The final step in this multi-post essay pertaining to governance is thus: outlining the ideal society and state and their relation to the Libertarian Capitalist model. The statist model is Anarchist, which is hardly what many would conceptualize when they picture “anarchy.” The symbol for such is an A within an O, representing the ideal that anarchy is a system that itself is found within order, and that is exactly what I aim to represent in my philosophy of Federal Anarchy.
What first must be spoken of before I may divulge the totality of the state is my philosophy of Objective Constitutionalism. What I have seen in much of anarchy is despotism of the majority against the minority in terms of criticism that may laid against the general understanding of the system. The criticism most often comes in the way of matters of controversy, such as racial or sexual tensions that may exist within competing social factions. For instance, suppose a community is in its majority white and thus supposes to propose local legislation against the minority of Africans or Hispanics that may exist within it or vice versa. Common Anarchy would state that the will of the majority is an absolute: because the legislation has been created democratically, there is no tyranny at play here. What a Republican Constitutionalist would propose in response to such an arrangement would be much the same as Soviet Socialist to an arrangement in the market: planners must make a decision based upon what they believe is right. The Republican will say that these planners are the peoples’ representatives within the state, the Socialist that such planners are the same. The only difference between the two is that the Republican believes this to be in the way of liberty of right while the Socialist believes it to be in the way of liberty of commerce. I’m not one for planning of any sort, but I do instead propose a view that should aim to synthesize the two competing perspectives, which I have determined above should be referred to as “Objective Constitutionalism.”
As opposed to Republican Constitutionalism, what makes my philosophy objective is that it looks upon law in terms of its utility in its providence in the way of happiness. Let us suppose that racial segregation in the long run provides not only for healthier communities of whites and blacks socially, but politically and commercially as well. Who are we to state that this is bad? What is bad about it? Is it that the segregation is being enforced by the law? Well, what exactly may be said to be bad about segregation if the ends it provides for are demonstrably better than racial integration? I see no “liberty” that may be spoken of as being lost in such a setup as we must question what liberty itself is at play in the integrated society. Suppose the integrated society has no manner of coming towards acceptance of the “other” within it. Where exactly is the other’s liberty of self-action? The other will always be limited socially by the failure of acceptance that may take place inherently in the minds of those around him. Suppose the African wishes to start a business in a society that is majorly white and the business fails. Where is his liberty to start this business? Sure has his inherent ability to do so, but if the business will always fail, this inherent ability sees no true actualization and thus that ability may not be spoken of as an actual liberty. If a thing does not actualize, it surely is not.
What a progressive may speak of this scenario is that there must be dealt with is a re-education of the populous towards the end of accepting a racially integrated society. But I find issue herein because again we are speaking of a planned societal setup: how exactly do the planners of the society know that racial integration is good? How may they objectively determine that racial integration will unanimously provide for a society that serves utility in the way of liberty? And towards that same end, what of such a society’s utility in the way of happiness? What is the metric by which the progressive planners may state that something is good while another is bad? I propose that there is no metric but that our planners, as those of Republican Constitutionalism and Soviet Socialism, seem to be making decisions and planning based on such decisions with little more than a subjective emotion in mind. “Racial integration is good because segregation breeds hatred.” Perhaps in that society wherein the segregation was rooted in a systemic means of racial abuse. But how may we know this is true for all societies? How may we know this is true for all peoples? We may not, unless the people’s communities are directly given the wherewithal to demonstrate to their representatives and lawmakers that such a system does or does not provide the greatest deal of utility in the way of liberty and / or happiness.
This is what I speak of when I aim to represent my philosophy as an “objective.” It does not adhere to the subjective whims of the planners of the Republicans, Progressives, or Socialists, yet it simultaneously is not beholden to the subjective whims of the people as in purely democratic anarchism. It, instead, synthesizes both. Within the early days of the anarchist state, democracy must be temporarily absolute. At local levels, those things that may be determined at a local level via democratic means should be as such. Supposing that those things that become law at a local level provide for proper function, whether that entails segregation or not (or anything of a similar nature that by today’s standards would be considered heterodox), then it must be that these things be established as absolute, unbreakable law in a federal constitution. Now supposing that these democratic setups provide for results that do not see utility in liberty and happiness, it must be that the will of the people is questioned and reworked. The Anarchist state must collect information based upon the failures of the democratically arranged law and, finding that such law lacks utility, it must utilize such data to find legal solutions towards the end of that utility. Once a set of legal codes is determined that provides for the greatest deal of utility, such legal codes enter the realm of Constitution. Hence, the system aims to be “objective” in that its law is determined by means of utility, and “constitutional” in that the maximum deal of utility is absolute.
Now, key to Anarchy is the bottom-up power structure and is what separates it from the modern liberal state, which experiences a top-down power structure that alleges itself to be bottom-up. In the original days of the US Republic, federal power was bottom-up: the federal government had power as a result of the willing consent of the states. However, the conception of those apparatuses that existed within the states themselves still existed in a fashion that was itself top-down in its structure. With Webster the federal government quickly turned towards the top-down structure we see today, such government being the actual government with the states being more akin to provincial bureaucracies. In order that the bottom-up structure become manifest, the Federal Anarchist state must first adhere clearly to the principle of consent. Such a principle was that sought after by Jefferson and Madison when they presented their Resolves to the states of Kentucky and Virginia, and it aimed to make clear that the government was to adhere to a model that derived power from the “consent of the governed” and not that the governed should accept all of those things that those in governing positions should put before the populace. It is thus that for the federal anarchist model to see itself through, consent must be organized and systematized. Rule from the bottom means organization at the bottom, through what I call the “Agreement.”
