The Ethics of Percentages

In any society, some minorities are going to be oppressed - that is, these minorities will have characteristics that larger society disfavors and tries to destroy through the power of the state.

In this sense, it could be said that all civilized societies “oppress” thieves and murderers by refusing to let them steal and kill. This is acceptable to most people, however, because most people do not approve of theft and murder. Those who do are a tiny percentage of the population. Individuals tend to approve of oppression when it destroys something that they dislike and to disapprove when it destroys something that they like. (1)

This begs a question: What percentage of a population should a society oppress?

1. Autocracy

In a autocracy, the whole of state power is contained in the hands of a single person, which means that the percentage of citizens necessary to create a new law is far less than one percent. In a small dictatorship of 1000 citizens, for example, the lone leader would represent one tenth of one percent. Most monarchies have more subjects than this.

To destroy a law that is supported by the monarch would require an overthrow of the leader, or at least the threat of such. Such a threat would likely require a good percentage of citizen support to be effective - say ninety percent, as a guess.

Given this, it follows that the leader of an autocracy has the power to oppress all members of his society except for the select few he relies on to support his regime. Nearly all of the population is oppressed by a single individual.

2. Aristocracy

In an aristocracy, power is held by an elite few, such as members of a favored class or party. The party could represent as little as one or as great as forty-nine percent of the citizens - any minority. All that is required to create a new law is the support of greater than fifty percent of the party -- which amounts to, at most, twenty-five percent of the population at large.

To destroy a law favored by the elite twenty-five percent would require a threat similar to the one in the autocratic example, but less extreme -- probably more like seventy-five percent of popular support would be necessary. Less extreme, because an oligarchy involves constant political maneuverings within the party, many of which rely on public support for validation.

It follows, then, that the members of the elite party have the power to oppress any citizens who are not in the party. A group consisting of ten percent of the population can oppress the other ninety, while a group consisting of forty percent of the population can oppress the other sixty. In any case, you have a majority of citizens being oppressed.

3. Democracy

In a democracy, state power resides with whatever faction is currently the largest -- the majority. Any new law must have the support of greater than fifty percent of the citizens in order to pass. To destroy an existing law also requires the support of greater than fifty percent of the population.

In other words, the same faction - the majority - controls both how laws are created and how laws are destroyed. This means that once a law is firmly in place, only a change in the philosophy of the majority can destroy it. The greater the number of individual persons that make up the society, the less rapid the philosophical change is likely to be.

Thus, the greatest percentage of the population that can be oppressed in a direct democracy is forty-nine percent. (2)

Forty-nine percent. This is an improvement over autocracy or aristocracy, but is this good enough? Can a society be called "free" if forty-nine percent of the individual persons within that society can be oppressed by the other fifty-one? It hardly seems just that a minority of individuals must suffer for the ignorance or carelessness of the masses.

Perhaps what is needed is a new system, one in which minorities can protect themselves in a more direct fashion. One that follows the trend set by the migration from autocracy to democracy.

Perhaps what is needed is to require a higher percentage of the population for the passage of any new law. If sixty or eighty percent of popular support were required for the approval of any new law, then we could lower the potential for oppression to to forty or twenty percent. If this were coupled with the idea that destroying a bad law should require, not a majority, but only a critical minority, then the system could insure that no more than that percentage of the population could be oppressed by the power of the state.

Once again, the question becomes: what percentage of a population should a society oppress?

4. Unanarchy

I suggest that the maximum acceptable percentage of oppressed citizens is ten percent (3). Under the proposed system, creating a new law would require the support of greater than ninety percent of the citizens, while destroying a poor law would require the support of only ten percent of the citizens.

I'll call this idea "unanarchy."

What would this amount to in practice?

In a small town with a relatively homogeneous population, it's likely that ninety percent of the local folks would agree on a great number of things. There may be all manner of laws regulating behavior - restrictions on religious freedom, gun ownership, drug use, property rights, obscenity, education, etc.

There is a bright side. The former example was that of a small town with a relatively homogeneous population - the demographics being the key. As a society grows larger, it becomes less and less homogeneous. A large city contains a diverse lot of ethnic, religious, and philosophical groups -- getting ninety percent of that population to agree on anything would be daunting. Some cities might have tighter gun control than others; some might have more restrictions on free speech; but the degree of oppression should lessen significantly as the population gets larger.

When we get to the regional level, it is highly unlikely that ninety percent of the population will agree on anything other than the most basic laws against force and fraud.

