The Transition from Slavery to Freedom

in #anarchy7 years ago (edited)

I sometimes hear people, including freedom advocates, pondering how society might “transition” from an authoritarian system to a stateless society. The implication is that there could be some sort of gradual, peaceful phasing in of freedom, and a phasing out of governmental controls.

But that is not how things works, and not how things will ever work.

Ultimately, there are only two choices: either you own yourself, or you are the property of someone else (the majority, the collective, some political “authority,” etc.). The choice is binary. You can’t “sort of” belong to yourself and “sort of” be the subject of a ruling class. It’s one or the other. If there is a disagreement between you and some other “part owner” of you, one opinion has to “outrank” the other. And whichever opinion that is, that is the actual owner.

This principle applies to “owning” anything: whoever has the final, exclusive right to decide what is done with something is, by definition, the “owner” of that thing. (This is also why “collective ownership” almost always ends in disaster: if different members of the collective have different ideas about what should be done with what they “collectively own,” then what?) A slave can’t be partially owned by himself and partially owned by his master. Whoever has the final say is the actual owner. A slave who is “allowed” to do certain things by his master is still 100% a slave. Here is how an actual slave expressed the point:

I could see no reason why I should, at the end of each week, pour the reward of my toil into the purse of my master. … He was satisfied with nothing less than the last cent. He would, however, when I made him six dollars, sometimes give me six cents, to encourage me. It had the opposite effect. I regarded it as a sort of admission of my right to the whole. ... I always felt worse for having received any thing; for I feared that the giving me a few cents would ease his conscience, and make him feel himself to be a pretty honorable sort of robber.” - Frederick Douglass

Likewise, either “government” has the right to rule, or it doesn’t. You can’t gradually transition from authoritarianism to freedom, as if there some grayscale possible between the two.

The only way in which there will be a “transition” from statism to a stateless society is in the number of people who have given up the superstition of “authority.” But for each individual, he either believes in freedom, or he believes in “government” (i.e., someone else having the right to rule him). The two are mutually exclusive. And believing in a kinder, gentler master/owner, as “minarchists” do, is still to believe in the Divine Right of Politicians, and is still fundamentally incompatible with actual freedom.

For a lot of people, talking about a “transition” from “government” to a stateless society is really just an expression of their own reluctance to give up their own attachment to the political mythology they were taught. They find it uncomfortable to all the way let go of the philosophical security blanket of a protector “government,” so they hope for a more moderate happy medium—more pleasant, comfortable chains, that are a slight improvement but without having to upset their deeply ingrained statist paradigm.

But the choice remains binary. For example, either the state has the right to rob people, or it doesn’t. (It doesn’t.) To “transition” from one to the other would be akin to claiming that 50% forced extortion is intolerable tyranny, but that 49% is righteous and moral. The only principled choices are 0% or 100%. Either you are the property of someone else, and they get to decide how much of your stuff they will take from you (the basis of both the belief in slavery and the belief in “taxation”), or you own yourself, and the state (or anyone else) taking even one penny from you without your permission is immoral theft.

So, for example, to gradually transition from the current levels of authoritarian “taxation” to only voluntarily-funded services implies that, in the interim, legalized extortion is valid and righteous. Is armed robbery okay as long as the thief is slowly phasing out his crimes? Of course not. To talk about any gradual “legislative” solution necessarily implies that it is up to legislatures to decide how much control they should have.

Again, that is analogous to a slavemaster slowly allowing his slaves more and more “freedom.” Until they are released completely, have complete freedom and 100% control over their own lives, they are still slaves, and that is still wrong. As long as the slavemaster has any say in what happens, there is not true freedom. For the exact same reason, engaging in politics at all amounts to condoning authoritarian domination, because petitioning, campaigning, voting, running for office, all of it implies that elections and legislation are actually legitimate, and that the outcome of political rituals determines who has the right to rule.

A slave who still thinks that he needs his master’s permission in order to be free is not even free inside his own head, just as a person still seeking the legislative permission of “government” in order to be free is not even free inside his own head.

