Posts
Today must be my day to reply at some length to comments from
my Libertarian
Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practice post. This reply is to Francisco Torres, with the
discussion beginning at May 17, 2016 at 4:05 PM.
In reply to his initial comment, I suggested he do some
catching up on what I have written in the past before he yells at me about all
of the things I haven’t written. He
replied that he has read it all, and he holds the same objections, yelling once
again about things I haven’t written. So this time I decided to dedicate a full post
to answering his points.
I've been reading your columns
whenever they're posted by Lew Rockwell or Robert Wenzel, FOR YEARS.
Thank you for reading.
Let’s test that out.
For instance, this:" Libertarian
theory does not recognize open borders when it comes to property."
This is conflating property
boundaries with the political borders placed by the State.
As I have written in the column above, which you have so
carefully read: “There is no “state” in libertarian theory.”
Perhaps you missed that one in your careful reading. So…how can I be conflating anything along the
lines you suggest? There is no room for “state”
in libertarian theory; therefore there cannot be state borders. There are only private borders in libertarian
theory. Try as some minarchists might,
you cannot derive even minimal government (as the term is commonly used today)
from the NAP.
That is NOT what you're talking
about. If *I* want to RENT, EMPLOY or MARRY a foreigner, who are YOU to tell me
I *CAN'T*?
You are yelling at me about what I am talking about? Don’t be so sure about what I am talking
about, and then double down by yelling at me.
Since you have read every word, please find one place where I have
written that I would stop any two individuals from a voluntary
transaction. I will save you the
trouble. You won’t find one.
Because that is what you're saying:
"... immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps[.]" This is
arguing that the only good immigrants are those who homestead completely unclaimed
land.
Once again, Francisco, I must question your careful reading
skills – both regarding this column and the previous columns which you state
you have read. You will note, in this
column, that comment was directed toward Walter Block; in other words, there is
context. He has written before on the
idea of immigrants moving to unclaimed land as acceptable under the NAP. As I have written before – and now again in
this post – the problem with applying Walter’s theory to today’s reality is
that this is not what immigrants are doing (even if one grants that deserts or
mountain peaks are unclaimed).
The difference, Bionic Mosquito, is
that I don't pretend to PROJECT my property boundaries to the whole area
encompassing a NATION only because I happen to find foreigners icky.
I have written in the past (and in this subject post) that
the only option in today’s world for anyone calling for open, closed or managed
borders is to call on the state – there is no “good” libertarian option in
today’s world. Does this mean I am
pleased with this reality? If you think
so, find where I have written such a thing – in all of your reading of my work,
you must have come across something.
I will save you the trouble: you cannot.
Further, and you certainly must have seen it in all of your
careful reading as I have made this point too many times to count: I have the
right to manage who comes on my property.
My neighbors and I have the right to jointly agree to a common structure
of managing who enters our community.
Unfortunately, the only means to do that for a country is
via the state today. Now, you conclude I
am calling on the state to do this task.
Therefore, you demonstrate once again your lack of careful reading
skills, as I have written more than once – and even in this post…wait, I will
quote my statement exactly:
Open borders is bad libertarian
theory and can only be implemented by initiating force in practice.
Because the only way to have open borders in this world also
requires force. So I ask you: why are
you calling for state force?
Further, please point to one instance where I have written
that foreigners are icky. Wait, I will
save you the trouble. You can’t.
I certainly have NO right to tell
my neighbors who can or cannot visit them, or to whom they can let their homes
or who they can employ or marry or simply invite over. What makes you think you
have that right?
Please point to one place where I have written such a
thing. I will save you the trouble: you
can’t.
I'll leave aside the condescending
nature of your recommendation…
You may leave it aside, but if you write to lecture me about
things I haven’t written, this will be my tone.
In other words, I won’t leave it aside.
In essence, you're arguing an
immigrant is OK as long as he or she moves to the gawd-damned MOON.
You already tried this ignorant comment once – see above for
my response.
"No! No open borders! Why?
Because the State exists! So, nope! Can't have that!"
It is easy to point to managed or closed political borders
and scream “NAP violation.” That ground
is ploughed so much it almost isn’t worth discussing. This is Libertarian Theory 101 kind of stuff.
But tell me, please
Francisco, how do you suggest we have open borders in this world, a world where
the state will ALWAYS make decisions about who crosses borders? How will you have open borders in this world and
avoid NAP violations? Explain it while
demonstrating you have some understanding of reality.
I will save you the trouble: you cannot.
Conclusion
Other than not understanding much of what I have written,
these are great comments.
Thanks, Francisco.
@Bionic Mosquito,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting a whole blog post for little ol' me.
─ As I have written in the column above, which you have so carefully read: “There is no “state” in libertarian theory.” ─
That's not an answer, BM. Of course there's no State in libertarian theory but the borders you talk about are clearly those set by the State, to wit: using Germany's troubles as an example of the pitfalls of "open borders". Who set up the borders surrounding Germany if not the State? You cannot frame the argument around what the State DOES and then throw in the case that libertarianism denies the State anyway.
─ You are yelling at me about what I am talking about? ─
Yes, I am, because you argue: "Property is private and exclusionary" which is correct, but then you say "... immigrants aren’t moving to the top of the Alps" and "Germany's government expects to spend around 93.6 billion euros by the end of 2020 on costs related to the refugee crisis." The first one is an argument against immigration based on the fear icky foreigners may invade my lawn and the second is a red herring. Immigrants (peaceful, voluntary) are not invading my lawn and whatever action the German government decides to do with the money it extorts from the German people is not an argument against immigration or open borders per sé, merely an indictment on the German government's actions. I could just as easily argue that people should not have babies because their children will not be moving to the Alps once the little monsters grow up and because the State is generous with other people's money. I don't know about you but I would still have children because I gawd-damned want to, so there.
My objection to your argument is based entirely on the generalization that you're committing. The freedom to migrate is as fundamental as the freedom to speak, to work, to engage in commerce, to freely associate. Migration does NOT and CANNOT reasonably imply invading someone else's property, so I don't have to apply any caveats like "provided these actions do not trample on other people's rights." The concept of liberty already implies liberty for all individuals.
