[Cross-posted at Libertarian Anarchy]
“The true test, then, of the radical spirit, is the button-pushing test: if we could push the button for instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty, would we do it? If we would not do it, we could scarcely call ourselves libertarians, and most of us would only do it if primarily guided by a passion for justice. The genuine libertarian, then, is, in all senses of the word, an “abolitionist”; he would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty, whether it be, in the original coining of the term, slavery, or whether it be the manifold other instances of State oppression. He would, in the words of another libertarian in a similar connection, ‘blister my thumb pushing that button!’” - Murray N. Rothbard, “Why Be Libertarian?“
The button-pushing question is the test of radicalism and consistency. Being an abolitionist is what it means to be a libertarian. As libertarians we must advocate the instantaneous abolition of injustice, because any form of gradualism in theory means legitimizing the continuation of injustice.
But some have objected that pushing the button would be a mistake. If people still believe government is necessary, they argue, then another government will simply take over, and the resulting chaos will negate any possible gains. For example, Wilt Alston writes:
“I’ve argued that pushing the button and ending the State would result in a lose-lose situation. Certainly, if one stopped the current state from functioning with some instantaneous bolt of lightning, that would be positive in the short run. However, in the long run, if the people, the citizenry, the proletariat, were not educated sufficiently by the time of the button-pushing, i.e., their pre-existing beliefs were not replaced sufficiently, then another state, possibly more coercive than the first, would soon arise. In the interim, we’d be faced with all manner of chaos as people nurtured on the sweet teat of the State struggled to fend for themselves!”
This view is muddled. The point of the button-pushing question is not to stop “the current state from functioning,” but to abolish it altogether. The State is not just a collection of buildings and people in suits, but a hegemonic relationship between individuals. The only way to count as abolishing the State is to abolish those hegemonic relationships. Just interrupting the workings of government does not count as abolishing government. As Gustav Landauer wrote: “The state is a relationship between human beings, a way by which people relate to one another; and one destroys it by entering into other relationships, by behaving differently to one another.” Alston is wrong to think that merely stopping the current state from functioning constitutes “ending the State.”
To see the absurdity here, let us plug Alston’s definition into the button-pushing question: If you could push a button that would temporarily stop the State from functioning, would you do it?
The key fallacy appears to lie in neglecting Boetié’s insight: that the power of government rests, not on force, but on public opinion. Thus, to abolish government we need to change public opinion. If government really rested on force alone, all that would be necessary to achieve anarchy would be to kill off the politicians and bureaucrats, or to blow up the Parliament building à la Guy Fawkes. But Alston recognizes this. He points out that we need to educate people so they can change their relationships. The only way to abolish government is to abolish the belief that government is necessary. But for some reason Alston does not think pushing the button will abolish this belief.
Alston’s error is creating two methods of abolishing the State: the “superficial” method and the “real” method. The former involves stopping the State from functioning. As we have seen, this does not count as abolishing the State. The latter involves abolishing the belief that government is necessary, i.e. educating the population, and hence would actually abolish the State. Now, the pushing the button causes the “instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty”. Why, then, does Alston believe pushing the button would result in the superficial method and not the real method?
Obviously, if pushing the button abolished the belief that government is necessary, then there would be nothing to worry about because people would be educated sufficiently. Society would not fall into chaos and a new State would not arise, because public opinion would have shifted to anarchism. But this is all the button-pushing question has ever said! Pushing the button means abolishing the belief that government is necessary, not just dismantling the visible apparatus of government. The non-button-pushers have created a debate where none exists by misinterpreting the question.
To avoid this misinterpretation, the button-pushing question should be reworded to read:
If you could abolish government by pushing a button that would immediately convince everyone that government is unnecessary (which is the only way to abolish government), would you do it?
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
I assume I would press the buttton, but who knows, interetsing question
...a collision between practical thought and theoretical thought...
hmmm...
considering it is theoretical question, so I suppose I would... not necessarily for the abolition of government per se but for the abolition of invasion on my liberty (& yours too )
Since I'm such a contrarian, I think that pushing the button makes you a fascist statist pig.
Sage:The only way to abolish government is to abolish the belief that government is necessary. But for some reason Alston does not think pushing the button will abolish this belief.
In order for the button to work, it has to actually alter the minds of the people. But the people have never consented to have their minds altered by a button. So, by pushing the button and instantly transforming people into radical libertarians against their will, you are initiating force against them.
So, if pushing the button causes an "instantaneous abolition of unjust invasions of liberty," then the people will rise up and kill you for pushing the button.
The real question is, would you end tyranny if it meant ending your own life?
There's a real mind-bender for you.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
id say pushing the button would actually infringe on other people's rights(i know, aint that a bitch). the fact is most people in this country voluntarily submit to the state, and actual feel a sense of pride from feeding the beast with their taxes. who are we to break up this voluntary relationship, however unfair it may be?
if properly educated, i have no doubts they would wish to break off all ties to the state. however, the fact is that these people have a right to associate and exchange with the state if they so wish. i believe the only ethical approach is to educate. of course this only applies to the button scenario; there is nothing wrong with doing everything in our legal power to bring this bitch down.
Scott Jefferies:id say pushing the button would actually infringe on other people's rights(i know, aint that a bitch)
I said it first! IP violation.
mutters under breath.... "maybe voluntarily submitting to the state is wrong...
sorta like stealing..."
jkjk
But seriously, you call it a voluntary association but by their "voluntary association" they simoultaneously deny your right of voluntary un-association.
