Citizens: A Manifesto thoughts part 1

 

Citizens: A Manifesto is a document written by Benjamin Ramm in which he attempts to outline: “A shining model of what we should demand of ourselves and our fellow citizens”and an “imaginative sketch of an ideal. It describes what we all might be, and what it might be like to live at our fullest”. I’ve read the document a couple times now, the bulk of which is a series of bullet points on citizenship as Ramm visualises it. What follows is my thoughts on them from a left-libertarian/market anarchist/whatever standpoint. I’ve started with the top of the bullet point list, meaning somewhat ironically, the introduction will be dealt with in a later part.

• A citizen can be a citizen at any time in any place.

• A citizen’s status is not defined by government or derived from the state: it exists by virtue of society itself. His identity as a citizen transcends geography and gender, sexuality and ethnicity, profession and religion: citizenship regards him as a complete if imperfect individual, rather than an aspect of origin or affiliation.

These two very much go together. This is a definition of citizen I’m more than willing to accept. “Citizen” has always seemed to have political implications to me, but it’s not truly the case. Citizenship as I understand it can mean merely being an individual amongst others in society; no affiliation to a State required (nor recommended).

• A citizen evolves, and in the process enriches his society. His citizenship is never static but is realised in each action and interaction. A citizen renews his citizenship every day.

Yes this is the natural result of a functioning society- when equal participants in society are free to associate voluntarily, the relationships that form will naturally be mutually beneficial. Society is good for individuals, and individuals are good for society.

• A citizen values public space. He regards it not as a place of passing through but as a location to inhabit, exchange and create. He tends to it, and is attentive to its art and architecture.

Public space is a concept that some of my fellow libertarians sadly seem to regard as alien, or “socialist”, to those for whom that word is a pejorative. I don’t understand why, myself. Commons can easily exist outside of formal recognition by the State. This may sound a bit “Big Society”, but in an ideal world, the economic pressures of wage labour on the worst off that make Cameron’s Big Society fail won’t be a concern- or at least, not so much so (Digression: I don’t deny a certain amount of wage labour will always exist, but if an economy in which any person wishing to go into business for himself without having to work for “a capitalist” find it much easier to do so, then wage labour will lose influence as the driving mode of employment for many).

Public space and libertarianism are not, contrary to what many will tell you, mutually exclusive.

• A citizen protects and conserves the natural environment, and assesses his impact on local and global ecosystems. Citizens are conscious of the fragile nature of biodiversity: the loss of a species is irreversible and irreplaceable, and cannot be offset by the gains of growth, however large. A citizen is a steward – not the owner – of land, and regards the earth as a shared home rather than a resource to be exhausted. He works within his community to create a living landscape that is habitable, hospitable and sustainable, with minimal noise, air and light pollution.

No doubt, the atomizing effects of modern Statist society are suppressing the more conservationist and socially aware aspects of many people’s lifestyles; of course, there will always be some greedy people out there for whom personal riches will always be the only goal, but in a more equal society they will lack the authority, political or otherwise, over others to force his views upon others.

• A citizen has power. He exercises it every day, actively by choice and passively by neglect. A citizen considers how this power affects others, and does not abuse it: he respects his power and that of his fellow citizens.

No, I think it’s manifestly true that citizens in under the modern State do not, in fact have power. Democratic means of voicing dissent are ignored when possible and quashed when convenient. Perhaps the statement refers less to political power and more to the power that exists by virtue of social interaction; if the baker takes a day off, someone will go without a sandwich, etc. In this case, the true solution to the abuses of power is not statism, power and privilege, but the abolition of these things, creating a society fairer to all, based on voluntary, social interaction.

• A citizen is not a cynic. Cynicism is the refuge of the powerless.

Cynicism towards what? Towards politics? I disagree; cynicism of those in positions of authority is the duty of every citizen, especially if they are cynical in a way that demonstrates that the bureaucrats and politicians do not actually represent or work for society, but in fact “have no clothes”. Perhaps it refers to cynicism towards something else altogether, though.