─ He [Dr. Walter Block] has written before on the idea of immigrants moving to unclaimed land as acceptable under the NAP. ─
Indeed, this is acceptable but Block was talking about homesteading.
─ As I have written before – and now again in this post – the problem with applying Walter's theory to today's reality is that this is not what immigrants are doing[...] ─
Who cares? What if immigrants don't settle unclaimed land but BUY the land? What if they RENT IT? What if they MARRY into it?
And I know you want to construe these voluntary transactions as "managed access" but that cannot be the case because MANAGEMENT implies a supervisor, an overseer, an arbiter. Instead, free and voluntary exchange implies spontaneous order without management.
─ I have the right to manage who comes on my property. My neighbors and I have the right to jointly agree to a common structure of managing who enters our community.─
Of course you have the right to manage YOUR property. Even with your neighbors you would have to achieve 100% consensus regarding to whom everybody concedes access or lets the home. What happens if one of the neighbors decides not to accept the terms of your proposal? Does that neighbor lose his or her right to grant access to his or her property?
Do you really want to argue that?
─ I have written in the past (and in this subject post) that the only option in today's world for anyone calling for open, closed or managed borders is to call on the state – there is no “good” libertarian option in today’s world. ─
So? Either a principle or a moral rule stands on its merits, on the strength of the argument that supports it, or it does not.
Sentient individuals everywhere,
DeleteThis might be why our primary aim should be to abolish the DoE, and pull our children out of public education, and higher education.
Seriously, I'm getting a little embarrassed reading the conclusions from people that call themselves Libertarians. I might need to start calling myself something else entirely.
At what point anywhere in libertarian circles has a libertarian worthy of the label said that Party C can interrupt any transaction between Party A and Party B? This is even addressed directly in BM's post.
He's even addressed this in this post, carefully written to address all points. Just. For. You.
What is your aim? Are you arguing to argue? Are you ascribing stances that never were to people that disagree with you?
Behold, a new discovery: The SJWtarian. God help the future of Libertarianism.
Black Flag
DeleteDid somebody write something? I don't see anything.
Francisco,
DeleteWhat is wrong with the present state? It serves the interests of its owners rather than that of the people.
What is the problem with this for immigration? The ruling class decides who comes and who goes. Smaller political bodies have no say.
What is the point of conceptualizing a society based in a private property legal order? We can (in theory) resolve these disputes through voluntary separation, and communitarian agreements like restrictive covenants.
If the State was not managing the borders there would still be different communities with different views on who should come and go. If your view is predicated on respecting the wishes of the individual then it should follow that you respect the wishes of the individual who wants to live in an exclusionary society.
As for this, "I don't know about you but I would still have children because I gawd-damned want to, so there."
You are displaying the anti-social attitude that characterizes invading Islamic populations. The fact that they have kids, and lots of them, is a serious and existential threat to European society.
Black Flag,
Delete+1 for "SJWtarian." I call them Cultural Marxist Libertarians, but its the same thing.
@Black Flag,
Delete─ At what point anywhere in libertarian circles has a libertarian worthy of the label said that Party C can interrupt any transaction between Party A and Party B? ─
Here: "Further, and you certainly must have seen it in all of your careful reading as I have made this point too many times to count: I have the right to manage who comes on my property. My neighbors and I have the right to jointly agree to a common structure of managing who enters our community."
BM insists that he never says one thing, or other, yet he keeps repeating the same bromide above as if he could get away with it. I'll address this point quickly but first, let me make another point regarding a red herring he keeps slapping around:
─ Because the only way to have open borders in this world also requires force. So I ask you: why are you calling for state force? ─
In a classic case of Begging the Question, BM assumes that only the State can force a border open. What the hell is a 'border' if not the political construct invented by the State to assert its dominion? What else can it be but lines on a map? When I tell BM that the argument based on the State's apparent omnipotence is invalid in its face, he merely engages in obfuscation by saying "why, I never said that!"
To the point regarding the management to entry. When I told BM that I don't pretend to project my property over its boundaries, he replies with a perfunctory 'Why, I never said that!' and yet he re-asserts this notion that his neighbors and himself can 'agree' to 'collectively' impose restrictions to entry to anyone. Sure. Just as I am sure, like the Marxians believe, businessmen get together to agree to set prices, as if everyone would not act upon his own self-interest and underbid everyone else. I am sure all of BM's neighbors show the same kind of special loyalty to the cause.
So the question becomes: What happens when ONE of your neighbors decides to tell the others to go have sex with themselves and marries a foreigner? What is BM going to do? The implication behind his argument is that he along with his neighbors get to impose themselves over the voluntary agreement between Party B and party A.
So, tell me, did he or didn't he at least IMPLY that?
─ If the State was not managing the borders there would still be different communities with different views on who should come and go. ─
So what? That does not imply the following:
* That IMMIGRATION is an act of aggression in itself.
* That Open Borders is only something the State can do.
And.
* That there's nothing libertarian about Open Borders.
My arguments, which I trust are cogent, show that BM is equivocating by confusing the concepts 'migration' with 'invasion'; that he's merely begging the question by assuming that all immigrants want to do when moving to a new place is homestead (he would not have brought Walter Block's argument forth otherwise) and that his belief that 'only the State can open the border' is specious. Clearly, the fact there's 'illegal' immigration is evidence that the State can do NOTHING about the border; that the State is utterly incompetent and that the border is as fictitious a thing as the state's only legitimacy.
UC-
DeleteI should probably clarify my use of SJWtarian. I'm describing the method of discourse more than the content of the argument. I don't think his concerns are without merit, I'm just not sure where he's getting the need to throw them out as an argument.
Which brings me back to strictly talking about the content of the argument.
-Francisco
An implication is one thing, but assigning implications is another.
An assigned implication would be me saying
"Francisco wants more migrants to come here so they can take all the jobs and get all of the entitlements, and he just hates white people".
Which, you haven't said or implied at all. The belief that you think that would fall on me, certainly not you. The same goes for any implications, or stances, you've assigned to someone that disagrees with you.
I have read, and re-read the debate on Libertarian border policy continuously, very curious about any sort of final verdict - Wondering if there's a solution. BM's posts are a large, if not gigantic part of that. Preventing one or two groups from imposing rights/demands on a third group appears to be a core of his concerns.
