`LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY`

`by`

`BEN McGINNES`

Human society can be structured either according to the principle of authority or according to the principle of liberty. Authority is a static social configuration in which people act as superiors and inferiors: a sado-masochistic relationship. Liberty is a dynamic social configuration in which people act as equals: an erotic relationship. In every interaction between people, either Authority or Liberty is the dominant factor. Families, churches, lodges, clubs, and corporations are either more authoritarian than libertarian or more libertarian than authoritarian.[1]

This is perhaps one of the best descriptions of authority and liberty that I have ever come across. But this leads to one very important question. If authority is an unequal sado-masochistic society and liberty is a free and equal society, why do we live in an authoritarian society? The answer is simple, we have no choice. And why do we have no choice? Because we have been conditioned to believe that way.

We have been taught that there must always be leaders, that there must always be an authority. If ever we are to question anything it is to be an individual leader, e.g. Adolf Hitler, or the system, e.g. communism, but never authoritarianism. We have been taught to question some examples of authoritarianism by other authoritarians so that they might attain power, so we always see our foe to be the communists or the fascists. When in reality it should be all authoritarian systems, systems which appear in many forms, including communism and fascism. All authoritarianism, no matter what it is called, is ultimately sado-masochistic. If we want to break free of this sado-masochism and embrace equality there is only one option - libertarianism.

The concept of liberty has been the bane of authority throughout its existence. Most, if not all, authoritarians do not understand liberty. They see liberty as the exact opposite of authority, which is composed entirely of order and therefore means that liberty is composed entirely of disorder. This is not the case.

To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also be willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.[2] Libertarianism is an all-creative trip. However, the authoritarian myth is that libertarianism, also called anarchism, is composed entirely of disorder and that disorder is only destructive in nature. Another authoritarian myth is that anarchy is entirely the violent destruction of government. The reason that such myths exist is that authoritarians take the basic meanings of such words and twist them with authoritarian ignorance. For example, anarchy does mean that government and all forms of authority would be abolished, but violence is an authoritarian concept, violence is not and cannot be a part of libertarianism by its very definition. Anarchy can exist through violence and therefore be partly authoritarian as well, but the anarchy of libertarianism is non-violent.

So on one hand there is authoritarianism, a sado-masochistic and ordered society with creative and destructive elements in it. A society of inequality. Authority is all based upon a lie.

On the other hand there is libertarianism, a free and equal society which takes the creative from both order and disorder, rejecting destruction and violence.

These definitions pervade every area of each form of society, whether that is political, economic, governmental, social, sexual, or anything else found within a society.

To take the political arena, for example, we see libertarianism in its single truthful form as a proclamation of freedom and equality. But authoritarianism appears in a multitude of forms and orders; each one has valid useful and creative aspects, and each one has destructive aspects as well.

The economic arena mirrors the political one. A libertarian economy is based on the principle's of the free market. Various forms of authoritarianism push different economic theories that reflect the political theories of which they are a part.

`Definitions and Distinctions`

Free Market: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion. The State: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion). Tax: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects the tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in a defence of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, "reforms," etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects. Privilege: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit. Usury: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolises the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions. Landlordism: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land. Tariff: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those inside the State. Capitalism: That organisation of society incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it. Conservatism: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation. Liberalism: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden." Socialism: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black. Anarchism: That organisation of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more than cooperate. LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more than compete.[3] Hagbard's definitions show clearly some of the aspects of authoritarian economy and his theory of anarchic economy. I agree with his definition of anarchy, but I do not agree with the concept of right and left anarchists. To me anarchists are individuals who may either agree or disagree with each other as is their wont, as I am disagreeing with Hagbard now. This doesn't mean that because someone disagrees with another anarchist they are an anarchist themselves, but it can help.

With the lack of any authoritarianism in a libertarian society there would be much different views on property, on who owned what.

