Petroleum and Anti-Capitalism

Introduction: The Common Enemy

From politicians and pundits to working men and women, one thing on which all Americans can agree is that oil companies are to blame for most, if not all, of the troubles facing modern civilization. Rather than a rational concern, this near universal contempt for profit-seeking oil conglomerates is based in a social theory that in nearly any other context is recognized as a malignant and problematic philosophy. At the core of the anti-corporate hysteria that plagues contemporary political discussion is an antiquated anti-capitalist ideology that is more likely rooted in outdated political philosophy than in reason and truth.

The argument is as follows: oil companies are making an "unnecessary" and "excessive" profit, and so this profit should be taxed and the oil industry regulated to ensure a greater degree of social justice. Implicit in this argument are the following premises, without which the entire argument falls flat:

1. Social justice is dependent on economic equality.
2. Profits are "earned" only at the expense of everyday consumers.
3. Possession of wealth beyond a certain limit is immoral.
4. Socially irresponsible agents should be corrected through force.

Through examination, all of these premises are questionable at best and plainly false at worst. At the root of their failures are the rotted remnants of 19th century political philosophers that have been forced to fit modern society. At the heart of contemporary anti-capitalism are Marxist and populist outcroppings of a flawed social contract theory. The historical roots of this destructive philosophy are early 20th century socialism and an ongoing popular ignorance of basic economic theory.

1. Social justice is dependent on economic equality.

This idea stems from the camp that conceives of justice as fairness, and fairness as equality. This seems intuitive enough -- justice is certainly fair. However, in order for oil companies to be considered incontrovertibly unjust, one must prove that social justice exists only where economic equality exists. This conjures images of the Soviet world and leads one to wonder the consequences of such a philosophy consistently followed. For this theory to be falsified, one need only think of a world in which one agent justly possesses or otherwise has available more resources than another agent. Even assuming social contract theory and its consequent social obligations on an individual, an individual can accumulate greater wealth than another individual without exploiting or harming anyone. So long as the society permits the individual some sort of disposable wealth, this can happen (Note that wealth in this case is not limited to a salary but could include something as simple as labor or free time that is not restricted by any social obligation). The individual could make an investment, sacrificing current disposable wealth in the hope for increased future wealth. This could be as complicated as stock or bond trading or as simple as planting seeds to grow a beautiful and functional garden or styling one's hair to add aesthetic value to oneself. In any society that permits personal property (and the most successful ones do), one can offset the balance of wealth with prudent decision-making and a willingness to make short-term sacrifices to make long-term gains. A society devoid of property rights is befitting only of a small tribe and not of a burgeoning civilization.

2. Profits are "earned" only at the expense of everyday consumers.

Technically, this is true. Profit, and indeed all revenue, is gained only through consumers exchanging a portion of their own wealth for a product or service they value greater than the wealth they give up. However, in the voluntary exchanges that occur within a capitalist economy, no agent (neither the producer nor the consumer) is harmed in the transaction. A producer offers a product or service to the market, perhaps even advertising its existence to consumers, who then seek out these products and services and exchange their abstract (currency) or concrete (bartered goods) wealth for the concrete wealth they desire. This is an exchange of value for value, and there is no coercion in the exchange. Consumers may become dependent on certain goods to achieve their standard of living, but they are not threatened or abused into purchasing the products. The anti-capitalist idea is that consumers are being exploited in some way by this exchange, and that the profits are too high and a) prices should be lowered to benefit consumers or b) profits should be more evenly distributed among those involved in production and who do not normally share in the profits (e.g. wage "slaves"). Accusations often center around the difference between a product's price and its cost of production or difference between a manager's salary and the lowest worker's wage. Both of these disparities can be put into perspective through a proper economic analysis.

A product's price is not a function of the cost of production but of the relationship between a producer's supply and the consumers' demand for that product. The cost of production does not determine a product's price but merely the quantity produced. If the consumers had it their way, all products would have an infinitely high supply and an infinitely low price. However, in a world with limited resources, this is impossible. Producers aim to supply exactly the amount that consumers demand but are bound by their own costs of production. The cost per unit of production increases with quantity while the price decreases; in the same way that consumers seek to maximize utility, producers seek to maximize profit and will not produce more than a certain amount if that increase in production will bring a loss in profit. It is no less just for a producer to maximize profit by ceasing production than it is for a consumer to maximize utility by shopping around for the best price.

