I disagree with a great deal of what the Occupy movements have been advocating but my biggest objective, by far, is their espousing of mob rule. Of course they don’t call it mob rule, nor does anybody else who supports the idea, instead preferring the friendlier term democracy. The problem is democracy by nature is nothing more than mob rule:
Democracy, of the unlimited kind lauded today,[3] is a form of socialism, in the sense that it arrogates ultimate power over all decisions to the government. Implicit in the notion of people’s present love affair with mob rule is the assumption that government, through the collective “will of the people,” should have the prerogatives of ownership of all resources in society, should it choose to exercise these. The democrat brooks no limitation on the legitimate powers of government and hence gives total ownership over all of society to this institution.
While people often call the United States a democracy it is not. Unlike a democracy the founding fathers of the United States attempted to limite government power over the people through the Constitution (it was a valiant effort old chaps, I’m sorry it didn’t succeed). In a democracy every decision can be chosen by the majority in society whereas the United States, as envisioned by its founders, specifically prevents certain decisions from being made. The Bill of Rights is an example of this attempt. Unfortunately the founding fathers left the Constitution open for changes via amendments meaning nothing in the Bill of Rights was really set in stone but at least there was a high barrier of entry to start mucking about. Either way you get the idea, the United States wasn’t meant to be a democracy where any decision could be made by the mob.
Yet those who advocate democracy are saying that they desire the majority be given rule over the minority. Sometimes advocates of democracy try to conceal that fact by using fancy terms such as consensus. With consensus, advocates claim, no decision is final until everybody involved has agreed to it. In all honestly many people eventually break down and agree to things simply because they’re sick of debating and wish to move on with their night (a phenomenon I’ve witnessed numerous times at OccupyMN). Oftentimes people will simple say, “Fuck it, I’ll vote for it to get things moving along but I’ll try to get it repealed later.” These same people don’t stop to think about the fact that repealing it later will be almost impossible (a fact demonstrated by our government that never seems to repeal any law).
My biggest gripe with democracy though is the fact that rights become conditional:
It is true even when a democratic government chooses policies that are relatively liberal and purportedly support the ownership of private property. For such property ownership is regarded as conditional. Supporters of the system of democracy assert their right to forcibly interfere in the lives of others whenever they have sufficient support from the mob to do so, or are otherwise capable of capturing political power.
Do you own a business? Good for you! Unfortunately the majority of people have decided that a park would be a far better use of the land your business is occupying so we’ve voted to demolish your livelihood. Too bad, so sad, get the fuck out. Are you enjoying your protection against government goons breaking into your home and searching through your belongings without so much as a warrant? We’re sorry to inform you that the majority have agreed that persons making more than $1 million a year are no longer protected from warrantless searches. Why? Because we need to ensure that you’re paying your “fair share” to society!
Uncertainty is bad for everybody. Who is going to start a business if they are uncertain of what regulations will be coming down the road? Why invest the money to build a home if you’re not sure the mob will vote to seize it at a later date? Nobody is going to strive for success if that success can later be taken away by those who did not enjoy similar success in their lives.
Many people will often claim that democracy can work so long as the right people get elected. Who are the right people? Ask 10 people and you’ll get 10 different recommendations:
If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when “the right people” are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time.
Right now Barack Obama is the president because of two mob decisions. First a mob of Democrat Party members agreed that Obama was the candidate they wanted to run for president. A second mob later decided that Obama was the person they wanted to be president of the country. The same goes for Bush. There is no way to elect the right people into office because everybody believes different people are the right ones. Whereas I believe Ron Paul is the only decent candidate for president others want Romney or Obama (but I repeat myself).
If I’m against democracy that must means I’m an advocate of a dictatorship right? Wrong, that’s a false dichotomy:
Those who support democracy tend to conflate the issue of the method of selection of rulers with the preliminary question of whether political power is legitimate in the first place. Hence, it needs to be clearly understood that objection to democratic rule does not mean that one prefers dictatorship — it means than one does not consent to have others initiate force against them, regardless of the method of selection of those with the power to do this.
I am my own sovereign. If somebody believes they can become a sovereign over me they can kindly go fuck themselves. Each person is born a free individual and has power over their own life. Just because a gang of assholes get together and call themselves a government doesn’t mean I have to recognize their authority.
What alternative exists though? How can one man defend himself against a mob? If the mob has decided on a decision isn’t your only option to comply? The answer to those questions is to be thankful that you exist today and not centuries past.
Since the idea of dragging capitalists out to the town square and running them all through guillotines is a popular idea among collectivists I’ll provide my standard rebuttal to it. Even if you get 100 people to vote and agree that I should be executed for advocating capitalism I don’t have to agree. Sure there may be 100 of you but me and my .308 can make one hell of a protest against your little mob. In the end you may win, I may die, but your victory won’t come without cost, I won’t go alone.
