Wednesday, July 12, 2017

My Journey So Far



NB: I have decided that I am not going to give notice if one of my essays includes fiction; when I made this statement and apology, it was met with poisonous venom.  I wouldn’t even mention this now, except I don’t want my regular readers to believe I am ignoring my earlier commitment.  This is the only time I will make this statement.

So read the following at your own risk.

---------------------------------------

My journey along the intersection of libertarians and culture….

You will recall the promiscuous friends I would invite over to my house in order to…mmm…enjoy my front lawn.  Subsequently, I modified my example to that of the backyard cook-out.  All in an attempt to further examine the intersection of culture and the non-aggression principle.

There were several comments offered regarding the backyard cookout dilemma along the lines of what the community might have done beforehand to prevent such a situation; many were good suggestions.  A representative one was from Shailesh Saraf July 6, 2017 at 2:45 AM:

Whoever drafts such a half-page contract should include therein a clause - 'Customs in this neighbourhood meaningfully differ from and will prevail over what is considered normal common sense / property rights in other places. Disputes subject to the jurisdiction of the court of elders. Please look before you leap'

I didn’t really address these types of comments, or when I did I steered the conversation back to my main point; in this past conversation I was not concerned about what to do before the next time or what we should have done.  I wanted to force the conversation toward: what do we do now that we are in this mess?

In other words, what to do in a situation where a community has significant cultural change forced upon them, a change that is likely to greatly disrupt the peace of the community.

But I want to come back to this now, this idea of what can be done beforehand.  For this, I offer excerpts from an email exchange with Walter Block:

Dear mosquito:

Walter is always so formal!

You quite properly say, "There was nothing in the CC&Rs that said you cannot fornicate on the front lawn before they bought the property." There never is, and there never was, there never will be, a contract that could anticipate every weird thing that weirdos can do….The way to anticipate these sorts of things is with a vote of a (super) majority of the condominium owners: if say, 65% of the people don't want a certain act done, then they can rule it out, ex post facto, whatever it is. Another condo might say 80% or 90%. Then, people can sort themselves out on this basis, among many others.

In that way, I have my cake and can eat it too. I cleave, fully, to our precious libertarian theory. And, I obviate the weirdos.

Best regards,

Walter

My reply:


Walter

I will think about this some more.  I cannot find a meaningful hole in it off of the top of my head.  Figuring out what percentage requirement for the super-majority might take trial and error (different communities testing things out, etc.).  But markets will sort this out.

It does draw out the idea of governance - there will always be governance (in this case, voluntarily agreed); a property owner is willing to give up some aspect of control / use / disposition of his property in exchange for the benefit of living in a community.  This idea of each property owner being a complete authoritarian on his property in all things is not at all functional - unless one chooses to live all alone on a mountaintop, I guess.

So, I will tell you what - once you get in place full private property rights and this super-majority idea of yours, I will convert to open borders!  Of course, by the time you get these in place, people like you and I will be the super-minority...so in the meantime, I will hold to my managed-borders view.

Best

bionic

For those not familiar with the reference, in an earlier conversation Walter offered that full private property rights were an inherent part of his paradigm when he writes of open borders.  I am greatly paraphrasing; I suggest you read the full post if you want the proper detail and context.

Walter has proposed, and I agree, we will continue this dialogue at another time. 

Why the Non-aggression Principle is Not Enough

Because we live in a world of gray.  Try to turn that subjective term "non-aggression principle" into an objective truth.  An objective truth: I drop a rock from a tree.  It falls.  It does so every time, in every jurisdiction, for every generation.  That’s objective.

So, let’s start:

Define aggression.  Define it objectively.  Do so such that it can be understood in a manner that can be applied identically in all jurisdictions at all times.  This would be objective.

Define restitution.  Define it objectively.  Define it objectively for every type of aggression.  Do so such that it can be understood in a manner that can be applied identically in all jurisdictions at all times.  Remember, there is a point when restitution crosses the line into initiation of aggression.  Tell me where that point is, for all circumstances, for all aggressions, in all locations - objectively.

Define punishment.  Define it objectively.  Define it for every type of aggression.  Do so such that it can be understood in a manner that can be applied identically in all jurisdictions at all times.  Remember, there is a point when punishment crosses the line into initiation of aggression.  Tell me where that point is, for all circumstances for all aggressions in all locations - objectively.

Define the age of majority.  Define it objectively.  Define what it means relative to the NAP.  Do so such that it can be understood in a manner that can be applied identically in all jurisdictions at all times.  Take into account the differing abilities in children, intellectual, mental and physical disabilities, etc.  Objectively.