Workers, the true producers and owners of production according to Marxists, seek to maximize income. It is not surprising that they would like a larger share in the profits of their employers. However, is it really unjust for an employer to take a greater share of the company's profits than the employee? Does the wage worker have any just claim to the profits earned through the sale of the products of their labor? The answer to both of these, I think, is plainly "no." Unless a person is the owner of the company (sole proprietor, partner, or shareholder), one is an employee of that company. Employees do not own any of the resources in the company except for their own labor, which they contract out to the employer in exchange for material wealth. When viewed this way, it is plain that employees have no claim on the company's profits, which is the wealth received from the exchange of company property. They are paid only for their labor, which has a certain value to the company. The price of labor depends on the type of labor, so it is no surprise that some employees enjoy higher salaries than others. Workers often complain that they are paid just enough for them to not quit, but it is precisely that amount of money that their labor is worth.

The net profit for a company's owners, then, is the resulting wealth from the sale (exchange for currency) of their property, minus the cost of production. It is no less just than the resulting wealth you gain from selling or bartering your own property at a bake sale. Profits, then, are exactly where they should be in any well-managed business. If profits are more or less than they should be, the market responds to correct the situation. When profits are high, more firms enter the industry, increasing the supply and lowering prices and profits. When profits are low, firms leave the industry, decreasing the supply and increasing the prices and profits. Profits are all about equilibrium and not exploitation.

3. Possession of wealth beyond a certain limit is immoral.

This proposition holds that it is unjust for one person to own more than is necessary to provide for oneself and one's dependents. Under this view, it is a travesty that some members of society are bloated millionaires while others are homeless and hungry. This third premise can be seen as an extension of the first premise, which has been shown to be as groundless as it is impossible. However, in modern society, there is a peculiar situation -- the most wealthy members of society are not the most politically powerful. This, combined with democratic forms of governance, leads to a situation in which politicians can rally political support from the more common and less wealthy voter by committing theft and other injustices against the less common and wealthier members of society without fear of retribution. The result is the proliferation of progressive tax systems that steal more and more money from an individual as he or she generates more and more wealth. The basis for such action is discussed along with the fourth faulty premise.

4. Socially irresponsible agents should be corrected through force.

This premise suggests that all members of society have a responsibility to act in such a way as to benefit society as a whole. This is the consequence of a social contract theory, and it is the justification for the tribal equalization measures taken by politicians, discussed above. This is problematic for at least three reasons:

First, social contract theories, which is the typical justification for this premise, are problematic in their own right. The theoretical formation and regulation of social contracts does not match up with the actual history of the modern nation-state, which is riddled with violence and coercion and not intellectual discussions and skilled societal planning. Even when taken as a metaphor for how one should view the relationship between citizen and state, the social contract falls short, as we shall see.

Second, the premise assumes the existence of a singular and definite public will that can be harmed or helped by certain actions. In practice, all political decisions have winners and losers. Are the losers not members of society? In democracies, a plurality of political participants (voters) is often taken as defining the public will. However, no sane person honestly argues that a plurality of participants is what defines justice; most people believe in some kind of objective ideal of justice, but this is utterly incompatible with plurality decision-making. In reality, society does not exist; it is merely a linguistic expression that refers to a group of individuals who are organized in a certain way. Beneficiaries of policy decisions exist in networks within this aggregate of individuals amidst the [often more common] losers. A more efficient society would not assume a monolithic public will but would cater to the various needs and interests of competing groups within a society. In practice, government attempts to do this (and fails more often than not). Social contract theory cannot explain this phenomenon, and the reality of the situation makes nonsense of premise 4.

Third, in the absence of a social contract (a dubitable theory), the use of coercion becomes unjustified. If there exist no obligations for the individual to act to benefit the singular social will, then forcing that individual to act for that non-existent will's benefit becomes criminally abusive. Without a social contract, the individual is bound only by consensual agreements with other individuals. In a just world, socially irresponsible agents would not be forced into compliance with a singular will, but would be influenced by a conglomerate of competing wills to act a certain way. This conception of society may be more chaotic, but it is closer to reality.