The only conclusion I can come to that I'm 100% comfortable with is that there is no way to apply a libertarian position to a mechanism that exists only because of the state. If borders, as we know them today, aren't a state created entity that exists for the state to achieve state ends, I don't know what is.
It's not dissimilar from trying to have a "Non Aggression Principle IRS".
As for all of the points you've addressed throughout the dialogue, I'd encourage you to re-read all of BM's posts on the matter with a fresh outlook without some sort of expectation that his argument needs to be a certain way so that you can disagree with it.
... And if you take some sort of offense to an individual asserting control of his own property, we might be moving on to another conversation entirely.
Bm, in a previous thread on this same subject, you had replied to me:
ReplyDelete"..my point is...it is pointless to discuss open borders in this world. Open, closed, or managed - it is all done by the state. No real world choice today involves the state any less than the other."
In my opinion, the most powerful arguments for open borders and the free movement of labor are not moralistic [eg NAP]but purely economic [i.e. scientific].
Those arguments have existed since Smith and Ricardo [and even before], and were expanded on/further developed by 20th century giants such as von Mises and Rothbard [and others since], as you no doubt know.
So my question is:
given the fact that all of those named economists lived/operated/ wrote/taught in a world dominated by the state, would you have then informed a Von Mises or a Rothbard [or their present day equivalent,] that it was "pointless to discuss open borders in this world", and that because of the state's presence, that their their economic/scientific proofs of the superiority of open borders and the free movement of labor were therefor just as pointless?
Just curious. [Maybe I'm missing something?]
regards, onebornfree
personal freedom consulting
onebornfreeatyahoo
OBF, unfortunately many people seem to interpret my position as one of closed borders. I fully support the movement of people and goods as long as both sender and recipient are acting voluntarily and not loading others with an unwanted burden.
DeleteThe relevant point of my comment is that even open borders in this world requires or otherwise will result in the involvement of the state - open-borders libertarians should stop pretending it doesn't.
The unwanted burden probably means 99% of the immigration into the west is of the unacceptable type. Besides tax dollars, what is the price of lost civilization? Once I went to an area full of migrants that were of a specific ethnicity/religion, and as I was walking the street completely unconnected different people were swearing at me and threatening violence because I am white. What number can be put on this?
DeleteThere is no doubt that there is a significant unwanted burden associated with immigration to the US and Europe.
DeleteYou claim that the unwanted burden probably means 99% of the immigration into the west. Why are you using the 99% figure? Are you just speculating? Are you employing hyperbole to make a point?
The tax dollars earmarked for immigrant welfare purposes are not the only tax dollars in play.
What about the wealth confiscated from those who have it in order to finance ICE?
What about the capital redistributed from the productive to the bureaucrats employed by ICE? The fringe benefits and perks for ICE employees? The sick days, the socialized medicine, the high rates of disability and workers comp associated with blue collar unionized public employment?
How about the pensions of ICE employees?
The primary beneficiaries of welfare spending are (1) the administrative class of bosses and chiefs of the bureaucracy established for distributing the welfare; (2) the crony class which contracts with the state to provide some service associated with the distribution of the welfare; (3) the government "worker" bees; and (4) finally, the welfare recipients.
Bureaucratic systems are themselves civilization killers. Guess what race of people has conceived, implemented, and managed such systems?
It is time for the white man to break his addiction to socialism.
"What about the wealth confiscated from those who have it in order to finance ICE?"
DeleteIt adds insult to injury considering we are paying for them not to do their job.
@Bionic Mosquito,
Delete─OBF, unfortunately many people seem to interpret my position as one of closed borders.─
If it serves to give you comfort, I didn't. I take issue with your conclusion that Open Borders is in itself a violation of the NAP. Either you're construing Open Borders to mean something else than what the term implies (i.e. no UNDUE restriction over the free movement of free and willing individuals) or you are really being disingenuous.
─ I fully support the movement of people and goods as long as both sender and recipient are acting voluntarily and not loading others with an unwanted burden. ─
Such a proviso is not required if we're talking about FREE and WILLING individuals. The concept implies people will NOT impose burdens on others.
"Such a proviso is not required if we're talking about FREE and WILLING individuals. The concept implies people will NOT impose burdens on others."
DeleteThen we need not discuss open borders on this planet as it is today. There are many people who feel a burden is being imposed. As value is subjective, who are you to disagree with them?
Since there is nothing even close to a true market regarding immigration, we cannot know the answer regarding this proviso.
BM,
Delete"As value is subjective, who are you to disagree with them?"
This relates to the discussion I have been having with Alaska, as well as Anon. Value is subjective for the purposes of analyzing human action, but that doesn't mean that the preferences held by individuals are good or to be respected. This point should be obvious.
Without reference to a higher value set there is no way to determine whose subjective values we should honor when they come into conflict. This is especially problematic in the case of a culture clash. We find the rape of women in the streets to be abhorrent and (hopefully) deserving of violent reprisal, but the ones doing the raping view the victims as deserving infidel whores. It appears that nearly half (or more) of the European peoples seem to support this importation of crime and welfare dependency because they have been brainwashed to do so. We need to be able to override the subjective preferences of our fellows when they become destructive of the society at large. This in my view is the just role of power.
For our purposes we need to ask what the metapolitical consequences of mass immigration will be for the libertarian (decentralist) project. If the consequences are bad (and they are) we need to be in opposition. The question should not be "does policy x conform to libertarian theory?" but "does policy x advantage or disadvantage us moving towards a more just society in the long run?"
ReplyDelete"Try as some minarchists might, you cannot derive even minimal government (as the term is commonly used today) from the NAP."
This is a pretty good summary of the ongoing debate we have been having BM. However, I (being in the minarchist camp) would not base my justification upon the NAP but upon the need for sovereignty and emergency measures (we have of course discussed this already but I'd like to go back to it from time to time.)
I am also of the view that the methodological individualism used in conceptualizing the NAP is a dangerous way of thinking, that can slip easily into relativism and nihilism.
What happens if rather than conceptualizing the NAP with individuals as the subject, we try thinking about it in terms of a community or a body politic? I am coming to believe more and more that the philosophical/metaphysical aspect is crucial.