5. Objections

Objection: but what if I happen to live in one of the more oppressive little towns?

You would have to move. There would have to be some nationwide law, or perhaps an article in a "Bill of Rights", granting individuals freedom of movement, so that an oppressive mini-state could not gain too much control over its citizens - they must always have the option of voting with their feet. In this way, states are forced to compete against one another for labor, as states that have unpleasant laws will drive citizens away. This should act as a check against misguided local activism. An economic check - perhaps a more powerful deterrent than the legal threats of force set up as checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution. In effect, you have a free market for social, economic, and political systems.

The solution to this is imperfect; but better, I think, than our current system, where most oppression comes from the top and there is really no better place to go.

Objection: but nothing would ever get done!

This must be the most common response that I have heard to the idea of unanarchy. Objectors have seen how difficult it is for a group to agree on anything; when faced with the concept that a new law might require upwards of ninety percent of the population's approval, they invariably exclaim, "but nothing would ever get done!"

This begs the question: what exactly are the leaders supposed to "get done?" Why is it believed that new laws must be created all the time and for every purpose? In short, "nothing would ever get done" is the very idea. It is often the case that the more leaders "get done," the worse off their subjects become.

"Nothing would ever get done" is another way of saying, "Nothing would ever get done without the approval of ninety percent of the citizenry." For reasons stated above, I believe this to be a good thing. If you have greater than ten percent of the people voting against some measure, then you are probably attempting to oppress too many people.

5. Oppression

At this point, it seems wise to digress a bit and discuss exactly why "oppression" is a bad thing.

From a utilitarian standpoint, any society must attempt to maximize the happiness of its population.

This can be viewed as a good in itself - in that case, it seems that whatever system best promotes happiness would be the system to base a government on. I believe that unanarchy will be that system, as it will do more to protect the rights of minorities than even a democracy protected by a Bill of Rights (4). It will be much easier for minorities to destroy a discriminatory law if they require only ten percent of public support instead of fifty.

There is a practical argument for unanarchy as well. When people feel oppressed, they begin to lose respect for the law and the society that produces it. They become anti-social, sometimes to the point of revolution. In an autocracy or aristocracy where the vast majority is unhappy, such a revolution is generally viewed as a good thing. In a democracy where the majority is happy, however, such a revolution is disdained by most of the public and it's proponents viewed as troublemakers even when they have legitimate grievances.

If the critical minority is ten percent, they probably cannot wage an effective revolution against a society where the overwhelming majority is content. Such a society is more resistant to destruction than a democracy, where upwards of forty percent of the population could be unhappily oppressed without any hope of changing things within the system.

The greater the number of dissatisfied citizens, the greater the danger that the state and society will collapse.

6. History

One can find support for the idea of unanarchy in history.

The most evil and oppressive regimes in history have been autocracies; feudal kings and modern dictators have caused great suffering for millions.

Aristocracies have been better, but not much. The Soviet Union was a better place to live after Stalin died (thus changing from a monarchy to an oligarchy, where everything was decided by committee), but was still an unhappy place next to the countries on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Individuals in China are arguably better today than they were under the dictatorship of Chairman Mao, but they are still not as healthy and happy as those who live under democracy.

The United States of America, arguably the best modern democracy, is one of the greatest places in the world to live. However, oppression has slowly crept its way into the political structure over the past century, and shows little sign of abating. Over the years, the politicians have grown more and more powerful even as the population has grown less and less satisfied with its government.

It would seem that the greater the percentage of popular support necessary for a government to act, the happier the population is likely to be.

There has not, to my knowledge, ever been a country based on the idea of unanarchy. If there ever is, I believe that it will be a stronger, freer nation, and that the freedom will last for far more generations than it could under a democracy.

Notes:

1. No attempt is made in this essay to determine which forms of oppression are good or evil.

2. As opposed to a representative democracy, which is often a veiled form of oligarchy.

3. If the percentage is greater than ten, then you oppress more people; the greater it is, the more you oppress, until you reach forty-nine percent and become a democracy. If the percentage is less than ten, you run the risk that a large criminal syndicate could prevent larger society from outlawing things such as theft, rape, and murder. If one hundred percent of public support is required for a new law, you have de facto anarchy.

4. This is not to say that a "Bill of Rights" is a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it can only make the minority (and, thus, the individual) better protected against the state. I think a unanarchic society would be even stronger with some sort of declaration of universal rights.