Conclusion

The popular criticism of oil giants is unjustified and socially dangerous. There is no sound justification for the systematic bullying of successful businesses. The anti-capitalist rantings of today are merely ventings of a common frustration with the economy and government of modern America, and they represent a resurfacing of the populist resentments that so marked the early 20th century. If sensible Americans are not careful, this neosocialist sentiment could result in a full-fledged political movement that will cripple the nation for decades to come.

The high profits enjoyed by oil companies are necessary for the further development of fuel technology. ExxonMobil and other businesses will begin drilling in higher capacity and in more places. Considering alternative energy sources are not yet economically viable -- many are still in technological infancy -- the short term solution to the explosion in crude oil prices will be to let the market work its magic. Political measures like a "windfall profits" tax on "excessive" profits will do nothing but harm the oil industry and result in supply shortages for the American public. Regulation of the oil industry is the cause and not the solution for the high gasoline prices of today; environmental concerns for years have barred fuel conglomerates from drilling for more oil or building more refineries. However, it is this increase in supply that could alleviate ever-increasing fuel prices.

Although the new breed of populism is today centered on the oil industry, it is not the only area affected. Universal health care programs are a popular idea among most Americans, and citizens are increasingly reliant on their government for jobs, income, and services. Such a centralized system is inefficient, unreliable, and fundamentally unjust. A new philosophy is needed to counteract the socialist specters within the political and intellectual landscape, one that is based in science, reality, and truth and not in the impassioned anger of ill-informed voters.

Environmentalism as Hope

The rapidly growing popularity of "green" thinking is a striking example of how philosophy can save the world.

For all the growth and prosperity Western thought has brought humanity, one weakness within that tradition is the idea (originating in religion, unsurprisingly) that mankind has an inherent privilege, an absolute dominion over the environment.  Christianity teaches us that God created the Earth and all of its plants and animals for the pleasure of man.  As flattering as that thought might be, it has proven to be a reckless long-term strategy in the face of unprecedented growth in human populations.  This dominion theory, as it shall be henceforth referred, has brought our species to the brink of disaster.  It has covered our cities in a choking smog, it has disrupted the fragile ecosystems we depend upon, it has punched a hole in our very atmosphere.

Thankfully natural selection has gifted homo sapiens with an unwavering desire to continue breathing, and people have started to think rationally about the position of mankind in his habitat, over which we have very quickly found ourselves in great control.  This new thought transcends national borders, social class, and politics.  The mainstream is in a transition from the dominion theory to a stewardship theory.  Under this view, mankind has a duty, or at least an incentive, to take the role of steward over the planet.  Humanity must protect its environment from itself; it must do this, or it will cease to exist.  And this is not a happy thought.

The stewardship theory is undoubtedly the superior philosophy, if humans are to continue to thrive.  The rapid development of industry has allowed the species the increase its numbers exponentially in a short time span of a few centuries.  These industries, for all the good they do, are also capable of pulling the carpet from underneath themselves.  The carpet is our food supply; it is the air we breathe.  What is underneath us (all around us, in fact) is a lifeless vacuum.  With this new perspective, human beings can potentially maintain and even expand its numbers while creating a new sustainable equilibrium with their environment, just as they had done for thousands of years and as their ancestors had done for aeons.

It is unlikely that this new line of reasoning is a passing thought, a trend for the urban chic that will be replaced within the decade.  The stewardship theory is not just in line with buying trends; it is in line with the survival imperative that keeps organisms alive.  The green movement does not value environmentalism in itself, as many old school environmentalists are prone to do.  It recognizes that sustainable living is necessary if we are to continue to flourish as a culture and as a species.  The newly popular philosophy of stewardship may save Western civilization.

The Demise of Magic in the Scientific Revolution

The following is a paper I wrote for a class in British history. I'm posting it because of its relevance to science and social progress. What held science back at the start was an unwillingness to reject all superstitions and putting full confidence in rational inquiry. Philosophers like Bacon had the methodology down, but no one at the time was able to part with their pet belief in God. This problem exists still today.

____________________


From the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, a “revolution” occurred in the investigation of reality. The immense difference between medieval and Enlightenment thought resulted in part of the Scientific Revolution. What is now called the scientific method was developed amongst a collection of autonomous individuals across Europe, whose discoveries contributed to a shift in thought that fundamentally changed the way Europeans perceived the universe. On the island of Great Britain, intellectuals worked to develop this new science from the preserved remains of ancient Greek philosophers. This was a long and muddled process, but by the eighteenth century a clear and consistent methodology was being used, albeit inconsistently, to fuel the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. During the confusion of the seventeenth century, however, science and magic were inseparable; rational inquiry and what were later called pseudo-scientific superstitions coexisted as equals.