The “Agreement” is a local constitution of sorts. It sets out the wills and whims of those individuals within the community that have proposed it, and it is to consist of a variety of matters that the local area finds belief in or sees entitlement towards. Such an agreement must consist of ideals in local affairs towards three ends: the political, the social, and the commercial. The Political: This facet of the Community Agreement determines the political apparatus of the Community itself. As per Objective Constitutionalism, communities may first seek to establish by democratic means any sort of setup that they desire. If this be absolutism in some communities and direct democracy in others, then this shall be the law of these communities. Now, supposing that democratically-arranged absolutism leads to tyranny in certain communities, it becomes the matter of the greater state to intervene and place upon the people a system with greater utility as determined by those other communities that have utilized such systems. Ideally, this system will be democratic, as the numerous democratic city-states of the western world have demonstrated time and time again that decentralized power locally provides for the greatest political setup. In addition to the local political apparatus, the community should also make provisions for the election of a delegate to a greater congress of cities, which will be discussed in the coming paragraphs. Provisions should also be made for city ideals towards the powers of the congress and congresses above it. Certain things should also be said of the community’s understanding liberty and security of rights, policing, etc. The Social: The social (and the commercial) are both facets of the political. Social policy includes the aforementioned protections in terms of liberty and rights. It also speaks of the community’s understanding of children and their legal rights, the elderly, etc. etc. It looks at the community’s dynamic according to race, religion, belief system, etc. and determines how the individuals within the community see these individuals. Ideally, the community should make no provision against individuals for their inherences however if utility proves otherwise then such should become law as there will be no objective measure other than utility to determine as such. The Commercial: Ideally, commercial affairs as determined democratically by the community should determine that commercial affairs at a local level would be accountable to the decisions of the community. However, these matters are again left up to the people, objective constitutionalism making them law as per utility. Writings should also be made of the community’s ideal towards the commercial system of the entire state.
Being now that a larger state entails some concession of liberty in the way of voting rights, as the entire populous voting upon every single issue would prove wholly infeasible, there must come forward some means to replace the liberty that has been given up. The solution I and many other anarchists have proposed is delegation, which plays into the greater ideal of consent. As spoken of before, the community should make provisions for regular elections of delegates towards a greater congress of surrounding cities within their overall region. These regional congresses would then take part in greater elections along with their constituencies in the voting of individuals within these regional congresses to a greater regional, or provincial, congress. Individuals from within the totality of the province will then elect from individuals within the provincial congress to have such an individual elected to greater provincial, or semi-world-region, congresses. The semi-world-region congresses would be equivalent to those of modern nations. Above these would be election towards world-region congresses, with eventual election towards the world congress. Bicameral legislatures based on both population and equal representation should be implemented.
There must be two requirements of delegates. The first is their accountability, the second their transparency. It is of my opinion that the latter ensures the former. Delegates, as individuals representing the public, may be spoken of as public officials and, by extension, public citizens. The philosophy of the public citizen means that participation in delegation denotes that one’s citizenship and all facets of it within the delegation must be public. That is to say, publicly accessible without encumberment. When I speak of public accessibility of all facets of citizenship within the delegation, I mean to say that all delegation meetings, legislation proposals, and delegate acceptances of such proposals must be known publicly. To ensure this, a special delegation department must be created for the purpose of office accountability, the DOA. Officials should be elected to the DOA in a similar manner as individuals to congresses. To prevent corruption and collusion within the sub-departments (city, regional, provincial, etc) of the DOA, each city is to keep whole accountability to its regional DOA delegate first and foremost. This means the complete and total transparency of the the regional DOA delegate. Such transparency is to be ensured be locals within the city affiliate of the DOA. The regional DOA delegate thus checks those individuals above him in the provincial DOA department, and so on and so forth. Further, each DOA delegate must ensure the transparency of delegates to the congresses at his department level, provincial DOA members ensuring transparency of provincial delegates.
Providing that citizens should find through the DOA some matter that they disapprove of, citizens reserve the right to immediate deposition of this delegate and his or her immediate replacement with another elected individual. There is to be no question in this matter. Provided documentation wholly exists demonstrating that the delegate has approved of legislation counter to the community agreement, the community has the responsibility to remove him or her.
The ideal of community responsibility to itself may be otherwise spoken of as community responsibility to the state, as the community, that is, society, is to be the state. Society as state means that which derive from society similarly derives from the state. The economy is not to be an exception. The principles of libertarian capitalism are to be upheld by the state, and it is through the unity of state and society that we may also therefore speak of economy being united to the former two as well. It is therefore that we may speak of such an economy as socialist, as ownership derives from society directly and as a result is accountable to this society. Participation in the economy thus means participation in the state, as the economy deriving from society means the economy deriving from the state. The state should make no provision encumbering the natural ebb and flow of the market, and thus should in no way aim to plan the economy. Rather, corporations should be thought of as state departments in the service of production to the greater delegations as elected by the people. The economy being a public matter entails that those individuals that are heads of their economic departments (CEOs, CFOs, etc) must concede the same liberty as their delegate counterparts in taking on the role of public citizen. The actions of these individuals must be public and accountable to communities and to delegations as a result. The delegations are to not place upon the economic departments quotas on production or any other sort of restriction that points towards subjective economic planning. Rather, it is through delegations that the workers within these economic departments may seek redress of grievances in pay, labor hours, or anything that may directly or indirectly incumber the liberty and happiness of the workers themselves. It is thus that the ultimate owner of the means of production is the workers themselves, and that their directly elected delegates fully accountable to them have the power to bring about those changes in the production that they wish to see.