I think that much of the confusion and bizarre leftist positions on questions like immigration from libertarians is ultimately derived from the fact that we are placing individual man and his desires as the highest value. This way lies chaos.
BM, I have noticed that you seem to be interested in science fiction (not uncommon among libertarians, which probably deserves a whole post in itself), have you read the Dune novels? I hold Herbert's work in the same esteem that some libertarians have for Atlas Shrugged and I think he deals with questions relevant to these debates.
“However, I (being in the minarchist camp) would not base my justification upon the NAP but upon…”
DeleteTo my point – there is no way to justify minarchism solely on libertarian theory / the non-aggression principle. It takes something else, something more, something from outside.
“What happens if rather than conceptualizing the NAP with individuals as the subject, we try thinking about it in terms of a community or a body politic?”
I am a simpleton as I find no way to do this via the NAP. Some might see this as a shortcoming of the NAP. I do not, as I don’t expect more from the NAP than it offers. Hence, I write about family, community, culture – all necessary governance (not “government” for those who do not understand what I mean by this term) institutions.
“I think that much of the confusion and bizarre leftist positions on questions like immigration from libertarians is ultimately derived from the fact that we are placing individual man…”
I think the confusion comes from misapplication of the NAP (or maybe the NAP offers more than one answer, which means it doesn’t offer an answer by itself) and a naïve understanding of humans as human. Or in some cases, a purposeful push for Cultural Marxism.
“…have you read the Dune novels?”
No, but I will look into this.
UC, you wrote a comment in the last day – something to the effect that people don’t coalesce around ideas, they coalesce around family, kin, etc. I may be paraphrasing a lot, but something like this. You have succinctly stated something that offers a building block (to me) regarding preconditions.
"I am also of the view that the methodological individualism used in conceptualizing the NAP is a dangerous way of thinking, that can slip easily into relativism and nihilism."
DeleteI am sure that you know that the premise of methodological individualism is based on the axiom that humans act, meaning that the nature of man is predicated on his taking conscious actions, choosing means to attain his ends. I am not sure which path based on this starting point leads to relativism or nihilism.
If all humans are considered as "acting men" as a basis for a theory of exchange, then those collective actions are definite not relative and based on subjective (and inherently non-measurable) psychic motives. The theory of exchange based on human action leads to definite outcomes as a result of definite, but unmeasureable, ideas.
Theories based on methodological individualism can neither be construed as relative nor nihilistic in this context. Marginal utility is a law of human exchange as surely as the properties of electromagnetism. In addition, nihilism is a set of ideas in contrast to most religions, which state unequivocally that life is meant to be lived by certain beliefs and principles.
The NAP under the lens of methodological individualism is a theory of interaction that respects the market formation of prices in exchange. Force used in the process of exchange is inherently arbitrary and reflects no information about supply and demand; and further, nothing about the direction of allocating capital.
In theory, the NAP relies on the assumption that market prices enable the environment most suitable for man to his attain his ends. In light of history, it is hard to argue against the benefits derived from market applications of the NAP.
As BM makes quite evident, knowing how to produce a wealthy society and knowing which laws, customs and taboos a society should observe are two separate matters. Many societies see fit to inhibit the NAP here, encourage it there; but, as an expression of market prices the NAP is responsible for all the benefits of capital accumulation we see around us. Force does not create wealth any more than a sunrise creates the sun even though we see the two together more often than not.
I have read and really enjoy Dune, BTW.
Alaska,
DeleteYour comment was very clear and much appreciated.
I do not for a moment dispute the merits of methodological individualism for explaining markets, exchange, price formation, etc. I have a definite appreciation for the work of Austrian school economists. In fact, it has been an indispensable tool for me in trying to better understand how the world works.
"I am not sure which path based on this starting point leads to relativism or nihilism."
I could have been far more clear. Apologies. I probably should have said subjectivism. It is not the methodological individualism itself from the perspective of positive social science, but the implications for the normative variety. I would agree with Mises that economics should strive to be a value free science. To that end, the conceptual framework offered by axiomatic deductive logic from the premise of individual action is essential and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with relativism or nihilism.
However, I would argue that when you make normative conclusions about the ends of acting man using methodological individualism you end up with relativism and nihilism in that there is no higher value than the gratification of individual subjective preference.
Obviously one does not have to accept those conclusions. One could in fact have other higher values and still make use of methodological individualism. I certainly do, but there is in liberalism a tendency to place far too much value on the individual to the point where he is an atomized entity with no meaning beyond itself. Among libertarians is it is far too common to find nihilists and hedonists who will go so far as to argue that pedophilia is ok as long as its voluntary (sex in general is a market transaction to these people). It is the entire basis of the "voluturist" ethic.
I have no disagreements with anything you said.
What are your other higher values?
DeleteYou writing apprehends a world in which the individual is unfettered by tribal customs, practices, and traditions.
You would appear to fear the primacy of the individual lest he unshackle himself from the chains of subordination to the group or to "something bigger than himself."
Humanity has suffered far more from the efforts of those who have not hesitated to use force in order to impose the end of individual submission to some "higher values" beyond the individual than what you asseverate is the natural tendency of voluntary exchange to devolve into nihilism.
Although one need not be conversant with Austrian principles to understand that force used to achieve some "higher value" is always occasioned by death, destruction, misery and spectacular misallocation of wealth.
That is why those who signal that they have values superior to the marketplace must ask themselves, what means are they prepared to implement to see their higher values become the prevailing norm?
I remind you of Solzhenitsyn's wisdom: the higher the ends, the higher must be the means.
If more people embraced free and voluntary exchange as a higher value, I would submit that the world would be far closer to your liking than it would be a hedonistic hellhole.
Anon,
DeleteIs this the Anon from the previous thread on "Libertarian Open Borders?"
I don't fear "the primacy of the individual", I don't believe its true. Of course I value and respect the individual. I also support the free market (though with some restrictions).
I believe that you make the individual worse off by elevating his importance beyond what it should be. He is related to others, that precise relationship is not for me to define, but he is not an island. No religion has ever conceptualized man that way and as far as I can tell the only people interested in doing so are hardcore libertarians (and stirnerites).
If the group has become unjust to the individual I support his separation, but I think that would be regrettable and indicative of serious problems with the group.