`PROPERTY AND PRIVILEGE`

Property is theft.
                                                         - P.J. Proudhon
Property is liberty.
                                                         - P.J. Proudhon
Property is impossible.
                                                         - P.J. Proudhon
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
                                                                                                 - Ralph Waldo Emerson Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with sub-scripts attached for maximum clarity. "Property1 is theft" means that property1, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction. "Property2 is liberty" means that property2, that which will be voluntarily honoured in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of liberty in that society. The more people's interests are commingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved. "Property3 is impossible" means that property3 (= property1) creates so much conflict of interest that society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties 1 and 3 as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos. It is not averred, of course, that property2 will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians - especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand - is to assume that all property1 is property2. The distinction can be made by any I.Q. above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honoured in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honour it?" If it be the former, it is property2 and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property1 and represents theft.[4] This is a great definition of what property is. A good example of property2 would be something like an author's copyright over a book or a musician's ownership of a song he wrote, stuff like that. But to build fences around a plot of land and say, "this is mine and no one else is allowed on my property," is property1 and property3. It is an authoritarian statement and is an infringement of freedom to travel wherever one wishes to travel. As Aleister Crowley said, "man has the right to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth."[5]
There is no god but man. Man has the right to live by his own law - to live in the way that he wills to do: to work as he will: to play as he will: to rest as he will: to die when and how he will. Man has the right to eat what he will: to drink what he will: to dwell where he will: to move as he will on the face of the earth. Man has the right to think what he will: to speak what he will: to write what he will: to draw, paint, carve, etch, mold, build as he will: to dress as he will. Man has the right to love as he will. Man has the right to kill those who thwart these rights.[6] Crowley's version of anarchy goes to one extreme that libertarians don't (or try really hard not to - no one's perfect): violence - an authoritarian medium. So can there be authoritarian anarchy? Yes, sort of. Basically anarchy can be separated into two groups and they are not Celine's right-wing and left-wing branding. Firstly there is the definition of anarchy which most people are familiar with, the violent kind, this is an authoritarian concept which claims to be free of authority through the destruction of authority, yet to use violence upon someone is another way of creating a State. The second kind of anarchy is the non-violent kind and is libertarianism. When I say that the terms libertarianism and anarchy are interchangeable I am referring to non-violent anarchy.

Government and, consequently, laws only exist in authoritarian society. The established government within an authoritarian society already shows the sado-masochism of authoritarianism in that it must have superiors and inferiors. The laws created by this government will also reflect this sado-masochistic relationship and accentuate it further still. There is no place for either government or laws in a libertarian society as both limit freedom in one way or another and simply cannot exist in a libertarian society, they would not be acknowledged.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.[7] Laws and rules only exist and work if people allow them to do so. Ultimately all the laws in Australia are just words on paper and if people simply ignored them then they would no longer exist. But they are not ignored, they are part of the system, they are what binds it together. This is the belief factor, people believe in the system, as they have been conditioned to do, and they believe in the laws of the system, as they have been conditioned to do. And if some break from the conditioning and the system and the laws then the State will reply with coercion in the form of the police to enforce its power, fear of this retaliation keeps many in line and acceptant of the conditioning, this is the fear factor. So the laws of the State (being any authoritarian institution) exist only through the coercion and conditioning of the said State and, for the most part, not accepted by voluntary choice, but due to the conditioning and coercion of the State. So if one were to remove the coercion and conditioning there would be no support for these laws, they would become insubstantial and invalid - a lie. Therefore, as the rules and laws that establish the authority are a lie, then authority itself is a lie - an illusion.

The social arena will be affected by many theories depending on how widespread one's social contacts are. For example, an aristocratic lord in England who socialises solely through the "Old Boys" and their clubs will probably have very few social views revealed to him, he would probably only hear and be a part of the tories - conservative capitalists. Whereas an anarchic university student would probably be in contact, in one way or another, with a myriad of socio-political theories.

One's sexual arena would reflect both one's views, e.g. Catholics would only partake of such activities with a spouse within a monogamous heterosexual relationship, and the social arena in which one circulates.[8]

That authority is sado-masochistic has previously been stated, but this term can be taken in its original meaning as well as in reference to that form of society. That is, the sado-masochism of authority is also sexual.

The act of sexual intercourse and any other sexual activity, whether it be between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman, is both natural and pleasurable. So why then do authoritarian institutions, e.g. the Catholic Church, condemn it unless it be done according to their strict guidelines? The answer is simple: control.

They know that sexual activity, when used to its fullest extent, can give the participants such joy and freedom that it would be nigh on impossible to control them. So by creating a lot of myths and taboos around the topic, particularly with the inventions of "good" and "evil," they are able to thoroughly confuse and discourage people from partaking in one of the few activities that can be truly illuminating. In doing this the authoritarians are able to control people more easily.

All of this misinformation, lies, coercion and conditioning has led to the creation of a number of somewhat ridiculous ideas and actions. For example monogamy, marriage, castration, circumcision, heterosexuality being the only natural and "normal" sexual orientation, masturbation being "evil," morality, etc. These things only limit and confine one's sexuality, they are punishment and torment, they do not enrich sex or the lives of the participants, they're existence is the sadism, they're creators are the sadists and the participants are the masochists.

In a libertarian society one would be able to take part in any of sexual activity (or any other activity) that one desires, with a single "rule," that all involved are so by voluntary choice without coercion. If this were not the case then the action would be, by definition, authoritarian and not libertarian. So rape, a violent-sexual activity, is an entirely authoritarian action and could not be a part of libertarianism.

