Pages

Monday, February 20, 2017

Apparently Some Confusion?


A question was asked of Walter Block; the bulk of the question regards something written by me!

He [that would be me!] makes the following claim: A common culture – and a culture beyond merely the NAP – is necessary if we are ever to move closer to a libertarian society. Asks the rhetorical: What is aggression? What is proper punishment? How is it determined when the age of minority ends and majority begins? What is property? Then answers by saying there would actually be many different answers to these questions that could be compatible with the NAP.

This seems contradictory to his original statement about a common culture…

Now, I don’t know why I am not asked directly to clarify this seeming contradiction; I will do so here.

My point is simple: for example, what is “aggression”?  We debate libertarian theory to the nth degree with the hope of precisely defining what is meant by “aggression.” Is it only physical acts?  Is it the threat of a physical act?  Does it include libel?

Theoreticians pretend that they will be able to definitively answer these questions using libertarian theory – and come to one definitive answer. 

I will suggest: In a given society, as long as all individuals generally accept the same definition – say…physical acts only – there is a better chance to maintain peace and therefore avoid calls for “someone to do something about it” (aka “government”).

Now, individuals in another society – somewhere way over there – might generally accept that threats are “aggression.” 

Who is the purist to say this is not acceptable?  As long as those in the society generally accept such a definition, they will live in something approaching their version of a libertarian world.

My point about “common culture” isn’t one definition for all, everywhere – as the questioner implies.  My point is different societies will come up with different answers to these questions – and each can be compatible with a libertarian society populated with imperfect humans.

Let’s take this one step further: a common culture, generally libertarian, which does not morally accept the libertine libertarian.  Perhaps a society that generally accepts what is known as a traditional lifestyle – a male husband, a female wife, 2.5 children and a white picket fence.  Acts of procreation happen in the bedroom.

Then one day, a new neighbor comes in; he decides his front yard can pass for the set of a XXX movie.  Plenty of oil and whipped cream are involved.  Now – it is his property – he is not violating the NAP as far as I can tell.  Where he came from, this was…normal.

Look, we can say “look at the contract” all we want.  The nudist will say “I see no restrictions on the CC&Rs.”  Is this a situation where peace can easily be maintained?

So…even if the nudist is correct within the thinnest of thin libertarian theory, he is creating a situation where the traditional libertarian community will transform into one that demands “someone do something about it” (aka “government”).

And there goes the previously generally libertarian community.

A generally accepted culture “around here” (based on more than property rights) is necessary to develop and maintain a libertarian community.

BTW, Walter answered the question perfectly – and I agree with his answer:

As far as I’m concerned, some cultures might well be more compatible with libertarianism than others. I’m not enough of a sociologist or historian to say which is which though, although I have my guesses. The point I would leave you with it that this is an entirely different issue than what does libertarianism consist of? As far as this latter issue goes, I’m a thinnist: that is, this issue is entirely outside the realm of what is libertarianism.

My one slight difference – I have my guesses about which type of culture is more compatible with libertarianism, and have written about this often.

12 comments:

  1. The culture test cuts two ways. I live in a University town that has little regard for personal or property rights, contract commitments and, well the list goes on. Subsurface property rights and the right to assault (blocking traffic) are examples. Maintaining roads and actually building transportation promised before a tax was passed are also common. All is taken in stride by the locals who seem to value the concept of higher taxation (perhaps diverted to their liking) as opposed to a bit of integrity.
    TomO

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is an apt analogy to (pure) Mathematicians who seem to disdain "Applied Mathematics." Pure=Abstract. Applied=Concrete.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_mathematics (Do read it.)

    A worthwhile analogy, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well that was kinda weird. Why didn't they just ask you? You do have a comment section, no?

    This Anon is indeed confused, and while Block may have given a logically consistent answer (he did), if the anon is a real truth seeker he would have been left more confused than ever.

    However, I don't think the Anon is looking for truth but for validation. The problem is he is asking a loaded question.

    "The important question raised is, how useful is the NAP if aggression can’t easily be determined, and how useful is a political philosophy that can’t tell you simple things about crime and punishment, thus the case for Thickism."