"the natural tendency of voluntary exchange to devolve into nihilism."
I did not argue this. My argument is that radical individualist subjectivism devolves into nihilism, and I think that is beyond dispute.
"That is why those who signal that they have values superior to the marketplace"
I should hope that everyone here has values beyond the marketplace.
"what means are they prepared to implement to see their higher values become the prevailing norm?"
I brought up libertarian "volunturists" who think sex with children is OK. How do you prevent sex with children without deferring to other values beyond the market?
(Part 2 Reply to Anon, it may show up first- BM, can you make it so that it shows up second?)
DeleteYou may have noticed I didn't answer your question about my own values. There are two reasons for this. The first is that you are an Anon, I would be more inclined to go down that road if you make a profile with a name. There are many Anons and I would like to know which one I am talking to.
The second is that I don't believe in a one size fits all. I am a traditionalist but I am also a perennialist. It seems you are the one more inclined to believe that one set of values (liberalism) should subordinate others. (I am not trying to straw-man your position so please correct me if I am wrong.)
You invoked Solzhenitsyn. He was a Russian Orthodox Traditionalist and a Russian Nationalist. He was not a proponent of liberalism.
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”
-Solzhenitsyn
UC, yes I am the same anon. I have chosen the anonymous profile because I do not have any of the other accounts. I do have a Disqus account, but one can not use that here.
DeleteAt any rate, thank you for your responses.
We agree that no man is an island and from that premise it logically follows that man is a social animal and that he needs to interact and be connected with other human beings. In short, all of us need to have some number of stable social relationships.
Of course, each individual will have a different optimal Dunbar number, but there are upper limits beyond which trouble ensues.
Yes, I can't disagree with your assertion that no religion has conceptualized man as an island onto himself. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my posts because I do not conceive of the individual as an island onto himself, without relation to others.
Separation from the group is not only regrettable, it can be harmful and deadly. There are many who argue that solitary confinement in a penal setting is devastating to the isolated inmate. In fact, isolated confinement in the prison setting really buttresses the point that man needs some stable social relationships as one might intuitively think that the one place where it might not be as bad to be isolated is a penitentiary given its guests.
Radical individualist subjectivism? Is this a doctrine about which much has been written? Is there an Austrian connection? Perhaps there is something at the Mises library?
To the extent an individual is driven by sating his subjective desires and objectives and in the process thereof he aggresses another, that individual's actions fall outside of voluntary exchange and the NAP.
Although I have one or two libertine peccadilloes (let me be euphemistic), I am much more the square than the hipster.
I want to emphasize that I am not a big fan of the libertine branch of libertarianism insofar as the libertines think that gay marriage and transgender acceptance and sex with teachers and ingestion of copious amounts of oxycodone, heroin, and the like are the very essence of liberty.
This is my second reply to UC.
DeleteThe marketplace values. I have always bristled at judicial pronouncements that the practice of law and wearing a black robe requires values higher than that of the marketplace. A great exposition of this attitude is reflected in Justice Cardozo's famous opinion in Meinhard v. Salmon, 164 N.E. 545 (NY 1928).
Justice Holmes is another jurist who would play this card. It is a thoroughly progressive construct repeated by progressive judges.
I am a lawyer. Do I think that the average businessman is more virtuous and honest than the average lawyer, YES!
Do I think that the average businessman is more honest and virtuous than almost every judge, ABSOLUTELY!
Thus, I must confess that whenever I hear or read some variation on the theme that the morals of the marketplace are less than or do not constitute one of the higher values, I get rankled. Stated alternatively, I have a natural tendency to view this issue through the prism of my antipathy for progressive jurists who have repeatedly articulated the position that bureaucrat, commissar, judge and lawyer are morally superior to businessman.
There are other questions and points you have raised that I do not have the time now to address, but I will later - after a long weekend.
Yes, Solzhenitsyn is right. I also think that his admonition to use the highest of means to achieve the highest of ends is part of his faith and is entirely consistent with not forgetting God.
Anon,
DeleteI am sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was drinking whiskey last night (standard issue for unhappy conservatives) and wanted to give your reply a clear head.
Man, I would encourage you to make a blogger profile and stick around BM's site, but you could also just start your posts with some kind of signature (maybe anonlawyer).
"Radical individualist subjectivism"
The closest explicit doctrine I can think of would be the Egoist Philosophy of Max Stirner. This is the subject I have been hashing out, quite fruitfully, with Alaska below. There have been a number of stirnerites in libertarianism, I think most notably L.A Rollins, whose work I am actually quite fond of.
Here is L.A Rollins' work: http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/TheMythofNaturalRights-Acme-1.pdf
And here is an interesting collection: http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Society-Anthology-Individualist-Thought/dp/1620490080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463774630&sr=8-1&keywords=enemies+of+society
"To the extent an individual is driven by sating his subjective desires and objectives and in the process thereof he aggresses another, that individual's actions fall outside of voluntary exchange and the NAP."
Yes, but as we return to frequently on this site, it is not clear what constitutes aggression and what constitutes property. Since you are lawyer this would be an area worth discussing.
If someone was to insult my mother and I was to bash their skull in, who is the aggressor? I am well aware what Walter Block would say but I have no sympathy for those who go around offending the honor of other people's mothers. Why should I accept Block's view that I was the aggressor?
"Thus, I must confess that whenever I hear or read some variation on the theme that the morals of the marketplace are less than or do not constitute one of the higher values, I get rankled. Stated alternatively, I have a natural tendency to view this issue through the prism of my antipathy for progressive jurists who have repeatedly articulated the position that bureaucrat, commissar, judge and lawyer are morally superior to businessman."
I sympathize with this because you are clearly not a degenerate and I believe you represent what it best in "market values." However, I would submit that a problem with market values is their democratic nature. Also, I do not view businessmen as morally superior to judges because they operate in the realm of voluntary interaction, although your average businessmen vs your average government functionary is a no contest. There is also no contest between a man in the business of pornography distribution and Judge Napolitano (or yourself for that matter).
I simply do not draw normative conclusions from market activity. I do not think the market is a priori better than intervention because I believe there are cases where intervention is preferable. I also believe that, even in the framework of a totally unhampered market, you need to defer to other values to make good choices. We cannot use voluntary exchange as the basis for normative judgements.
