Ethics, Dialectical Libertarianism, & Comprehensive Counterbalanced Democracy

I explained my ethical philosophy in my posts Science, Ethics, & Individual Sovereignty and Ethics, Veganism, & Vagueries Like Voting. I touched on my political ideas there, but I wanted to expand upon the political implications of my ethics.

My ethical perspective is eclectic. I combine aspects of various different theories of ethics. I combine natural law theory, particularly Darwinian natural law, with hedonistic and preference utilitarianism, and I attempt to incorporate a more scientific perspective based upon the ideas of Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam. And my theory of ethics is basically "objective" and "universal," so that it is universally applicable and all sane people can follow it and find some fundamental agreement or "point of contact" (anknüpfungspunkt). All humans share a common biological nature, with certain basic moral sentiments and rational sentiments (common sense) engrained in their common nature. Our basic moral and rational sentiments are biologically determined and shared by all members of our species. In any conversation that is to be had, people have a common ground or point of contact (anknüpfungspunkt) in the fact that they are members of the same biological species and so share basic moral sentiments and rational sentiments. Thus, we can find agreement and have rational discussion even when we have radically differing views. The Christian presupposionalist may hold that we have these moral and rational sentiments engrained in our nature because of "God's all-encompassing plan" and design. The non-believer may think that we have these shared sentiments because of natural selection and inheritance. We find our point of contact in the fact that we do share these sentiments, regardless of the causal reason behind the shared sentiments.

When we turn to the field of ethics and try to determine what constitutes right behavior or what is the most appropriate course of action in any given scenario, we must start with the axioms of moral and rational sentiments. And among the moral sentiments must be included our basic valuation that suffering is bad, as well as our sympathy with others who suffer. Because of these sentiments, we wish to maximize human well-being and happiness and to minimize human suffering and misery. Each individual has a multitude of values. Our values can be ranked within a hierarchy. Furthermore, we have a host of desires and preferences which can be ranked within our hierarchy of value, and the ranking of these is based upon our subjective judgement as to their utility in satisfying the demands of our rational and moral sentiments. And we can incorporate the ideas of marginal utility and time preference into our analyses of ethics. All of this has been explained in detail in the previous posts which I linked above.

Dialectical Libertarianism

I am an anarchist, but I fall within the dialectical libertarian camp. Dialectics holds that comprehensive knowledge of any part of something requires studying and analyzing it from all sides and taking into consideration all the relations and interconnections between it and other parts of the system in which it is found. Dialectics, in the sense that we are currently using the term, claims that we are only “able to grasp the nature of a part by viewing it systemically—that is, as an extension of the system within which it is embedded."(Chris Sciabarra, Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism)

When applied to questions of politics, this may cause us to reach conclusions that seem counterintuitive to conservatives and right-libertarians. The dialectical approach demands that we look at any given policy in relation to the system in which it would be enacted. We cannot look at it in merely abstract terms. When we look at the policy in terms of the system, we usually reach conclusions that are very different from those reached by right-libertarians. The reason for this is that right-libertarians tend to analyze things in abstracto. Right-libertarians judge government policies based on their merits in abstraction from the concrete reality of the system in which it will be implemented. In other words, right-libertarians think in Kantian terms of categorical imperatives; that is, they believe that there are moral obligations that are binding under all circumstances and regardless of individual preferences. As I argued in Science, Ethics, & Individual Sovereignty, there is no such thing as a categorical imperative. All moral obligations relate to concrete situations and preferences. There are only hypothetical imperatives. There is nothing that can properly be regarded as a categorical imperative. Killing is not always wrong in all circumstances. Killing a person in self-defense or in defense of others may sometimes be the right thing to do. Stealing may be justified if the alternative is starvation. Thus, the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian have totally different perspectives on ethics and are, therefore, bound to reach radically different conclusions on any topic.

Let's look at the issue of taxation. The right-libertarian holds to the categorical imperative that "theft is wrong" in itself, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Thus, the right-libertarian concludes that taxation is theft and is, consequently, inherently wrong under all circumstances. The dialectical libertarian will not reach that same conclusion. Suppose that we have a statist system of government that we cannot immediately abolish, but that we could influence and reform slightly through other means (e.g. voting, lobbying, protesting, etc.). Suppose that the system already imposes taxes on people and that there is no feasible way of abolishing taxes in the immediate future. There are certain people and corporations that are disproportionately represented by this government and who unfairly benefit from special privileges conferred on them by the government. Given these facts, and recognizing that there are no categorical imperatives (and that taxation can't be wrong in itself, just as nothing else can be judged as "good" or "evil" in abstracto), is it really wrong for those who are disadvantaged to demand that the privileged group be taxed at a higher rate in order to redistribute wealth or fund programs that benefit those who are more exploited by the system?

