom. We hold more computing power in our pocket than NASA got to the moon with. We are also eating psychotropics like candy on a national scale. Were it any other country, or any other form of government and we would demand it be judged by its fruits. Perhaps it is time we take a cold look and re-think exactly why we recite those familiar words and talking points that comfort us.
One of my favorite Greek maxims is ‘know thyself.’ Inscribed on a temple to Apollo, it is most apropos in the times we live in. The amount of ‘Fake News!’ and social upheaval occurring at a seemingly breakneck pace means those ill-equipped to deal with the deluge of misinformation and outright falsehood will become reactionary. Chaos is being sown, and it is being done on purpose. Confused people make bad decision. Confused people often make emotional decisions. Confused people don’t question why the chaos is happening…or who is causing the chaos. Could anyone have foreseen what this nation has descended to in the lat two hundred and forty-two years? Was it genius, or folly? I can’t answer that question for you. It’s worth asking, though. However, I can ensure my house and my family doesn’t descend into that tomorrow, or the next day, and the day after that. I can ensure western culture has a home within these walls. Those questions, I can answer. Self-reflection is a luxury we have at the moment, let us use it wisely. Have a happy 4th of July.
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: admin
19 Comments
Comments are closed.
GUNS N GEAR
5
[…] I spoke with an older gentleman this past week who quite soberly confided “There is no doubt in my mind I lived during the zenith of American society, and no one your age or younger will ever experience anything like it.” I don’t know if this day was a victory or a tragedy for America and western civilization. We have made incredible advances in science, technology and virtually every other intellectual discipline. Yet, we have our children raising money for the holocaust of their peers. Sixty million odd children and itâs nothing to us as a people. We burned and enslaved a sizable portion of the âseparate but equalâ states in the name of freedom. We hold more computing power in our pocket than NASA got to the moon with. We are also eating psychotropics like candy on a national scale. Were it any other country, or any other form of government and we would demand it be judged by its fruits. Perhaps it is time we take a cold look and re-think exactly why we recite those familiar words and talking points that comfort us. Genius or Folly? | American Partisan […]
You were very diplomatic in your presentation, I appreciate that. I’m not sure anyone ever gives Anarchism a real chance though in most arguments, often I hear outright lies and poisoning of the well from both left and right groups alike in regards to Anarchy. I mean even the definition alone in most modern dictionaries isn’t right. It’s kind of like the modern atheist arguing with you over what the definition of Atheism is, since they can’t honestly claim what the real definition of Atheism is (knowledge that a god does not exist) they changed the definition a decade or two ago to mean “the absence of belief in a god” which of course is a red herring at best from their inconsistent belief. But with that aside I believe often Anarchy is defined as not having any order or structure, but that can’t be further from the truth, read the works of Spooner, Paul, Napolitano, Vance, and Rothbard to see that makes no sense. Lets not forget that we were founded as a Republic (which has it’s own flaws), not a “Democratic Republic” that is just what we have morphed into over the centuries because we did not keep a check on the growth of our own government, most of which started going down hill once Lincoln came into his tyrant-hood. But a large chunk of the problems started under the watch of the Founding Fathers, even worse, from the Founding Fathers themselves. Some of whom were occultists and who wanted solve coagula and to bring about their “New Atlantis”. I have great respect for the actual Christian Founding Fathers, the few there were, who I believe had the right idea, but even they came out of oppressive theocratic European governments who were quite brutal. Even the Puritans in the early colonies were quite brutal to those who did not believe as they did, the Anabaptists were wonder example, they were fined, imprisoned, beat, and murdered by Puritans because they disagreed with some not so important precepts such as infant baptism. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are all well and good, but they are deeply flawed with language that should have been spelled out. For instance the Second Amendment sounds concrete at first, but the explanations in the writing of the Founding Fathers wonderfully explain the purpose and meaning of the Second, but that should have been included in the official final document. Also many alliances and even central banks were proposed and approved by the Founding Fathers, at one time it was done over an unofficial dinner as a give and take agreement.
With all this said my point is that claiming the failure of the Founding Fathers and the rebellion as a mark against Anarchism isn’t fair when they broke with obvious anarchist values right off the bat. I mean taxation is obviously theft for instances, yet it was written into the Constitution and ect. I mean they begged George Washington to be their new king for crying out loud. Not to mention did follow the non-aggression principle, didn’t respect the sovereignty of American states, didn’t respect the property rights or other freedoms of individuals. Sure, they were far more free back then than we are now. But to claim or imply that anarchists can’t achieve their goals therefor they are wrong or at fault is silly at best, especially when so many non-anarchist things were done. I mean it’s no different than me claiming all Christians are filthy Catholics, or Capitalism failed and is evil when we’ve not even be allowed to have a fully free market capitalist system by our own government (even though what many and now few economics blessings we’ve had over the centuries has been solely because of capitalism). So lets be careful to no through out an entire philosophy that is technically rooted in the Bible (Israel was free with Judges before they stupidly demanded a king to rule over them). Do some research and see how you as an individual can implement Anarcho-Capitalist self reliance and practicality.