"Yes, Solzhenitsyn is right. I also think that his admonition to use the highest of means to achieve the highest of ends is part of his faith and is entirely consistent with not forgetting God."
I agree, but I would suggest that we use the highest possible means, and sometimes you gotta crack skulls tbh. I find nothing immoral about using force to defend your civilization, but I have given up trying to frame that within the NAP. Instead I would frame it within a conception of Sovereignty and the Emergency State as propounded by Carl Schmitt (who was, as you may know, a judicial theorist).
You can reply to me whenever man. Ill check back on this thread. Good discussion, and I hope you have a good weekend.
[BM- I replied to my Anon friend and it hasn't shown up but other posts I made afterwards have. I like this anon and believe his post deserves a response. It is regrettable if I have to type another, but I will do it nonetheless. I have posted a lot lately and I am sorry if it causes you trouble having to manage all these comments. Perhaps you missed it when you were approving comments? It could be on my end. Please delete this comment but let me know if I need to rewrite a reply. Thanks alot man.]
DeleteP.S: Really looking forward to your response to Hornberger.
For some reason it got stuck in the spam folder. I don't check it as often as the normal comments folder.
DeleteUC, thank you for your response. Given that you said you would check back on this thread for a response, here is where I will register it.
DeleteFirst, although I am very opinionated, I am not a know-it-all and that includes Stirner. Sure, I know that he was a giant in the development of egoism in the philosophy realm, but I must defer to you and others with regard to Stirner's work, his influence, and the interplay between his thought and libertarianism. Nevertheless, thanks to you, I will engage him.
Second, Lou Rollins was funny and witty. Long ago, I had come across his Lucifer's Lexicon and just revisited. How about the following?
(1) Fountainhead, n. The very best kind of head, the kind that Ayn Rand uses to give Nathaniel Braden.
(2) Egoism, n. The only kind of "ism" for me.
(3) Klansman, n. A racist who is not a sexist.
My guess is that your perennialism allows you to enjoy Rollins while disagreeing with his egoism and with the somewhat libertine life he lead.
Third, a thorough grounding in the history and development of Anglo-American law is helpful in analyzing and discussing the parameters of aggression. The problem is that American law schools are legal trade schools. Most, and I mean the vast majority, of students are just not interested in discussing the deontological bases for The Rule Against Perpetuities. Heck, they are not interested in discussing the philosophical underpinnings of the rape shield laws.
In my way, I would provoke some philosophical discussions or conceive of bizarre hypotheticals just to enliven the class. Sure, sometimes I would do it just to stir the pot.
Nevertheless, the lack of intellectual curiosity in law school disillusioned me.
Anon Lawyer
UC, this is my second reply to your May 20 post.
DeleteThe point I was making at the end of the last post is that most lawyers are not great intellectuals. I can assure you that after 3 years of law school and 25 years as a lawyer, my assertion is not without a factual predicate.
Do you think that the average lawyer really knows much about, or is interested in, say
(1) the NAP;
(2) James Feinmore Cooper's Literary Offenses;
(3) Praxeology;
(4) the facts of Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905);
(5) the historical setting, particularly the undercurrent of tax revolt, of the tribute episode of the Gospels? or the rhetorical structure of the question and counter-question? or the fact that the coin bore the inscription of a man who was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, a murderer, and who proclaimed himself to be a god?
(6) the Dunning-Kruger effect;
(7) the Overton Window;
(8) the libertarianism of John Wayne's characters such as Ringo Kidd in Stagecoach, Tom Doniphon in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance or John Chisum in Chisum, to name a few;
(9) the dissents of Justice Douglas;
(10) the Brandon Mayfield incident and how it illustrates the resistance of law enforcement to science and blind acceptance of pseudo-science like the reliability of fingerprint "evidence".
I know that you raised other points, but I think we can agree that we both admire and respect Solzhenitsyn.
Anon Lawyer
Oh man if you haven't read Dune you are in for a treat. I would actually recommend the audiobook (I don't normally go for audio) found on Amazon Audible. It uses multiple top notch voice actors and has little bits of music throughout. The novel does what good sci-fi does well, it draws out the problems of the human condition and civilization, placing them in a galactic scale.
ReplyDeleteThe central question in Dune is how to maintain order over an interplanetary civilization. This involves the relationships between man and technology, man and woman, man and nature, man and the state, and consciousness itself. I can't recommend it enough and it is a fun read.
It is also a good reference point for better understanding the idea of Archeofuturism (as conceived by Guillaume Faye in his book of the same name, also recommended).
While on the subject of sci-fi, I think you would also be interested in Vernor Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep and a Deepness in the Sky. Vinge is a libertarian and of all the fiction I have read written by libertarians, his is the best, far better than the garbage that is Alongside Night (though it should be noted that Vinge is a technological determinist and a nihilist, this is the guy who came up with the idea of the technological singularity).
Back to the main topic:
"To my point – there is no way to justify minarchism solely on libertarian theory / the non-aggression principle. It takes something else, something more, something from outside. "
We are in agreement here.
"I am a simpleton as I find no way to do this via the NAP. Some might see this as a shortcoming of the NAP. I do not, as I don’t expect more from the NAP than it offers. Hence, I write about family, community, culture – all necessary governance (not “government” for those who do not understand what I mean by this term) institutions."
Maybe it cannot be done by the NAP as conceived by Walter Block but what is the concept of Just War if not a nationalist (or collectivist....gasp) version of the NAP?
"I think the confusion comes from misapplication of the NAP (or maybe the NAP offers more than one answer, which means it doesn’t offer an answer by itself) and a naïve understanding of humans as human. Or in some cases, a purposeful push for Cultural Marxism."
Agreed, but I think the confusion is inevitable when you place the acting individual as the ultimate end. Subjective values and differences in human populations will necessarily lead to conflict in this regard. The NAP was the best attempt at following the enlightenment project through to its logical conclusion and I believe that the flaws (as I see them) in the NAP are really flaws in liberalism and its supporting enlightenment metaphysics.
The reason Cultural Marxism is able to infiltrate is because CM weaponizes the foundations of liberalism against the (previously) dominant culture. This means using universalism and individualism as cover for ethnic warfare (see Culture of Critique).