    This, once again, takes for granted the NAP as the sine qua non of justice. Apparently you can't have a just society that hasn't read Walter Block.

    "that whatever the local culture determines as the punishment is more likely to be accepted as right, and this is not necessarily determined by majority rule but by established custom, I would contend that this, while perhaps being true in practice, doesn’t make one punishment more right than another. Either custom or law is based on man’s own practices, so we can’t even say if custom or a statist legal framework is more right or has a higher authority,"

    The fundamental question in the examined life is "how should we live?" Justice is not based on custom but on truth. It is an ideal not a technology. We shouldn't be asking how to get society to conform to NAPism but whether or not NAPism is really just and and is truly adaptable to organic life (and if so, to which life in particular. Hint: we aren't all the same)

    Without even getting into "different cultures" I find many of Block's views to be completely unjust on their face. Block thinks liars should be legally protected if they don't do any physical harm. If the one being lied about seeks satisfaction for this and makes the liar bite the curb, Block thinks the just thing would be to punish the former. Block has no problem with animal abuse. I think people who abuse animals should be severely punished. Block has no problem with homosexual adoption. I believe its child abuse. Block has no issue with pornography, I believe pornographers are criminals (against both spirit and flesh). Block has really weird views on abortion that I don't even want to get into. You get the picture. In a just society Block would probably end up tarred and feathered.

    Block's answer demonstrates all too clearly the limitations of his field. I appreciate that he is honest and refrains from commenting on anything outside of this field, but it shows how something as holistic as human society cannot be understood through one or two lens alone (in this case law and economics). You need history, philosophy, religion, aesthetics, and myth if you want to understand what we are and what we need to flourish.

    Focusing solely on a narrow legalistic understanding of justice is like a man ordering a 3-course meal and getting only a packet of saltines.

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “However, I don't think the Anon is looking for truth but for validation.”

      I wonder if he was looking for ammunition before commenting here.

      Citing anon: “Either custom or law is based on man’s own practices…”

      This, of course, is horsesh!7. “Custom” never told us that someone with a penis is a woman.

      “Block thinks liars should be legally protected if they don't do any physical harm.”

      I seem to recall reading Rothbard to write that violations of the NAP MUST be limited to physical aggressions of person and property, else the line will forever be gray (if I am wrong and he didn’t write this, my apologies).

      I disagree and many humans will disagree. This, then, either demonstrates the limitations of the NAP (which does not invalidate the principle), or the limits of Rothbard’s views on the matter (which does not diminish his work as foundational to all that we know about libertarianism).

      “Block has really weird views on abortion that I don't even want to get into.”

      I did get into it, here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html

      The unnamed individual in the preamble is Block – I can say so now because I have written about this elsewhere since. Walter has said that my reply to him is the best one he has read – albeit he still believes I am wrong. He has promised a reply – despite my not wasting more time trying to get it published – but if he has replied I haven’t seen it.

      “In a just society Block would probably end up tarred and feathered.”

      I believe I have read Block to say that just because some things are allowed in libertarian theory does not mean he would approve in practice. So, I wouldn’t call out the posse just yet.

      “You need history, philosophy, religion, aesthetics, and myth if you want to understand what we are and what we need to flourish.”

      Amen

      Delete
    2. Unhappy Conservative (2.0),

      Based on your consistent tone, demeanor, etc. on here, I don't like "you" very much. But, honesty demands that I admit to agreeing with much of what you say.

      Delete
    3. Ron, it took me some time to come around as well!

      :-)

      Delete
    4. Guys....

      LOL.

      A wise man was once asked what is best in life. To this he replied, "to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

      I always thought I was polite.

      Delete
  4. @Bionic I didn't ask you, as you were one of several advancing one or another set of extra libertarian (beyond thin) ideas, and it was a simple choice of who to include (you or another).

    Re: ammunition? Not really, I was hoping to get Block's thoughts on this for the record regarding these claims, as I made quite clear, his debates weren't satisfactory to me at answering these core questions, but I had only just begun to explore the thick vs thin issue in depth. I sent him an email some time ago, after I decided to ask him "point blank".