I am obviously a defensive Anarcho-Capitlist/Libertarian (slight differences), and a born again Bible believing Christian. Do I believe many Libertarian/AnCap policies will be put into place at a government level, no, not really. Do I still believe in a volunteerist society, yes, especially when I can still think 2 + 2 is 4. For those of you who are skeptical or outright hostile to the view, I don’t care, I have already started implementing it in my own life, it works. No, I am not delusional, no, I don’t do stupid things like not pay taxes or anything else that might attract legal action against me by our tyrannical government. Do I believe anything belongs to be under our current governing system, no, we own nothing but our own thoughts and everything done by the system (this includes monarchies by the way, even more so with them because everyone is technically a slave semantics or not) is done by threat of death (if you don’t pay up they come for you, if you refuse to go with them and defend yourself you will be shot dead). But the more Libertarian politicians we see the better, I am perfectly happy with going back to smaller (progressively smaller government), I’m fine with a littler hear and a little there, hence one reason I voted for Rand Paul and Ron Paul in the last few elections. The lesser of two evils argument is a lie at best, delusional, and down right idiotic. Trump is saving nothing, sure, he has done some good, so did Obama on rare occasion, but for the most part all the mainstream politicians are all on the same page. Sure there is a slight flavor difference, but in the end their goal is control, growing government in a pet area (usually social for the left and military for the right), or insuring their continued existence. But the more Libertarians and even AnCaps we see in offices the better. I’m never going to get my ideal society, but the values and practices can be implemented in indirect ways which will only improve life for all of us.
So give barely organized Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians a break please, and maybe read some of our teachers, many of whom have written numerous books and articles explaining perfectly reasonable and obtainable solutions to many societal problems, Ron Paul being one of the more recent and out spoken, but even less Libertarian Rand Paul has many great ideas.
I was, emphasis on was, in that gray area between ancap and libertarian once upon a time. I devoured Spooner and Rothbard and the usual people trotted out as the originators of the idea here in the US, so I’m intimately familiar with the ancap ideology. I try to be fair to them, and most on the right are decent human beings, albeit I think hopelessly naive about realpolitik. I wasn’t criticizing anarchy via the founding fathers, in no way can anything they did be construed as anarchy. My point in contrasting monarchy and anarchy was they were the two answers that don’t involve a time machine. I credit you all for that at least, there’s an acknowledgment that the current system doesn’t work and clawing back time isn’t an option. While I realize you may be using the term capitalism and free market interchangeably (I don’t know), I would strongly disagree that capitalism is responsible for much past wage slavery we have seen under any large corporation since the dawn of the robber barons in the US. I’m no Howard Zinn, but I very much agree with Marx that capitalism is a necessary device to implement communism. The Chinese have shown us the two fit hand in glove, and are a relatively stable and complementary mix. Most of the outrage over this statement I attribute to the fact that most people on the right flatly refuse to even ready any communist literature and thus the sum total of their knowledge of it is mostly propaganda or from Rocky III. This may not be you, but you get my drift. Bonus points for skewering the Puritans, they were and are some of the worst human beings to ever grace our shores. The New England tradition of though-policing has its roots from the busybody Puritans.
I was informed you were a decent guy, so I assume good faith in your objections. If you really want to get down in the weeds as to why a fellow Christian would be on the opposite side of this argument then shoot me an email. I don’t necessarily want to spam the comments section with page-long explanations about theology and some of the philosophical underpinnings of anarchy that I just don’t find true. Reasonable men can disagree, so I don’t take it as a personal slight when I’m in the extreme minority in some discussions. I encourage you to keep reading. Fair warning, you keep digging and you may wind up like me. I was you half a decade ago. ;)
I can trace my DNA and last name to a particular family that participated in the US founding in a very central manner. I used to look upon the Constitution favorably but I do not any longer for many of the reasons put fourth by Spooner, the Anti-Federalists, etc. My personal opinion is that the leviathan we have today is a feature and not a bug of the Constitution. I do admire the Declaration of Independence.
Regarding capitalism, I’ve read Marx and Engles as well as many critiques. I think Marx actually provided definition for the term Capitalism such that he could have something to target with his anti-thesis. At the end of the day corporations are a creation of the state (USC in the US) and could not or would not have the power they wield to abuse markets, customers, etc without the state (see Robber Barons being the only RR companies at the time to receive favors, direct subsidy, etc – Lincoln was their lawyer). So let’s keep limited liability companies and chuck corporations and the state.