With the way things are going in the world I’m glad I live in this century. Before the invention of repeating firearms there was little a single individual could do against a mob. Today one man with a semi-automatic firearm can refuse to comply with a mob and have a halfway decent chance of surviving. Imagine a democratically elected vengeance seeking brigade lynch mob decide you were to hang. What could you do? Quite a bit if you have a quality firearm by your side and the skill and ammunition to use it. In the end the firearm is the free man’s defense against democracy.
Some will claim that my attitude goes against the principles this country was founded on. Those people are wrong. The founding fathers of this country did establish a government but always believed the individual to be sovereign. A quote by Noah Webster brings the founding father’s ideals to light:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
Webster strongly believe the people not only had a right to keep and bear arms but that this right was essential to ensure the government wasn’t allowed to encroach on individual sovereignty. Let us not forget Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote:
What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its 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 and 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 and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Not only did Jefferson believe in the right of the people to defend themselves against their government but he also advocating periodic rebellions to ensure the government was reminded that the people reign supreme. While I’m not a fan of violent rebellion in any regard I am an advocate of self-defense and that self-defense includes people being assailed by their government.
These are just two quotes in a virtual library of materials penned by the founding fathers regarding the sovereignty of individuals. We have to remember that the founding fathers had just previously overthrown a tyrannical government and were still riding high on the idea of individual liberty. They didn’t believe in democracy, where the mob reigns supreme, but in the sovereignty of individuals. In their minds it was the right of every individual to defend him or herself against infractions on individual sovereignty. By declaring my distain for democracy I’m not opposing the ideals this country was founded up but actually promoting them.
Those who cow to the majority are some of the most despicable people of all. They think that so long as the majority believe something to be just that it is, that so long as decisions are made democratically they are good. These same people often complain about the state of the world today but only suggest that the people who are responsible for this dystopian state, the government, be given more power so that “the people” may reign supreme. By “the people” they really mean everybody who agrees with themselves wholeheartedly.
Do not fall into the fallacy of democracy, stand up and assert your sovereignty. Let no other person or persons rule over you. Just because a large group of people made a decision doesn’t mean it’s right. Do not allow yourself to fall into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
As the saying goes “A person is smart, people are stupid.” Remember mob rule killed Socrates for doing exactly what we do here, questioning those who put themselves in power.
“How can one man defend himself against a mob?”
“Those who cow to the majority are some of the most despicable people of all.”
Indeed, but how can a woman (or a man) with small children defend herself against a mob, when she and her children’s food, livelihood, and wellbeing has been made fully dependent upon that mob to begin with? She did not create her society, she was born into it, as were her children. While I am as pro-gun as they come, unfortunately some (many) of us have a weak spot: we cannot defend against our deepest vulnerability: the fact that our children have already been taken hostage by our society/government. At that point my gun becomes useless. I am speaking metaphorically as well as practically. I cannot go down in a blaze of glory, knowing that my children will die too as a result of it. And I cannot abandon them either. So what do I do then? I must vote, and think, the way the PTB prescribe. As you have mentioned previously, it is not stupidity that makes people do this. It is self preservation embedded within a sick situation.
Our “democracy” is lost and I see no way other than the disintegration of the power base to effect change: in other words the whole thing must collapse before something new can be built.
Speaking of lynching, I found it interesting to discover that the roots of gun control lie directly in racism itself. The first gun control laws were specifically aimed at keeping blacks unable to defend themselves:
http://constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
I wouldn’t say your livelihood or the livelihood of your children are fully dependent upon the mob, you could always chose to grow you own food, education your children at home, and basically live a subsistance life. Of course that option sucks, the reason humans came together to form society is because the division of labor is so valuable. Fortunately that division of labor doesn’t have to be approved by the states, an exploit that is used by agorists.
Rule by mob is undesirable because it necessarily means the rights of some are trampled because others don’t acknowledge them. As an agorist I advocate individuals working together outside of the state’s decrees. For example, you can obtain your food from local farmers and if the state says you’re not suppose to consume something like raw milk you and your local farmer simply ignore the rule. If you want a substance declared verboten by the state you merely need to find an individual willing to produce and sell it. In essence you can throw off the shackles the mob attempts to put on the populace by working directly with others. Yes there are risks, but if the state wishes to put you in a cage they’re going to put you in a cage. On any given day the average citizen commits three felonies a day, so worrying about prison and jail becomes rather irrelevant since you can be sent there at any time.
You are what I would call an intelligent individual capable of assessing a situation for what it is. In my statement regarding firearms I was more referring to lynch mobs and other groups of individuals who come together to bring violence on another, not the state. The state specializes in violence and when you specialize in something it’s very hard for a person who doesn’t specialize in that area to compete. Trying to fight the state with violence will lead nowhere good.
