From
The Voluntarist, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 1982, 3-6. Text taken
from Voluntaryist.com
here. See
Part I
and Part III.
Posted July 9, 2008
The
Ethics of Voting: Part II
George H. Smith
3. Institutional Analysis
I have argued that institutional analysis is essential not only to the
voluntaryist critique of electoral voting, but to anarchist theory
generally. Anarchism combines the nonaggression principle with an
institutional view of the State, resulting in the principled rejection
of the State on libertarian grounds. For the concept of “anarchism” to
be meaningful, the concept of the “State” must also be meaningful.
Anarchism presupposes that the State can be defined in theory and
identified in practice. The State must possess distinctive features
which enable us to differentiate it from other kinds of human
association; and there must be criteria by which we can distinguish
members from nonmembers (a significant issue, as we shall see).
In addition, the anarchist rejection of the State is usually based on
moral arguments. This carries institutional analysis from the
descriptive realm to the normative realm, for we are now concerned with
how moral evaluation applies within an institutional framework. If, as
anarchists claim, the State is invasive per se and therefore inherently
unjust, then what does this moral condemnation of an institution imply
concerning those individuals who voluntarily become “members” of the
State? Few anarchists restrict liability for the State’s criminal acts
to direct aggressors only, i.e., to law enforcement personnel. Few
anarchists exonerate dictators because they do not personally enforce
their decrees. Indeed, anarchists often impute greatest liability to
the highest levels of political decision-making (presidents,
legislators, etc.), even though these levels are far removed from
physical enforcement. (There were more condemnations of President
Johnson during the Vietnam War than of individual bomber pilots.) This
kind of moral analysis is understandable only within an institutional
framework, where individuals are assessed according to their role in
sustaining and implementing State injustice, however distant they may be
from actual enforcement. Individual acts, in other words, are not
judged in isolation, but within a broader context. Inevitably, as, I
argued in Part One, this will entail some theory of vicarious liability.
Anarchists must present a theory to explain how persons other than
direct aggressors can be held accountable for criminal acts. We must
explain, moreover, where liability ends and why.
These are not easy problems to solve, and they have been virtually
ignored in libertarian literature. The result has been some rather wide
gaps in anarchist theory, in which political anarchists have found it
convenient to hide when under attack. When institutional analysis is
used against the political anarchist, he will often object to this
procedure as such (rather than to its particular application in his
case) on the ground that institutional analysis, whether descriptive or
normative, violates the time-honored libertarian principles of
methodological individualism, value subjectivism, individual
responsibility, and so forth. The political anarchist, of course, does
not examine what these kamikaze arguments would do to his own profession
of anarchism. He does not care to explain how, if institutional
analysis is ruled out of court, it is possible even to state coherently
what anarchism is, much less defend it. Even anarchists are afflicted
with a strange blindness when they stoop to defend political power.
It is not my intention to argue for the use of institutional analysis
within anarchist theory. I submit that it is already used extensively
by political anarchists and voluntaryists alike, but that it usually
lurks in the shadows, as if we are embarrassed to expose it to the light
of day. It has a suspicious ancestry, this institutional analysis. It
smacks of sociology, collectivism, holism, and other things generally
repugnant to libertarians. Fear of contamination leads to a failure of
nerve—there is, after all, the haunting possibility that anarchism
itself will collapse if it rests on institutional analysis—so we go
merrily about denouncing the “State” without specifying precisely which
individuals constitute the State or how it is possible to pass moral
judgment on an institution. (We have been somewhat fortunate that
minarchist critics of anarchism have generally overlooked these
vulnerable spots—but it is possible that they, too, succumb to
institutional analysis.)
4. Describing Institutions
It is important to understand that institutional analysis, as here
employed, does not contradict methodological individualism. It does not
deny that only individuals act or that social phenomena are reducible to
individual actions. One can speak meaningfully of institutions,
associations, organizations, and so forth, without implying that these
social phenomena enjoy an existence apart from individuals.
Methodological individualists are not required to purge their vocabulary
of terms like “family,” “church,” “state,” and “corporation.”
Indeed, staunch methodological individualists have used institutional
analysis extensively as an explanatory tool. This is evident among
Austrian economists who, despite their commitment to methodological
individualism and value subjectivism, eagerly analyze free-market
institutions (such as money) that result from human action but not from
human design. “Institution,” an elusive term at best, is used here in a
broad sense to designate a widely recognized and stabilized method of
pursuing a social activity (exchange, in the case of money). It is
possible conceptually to isolate some feature of social interaction and
to study it abstracted from the particular individuals involved.
