|
|||||||||||||
|
By Punkerslut
Introduction Between the thousands of pages of history, one will see the rise to power of kings and their eventually toppling, either by a social insurrection or an opposing political party, or perhaps the one enemy they never outrun: death. The Russian culture had decided to call their monarchs Czars, the Europeans called theirs Kings, the Egyptians used the term Pharaoh So it is that every culture has a long line of leaders and rulers who have given birth to laws and shaped society and government. So it is also often true that these political figures would have a religious connection as well. It seemed that every culture has its war between the state and the church. In some cases, one would gain control over the other, and sometimes the opposite would occur. Monarchs, by whatever title, were dictators, despots, or unelected leaders. Some may have had representative bodies aid in creating and enforcing legislation, and some leaders were elected themselves, as presidents and chancellors are. Whatever the case, whatever the restrictions or the means of their coming to leadership, every leader has power. By this, they have the ability to enforce restrictions or requirements upon those who they control over. However, as many are already aware of, the idea of power (or government) in this regard is something I consider to be unjust, both on its principle and its practice. The following essay will outline my reasons for this belief, this belief of Anarchism. The Cause of Power I imagine that there is little doubt as to the cause of power. By the word power, I mean the ability to influence people through force, essentially, physical force and coercion. Power is the result of people supporting one person as a leader. This support can come in various forms. Either through taxes, military duty, moral support (defending/praising them publicly), or any other method, power comes to a leader by the support of others. In the cases of dictators and despots, they remain in power by both popular and military rule, in most cases. A king whose rule is harsh, brutal, and undesirable by a people will have to have a strong military rule. But even with that, there is the possibility of an insurrection, overthrowing the old leader and replacing him with a new one, or possibly without any. The family of Nicholas II, the Russian Czar, was executed by his own military, because of the incredibly negative effect his rule has had on the land. On the other hand, a king whose rule is neither negative nor positive to the general population, will require only some military support and some popular support. I imagine that a ruler who gains enough popular support will only need military support to defend himself against other political opponents. The understanding our the mechanics of government in our schools and universities seems to be that a person is elected, impeached, reprimanded, or otherwise ousted, through a due process. No decision, either judicial or legislative, can be enforced without several parties examining it, and the interested parties having their opinion put in. The American idea of power, it seems, is believed to be the ability to convince judges, legislators, voters, and others that your idea is the right idea. The president, who has (some of) the American people at his feet, has the media outlets directly towards what he will say next, probably commands the most power in this nation under this definition. However, despite whatever one may believe about the American political infrastructure, all arguments, all debates, the ability to convince, means nothing, without force to back it up. There may be the process of the president vetoing a bill and the congress trying to get 2/3rds vote to override the veto. One may say that the congress cannot enforce the bill until they can override the veto with a 2/3rds vote. There are other similar barriers in different fields, the so-called "checks and balances" of the judicial, legislative, and executive power. The only purpose that it serves is to convince people that the will of the government is the voice of the people. In many cases, officials outrightly violate the government's structure. So it was when the Supreme Court ruled that the United States had to respect the Cherokee Nation. The president's response was rather expressive of what I have said, "The Supreme Court has made their decision. Now let them uphold it." Power means the ability to coerce, to physical force, and in the most brutal form, the ability to murder and kill. The cause of power, as I have stated, is rather simple. Power is caused by the support of a figure by one mass or group of people, thus making him a political figure. As to why these groups of people defend and promote this one person, this person they desire to be a leader of all, it is based on their thoughts and ideas, essentially their justification. They believe, inherently, that their leader must be the one with the most military power. The reasons why make up their justification. The greatest argument in defense of government, which has also been used in the defense of increased restrictions, is that of protection. It is believed that without a government, there will be chaos and vice. Order, it is believed, will be completely ameliorated, as nobody will exist to defend the weak and innocent from the cruelty of the powerful and vicious. So it happens that protection becomes the sole goal of government, though other parties and interests would come to be considered. The often quoted Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote, "Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay." Expressing a similar idea, Thomas Paine wrote...
