Dalai Lama Condemns Capitalism

During a recent visit to New York, the Dalai Lama condemned capitalism and declared that he is a Marxist at heart. Although he spoke out about the injustices of capitalism, he was also quick to point out the benefits of living in a free western capitalist society (free press, independent judiciary) vs. the real world application of Marxism by authoritarian regimes (such as China.)

I didn't read anything too earth shattering here and it seems that the Dalai Lama's position is pretty much in line with every college student that ever sat around a dorm room discussing the differences between capitalism and Marxism (the only difference being that he probably wasn't high at the time.) Sure, Marxism seems to be the perfect way to bring a just society into being but, in practice as history has repeatedly proven, human beings are by their very nature competitive and unwilling to be jammed into neat little boxes. When the state has tried to force Marxism upon the people, the result has been terrible tragedy and loss of life.

I used to spend a lot of time on anarchist web sites in various discussion group but have ended that practice due to the fact that most of the "anarchists" that I was debating were actually closet Marxists and communists (I also found it amusing that these "anarchist" discussion groups had the most draconian guidelines regarding what could, and could not, be posted.) There was no balance to their positions since they were primarily supporting leftist causes and opposing anything from the right. As an individualist anarchist I oppose the state, whether left or right, but I might as well have been arguing with my cat for all the good that did. I think capitalism is a corrupt, nasty and brutal system but I also think it's the best choice available when taken in its purest form.

As for the Dalai Lama, I certainly admire the guy and have read a number of his works. Many of my non-Buddhist friends believe that as a Buddhist I must worship him, but I just patiently explain that Buddhism has many schools of thought. The Dalai Lama is the revered leader of Tibetan Buddhism, but as an adherent to the Theravada school, I consider him nothing more than a good man worthy of respect. My gut tells me that as a leader on the world stage, he has to carefully walk a narrow path to support his people in Tibet and if he needs to throw an intellectual bone now and then, so be it.

Lysander Spooner - No Treason

I just finished reading Spooner's "No Treason" in print form (also available in its entirety online) and have to admit to being impressed by his argument that we are governed by a constitution of no authority. Spooner was a man of many talents- entrepreneur, abolitionist, proponent of individualist anarchism and philosopher. In addition, he was well known in his home state of Massachusetts as an excellent examiner of real estate titles which is something near and dear to my heart as it is how I make a living. "No Treason" isn't a difficult read, in fact you can quickly get through it in an afternoon although a second, and third, reading is necessary to pick up some of the nuances of the work. Spooner's language is clear and concise as he lays out a devastating attack on the very document that rests at the heart of the American system of government- the constitution.

The impetus for the work was the Civil War. Although Spooner was a staunch abolitionist, he was attempting to make the case that the South had legally seceded from the United States and that the leaders (and soldiers) in the southern cause, could not be legally tried and executed for treason. Spooner's argument rested on two pillars. First, the constitution itself (which names treason as a capital offense) was itself invalid because it was never consented to by the citizens alive at that time (or today, in fact.) The document was not properly executed, signed and assented to and would not pass muster as even a simple contract (in this argument I see Spooner's background as an examiner of real estate titles coming to the forefront.) Moreover, when the constitution was ratified, it was not ratified by the entire population since it excluded blacks, women and non-property owning whites. Second, since the south gave proper notice to the north of its plans for secession, and did not hide its intentions, it was therefore hypocritical of the north to ignore the fact that the declaration of independence clearly made the case for the populace having the right to secede from a nation that no longer represented their interests.

The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.

The women, children, and blacks, of course, were not asked to give their consent. In addition to this, there were, in nearly or quite all the States, property qualifications that excluded probable one half, two thirds, or perhaps even three fourths, of the white male adults from the right of suffrage. And of those who were allowed that right, we know not how many exercised it.

Spooner discounted the theory that we were all taught in school, that the north fought to free the slaves, and instead saw the influence of big business and war profiteers as driving the north towards inevitable conflict (does any of this sound familiar ?) In addition, once the war began the authority of the government no longer rested on the consent of the populace, it rested on force.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

I find Spooner's arguments to be pretty thought provoking and I wouldn't be too quick in dismissing his works. Are we as citizens of the U.S. bound by the constitution ? Did the men who ratified the constitution have the right to bind their descendants to this document ? If not, what does that mean ? I'm not a legal scholar, but I would imagine that Spooner's position supports the view that the constitution is an evolving document (should it be ratified by every generation ?) rather than an absolute authority that can't be modified. If the constitution has no authority, the entire bedrock upon which the government rests is nothing more than quicksand and it has no right to assert control over any part of our lives. Food for thought to say the least.

Lysander Spooner on Taxation

I have been reading quite a bit of Lysander Spooner's works lately. He was a 19th century abolitionist, anarchist, proponent of natural law and entrepreneur- sort of a civil war era renaissance man. When I read Spooner, the words seem to jump off the page and his arguments are clear and easily followed- unlike the muddied and mind numbing treatises of many European anarchists. Spooner's philosophy of individualistic anarchism is also culturally more aligned with my background and upbringing and favors a pacifistic spread of ideas through debate and education rather than by the gun and revolution.

In honor of tax day tomorrow, here is an excerpt on taxation in the U.S. from Spooner's "No Treason." Spooner compares the methods of tax collection by the state with the methods of the common highway robber. Not surprisingly, the robber comes off as a more sympathetic character-

"It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.

If you would like to learn more about Lysander Spooner, and read more of his works, I highly recommend going here.