Superstition, broadly defined, is the act of holding a belief despite not having acceptable justification for it. Because the idea of justification weighs so heavily, what is seen as superstitious and what is seen as a reasonable belief will change over time and will correspond with changing epistemic beliefs. What passed as acceptable justification in the Middle Ages was to be seen as a joke by the end of the seventeenth century. To the medieval church, superstition was either that which was not grounded in nature or that which was not approved by the Church; religious authorities both praised and denounced certain magical beliefs. This norm was undermined along with the authority of the Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation, forcing thinkers to discover new methods by which to validate their knowledge. By the eighteenth century, superstition had become that which is not grounded in reason and, for many British thinkers, that which is confirmed through experience. In the period between the English Renaissance and the Enlightenment, thinkers in Great Britain were in a process of testing beliefs for their veracity; however, at this time it was unclear by which epistemic standards intellectuals should judge claims about the world. It is in this context that seventeenth-century intellectuals discussed magic.

Magic in the Middle Ages is not to be taken as a symbolic or purely ritual pursuit; its adherents believed it was governed by coherent principles and truly believed it would work. In the medieval period, magia or magica were words used to denounce heretics and implied a sinister act that invoked the intervention of demons. The Protestant Reformation coincided with the English Renaissance, and with this rediscovery of ancient texts came a new conception of magic, which was known as “natural magic”. Rather than an invocation of dark spirits, natural magic was rooted in Greco-Roman philosophical and scientific discourse and referred to the occult or hidden powers of nature. According to Francis Bacon, natural magicians sought to explain eternal and unmoving forms, metaphysical substructures thought by Neo-Platonists to account for the invisible forces present in the world. Bacon found this magic to be incompatible with the new scientific method.

The Scientific Revolution is, at best, a confusing terminology. The modern conception of a rapid, chaotic overthrow of traditional norms or paradigms was not applied to the term “revolution” until after 1789. The development of science and its public acceptance, however, was a transition that took centuries to complete, and during the transition the two paradigms of Neo-Platonic metaphysics and the new scientific empiricism, now seen as mutually exclusive, were not always competing influences. The new beliefs gained through science were often reconciled with the old. The astronomer Tycho Brahe made prophecies based on his astronomical observations, and even Isaac Newton held a great interest in astrology and alchemy. Naturalism was coupled with creationism, mechanism was made compatible with final causes, and materialism was joined with vitalism. Even Francis Bacon could not entirely escape the metaphysical assumptions shared by alchemists and magicians; he sought instead to reform the study of natural magic into its ancient glory. To do this, Bacon emphasized a systematic, exhaustive methodology that would sort out the true beliefs from the false ones; this approach inevitably led him into increasingly skeptical beliefs concerning the merits of magic.

Science developed in the context of Neo-Platonic philosophy, wherein a hierarchy of spirits existed in an organic universe that was full of mysterious occult influences and sympathies. To investigate and describe these occult phenomena was the task of magicians, who studied reality through three sources: the elemental world, the stars, and the spiritual beings who could influence the workings of nature. Systematic disciplines like astrology or alchemy differed from popular magic, which had evolved from pre-Norman tribal cultures; these well-developed fields of natural magic were comprehensive in their scope and had elaborate theoretical bases. Widely held hermetic beliefs that God had revealed certain truths about the universe to the ancients persisted until Newton’s time. Although thinkers like Bacon, who described alchemy as “more curious than sensible,” thoroughly rejected these beliefs, certain magical claims extended into the late seventeenth century and were popular even among intellectuals.

Magical beliefs had a certain tenacity during the Scientific Revolution that is difficult to imagine today. It was a convenient and popular way to explain that which was not understood. Most magical beliefs in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries persisted in areas where no mechanistic explanation existed. The fields over which magic predominated were also those in which a lack of control may have been discomforting, in areas like medicine and agriculture. Life depended on medicinal prescriptions and crop yields; perhaps in a time where no rational explanations could be offered, irrational explanations were preferred over no explanation. Alchemy and astrology were both attempts at power, both over the material world and over destiny, and claims of such power would have undoubtedly been appealing to social elites. Although magic was backed by tradition and a luring appeal to power and security, it could not withstand the force of the new standards for knowledge.