It seems to be uniformly believed among thinkers that though government (or power) ought to be supported, it is a necessary evil. The primary, and sole, goal of government should be protection. What we then find in various political activism and campaigning is a desire to alter this protection in government, whether it is to boost it, decrease it, or (more often than not) aim it at a new sector or remove aim from another sector. For instance, we have the conservatives who typically are opposed to welfare and social programs, believing that protection should be withdrawn from the poor, while the liberals typically believe in sustaining such protection or increasing it. Some believe that military spending of the United States needs to be decreased while others desire to maintain it and may even want to increase it. All of these activists understand the principle role of government as a protector. With only a little study on the subject, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that it is an evil, however necessary. The most obvious harm it causes is property appropriation, or taxes. Government needing a means to support itself often goes through this rather simple, typical method of taxation. The evil inherent in this is productivity lost. If man were not "needing a lawgiver," then government would be unnecessary, and so, too, would be taxes. This is only money, though. One of the greater evils of government, sometimes recognized as much as taxation, is that of control. In short, this means the government interfering with the day-to-day life of its citizens. This could mean search and seizures, court trials, tolls, and control in general which interferes with a citizen's activity. But there is another form of control by the government which is much more detrimental to personal liberty. It is when political campaigners manage to outlaw an activity which is neither harmful to the individual or the society, or legalizing an activity which is. In some cases, this meant outlawing a particular religion, and in other cases, it meant legalizing slavery of a race or class. Since many of these issues are up to debate (whether Capitalism, or class slavery, is just, for example). So it would seem that as the morals of society evolve, so do the laws on its legislation, but this is another question up to debate. The last final evil of government is corruption. Since power exists in the hands of one person, their rule of the people can be bribed or persuaded with the influence of one wealthy person. This could include businessmen who want laxer restrictions on their products or how much they pay workers or it could include powerful lobbying groups which want their ideals to become laws. Taxation, control, and corruption are the primary evils of an existing government. Though government is an evil, it is recognized as a necessary evil, in that without it, there would be no protector of the innocent. The Result of Power The result of power is with its inability to properly communicate the will of the people. There is a very old political idea, that the people of a land ought to be the ones who control that land. What is meant by this, is that they must be in control of the legislation to pass laws. Their interests must be the ones considered in the passing of any and all legislation. As to the method, the best method, of accurately and properly carrying out the interests of the people and the betterment of the collective, there have been various theories. Granted that today, as our history books have reflected and our governments have formed, the idea of a Republic, or representative government (with elected officials) is most preferred among current thinkers. Obviously, this has not always been so. Some argued that the idea of a dictator (whether called a "monarch" or "king" respectively) with absolute power was the best method of safeguarding the interests of the people. Monarchists believed that people were inherently evil, brutal, and cruel, and that only an absolute authority was capable of bringing order -- such ideas can be found in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. However, as it can be seen today, such ideas are remarkably antiquated. In some cases, the power is vested in a king, whose absolute authority guarantees order, with a council, whose interests represent those of the people -- in theory, anyway. It is popularly believed today, by all nations of the western world, that a representative government (or republic) is the most effective method of preserving the will of the people. The idea that the people of a region ought to be the ones with control over their lives, a rather old idea, has been one cherished and defended by philosophers and native peoples. It seems that, though they are at no loss for words in exchanging arguments on how a native people control the law, this one idea that they are the ones to control it (or it is their interests to be considered when laws are made) is fairly accepted. Of course there are instances of philosophers or political figures, defending that idea when it came only to their own nation, but abandoning it when it came to the exploitation of a colony. (So it happens, that a man seemingly consistent in ideology, will abandon his morality to exploit the riches of another -- though this is not always the case.) This idea of people in a particular region controlling their lives I shall call autonomy for brevity, though autonomy truly implies a strong Democracy. Though there is a variety of methods that philosophers and political theorists have tried to apply this idea to a system, the justification for it seems to be difficult to find. For some philosophers, they have asserted that the idea of autonomy is the equivalent of justice; a violation of justice, then, would be people not allowed to be controlling their own lives. What can someone offer in defense of this idea of autonomy -- what evidence is their to support it? Well, we must understand the various responses that may come from interested parties when it comes to power and autonomy. When a man is not in control of this own life, be it economically or politically or socially or culturally, then he will lose happiness. The primary being who has the ability to control another's life is the one with power, be it government or military or dictator. When the control over a man's life is harsh and unjust (that is, without his interests considered), then happiness is at risk, meaning some unfair regulation is put on his liberty, life, or property. In those instances