From the White-PillBox: Part 23
Bothered by the lack of consensus? We already have it in the one area that counts. And the lack of consensus in other areas is an unexpected White Pill.
The idea of “consensus” strikes us superficially as a good thing. But let’s dig beneath the surface for some context...
Where we want consensus
To advocates of liberty, when it comes right down to it, there is really only one area where consensus matters. It is in the moral question of whether or not it is acceptable to initiate aggression against a person or their property, known as the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
Here we find the hidden White Pill that most libertarians and anarchists miss:
Virtually every human being lives their private life according to the NAP (yes, even statists).
Quoting from my 2018 essay on politics as a strategy for freedom:
In their private lives, everyone (except criminals) already tacitly agrees with and lives by the libertarian’s most fundamental principle, non-aggression. Peaceful coexistence is the simple, moral and practical day-to-day behavior of virtually all human beings; behavior that practices non-aggression to the letter. This is so universal that even a thief feels imposed upon if the money he stole is in turn stolen from him. It is important for libertarians to appreciate that in this respect, they do not have to persuade others to agree with something they already believe.
This can hardly be over-emphasized: the degree of consensus on this matter is near 100% 1. The movement toward a free society is certainly promising if its fundamental principle is already accepted 2.
Where we don’t have consensus
If we ponder our day-to-day choices and preferences, we realize just how different we all are. How we choose to live our lives does not require consensus. Indeed, life would be rather boring if everyone had the same preferences for food, music, clothing, work, play, etc.
From the community perspective the issue is more complex, though fundamentally the same. We tend to gravitate to places where the general standards of the community somewhat match our own. And when we are sufficiently displeased with the culture in a particular community, we take steps to disconnect: reduce participation, partner with more like-minded people, or relocate entirely.
The consensus of community values enriches us. And where values clash, we seek voluntary alternatives.
Both consensus, and the lack of it, manage to peacefully coexist in the sphere of voluntary interactions.
Politics - the wrench in the machine
Politics is an emergent property of the State.
Its emergence begins with the essence of the State: non-consensual laws and regulations. So right off the bat we have a problem: violation of consent is immoral, yet it is precisely how the State functions.
To distract from this obvious problem, the State must provide window-dressing for its laws. So it devises the illusion of fairness (“the rule of law”). It indoctrinates people into believing law is so special that it need not be examined with moral judgement.
But this only works if the law appears non-arbitrary.
So law is one-size-fits-all 3.
And this means law is necessarily winner-take-all. This attracts desperate competition for favorable law.
But one-size-fits-all does not work. In the real world, all interests do not align. This presents no particular problem for voluntary interactions (where we do not see the imposition of one-size-fits-all). But in politics it presents a problem.
It turns consensus on its head.
Political consensus
In seeking favorable laws, there is power in numbers. This is the root of the perceived need for political consensus.
But as indicated, the State cannot satisfy everyone. On each issue the State creates divided factions. This is made clear by a brief look at the topics making headlines as of this writing:
The war involving Russia and Ukraine
The abortion issue, reignited with the possible overturning of Roe vs Wade
The ongoing COVID hysteria
The monkeypox scare
Climate change
Gun control
Inflation and economic recession
Exposing children to sexual topics
The FDA’s interference with the baby formula market
The takeover of Twitter
The lack of consensus, indeed strife, in these and many other political issues is the surface-level Black Pill that arises when politics infects human interactions. But there is far more to the picture.
A realistic look at the numbers
There are three parties in every political issue:
Those who are fighting for one political side
Those who are fighting for the other political side
Those who are not particularly involved at all
The first two are the loudest and get all the attention. In truth they are the minority. That is because we rarely think of the third group, who almost always vastly outnumber the first two.
The third group are true allies of anarchists and a big part of this White Pill. They may certainly have an opinion about the particular political issue, but are not militant about it. They are relatively passive about those who feel differently; they take a live-and-let-live attitude, or at worst, a count-me-out attitude.
It is a group who essentially have better things to do than participate in a political battle.
This is an anarchist’s dream come true: a population that disregards the State. For this group, consensus is not relevant or important.
And it also puts into perspective the idea that the State pits us against each other like tribal groups. Yes, this is mostly true for those two groups who deeply identify with their cause. But in truth their numbers are small; they are rather like Gulliver’s little people, bickering over their petty concerns, who from a distance are barely audible.
What the fight for political consensus accomplishes
Those two groups will continue to fight so long as there is a State. But it is a fantasy to expect their political battles to achieve consensus. Instead we recognize reality: that the individuals within those groups are little more than noise-makers; that battle fatigue works relentlessly against them; and they will likely switch to a new battle when the political elite tells them to.
These groups operate in the political world…a world that tries to circumvent man’s natural state of voluntary cooperation. Regardless of what they may think they are accomplishing, their efforts are doomed to failure because the real world asserts itself. They run in circles, accomplish nothing positive, and often leave damage along the way.
Our White Pill summary
White Pill: we do not have to sell anyone on the NAP: there is already universal consensus on the NAP, with respect to peoples’ private lives.
White Pill: the lack of consensus over political battles is overblown. Most people steer clear of the battles and simply want peace in their lives.
And that leaves the minority who are duped into fighting each other over the State’s parade of social crises. Here, politics becomes the eternal effort to force a round peg into a square hole.
The fact that they can never achieve consensus is hardly a cause for despair.
The highly satisfying bonus White Pill of politics: immeasurable time and resources of every statist’s life are ceaselessly devoured in battles over the crisis of the day. The prospects for a free society are brighter knowing its enemies are utterly wasting their own time.
It is safe to say the only exceptions among us are those who have mental anomalies, as with psychopaths. Sadly, politics attracts this very type of person. This is why a politician can at once claim to care for the people, while at the same time watch them be butchered in war, starved, arrested for non-violent activities, be bled financially, etc.
Granted, the main impediment to a free society is daunting: the fact that the majority are indoctrinated to believe the State is a legitimate exception to the NAP. This is why the key libertarian goal is to delegitimize the State.
It is also worth noting that even in man’s private sphere, the NAP has not been practiced consistently. For most of human history it tended to apply within social ranks, but not across ranks. It ultimately depended on the laws and cultural norms of the times. For example, slave holders respected each other’s person and property, but not those of slaves; aristocrats and royals practiced mutual respect amongst each other, but mistreated serfs; men showed respect for each other’s boundaries but could mistreat women; and so on.
Unlike voluntary interactions, where each person gets what they want regardless of what others choose.