Science developed out of magic—the formalization of natural magic created an environment of experimentation and induction, a methodology that eventually undermined the disciplines for which it was originally intended. Bacon believed that the usefulness of a science depends on its propensity to bear fruit in the form of invention. This led Baconians to a bold skepticism of astrology and its prophetic claims; however, these beliefs were integral to contemporary understanding of religion and politics, and their foundations were legitimated through Scripture. Faith in astrology, therefore, did not end with Bacon but persisted in the works of later scientists, including Newton, who sought a unity between scriptural prophecies and hermetic writings. The late seventeenth century was dominated by an apocalyptic worldview, preserving the image of the scientist as a magus figure, wherein Newton saw himself as an intervening personality between God and His creation. There was a trend in this period, albeit an unclear one, towards belief in a fundamentally mechanistic universe. This view was unable to exist in its pure form at the time, as the intellectual landscape was inhospitable to it.

It was hazardous for the scientific community to consistently argue for a mechanistic universe—mechanism led to materialism, which in turn led to atheism. Mechanistic philosophy was thus adopted in a weaker form, in which scientists did not reject supernatural phenomena but instead sought to explain them using the new methodology. Robert Boyle was interested in the investigation of the supernatural as a way to disprove atheism; if science could prove the supernatural, the arguments of non-believers and skeptics would be falsified. A wave of interest in witchcraft appeared among scientists, as well as a rush to prove the existence of spirits, demons, or ghosts. Quasi-mechanical explanations appeared for black magic, whereby normal mechanistic forces were intervened by an inexplicable supernatural force; thus, when a witch caused it to rain frogs, frogs would be levitated into the sky where they would form frog clouds and eventually drop as frog rain. This sort of unity between magic and science did not last long; by the mid-seventeenth century, most serious scientists favored a mechanistic over an animistic worldview. The transition was gradual and inconsistent, but by the end of the century most intellectuals were skeptical of natural magic, dismissing alchemy and astrology as, in Bacon’s terms, “lazy and idle conjectures … for surprise and novelty”.

Scientific experiments soon destroyed the foundations upon which astrological or alchemical theories were based. The ancient Greek wisdom cherished by medieval thinkers held that earth was the unmoving center of the universe and the heavens, which consisted of everything outside of the moon’s orbit, were perfect and unchanging. Astronomical observations by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, and Galileo Galilei in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries undermined these assumptions: comets were found to be above the moon, new stars were found to appear in the sky, and spots were found on the sun. Furthermore, entirely new celestial spheres were discovered orbiting around Jupiter; what influence would these new bodies have in an already comprehensive astrological theory? In the first half of the seventeenth century, astrologers tried to incorporate these new discoveries into their schemata, but by the end of the century astrology had to a large extent died out among intellectuals. An author writing on “the academy of sciences” in 1687 defined astrology as “that science, by the help of which Men pretend [emphasis mine] to judge of things to come,” a noticeably skeptical definition when compared to the certainty with which the same author speaks of disciplines like astronomy or “logick.” Astrology and earthly twin alchemy were on their way out of academia by the eighteenth century.

Ultimately, it would take both social and intellectual change for the new science to triumph over magic. In the seventeenth century magic was becoming decreasingly socially acceptable in light of the Calvinist doctrine of self-help. Such an ideology would frown upon invocations of magical or supernatural spirits who are believed to intervene on behalf of pious—or excessively impious—believers, which left them utterly dependent on outside forces. There was no room for intervening ghosts in Protestantism, which advocated an individual responsibility for one’s salvation. This was a fierce blow to popular magic, but Calvinists were still able to hold that success in natural magic was a sign or a reward for the elect; the ideology of self-help alone could not dissuade seventeenth-century Britons from magic.

Other developments in seventeenth-century Britain that contributed to a decline in magic involve an increase in human power over the forces of nature. Advanced agricultural techniques put faith in human ingenuity and skill rather than in mystical charms and hope, and the development and spread of insurance policies and deposit banking relieved the fear of sudden, unexpected misfortune. In light of these increases in human confidence, magic lost much of its immediate practical value. The same methodology that logically disproved magic enabled the technological and economic development that made it no longer socially or psychologically necessary.