Voting in self-defense is something I cannot rightfully criticize. I will say that I don’t believe it accomplishes much but that has been my experience. This is why I’ve moved onto other strategies, namely agorism and attempting to educate others individuals (which is really the only purpose of my blog). I’ve been involved in the political process and the other people, those who are party devotees, scare me and also make me believe there is no hope for any actual change. I can’t fight them, and I have nothing to offer them in an attempt to achieve compromise, so I feel my only option is to bypass them.
On a few issues I’m an advocate of I have had the pleasure of working with a large enough mob of my own, namely in the fight for gun rights. Unfortunately I can find no such mob when it comes to opposing war, opposing the Federal Reserve, or most other liberty oriented goals.
That is my conclusion as well.
Yup, some people didn’t want the newly freed slaves having the ability to own firearms because then groups like the Ku Klux Klan wouldn’t be able to terrorize them at will. In fact this is why Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist, advocated arming the slaves. Armed slaves have a tendency to stop being slaves in very short order.
Well, I wasn’t speaking personally. I actually already do grow my own food, raise chickens, buy meat and raw milk from local farmers, etc. I am glad you did make the distinction between fighting a mob of people and fighting the “mob” state, because that wasn’t clear when I read your original post.
I suppose most of my example was metaphorical: I was also saying that most of us cannot fight the state openly as individuals, and expect to win. I was referring to those people who cannot do as I do, and there are a lot of them.
“I wouldn’t say your livelihood or the livelihood of your children are fully dependent upon the mob, you could always chose to grow you own food, education your children at home, and basically live a subsistance life.”
This however I do take issue with. For many, many people out there, your statement is simply not true. How is the inner city single mom to do this while working three jobs to pay the rent? There are millions of people in her position – they do not have, and never will have, country homes to retreat to. It’s bad enough that most inner city people aren’t even allowed to defend themselves with firearms. Truly a sick situation, and I was in it myself once.
While I do agree with your sentiments in the article above, and I am fierce about self defense and the protection of my children – the problem is that it is a matter of pure personal luck that I am now able to truly live outside the system in relative personal safety. For a good 25 years I was not, and it was an impossible situation to be caught in. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it’s not so easy to do battle when someone can starve your kids if they want to, whether that be the mob state or a mob of people. They might as well be holding a gun to their heads.
I would like to read more about Agorism. It looks fascinating. Can you recommend articles or books?
I was implying mostly that, technically, one could pick up their life, move to some random unused plot of land in the middle of nowhere, and subsidence farm. The main point I wanted to make wasn’t so much that such an option is technically available but that such an options sucks, a lot. It was really an attempt to make a lead in for discussing agorism, not advocate subsidence farming (I wouldn’t want anybody to suffer through that, and it being such a horrible option is what lead humans to develop society in the first place).
In other words I was simply trying to paint a picture with one extreme (subsidence farming) and another extreme (mutual cooperation through free market trade amongst fellow individuals outside of the state’s approval).
That is a valid concern and one often brought up by anarcho-communists (whom I mostly disagree with but even those I disagree with have many valid points). Basically one dependent on others for their means of survival is in no position to fight. While I recognize this I disagree with the anarcho-communists on the best method of eliminating such a dilema. I believe the best way of alleviating such a situation is through mutual cooperation based on voluntary trade. In other words the best way to fight the mob is to remove your dependency on that mob. This is different that removing your dependency on fellow individuals, that’s practically impossible (and would put one in the position of subsidence farming). What it means is removing your dependency on those that choose to coerce you and instead rely on those who wish to interact with you on a mutually beneficially basis.
Many large agro corporations push laws against raw milk because they realize two things: small independent farmers are unable to shoulder the burden of pasteurizing and homogenizing milk and that the average person is so fearful of raw milk (thanks to propaganda campaigns against it) that they’ll gladly back laws that strictly control or even prohibit it. This means laws against raw milk are convenient ways to eliminate competition from smaller farmers. These laws are initiations of force; the state threatens any farmer selling raw milk with fines or arrest and those threats are meant to strike enough fear into the farmers to make them stop. Now those who want milk are more dependent on the large agro corporations since they can easily shoulder the burgeon on pasteurizing and homogenizing milk. In this case when I say one needs to remove their dependency on the mob I mean the large agro corporations, not farmers who offer their good (milk) to those who wish to interact on a mutually beneficial basis. Unfortunately removing your dependency on the mob also requires you to disobey the states’ numerous decrees, which is an idea that many people find downright frightening.
