Does the "Freedom Train" Metaphor Work?
Brian Doherty | January 25, 2008, 7:29pm
An anarchist libertarian wants to hop off the metaphor of the "freedom train"--a somewhat common metaphor used by those trying to keep on board libertarians with different opinions on exactly how little government they want.
The metaphor implies both anarchists and minimal-statists are natural allies heading in the same direction, just with different opinions about when to get off the train. "Rad Geek" disagrees. An excerpt:
The image of political factions hopping onto a train, and getting off at different stations, might work well enough if you’re talking about factions within a party all of whom agree on the legitimacy of an electoral process. ......But does the same image work for the relationship between minarchists and anarchists? I don’t think it does. The basic problem is that when we imagine the minarchists getting off the train,
we imagine that they are simply done with going where they want to go, and, while they prefer to stay at the minimal-government station, we will be free to go on past that station to the anarchy station.
....if minarchists simply hop off the train and leave the anarchists in peace to go on towards the anarchy station, then they are no longer acting as minarchists. Once we’re down to the minimal State and the anarchists start trying to withdraw and set up their own competing defense associations (or withdrawing in favor of individual self-defense, or whatever), the minarchists have only two choices. They can allow it to happen. But then what you have is government
where any subject can choose to refuse or withdraw her allegiance at any time, and give it to a different government,
or to no government at all. But that wouldn’t be a minimal government, or any kind of government at all; it would just be one voluntary association amongst many in a state of anarchy. Or they can try to forcibly suppress anarchists’ efforts to withdraw from the minimal State, and to move from limited government to no government. If the minarchists really mean it, then in the end they are going to be turning their limited-government cops and limited-government military on us, just as surely as any Bushista or Progressive.
libertreee | January 25, 2008, 9:53pm | #
What makes them different from anarchists is the pragmatic realization that anarchy is not viable. If a state is inevitable, then let's see to it that it will be as small and as unobtrusive as possible.
Ah, but is a state inevitable?
I think the age of nation states is on the decline.
Beginning in 1640 or so with the Treaty of Westphalia, it-the age of nation states-started with good intentions. It would end internecine warfare by allowing for the participation of different ethnic and religious groups in a nation through some form of participation in power, parliamentary democracy or other.
The American Revolution started the decline even as the French Revolution brought its ideological apogee. America denounced the Divine Right of Kings and established a decentralized order. The French Revolution abolished the Divine Right of Kings but by Regicide established a totalitarian secular order.
Freedom flourished for the first half of the nineteenth century such as never before, but the chaos of the Napolionic wars had the seed of nation state destrucion therin.
The consolidation of small states into large central states and empires after 1850 with the American civil war, the consolidation of Germany under Bismark, Italy under Garibaldi, and the triumph of Disraeli over Gladstone in England.
The War to end all Wars, WWI, and the end of any monarchy, the triumph of bankrupt democracy, in other word, the suicide of nation states.
The death throes continue as America replaces England as world empire, WWII, Cold War, now Islamo terrorism, and the nation states are unable to rachet down their imperialistic, militaristic nature that stems from their geographical monopoly on the use of force.
The 21 century opens with the same opera playing, but new currents are pushing us to anarchy, not nation state dominance. The biggest is the Internet, and the ability to survive in cyberspace, which transcends the nation state geographical space.
The nuclear age brings the ability of nation states to really defend its geographical monopolies into question.
Somalia becomes the first nation to VOLUNTARILY abandon nation hood.
Other so called "failed states" emerge, and the great powers are powerless to stop it.
Fourth generation warfare makes a mockery of nation state armed forces.
The 21 century might yet see one world government. But, sooner more likely than later, technology and individualism will triumph over collectivism. The end of nation states will come.
To be continued...
Bill Woolsey | January 25, 2008, 9:56pm | #
The analogy is fine for people who have a bit of political realism. The train represents the movement and supporters of the movement are on the train. The train only moves forward with the support of the majority of voters, many of whom are not on the train at all.
If it reaches the minarchy station, the anarchists will propose that it move forward. If the majority of those on the train are anarchists, such an effort will be made. Committed minarchists may well get off the train. Regardless, the train will only move foward with majority support of all of the voters.
If most voters want private courts suppressed, then they will be suppressed. Only if most voters favor (or at least will tolerate) private courts, will they be implemented.
If most of those on the train don't want to move forward, the anarchists can get off the train and take a new one. But, that new one will only move forward with majority support of the voters.
I think as a general rule, if the anarchists on the train can't convince the other libertarians on the train to move forward, they probably won't have much chance at winning a majority of all voters.