Secondly you say "if properly educated, I have no doubts [they would agree w/ me]" But how can you be truly free w/out true knowledge? If pushing the button gave them true knowledge which forced them to concede that the state was bad, then it wouldn't be coercion, it would be enlightenment.
I think even a minarchist should press the button. It is not his ideal, but he must recognise it is stil way better than the current condition.That is if he is sincere about minarchy being much closer to anarchy than statism.
Sage: To avoid this misinterpretation, the button-pushing question should be reworded to read: If you could abolish government by pushing a button that would immediately convince everyone that government is unnecessary (which is the only way to abolish government), would you do it?
Why? That is tantamount to saying government can never be abolished. (Or to saying there can only be anarchy if it is world wide.)It is irrelevant that government rests on public support as well as violence. Public support for violence does not legitimise it. We can not be held in chains because otherwise we would be violating the precious public opinion. (I`m not saying that is what you say, I`m just saying.) Nor it is desirable we do so. So what if the state is abolished, without all people having recognised coercive government is unnesessary? Yes a new state will probably emerge in its place, but so what? Before it does we will enjoy a few moments of freedom.
This guy Alston mentions the new state would "possibly" be "more coercive than the first", but there is no reason to belive this. It is just as possible the new state will be less coercive (smaller). So since we can not know, the few moments of freedom are worth it. (And thats from a utilitarian approach, a legitimist doesn`t even need to concern himself with this question.)And anyways this assumes freedom-loving people would just stand by and watch as they are re-enslaved. When actually they would hook up and organise and fight for their continued freedom. (Just like an anarchist territory would fight off a statist invasion, unless you you buy the "national defense myth" which you don`t.) Not to mention possibly the best way for people to realise government is not necessary is to experience a state without it.And this has to be the worse of all: Alston: "In the interim, we’d be faced with all manner of chaos as people nurtured on the sweet teat of the State struggled to fend for themselves!” Who cares?! What do I care if Halliburton executives now struggled to fend for themselves?! I don`t owe them anything. Certainly not my freedom. And if they try to bring chaos onto my property I will be ready. Such lines of reasoning remind me of the reasoning of a few years ago that the US military should not evacuate Iraq jet because it would lead to a civil war. Yes, if the state disappears in an instant perhaps we will (for a short time) see more mafia crime, more bank hold ups and so on. But that does not mean there will be more violence than today. There can not possibly be more violence than today, because the state itself is by far the biggest perpetrator of violence. We already live in violent chaos. People locked up for non-crimes at the whim of the buerocrats, that is chaos to me. And there are hundreds of thousands of them. Chaos of unimaginable proportions. Do you think there would be hundreds of thousands of kiddnappings perpetrated by criminal gangs if we abolished the state without making everyone into a goody anarchist first? Of course not.As for robberies? What is the US budget? Even if the number of common criminals increased by a factor of ten thousand they could stil not hope to steal *that* sort of money.Murders? How much more frequent would common murders have to be to make up for the 40% of victims of Iraq war directly murdered by the occupation?
Scott Jefferies: the fact is most people in this country voluntarily submit to the state, and actual feel a sense of pride from feeding the beast with their taxes. who are we to break up this voluntary relationship, however unfair it may be?
I actually think there's some truth to this, which is why it makes sense not to abolish the state as such, but offer people a choice between the current state and another provider of defense.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sage:If you could abolish government by pushing a button that would immediately convince everyone that government is unnecessary (which is the only way to abolish government), would you do it?
You beg the question. Would convincing enough people cause the state to die? No, not unless those individuals did anything about it. But for that we don't know mass enlightenment. Which really isn't likely to happen anytime soon (or more accurately ever).
You could hand out a copy of Human Action, The Ethics if Liberty, The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, No Treason, Democracy: The God That Failed, Omnipotent Government or whatever else to every single person in a given country, and even if they read it and understood it, you wouldn't acheive much besides wasting your time and money.
If you're really concerned about abolishing the state forget about "education", leave that to the PR division of the "movement" (e.g. Ron Paul), focus on outcompeting the state.
Scott Jefferies: id say pushing the button would actually infringe on other people's rights(i know, aint that a bitch). the fact is most people in this country voluntarily submit to the state, and actual feel a sense of pride from feeding the beast with their taxes. who are we to break up this voluntary relationship, however unfair it may be? if properly educated, i have no doubts they would wish to break off all ties to the state. however, the fact is that these people have a right to associate and exchange with the state if they so wish. i believe the only ethical approach is to educate. of course this only applies to the button scenario; there is nothing wrong with doing everything in our legal power to bring this bitch down.
I guess the main problem for me is that while the button-pushing scenario is an interesting example trying to illustrate the case for radicalism or abolitionism, it has no application to reality. There is no button that we can push that will magically change the social order. That being said, I don't think that means that an overtly moderate gradualism or reformism is called for either. I think Rothbard was mainly trying to counter overtly reformist sentiments and chose the button scenario as a half-joking example.
Brainpolice:I guess the main problem for me is that while the button-pushing scenario is an interesting example trying to illustrate the case for radicalism or abolitionism, it has no application to reality. There is no button that we can push that will magically change the social order.
That's correct. My purpose was just to point out a misinterpretation of the question.