Forward Vision

Take a close look at the Persian Gulf. Which states are growing, and which are failing? What I’ve noticed is that the small city-states are outpacing the large nation-states in most regards. Kuwait, Bahrain, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and glistening Dubai have all managed to pursue quasi-free market policies and allow relatively open societies while neighbors such as Iran wallow in theocratic authoritarianism. Full disclosure: this discussion has to be couched in the reality that no government in the Middle East is close to ‘limited.’ The city-states praised herein practice extreme state capitalism. Of course, in this regard they are not that different than the self-righteous Western governments.

As we witness the liberalization, and corresponding economic miracle, of the Gulf city-states, a parallel can be drawn to the renaissance and the Italian city-states. Those advocates of modern political theory, which is built upon the ethno-linguistic nation-state, are constantly baffled that these states remain authoritarian or fail. They look at the American Federal state as an example of large-state success; I would argue that the US Fedgov persists, in spite of its size, because of the centuries of small-state tradition that led to it, as well as the theoretical reservation of power to fifty small states. If theorists could pull their heads out of the landscape as it looks right now, they would remember that the Western World fell apart once. The Near East World is where Europe was a millenium ago. The Italian city-states were the first bastions of freedom in a backward, and theocratically repressive, Europe.

I think we might be witnessing the same thing in the Gulf, the first stepping stone. Though Dubai and its brethren owe some element of their recent ’success’ to government-manipulated oil money, that state interference is coupled with market reforms that are allowing real growth to move forward. They are able to do this because they are small and independent. Large states are too tempted by the game of interstate power projection. They worry about creating ’spheres of influence,’ neighboring states that can be manipulated to suit the large states’ needs. Meanwhile, they always maintain themselves by forcing separatist regions to remain within the superstate. Modern political theory, espoused most prominently by the United Nations, encourages such coercive territoriality. States align with nations, the U.N. says, and nations are defined by those in power. It’s certainly a good way to maintain a large membership in your ‘international body’ when financing and participation are decided by those in power, but is it just? For all of the current world order’s talk of justice, human rights, self-government, and the like, is the tacit prohibition of secession severely hurting the most disenfranchised groups? Yes, I say, and the consequences are clear in the Gulf.

Iraq, Isrealestine, Turkey: all of these places are begging to dissolve into a multitude of self-governing mini-states. These states would allow the resolution of conflict because small states are not predicated on force as often as large states are, for a small state cannot build a large standing army and does not need an authoritarian government to keep itself together. Further, it provides more options to have more states. If we grant that governance is exceptional in its connection to territory, as opposed to other services, then having smaller states is the only way to create a semi-competitive market between states. The message is: behave, or your citizens and capital will leave. Globalization has put exactly that kind of pressure on every existing state, and they are liberalizing in return. As the primitive concepts of border control and customs become less popular, the desire to retain capital and citizens through positive encouragement will only increase.

Isrealestine, as I’ve taken to calling it, is nominally divided into two states. One is run by the Palestinian Authority, the other by the Government of Israel. Most diplomats dream of a two-state solution, which is fine except that it requires one of the states to be cleaved in half. Currently, that state is the Palestinian which is separated into the West Bank and Gaza. Recently, nature has taken its course, pre-empting in fact what I’m about to argue for in theory: Gaza and the West Bank are functioning as two independent states since Hamas took over Gaza. Okay, so that will leave us with a three-state solution, if the thick-headed internationalists ever break down and recognize Gaza as a state. But what about four states? Israel could spin off its desert south into a Free State of Eilat. Many may fret over defense of such small states, but any of the four could confederalize with each other to create a situation potentially much more defensible than currently exists (especially if the Jews and Muslims could get over their differences in the name of mutual protection).

Iraq is another prime example. While the US Fedgov tries desperately to hold together the Iraqi ‘nation,’ others have suggested breaking the state into its ethnic components. I think this will just excourage the notion that rights and liberties are reserved only for those of one’s own ethnicity. Instead, Iraq could be dissolved into its respective provinces, or another multi-state mix. I’d put money on the assertion that rebuilding would progress at a glorious rate if these mini-states were abandoned by the US military and left to their own devices.