If the choice is still up to the ruling class, as all elections, campaigns and political petitions imply, then the people remain slaves, no matter how relatively nice or nasty the rulers decide to be. This is why “political action” is not something anarchists or voluntaryists should engage in, since it obviously implies that voting and legislation are the path to freedom. They are the exact opposite. Always. To play the game at all is to concede that we need the permission of “law-makers” to be free. And that, of course, means we’re not free, no matter what the “law-makers” do or don't allow us to do.

There will be no gradual “legalization” of freedom. Ever. To try for that is worse than futile: it is entirely counter-productive. Politics is a game of the parasites, by the parasites, and for the parasites. It is never the road to freedom. If anything is gradual, it will be a gradual increase in the number of people “illegally” ignoring, disobeying and/or resisting the state, until its decrees become unenforceable and it’s extortion fees (“taxes”) become uncollectible, before it finally crashes under its own weight. But no, there will be no gentle, official, “legal” transition from freedom to slavery. There never has been, and there never will be.

To expect those in power—those who sought out positions of power—to be the ones who will diminish and eliminate their own power, is ridiculous. As Thomas Jefferson said (and as basic human nature and all of human history should make obvious), “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”

Just as chattel slavery ended by way of disobedience, “law-breaking,” and occasional violence, so too will statism. There will be no smooth transition, no gradual conversion, between an authoritarian system and a free society. The belief in the Divine Right of Politicians is incompatible in every way with the belief in freedom, and those who muddle the two together (“minarchists,” Constitutionalists, political “Libertarians,” etc.)—or try to find some “compromise” between the two, even if they say it’s just a temporary measure on the way to the goal—are doing little more than strengthening and keeping alive the most dangerous and destructive superstition ever: the belief in “authority.” They are, in fact, prolonging injustice, in the name of being “practical” and “realistic,” when the reality of the situation is that all political action—bickering over who is on the throne and begging the masters for mercy—has never and will never lead to true freedom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Larken Rose is a speaker, author and activist, having advocated the principles of non-aggression, self-ownership and a stateless, voluntary society for over twenty years. Donations to help support his articles, videos and other projects can be made by PayPal to "[email protected]" or by Bitcoin to 13xVLRidonzTHeJCUPZDaFH6dar3UTx5js.)

Sort:  

Paid shill. 38

Says the guy who thinks Dtube is a Jewish conspiracy, and thinks the Earth is flat.

I dont know about the 38... was just some shit I wrote...

And I did not say that D.Tube is a jewish conspiracy... I asked some serious question about who control the d.tube wallet and their background and their motivations...

All religions are bad in my view.. I think that there is a change that D.tube is controlled by the same people that control youtube... but that is why I am asking about and testing...

I didnt say anything definitive...

Lets just leave it at this and say we agree to disagree on some topics.

link to questions about who owns dtube account?

i am looking into such matters myself...

Can you elaborate on your accusation please?

the 38 thing was just some shit, that I picked up random place...

When I write Paid Shill, then I mean, that Larken Rose, is being paid for defending a group of people, these people also have historically had the closest connection towards satanism and therefore the powercenter of what we know... Larken think we live on a spinning ball, so he most likely dont know himself that he is a "paid shill"... but in reality that word fits pretty well on what he is, I mostly write it to try to wake him up to reality...

Consider what would happen if We stopped accounting for Human energy entirely. The artificial scarcity created by that accounting system (money) would vanish and the vast abundance of Our planet could flow to ALL of Us, allowing every One of Us to live as richly as Each might CHOOSE.

And We just now (historically speaking) have the tech to remove energy accounting from Our society - though the tech is hidden and suppressed.

Money creates not only artificial scarcity, but poverty and privilege, oppression, wage/debt slavery, planned obsolescence (which creates the vast bulk of the waste on Our planet), bribery, paying of strong arms and armies, intrusion, and profiteering (war, prison, medical, pharmaceutical, food, water, air profiteering, to name a few).

