Neon God: The State. Bow and Pray.

Trakker at Neon Gods recently accused me of using "dishonest tactics" by saying that government is an inherently violent institution in the comments on one of his posts. He says that my comments "insinuat[ed] that this violence is the norm in this country and that we as citizens have no recourse." He goes on to say that government functions without acts of violence 99% of the time.

It may be the case that the vast majority of government action proceeds without the use of violence, but only in the trivial sense that there is no "violence" committed when you escape injury by giving your wallet to a mugger without resisting. All government action is backed by the threat of coercion. I would say this threat is an act of violence, as is the mugging where the weapon is never used. The point remains that government is an inherently violent institution because violence is the government response to not getting its way.

Watch these videos, in which passive resistance to very mundane and common government action is quickly escalated to the use of physical force.





I saw these videos at Anarchy in Your Head, which went on to post some important thoughts about them. What is the point of these videos? Of the woman's resistance?

It’s that government as we now know it is violence, through and through. The source of it’s authority is nothing more than a persistent threat of violence. A majority may consolidate power in the form of a government, but can’t ensure that it’s moral. A broad consensus, e.g. a vote, or an elaborate proclamation on a piece of paper can not create truth or morality and hence can’t create authority. Government isn’t just violent when it engages in aggressive wars. Every order it issues is backed by the threat of serious violence. Why rebel against something seemingly minor like a driver’s license to point this out? Should we pick our battles more carefully? Because it’s part of the hard truth that people aren’t ready to accept. Any order you resist, from a seizure of private land to a parking ticket, can ultimately escalate to serious violence including incarceration or even death if you continue to resist the orders or the punishments they impose on you. All punishments by government are for disobeying. The so-called little things demonstrate this particularly well. When the authority of government ultimately rests on nothing more than the threat of violence, any deviation from strict adherence cannot be tolerated or the illusion is threatened. By simply remaining passive in a seemingly small matter, Lauren causes them to show their true nature.

Trakker's criticism rings quite hollow:

Characterizing the coercion powers given to the state by the people as "violence" is dishonest. If you examine the laws that govern our law enforcement agencies you will see that the use of violence is rarely allowed and when it is, it must be justified. In fact every day we read of law enforcement agents being punished for exceeding the laws that govern their activities.

That there are rules on paper that say you can send armed men to forcibly arrest and imprison someone for smoking marijuana doesn't make that arrest any less violent, nor does it justify such acts. And a few cops getting docked a paycheck or put on administrative leave doesn't make the shootings, beatings, taserings, or any of the other less sensational daily acts any less violent. Trakker says "because this is a democracy, and many Americans believe the use of force IS the answer to many of our problems, we won't always have a government we (liberals) approve of" in the same essay where he claims that characterising the government as violent is dishonest. He appears to be arguing that if 51% of the population approves of brutal use of force, such force isn't violent.

The only one using dishonest tactics in this debate was Trakker. His arguments were incoherent, and never came close to justifying his accusations of dishonesty. Trakker is a good guy and a friend of this blog, and I think he generally thinks through what he writes. So why has he fallen short in this case? I think the last paragraph of the Anarchy in Your Head post quoted above offers an explanation.

People do not casually abandon a deeply held belief. Irrational beliefs provide comfort even while causing us to engage in irrational behavior. How do you softly tell a child that Santa doesn’t really exist and prepare her for the cold reality that a mythical character is not bringing her presents Christmas morning? How do you gently convince someone their God doesn’t exist and that they won’t be going to Heaven when they die? How do you tactfully explain that the government they’ve trusted all their lives to provide their security is actually enslaving them under threat of violence? I’m not sure there’s a soft way to convey a hard truth, a cold hard truth that rocks the foundations of deeply held lifelong beliefs.

Most Americans are the victims of an intense lifelong assualt of propaganda and misinformation, religion and politics being the most noteworthy. Trakker, despite his recognition of the insidious lies of religion, like many liberals believes in government in much the same way my parents believe in God. Being confronted with arguments and evidence that undermine that belief is a system shock, which tends to manifest itself in lots of bad counterarguments and unfounded personal attacks. Indeed, Trakker has repeatedly been flustered by and responded similarly to comments that emphasize the overwhelming similarity between Democrats and Republicans and are critical of electoral participation, comments that draw attention to atrocities committed by Democrats or popularly revered historical figures, comments that suggest BO won't cure America's "cancers" of corporatist neoconservative policies, and comments in objection to "nanny state" government interference in personal decisions. And like many religious people confronted with persistent atheist response to their counter-arguments, Trakker's reaction to anarchist argument is to ignore it, which is now the official policy of Neon Gods:

I'm convinced our current system of government in the United States is basically sound.... It is time to set some guidelines for commenting here. NEON GODS is a blog about improving our system government, not abolishing it. I am convinced that the system of government envisioned by founding fathers, and the Constitution they wrote and the amendments added later have resulted in a safe, stable, vibrant, nation and I would like to see the same for my kids and grandkids. To this end, NEON GODS is a blog that encourages liberals to become more engaged in the government. This blog also believes that there are times when voting for a mediocre candidate to block a bad candidate makes sense. Thus, comments that advocate giving up and dropping out of politics, and comments denouncing liberals who plan to vote for Obama to prevent McCain from becoming our next President are not really welcome and will be ignored.

I've enjoyed participating in conversation on that blog and put a lot of time and effort into my comments, so it hurts to see my position mischaracterized as "giving up and dropping out of politics" and my participation swept aside based on the argument that the US is a "safe, stable, vibrant" nation. I've argued only for dropping out of (national) electoral politics, but strongly encouraged other political action. This isn't "giving up." It is recognizing a failed system, refusing to endorse it, and advocating for positive change from outside the system. America has violent crime rates dramatically higher than other first world nations, and more people in prison than any other country. Our national infrastructure is crumbling, leaving bridges and roads and water pipes in frightening shape. Our meat and produce and other foods are laced with a diverse array of contaminants. Our government refuses to address the impending disaster of climate change, in fact it actively worsens the threat. This is safe? We spend more on military the the rest of the world combined; We've launched 2 overt wars of aggression in the last several years, following decades of covert wars and terrorist campaigns throughout the world. We threaten to use nuclear weapons against Iran, we send troops to support a belligerent Georgian dictator after he initiated conflict with the nuclear-armed Russians, and both Presidental candidates want to increase the size of the military and send even more troops into Central Asia. The soldiers participating in this violent insanity are coming home with a terrifying medley of mental disorders, and many of them joining heavily armed private mercenary armies that operate with legal impunity in the US and througout the world. This is stable? Our public school system is rotting from the inside out, our citizens are driving further to work, working longer hours, sleeping and exercising less, dying younger, and going deeper into debt to pay for it all. This is vibrant?

And the idea that the state just might be the problem can't be discussed? The only worthy response to our slow-motion train wreck of a country is to keeping working within the same failed system? I hope Trakker reconsiders his views and his policy.