    Regarding the "bullshit" claim regarding custom, I don't see how that's relevant. Customs teach all kinds of non biologic things, if you want to make this claim that someone who is biologically a man would never be defined as a woman by custom, but only under the law. There's Indonesian finger cutting, Thai neck lengthening, genital mutilation in various religious or tribal traditions, human sacrifice, the list goes on.

    I don't typically read the comments here, mainly because of the types of things Unhappy Conservative (2.0) is saying. I don't agree with them, as I'm an atheist, it's not possible for me to believe that something like a religion or a myth is required in order to understand what's necessary for human flourishing, and so I reject it out of hand.

    But fine, I'll give it a shot: Let's use the formulation of the NAP you're positing, one that shifts based on group attitudes for this next part.

    Regarding the NAP and justice, and custom: justice is subjective, as I noted in my original comments. While there may be general agreement on justice, you rightly point on that justice is an ideal, not a fact. There are, to my mind, two components of justice. The truth component of justice just determines if there's been an infraction, for our purposes, of the NAP. The second component of justice, punishment or restitution, is meted out, and must be viewed as fair and equitable, but the only truth there is subjective. There can not be justice without truth, but there can be truth without justice, in other words.

    In this formulation, the NAP determines the truth (violation yes no), whereas a custom or statist legal scheme may determine the punishment or restitution, which is then either generally accepted as equal and fair by the victim and society, or determined to be unequal and unfair, and thus unjust. Custom can be a component of justice, as could a legal statist scheme or another type of scheme that helps determine punishment and restitution.

    The question might be, whether or not a society has a role in determining justice, when the victim of an NAP violation is the actual aggrieved party. For instance, you may kill my dog, and custom or the law requires you to pay me money for having done so. I may never view this as justice, but a society may.

    Regarding NAP not applying equally to everyone, because we aren't all equal, I assume this is some kind of aside to race realism? If that's the case, how do we determine who gets the justice under the NAP (Or full rights, in whatever scheme you want to use)? For instance, Terence Tao is claimed to have an IQ of 230, much "more equal" than the rest of us. Should Tao get to aggress against everyone, because he's so much smarter? I believe the NAP applies to humanity, regardless of ability, both within groups and across them.

    So that's my attempt, I believe it is an honest one.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting here.

      “…if you want to make this claim that someone who is biologically a man would never be defined as a woman by custom, but only under the law.”

      Custom as understood in western civilization may have come to this point someday, but not today. Why must the force of law be used to change peoples’ “customs” if the customs would have naturally changed at the same time and place anyway? Of course, the millions of positive laws and regulations that are forced upon us are designed to forcibly change the otherwise accepted customs.

      “There's Indonesian finger cutting, Thai neck lengthening, genital mutilation in various religious or tribal traditions, human sacrifice, the list goes on.”

      Yes, but I write of western culture. I also write of culture of a certain type – western, based on traditional Christian ethics and values. This is what I know something about.

      “…I'm an atheist, it's not possible for me to believe that something like a religion or a myth is required in order to understand what's necessary for human flourishing, and so I reject it out of hand.”

      Then I suggest you are the one who believes in a myth if you believe religion is not going to shape human action. The people will always believe in something more than trading property. You may reject it out of hand, but you will never understand how the NAP might be applied on a planet (or even a city block) of humans who will always accept what you reject out of hand.

      “Custom can be a component of justice, as could a legal statist scheme or another type of scheme that helps determine punishment and restitution.”

      If the “legal statist scheme” is consistent with what has been acceptable “around here” for some time, you and I will not disagree. This thread of my thinking began, as I recall, with the discussion about proper punishment for a child stealing an apple. The custom is that the victim talks to the parents of the child and resolution comes via this approach. But some guy decides that the legal statist scheme punishment will be an execution. Will the legal statist scheme be likely to keep the peace? Doubtful. How do you think the parents of the dead child will react?

      “I believe the NAP applies to humanity, regardless of ability, both within groups and across them.”