where a man's happiness is diminished because of the rule of power, the justification of the ruler's demands and rules varies. Sometimes it is for his own personal interest. Or it may be that he desires for the people he rules to be something that they are not. He may want this because he feels that he should live among a certain type of people ("refined people") or that he feels a person is inherently bad (though law-abiding) if they are not of a particular culture. An example of this would be laws requiring that clothing is worn in public at all times -- in this case, the laws (whether just or unjust) would be an attack on the liberty of the people. If it so happened that the people desired to be nude at all times, then they would suffer. In some cases, the ruler imposes restrictions upon public liberty because they believe they are protecting the public, or at least assert they are protecting the public. They are either protecting the citizen from himself (such as making it illegal to commit suicide) or they are protecting the citizen from each other (such as making it illegal to possess weapons of mass destruction). As to the justice of the first type of protection, there is little doubt that it is in violation of the principle of autonomy: people making decisions for themselves. A person who desires to live without deep concern for their life at one time, and the opposite another time, should have that right, as it is their own life -- and their own liberty, which would be respected in any true autonomous society. As to the second time of restriction, of preventing citizens from harming each other by restricting behavior, the issue itself is deserving of its own paper. I will only say that there have been, in many instances, individuals with power who have used that power to oppress others, either by the folly of their intellect (such as the current drug laws which disallow individuals from happiness) or by their desire to oppress an enemy (such as the censorship laws which prevent Anarchist literature, like the one you're reading). When a leader is in power, his unjust rule (to one extent or another) will cause unhappiness and misery to those who are being ruled. Since happiness is a value and by itself, a desirable, one could rather simply conclude that whatever causes happiness is just and whatever prevents happiness is unjust. I'll accept this statement as true, for the sake of the brevity of this paper, even though I have debated and argued in other papers that there are levels of depth beyond this statement that make it inaccurate (or misleading) in its present form. Since autonomy brings happiness to the people, (that is, people in a particular region governing their own lives) autonomy must then be considered a just and fair idea. Before going on, one may ask, "Why the disclaimer of 'in a particular region'?" On our current planet, and our present dispositions, people are united and divided by geological and geographical differences. A mountain range or a several mile wide river may very well be enough to divide two people, while a grassland or forest may be enough to unite the present populations. Only those people who are living together in the same conditions will know what it is like to live in those circumstances. If a people accustomed to living in urban areas were to make laws that governed the behavior of those living in the rural parts, rules and legislation would be passed that would be oppressive to the rural populations and supportive of the people in urban parts. This could be seen in the colonies of the British Empire -- India, America, Africa, Asia, etc.. The British passed laws that were oppressive and exploitive of the colonies. I think it is quite reasonable to say that individuals in a particular setting, under the same conditions, must have rules that are made for them. Imagine then, that individuals in one setting have rules made for them by one who has no understanding of their setting or conditions? I think that the attitude of the people would be resentful. A small piece of wisdom from the 1800's, "At that time the lower classes of Scotland, like those of other countries, had strong prejudices against strangers having any authority over them..." ("A New View of Society," by Robert Owen, 1816, second essay.) Hence, the part of "in a particular region" is added. An explanation and justification for autonomy has been established: the people of a particular region must have laws and regulations that are made in their own interest, because it is this political ideal which will maximize their happiness. Now that there is a sight for the organization of a region, a desired result by organizing, the method of accurately observing and expressing the interests of the people is up to question. Shall we invite in the commonly accepted idea of representative government, officials who are elected to serve the interests of the people? Or should we promote a more classical idea, that of Monarchy and Despots, arguing that only an absolute ruler could objectively understand the interests of the people? Perhaps such theories are too mainstream. Maybe it is Totalitarianism and the Police State that will defend the citizen against himself and the coercive desires of other citizens. A thousand political theorists manage to put their opinions on paper on the subject every year, and the stream of thoughts does not show any sign that it will cease. It seems, though, that there is a general consensus that monarchs and dictators are without a system of being checked by the public, and that representative government is just, because the rulers must act in a manner that the people desire, otherwise lose that oh-so savored power. As an individual thinker and one to question sacred and old truths, I offer this one statement: that power is destructive towards autonomy, that it has the tendency to ignore the interests of the people, as it grows the people die, as it recedes the flower of freedom blooms. As the powers of government gain in strength, so the people become weakened. As to the origin of their power, whether through campaigning and election, or through a military coup and dictatorship, I believe that the origin of power in every situation lies in physical coercion. Though it is true that one system of power can be a lesser evil than another, I admit, every system of power (i.e. government) is destructive towards autonomy, that is, the will and desire of the people, a living expression of the interest of the citizens. When a person has power, either through