Individual actors are presupposed in this procedure, but their specific
identities are irrelevant to the outcome. Individual actors, within
institutional analysis, are anonymous. The reason for this, as F.A.
Hayek has argued, is because intentional actions have unintended
consequences.
The problems which (the social sciences) try to answer arise only in so
far as the conscious action of many men produce undesigned results, in
so far as regularities are observed which are not the result of
anybody’s design. If social phenomena showed no order except in so far
as they were consciously designed, there would indeed be no room for
theoretical sciences of society and there would be, as is often argued,
only problems of psychology. It is only in so far as some sort of order
arises as a result of individual action but without being designed by
any individual that a problem is raised which demands a theoretical
explanation. (The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press,
1955, p. 39.)
It is possible to interpret Hayek to mean that only institutions which
are themselves the product of spontaneous order are the proper subject
of social theory. This would rule out designed institutions (often
called associations), such as business organizations, fraternal clubs,
and (most relevant to our purpose) modern States. But even these
designed institutions exhibit many unintended consequences internally.
An automobile factory is designed; its internal division of labor does
not emerge spontaneously. The overall purpose guiding the design of an
automobile factory is the efficient production of cars. But this may
not be the purpose of many (or even most) factory workers. The
machinist, the welder, the fitter, the warehouse foreman—these
specialized roles can be filled even if the individuals concerned know
or care very little about the overall product to which their labor
contributes. The structure of a factory is designed, so we may speak of
a factory’s “purpose” (i.e., the purpose of its designers). Yet the
furtherance of this purpose may, from the perspective of the individual
worker, be unintended. This is why it is perfectly correct to say that
an individual (the factory worker) may contribute unintentionally to an
institutional end (the production of cars).
The need for specialization leads to a division of labor, and this may
be undesigned (as in society generally) or designed (as in business
organizations. The division of labor in designed institutions (which I
shall hereafter refer to as “associations”) leads to the
institutionalization of labor or “roles,” to use a term common among
sociologists. If a factory needs another welder, it seeks out a
qualified individual to fill that role. It is possible to discuss the
importance of the welder role in the overall production process without
referring to any specific welder. We know, of course, that the
disembodied role of welder does not actually weld anything; we always
presuppose a flesh-and-blood human being who functions in that capacity.
But the specific identity of the welder (his religion, personal
characteristics, etc.) and his personal intentions (why he took the job)
are immaterial to the successful accomplishment of the institutional
end, so long as the welder satisfies the requirements of the role (i.e.,
“does his job”). This is what I mean when I say that the individual
functioning in a role is presupposed but anonymous.
An institutional analysis of an automobile factory would examine roles
within the factory, the efficient ordering of roles in relation to each
other (which job should be done first? where is the best location within
the plant for a particular job?), and the relation of these roles to the
desired outcome (does the addition of a tape deck as standard equipment
add too much to the car’s price?). We can speak meaningfully of the
production process, the production result, and the contribution of roles
to both process and result—even if these are unintended from the
standpoint of individual workers. The welder may insist that his
intention is to contribute to the building of boats—he may adamantly
denounce cars as dangerous and swear his eternal hostility to them—but
insofar as he fulfills the institutional role of automobile welder, we
will insist that he does, in fact, contribute to the building of cars.
This may be an unintended consequence of his actions, but it is a
consequence nonetheless. (And we should keep in mind that “unintended”
does not mean “unforeseeable.”)
Thus, institutional analysis examines individual actions not in
isolation, but within the broader context of institutional roles. We
can give a purely physical description of the welder’s actions; this is
one kind of description. We can also give an institutional description
of the welder’s actions; this is another kind of description—one that
attempts to link the isolated action to a broader chain of actions
performed by others within an association.
Many common terms cannot be grasped using physical descriptions. Such
terms, including many political terms, must be defined institutionally.
They can be understood only by relating them to the roles and
procedures of an association. “Voting” is a pertinent example. Suppose
that, in preparation for election day, I construct a “voting booth” in
my backyard that is physically identical (within reason) to authorized
voting booths located around the city. On election day I enter my booth
and pull the appropriate levers. But have I voted? Obviously not. At
most I have expressed a preference in a rather bizarre fashion. Unless
a voting booth is authorized by the State, whatever goes on in the booth
is not described as voting. The physical similarity between my action
and real voting is irrelevant. What counts is the institutional
framework in which the physical activity occurs. (We shall return to
this in more detail in a later installment.)