A good initial read is The New Libertarian Manifesto [PDF] by Samuel Edward Konkin III. The same author also wrote An Agorist Primer [PDF] (technically he also wrote Agorist Class Theory but I’m not one to subscribe to class theories so I don’t put much weight on that title).
While I certainly don’t consider myself anarcho-communist, the point I brought up seems to be a sticking point for almost every political stripe: that of what to do with those people who must be dependent; those who have no choice but to be so. Children, the elderly, women with babies, the sick, the disabled.
“I believe the best way of alleviating such a situation is through mutual cooperation based on voluntary trade. In other words the best way to fight the mob is to remove your dependency on that mob.”
But how does that work for the poor, single, kidney patient on dialysis? How does that work for the widowed mother with six children? How does that work for the 88 yr old woman whose family wants nothing to do with her? Even if you could start from scratch and build the society you envision without the encumbrance of having to first shift away from the one we’ve got, I guess I am having trouble picturing exactly what you mean…
So far in my life I haven’t heard any stance, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Progressive, Green, you name it, offer any societal solutions to the dilemma of the dependent that encompasses what I think it should: practicality, realistic assessment, compassion, and yet free of coercion and dependency.
Communism, socialism, and liberalism want everyone taken care of, and yet overstep those bounds until everyone is in a strait jacket and nobody is allowed to run with scissors. Conservatives shun the poor, justify to themselves that if people are poor, it must be their fault, and anyway God would make them rich if they deserved it. Many libertarians (I am not saying you) appear to believe in a kind of cruel “survival of the fittest” approach: if they are too weak, if no one actually wants to take care of them, then oh well, I guess nothing can be done about the suffering so they will likely die.
Is it Utopian to believe that voluntary trade and mutual cooperation could address these people’s needs? I think it may be, a bit. Not that it isn’t worth working towards. But certainly no one yet has made a society that treats its poor well without sacrificing their freedom and dignity. Religion has tried to do it, but they suffer from the same blindness that politics does: one must pledge allegiance in order to be fed.
Btw, I buy raw milk for no other reason than that it is healthy. But, knowing I am doing my own small part to subvert big Ag is satisfying as well, I will admit. 🙂
I hope I didn’t come of as if I were saying you were an anarcho-communist. The reason I brought them up is because they are the ones who most adamantly bring up the dependency fact. As I said, I don’t agree with them on much but their point in this case is entirely valid and should be considered even by those who oppose anarcho-communism.
That is the hard part and the only answer I can give at this point is one should attempt to separate themselves from the mob as much as possible. I do recognize that this isn’t entirely possible, especially for those in need of medical care. What’s really sad is that such problems were once taken care of voluntarily through mutual aid societies but they were basically made illegal (a brief story is included at the link) when the state decided it wanted to enter the welfare market. The only solution I see is to return to the mutual aid system, something that certainly won’t be easy and won’t take place for a very long time.
Agorism, like any major change, takes a great deal of time and can only be done in steps. The way I view it is agorists must first prove that the idea works and that can be done by starting with things like the food supply and other basic goods that individuals can make. If it works it will expand and others will begin offering their goods and services. Eventually I see medical professionals importing generic medications without regard of big phrama. Such a thing will take time though and until that happens removing one’s self entirely from the state is not possible.
It’s a difficult question for sure but it has been done in the past so there is precedence (mutual aid societies) that it does work without the state’s coercion. The trick is wrestling that power away from the state once again. There is a book titled From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State that I’ve been meaning to read that covers the history of mutual aid and how it was basically wiped out through state decree. If you’re interested in the topic it may be something to check out.
Every little step counts. As I said at the beginning of this comment the only way to enact actual change is through small steps. Eventually enough critical mass can be achieved where changes progress faster but the beginning is always slow and arduous.
P.S. thanks for the reading recommendations. I will definitely check them out!
“I hope I didn’t come of as if I were saying you were an anarcho-communist.”
Naah, not really. Since I barely even know what an anarcho-communist even IS, I figure I was unlikely to sound much like one. Hrmm… maybe I am a plain old anarchist though, and don’t know it? 🙂
Thanks for the interesting tidbit about mutual aid societies. I didn’t know they were as widespread as that article implies. I will read more about them as well. I agree though, that a lot of water would need to run under the bridge before they could truly be called an answer.
There really isn’t a plain old anarchist, but I did write a guide titled Anarchism 101 that covers the different traditions of anarchism. Personally, I’m very individualistic and fall into the voluntaryist category.
Voluntaryism:I like it. I had never heard of it before this. I wonder how it would look in practice on a large scale…
I think it would work out quite well and I would be happy just having the chance to try it. Unfortunately the state has no intention of letting it happen, even on a small scale.
I guess we could look at it this way. When TSHTF, we may get the opportunity whether the state wants it or not!