See, we aren’t talking about a punch in the nose or about launching drones five-thousand miles away.  We aren’t talking about execution as punishment for stealing a candy bar.  These areas are black and white; they should be easy for most people to come to agreement.  The issue is the gray.  Most of our lives are spent in the gray.

And the gray as considered above is one aspect – not the only aspect, but a key aspect – of what I mean by culture.

There are those who say “the only culture we need is one that respects the non-aggression principle.”  Besides other reasons this will not fly in a world of humans, to that I say: eliminate the gray…objectively.  Otherwise you are just yapping.

Where does this leave me in my journey?

A generally accepted common culture is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition if one wants to achieve and maintain a society that reasonably approaches “libertarian.”

Changes that significantly affect that culture will move the community away from peace and therefore away from achieving and maintaining a society that reasonably approaches “libertarian.”

To fit in the proper libertarian framework, open borders must be built upon full private property rights.

As we do not live in a society with full private property rights, there is nothing “libertarian” about open borders in this world. 

A policy of open borders in the world as it is today, without full private property rights, brings significant risk to the generally accepted common culture.

This risk can be greatly mitigated in a society with full private property rights – as a libertarian society would ensure.

There is also nothing “libertarian” about closed borders.  Therefore, when leaning solely on the NAP, we are left without an answer.

There will always be some form of governance in any society made up of more than one person; not all contingencies can be envisioned beforehand and there must be some mechanism in place to deal with conflict.

In order to achieve this level of governance, individuals will voluntarily give up some aspect of control / use / disposition of their property; they always remain free to take back their consent and live with the consequences, if any, of this choice.

Anyone calling for open borders in this world is knowingly or unknowingly calling for the society to move away from the possibility of libertarianism.

Anyone calling for open borders in this world is knowingly or unknowingly calling for an increase in government interventions.

And this is why I do not call for open borders; it is harmful to those who wish to move toward a more libertarian society.

And that’s where I am today in this journey.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

15 comments:

  1. AnonymousJuly 12, 2017 at 6:52 AM

    Good post!

    BTW, I’m the same anonymous that was asking about the factory pollution in your smoker post.

    This has gotten me thinking a bit. Sorry if this is a bit muddled, just trying to think it through. From a Judeo-Christian worldview (I’m a Christian, so this is where I’m coming from) you would have some set of moral absolutes taken from the Bible: do not murder, do not steal, etc. Based on these, you have some limits or extremes that would be objective and hold true for everyone everywhere. I.e., there isn’t a cultural situation that allows murder or theft to be morally OK. Those absolutes can be applied anywhere and everywhere.

    Then, based on other Biblical principles, you can arrive at the NAP, or something like it: commands to respect property rights, love your neighbor, be a peacemaker, etc. Here you have some guidelines of teasing through the more grey areas based on common custom, like how to handle lawn orgies and BBQ smoke with a mind of its own. It seems the key thing here would be to arrive at a culturally OK solution with those ends in mind: peacemaking and love of neighbor. Not that those ends give a free pass on the means to achieve them. You’ll hear no utilitarian, “greater good” nonsense from me. Once you sort these out for your community, wouldn’t these essentially become “objective,” at least for that limited geographic and cultural area? If they don’t become (de facto if not de jure) objective, it seems like keeping the peace would be difficult or impossible as each instance of conflict could cause everything to be rehashed and potentially be turned on its head again and again.

    This also makes me wonder how libertarians who do not come from a faith tradition with some level of moral absolutes derive the NAP. Why do they consider the NAP to be imperative, is it strictly utilitarian? This is something I need to read more on.

    -Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bionic mosquitoJuly 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM

      “It seems the key thing here would be to arrive at a culturally OK solution with those ends in mind: peacemaking and love of neighbor.”

      It strikes me that such ideas are much more powerful to the human spirit than something as sanitary as the NAP.

      “Once you sort these out for your community, wouldn’t these essentially become “objective,” at least for that limited geographic and cultural area?”

      The applicable definition for “objective” in my usage, as follows: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased; of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

      I think of the rock being dropped from a tree. How the rock behaves is not influenced at all by my personal feelings.

      But you make a good point, and have phrased it in a way that has not previously come to my mind: as a culture naturally develops, the manners in which people are expected to behave within that community are reasonably objective (gentlemen open doors for ladies). It is when culture is forcibly changed, changed in non-natural ways that we must be “told” (by laws, penalties, political correctness) how to behave (call me “shem”).