Magic, which had been so tied to theological metaphysics, had to be exorcised from religion if the Christian faith was to survive the Scientific Revolution. The doctrine of self-help made it possible for people of faith to reject former beliefs involving malignant spirits and divine intervention. The implications of mechanistic philosophy, however, forced thinkers to reconcile their beliefs about the world with their faith in God. Scientists like Robert Boyle devoted themselves to discovering with science the inexplicable aspects of nature that would prove the supernatural and, therefore, God. Francis Bacon separated religion from his philosophy; he described three sources of knowledge: divine revelation, one’s own mind, and the senses. A member of the Royal Society in 1691 wrote that “religion is … easie to be understood” and that it “…lies not in Systems of Opinion, but in Faith and Patience, Innocence and Integrity, in Love to God, and Charity to all the World.” Religion’s social importance allowed it to outlive magic; communities were organized around the church, and religion was the basis for moral philosophy. Most believed that without faith in an omnipotent God, society would fall into chaos. Fears of atheism were prevalent amongst philosophers, both British and Continental, and every important philosopher writing after the Protestant Reformation had a disproof of atheism and a proof of God. Once science was accepted as an epistemic methodology, Enlightenment intellectuals engaged themselves in a process of sorting through society’s superstitions and deciding which were revealed through the “light of true religion” and which were explainable through natural science.

The above processes developed within the collective body of knowledge held by British intellectual elites, especially those in academia. Most people living in Great Britain during this period would have never heard of Isaac Newton or Robert Boyle, much less understand their theories. The great names of the Scientific Revolution would not become household names for decades or centuries after their deaths. In deciding a society’s epistemic basis for its beliefs about reality and the world in which its people reside, one must analyze the academia and/or the intellectual elite. It is questionable whether the majority of the population ever fully comprehends the specific reasoning behind their beliefs, or whether they are reacting primarily to social pressures towards intellectual conformity. The intellectual elite, however, represent the collective consciousness of a society’s reasoning.

From the onset of the Protestant Reformation and the diminishment of Roman papal authority, intellectuals in Britain were forced to devise new schemes to validate different religious views based on individual interpretations. They were helped in this process by the arrival of Renaissance ideas, wherein they discovered an ancient Greek proto-science in the form of natural magic. Through the development of pseudo-sciences like astrology and alchemy, intellectuals developed a new scientific methodology, whose purpose Francis Bacon claimed was to “endow human life with new discoveries and resources.” Early scientists soon did just that, undermining the basic assumptions underlying natural magic. These scientists were aided by developments in religion and society, which allowed the intellectual and material freedom to pursue mechanistic explanations of the world. However, their faith in God and dislike of materialist philosophy prevented thinkers in the Scientific Revolution from advocating a purely mechanistic worldview; instead, they attempted to reconcile their old beliefs with new discoveries. This sometimes provoked bizarre pursuits like scientific ghost hunts, but eventually led to a separation of rational philosophy and arational faith. This separation, in part, led to the rational analysis of superstition during the Enlightenment. What was not explainable through natural science was reserved as articles of faith; in the optimism of the Enlightenment, there was no longer room for superstition, the acceptance of an unjustified belief was now itself unacceptable.


Bibliography

Abercromby, David. Academia scientiarum, or, The academy of sciences being a short and easie introduction to the knowledge of the liberal arts and sciences, with the names of those famous authors that have written on every particular science. London: Printed by H.C. for J. Taylor, L. Meredith, T. Bennet, R. …, 1687.

Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning. Edited by Thomas Case. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.

Bacon, Francis. The New Organon. Edited by Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Cohen, I. Bernard. “The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Concept of Scientific Revolution”. Journal of the History of Ideas 37, no. 2 (1976): 257-288.

An Enquiry after religion, or, A view of the idolatry, superstition, bigottry, and hipocrisie of all churches and sects throughout the world also some thoughts of a late ingenious gentleman of the Royal Society concerning religion. London : Printed for Richard Baldwin ..., 1691.

Kieckhefer, Richard. “The Specific Rationality of Medieval Magic”. The American Historical Review 99, no. 3 (1994): 813-836.