      Probably not to your “Indonesian finger cutting, Thai neck lengthening, genital mutilation in various religious or tribal traditions, human sacrifice” groups. I wouldn’t want any of them as neighbors, nor would I expect that I might form anything close to an NAP-respecting society with them.

      It has to do with more than respecting property rights. It has nothing to do with race or IQ. It has to do with having daily practices and routines that are known and generally accepted by all those who live “around here.”

      In a response to someone else, I offered the neighbor who had a daily XXX movie play out live on his front lawn in a neighborhood made up of traditional families. No violation of the NAP, but what do you think the odds of maintaining peace (without calls for someone to do something about it, aka government) are in such a situation?

      Delete
    2. -- Custom as understood in western civilization may have come to this point someday, but not today. Why must the force of law be used to change peoples’ “customs” if the customs would have naturally changed at the same time and place anyway?....

      Where did I argue this? You shouldn't take this out of the context of the general point, that custom can be just as destructive to human biology as a statist legal scheme. You seem to think that I'm arguing for superiority when I'm arguing that there can be an equivalency in outcomes related to justice.

      -- Yes, but I write of western culture. I also write of culture of a certain type – western, based on traditional Christian ethics and values. This is what I know something about.

      And you don't think you can find self destructive customs in this tradition? The examples I provided were just the easiest, not comprehensive.

      -- Then I suggest you are the one who believes in a myth if you believe religion is not going to shape human action…

      My point was not about understanding human action, but understanding what's necessary for human flourishing. I don't believe religion or myth to be necessary for this, even though right now, understanding religion may help me understand human action. Do I think Muslims and Christians would be radically better off if they, en masse, shed their religious beliefs today? Yes. I'm not denying the reality of their beliefs.

      -- If the “legal statist scheme” is consistent with what has been acceptable “around here” for some time, you and I will not disagree….

      Again, my argument isn't that the legal statist scheme as superior, it's that custom can produce the same outcome. I can just as easily say there are certain customs that produce a less just outcome, that is to say "less accepted around here" than a legal statist scheme may. Custom can be a component of justice, it dictates punishment and restitution. Custom is a reflection of past practices, not necessarily current attitudes about whether or not a punishment or restitution would be just, and although may produce an outcome largely in social harmony, that's not always the case.

      -- Probably not to your “Indonesian finger cutting, Thai neck lengthening, genital mutilation…

      -- It has to do with more than respecting property rights. It has nothing to do with race or IQ. It has to do with having daily practices and routines that are known and generally accepted by all those who live “around here.”

      This race realism point wasn't addressed to you, it was made in reference to Unhappy Conservative, claiming that some people are more equal than others.

      Regardless, your claims regarding custom also largely rest on the idea that those who live around here, really do accept all the daily practices and routines that you say are predictive of behavior and thus create trust. How small must a community be to have this high degree of trust based on custom and accepted practices alone, given that all in the community will have different attitudes about the customs.

      I may know and accept that I must go to you every time that your child steals an apple from me, but I may not view this or your reaction as a just outcome, even though this is accepted by all others as the established custom. This may cause me just as easily to demand some form of government, and while in the minority at first, that argument could be made persuasively precisely because custom has continually failed to produce the outcome we all consider to be just.

      In general, I agreed with your original reply regarding how different cultures could produce different standards for justice, all within accordance with their own approximation of the NAP. However, I'm just not on board that custom is the be all, end of of that standard. If you want to speak only of likely outcomes among small groups, then I don't think we're in disagreement

      Delete
    3. “…custom can be just as destructive to human biology as a statist legal scheme.”

      This is true, and it is why I suggest custom of a certain type – not finger cutting and the like. I also accept that even the best custom contains facets of which I would disapprove. But perfect isn’t an option in this world.

      In the meantime, the best statist legal scheme creates violations unthinkable even 200 years ago, and to the man from a time when western traditional custom was the law we would appear as worse than slaves.

      “My point was not about understanding human action, but understanding what's necessary for human flourishing. I don't believe religion or myth to be necessary for this…”

      “…necessary…flourishing.” Very subjective terms, best left to the value system of each individual. If I say *my* religion is necessary for *my* human flourishing, who are you to tell me I am wrong? In any case, religion has been a part of man since recorded history. Good luck devising a political and legal scheme void of it.