We can also make the case for progressive taxation by looking at the question of taxation as a hypothetical imperative and applying a dialectical method of analysis. Under the current system, there are certain people who are extremely wealthy and other people who are not. If people were to pay equal amounts, or even equal proportions, to the treasury in taxes, this would result in an unfair distribution of the burden of taxation. Suppose every person pays 10,000 dollars in taxes per year. A person who only makes 10,000 per year is taxed to death! He does not have enough left to survive on. A person who makes 30,000 per year pays a third of their income to the government, which is quite a heavy burden. He pays more in taxes each year than he does on his mortgage! Another person who makes 1,000,000 dollars a year feels no burden of the taxation at all and is left no worse off than if he hadn't been taxed at all. The two poorer folks suffer greatly under this tax scheme, while the wealthy man remains perfectly happy and continues in his life of luxury. The goal of ethics ought to be to maximize human well-being. So, as long as there are taxes, it follows that the wealthy ought to be paying more than the rest. This is the only way to equalize the burden of taxation and allow for the greatest level of comfort and well-being for all.

Furthermore, we can demonstrate that directly proportional taxation is also not conducive to maximizing well-being. Suppose we establish a flat tax of 50% across the board. The person making 10,000 dollars a year will be left with only 5,000. The person making 30,000 will have to pay 15,000 per year. The person making 1,000,000 dollars per year will still take home 500,000, which is more than enough to live really comfortably. The first two individuals will have really poor standards of living caused by the excessive tax burden, while the wealthy individual will continue to live in luxury. Now, suppose that we decrease the tax rate to 0% for the person making only 10,000, to 5% for the person making 30,000, and to 52% for the person making 1,000,000. The first person now gets to keep his entire income. The second only has to pay a very manageable 1,500 in taxes. The wealthy man gets a mere 2% increase in taxes, which is hardly noticeable considering the large amount of money he has at his disposal. This progressive tax scheme gives us a more fair distribution of the burden of taxes. However, the progressive scheme also brings in more revenue! Given that our goal is to maximize well-being for all, and the fact that this scheme minimizes the suffering/burden of the two poor individuals without substantially harming the wealthy individual, it logically follows that this progressive tax scheme is preferable to schemes that tax a standard amount or a flat rate.

Now, we can expand our ethical analysis to include a defense of the relative ethical superiority of social democracy with progressive taxation over the sort of system advocated by conservative and right-libertarian pundits. Imagine a conservative system of governance with a flat tax, minimal or no welfare programs and regulatory agencies, but with a system of publicly funded courts and police to defend the property and contracts of corporations. In this system, the poor are left without access to healthcare or health insurance, while the wealthy are taken care of. There are people in this society who fell into poverty and homelessness and seem to be stuck, while the wealthy live in luxury. Police forces that are funded predominantly by the middle class will remove squatters and homeless loiterers from the properties of the wealthy. The wealthy person gets a lot of benefits from the system without much cost, whereas the poorer folks get fewer of the benefits of the system but a higher burden of the cost. At the same time, the wealthy have more free time because they are not enslaved in the wage-labor market but are able to live off of unearned income from investments. The poor all have to work constantly to support the system that allows the wealthy to live in luxury. This system maximizes happiness and well-being for the wealthy but does not do so for the rest of society. A social democracy with progressive taxation, basic income, and welfare programs, on the other hand, would equalize the burden of paying for the maintenance of the system and provide everyone with access to basic necessities like food, shelter, basic income, and healthcare. The large majority of non-wealthy people would be much happier under this system. Even if this system eliminated the wealthy as a class and brought everyone down to the same level, the populace as a whole would be much happier and better off than the populace under conservative capitalism. If we can tax the wealthy at a much higher rate in order to increase revenue enough to fund universal healthcare and universal basic income without impoverishing anyone in the process, wouldn't such a social democracy be logically preferable. Sure, it is easy for a right-wing mind to look at social democracy in the abstract and say that it is "wrong," but is it really objectively worse than the sort of systems advocated by the right-wing when you look at it in terms of the whole, analyzing it dialectically and without appealing to any mythical categorical imperatives?

