Chapter 3 discusses various right libertarian/propertarian theories about how inequality is natural. While Widerquist debunked the idea that it's natural in his own way in chapter 4 by arguing about the nature of stateless societies, I do have a bunch to say on this premise.
I actually agree with it on some level. In complex systems with property guided by a free market and the right libertarian/propertarian ideas of the right, inequality IS inevitable and natural. I agree with the idea that even if you gave everyone an equal amount of property, through trade, hard work, what have you, some will eventually have more than others. I would also argue that an absolutist approach to property like these guys accept and believe allows the advantages of these interactions to snowball to levels of extreme inequality, in which a small proportion of people own virtually all of the wealth, while the vast majority are forced to serve the ownership class. This is what we often have happen in our existing society. Keep in mind something I've been arguing since this blog began, that we're basically forced to operate in this free market coming from a place of propertylessness, and forced to work with those with property, and we shouldn't be surprised when these so called "voluntary" transactions end up with extremely unequal results. The biggest sin of the right is the idea that people with no property somehow can come to these transactions equally with those who have all of the advantages conferred by society. And that is the problem I've always wanted to fix. The fact that the vast majority of humanity is forced to serve those who have everything. Most ideologies focus on these inequalities without focusing on work itself, simply seeking to somehow redistribute "opportunity" and regulate market transactions, without properly liberating people to make their own decisions.
So yes, within their own systems at least, markets and "freedom" do lead to inequalities. I agree with that. And that's why I tend to fall on the liberal scale, believing that these transactions must at minimum be regulated, if we don't just have full on redistribution on some level like a UBI provides. Propertarians think this is a massive violation of their freedom, as they claim property is a "natural right" that cannot be infringed upon justly (it's not), but I'd agree with widerquist that no, rigid property rights is a violation of many peoples' freedoms. If I were gonna do one of those propertarian "imagine 2 people on an island" scenarios, I'd say, okay, imagine 100 people on an island, they start out with equal property, and then market transactions leads to a scenario where 5 people own everything, and the other 95% has to work for them to survive. Is that just? Is that freedom? A propertarian would say "yes", because it's not the system they put in place that compels you, it's "nature". Nature requires work to survive. So by choosing to work, you're just doing what nature intends. That's rubbish. In reality, their system is what causes these relationships of subordination, and as chapter 4 will point out, no, inequality is not "natural". It is a result of their system and their ideology.
Anyway, before I move on to chapter 4, I do want to discuss a couple more things. Propertarians argue that a lot of force is required to enforce equality. I would agree to some extent, as Widerquist himself pointed out indirectly, most communist societies are insanely stratified and a massive failure at improving well being. He pointed out that one of the most unequal societies in the world is actually NOrth Korea, which seems to have a weird god king concept not unlike the polynesians mentioned in the previous chapter, or the divine right of kings practiced in Europe until the end of the 18th century. Widerquist added onto this though by arguing that their property rights system requires a lot of force to enforce, this is also true. And for as "natural" as property rights is, it does require a lot of state action such as police, military, etc. to properly enforce. I'm not against it existing, mind you, but I also acknowledge creating egalitarianism within a society with western style property rights also requires force. Is this force necessarily unjust? Not really. SOmetimes that force is the only thing giving the working class some breathing room from the iron fisted oppression of their employers. For example, my friend mentioned last night that his coworker was forced into work with COVID. He has to show up, or he loses his job, which means he loses his livelihood. It used to be not long ago, that if you had COVID, boom, employers were required to give 2 weeks of leave in order to encourage self isolation and recovery from the disease, so that it does not spread. But, in a natural environment with no regulations, what the right sees as freedom, people are forced to attend while sick, spreading the disease, and people are forced to be in their presence, being subjected to the disease. In any sane society, people would be able to walk away and say "no im not letting you put me at risk by making me work with joe, who is a literal disease vector". But without proper safeguards, people are forced to work and contract nasty diseases. This is insane. What amounts to freedom for a propertarian amounts to complete unfreedom to the detriment of one's wellbeing for the worker. Slavery is freedom, ignorance is strength, blah blah blah.
I admit, a mere regulation is a band aid. It's just telling employers how they can treat those submissive to them, without addressing the root cause of submission. And admittedly, most liberals, including social democrats, and including a good number of leftists, do not tend to recognize that the root cause of this oppression under capitalism. Because liberals are just conservatives with a heart sometimes. They accept the same overall system, they're still propertarians, they just realize that we need to take a chill pill and moderate a bit. Even social democrats tend to accept forced work under the basis of so called "reciprocity". Basically the state looks out for you, but you have to contribute back to the state. Essentially this comes out of social contract theory, which at this point, these books have already established as a complete fabrication.