Institutional analysis also permits us to understand the continuity of
associations. The U.S. State, since is formal inception in 1789
(ratification of the Constitution), has undergone many turnovers in
personnel. Moreover, it has expanded territorially and has experienced
tremendous growth in its laws, regulations, and bureaucracy. But we
still refer to it as the same State, and correctly so. This is because
the basic structure of the State, including its Constitution, has
remained fundamentally unchanged.
Before applying institutional analysis (descrip-tive) to the State in
more detail, let us anticipate somewhat and touch on a problem created
for ethical theory by institutional analysis.
5. Division of Labor and Moral Responsibility
The division of labor within associations creates an interesting and
often frustrating problem of determining responsibility. We see this in
modern States which, as they expand the range and intensity of their
political power, have evolved complex and highly specialized internal
functions. Attributing responsibility is especially difficult in
democratic States, where locating the center(s) of power keeps political
“scientists” busy arguing with each other. On the one side are defenders
of “elite” theories, who see political power resting in the hands of a
small group, or class. This class may be defined economically (e.g.,
Marxists) or politically (e.g., followers of Mosca and Pareto). On the
other side are democratic pluralists (e.g., Robert Dahl) who believe
there are many foci of power distributed throughout a democratic State.
And there are defenders of various shades in between. (We may be
thankful that few sophisticated theorists maintain any longer that
political power rests in the hands of “the people.”)
Ralf Dahrendorf addresses the problem of responsibility and its
connection to the division of labor in Class and Class Conflict in
Industrial Society (Stanford, 1959, p. 297). “Like the division of
labor in industrial production,” Dahrendorf notes, the division of labor
in political power “has led to the creation of numerous specialist
positions, every one of which bears but slight traces of the process of
which it is a part.”
Who produces the car in an automobile factory? The director? The
fitter? The foreman? The typist? Every one of these questions has to
be answered in the negative, and one might therefore be tempted to
conclude that nobody produces the car at all. Yet the car is being
produced, and we can certainly identify people who do not participate in
its production.
Dahrendorf applies this same reasoning to the pinpointing of
responsibility in a bureaucracy:
Nobody in particular seems to exercise “the authority” and yet authority
is exercised, and we can identify people who do not participate in its
exercise. Thus the superficial impression of subordination in many
minor bureaucratic roles must not deceive us. All bureaucratic roles
are defined with reference to the total process of the exercise of
authority to which they contribute to whatever small extent.
Dahrendorf makes a point of great significance. It may be impossible in
some cases to attribute exact responsibility for the exercise of
political power. But the difficulty in apportioning responsibility
within an association (the State, in this case) does not hinder our
ability to separate those who are responsible from those who are not.
We can discriminate, in other words, between association members and
nonmembers. We can distinguish factory workers from nonworkers.
Similarly, we can usually distinguish members of the State from
nonmembers. The President is obviously a member of the State; the
factory worker is not. Between these extremes there are shades of gray.
What about the executives of a munitions firm that survives entirely
from government contracts? What about a mail carrier for the United
States Postal Service? Such examples could be multiplied endlessly, and
they pose even more problems when we examine totalitarian governments
where the private sector is virtually nonexistent (except for the black
market).
I shall address some of these problems at a later time. For now we
should recognize that the presence of gray does not negate the existence
of black and white. To ascertain a precise cutoff point may be
troublesome, but this does not mean that the extremes are any less
clear. Since the dispute within libertarianism concerns the election of
libertarians to significant political offices at various levels, the
determination of a cutoff point is not crucial to this analysis. We
must first decide whether anarchists can in good conscience become overt
members of the State congressmen, etc.); then we can attempt to clear up
the fuzzy areas (working for the post office, state universities, etc.).
6. The Modern State
“To really understand the State,” wrote the anarchist Peter Kropotkin,
one must “study it in its historical development” (The State: Its
Historic Role, Haldeman-Julius, 1947, p. 7). This historical
perspective teaches us that the State is a designed institution; it was
forcibly imposed to accomplish specific objectives. By understanding
these objectives, which have since become institution-alized, we are
better able to understand the structure and internal functioning of
States existing today. When we examine the division of labor within a
factory, it helps to know what the factory was designed to produce.