I also hold to the concept of individual sovereignty or self-ownership, as I explained in Science, Ethics, & Individual Sovereignty. I have rooted this concept in my ethics and made the case for the right to life, liberty, and possessions within certain limits. Again, there are no categorical imperatives. Your right to liberty ends at the equal liberty of others. Your liberty to do whatsoever you want ought to end the moment you try to limit other people from exercising their liberty. These rights are unalienable but they are not absolute. Nevertheless, these rights do indicate that we must prefer non-hierarchical and non-coercive systems to hierarchical and coercive ones. In Anarchist Social Democracy: Structure & Theory, I made the case for a social order without a State and without unnecessary hierarchy and coercion that would also be able to provide all of its members with universal basic income, education, and healthcare. The arguments given in that essay are too detailed and comprehensive for me to reiterate here, so I can merely point you to that essay for now.

Comprehensive Counterbalanced Democracy

While I have advocated democracy, I am fully aware of the critiques of democracy and the shortcomings of democracy. I'm well aware of the sort of critique of democracy that people such as William Gillis and the folks at CrimethInc. might give. I do recognize the validity of various criticisms that have been made of democracy. At the same time, I think that democracy is still necessary. I think that we need to develop better systems of democracy rather than abandon democracy altogether. Unfortunately, I think we live in an imperfect world and perfection is not something that can be obtained. As a critical rationalist, I believe that all knowledge is conjectural and potentially subject to falsification, so every proposition or assertion should be questioned and challenged. As an anarchist, I think all power structures and all authority need to be challenged to justify themselves, so I welcome the critique of democracy. It is important for critical rationalists to critically analyze their own ideas and put them to the test. It is important for anarchists to develop an anarchist critique of anarchism.

Democracy is not perfect. Even consensus democracy isn't perfect. However, I still believe that some sort of democracy is preferable to the consensus/dissensus, free association, anti-democratic model proposed by some anarchists. The reality is that people live in communities alongside neighbors who may not agree with them on everything. Certain communities are defined by locus. Members of the local community can't always just "opt out" and do their own thing. For instance, suppose there is an "anarcho-capitalist" living in the same neighborhood as a communist. These two individuals have very different ideas regarding land tenure, possessory rights, and property. Person x thinks he has the right to do whatsoever he wants with his house and yard, so he plays loud music all night and lets 50 pigs wallow in mud and feces on his 1/4 acre lot. Person y thinks that all property is illegitimate and that he has the right to walk into anyone's house whenever he wants and to eat all the food from his neighbors' gardens. Person z disagrees with both x and y and is irritated by their conduct. The loose free association model of anarchism doesn't seem to be able to deal with this sort of problem in a reasonable manner. These people live in close proximity to one another. They can't just opt out. They are part of the same community whether they want to be or not. If each person keeps doing their own thing without taking into consideration the desires and preferences of their neighbors, social order will dissolve into social chaos. Furthermore, people are likely to turn to violence. If person x allows 5 tons of feces to pile up in his yard, and his neighbor y keeps eating all of the food grown by x and z, and person z is always in a rage because person x is ruining the air quality and making him miserable while person y eats all of his food and is making him starve, eventually these neighbors are going to either get violent with one another or else they are going to sit down and discuss matters until they come to some reasonable solution. If they get violent, then they will have "anarchy" in the vulgar sense of chaos. That is not what anarchists want. Anarchism advocates anarchy in the sense of "order without violence." The reality is that people will start talking to their neighbors and the members of the community will assemble and discuss matters and set some rules after a certain amount of deliberation. The rules regarding land tenure, possessions, and property would probably naturally be established through democracy if neighborhoods didn't already have systems of law and order in place.

The structure of a democratic system would be more stable. There would be fewer disputes over land and buildings. People would feel more security. Thus, people under a democratic arrangement are likely to be happier than people under a loose free association arrangement that allows every person to secede from the group and make their own rules if they want. So, democracy seems to be the logically preferable option. Furthermore, the loose free association model might cause even greater problems. Suppose that person x teems up with a, b, and c to form a Rothbardian propertarian private police force that will defend the "right" of x to do whatsoever he wants with his property and use violence against anyone who tries to stop him. Then suppose that person y teams up with d, e, and f to form a communistic militia and take x's property away from him by force. The private police of the "anarcho-capitalists" will be at war with the militia of the communists. Society would be in a state of civil war. There would, in effect, be two States warring against each other within society. Society would be unstable and people would not be secure in their possessions, so I think the democratic arrangement would be preferable. The democratic arrangement may choose any system of land tenure, but it will be some system that everyone is willing to consent to or at least tolerate. The democratic system would be more stable and, consequently, more likely to allow for the well-being of all of its members. Thus, following my hedonistic-preference utilitarian ethics, I must conclude that the democratic arrangement is the right way to go.