Equating Capitalism with free markets I believe is correct. The crony economic systems we have today, within the US and the rest of the developed world, seem more in line with some of the tenants of Marx’s 10 Planks as well as fascism (heavy collusion between the state and corporations – see central banks/inflationary fiat and the MIC).
On the matter of Capitalism being a precursor to Communism, I think this is true but I believe this is not a critique of Capitalism but a feature of civilizations which advance due to freedom (call it Human nature). With freedom come higher standards of living which allow for the shiftless and lazy to have a voice and influence others. Without free markets and the specialization of labor, people tend to focus on short time horizons in order to survive rather than grand schemes of organizing the universe around personal viewpoints while satiating sociopathic impulses.
I do enjoy the Ancap viewpoint as I believe it to be logically and internally consistent. I also acknowledge that freedom is the opposite of Utopia as freedom is messy but I’ll take freedom and messy any day. You can say that you would not prefer Ancap viewpoints, but I’ve yet to see a coherent set of ideas around minimizing the impact of the ‘busybody Puritan’ influences.
As an Ancap I respect order, law based on precedent (which does not require the state) and hierarchies built upon merit . I also acknowledge that participation in the market place is the height of human cooperation (for those that try to paint us with the strawman of ‘Lone Wolf Individualist’).
CE, I very much agree, and not because confirmation bias. One person I really like to listen to is Dr. Tom Woods because he actively address many of these arguments and even gets in occasional debates. Not to mention his works on history really help open my eyes to our government and it’s history. Not to mention Judge Napolitano books.
As you mentioned, I will take messy any day. I know that is easy to say, but even if I got sick of it I would get sick of totalitarianism just as well, so I will take my chances with anarchy. This is one reason we’ve been heavily working towards becoming as self sufficient as we can, it’s slow, but it’s a goal. We most likely will not fully achieve it, and in some areas of life I don’t believe it’s possible. None the less, thanks for add to the conversation it was refreshing.
I would disagree on Capitalism. Not so much because of Marx’s definition but because Smith pretty clearly defines it as such as well. The crony capitalism argument has merit, but I think an asterisk is required along with it. Much relies on this kind of Marxist argument that ‘oh it’s not really been tried yet!’ Friedman and others have gone to great pains to point out Hong Kong and a few select examples, while ignoring that about 70-90% of the time it’s been tried since Smith wrote his treatise on it, it has been ‘crony.’ So while on paper Smith even admits it doesn’t do anything but change the modality of nobility, people still insist the exception is the rule despite a substantial amount of evidence to the contrary. I’d encourage you to compare and contrast the definitions used by Marx, Smith, Friedman and Hayek. I’m not an economist by trade, but during my doctoral studies there was a fair amount of overlap, so I’m at least somewhat read in the field. I judge capitalism on the fact that out of 250+ years here it’s end result has been virtually the same as fascism and has allowed actual economic freedom to exist for maybe 10% of that time in a ‘civilized’ (meaning not the bleeding edge of our westward expansion) setting. I’m all for economic freedom, but I don’t see that as being it in practice, just my $.02.
Some mildly tongue-in-cheek questions that do merit some thought that hopefully goes deeper than a talking point.
Law based on precedent…by what authority does anyone tell me my behavior is wrong? Community standards (sounds like democracy)? What right does someone have to punish me? Stare decisis is the idea that since we made a bad decision 100 years ago we gotta stick with it cuz it’s old. Why does the passing of time infuse a legal decision with ‘rightness?’ Again this idea of law without any foundation other than ‘it’s always been this way’ doesn’t transfer the right of anyone to do jack to me for breaking their ‘code.’ ‘From what authority dost thou speak, peasant?’ would be my standard reply to an attempted trial.
Ancap is logically and internally consistent. I agree. Is it EXTERNALLY consistent? Does it conform to your view of mankind? People are selfish. People are lazy. People have short time horizons, ask the payday lending crowd. Lazy and evil people can be influenced to oppress others for their benefit. Can this viewpoint account for human behavior? I contend it cannot, hence my critique of it in realpolitik terms and less on its internal consistency as a worldview.
The hierarchies built upon merit are for what exactly? A hierarchy assumes subordination, either economically or socially, likely both as they go hand in hand in most cases. Economic or social domination means influence. The nature of people won’t magically change so the ability to leverage soft power will still remain. The top of that hierarchy, is that not the patrician class? Would it not be beyond the realm of possibility to have members of that class wield influence on judicial appointments (however that gets sorted) and the definitely-not-laws-but-social-customs-everyone-is-expected-to-adhere-to? Were they to do so then by Austin’s definition they are a sovereign.