election or military coup, their power exists in the ability to physically coerce people into doing what they do not want to do. The essential idea of a leader or ruler, with power, does not change from government type to government type. In same cases, several rulers share power. Yet a ruler exists nonetheless. This concept of power, the ability to physically coerce, does not change. One must thus ask this question concerning justice: if power exists, does autonomy suffer because of it? I think only a little bit of research and thoughtfulness is necessary to answer this question with a yes. When a leader, a ruler, a person with power, exists in a society, all the interests of the people of that region are channeled through that one person, or that council or congress, that collection of rulers. The idea of representation is born. Instead of the people directly legislating and enforcing their own rules and laws (however that may be done), someone first gains power (through election or coup) and enforces a rule, often times claiming that they are expressing the wishes and interests of the collective population. This transaction of power, from people to ruler, opens itself up to the possibility of corruption. The will of the people, now embodied in the strength of one political figure, becomes susceptible to outside attacks, which cripple and maim the strength of the will of the people. This can be seen in several obvious examples... Partisan Politics... In the most pure, obvious cases, we see fights among political figures where they use the public as cannon fodder. The evils that come from this alone are various. First, we see that political parties will establish laws, not for the common good or expressing and enforcing the wishes of the public, but rather, for the sake of aiding their own political party. Shortly after the United States formed, "the free nation," John Adams become president, as a member of the Federalist Party, and he would come to compete against Thomas Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) in the presidential election. The Democratic-Republican Party was largely poor farmers, immigrants, and others who were without economic justice but labored in harsh conditions. Adams, once in office, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, in which he attacked the rights of immigrants to engage in politics, making it difficult for them to vote. The claims he made, though, that these immigrants posed a threat to American justice were outrageous -- so it happened, that the first laws of the "free nation" were reflective of the oppression that comes with power. (For more information: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/) It can be seen quite clearly today. Anarchists, anti-Authoritarians, among others, are arrested when protesting, because they pose the greatest threat to the rule of any political party. Brett Bursey, for example, was holding up an anti-war poster, among a neutral crowd. He was arrested for Criminal Trespassing (on public property) while the thousand others were left there. The same happened decades earlier when he protested the Vietnam War. He was denied the right to a trial by jury. These can hardly be considered isolated incidents, as anyone familiar with the police and state terrorists will know quite well that their tactics are used primarily in persecuting people, whether dissidents of politics and religion or simply different racial background. Also, the political parties voted on legislative that would give only their parties (Republican and Democrat parties) government funds for campaigning, whereas third parties were left without anything. A second evil can be seen in Partisan Politics. Not only does it give power to those whose interests lay in sustaining their power and not the common good, but it destroys any ability for the people of a particular region to control their lives. Currently, in all branches of the American government, all legislative and executive members are either of the Republican or Democrat Party. What has been seen since the 80's onward was a shift in both parties towards moderate policy. Traditionally, the Democrats represented liberal ideas and the Republicans represented conservative ideas. However, the primary interest of both groups lies in obtaining the support of the public so that their power expands. As both parties shift towards moderate policy (in particular, we see this with the Democrat party), they gain more support from the moderate policy citizens. What, though, is lost in this process? The decision-making ability of the public. Since both political parties are, essentially, the only outlets to government control, such as legislative and executive ability, a citizen is allowed two valid options in expressing their opinion about controlling their own lives. Either they can support a Republican Party, in which they are voting towards conservative/moderate policy, or they can support a Democrat Party, in which they are voting towards liberal/moderate policy. This leaves the citizen with no real opportunity to express their personal, distinct, individual opinions in the matter of political decision-making. The problem is compounded further, though, by the nature of both party's ideology. By "Liberal" and "Conservative," a very broad amount of different ideas are expressed. Liberal ideology is typically supportive of social programs, gun control, affirmative action, peace, decreasing military expenditure, among other things, while a Conservative ideology is typically opposed to all of those. What if a citizen's own personal ideas involved the support of everything but one issue of a party? There is no alternative. They must either support that part or the other party. They have the chance to start their own political party, but the laws strongly disable and cripple any attempts at politics that is neither Democrat or Republican. Either way, the very nature of government is to disable and euthanize the willpower of citizens, defeating their ambition to become autonomous, independent, thoughtful, individual, and in control of their own lives. Special Interests and Bribery... Since there is a single person representing the interests of an entire collective of people in one region, the ability to enforce a rule and coerce others (power) can be manipulated at one point. An individual may represent a private interest and use all their moral strength to convince a power figure to enforce their private interest. By a special interest, it could be a business interest, such