Non-Secular: The State as God in Civil Religion

By Posted in Anarchy, By "Humane Condition", History, In Liberty Tagged , , , , , , , 4 Comments

The concept of Civil Religion is relatively new on the scale of human history, as are many of its features. It is most frequently applied to the 20th century communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union, but it can apply to any modern secular State. With the rise of secularism the ages old union of religion and politics was broken. This presented a problem to the philosophical legitimacy of the State, suddenly lacking a divine mandate, or otherwise theological justification for maintaining its power. Civil religion was simply the replacement of an outdated tool of oppression by governing elites.

washington monument

According to John Esposito, who wrote in Religions in Asia Today referring to the communist Chinese regime, “a civil religion is based on a sacred narrative of the state’s founding, in which the development of the state is portrayed as a just, moral enterprise…” .1 It is a new way of being religious because the “believers” are no longer worshipping unknowable deities that rely totally on faith for their existence. The “holy day” is no longer in reverence to a God, but a concrete National holiday that marks the founding of the Nation itself. In the sake of Communist china, God was replaced by Chairman Mao Zedong. It was slightly more difficult to institute civil religion in the Western post enlightenment world, but it is here. God has been replaced by the notion of Democracy. No longer do we fight wars to spread the word of Christ, but to spread to word of Democracy.

Despite the new labels and sacred mythologies it is also a very old way of being religious. Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book might have a different message than the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of the Bible, but the purpose it serves in society is identical. In the same way that Church’s disseminated hymnals the Nation-state has an anthem known by every child product of its National public schools and performed live before every nationally televised sporting event. The similar nature of civil and traditional religion does not lie in the actual content or philosophy. It lies in the way in which a society’s governing elite take advantage of such a persuasive, widely-held belief system.

I have posited before that it was not religion serving as the root cause for so many wars as most historians claim, but that it was the State’s misuse and abuse of the power vacuum that exists between the illiterate faithful masses, and the clergy. In an era that people are looking more and more to themselves for spiritual or religious awareness, the traditional model of religion is no longer an effective tool to be hijacked by the State. The ability of civil religions to coexist alongside the technological and scientific advances of the modern era is evidence in favor of this theory.

 

by Adam Alcorn, Founder/Editor, the Humane Condition

Contact me on twitter @AdamBlacksburg or e-mail thcondition@gmail.com

 

NOTES

  1. Esposito, John L., Darrell J. Fasching, and Todd Vernon Lewis. “Globalization From New to New Age Religions.” Religions of Asia today. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 385 – 422. Print.

The Immigration “Problem” & The Libertarian “Solution”

By Posted in Anarchy, By "Humane Condition", In Liberty, Libertarianism Tagged , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

I know this may sound dreadful to many of you, as we tend to stay away from sideshow distractions that our political circus in the media wants us to focus on. But the immigration debate is fascinating for the divisions it makes so obviously clear within the libertarian camp. This article will highlight the works of Dr. Walter Block that promote entirely free immigration as the only consistently libertarian position. As usual, there are points of agreement and disagreement with Block, but I agree with essentially the same theory of “immigration policy” that Block says is the libertarian theory.

First we have to note the hilarious immigration debate that is going on in the District of Criminals right now. This has been a great display of ignorance. Since neither the Republican nor Democrat parties have anything remotely resembling a foundational philosophy or guiding principles, the debate on immigration has been strictly politics, as usual. The Republicans are afraid that the “illegal immigrants” will vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and the Democrats are pretty convinced of that as well. Nowhere does this debate acknowledge principles. Why is it important to apply principles to the immigration debate? Because immigrants are people to, believe it or not, and must not be aggressed upon.

Immigration is a word that serves a purpose only in a world of Statist parasites. The difference between migration and immigration is based in the illegitimate theory of a just Nation-State. Without a monopoly of force on one side of a “border”, there is no need to seek permission to cross into another area that lacks a monopoly of force. This potential exposes the illegitimacy of borders as we know them today. According to Murray Rothbard:

“There can be no such thing as an “international trade” problem. For nations might then possibly continue as cultural expressions, but not as economically meaningful units. Since there would be neither trade nor other barriers between nations nor currency differences, “international trade” would become a mere appendage to a general study of interspatial trade.” 1