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth and seventeenth century England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Webster, Charles. From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Wienberger, Jerry. Science, Faith, and Politics: Francis Bacon and the Utopian Roots of the Modern Age. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Anarchy, Morality, and the Irrelevancy of Pragmatism

When confronted with the proposition of anarchy, most people respond with some variety of the "Well that would never work" argument. Even people sympathetic to the moral argument for anarchy will use this as a justification for their not identifying as an anarchist (or anarcho-capitalist, or free marketeer, or what have you). It is worth looking closer at the argument from morality, and what, if any, implications the argument from pragmatism (as it will from hereon be called) has against it.

The argument from morality relies on the axiomatic [as we will take it-- I do not seek to prove the common sense morality here] moral proposition that the use of coercive violence is morally impermissible. Here, by coercive violence we mean any destructive behavior that uses force or threat of force to persuade someone to do something against his/her will. By this principle, it is wrong for me to steal from you, it is wrong for me to kill you (assuming you are unwilling to die), it is wrong for me to rape you. All of these things are ways of getting you to do something that you do not want to do by means of coercive violence. This premise is widely accepted and so will be taken as given.

The second premise is that governments, or more specifically, the governing bodies called states, necessarily use coercive violence in their operation. This is more controversial, but first the basic concept of this premise will be examined. The more obvious uses of coercion on the part of the state are SWAT raids, military action, or imprisonment, used on people who directly disobey the state's authority-- the law breakers. However, coercive violence is also used on every law-abiding citizen in the form of taxation. Although force is rarely directly used, the very idea of taxation implies the threat of violence. Taxation by definition is not voluntary but coercive. Were a taxpayer to opt not to pay taxes, he would face imprisonment, or if that taxpayer refused to cooperate in his imprisonment, he would face assault and/or death.

The question posed by many critics of the "gun in the room" argument (or in this case, premise) is: Do states necessarily need to use coercive violence to operate? User fees for government services, they say, could fund the entirety of this highly limited government. This scenario is as contrived as it is irrelevant. If a state government did not enforce a monopoly on its own industry, as it does, and operated on fees gained through the services it provides, it would not be a state but a private non-profit vying for dominance in a regional market. Taxation is what makes a state government what it is. If a similar bureaucracy were created without the use of coercive violence, it would be so unrecognizable that anyone living today would have trouble calling it a state.

And so the argument from morality goes as follows:

1. The use of coercive violence is morally impermissible.
2. Coercive violence is necessary in the operation of a state.
3. Therefore, the state is a morally impermissible institution.

Again, the argument from pragmatism responds with something like the following. Even if anarchy were desirable, there is no way of getting there and so we may as well try to limit the injustice of the system, within the system. Often the question will be raised of how we could possibly transition from the overbearing state we have now to a complete lack of centralized planning. People aren't ready for it, they say. If the state were to crumble, the public would create another state, probably in a scenario similar to the Constitutional Convention or, more likely, the French Revolution of the 18th Century. We should be concerned with how the world is, and seek to better our lot within it, and not worry about some dreamy philosophical theory. These may even be valid points. However, none of them counter the argument from morality.

The argument from morality only concludes what is wrong and not what we should do about that wrong in the immediate future. If one accepts that the institution of states is fundamentally immoral, corrupt, and malevolent, then one accepts the value of individual liberty and accepts that anarchy would be more moral, if not the only moral, social structure. Any objections with regard to the pragmatic realities of the current political situation are irrelevant because it has been established what is wrong and what is right. What each individual chooses to do with that knowledge is up to that individual. If someone accepts that anarchy is a desirable and more perfect system, then she is an anarchist, whether or not she believes anarchy can happen in her lifetime. Rather than refuting the argument from morality, arguments from pragmatism implicitly accept its premises, but then as an aside mention that the soundness of the argument has no bearing on how we ought to live our lives today. Were the arguer to have theoretical objections to anarchy, he would counter the argument from morality on theoretical and not the weaker pragmatic grounds.

One can accept the immorality of the state and yet continue to pay taxes, vote, and campaign for political change within the democratic system. The anarchist only admits that his taxes are only paid because there is a gun to his head. The anarchist only votes in order to choose the less damaging candidate. The anarchist only campaigns to move the democracy closer to freedom and anarchy. Theory and practice need not conflict; we can accept the desirability of anarchy even if we never pick up our guns to try and dismantle our leaders. Especially at this point, anarchy is a state of mind and not a political reality.