Turkey is an example of a large state attempting to assimilate a renegade region. Large states always do this: see US Civil War. Turkey would carve into many natural states. The Kurds definely want out, but instead of making an ethno-nationalist Kurdistan which intimidates the region’s superstates, the Kurds could push for a few smaller states (perhaps including some sympathetic Turkish countryfolk, gasp).

Realpolitikers will read this essay and think that I’m hopelessly out of touch with the tribal realities of Middle Eastern life. That may be true, but if we truly want this region to civilize then we should study what will empower and teach them. Our own experience should tell us, as I certainly feel in the States and Canada, that the more distant and ’super-’ a government is, the less each individual feels he can make a difference. Mark my words, in an enlightened age the free states thrive, and smaller states, if they can keep their external defenses in order, are more able to maintain freedom. Rome was powerful, wealthy, and free as a small city-state, but it squandered its fruits as a large empire. As we look at ourselves and the new Gulf Tigers, let us learn this lesson once again, and adopt a tolerance for secession and self-government as part of all of our political agendas.

This essay from Murray Rothbard provides some intellectual stimulation for those who are well-versed in libertarian political theory. It’s dense reading, but provides some insight into certain ideological traps into which I myself have fallen.

One is the oft-repeated mantra that libertarians are better friends with right-wingers than left-wingers. Rothbard highlights that libertarianism, then called liberalism, was the left-wing but a century ago. It goes to show that liberalism was never meant to be a chronological ideology, but one of principle. Conservatives try to maintain the status-quo, or return to the recent past. Progressives promote the ‘next big thing,’ whether it’s a new form of liberty or tyranny. Both of these camps are incompatible with a principled position, because liberty will not always be fashionable in the near future or recent past. Sometimes, a couple centuries will have elapsed since the last good libertarian revolution (wink, wink).

Principled ideologies require relentless devotion, and a sense of hope. That is Rothbard’s main point: our current self-concept, as freedom activists, is shaped by America’s recent history. Our current self-concept is that we hold an extreme right-wing ideology, that we are losing ground to the statists, that conservatives are our closest allies in the struggle, and that the masses are hopelessly gullible to populist wiles. The lesson is thus: pick up your chin, trust no statist over another, and resist their barbarity knowing full well that liberty has historically been the stronger — and more popular — position. Remember that for us the most civilized of men, the good news is everywhere!

Do you know the feeling when you know how to do something, and you’re trying to explain it to someone who doesn’t know, and they just can’t get it right?

 This would be the situation of libertarians in the political world, except that we aren’t even given much chance to explain the correct way. Do I sound too presumptuous, assuming that liberty is the ‘correct way?’ Well, after years of beating my head against a wall, trying so hard to understand the statists’ point-of-view, I have to conclude once again that while there is legitimate room for disagreement, liberty is always preferable to slavery.

That sounds like a self-evident conclusion, and most people — in their heart of hearts — embrace it, but when it comes to the details of freedom most show ignorance of what it means to be a slave. If I work for half a year to fund others’ programs and initiatives, to provide weapons that will be used against me, and I have no choice in the matter except to cast a statistically insignificant ‘vote,’ then I am a slave. Even African slaves were given some time to provide for themselves, and the difference between their condition and ours (as ‘citizens’ of modern nation-states) is only one of degree.

Libertarians are often left feeling alone and abandoned in a world of interpersonal violence, like the young child in a gang-infested project, knowing that what goes on is wrong but powerless to stop it or leave it behind. This despair must be a psychological trait of the type of person who would tend toward a absolute libertarian worldview, but it doesn’t reflect reality.

The reality is that most people thirst for freedom, if only because it is in their own interest. The problem is that ideology is like a game of darts: it’s easy to shoot around the mark, but hitting the bullseye consistently requires great skill. It seems hard for parties, groups, and movements to accept an entirely libertarian agenda. When they do, it seems hard for the ‘common folk’ to embrace said agenda. Of course, when a libertarian movement is a success, the region yields greatness for a long time after. The States are still reaping the fruits of a libertarian revolution in 1776, even as they actively squander those fruits.