There would still be names of regions, whether they are called counties, provinces or even States all with unique cultures preserved, but no monopoly of force would exist. The only borders existing in a truly free society are those surrounding private property. If there are no borders enforced by a “legal authority” with a violent monopoly, then there is no difference between migration and Immigration. Dr. Walter Block argues this point convincingly in his essay A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration:

“If it is non-invasive for Jones to change his locale from one place in Misesania to another in that country, then it cannot be invasive for him to move from Rothbardania to Misesania.”2

Walter Block

Block and Rothbard have theoretically proven that immigration, or migration itself is not an aggressive act, it is only an exercise of one’s right to own themselves. This however does not imply that immigration is itself a human right. The “immigrant” has no right to the use of another’s property unless, as Block stated “the immigrant moves to a piece of private property whose owner is willing to take him in (maybe for a fee), there can be nothing untoward about such a transaction.”3 It follows logically that the place of origin of a migrant need not be considered to determine the rights of said migrant. As I noted before, this is what makes our argument different from those of the Democrats and Republicans, we consider immigrants as human beings possessing the same rights as those on either side of any border.

No Borders

No Borders

But we live in a Statist World!

And in this statist world, there are minarchist libertarians. After arriving at the above conclusion it is easy to simply dismiss further debate due to the illegitimacy of borders and the State. This is fine for discussions sake, but here we will examine some common minarchist libertarian policies and hold them to libertarian principles.

Many minarchist libertarians agree with the principle that humans should be allowed to move freely, and they accept that it is in fact the migrant’s right to self-ownership that guarantees this. Therefore they advocate a simple, non-invasive means of legal immigration. Libertarians advocating this view are trying to minimize the amount of force employed, because they see government as a necessary exception to the principle of nonaggression. I would argue that even this is up for debate. This solution, however “simple” or “non-invasive it is, requires State officials to monitor the entire border. This single step requires vast amounts of violence. First, to purchase, settle, and make ready for siege all the land across a border requires countless amounts of stolen “taxpayer” dollars. Next you have to pay the salaries of officers working for whichever agency is tasked with securing the border. And lastly, should a human not be free to run across the border, perhaps without waiting in line for an intensive grope of person and property? In the proposed “simple, non-invasive” system, the person who refuses to go through the proper checkpoints, or the person who exercises his freedom to move across a “border” is liable to get shot and killed, or arrested and deported.

We do live in a statist world, but there is still a way to minimize the use of force at the border. Is there a good reason for the State to have a presence on the border at all?  The most common objection to this proposal is the very true fact that we have a welfare state in the United States. Without some sort of pragmatic solution, the country would be overrun with people only making the economically beneficial decision of immigrating to the United States.  Again, let’s go to Dr. Block:

“Pragmatic matters … can form no part of the libertarian world view. The only issue is: do emigration, migration, and immigration constitute, per se, a physical trespass against person and property or a threat thereof?”…”There can be no countenance for partially restricted immigration, any more than for partially restricted murder.” 4

There is also no legitimacy in attacking proposed immigration policy based on a fear of added expenditures to the welfare system. Dr. Block quoted Hans-Herman Hoppe in his Libertarian Case for Free Immigration:

“It would also be wrongheaded to attack the case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become, to a significant extent, the immigration of welfare bums, who, even if the United States is below the optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state.” 5

Libertarians, both anarchists and minarchists, desire to reduce the amount of coercive force employed in our lives, and most especially, force by the government. I have sincere appreciation for the minarchists who fight this battle. Rather than turning a blind eye to the fact that there are migrants who are being subjected to government force every day, rather than hiding behind the theory that borders should not exist in the first place, these minarchists are fighting towards freedom. For this they deserve no contempt from libertarian anarchists.

Like so many other problems created by the State, a libertarian solutions will not always be possible inside the parameters of a State, but it does not change the morality of said solution. By applying the simple principle of nonaggression we are lead to the same conclusion that Dr. Block reached years ago: “either migration is totally legitimate, in which case there should be no interferences with it whatsoever, or it is a violation of the non-aggression axiom, in which case it should be banned, fully.”6 The pure libertarian solution to the immigration “problem” could be reached by asking one question, and it’s a question that would stump Democrats and Republicans. Do the “human rights” of immigrants differ from the “human rights” of migrants?

by Adam Alcorn, Editor, the Humane Condition

@AdamBlacksburg, thcondition@gmail.com

A free PDF of Dr. Walter Block’s essay “The Libertarian Case for Free Immigration” is available here thanks to the Mises Institute.