Similarly, when we examine the State, it is vital to know the purpose(s)
that generated this complex and massive association. States have varied
considerably in their structure and jurisdiction, but all of them fit
the description by Franz Oppenheimer in The State (Vanguard,
1926). Oppenheimer distinguishes two basic methods of acquiring wealth:
the economic means (labor and voluntary exchange) and the political
means (“the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others”). This
leads to a succinct description: “The state is an organization of the
political means” (p. 27).
The State, for Oppenheimer, is organized theft—a method of systematic
plunder. This is true but incomplete. The State is a union of thieves,
but not all such unions are States. State theft is distinguished by
being legitimized, i.e., its coercive actions are generally regarded by
the subject population as morally and/or legally proper. This feature
is emphasized by Max Weber in his classic discussion of the modern
State:
A ruling organization will be called “political” insofar as its
existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a given
territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the
part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political organization
with continuous operations will be called a “state” insofar as its
administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of
the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order. (Economy
and Society, Univ. of California Press, 1978, 1, p. 54).
This harmonizes with the notion of the State employed by libertarians in
the debate between minarchism and anarchism. For example, Ayn
Rand—perhaps the foremost proponent of minarchism—defines “government”
as “an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain
rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.” (The Virtue of
Selfishness, New American Library, p. 107).
“A given geographical area”—this allusion to territorial sovereignty
recurs throughout the libertarian debates on the legitimacy of
government. Although this is important, it is usually overlooked that
territorial jurisdiction is a feature not of all States (or governments)
throughout history, but of what historians refer to as “the modern
State.” This does not mean that such States did not exist before the
modern era: the ancient Greek city-states exercised territorial
sovereignty, as did the Han Empire of China and the Roman Empire. But
the modern States of Western Europe, which were to become models of
State-building throughout the world (England and France were especially
influential), were not extensions of the ancient world; they developed
from the successful, and often brutal, centralization of power by
monarchs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. (The origin of
this trend can be traced back even further—perhaps to 1100, according to
Joseph Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State,
Princeton, 1970.)
Historians generally regard the sixteenth century as pivotal in the
development of the modern State. It was during this period that
monarchs began to dominate rival claimants to power (especially the
nobility and church). The march to territorial sovereignty accelerated
its bloody pace. “The state-makers,” as Charles Tilly notes, “only
imposed their wills on the populace through centuries of ruthless
effort.”
The effort took many forms: creating distinct staffs dependent on the
crown and loyal to it; making those staffs (armies and bureaucrats
alike) reliable, effective instruments of policy; blending coercion,
co-optation and legitimation as means of guaranteeing the acquiescence
of different segments of the populations; acquiring sound information
about the country, its people and its resources; promoting economic
activities which would free or create resources for the use of the state
. . . . Ultimately, the people paid. (The Formation of National
States in Western Europe, ed. Charles Tilly, Princeton, 1975, p.
24.)
The American State was also designed, though under different conditions
than those in Europe. As part of the British Empire, the colonies were
subject to colonial administration. Under the aegis of Robert Walpole,
however, the colonies enjoyed a lengthy period of “salutary neglect”
wherein mercantilist regulations were loosely enforced, if at all. When
this lax policy ended in 1763—owing to the crushing financial burden
incurred by Britain during the Seven Years War—the English found
enforcement to be extremely difficult. Lax policies, plus the
difficulty of governing from thousands of miles away, had permitted the
colonists to evolve their own systems of local government which hindered
centralization. A system of “competing governments” arose which
prevented either side from attaining complete domination.
This changed with the successful completion of the American Revolution.
Revolutions, however just, have unintended consequences of considerable
magnitude. Two consequences of the American Revolution are important
here: first, debts incurred during the war convinced many of the need
for a centralized government with taxing power; second, with the British
eliminated, there was no effective brake on the formation of a national
State. The major competitor had been kicked out, and the field was
clear for those who desired a State, provided it was not the British
State.
But a new State (especially one born in revolution against monarchy)
faced the considerable problem of legitimacy. A solution was readily
found in a written Constitution authorized by “the people.” (We needn’t
examine that fraud here.) Thus came into being one of the first modern
“power maps” or “manifestoes of nationalism,” to use the apt phrases of
Ivo Duchacek (Power Maps: Comparative Politics of Constitutions,
American Bibliographic Center, 1973).
