Wow; it really has been a long time since Jorge posed his “Ask an Anarchist” questions! Again, I apologize for not responding ... but looking at them again, I can see why I didn’t: they’re very challenging.
Jorge asks:
Namely given that we live in a world dominated by states, at what point does interacting with them "cross the line" and become immoral? How is the line determined?
For example, we all use government roads. These are paid by taxes (stolen funds) therefore, we are using stolen property. The strict moralist position would say that this is not acceptable and we should go live in the woods somewhere. Hardly a practical answer and I believe not a correct one.
On the other hand taking a job as a tax collector (surrogate thief) is clearly immoral.
Where is the line? How is it determined?
The short answer I have is that there is no one line, and it isn’t determined consistently across situations by one individual over a lifetime, let alone by all freedom-loving anarchists. Some seem to paint themselves into a moral corner by asserting that all engagement with statists and their institutions is wrong—yet, as you point out, one cannot live anything approaching a normal life in this or other westernized countries without interacting with some, to some degree. The cognitive dissonance such individuals must bear by holding a standard they cannot achieve is likely pretty intense.
For me, I’m content with trying to minimize my interactions with the state and its pettifoggers as much as possible. Thus, I haven’t sought the state’s approval for any of my relationships, for permission to own certain pets, nor to make and sell things to those who want my goods and services. My car has the state’s tags, as was recently discussed, but I don’t comply with all their rules regarding ownership and operation of it. Their insistence that my children are theirs to protect, educate, and track fall on deaf ears (that’s very easy for snakes, by the way). And of course, the way Lobo and I raise our children would surely be problematic for the child-snatcher “services”, which is why I don’t say much about it. I choose to subject myself to their travel whims sometimes because it’s the only way to accomplish something important to me. I do not vote at all, because I view it as a rigged, coercive means of arriving at the rules for a community and I do not recognize another’s claim to rule anyone but himself.
Other freedom-loving individuals have chosen paths that are quite different from mine, yet work for them; these include such things as voting on referenda and initiatives that affect one’s property rights or taxation levels. While I don’t choose those actions myself, I do understand why their choices differ from mine in that regard.
For me, with respect to personal relationships with statists, the closest thing I have to a hard line is a strong aversion to “true believers”—those who have thought about principles and values and have chosen to support coercive collectivism, as well as those who may not have thought things through that fully, but nonetheless enforce some of the state’s most brutal policies (tax thievery, enforcing laws that create victimless crimes, etc.). They are truly enemies of freedom, and should be treated accordingly.
So, I’d say that’s likely an unsatisfactory answer to your questions, but it’s the best I have at the moment.
My Method
That sounds very similar to the way I try to live. I obey that which I can tolerate (or which would land me in the graveyard quickly) and ignore that which I can't (or which can easily be gotten away with).
I found this quote as a signature on TMM forum, and it really expresses my attitude very well: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."- Robert A. Heinlein
I do try to avoid anyone who is an obvious tool of the state.
Hey! :)
I do believe that’s the only quote I’m missing from my collection. Thank you for reminding me!
I find, just as with everything else, the “80:20” rule seems to apply here. As I understand that, 80% of change or progress is fairly easy, but that last 20% can be very difficult. At that point, the issue of cost–benefit ratio becomes even more important ... is it really worth focusing on the state so much to try to become a totally pure, pro-freedom individual? Seems to me that at some point one becomes a slave to the state down that course too—albeit a very different-looking one than those who embrace its rules and institutions.
who is really the perpetrator in these moral issues?
Questions about how much we participate in our coercive society do bother me a lot. But I worry more over the fact that I pay taxes to feed the monster (why, I'm afraid of the force that would be used against me if I don't) than that I drive on the roads. How I think I resolve this question for myself is that it's a diversion to blame the victims. We didn't steal the money to build the roads, it was stolen from us by people who have much more powerful weapons than us and troops everywhere willing to use them. I'm thinking just to make an absurd example: we wouldn't condemn an imprisoned anarchist as a hypocrite because he or she is "using" a government prison.
You all always give me lots of food for thought. I thought I'd pipe up for once.
Ellen
Thank you for doing so.
Excellent points, Ellen—and thank you for joining the conversation!
The way I see it, we’re on a perpetual merry-go-round ride, held there by the state. There is simply no way—of which I’m aware, at any rate—to completely avoid all taxation in this country (and probably, most others). Thus, I think it would take a collapse of the country or a plague that wipes out most of humanity to bring the kind of fundamental change that would be necessary to see a wholesale return to liberty and individual responsibility—viz., to stop the ride. And truth be told, I’m not enamored with either of those possibilities ...
No pat answers
As we've said before, there are no "one size fits all" answers to much of anything. There are no guarantees the answer that worked last time will do so next time. Sometimes there just isn't a good answer! Utopia is not an option.