Speaking of which, that's where we get back on track with chapter 4. In this chapter, McCall (I assume it's McCall because he's more the anthropologist type), looks at the nature of our societal evolution, all the way from literal monkeys up to state societies. And he notices an interesting pattern. Our evolutionary cousins do seem to treat inequality as natural chimps, bonobos, etc., tend to be very hierarchical. Alpha males often require tribute, and those who disobey are forced to the periphery of monkey society and denied access to females. Humans, however, do not do this. Humans, in their most stateless forms, do not have hierarchy. And it's because humans in such a form, will not TOLERATE a hierarchy. Most band societies consume food on sight, and hunt together, and those who demand more than their fair share will just be abandoned by the rest of the group. Humans do not have the alpha male thing literal monkeys seem to, because as noted in the last book, humans seem more intelligent and are willing to kill such alpha males in their sleep or band together with others to gang up on any would be leaders. This is my conclusion, btw, I attribute it to intelligence because it takes intelligence to use cunning like that, and most oooh oooh aaah aaah monkeys probably never thought of it. But yeah, on top of that, and this is what widerquist and mccall mention, those who deal with a would be authoritarian just up and leave. They dont tolerate that crap. You demand tribute, you wont share, boom, F U, get out of our community, or the rest of the community will just leave and that guy will be alone.
Inequalities only start when people start settling down, farming, and storing food. While the most small scale autonomous villages will still be mostly equal, maybe having at most a village chief or "big man" who tends to work out the basic logistics of who farms where, these societies are still largely equal. But as societies evolve into chiefdoms, and people become more settled, then it becomes more unequal. Why? Because people can't flee. Hunter gatherer bands, you can screw off and go wherever if you dont like the rules a band has. Small scale village, you can still arguably leave, form a band as you go, and go on your merry way. But as we start getting chiefdoms, we start getting organizations with more ability to project power. People are more fearful to leave because it means leaving what they have behind, and often there is no one to flee too. You might leave one chiefdom, only to be surrounded by others. You might have to go a long ways away to find a different way of life. People might, much like in modern societies, just see the existence of these early state societies as inevitable, and have nowhere to flee to. And that's where people become screwed. Once a chief has the ability to impose his power over others, and the people under his command can't flee, then that's where people are screwed. Because they lose the ability to vote with their feet. As long as people can vote with their feet, any would be tyrant cant order them around. It's when societies become complex and large enough where you can't flee, that they maintain absolute power over you. It's the same thing as employers these days. Even if you can leave, you end up joining another with similar structure and you're screwed either way. Such freedom becomes an illusion as long as you end up choosing between a bunch of bad options, if you have options at all.
It once again reinforces the conclusion of the last book, which refuted the hobbesian hypothesis. People don't flee nature to join states because stateless society is so intolerable. People flee states to join stateless societies, because it's those early stateless societies that are so intolerable. In a stateless society, people are free to do whatever. THey might work a decent amount, around 40 hours a week, but that includes ALL work, including what we would consider off the clock work like housework, food preparation, hunting, etc. People are poor, but rarely go without. They are decently fed, and if they lack, the community lacks as a whole. In state societies, people have these oppressive property systems imposed on them that deprive them of basic needs and compel them to work, almost like a slave. And many early states did literally have slavery. Wanna remind you slavery was common in the bible, and even practiced in the US until 1865. It's no wonder people fled early states. It isnt the stateless that's the problem, it's the states. And while humans have always been communal, pack animals, not all societies in human history have been states.
Widerquist and McCall did note that more modern societies, such as ours in the west, are kind of changing to become more egalitarian again. He mentions things like rule of law, democracy, etc., a lot of the same things I have, in making society better. But still, he notes many states on this planet remain much more absolute dictatorships, calling out North Korea by name.
Once again, I find these books very interesting. I noticed when I did my first major worldview outline a few weeks ago I did struggle once I transitioned from the social sciences to law and I tried to set up an outline of my political philosophy. And a lot of it was because i was kind of juggling two conflicting belief systems in my head, one partially based on the hobbesian hypothesis and other western myths, and the other being based on my indepentarian leanings. This book is clarifying a lot about human history that make my own worldview a lot more clear. If I were to rewrite that outline, which I may do after completing this book, I'd be tempted to add the primary history section after sociology and before law. Explain the history of human civilization, and then outline my political goals within it. And yeah. Great books. Highly recommend for any left or social libertarian.
No comments:
Post a Comment