      “Do I think Muslims and Christians would be radically better off if they, en masse, shed their religious beliefs today? Yes.”

      People will believe in something more than the NAP and property rights. It isn’t a question of “better off”; given this is so, any discussion about a political scheme in this world should probably recognize this – and recognize that there are differences in customs between such groups.

      “…certain customs that produce a less just outcome, that is to say "less accepted around here" than a legal statist scheme may.”

      Then the custom will change, naturally and gradually, by the recognition of the general population. Nothing wrong with that.

      “Custom is a reflection of past practices, not necessarily current attitudes about whether or not a punishment or restitution would be just…”

      The old and good law is always measured against “just,” else it couldn’t be a good law. Read Fritz Kern:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-law-no-not-that-one.html

      “…your claims regarding custom also largely rest on the idea that those who live around here, really do accept all the daily practices and routines…”

      Yes, they “accept” them even if they do not enjoy each and every one of them. Why? I will tell you in a minute.

      “How small must a community be to have this high degree of trust based on custom and accepted practices alone…”

      Bingo! This is why libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice. Each and every devolution of political power is a move toward more choice, and what is liberty but an increase of choice? Unless you want to argue that “perfect” is an option in a world made up of humans?

      “…precisely because custom has continually failed to produce the outcome we all consider to be just.”

      Then it wouldn’t be old and GOOD law, would it? In any case, customs evolve on their own; I would rather trust this than put my faith in a legislature via a statist legal scheme.

      Predictable is good; it helps reduce conflict.

      Delete
    4. @incognost

      "Unhappy Conservative (2.0) is saying. I don't agree with them, as I'm an atheist, it's not possible for me to believe that something like a religion or a myth is required in order to understand what's necessary for human flourishing, and so I reject it out of hand."

      Its just a fact of history and life. People's values are impacted far by Myth than they are by Logic. Pathos > Ethos > Logos.

      From Homer to Dante, from Christ to Muhammad, from the Vedas to the Eddas, and from Cocteau to Lucas, we find the real source of man's picture of the world.

      It cannot be dismissed if you are seriously interested in understanding. Are you brah? Why do you care about Justice anyways? Real atheist materialists have no reason to beyond egoism to care about ephemeral matters. You deny the spirit and with it you deny yourself an understanding of your own history.

      NAP libertarians need a measure of restraint if they want to be taken seriously. Your types often pretend to be uninterested in imposing anything on anyone else, but the reality is that your proposal is as imperialistic as gets. You want a unifying standard of justice derived from abstract reason to be the rule of thumb for the entire world of man.

      You have 2 problems.

      1. How do you get people to accept your scheme?

      2. Who decides how the scheme is implemented?

      The answer is what it always is: Force and Power.

      If its not force and power, but organic customs that develop overtime, then there is no use pushing for a specific scheme because you wont get it lock stock (without the use of force). Furthermore, there are societies and peoples who are not amenable to your views.

      Hence the absurdity of this statement:

      "The question might be, whether or not a society has a role in determining justice, when the victim of an NAP violation is the actual aggrieved party."

      Of course society is going to have a role in determining justice, in any situation, including your own. If people don't believe it is just they wont accept it (though it may be imposed on them anyways- tyranny). Their values are informed by things prior to legal philosophy.

      Laws will be written. Who gets to write them? Would Islamic society tolerate Walter Block writing their laws? Or are they going to defer to their religious leaders who will promptly decide they don't need jewish economists to tell them what to do?

      "Regarding NAP not applying equally to everyone, because we aren't all equal, I assume this is some kind of aside to race realism? If that's the case, how do we determine who gets the justice under the NAP"

      A Somali with a 68 IQ will not be able to understand what you are talking about. I am not an IQ fetishist but it does create a ceiling on certain people groups ability to grapple with complexity. To deny this is to deny reality. Even non-racialists like Charles Murray have pointed out that big enough IQ disparities within a society will lead to a breakaway civilization.

      Finally, let me guess, you are for open borders aren't you?

      Delete