If liberty makes sense and has demonstrable rewards far surpassing slavery in any form (socialism, nationalism, theocracy, majoritarian democracy), then why does it seem that freedom is constantly on the run? There are two answers.

One, freedom is winning the cultural battle globally. Globalization is, for the most part, the process of freedom expanded spontaneously — self-supported for the first time in history as flowing information and sheer economics weigh heavily on totalist regimes. For the first time, liberty is behaving like a fire, acting as a chain reaction that feeds itself and becomes harder to extinguish as it grows.

Two, being free men, defending our liberty and behaving in a civil and mutually beneficial way, is the highest state of being. Like any kind of maturity, it takes time and training to cultivate. Freedom is always under attack for the same reason that bullying often persists past the grammar school playground, onto prep school and then college: people are born naked and primitive. Civility is like a callus to animal temptations and shortsightedness; it must be built up through rigorous enlightening.

The end-point is that those of us who consider ourselves enlightened and outnumbered should not despair. Freedom does not always yield to tyranny, in fact that trend over history is in the other direction. It must be, for if tyranny always grew we would all be dead. Despair over one’s condition has never been known to help change one’s condition. I find that libertarians have such enthusiasm for their unusual political clarity, but burn out or sell out before they have a chance to make an impact.

Stewards of freedom, pick up your heads. This world rewards the smart, brave, and relentless. Any perceived advantage accorded to those who don’t play by the rules (of interpersonal respect) is only an illusion. Russian politics has, for example, been historically full of such disregard for human dignity, and that leviathan state has hobbled through the ages as a result. Keep trying for my sake, and I will for yours. Even if most people are too naive to support a sophisticated and free political order, we are dependent only on a determined minority to provide widespread salvation.

America VS Canada

This survey got me going…

I moved to Ontario because I think Toronto is one of the most extraordinary cities on the planet, and because there were opportunities here. Yet, as I work my way into an industry, I remember that I will hit a point here when it’s not worth making more money because the taxes just go up and up.

The survey ranks American states and Canadian provinces by their economic freedom rating, and finds that only Alberta competes with America high up on the list. Ontario is the next province on the list, but only after almost every American state has been exhausted. Except, of course, little gems like West Virginia.

The Fraser Institute, the Canadian foundation that commissioned the study, concluded that federal transfer payments are to blame for the provinces’ poor record of growth and freedom. I couldn’t agree more.

For those who don’t know me, I’m not a big fan of the federalist system that has emerged in America and was copied around the world. My belief is that the ‘US Constitution’ was the first of many small coups against the freedom and self-government for which so many died in the 1770s. I dream of a world of free states, in which humanity defends itself from the twin political evils of nationalism and socialism, as well as the everyday evils of violence and coercion. I will reiterate this point time and again, that America and Canada are not nations. At their best, they were meant to be confederations of self-governing states, in league for their mutual defense from foreign invaders.

I will surely argue that point in more detail later on. For now, let’s take it as a premise, and examine Canada’s federal transfer payments. While ‘federal,’ or imperial, governments have overstepped their bounds in many fields, we should focus on the ethical merits of this particular intrusion. If the provinces are, in theory, sovereign and independent, what business does Ottawa have in stealing from one to give to the others? Does it repel foreign armies? Does it settle disputes between confederated states? Neither of these apply, and nothing beyond these would be in the purview of a proper confederal administration.

Allow me to use this one issue to draw light on the grand picture, and to make a proposal. The grand picture is that theoretically independent states which made compacts for their mutual defense have since become overwhelmed and subordinated by the administrators of said compacts; that they have been subordinated to the status of local government districts within vast, unitary empires; that, as a result, freedom has been curtailed and our oppressors actions differ little from the authoritarian People’s Republic of China; that we have been made to believe that nation-states are the only legitimate states, by the United Nations and its adherents’ worldview; and therefore, that Ontario and every other state whose denizens yearn to gain or regain their freedom, independence, and right of self-government, need a Confederation Society to connect individuals toward their natural cause: liberty!