Democracy also has its shortcomings. Representative democracy tends towards oligarchy, as the representatives can't always be held accountable and generally end up constituting a ruling class. Majoritarian direct democracy allows for a majority to force their ideas and policies upon the minority. It is perfectly conceivable that a majority could vote for the genocide of some minority. So, majoritarian democracy, even direct democracy, is no guaranteed safeguard against fascism. Consensus democracy keeps the majority from imposing their will upon a minority, but it also keeps decisions from being made sometimes. A single person can "block" a motion and keep consensus from being reached. When you are dealing with large groups, it may be impossible to reach consensus on even the most basic and necessary issues. I once lived in a housing co-op that used a consensus process. The house had thousands of dollars in excess funds and it took a month to reach consensus to spend a few dollars to patch a whole in the roof. In the meantime, the leak got so bad that the ceiling collapsed and sheetrock landed on top of a couple people while they were cooking in the co-op kitchen. While consensus processes do empower people and encourage active participation from people who would otherwise be quiet and take a back seat, they can also be slow and inefficient. There are different forms of democracy and each form has its shortcomings. At the same time, each type of democracy has certain benefits.

()

Democracy is not monolithic. There are different types of democracy and each form of democracy limits the application of each other form of democracy. Political theorists have long advocated separation of powers in order to create checks and balances within democratic systems. So, could we not create a comprehensive sort of democracy that incorporates all the various forms of democracy and uses these different forms of democracy to create a system of checks and balances to give us the best of all worlds. This is what I mean by comprehensive counterbalanced democracy. I don't yet have a hard-and-fast rule or clear vision of what such a system would look like. It could really take any number of forms. I will merely make some suggestions.

I think delegative democracy would be preferable to conventional republicanism. Such a system would allow people to elect delegates that would be recallable. All "representatives" should be delegates subject to the possible of representative recall. The people should have the ability to change their vote at any point, even after the election. If a representative does not satisfy his constituents after the election, they can un-elect him. We could apply the ideas of e-democracy to allow voting to be done directly online. However, instead of closing the online polls after the election, leave the polls open and allow the people to change their votes at any time. We should also incorporate the ideas of deliberative democracy and consensus democracy and force representatives to debate and discuss new laws and policies in detail and reach a general consensus before a law or policy can become binding. Full consensus is probably not a viable option, but it is possible to implement a qualified consensus process or consensus-oriented process that requires more than a mere majority. We could incorporate assembly democracy into our framework and allow any ordinary citizen to speak and debate in front of a general assembly associated with the city council and have a similar general assembly associated with the national congress. The representatives would only be allowed to make their decisions after having listened to ideas put forth by people at the general assemblies. Additionally, we could create a system of direct digital democracy to allow the people to directly vote to veto a law or policy passed by their representatives. This would make it impossible for representatives to conspire to pass laws that the people don't generally support, since the representatives would have to at least convince the people to "stand aside" (i.e. not veto or "block" the law) in order for it to become binding. I also think that a system of ranked-choice voting (or "instant-runoff voting") should be implemented. When people vote for representatives, they should rank each choice. If their first choice does not have a majority, their vote should be counted in favor of their second choice. If their second choice doesn't have a majority, the vote should count for their third choice. And so on, until there is a candidate with a decided majority. Perhaps, if there are multiple proposals for a single issue, like reforming healthcare, the various proposals could be voted on together using a ranked-choice voting method.

As I argued in Ethics, Veganism, & Vagueries Like Voting, elections in centralized democracies are too complex to allow people to gather the relevant and necessary facts to make decent informed decisions, so it would be preferable for politics to be localized as much as possible. I support the distributist principle of subsidiarity, which holds that every political and economic matter ought to be dealt with by the smallest and most local association capable of effectively dealing with it in a satisfactory manner. I would also recommend combining this idea with the ideas of confederation and federalism. The bulk of decision that affect a community ought to be made locally, at the municipal level. These municipalities ought to be somewhat autonomous, but they should be federated in order to allow for larger and stronger organization/governance at the national level. Local national guards would co-operate together within the confederation in order to allow for national defense. Disputes between communities within the confederation could be arbitrated by federal institutions. Also, institutions at the federal level could be responsible for education, welfare, and such.

I don't have any naive notion that pure democracy is perfect. I don't think pure democracy is even desirable. Pure democracy isn't even conceivable, much less attainable. I do think that the sort of democratic confederalism based upon comprehensive counterbalanced democracy that I envision would likely be superior to the other systems of governance that have been tried and/or proposed. I think this form of governance could work decently, function well, and provide peace and stability. At the same time, I think such a system would be better at satisfying the desires of its citizens and making them happy, since this sort of system would likely give them the most say in governance possible without being totally overwhelming and discouraging participation. Consequently, it seems that this sort of system is likely to be effective at maximizing the well-being of its members. There may be other conceivable systems that are equally as good, but I cannot think of them.