“When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns-- or dollars. Take your choice --there is no other.” – Francisco d'Anconia, “Atlas Shrugged” (Ayn Rand, 1957)
Though we can all certainly find ways to criticize the philosophy of Ayn Rand, it’s necessary to applaud her sometimes. I mean, “Atlas Shrugged,” though a titan of over a thousand pages, is a masterpiece. On top of being a phenomenal story, it is also probably the best moral defense of capitalism in the form a narrative.
But you don’t have to trudge through that massive tome of a novel, or even know the answer to the question, “Who is John Galt?” to understand some of the central themes of the book. Take this quote for example. This comes from a speech one of her characters, Francisco, gives in response to someone who claims that “money is the root of all evil.”
Of course, Ayn Rand is no Christian, but her opposition to religion is not the reason she opposed that sentiment. Christians can see the ridiculousness in it too. In fact, the saying, derived from 1 Timothy 6:10, is more accurately translated to “the love of money is the root of all evil.”
Yes, the love of money, for money in itself, is evil. But is money evil? Absolutely not. It’s actually quite the opposite. And that’s the idea Rand was trying to express through Francisco’s speech. The only alternative to money, after all, is force and fraud.
I won’t get into here about the nature of money or how it developed in market, though that may be an interesting subject for another day. For more information on that, I suggest reading “What Has the Government Done to Our Money?” by Murray Rothbard. A free PDF, as well as an audio-MP3 file can be found here.
Here, I am not concerned with specifically “money” per say - the actual medium of exchange - but rather the two means of negotiation outlined by Francisco’s quote: the political and the economic.
Political and Economic Means
Often, we, as human beings want, or need, things from other people. We have our own values we are trying to pursue, and it is impossible to produce the goods and services necessary to achieve those values effectively by ourselves.
There are multiple ways we can get something from someone else.
For the sake of demonstration, say you have some beer. This isn’t the nasty pisswater we call Natural Light that carries far too many unfond memories from freshman year of college. This is nice stuff, something you’re not just going to give up if I ask for it.
I could open up your fridge when you’re not looking, pour one in a cup, ditch the can and act like I don’t know what you’re talking about when you ask about it. I could also just kick your ass for it and literally force you to give it me, or else knock you out cold.
Or I can do what all decent human beings would do. I can offer something of my own - $7, a glass of my nicest bourbon or maybe even a promise to do your homework for you next week – in exchange for your beer.
Though I was able to list many ways in which I could take your beer, it’s easy to separate them out into two distinct categories:
First, there are the methods which involved using violence in some way against you, or else using deception to take it without you knowing and distort the truth. These methods are the political means.
Second, were the methods of trade. Here, I offered to give you something you wanted in exchange for your beer. These are the economic means.
The difference between the two lies in consent. Through the economic means, we both consented to our transaction. Through the political means, my consent was either not asked for, disregarded or disrespected.
There are no other alternatives between these two means. Yes, I could simply gift you the beer, but what I’m talking about is specific to the means you may actively employ to get something you want from someone else. A “gift” is something another person gives on his own volition. Arguably, if there’s something you do to make me give you a gift, it’s not really a “gift” at all.
Now that we have our two alternatives - the political and the economic – ask yourself. Which one do you find more desirable? Assume that whatever means you choose to use on someone else will also be used on you by other people. Don’t forget the golden rule.
Do you want your possessions and your labor forced from you? Do you want other people to deceive you into giving them up? Or would you rather have control over what you do with what’s yours and have the opportunity to hear what other people have to offer in exchange for it?
It’s not a difficult answer. There’s always the possibility there could be one or two masochists in the room but, surely, the economic means are preferred by most everyone else.
The State as a Political Institution
But why, you ask, did I choose to refer to the use of force and fraud as “political”? The word “political” is obviously associated with “politics” and as we all know, “politics” is a natural function of the government. Am I saying that government necessarily operates within the political means?
Absolutely. At least in its current form, that which is an involuntary monopoly of force, maintained by force, i.e., the form of the state.
We have no choice whether or not to employ the state for their services. Whether or not we wish to receive the state’s benefits doesn’t matter to them. They expect us to pay either way, either through direct taxation, abiding by the rules they set for us or through inflation as a result of their forced monopoly on money.
The state, in no way, shape or form, utilizes the economic means. We do not “trade” with the state. We do not voluntarily exchange anything. Even the institutions such as the U.S. Postal Service, in which we voluntarily pay postage to as we use it, is constantly bailed out – allowed to operate at a loss at the expense of the taxpayer and dollar-holder, even those who have never stepped foot in the post office or desire to.
Even the fact that the state is a democracy, one that allows its citizens an opportunity to vote, does not disprove the state’s reliance on the political means. A democracy is the same as any compulsory institution of government - any oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship - except the ruling class, rather than a king, elite council or overlord, is the majority. And, under democratic rule, the majority is free to bend the minority to its will as it sees fit.
Whether or not we voted for the leader in question, he can still demand from us our money and use that money to bomb children in the middle east, torture and execute his enemies and bail out failed businesses that are failing for the very reason that we – the consumers - didn’t desire to pay for them in the first place. If we object, we are deemed “criminals,” possibly “traitors” and subject to fines and imprisonment, possibly death.
Even if we obtain the majority in a smaller geographic region and wish to leave the state in an attempt to form a new (hopefully voluntary) one – to secede – the state will prevent this from happening using the political means and do so under the empty cause of “unity,” as if its own legitimacy is more important than the freedom of its people to choose.
So, yes, “politics,” by its very definition, is the act of negotiating by means of force and fraud. Even in a democracy, groups and individuals may engage the state to pull some of the plunder in their direction. This is, after all, the system that has been a magnet for crooked politicians and their cronies since its foundation!
Engaging the State: The Three-Way Scheme
The only way to be peaceful is to be antipolitical, not in the sense that you oppose discussions about the philosophical applications to government (that is to be “apolitical”), but in the sense that you oppose the moral legitimacy of any entity to initiate force or fraud against any individual.
Of course, I am also not encouraging you here, not to engage the state. When it comes to my strategic approach, I favor the three-way scheme – go at it politically, ideologically and economically – although when we go at it politically, we are doing so to restrict the state from its political means – electing liberty-minded candidates, supporting legislation that would limit its authority, acting opportunistically in favor of nullification and secession. In this case, any engagement of the state can reasonably be considered self-defense.
We go at it ideologically by, first, being empathetic – listening to people and relating to them on a personal level – but by also being unapologetic about what we believe, not bending the knee to the popular opinion unless that popular opinion is that of our own. What is right, is right regardless of society’s understanding of it. We must explain to the world our reasoning, while also engaging the state strategically to our advantage, forming the right coalitions, backing the right people and strengthening the right ideological brands.
I do not endorse the use of violence. Such would be strategic suicide and a burden on our cause. As advocates of peace, we ought to prefer peaceful solutions.
Meanwhile, we let the work of the entrepreneurs and the “counter-economists” – those who favor the promotion of free-market innovations to deplete the state’s legitimacy (such as cryptocurrency) – take its toll.
Through the three-way scheme, we effectively can show the world that there simply are better means by which we can coexist, means that involve free-exchange, innovation through entrepreneurship and, ultimately, the recognition of the right to private property. And we must demonstrate to them sensibly how these wholeheartedly oppose the means of war, subjection and extortion that are at the roots of the state’s compulsory nature.
This is what is meant by being antipolitical. And that is what is required of us in order to build the free and peaceful society so many of us genuinely desire to be a part of.