To engage in any activities, sexual or otherwise, without the consent of all involved is a wholly authoritarian concept. One example of this is shown in the writings and beliefs of the, now infamous, Marquis Donatien Alphonse François de Sade. He believed that anyone had the right to use anyone else for any form of sexual gratification that they desired, with or without consent. And the only hold that the second party had over the first was the right to use them for any form of sexual gratification that they desired, a balance of sorts. De Sade, as is shown in his writings and letters, had two basic beliefs: 1) that one should spend one's life solely in self-gratification, particularly sexual gratification. And 2) that the only right was "the right of might" - survival of the fittest being the only law. It is for this reason, as revealed in a letter to his wife, that he accepted his incarceration by the more powerful government. It is interesting to note that de Sade was condemned more for his "unnatural" activities and what he wrote by the "good moral Catholics" of the day rather than the point of using people without their consent. Besides, until recently, it was traditionally taken by most of these "good moralistic Catholics" and others that a man could use his wife for sex just because they were married and some other sexist myths. In fact these views still exist today, earlier this year an Australian judge said that a man could use some force to convince his wife to have sex, in a rape trial.

In a libertarian society people would not be inhibited by any of the lies and coercion that is found within authoritarian societies. A person's life would be more enriched by the freedom to do whatever one desires to do, sexually or otherwise.

Prejudices towards sex, gender and sexuality that are so common in authoritarian societies, e.g. homophobia, would die out due to lack of relevance in a libertarian society.

By now I should have shown the advantages of the libertarian society over the authoritarian one. I have also said that we have no choice but to live in an authoritarian world, this isn't quite true, but converting the world, or even just Australia, to libertarianism would be nigh on impossible. To use this country as an example I know of only two ways to turn the country to libertarianism.

The first idea I received after watching the program The Dismissal. I propose to take control (in the normal manner) of the government, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and abolish all the laws and the constitution, to gradually take the government apart. But to this one effectively needs to do the second anyway so it might just be a waste of time.

The second way is to gradually turn people from authoritarian dominion. The idea here is to seduce people away from the sado-masochism of authority to the erotic equality of libertarianism. The seduction to the libertarian world should be pleasurable enough to counter the machinations of authority and ensure that the target of the seduction is free to choose between the two. The pleasure of this seduction, in whatever form it takes, should be powerful enough to give the person the drive to resist the conditioned reflex to return to the "safety" of the authoritarian society. It must be noted that the seduction is not meant to be coercive in any way, the target should be free to make his/her own choices throughout the entire affair, there should be no threats of any kind.

Another idea that many people would consider is that of revolution. I feel that this is not an option as a revolution implies violence and that is an authoritarian action. Libertarianism cannot be attained through authority.

But the likelihood of converting the entire country to this theory would be nearly impossible. This is particularly the case in view of the fact that the opponents, the authoritarians, would not take this lying down. What's more they have at their disposal many things that a non-violent libertarian like me would not resort to using even if they were in my possession. For example, armed forces and other coercive agents, prisons, censors, etc... Whilst an authority maintains its possession of physical coercive agents, e.g. police, it can impose whatever lies it pleases upon the populace. These lies can be laws, rules, traditions, customs, or anything else it invents. Authority has many weapons.

Every form of authoritarianism is, however, a small "State," even if it has a membership of only two. Freud's remark to the effect that the delusion of one man is neurosis and the delusion of many men is religion can be generalised: The authoritarianism of one man is crime and the authoritarianism of many men is the State. Benjamin Tucker wrote accurately:
Aggression is simply another name for government. Aggression, invasion, government are interchangeable terms. The essence of government is control, or the attempt to control. He who attempts to control another is a governor, an aggressor, an invader; and the nature of such invasion is not changed, whether it be made by one man upon another man, after the manner of the ordinary criminal, or by one man upon all other men, after the manner of an absolute monarch, or by all men upon one man, after the manner of a modern democracy.
Tucker's use of the word "invasion" is remarkably precise, considering that he wrote more than fifty years before the basic discoveries of ethology. Every act of authority is, in fact, an invasion of the psychic and physical territory of another.[9]

Coercion is the main weapon of authority and it comes in many forms. Some examples of coercion are violence, censorship and laws. The latter pair are usually enforced through the violence which is the result of the armed forces of the State in question.

But there is a way to neutralise the authority's armed forces. And that is by converting them to libertarianism. Once the authority loses its physical power then it will just fall apart as there is nothing to defend the illusion of itself.

But, to begin this destruction of authority and its replacement with libertarianism, we must first break the authoritarian conditioning and learn to think and act for ourselves. Once one achieves this one will be free. After that one should be making every decision and choice in life freely and voluntarily, perhaps with another's advice, but never in another's control. For one to break away from the conditioning and control of authority one must find one's way, though this might be initiated by someone else (the "seduction" mentioned earlier).

All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.[10]

Despite the several years since I first wrote this, I'm still rather fond of it, though I realise this is another example of a proposed and impossible utopia. I've only slightly re-edited it as was necessary for a conversion from Word Perfect 5.1 to HTML, especially to include the footnotes.

Now you can either go back, go to the site contents or e-mail me (get my PGPi public keys here).