as having the government purchasing from one supplier or by making regulation that supports that one particular business, or it could be a moral or political interest, such as legislating against a sexuality preference or against genetic engineering. In either case, we find that there are special interest groups which represent some of the support of a society, just with a higher vigor in the interest of maintaining and supporting their ideals through legislation. In some cases, the bribes are open and obvious, such as providing cash for a senator or official siding with one side over the other. Sometimes this is expressed in a contribution of wealth through a campaign contribution, or even more subtle, it can be expressed in promising special, low-workload, high-income business positions to government officials after their term in office. Even when a special interest group is not offering a bribe, their influence over the affairs of legislation show a distinctively destructive quality when it comes to autonomy. A special interest group may represent the opinion that only 20% of the population agree with, but their efforts, in the form of letters, petitions, fundraising, and lobbying may be able to convince elected officials of supporting that one opinion, even though the greater part of the nation is opposed to it (in a more politically apathetic attitude). In which case, autonomy suffers. War... Along with the other things mentioned, there is war. Much like those discussed above, it is a result of power, of government power. Given the opportunity, few people would volunteer themselves for military service, given the following facts: (1) they knew that government propaganda only managed in equating the murder of third world nations with patriotism and duty to one's country, (2) if people knew that it involved risking their life and the life of their friends in an insanely horrific setting, (3) if people knew that it involved the systematic murder of individuals suspected of anti-government acts, even when such individuals were of a completely peaceful and passive manner, very much like the soldier's own people. It is a well known fact that even ancient civilizations are known to have used propaganda in convincing an unwilling public to partake in the battles that were for the glory and wealth of the state, at the cost of the lives of thousands of people. Since power exists, it has always desired to expand its power, even if it is at the cost of the lives of people, both friendly and foreign. Propaganda was born. It become power's intent to use its current power in establishing more strength. Wars were fought. In an effort to gain more territory, more support, more strength, established powers and governments have managed to leave countrysides scorched and leave hundreds of bodies in the wake of their earthly chaos. Few informed individuals, if any, would be able to deny the fact that it takes power and government to manage and launch such massive, bloody, destructive wars. These three outlets of the government, Partisan Politics, Special Interests and Bribes, and War are all just current forms that the government and power make themselves present. The original root that these all spring from is the one that grants an individual power, oftentimes for the sake of establishing an autonomy, as I described in the section on the cause of power. With the existence of power, one will find that the voice of the people, their wills and desires, become corrupted when a power agent is selected to represent them. Corruption comes in various forms, but ultimately, the end result is the people of a particular region not in control of their lives, only oppressed and brutalized by the law. An Alternative to Power "Fight War, Not Wars! As the cause of power can be clearly seen, it happens to be that an alternative to power is rarely thought of. Mostly, because the way things have been done over the past have typically been in favor of power and governments. Even many reformers and revolutionaries, whose intent it was to change the way things are, failed in changing the juggernaut that was responsible for the euthanizing the spirit of the people. What is the alternative to power? To government? It is Democratic Anarchism. Democracy and Anarchism are two sides to the same coin. Democracy implies that each person is equally responsible for making the laws of the land. Some political theorists may have found that, with the greater distribution of power, even in government, there is a decreased amount of corruption. And when I speak of corruption here, I mean the will of the people deteriorating to special interests, bribes, partisan politics, war, and all those things which are detrimental to the political health of a nation. Since spreading out the power to a council instead of a king, a congress instead of a dictator, seems to decrease corruption, would it not follow logical sense that equal power for each person would result in the complete amelioration of corruption? I think it would. It is impossible to bribe a population of voters. Some voters may be bribed, granted, but those interested in bribing would find it unfortunate that they would have to bribe several hundred million people in the United States to get their bills into law. Furthermore, the apathy and nihilism that generally surrounds the political atmosphere would dissolve to some extent, since political parties would lose all effectiveness, and the citizen would no longer be alienated by laws and regulations that threaten independent thought. What has power given to the spirit of Americans? Less than half of them vote. In some areas, it is less than a quarter. Anarchism means the absence of leaders. This is not necessarily speaking out against those who may lead the Democratic process, so long as they follow objective and fair standards, but it is speaking out against rulers, whose power lies in the fact that they can physically coerce and force others to do what they themselves desire to do. Power. Its cause is a collective of people supporting one person, the political figure, in hopes that the political figure will make judgments biased to his supporters. The result is the corruption of the will of the people, as the citizen becomes alienated by a system that does it all can to crush and destroy those who speak their mind. Not one more secret police. Not one more gestapo jail. Not one more piece of government propaganda. Not one more president or congress. This is our battle. The battle of the people. Punkerslut,
|