I think this approach applies also to Constitutionalist libertarians, Friedman/Hayek libertarians, and even average people who generally favor more personal and economic liberty. We need a big tent and everyone on the train. And we will see how far it goes.
The "train" analogy, then, assumes a strategy of working within democratic politics to implement change.
John Kindley | January 26, 2008, 3:09pm | #
"I don't think anarchists are going to stick with us when their goal could be much more quickly achieved by destroying the govt entirely."
Or the anarchists could simply, arguably more effectively, spend their time trying to convince the People (which arguably includes "mainstream libertarians") that the government has No Authority to, e.g., impose an income tax, or put people in jail for smoking marijuana. (In fact, it has no authority to do anything other than what conforms with natural justice, which everyone has a right to do anyway, whether they're "from the government" or not.) Even if on principle such anarchists don't participate in the electoral process, this would hopefully have an influence on the people who do.
Anarchism can and should be framed in a way that is much more palatable to mainstream sensibilities. Of course, the historical connotations of the word "anarchist" itself is a big part of the problem.
How radical really are the following principles expressed by the "radical" anarchist Lysander Spooner (from his The Unconstitutionality of Slavery [1860]:
If, then, law really be what this definition would make it, merely "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power of a state " ‑‑ it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that law is synonymous merely with will and force, wherever they are combined and in successful operation, for the present moment.
Under this definition, law offers no permanent guaranty for the safety, liberty, rights or happiness of any one. It licenses all possible crime, violence and wrong, both by governments and individuals. The definition was obviously invented by, and is suited merely to gloss over the purposes of, arbitrary power. We are therefore compelled to reject it, and to seek another, that shall make law less capricious, less uncertain, less arbitrary, more just, more safe to the rights of all, more permanent. And if we seek another, where shall we find it, unless we adopt the one first given, viz., that law is the rule, principle, obligation or requirement of natural justice?
Adopt this definition, and law becomes simple, intelligible, scientific; always consistent with itself; always harmonizing with morals, reason and truth. Reject this definition, and law is no longer a science: but a chaos of crude, conflicting and arbitrary edicts, unknown perchance to either morals, justice, reason or truth, and fleeting and capricious as the impulses of will, interest and power.
If, then, law really be nothing other than the rule, principle obligation or requirement of natural justice, it follows that government can have no powers except such as individuals may rightly delegate to it: that no law, inconsistent with men's natural rights, can arise out of any contract or compact of government: that constitutional law, under any form of government, consists only of those principles of the written constitution, that are consistent with natural law, and man's natural rights; and that any other principles, that may be expressed by the letter of any constitution, are void and not law, and all judicial tribunals are bound to declare them so. Though this doctrine may make sad havoc with constitutions statute hooks, it is nevertheless law. It fixes and determines the real rights of all men; and its demands are as imperious as any that can exist under the name of law. [*15]
PhysicistDave | January 30, 2008, 5:59am | #
Brian N.,
No, "Kochtopus" was definitely not originally an affectionate term!
If memory serves me right, it may have been Dave Nolan who coined the term: at any rate, Nolan was associated with a newsletter (that I subscribed to) which popularized the term.
Initially, Rothbard was associated with the Kochtopus: I remember talking with Murray about the term, which he admired as a pretty clever piece of propaganda from the other side. (I was a doctoral student at Stanford at the time, when Cato, the Institute for Humane Studies, etc. were all based nearby, in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I had a ringside seat to all this.)
Murray admired it even more when, a while later, he had a falling out with the Koch operation -- Rothbard believed that the focus should be on long-term intellectual/scholarly/philosophical/educational development, but the Koch forces decided to go "mainstream" and try to influence the existing powers-that-be. This was connected, for example, to Cato's move from the West Coast to DC.
Historically, the split is connected, as I suppose Karen is emphasizing, to the current Cato-Reason cosmopolitan-libertarianism vs. the Ron Paul paleo-libertarianism.
It does not have much to do with the anarchist/minarchist split, however. Rothbard was friendly to Paul, although Rothbard was a radical anarchist. And , many of the most outspoken Paul supporters are Rothbardian anarchists (for example, Lew Rockwell and many of his writers). On the other hand, many of Paul’s critics, at Reason and Cato, are minarchists, even though Paul is also a minarchist.
Rad Geek (Charles Johnson) is of a different anarchist persuasion than the Rockwell crowd, so his points are rather independent of everything I just explained!
Sorry, for the complications, but that’s the story from One Who Actually Lived Through It.
Oh, and for the record, my own sympathies way back then tended to be Rothbardian and now tend to be Rockwellian-Paulian anarchist, though I’m interested in the points made by other factions: I actually think Rad Geek raises some interesting points, though I disagree with his conclusions.
PhysicistDave
