You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
The Politics of Obedience
Étienne de La Boétie offers a mind-blowing reflection on the sheer fragility of the state. His answer to the problem of power is to ignore it and disregard it, thereby causing it to evaporate. Is his answer too simple? Is he right for the group but perhaps not correct for the individual?
Kick off the discussion! Questions, comments, observations or elaborations? Either reply here or create a new discussion using the tag Library_The Politics of Obedience
FIRST SOME COMMENTS: Being an AnCap myself and having read this book last year – which is an amazing and bold work for the time! Try reading it with its status quo in mind (using the prevailing mindset and regime’s paradigm of thinking at the time) – the way Jeffrey talked about Etienne and his work tonight has helped further open my mind on how to think about the state’s fragility and limits. A lot of the time, I can’t avoid falling in camp with libertarians (some people might call some of this group’s theorizing “conspiracy theory”) who perhaps overestimate the power, capability, reach and grip of the state and its factions/elites at the top…maybe I’m trying to stay realistic and cautious…to not underestimate the cruel minds at work for the powers that be…Anyway, what JT talked about tonight really does reinforce/remind us that this is a clash of IDEAS rather than of physical force. Libertarianism is fighting the ideas in that cop’s/politician’s/servicemen’s/voter’s head. Violent revolution really does trouble one’s hope for the future, seeing that those sort of things have usually ended in continued enslavement in some form. The battle of philosophy must be won by evolution…secede from the regime intellectually (and monetarily, Bitcoin FTW!) before seceding physically. Yes, it’s already happening. *Feel free to respond to those comments*
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JT: Can you expound on Etienne’s take on nationalism/patriotism/collectivism?? Obviously nationalism/patriotism back then was not what we know it to be now…could we compare and contrast? When do these state perverting collectivisms really begin to materialize/take shape/take hold after the nation-state is first formed?
Has there ever been a revolution in a relatively affluent society or do people just leave and go to another place in search of more freedom?
Historical examples? Gene Sharp writes about nonviolent struggles against dictators, especially the fall of the USSR, but the analogy isn’t good.
I especially enjoyed your remarks on the ADA in this, your Politics of Obedience presentation.
I had a accident in 1977 that left me a paraplegic. Since I use a wheelchair to get around my status as “disabled” is visually obvious. Of course lots of people have problems that others are not likely to notice at first glance, but for people like me, ADA is a continuing problem.
When the ADA passed some years after my accident I gradually began to experience a difference in the way people reacted to me. This was (and is) most obvious when I attempt to deal with small businesses. My status changed from that of a potential customer to that of a potential law suit. I am no longer an individual, I am a a member of politically protected class an as such a potential source of trouble.
Before ADA I could go to a Mom and Pop store, for example, and if I encountered some physical barrier, someone, the owner, and employee, or even another customer, would help me get something off a high shelf, move some obstacle, whatever. No big deal.
After ADA, the reaction I get is one of fear. This does not happen in big chain stores. They have lawyers on staff to deal with such things. I guess that’s the whole point.
When I go to buy something, the last thing I want to do is scare someone, but I can’t blame them for having that reaction. The regulations that resulted from the ADA are complex, vague, and even contradictory. On top of that, there are people, usually working with some law firm, who make a living by shaking down small businesses on grounds of ADA non compliance. This happened to my friend who ran a gas station/car repair place in my old neighbourhood. It’s enough to make a guy sour on the whole idea of government.:-)
I think that the comments of James that I just read show that the “Legal” profession tends to retard or corrupt “evolution” more than move it forward in a positive direction. People in “general” in a complex society like in America with a combination of affluence and poverty just plain aren’t observant. They just don’t “see” the poor, the disabled, or the homeless for many reasons. Then come the Politicians and the Lawyers with their “social” engineering and all of a sudden the other members of society are “forced” to “look”. Since no two people on the planet are the same and none are “perfect” we all have some form of handicap/disability. If you are one with a lack of empathy you can get rich without “feeling” guilty for “taking” from others. If you have an over inflated ego you can become a Politician and tell “others” what to do. We are all in a LIFE boat called the planet earth dangling in a sea of apace. We can’t take a breath that doesn’t effect to rest of the Planet, but we just don’t stop to think of it that way. If you were to think of people as having a “self control module” you might begin to qualify the concept of obedience. This module is a complex electrochemical organism programmed with a moral and ethical “code” which allows human beings to “function” in a society. All that is needed is a small flaw in the chemistry, the programming, the input, or the output of the “module” and you have a messed up human being which can be “disobedient”. An individual with a disability needs to have some empathy for the people who live in areas where there are virtually no disabled (which means that their self control unit lacks the programming for dealing with the disabled) just as the “rest of society” needs to make sure that there aren’t any such communities that lack an awareness of the necessities of the disabled, and hopefully by some means other than a Law suit.
I find Étienne de La Boétie inspiring, but there is the question of, if all we need to do is to ignore and disregard the state why hasn’t it gone away yet?
The problem is, if only a few individuals refuse to submit to the state they will suffer the wrath of the state. As long as the state remains an established hierarchy it is very stable and no individual can ignore and disregard it without incurring great costs.
Understanding the stability of coercive hierarchies might give a hint how to end them.
For more details read, The Tragedy of the State.
I didn’t know about Étienne de la Boétie, but I agree with this idea. I’ve also been thinking that the best way to have powerfull people or government fall is to ignore them and make them irrelevant to your life. I just don’t know how it can happen on a large scale. Plus, the closest you live to power, the hardest it is to escape it, as it always finds a way to infiltrate one’s life. You can go far away and build a cabin off the grid somewhere, but that’s not realistic for most people and it’s like fleeing.
I think this is when humour becomes so important. Using it to ridicule the state and the clowns that run it, it goes a step in the right direction.
What a way to make a statement: If one could organize a “turn your back and just walk out” at one of the big political rally for the up coming election. I mean everyone just leave, first the people, then reporters, and finally “security”. Then if anyone was “interviewed” as they were leaving, could just say I am tired of being lied to.
