• Kucinich and the Politics of Nonviolence

    Email Print

    Thursday night’s Democratic presidential candidates’ debate (yes,
    I watched it – masochism, I guess), Rep. Dennis Kucinich suddenly
    declared himself a libertarian.

    No, he didn’t use the L-word. But he announced his plan, should
    he be elected, to create a “Department of Peace” to bring about
    a “transformation of our society” by “making non-violence an organizing

    See, all along I’d been misinterpreting him. Kucinich’s campaign
    gives a fairly thorough rundown of the programs he’d
    like to enact. These include “massive public works to rebuild our
    cities, our water systems, our public transportation systems, our
    schools, our parks, our public energy systems,” “ample free television
    time for candidates,” “break-up of the media monopolies,” a “regulatory
    structure which puts a ceiling on drug company profits,” restrictions
    on political advertising, a Federal
    charter of corporate responsibility
    , and a “financial commitment
    to providing healthy drinking water to all the world’s people.”
    He also wants to “strengthen and enforce air and water regulation,”
    “empower farmers in the marketplace by providing incentives to join
    a collective bargaining unit,” and “bring suit in federal court
    if an agribusiness doesn’t bargain in good faith.” He is particularly
    insistent that “All water shall be considered to be forever in the
    public domain” (an interesting proposal, given that every human
    being is 70% water).

    Now all this time I’ve been unfair to the man. I’d been assuming
    that he wanted to use the coercive power of the State to
    do all these things. So naturally I’d taken him to be an advocate
    of massive increases of violence in society – since laws
    are, after all, backed up by governmental force. Now it turns out,
    however, that Kucinich is a man committed to nonviolence, a man
    who wants to make nonviolence an “organizing principle” of our society.
    But just as the State represents violence as an organizing principle
    of society, so the free market represents nonviolence – mutual
    consent – as an organizing principle of society. If Kucinich is
    the enthusiast for nonviolence that he claims to be, then he can
    only be a libertarian.

    I infer, then, that Kucinich can’t really want to enforce
    that laundry list of pet projects that he advertises on his website.
    That would be violence, after all. As Ludwig von Mises writes:

    It is important to remember that government interference
    always means either violent action or the threat of such action.
    The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied
    by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid
    of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any
    disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state
    of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it
    wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment
    of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards,
    and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement
    of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are
    asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for
    more compulsion and less freedom.

    Since nobody with Kucinich’s reverence for nonviolence could possibly
    want to increase “violent action or the threat of such action,”
    he plainly couldn’t seriously be calling for his projects to be
    governmentally enforced. He must instead be trying to persuade people
    to implement these programs voluntarily.

    The only alternative would be to assume that Kucinich regards, or
    expects us to regard, governmental edicts “as
    though they were incantations, passing directly from decree
    to result, without the inconvenience of means
    .” And what sensible
    person could be so deluded?

    27, 2003

    T. Long [send him mail]
    is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Auburn
    ; author of Reason
    and Value: Aristotle versus Rand
    ; Editor of the Libertarian
    Nation Foundation periodical Formulations;
    and an Adjunct Scholar of the Ludwig
    von Mises Institute
    . He received his Ph.D. from Cornell in 1992,
    and maintains the website Praxeology.net,
    as well as the web journal In
    a Blog’s Stead


    Email Print