"UC, you wrote a comment in the last day – something to the effect that people don’t coalesce around ideas, they coalesce around family, kin, etc. I may be paraphrasing a lot, but something like this. You have succinctly stated something that offers a building block (to me) regarding preconditions."
I am really enjoying your site man. I am very pleased to be able to contribute a little something to the discussion.
Part of the problem with building a society around ideas is that they need to be conscious. What we want is for the habits, customs, and traditions to be unconsciously reflective of the right kind of ideas, and that is a multi-generational project. Rationalistic conceptions of society can be corrupted by people with ill-intentions and high IQ.
Two points:
Delete1) You have said a few times that radical individual subjectivism leads to nihilism. I think that it might be more descriptive to say that it leads to solipsism. In reference to nihilism: I am always reminded of the characters from the Coen bros movie, "We believe nothing, Lebowski." It is epistemologically barren to not "believe" anything. All arguments stem from inherently uncertain priors. Axiomatically, "I believe in nothing" is logically void.
2) "The NAP was the best attempt at following the enlightenment project through to its logical conclusion and I believe that the flaws (as I see them) in the NAP are really flaws in liberalism and its supporting enlightenment metaphysics."
I do not think that NAP which has metaphysical roots in negative natural rights is an enlightenment philosophy. In fact, the NAP involves the kind of Kantian synthetic inductive reasoning that were explicitly rejected by Hume, a shibboleth of enlightenment thought.
In other words, the NAP is not falsifiable and is not subject to the kind of empirical conclusions sought by proponents of enlightenment thought.
An even earlier example of natural rights and application of the NAP was Jesus' call to do unto others, based on the idea that we are all created in God's image and it is only His domain to judge us.
Alaska,
DeleteI am enjoying your replies. I like this kind of dialogue.
1) The nihilists in that movie are hilarious. It is true that "I believe in nothing" is espistemologically useless, and something of performative contradiction. I actually used to have a roommate that was a self-described nihilist and I had alot of fun teasing him about that. You are correct that solipsism is a more accurate description of the end point of radical subjectivism.
However, if it is solipsism, how do we go from the individuals inability to know anything outside itself to the individuals assertion that that is the nature of man? Can the belief that solipsism is the condition of man be accurately described as solipsistic?
My use of the term nihilism was more to denote the condition of a meaningless and empty existence. Strictly speaking your criticism is totally valid. What language would you use to describe the spiritual desolation that characterizes much of the modern west?
2) You are correct on this point as well. The NAP is not the product of empiricism, and as such it can't be identified with enlightenment philosophy per se (though some would place Kant as an enlightenment thinker- but your point is well taken). However, is it not an the apprehension of truth by the individual through reason a hallmark of enlightenment thought?
Must the NAP be based on self-ownership? Where does the concept of self-ownership come from?
I do not accept the concept of natural rights but would like to here your case for them (I certainly have a lot of respect for neo-thomists, although I am not sure if you would describe yourself as such).
Also do you believe that logically valid apriori claims convey laws of the mind or laws of reality?
"more to denote the condition"
DeleteEdit: should read connote
Normally I wouldn't issue a correction like this but we are getting a bit technical.
Haha, yeah...In discussions that adhere to the nebulous philosophical path, I tend to get finicky about usage, meaning and definitions. I realized after I posted what you probably meant by nihilism was captured more by what I would call apathy or ennui.
DeleteI too enjoy these discussions and appreciate that BM provides the forum and grist for the mill, so to speak.
In answer to your question about knowing in regard to solipsism, I offer Montaigne's statement that to be man is to know man - I paraphrase, and can't find the exact quote. I also offer Mises' refutation of Marx's polylogic in Theory and History. To be man is to experience a unique consciousness; however, there is a similarity across consciousness that produces regular order throughout human history rather than the chaos that would be arrived at if the domain of man was truly solipsistic or polylogical.
I think solipsism, like nihilism, is simply a poor representation of reality with which to base our decisions and achieve our goals. This tends to be how I evaluate ideas, in general: if the map says, bridge here, and you are standing on the spot but see no bridge; the map is wrong.
Occam's razor cuts the idea that all we experience is all that is; if I arrange to meet a friend in Hamburg at a particular date and time, that person does not magically appear (or fail to) as a result of my experience, but as a result of their own actions and experiences coinciding with a desire to meet me at that time and place, as well as the physical properties of matter that make this conscious arrangement possible. Knowing this, I can raise reasonable expectations about a person and the likelihood that they will or won't do a particular thing as well as its physical possibility. I can't prove that empirically, but in the history of getting things done, it would seem to be a more effective model for gauging the inherent uncertainty of life.
BM did a series of articles about Barzun's great cultural history, Dawn to Decadence. In it, Barzun describes the tendency of history to be periodized which allows for convenient discussion of a not necessarily convenient flow of ideas. Yes, Kant was writing during the Enlightenment; and, yes, Jefferson was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers; but, the metaphysics that won the day was that of Hume's empiricism that went on to spawn the technocratic nightmare of Orwell's dystopia.
This turn of events represented no small amount a loss of faith in God, or Adam eating of the tree of wisdom and forever banished from the Garden for presuming to know what only God can know. I speak metaphorically for what I see as inherent uncertainty in the marketplace, i.e. in the pursuit of man to satisfy his sense of unease.
Jefferson's ideas and his Deism, at the foundation of the Declaration, is based in the unfalsifiable ideas of self-evident natural rights. The Enlightenment, as generally considered, substituted the great mystery of the universe for the God-like ability of rational empiricism, forever losing touch with an important part of the human condition: uncertainty. Uncertainty is why the Constitution was rigged with checks and balances. If Enlightenment empiricism had written the constitution it would resemble the 90,000 pages that it took to enact Obamacare.
Finally, I don't think the NAP needs be based in self-ownership. Although I do believe in natural rights, the NAP may be merely considered economically as that principle by which wealth is best created. If we want to create wealth, we should merely apply the NAP and give it time.
You ask challenging questions and I know I haven't adequately answered them all, but I believe that any disagreements we may have are only of degree. The laws of the mind require a scientific approach that differs from the laws of physical properties. You could say that I believe ideas are bound by laws and that they convey truth about how the mind interprets reality. And if that ain't a logical pretzel, I don't know what is.
