Mr Civil Libertarian

• A citizen creates the conditions in which citizenship may flourish. He works to combat alienation, apathy and social decay, and to foster a civic sense of self.

As the entire history of human civilization shows us, this is possible only with the absence of privilege and power. It’s the ability to interact on level playing fields with all others in society that allows the mutually beneficial relationships that create economic growth and social well being. Part of the libertarian critique of corporate capitalism is exactly that, under markets as we know them, the tables are weighted very much in favour of the established propertied classes. This is no inherent vice of trade, but is the tendency trade is taking us towards under Statism.

• A citizen does not reject politics due to the shortcomings of politicians. A citizen is a political animal.

Another point I’m going to have to detract from. Politics can only be defined by how its politicians and agents act; the State is not a superhuman entity, nor is it worth more than the sum of its parts. It is purely a human institution, and thus its actions are those undertaken by humans. To excuse the shortcomings of politics by confusing them with the shortcomings of politicians is to forget this.

• A citizen votes, and encourages his fellow citizens to do likewise. He follows election campaigns closely and takes the opportunity to challenge politicians on their record and their promises. Yet citizens also recognise the limits of elected office, and look to facilitate change on a daily basis in less formal arenas, where votes are not courted and voices not heard.

The limits of elected office end much sooner than the author wishes. In fact, the greatest, most important changes in society come not from the electoral system, but from the ability to “Facilitate change on a daily basis in less formal arenas” that the author has put as a secondary concern. He has his priorities confused.  Voting may be the first port of call for most political activists, but this is only because, regardless of your beliefs or choices, the State will engage in violence upon you if you don’t obey it. Voting therefore gives the appearance of political accountability and the collective responsibility of society, but it is just an appearance. The underlying framework is the root cause of social strife.

Ultimately, voting is accepting the entrenched privilege and violence of the State; the State can do no good in the long run, and can only harm society, by limiting its productive, entrepreneurial and social spirit. Voting is thus a socially violent action. I won’t be a part of it, least not in the name of citizenship.

Note that I was working on the assumption that citizenship should be a non-political concept, as per the second point. It thus makes no sense to demand political activity in the name of citizenship.

• A citizen is an internationalist, and works for the causes of liberty, equality and justice in every corner of the globe. Citizens never underestimate the importance of their choices: no action stands in isolation.

Spoken like a true anarchist.  I have no issues with the principle stated here, but have much to disagree with the author’s intended path to achieving it.

• A citizen is aware of the ethical implications of his consumption; of its impact on labour rights, animal rights and the environment. Citizens assert that universal standards in these areas are integral to a just system of trade, and form part of the ‘level playing field’ for emerging economies.

To form a society based on more equal playing fields, we must understand the true sources of inequalities, both economic and political. This involves accepting, as some libertarians are sadly reluctant to do, that there are non-state sources of authority as well as State ones. The massive economic power of business giants has long been established, and benefit from regulatory advantages and other privileges that ultimately derive from State authority. There’s no space to go into details here, but a few include subsidisation of transport costs, the money monopoly, intellectual property, absentee landlordism, etc. These, amongst others, create an environment in which massive overhead costs make self-employment for even quite simple industries harder to get into, create managerial classes who exists merely to extract value from labour, and, thanks especially to IP frameworks, allow the “Let’s make an empty shell corporation and outsource everything else, taking the cream off the top” corporate model. In the modern world, this is why the business giants exist, and what allows them to maintain their influence over our consumer choices, lifestyles, and employment opportunities.

Minus these institutions and frameworks, it seems to me the most likely outcome would be an economy based on much more equal terms. Labour relations would certainly be less of a David v Goliath affair- except in real life Goliath normally wins. Emerging economies, able to hold onto all the value of what they produce, rather than having “rents” extracted from them, would have much greater productive and bargaining abilities.