Liberty and Localism Scientifically Proven
On Mike Tuggle’s 'Confederates in the Boardroom'
by
James Leroy Wilson
by James Leroy Wilson
As
I understand it today, the freedom movement of the Right is governed
by four values. They do not carry equal weight in any one person’s
value system, as some of us are secular liberals and others very
religious conservatives. But I think each one is indispensable to
the movement:
- Principled,
philosophical defense of individual rights, including property;
- Austrian
School economic analysis;
- Defense
of the literal meaning of the Constitution;
- Faith in
the Gospels and in the moral teachings of Biblical law.
I
know, I know. Some will object to #4, and will e-mail me to cut
out all this religious stuff. And, of course, others do not really
want #3, preferring secession or the Articles of Confederation.
Buchananites resent the free-trade arguments of #2. But on the whole,
the common end of libertarians, Old Rightists, and confederates
is, I believe, the abolition of the welfare-warfare State. And both
the Constitution and the Bible prohibit it. (If the Constitution
operated as it was intended, Southerners would be its most valiant
and patriotic defenders.)
The
first two values are essentially liberal, because of their
emphasis on individualism and reason. The second two are conservative,
in that they appeal to traditional loyalty and faith. Conservatives,
of course, often use liberal-libertarian arguments, and libertarians
frequently appeal to the authority of the Founders, which is an
intrinsically conservative thing to do. So there is a lot of integration
of these values as scholars and activists develop their ideas.
But
there has been a missing ingredient. The Freedom Right tends to
convert very few people to its causes. Those who are converted tend
to be very intelligent, but not in high places of cultural or political
leadership. In other words, we don’t have mass appeal. There
are some signs – such as the popularity of this site – that the
movement’s growing, but will it grow large enough to affect change
before it’s too late?
The
stumbling block is that our arguments may be the most well-reasoned
out there, but people still aren’t convinced. Our agenda do not
"feel" right to people. Put simply, we are not speaking
to the real-life experiences of most people. We may be appealing
to reason, or even to faith, but not really to human nature.
 Mike
Tuggle‘s Confederates
in the Boardroom bridges this gap, and thus provides us
with an invaluable resource for further scholarship and, more importantly,
activism. Not that the activists should march and chant "General
Systems Theory!" but that the vision for how social systems
work would clarify our goals while at the same time broaden and
deepen the explanations and defenses of our positions.
In
a brief (the main text is 157 pages) work, Tuggle introduces General
Systems Theory and how it applies to human identity and political
organization. General Systems Theory came from the natural sciences
where observation of actual events is the basis of study. It developed
not initially from the study of human behavior, but from biology,
engineering, and chemistry. Common principles in each are common
to the human body as well as to human society. Living organisms
are systems unto themselves and sub-systems within a larger system.
(While we are often reluctant to call society an "organism"
it certainly has all the features of a system.)
I
am myself a system, but within me there are organs which are themselves
systems and which interact with each other for their very own survival.
Within those systems are smaller units, like the brain’s neurons.
Even where there is death and decay, the remaining units struggle
to survive jointly – each cell in my body has an interest that
I stay alive. And they adapt when there is loss. The survival of
each is linked to the survival of the whole. There are information
links in the system. My decision to go to the bathroom wasn’t because
of the needs of my brain, but because of information about other
parts of my body that my brain received.
Likewise,
the entire system – me – is part of a larger system, called
society. We rely on similar units – others of our own species
– to provide us with the most vital information. If I know
that there was a terrorist attack in Spain, it is because another
human being told me so through human-made instruments like radio
and television. It’s not as if a bird flew over the ocean to tell
me what happened.
We
see our fate in the well-being of others in our species, our society,
not just ourselves. Social units can become their own systems. Just
as my organs depend on the survival of the other organs, so do I
depend on the larger system – society. Instead of living to
meet mere physical need which perhaps a robot could be trained to
do, I’m betting my survival, happiness, and identity on the larger
system. The more I’m integrated with other individuals – that
is, the more friendships and economic relationships I have –
the greater I can profit in terms of happiness, and the greater
ability I have to cope with the sadness of disappointment and loss.