My point here is not to be confrontational but to at least present a few points to ponder and mull over. Not everyone finds this vein of reasoning persuasive, but it’s a partial aspect of the argument I have against anarchocapitalism. Like I said, I used to be on that side of aisle. As far as Puritans, stripping the right to vote nearly in toto is an excellent start. Children should not be allowed to take part in adult discussions. Lastly, why does no one cite Proudhon, Godwin or Rousseau? They were the founding fathers of anarchy, and yet I don’t ever see anyone give them credit for it or cite their lengthy treatises on the subject. Godwin particularly had some interesting things on the legal side, Political Justice was incredibly prescient. I didn’t intend to be this lengthy but it’s a good discussion for the readership. Don’t take it personal if I offended you, that line is way too long and not nearly as fun as the DMV. At least we both agree on abolishing that.
Great stuff.
Regarding precedent, this is a nod toward law that arises from custom and not the frivolous if not numerous laws we have from every level of government that in most cases do not require another to be injured nor do they require intent. In an AnCap society, these laws might just be custom and part of the culture or they might be enforced via contracts.
I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the nature of man and because of these failings in human nature. I would think that an AnCap society would be the only type of society which could curb these failings.
Hierarchies based on merit within familial or business structures is all that I meant.
All in all for this type of a society to work, an AnCap mindset would have to be part of the culture. Most people are inculcated into a collectivist / statist mindset which is of course no accident. If people at least ignored government we might be said to be headed in the right direction.
The DMV – If you have kids and have not watched the DMV scene in Zootopia you should. It is a perfect illustration of the DMV if not gov scams in general.
Thanks for the response Jesse, yeah, I tend to respond and come off as blunt, offensive, or aggressive. I apologize for any of those. I do find your opinions interesting, and I have ready SOME Marx, as much as I can stand from a man who mooched off of others, and possibly neglected his children to the point of death. Often when I get into these types of conversations I feel like the fat geek saying “actually” (kind of am with modifications until I lose this weight, I’m working on), but I love a good discussion and can agree to disagree, and yes I can get heated at times. ;-) I’ve modified my views at times over the years, I was a hard core necon up until 2008 when I started learning a lot and discovered Ron Paul, then went from there. I suspect Marx and others who attribute Capitalism and to a step to Communism are confusing it with Crony Capitalism which is what we’ve have for hundreds of years. Of course we know that is only because of government and the over reaching power. Communism is not Biblical and monarchy has been proven time and again to be just as much of a failure, rarely have there been any good Christian kings. Needless to say I will continue to read and appreciate your articles. I’m not sure who vouched for me, but it’s nice to hear, I like to meet link minded people, network, make friends, and learn. The action part is what I’ve been working on in the last few years. ;-) Feel free to email me.
The atheist have not changed the definition; the prefix “a-” indicates a lack of something. Asexual, amoral, etc.
The confusion stems from the fact that atheism is a misnomer for these people. They are not merely atheists; they are antitheists.
Yeah, the definition thing has always been interesting, especially on the internet. They love to change the definition, it really started with the modern atheists like Dawkins. It’s funny because there is no such thing as an “atheist” because they can’t know an extra dimensional being doesn not exist, yet they often claim extra dimensional beings exist in the realm of “aliens” (also a belief which is based on faith in Darwinism) and alternate realities. They are all agnostics at best. They will even claim a creator and intelligent designer sometimes via panspermia.
But the definition they often use is “I am without a belief in a God”, which of course is a self defeating statement because you are saying “I do not believe that God exists”, which is a belief or more specifically a statement of faith. You can’t have a lack of belief, you either believe or you don’t. They use that tactic to get out of proving their heartfelt belief that there is no God. So in reality atheism (notice the ism) is a religion of it’s own, to the point that there are “atheist churches” out there, not to mention preachers (Dawkins) and prophets (Darwin and Nietzsche).
[…] Smart money’s on ‘folly’. […]
welcome to ussr,i run from it,and it catch me in usa…..
2
4.5
5
2.5
Could anyone foresee what this country has descended into? Yes, the founders themselves.
Thomas Jefferson: Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .
Ben Franklin: “A Republic if you can keep it”
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. Capitalism is the theory, Crony Capitalism is the engineered example. The problem is, whatever size of government you start with (including none) it always grows to consume all available human resources with the high intelligence sociopaths and psychopaths in control. QED.
Until people in general understand government is the problem not the solution nobody is going to get anywhere. The only people in our current age who’ve taken plausible steps to address the problem of government that come to mind are:
* Jim Bell with his Assassination Politics;
* Cody Wilson with proliferation of weapons techology (assuming he’s not balking at working up to weapons of mass destruction).
There may be more that haven’t come to my attention – probably because, laudable though their efforts are, they haven’t produced a viable solution. (I don’t believe the Bitcoin hype as you might deduce but of course I could be wrong.)
Unfortunately we’re at a dangerous time where technology is empowering psychopaths beyond their wildest dreams: the Panopticon is just around the corner, served by AI technologies beyond human control or limitation.