• A citizen creates the conditions in which citizenship may flourish. He works to combat alienation, apathy and social decay, and to foster a civic sense of self.

As the entire history of human civilization shows us, this is possible only with the absence of privilege and power. It’s the ability to interact on level playing fields with all others in society that allows the mutually beneficial relationships that create economic growth and social well being. Part of the libertarian critique of corporate capitalism is exactly that, under markets as we know them, the tables are weighted very much in favour of the established propertied classes. This is no inherent vice of trade, but is the tendency trade is taking us towards under Statism.

• A citizen does not reject politics due to the shortcomings of politicians. A citizen is a political animal.

Another point I’m going to have to detract from. Politics can only be defined by how its politicians and agents act; the State is not a superhuman entity, nor is it worth more than the sum of its parts. It is purely a human institution, and thus its actions are those undertaken by humans. To excuse the shortcomings of politics by confusing them with the shortcomings of politicians is to forget this.

• A citizen votes, and encourages his fellow citizens to do likewise. He follows election campaigns closely and takes the opportunity to challenge politicians on their record and their promises. Yet citizens also recognise the limits of elected office, and look to facilitate change on a daily basis in less formal arenas, where votes are not courted and voices not heard.

The limits of elected office end much sooner than the author wishes. In fact, the greatest, most important changes in society come not from the electoral system, but from the ability to “Facilitate change on a daily basis in less formal arenas” that the author has put as a secondary concern. He has his priorities confused. Voting may be the first port of call for most political activists, but this is only because, regardless of your beliefs or choices, the State will engage in violence upon you if you don’t obey it. Voting therefore gives the appearance of political accountability and the collective responsibility of society, but it is just an appearance. The underlying framework is the root cause of social strife.

Ultimately, voting is accepting the entrenched privilege and violence of the State; the State can do no good in the long run, and can only harm society, by limiting its productive, entrepreneurial and social spirit. Voting is thus a socially violent action. I won’t be a part of it, least not in the name of citizenship.

Note that I was working on the assumption that citizenship should be a non-political concept, as per the second point. It thus makes no sense to demand political activity in the name of citizenship.

• A citizen is an internationalist, and works for the causes of liberty, equality and justice in every corner of the globe. Citizens never underestimate the importance of their choices: no action stands in isolation.

Spoken like a true anarchist. I have no issues with the principle stated here, but have much to disagree with the author’s intended path to achieving it.

• A citizen is aware of the ethical implications of his consumption; of its impact on labour rights, animal rights and the environment. Citizens assert that universal standards in these areas are integral to a just system of trade, and form part of the ‘level playing field’ for emerging economies.

To form a society based on more equal playing fields, we must understand the true sources of inequalities, both economic and political. This involves accepting, as some libertarians are sadly reluctant to do, that there are non-state sources of authority as well as State ones. The massive economic power of business giants has long been established, and benefit from regulatory advantages and other privileges that ultimately derive from State authority. There’s no space to go into details here, but a few include subsidisation of transport costs, the money monopoly, intellectual property, absentee landlordism, etc. These, amongst others, create an environment in which massive overhead costs make self-employment for even quite simple industries harder to get into, create managerial classes who exists merely to extract value from labour, and, thanks especially to IP frameworks, allow the “Let’s make an empty shell corporation and outsource everything else, taking the cream off the top” corporate model. In the modern world, this is why the business giants exist, and what allows them to maintain their influence over our consumer choices, lifestyles, and employment opportunities.

Minus these institutions and frameworks, it seems to me the most likely outcome would be an economy based on much more equal terms. Labour relations would certainly be less of a David v Goliath affair- except in real life Goliath normally wins. Emerging economies, able to hold onto all the value of what they produce, rather than having “rents” extracted from them, would have much greater productive and bargaining abilities.

Next up: more of the same I guess.

http://mrcivillibertarian.co.uk/1468/citizens-a-manifesto-thoughts-part-1/