Likewise, the more willing I’d be to sacrifice even my life for
the survival of others, for the sake of the system. As Tuggle writes,
"It is the ability of a culture to survive, and to inform members
of that culture of the behaviours that promote survival, that makes
cultural knowledge and participation invaluable to the individual
(p. 67)."
Yet
this is not socialism – quite the opposite. Socialism reduces individuals
into abstract machines who are forced to match their abilities to
that which the reasoned, intelligent managers determine is best,
for the happiness of all.
The
logic of confederacy, and of General Systems Theory, is the opposite
of socialism. Instead of top-down commands and controls, power is
decentralized down to the point where decentralization is no longer
possible. The promise of GST is that each system is autonomous unto
itself, yet a sub-system in a larger system. The free and open exchange
of information to all is at the very core of a genuine, complex
system. Whereas socialism and Statism demand centralized decision-making,
which means cutting off the flow of information to the people.
The
top-down bureaucratic chain of command is no longer the trend in
business. Instead, organizational systems that encourage individuals
to thrive, rather than meet the management’s "objectives"
is what’s prized. More productive workers are those who are allowed
to control their own environments and do their job as they see fit.
They want to contribute to the well-being of the corporation; they
understand that their own job security and enhancement lies in the
well-being of the company as a whole. But living under the threat
of productivity quotas and objectives is not the way to go; instead
of creating an environment in which the individual will do the minimal
amount to avoid getting fired, create an atmosphere in which each
person is free to take pride in their own work and in the work of
the corporation as a whole.
Unfortunately,
our government does not embrace these decentralist principles which
founded our country, but is instead increasingly centralized in
powers and decision-making, beholden to Hobbesian logic. The Hobbesian
worldview says that if it weren’t for The State, I’d be inclined
to kill people, or steal from them. And that you would from me.
We submit to the State for our own protection.
But
the reality is that Edmund Burke and John C. Calhoun were correct:
man is indeed a social animal, and we can form communities and governments
that respect and reflect our common culture.
Local
cultures should be left alone; outside intervention will cause justified
resistance. I’d be just as angry if Iraqi tanks roamed my Chicago
streets as Iraqis are at American occupation of their country. The
road to peace and prosperity for all is not foreign occupations
in the name of abstractions like "human rights" or "democracy,"
but rather open trade and information exchange between different
communities, cultures, and nations. Because the more openness there
is, the greater the bonds will be between the peoples, and the less
it is in the self-interest of any to go to war. A new, dynamic "system"
is created from these autonomous units that will not want to see
itself destroyed.
So
how will Tuggle’s ideas influence our movement? He gives us a framework
that is less rigid and doctrinaire. People do see their own happiness
as tied to societal happiness, and expect others to share that vision.
They see themselves as part of something greater than themselves,
something they love. And for most Americans, that love is still
for the flag and for the government in Washington, D.C. it represents.
They believe in the system, thinking that it isn’t perfect but that
it has served them well.
Tuggle’s
unstated lesson is to understand this and to remember to empathize
with people this way. His stated lesson is that this centralized,
top-down form of organization, does not conform to the way nature – the way a system – works. As the federal government becomes more
powerful and imposes more pressures on local systems, this will
cause states and maybe even local cities to attempt secession, and
encourage corporations and individuals to move elsewhere.
Tuggle’s
book deserves a wide reading, both within the freedom movement and
throughout the larger society. Buy it, read it, and lend it on to
a friend who believes that the federal government should do more
for the common good.
March
15, 2004
James
Leroy Wilson [send him mail]
lives and works in Chicago and is a columnist for the Partial
Observer.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
James
Leroy Wilson Archives
|