But yes, Individually, We must choose to be sovereign or be slave. I choose sovereignty, but will create no controversy with anOther who thinks (S)He has "authority" over Me who offers to make Me subject, by refusing Their offer. I will be HAPPY to be subject IF They prove I am subject - and bullying Me into compliance does NOT prove I am subject, but merely that the bully can be a bully. As I do not consent to top-down controlmind, nor the loathsome legal system, there is NO proof I am subject.

As a practical matter, how can we leverage voluntarist cooperation? The technology exists that can eliminate central authority by making it obsolete (bitcoin expanded into the realm of smart contracts). But when the crash happens, we still have the problem of dismantling the violence of state (what to do with all those nukes)?

Who makes the decision? Each of us individually. But there's an organization problem. The solution to that is DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or Distributed Anonymous Organization) that has as its jurisdiction, the internet. The Anarchitecture of Politically Decentric Systems might be turned inside out...

Not sure I like what I see with Cicada DDD (Direct Digital Democracy), but one of its strengths is representativelessness (no representatives - the technology "presents" you instead).

Like always your way with words is a work of perfection. Sharing with some of my statists friends that are looking like they may be ready for a change. It gets really frustrating at times though. Thinking ok this time Trump screwed up and their eyes are now open, and then he throws them a little bone. Not sure if the government is that good psychologically or if the people will will take any crumb to hang on.

Cool I'm new here and slowly following the humans with same lifestyle and thinking as myself. I'm blogging on the lifestyle of a travelling anarchist, we usually don't share our lives on social media, but now that I got dragged onto Steemit, I'm proberbly one of very few to share the DIY lifestyle that many think is not doable. Thanks for taking the time to make this article, I will resteem and already have upvoted and followed!

Dam me and technology, it wont load my upvote lol

Ultimately, there are only two choices: either you own yourself, or you are the property of someone else (the majority, the collective, some political “authority,” etc.).

It is sad that most people have had so much brainwashing that this point is gibberish to them.

My personal motto is inherent inalienable equal rights for ALL people. Yes, that includes kids.

I don't believe that rights include "the right to eat", "the right to drink", and "the right to shelter", but I do believe that if people really comprehended who owns them (... themselves??? ) then they would be charitable and help those who lack basic necessities.

Nice job on the quotes.

As usual, good stuff!

What proportion of our time do we spend acting contrary to the self-ownership principle? I suspect at least 99% (e.g. by paying sales tax). The idea creates dissonance for most as it's incompatible with our everyday activities. Withdrawing consent over relatively trivial issues (e.g. refuse a bag check) builds experience handling the State apparatus that can be developed over time. Praxis, talk and action.

Applies and oranges.
"This principle apples to “owning” anything."

Oops. Good catch. Thanks.

I agree, freedom is cut and dry, either we are free or we aren't. However being as we all were born into totalitarian, fascist police states, in the interim between fascism and total anarchy, I've come up with a few ways to fuck with the masters as much as possible. If everyone took the initiative to fuck with these people at every opportunity, they would have a lot harder time ruling
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@bthebest7/border-crossing-with-my-live-birth-registration
Will be posting a video along with this when I get time..

Even though most that talk about transitions may presents it as being peacefull, the concept itself does not imply it as peacefull, a transition can be violante too.
AND, no, error detected, the world is not, black and withe with 1's and 0's, it does however contain dualistic propperties. But dont missunderstand that to be black and white. Meaning there can be some strange middle way of kinda free but not really. but it wil not work in the long term.

I can say with 100% sertanty that as long as you embody the mindset of a black and white world; of eigther you are owned or not, and eigther you have a police state gouvernment or no gouvernment, - that you wil 100% fail in gettting to freedom by the activism you do.
Mostly because you will only bash against the walls in the minds of men.

If you want to have a more detailed reasoning for this, i'd have to do that in a seperate article on my blog in steemit. But knowing you @Larken you whould likely not care to read it.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.15
JST 0.029
BTC 63498.69
ETH 2645.91
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.80