 

NOTES:

  1. Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, [1962] (1992), p. 550. Accessed May 7th, 2013
  2. Block, Walter. “The Libertarian Case For Free Immigration.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 13.2 (1998): 167-168. Print.
  3. Block, (page 173.)
  4. Block,( page 169.)
  5. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Free Immigration or Forced Integration,” Chronicles 19, no. 7 (July 1995): 25.
  6. Block, (page 185.)

The American Civil War: Power at Stake

By Posted in Anti War, History, In Liberty, Will Shanahan Tagged , , , , , 3 Comments

The causes of the Civil War are, unfortunately, disputed among countless people on countless forums.  Most of the time, either bad history is being practiced or untrue statements are being made.  The true causes reside within countless primary documents and an understanding of American culture at the time.  After looking at the evidence, I have come to two conclusions that I will argue in this brief essay.

Presidents Lincoln and Davis

Presidents Lincoln and Davis

1.) Slavery was a Necessary Factor for Southern Secession whereas State Sovereignty was hardly at Play.

      South Carolina, the first state to secede, did not come to that decision over night.  Just like most confederate states, South Carolina’s decision to secede can be traced back to 1850.  This was the year that the U.S. congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act.  Specifically, the act required that northern states enforce laws concerning fugitive slaves.  The northern states were now required to return slaves that had escaped for freedom.  Furthermore, the act declared

“And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or without process as aforesaid… and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid.”[1]

 

In other words, those who aided escaped slaves could be charged and fined.  The reason that southern states were upset about this is rather ironic.  The south was not upset about these new laws.  They were upset that northern states either nullified, or refused to enforce them.

Almost immediately after the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, Vermont passed the Habeas Corpus Law which effectively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act in Vermont.  Four years later, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional.  Furthermore, jury nullification was common among northern states.  The fact that the Federal government did not force the northern states to follow the Fugitive Slave Act is what led to secession, beginning in 1860.  In fact, this reason is mentioned several times throughout the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”  One section of the declaration reads

“We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”[2]

 

This type of language was common among southern declarations of independence.  The evidence is clear.  Slavery and a weak federal government were necessary for southern secession.  Northern nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act pushed the South towards secession.

2.) The Federal Government was interested in Federal Expansion whereas the Liberation of Slaves was hardly at Play.

             There were numerous reasons behind the Union’s prevention of southern secession.  Primarily, the notion of Manifest Destiny and the need for federal revenues motivated the Union to take action.

It should be acknowledged that, although slavery played a huge role in southern secession, the Union did not go to war to free the slaves.  President Lincoln, the commander in chief during the Civil War, stated

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help save the Union.”[3]

Ulysses S. Grant, the Union General, wrote that

“The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”[4]

The real reason for the Union’s response to southern secession was a sentiment that was at the heart of U.S. policy.  It is commonly known as “Manifest Destiny,” a philosophy centered on U.S. expansion “from sea to shining sea.”  In fact, this was the same philosophy that led to the Mexican-American war of the late 1840s.  This nationalistic idea, more so than the seizure of Fort Sumter, is what drove the Union to stop the south from breaking away.

Further, the Union needed southern money to maintain its continental expansionism.  This is due to the federal tax system of this time period.  Specifically, until 1861, the Union relied on tariffs imposed on various ports.  The south, however, contained most of the country’s ports.  Furthermore, an estimated 75% of federal revenue came from the southern ports.  Without these funds, the Union would have to contract rather than expand.  There was a reason that top ranking Union officials were concerned with maintaining the Union.  Southern money played a role in continental expansionism and was necessary for “Manifest Destiny.”

Ultimately, neither the Confederacy nor the Union should be admired.  The confederacy left the Union because of its’ opposition to northern nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act.  The Union went to war with the confederacy in order to maintain the funds necessary for an expansionist policy.  The Civil War should not be thought of as a war of liberation.  Instead, it should be looked at as a war between two governments seeking power.

- Will Shanahan, Contributor, the Humane Condition

[1] U.S. Federal Congress, USConstitution.net, “The Fugitive Slave Act.” September 18, 1850. (Accessed April 24, 2013) http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html.

[2] Confederate States of America, The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” December 24, 1860. (Accessed April 24, 2013.) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.

[3] Abraham Lincoln, “Lincoln’s Letter to Horace Greeley,” (August 22, 1862) 1.

[4] Ulysses S. Grant, “A letter to the Chicago Tribune,” (1862).