Changing Times

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the collapse of the nation-state, a concept which many social theorists and historians are putting forward now, and which coincides nicely with the singularity. I’ve been specifically drawn to a book called the Sovereign Individual by a James Dale Davidson and Lord Rees-Mogg who argue that the coming information age will subvert state power and technology will decentralize power and empower individuals. It’s all a very scary yet optimistic view of the future which is appealing to me.

Before going further I should probably clarify a bit about what the “collapse” of the nation-state will look like. “collapse” is perhaps not the best word for this transition, perhaps “subversion” is more accurate. The best way to describe this power shift is by analogy to the last major shift of power relations in Western history, the transition from a church centered society, where the catholic church took the role of building infrastructure, building a common identity, launching wars (crusades), and protecting Europeans from each other. Around the end of the 15^th century various technologies (gunpowder, the printing press) undermined church authority. At this point in time, the beginning of the reformation, public disdain for the clergy members and realistic corruption and excess of the church reached levels comparable to our disdain of politicians and the corruption and unwieldiness of Western democracies. The irony in all of this is that the church and nation states helped unify vast amounts of people and thereby foster the development of the very technologies which subvert these institutions. I say “subvert” because it’s not as if the church disappeared, it just lost power, just as we will likely continue to elect our “leaders” for some time, even as their positions mean less and less.

The specific technologies which are transforming our society today are information technologies. Our increased control over information is quickly making location unimportant, rendering individuals and businesses more mobile and less subject to the control of a government. The information revolution will sharply diminish returns to violence, because the benefit of violent actions will decrease when wealth has no physical location and, as the authors of The Sovereign individual point out, individuals will be capable of acting from beyond the grave; they could theoretically program a device to gain retribution from whomever killed them. Because the primary service governments give us is protection, when we can protect ourselves there will be little incentive to keep allegiance to a nation.

You may have caught on by now that this has the air of a libertarian fantasy world, where we won’t need to pay taxes and governments will either have to become vastly more efficient or perish. I’ve previously discussed my problem with libertarianism and the indifference it fosters toward the impoverished. Poverty is a problem we delegate to the welfare state, a kind of state which will cease to function in the same way this century because of forces which favor a more libertarian world. The problem of how to take care of suffering on this planet is going to need to be readdressed.

The authors of The Sovereign Individual are no exception to the deplorable manner that I’ve seen libertarians talk in relation to poor people. To them, the bottom third of America who are unable to understand a map of a bus route or add and subtract simple numbers have “failed to prepare themselves” for this transition. in addition to this, the authors point to a correlation between the bell curve distribution of human intelligence and the distribution of wealth in our societies, implying that the upper class is composed of more talented individuals, and if lower class people were more talented they would be upper class by now. I frankly was tempted to stop reading the book when I read this claim which to me seems such a poisonous way of thinking. I understand that there is a correlation of intelligence and social class, and I understand that very personally because I come from a fairly well off background with family members who are all quite obviously more intelligent than average. yet I know that if I was born into poverty, poverty is likely where I would stay, even though as I am now I am more capable of accruing wealth than all previous generations before me. libertarians need to understand how much of a trap poverty is, and that motivation is something which is given to someone through education and growing, not something that anyone can find in themselves at any time. None of us deserve the life we were born into. I feel like pasting that sentence a million times all over this blog and yelling it at every libertarian I meet. None of us deserve the life we were born into! It’s absurd to think that we do, because we couldn’t possibly have done anything previously to have deserved anything. None of us deserve the life we were born into: you are as smart and talented as you are because that is what society has made you into. Had you been born a million years ago, or in an isolated tribe in South America today, you would be a lazy idiot by modern standards and it wouldn’t be your fault.

I am optimistic that our new societal structure and technologies will improve, rather than worsen the way we handle suffering. Though we will not have an overarching institution to suck up a percentage of our money and redistribute it, I know that individuals will fly to where there is a need, even more so when flying and helping is easier (which it will be). Somehow, things will get better, because we are too aware of the world to stand by and watch people suffer.

I understand the fear that comes with this transition. We give our government somewhat of a monopoly over the control of violence and development and use of new weapons because we are too afraid to let each other have them, for good reason. I also understand, however, that while individuals will wield greater power and capability to use force, violence will come at greater cost and less benefit to the perpetrator. If an individual had, for example, a nuclear weapon and detonated it for a selfish purpose, the world would work tirelessly to find and destroy the cause of violence.

So that’s pretty much it, individuals are going to become societies in and of themselves, everything will change soon, and it will be scary but good. My next several posts will build on and rely on the concept of the collapse of the nation-state.

-Prometheus

The Poverty of Libertarianism

I love liberty, being an American and all. I think that the freedom to do what you want to do (within reasonable moral limits) is the staple of a thriving society. That’s why I get very upset about things like the prohibition of Cannabis, because I feel as though history should have taught the human race that prohibition is the wrong way to deal with problems, and will only serve to worsen the problems that existed before. I also think that we should each reap the rewards of our labor, and that we shouldn’t be forced to pay for things we don’t want to pay for.

But I’m not a libertarian. You see, having to pay for things I don’t want to pay for (death penalty, war in Iraq) sucks, and prohibition is really frustrating and annoying, but these problems are so incredibly insignificant compared to everything else going on in the world that it would be selfish of me to focus on them only. I mean, seriously, there are people starving out there, others enslaved, raped, murdered… the world is full of suffering, and if I can’t see past my minor inconveniences to help these people then I’m not a very good human being.

And that’s what it all comes down to, helping people. I’m not saying that libertarians don’t want to help people, I think humans are all built to be attentive to each other’s needs, I’m saying that libertarians are running too far away from our responsibility to each other.

What a lot of this debate comes down to, at least in domestic affairs (welfare, affirmative action) is between giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish. The latter is of course desirable, because then that man can support himself, and we can all be happy contributors to society. But taking welfare away from people is not the same as teaching them to fish, it’s only taking the fish away that we’ve been giving them. One might say that tough love is the best way to teach people to be self reliant, but it’s also a quick way to starve someone if they are incapable of self reliance.

But why should someone not be able to be self reliant in this day and age? After all, information is free. You can walk into a library, study, and get better and better jobs, improving your lot in life. All you need is a bit of motivation, right?

So… all countries living in poverty are lacking motivation, and black people, who are statistically of lower socioeconomic status than white people, are less motivated than white people, right? Uh oh, we’re being racist.

You see, nothing is intrinsic (or everything is). Motivation comes from the environment, from learning that you have to do what is necessary. I wouldn’t be the motivated person I am today if I didn’t grow up in a very very privileged place in society where I had support and encouragement from family, and lots of free time. If I lived in the Ghetto, having to work minimum wage all day and into the night to support a family, or in an alley addicted to crack, I wouldn’t have time to go to the library to read, I might not even be able to read, or have a library nearby. If you want to teach a man to fish, actually do it, don’t say he should teach himself.

You’ve probably noticed how no tea-partiers are black (well, some have black skin, but make enough money and participate in white culture). A survey of the tea party movement found them to be richer and more educated than average America, in other words, privileged. I am the prime demographic for a libertarian minded individual, and I know how one arrives at libertarian conclusions, but I must say that this needs to end. There is more at stake in the world than my “freedom,” there are people who are actually living in dictatorships, not the kind where we call our democratically elected president who has very little power a “dictator.” There are places where if you are caught smoking pot, or drinking, or being gay, you will be put to death.

Freedom is something that people think about when they have enough food and shelter to start thinking. Until we all have this privilege, this ability to think about things beyond our own survival, each of us are responsible for helping each other, and there is no way around this.

 –Prometheus