From: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE LIBERTARIAN LEFT
Reply-To: wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:55:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.165122.5108@leland.Stanford.EDU>, miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Ballard) writes:
>Dear members of the libertarian left,

Membership is optional, of course

>Now that we've been exposed to countless arguments in favor of the libertarian
>right, maybe it's time to ask some crucial questions?
>
>
>Why do you oppose the state?

Because the State opposes me.

>Why don't you support the capitalist class and its system of domination?

I don't buy the Calvinist doctrine that reward is its own virtue, or its
secular equivalents.  The capitalist social order is a meritocracy not of
value, but of aggressivity.  I don't want to deprive the wealthy of their
wealth.  I do want to deprive wealth of its ability to determine the social
order.  I don't consider people more entrepreneurially successful to be my (or
anyone's) social "betters".

>Why do you think that a stateless society is preferable?

Because independence is a prerequisite for freedom.  I cannot be free if I
depend on the state for my daily bread, or even for protection from the
Hobbesian reality that is out there.

>Do you see anything wrong with the logic of having a society based on
>the wages system, commodity production for profit, and capital, which
>is also stateless?

An economy (market or otherwise) is a de-facto state.  Call me a mystic if you
want, but I believe that a human individual has value that transcends "mere"
commerce.

>Can you envision a society of diverse classes without a state?

The state (and biz elites) use diversity of classes (socioeconomic, ethnic,
whatever) to pit us against each other.  Divide and conquer.  I love diversity
and refuse to play this game of "looking out for my own kind".

>Can you envision a society where what used to be known as capital is 
>owned a shared cooperatively by the people as a whole?

Actually, no.  Some social scientists claim that that's the norm outside the
straitjacket known as Western culture.  I'm a little skeptical, and I don't
consider myself competent to interpret the literature.  The concept of a human
being as property is happily dead, dead, dead.  I would like to see the same
happen to, say, land.  Even as an exercise in guerrilla theatre:  say you own
some land and "abdicate" your property rights to it.  Does it lose its status
as property?  My guess is the tax authorities seize it and eventually it ends
up being someone's property, so it probably wouldn't lead anywhere.  Consider
the beautifully subversive line known to all Monopoly(tm) players:  "If
unowned, you may buy it from the bank."  The very concept of "unowned" is
mind-blowing in our kulture.  I'd like to see it playfully experimented with.

>Why do you insist on siding with the oppressed against their oppressors?

Because the only alternative I see to siding with them is competing against
them.  Probably some of the people I _have_ to compete against over jobs are
desperate enough for a job to waiver their civil liberties, compromise their
duties to their families, even violate their consciences.  This is especially
true of the worldwide labor market.  It is obvious to me that employers have a
vested interest in these market conditions.  Active measures, which may or may
not be implemented through the state, are a given under an "ethics" of
self-interest.  I stand in Solidarity with any efforts to subvert this reality,
IF they are independent.  I am not convinced this is possible...this may be the
biggest hole in my economic philosophy.  Actually, if you can convince me that
it is definitely impossible, then I suppose you can sell me on a _grudging_
acceptance of a rightist libertarian worldview.


>Why can't you accept injustice?
The concept of justice (and injustice) is kind of hard to nail down.  I think
my answer to the following question illustrates my idea of justice as well as
anything.

>What is wrong with the concept that my freedom is based on your unfreedom;
>my wealth is based on your exploitation; my power is based on your oppression?
>

The concept that your freedom is based on my unfreedom is ludicrous.  A
"system" that doesn't work for everyone will ultimately work for no one.  The
white folks in South Africa are finally finding out they have two choices: 
they can dump apartheid, or they can dump whatever civil liberties they may
have as "citizens" as an inevitable consequence of suppressing dissent.

To me wealth only makes sense as a means to an end, such as paying the bills. 
I'd say you're ultimately exploiting yourself.

The closest thing to pure dogma in my world view:  Power Corrupts.

>-- 
>Mike Ballard 
>Time is money. Steal some today!
>Don't just complain, organize! e-mail iww@igc.org  Ph: (415)863-WOBS.
>

Come on, this post should have come from the "right".                 :-)


Walter Lee    wlee@argo.acs.oakland.edu, lee@plex-1.ann-arbor.mi.us

Keep the Aspidistra Flying!