The national government maintained its territorial sovereignty (over a
growing amount of territory) without serious internal challenge until
the Civil War. Sectional conflict between the North and South had
erupted long before this, of course, but the political dominance of the
Democratic Party (which enjoyed support from both sides) prevented an
open break. This unified support disintegrated, however, in the 1850s,
largely thanks to Stephen Douglas and his support of the Kansas-Nebraska
Act.
A badly divided Democratic Party lost the presidency to the Republicans
in 1860; and the deep South seceded in response to the ascension of a
sectional candidate to the presidency. Lincoln, an ex-Whig, was
thoroughly imbued with nationalist doctrines; and this president who
would not have made war to liberate slaves was—nonetheless willing to
wage war in order to “preserve the union.” (“Secession,” as Lincoln
correctly said, “is the essence of anarchy.”) The Fort Sumter incident
provoked other southern states to join the Confederacy, and thus began
the bloodiest conflict in American history. Some 600,000 people lost
their lives in this titanic struggle between two States, each attempting
to establish sovereignty. The most significant chapter in American
State-building was written with the blood of thousands.
We see that, however modern States differ in the details of their
origin, and however they differ in the extent of their power, all share
a common design. All were explicitly intended to establish territorial
sovereignty. All insist that they are the final arbiters in matters
pertaining to law within a given geographical area. (The scope of the
law varies dramatically, of course, from State to State.) All States
proclaim compulsory jurisdiction: a person is regarded as subject to the
State, with or without his consent, as long as he resides in or is
passing through a certain area (land, sea, or air). This territorial
sovereignty is the foundation of all other State activities.
This historical digression is an important ingredient in developing an
institutional analysis of the State. The State is a designed
institution, forcibly imposed. State-builders had specific objectives
in mind, foremost of which was to secure territorial sovereignty. The
internal structure of the State was dictated (and continues its
evolution today) with sovereignty foremost in mind. Virtually all
functions of government—a standing army, an internal police, a
monopolistic judiciary, a ruthless taxing power, public schools,
etc.—may be seen as supports for the monopolization of power.
After we understand the purpose for which the State was designed, we are
able to undertake an institutional analysis similar to the automobile
factory discussed earlier. There we discussed how the overall product
(the car) may be unintended from the perspective of specialized workers.
We also examined the importance of roles in the production process. It
is thus possible to refer to an institutional product and process being
integral to the factory’s structure. The worker, in filling a role
(doing his job), participates in the process and contributes to the
product, quite apart from his personal intentions and goals.
Similarly, we may examine the “State-factory,” the institution designed
to monopolize power and thereby sustain territorial sovereignty.
Sovereignty is the “product” of this association (or the most
fundamental among many); a monopoly on legitimized coercion is the
“process.” But roles in the State apparatus, like roles in the factory,
need human beings to fill them. There are increasing specialization and
division of labor as the State expands its power and jurisdiction. Many
of the individuals in specialized roles may have little knowledge of, or
interest in, the institutionalized process and product to which their
labor contributes. Their contribution, in this sense, may be
unintended. (But, to repeat an earlier point, unintended does not mean
unforeseeable.)
This is what I mean by institutional analysis. And this is what I
believe to be implicit throughout much of the writing by libertarian
anarchists. I have attempted to show what it means to say that an
anarchist politician contributes to State injustice merely by filling a
role (i.e., holding political office). I have attempted to show why the
intentions of the politician are irrelevant to the process and product
of the “State-factory” he has willingly joined. Political offices are
indispensable roles in the State apparatus; and I submit that anyone who
fills these roles contributes, however inadvertently, to the State
process (monopoly of power) and product (sovereignty). The continuance
of State power rests, not on the intentions of those who hold political
offices, but on the complex structure of the State apparatus, each part
of which contributes to the maintenance of State supremacy.
Thus the anarchist politician is like the auto worker who claims to be
building a boat, and who professes surprise when a car comes out anyway
against his wishes. And is he to blame? Not at all. True, he did
voluntarily take on a job at an auto factory. True, he did get paid for
it. True, he did show up for work and do the things that an auto worker
is supposed to do. But what do such inconvenient facts count against
his desire to build a boat?
And so our political anarchist. He gets a job with a political power
factory and expects to produce freedom. He may even claim to be a
clever saboteur (forgetting that authentic saboteurs never announce the
fact). He goes to work, does political things (votes, etc.), receives a
State salary, and even swears allegiance to the State. Because of this
the voluntaryist suggests that he is in fact contributing to State
power, despite his best intentions.
The Ethics of
Voting: Part III
George Smith main page