We say those things often, but I wonder sometimes if we always believe them. :) It would be just so NICE if we could have a clear cut list of "rules" that always applied and always gave the same results. And yes, clear as the ZAP is, sometimes we must even struggle with that.
But each attempt to formulate universal rules results in the stagnation or death of liberty and individualism. The rules replace personal responsibility for decisions and moral actions. That goes for "libertarian" rules as much as any other kind.
So, people choose the perceived comfort and safety of rules and rulers, or they choose the more difficult life of the individual sovereign who must often ponder these deep ideas and deal with the dilemmas as they arise. Some seem to attempt both at once, but it would be impossible for me.
Wouldn't it depend on if
Wouldn't it depend on if there were private sector alternatives?
To use the road example, after decades of "free" roads provided by the various levels of government, it's no longer practical for private roads of any real length, and it won't be until the public roads fall apart. Short of a flying car, I don't know what else we can do except use the public ones.
Interesting points
As noted there is probably no single universal line, but I cannot accept Mama Liberty's position on rules. That quickly leads to the position "do what you will shall be the whole of the law". Also rules, and systems in general, help in making decisions. Our system says "do not steal from anyone". Other models say "It is OK to steal if it is called taxes" or "It is OK to steal from those you conqueror".
We do live by systems and models. Those of us that support liberty claim it is a superior system to all the others. Systems have rules, have a schema.
Perhaps I have this backwards. I was looking for rules to help with the difficult decisions, but am beginning to think that these do not exist. The model deals with the routine, but at the margins it breaks down and we have to apply reason to determine how to act. Perhaps on a case-by-case basis. If we attempt to stretch the model too far we end up with ridiculous situations, such as we see with law today (for example Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim).
Thanks for everyone's comments. You have given me more to think about.
"Rules?" Or the universal law?
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. By "rules," I meant those imposed by the state. The universal law of non-aggression, on the other hand, is vital. When every action and choice is measured against that and acted on in harmony with it, conflict is almost impossible. If one lives by non-aggression, all other rules are superfluous. If one does not live by that, all of the other rules are ultimately ineffective for their stated purpose.
The most basic result of the vast body of rules and systems is to remove personal responsibility from the individual and supposedly negate the imperative for self control. To believe that a "law" against murder is necessary in order for people to refrain from murder presents us with a dilemma of the first water. The law cannot prevent the act. If the person does not have the moral character to refrain, he doesn't have it to obey the law.
Put in another way, electoral politics makes no sense whatsoever because it assumes that people are too stupid and foolish to make their own decisions about basic things in their lives, yet are smart and wise enough to "elect" some of their peers who are then smart and wise enough to make those decisions for everyone else because they are too stupid...!
A great deal of this is covered in a book I just finished. Nation of Cowards by Jeff Snyder. Very interesting. :)
No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle
I think you’re right.
I think the desire for rules that are universal is part of our pattern–seeking and –preferring that is our overall modus operandi. We do this despite discovering fairly early in life that rules, just like concept categories, can have fuzzy edges. It is a perpetual challenge we face, especially those of us who invest time and effort into thinking about systems.
With respect to your news article link, that kind of idiocy is sadly becoming the norm across this country. CLS at Classically Liberal has been featuring such awful stories with some frequency of late.
what line?
my first thought was "there is no line" as well. how one gets there starts with their foundation of how they view life. my evolution started with attraction to free markets & liberty. from there i became active, getting angry (reacting emotionally) at the constant barrage of noise that conflicted with my ideal (at the time) libertarian paradise. soon i started to realize that the perpetual stream of things that go against my current understanding would eat away at my core. i had to re-evaluate what was important. and frankly the state ranked so far down the list that it became a non-factor. as soon as living a meaningful life and finding joy in the day-to-day aspect of it became my reason for being here, the state was like a speed bump--annoying but something i really had no control over (unless i chose a different road of course).
could i work for the irs? probably not but if i did i'd make sure to be as subversive as possible without jeopardizing my life. to paraphrase walter block, i'd have to consider an irs agent somewhat of a hero if she purposely audited 1/2 to 3/4 as many returns as her counterparts or granted leniency more often than others. not really the way i'd roll, but if someone felt that was their mission, i'm not going to argue. would it better to live in a place with no irs? absolutely. is it gonna happen anytime soon? not likely. i know, it sounds like it compromises core values and maybe it does to a certain degree. i just don't see bureacracy leaving our reality anytime soon. i find it easier to take the emotion out of the equation, deal with it on my own terms, weighing the risk/reward of compliance vs. non-compliance, and resting on the foundation that works for me--being present to the moment and finding joy in it.
when i consider that my life is fleeting & could end today or 50 years from now, the last thing i want is to spend any more time than absolutely necessary worrying about bureaucrats, state idiocy, presidential morons, or any number of things that tend to suck life.
So well put
Galaticmonk, your journey sounds very similar to mine, so I guess it’s no surprise that what you say resonates with me so deeply. Thanks for putting it so clearly and succinctly.