Heresy and the Establishment

The hero always goes against the grain.  This brave one finds himself against tremendous odds but fights anyway, even though he is in a small, but righteous, minority.  The hero throws off the shackles and inspires those around him, and goes on to tear down the walls of the corrupt elite in favor of the "true" justice.    This is a recurring theme in our culture going back thousands of years.    After all, was not Jesus of Nazareth considered a heretic?  Were not the founding fathers heretics for challenging the divine right of King George III?    Was not Galileo a heretic for discovering the truth about the heliocentric solar system?

History and legend is filled with such examples.  But, is going against the "establishment" always right?   Contrarians seem to think so.  But libertarians should reject this.

I have noticed in the last few years that among many left-libertarians and anarchists, there is a current of being against anything that is established, particularly if it involves government, but even concepts like bosses and capital accumulation have been demonized by the so-called "free market, anti-capitalists".  I call it the Tyler Durden approach.  Rather than attempting to establish a sensible, practical balance, anyone who is not 100% in lockstep is branded a statist and sometimes even a fascist.  Examples of this logic go as follows;

• Banks colluded with the government and received bailout money, therefore the banks should not be used.
• Food in grocery stores is often produced by large corporations (which are in turn protected by government), therefor only organic, locally gown produce is acceptable.
• Israel occasionally acts with arrogance, therefore Israel should not exist.
• Some taxation happens without consent, therefore all taxation is theft.
• Governments abuse their power, therefore everything government does is evil.

A cursory examination reveals that while the former assertion is usually true, the conclusion is absurdly incorrect and ignores reality;  Banks are essential tools for moving capital, some people like patronizing large stores, some people voluntarily and happily pay taxes and even the government sometimes arrests murderers, rapists and thieves.   This ignorant  all-or-nothing approach is not productive and does not advance liberty, even though it challenges the established powers  in a heretical way, and, owing to our culture, this stubborn irreverence is seen as both pure and brave.  The truth is that such a point of view is childish and impractical.

First of all, being a heretic does not make one's ideas right.  Marx and Hitler were both anti-establishment radicals who sought to elevate mankind (or the parts of it they liked at any rate) to its "rightful" position.   We know the results of their experiments; oppression, war and misery.    These are not the only examples either.  In science, there are always a handful of "scientists"  who claim something is the exact opposite of how it has been previously thought.  Sometimes they are right, but mostly, they are wrong.   In social sciences too, we have those who take a contrarian approach to modern, western culture in favor of primitive people or long lost civilizations.  For whatever is, the contrarians wish it wasn't and declare it false, and whatever isn't is declared true and good.  

Clearly, if justice is to be done, old ideas and power structures must be challenged, but on the other hand sometimes the "cure", such as the Bolshevik Russian Revolution, is worse than the disease.   So what is the solution?   Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet, every case must be dealt with on a case by case basis, but a good starting point is to acknowledge that heresy does not equal truth and that everything, even one's own positions must be examined with skepticism.   Remember that structures exist for a reason, and one cannot easily tear them down and expect nothing to take their place, so the best approach is to cut out the parts which violate rights or don't work, rather than abandoning the entire system.   This is extremely unsatisfying for many libertarians and virtually all anarchists, but it is the only practical approach to take.  Shouts of secession and world-wide anarchy are pipe-dreams, why?  Because history demonstrates this very clearly.   True, some secessions have been successful, most notably the 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire.  But there has never been a secessionist movement which resulted in true stateless anarchy.    Anarchy just isn't in the human spirit.   While societies do not need to be, and shouldn't be, centrally planned, people  still prefer to have firm rules that codify right and wrong and whatever power that establishes those rules effectively becomes government.  There are no exceptions.  Even Anarcho-Capitalist David Friedman couldn't name a proper anarchist society.  With that in mind, let us take another look at the above mentioned assertions with a more sensible, practical set of solutions.

• Banks colluded with the government and received bailout money, therefore the banks should be separated from government.
• Food in grocery stores is often produced by large corporations, therefore free trade and competition will maximize consumers choices.
• Israel occasionally acts with arrogance, therefore policies should be modified to allow the greatest amount of peace and freedom while retaining national sovereignty.
• Some taxation happens without consent, therefore all taxes collected should be through voluntary means as much as possible.
• Governments abuse their power, therefore government should be whittled down to its core responsibilities of rights and property protection, contract enforcement and, if necessary, protecting third parties from external threats. 

Perhaps I am just being a contrarian to the contrarians, a heretic against heretics.  I don't believe so as I am more interested in things that work, rather than intellectual and argumentative purity.   It might be less heroic, but it gets much more done.