BM said :" The relevant point of my comment is that even open borders in this world requires or otherwise will result in the involvement of the state - open-borders libertarians should stop pretending it doesn't."
ReplyDeleteThe most important/revealing word in your sentence here is "should".
Maybe I'm mistaken, but you appear to want to set yourself up as some sort of grand overseer /opinion maker of "libertarian" theory as you see it - or imagine yourself in that role already, perhaps.
I could take out the word "libertarian" from your reply and substitute: " christian", "muslim", "jew", "catholic","conservative", "liberal", "communist", "environmentalist", "anarchist" "republican", "democrat","black", "white", or _whatever_, and the exact same mindset would still be plainly revealed, to myself at least.
In my opinion, your use of the word "should" here to me reveals the presence of some underlying false assumptions about humans in general, largely based on a misunderstanding, [or misapplication?] of the basic principle[s] of human action and methodological individualism.
Those false assumptions will keep you in a state of constant dissatisfaction and frustration with "libertarians"and associated [ or indeed, with any other imagined, supposedly cohesive, group of individuals] as long as you continue to choose to believe them, and therefor refuse to instead closely analyze them and discover their inherent falsity.
However, its your mind, and your life to live :-).
regards, onebornfree
personal freedom consulting
onebornfreeatyahoo
It takes a pretty flexible contortion of meaning to arrive at your interpretation of this post. In his consistent vernacular, libertarian is someone who believes in the primacy of the NAP in governance.
DeleteLogically, while communities, societies or polities might accrue along lines of private property and with cohesive cultural beliefs, no state would oversee these voluntary institutions. Open, closed or osmotic borders would reflect preferences of those individual constituencies regarding the flow of immigrants and visitors.
Under any interpretation of the current world, borders are managed centrally by a state and its functionaries. People living within the demarcations of property of a state - some land private, much public - are not responsible for allowing or disallowing other people not associated with same state from crossing on to that land. All of those decisions from San Jose, California to Augusta, Maine are decided by bureaucrats in DC.
Furthermore, it is inconceivable to imagine that this state of affairs should change appreciably in the near future. In that sense, border control can be thought of as no more than a special interest lobbied for on behalf of open, closed or osmotic-border libertarians.
This is an accurate description, not a proclamation on behalf of a movement.
BM: I do not mean to intrude my thoughts on your forum; I wish to cast a vote of confidence that so many words are meant to be read and understood. If I am way off the mark, perhaps OBF is not just trolling you :)
alaska, no need to apologize and no intrusion. I have known OBF for many years - the earliest days at DB as I recall. He has always been the same - telling everyone what a waste of time it is to discuss the things several of us enjoy discussing all the while wasting his time by telling us. I guess you could call this trolling.
DeleteHe is not crude or vulgar, so I have let it go up to now. That may change in the future, I don't know. In any case, I usually, but unfortunately not always, ignore him.
alaska3636 said : "If I am way off the mark, perhaps OBF is not just trolling you".
ReplyDeleteYes, you are "way off the mark" alaska3636. But no hard feelings. I'm used to this type of "treatment".
Seems one cannot disagree here without being labelled a "troll" . How convenient [and, er, "libertarian"!]:-)
Regards, onebornfree
By off the mark, I meant my interpretation of BM's post; it seems like his point of view is more clear than your reply seemed to make it.
DeleteI figured, if I misunderstand him, than your continued misapprehension appears a lot less like straw-manning.
By no means does anybody have to agree with anyone else, but it seemed like your conclusions were predetermined by something other than the content of the original post.
@Bionic Mosquito,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the opportunity to respond and your response. This forum is, unfortunately, quite limiting when it comes to the allowed amount of characters one can put in this space.
Th important thing I want to stress is that my argument is not against your fears that the government may be using "immigration" as a tool for cultural genocide. I do not use the term "immigration" and "importation of refugees" interchangeably because I fully understand that the first implies the following: a) the decision from a being of will, the individual, to move to a different place on the Earth in order to improve his or her chances of making more exchanges and thus improve his or her lot; and b) a non-aggressive action. The second is the action taken by a state which is to bring settlers by the taxpayers' dime without the benefit of exchange or consent. The first term- immigration - implies a peaceful, voluntary action. The second is merely theft by the State. Neither terms are interchangeable.
BM, you made the argument that 'Open Borders' cannot be a libertarian idea because the concept is, in itself, a violation of the NAP. I contend that this is not the case and that you may be confusing the violent actions taken by the State with the actions by free, willing, peaceful individuals who want to improve their lot. I am stating here that you are engaging in basic equivocation, using the concepts 'migration' and 'invasion' without explicitly saying so, but which can be implied by your argumentation.
As for the 'practical' aspects of immigration - I don't make utilitarian arguments and I am not going to start. What I will do is posit the moral case for the different actions taken by free, willing, peaceful individuals. Migration is as fundamental a right of an individual as it is the right to speak, to engage in commerce, to trade, to freely associate, to contract. Why would the action per sé be considered anything else but a PEACEFUL and VOLUNTARY action, I am left to wonder.
As for the argument that the only immigration that does not violate the NAP would be immigration with the purpose of settling in unclaimed lands - that very idea begs the question because the *assumption* would be that ALL that immigrants do is homestead. What happened to RENTING? To BUYING a place? To MARRYING into property?
Again, thank you for your response. I don't miss a single one of your posts since I've seen them posted by Lew Rockwell and Robert Wenzel. I am terribly worried about the anti-immigrant position taken by some libertarians, something I felt compelled to argue against.
Francisco
Delete“I contend that this is not the case and that you may be confusing the violent actions taken by the State with the actions by free, willing, peaceful individuals who want to improve their lot.”
On this issue, I find the two rather inseparable. I think the next step for further discussion will be to read my recent post (published after your comment above):
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/jacob-hornberger-i-see-you.html
I will touch on one other point you make:
“…I don't make utilitarian arguments and I am not going to start.”
I don’t know if it is considered “utilitarian” to consider the application of theory in the real world.
“Migration is as fundamental a right of an individual…”
Emigration in most circumstances certainly is; immigration, not so much.