Oppose Oppression with Ten Billion Pricks

Organised opposition to an oppressor requires leaders, who will
then be eliminated. But the oppressor can still be opposed by the
the oppressed if every one were to attack the oppressor with a
series of little pin pricks. Some possible examples are as follows:

1) Never show intelligence or initiative when working for the
oppressor
2) Only understand the simplest instructions
3) Commit many acts of minor or symbolic destruction
4) Be inefficient
5) Leak secrets slowly
6) act on behalf of the individual, not the oppressor
7) Act a bit strangely
Arrange objects in a patterns that are understood to be
agaist the oppressor
9) When walking in squares or street intersections,
walk in a counterclockwise direction to show opposition
10) Avoid streets with names associated with the oppressor
11) Do not join any judicial or security organisation unless to
oppose the oppressor
12) When appropriate, members of security forces shall make
their superiors less effective at oppression unless these
superiors have made their own superiors less effective
13) vote and attend meetings as late as possible
14) Work to rule
15) In the street, gather in bunches, walk in bunches, walk in
lock step
16) Everyone is to get into minor trouble
17) Disable surveillance equipment
18) Laugh at the oppressor
19) Invent, invent, think, adapt, reject, add
20) Do what other people do so that all do the same thing
to show opposition to the oppressor
21 Have Fun

Upon reflection, I dicovered a good title for my rant would be “Was Monstressor a libertarian?”. I’m surprised nobody used a phrase like “Amontillado-libertarian” in the responses; it’s catchy, no?

Since this doesn’t happen in the real world, I don’t see that it poses much of a challenge to libertarian theory!

But I don’t want slimy male supremacist types (or racist creeps, or blowhard know-it-all bosses, or whatever) to feel welcomed in a libertarian order. I think they are at best obnoxious deadweight and at worst an active menace to the prospects for liberty. And I think that they should feel threatened by consistent libertarianism: there is good reason to think that a free society would dramatically undermine their ability to go on oppressing and exploiting their victims.

Is it too reductionist to say that they wouldn’t feel comfortable because they have to assume the costs of their beliefs – psychological, social, economic? I am, of course, assuming and arguing that non-egalitarian approaches “cost” more: discrimination turns away otherwise good customers and business associates; bigotry requires one to maintain a level of psychological aggression that is draining; etc.

What I mean is that until we get rid of the coercive mechanism by which these costs are offset onto society instead of completely internalized, doesn’t it make more strategic sense to concentrate on the coercion? If we really believe in “thick libertarianism”, does it really require any defense at all, or is it the natural result of libetarianism, upon which we can safely count once we remove the State?

We must be careful to distinguish likely outcomes of our politics from the motivating core of our politics. I don’t see any harm in agitating for social justice and egalitarianism – I do it all the time – but I simply make clear that these are secondary implications of the primary goal: abolition of institutionalized coercion.

However, trying to force the change will only cause resistance, especially if the economics of teh community can’t currently support it. And that resistance then manifests itself in all sorts of cultural “defects” that lead to more conflicts.

That’s exactly my point, although I’m going to say that the immigrants will equally see themselves as the victims in the scenario. So the key is to allow each culture to segregate itself – if, and to the extent that it so desires – and practice a form of racism. As time passed, some more repulsive manifestations of the cultural preference may manifest (i.e., refusing to serve any immigrant in the local store), but then you have the same point I made about the Amish.

“No society of free individuals is going to succeed if people are looked down upon for organizing boycotts of evil or disruptive individuals”

Well, to me, evil only gets applied to those who violate the NAP. And disruptive is almost always a matter of cultural mores, so it’s going to be a highly subjective value judgment, there. The sofas aren’t disruptive in the immigrant culture, but they are to the pre-existing culture in the area. Who’s disrupting who? The immigrants say the nosy, pushy locals are, while the locals say the immigrants are.

As I said, I feel the better option, rather than in your face boycotting, etc., is merely to move away and create your own cultural haven. And surely, the large cosmopolitan cities will remain largely multi-cultural, although you probably will have Little Italys and Little Chinas, etc. even there.

That’s an interesting response, because in the sofa example it’s the immigrants putting the rotting sofas on their lawns that I would regard as the “oppressors”, and boycott (i.e. “discrimination”) would be a perfectly reasonable response to it. No society of free individuals is going to succeed if people are looked down upon for organizing boycotts of evil or disruptive individuals, especially the ones who do things that are really bad yet don’t violate rights (as happens in this case).

I’m just too wary of culture, and the multitude of ways that cultures can non-aggressively conflict to the point of creating a call for aggressive responses. “Racism” is quite often more appropriately called “culturalism”, and the difference between the two is actually quite important. Further, I fear that some fundamental cultural pillars, while leading to some oppressive cultural applications, are also the pillars to liberty in those cultures – so weakening the consistent application of the pillar is a blow against broader liberty.

As an example of my first concern, I’ll point to a controversy local to me. A certain immigrant population has over the last 20 years become more and more numerous in my area. One overbroad generalization I can make about their culture is that they tend to like to put nice, big, cushy sofas on their front lawns. It’s a social phenomenon, and, I believe, in their culture, a very pro-liberty phenomenon. It creates a social space where everyone in the community has some idea about everyone else. This community awareness is great from issues such as charity, to ‘policing’, all the way to protecting children from abuse. Someone merely not being present on their lawn for a few nights causes concern among the community.

Now, some of the locals don’t like the result, for a multitude of reasons. Obviously, some of the couches get left out through any weather, and degrade somewhat quickly, and become eyesores. Also, there’s an argument that they attract vermin after time. Finally, there’s just simply little cultural understanding, and therefore some fear of, these people “hanging out” all the time – many people outside the culture (perhaps rightfully so) get the feeling best described by the Animal House scene in the bar.

Now, this second group might get together in a neighborhood and provide contractually that the properties are restricted from having the couches on the yard. The problem comes from enforcement costs, (even if the legal system has the equivalent of covenants running with the land). As a result, these people might conclude that their best bet in maintaining the lifestyle and culture that they prefer is to discriminate against those in the immigrant culture. Taking this option out of their bag, and making them social pariahs for using it, will merely subvert their still existing desire to be free of the couches into a call for aggressive regulation of everyone’s property. This is, in reality, much of the basis for support of zoning laws currently (and in fact, this fight was played out in the zoning boards).

As for the second concern, I point to the Amish. I personally think their “failure to forgive is the worst sin” credo leads to some perverse, oppressive results. However, it is their scrupulously consistent adherence to such principles that makes their society such a stable, free community in the middle of perhaps the most intrusive empire ever known. Knock out the applications that I disagree with, and perhaps the whole community loses its admirable qualities too, as you have now allowed exceptions to the fundamental principles (we can see what that has done to the Constitution).

I think as libertarians, and especially of the anarcho-variety, we must be very respectful of the power of culture, and the historical forces that created it, and of the fact that many people’s identity is closely tied to, if not in fact entirely based upon, their culture. I think as long as the NAP is respected, the strongest action that should be taken against oppressive cultural issues (as opposed to cultural outliers in a given community) is argument (i.e., no boycott, etc.), and even that must be done very carefully and respectfully.