      “This also makes me wonder how libertarians who do not come from a faith tradition with some level of moral absolutes derive the NAP. Why do they consider the NAP to be imperative, is it strictly utilitarian?”

      How did you react when you saw the picture of liberated Mosul?

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/07/they-call-this-victory.html

      Did you think about the economic impact, the cost of war, the cost of rebuilding, a waste of money on bombs, etc.? Or did you think about the utter human destruction; the destruction of families, churches, mosques, communities, etc.? Or somewhere in between.

      Those who thought of the former I would consider utilitarian; in the latter, moral. Of course, many might think of both. I didn’t think about the cost of the buildings at all until this question dawned on me when reading your question.

      There may be some who have found a third way (other than utilitarian / moral), I don’t know. To me…on the one hand I guess it doesn’t matter how someone arrives at the NAP, as long as they arrive. However, I firmly believe that those with a moral conviction stand on a much firmer foundation.

      “Utilitarian” means you are open to better arguments; you could be convinced that something else is more “utilitarian.” I don’t see that a moral foundation can be shaken so easily. Can someone on a moral foundation be convinced to initiate aggression?

      It’s too bad that so-called religious leaders have so drastically deviated from this message; they do not build this moral foundation. Too few attendees of Sunday service have this moral foundation. They certainly have been taught that wearing a military uniform or a having a badge is equivalent to the salvation and forgiving work of Christ’s blood.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM

      Thanks for your reply. It gives me a lot to think about.

      Three quick things:

      1) “How did you react when you saw the picture of liberated Mosul?” – I thought almost exclusively of the human destruction. The only time the monetary/economic/building impact really entered into my thoughts was how it affected the human side of things. I.e., they’ve effectively destroyed many opportunities for livelihood, etc.
      2) “’Utilitarian’ means you are open to better arguments; you could be convinced that something else is more ‘utilitarian.’ I don’t see that a moral foundation can be shaken so easily. Can someone on a moral foundation be convinced to initiate aggression?” – Right off the bat, I find this to be a very helpful way to look at it. I had not previously thought of it in these terms.
      3) “It’s too bad that so-called religious leaders have so drastically deviated from this message; they do not build this moral foundation. Too few attendees of Sunday service have this moral foundation. They certainly have been taught that wearing a military uniform or a having a badge is equivalent to the salvation and forgiving work of Christ’s blood.” – I agree wholeheartedly. My church is in a city with a large air force base. While this isn’t as bad in my church as in others in this area, it’s still too much. Evangelical Warvangelicals, as Laurence Vance calls them.

      Delete
    3. gpondJuly 12, 2017 at 6:11 PM

      Just to add to the conversation, and not to quibble unnecessarily, though maybe a little.

      I do not believe that Carl Menger used the term ‘utilitarianism’ in his “Investigations Into the Method of the Social Sciences.” I wish I could find a pithy quote from his book, but Menger is “wordy” in the extreme. I would have to quote pages and pages to get the essence of what I’ll state.

      There is a process, which could be called ‘utilitarian’ that has nothing to do with individuals right-here and right-now deciding whether or not to support the NAP on utilitarian grounds. Menger spends a lot of time and space (and words) laying out how *law* developed in societies over vast stretches of time and through trial and error. At first, perhaps put forward by wise elders. Later, internalized by subsequent generations as “how we do things around here”. As Old and Good law.

      When such as Mises speaks of utilitarianism, I think he is not speaking of the case where an individual decides whether the current arguments suffice, or whether one is open to better ones. Rather utilitarianism in the sense of describing historical (and especially pre-historical) processes can be seen as the long-term process through which morals (and laws) are formulated *and tested*. And as noted, how they *become* Old and Good law.

      Utilitarian in this sense is not the opposite of Moral. Quite the contrary!

      Another great article, and very good discussion.

      Delete
    4. bionic mosquitoJuly 12, 2017 at 8:27 PM

      gpond, thank you for this. Outside of my previous understanding.

      On what basis was "good" decided (or to be decided)?

      Delete
    5. gpondJuly 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM

      I am alerted to the Socratic nature of your very good question. I find myself unqualified to formulate any complete answer. Some thoughts.

      Bad law, at least terrible law, does not get to become Old law.

      Morals/Ethics, Customs, and Law, (I shall conflate them here) should have a few attributes in order to qualify as ‘good’.

      Good Law should tend to reduce conflicts, and especially not the opposite of that.

      Good Law should be civilization/nation/tribe sustaining, and especially not the opposite of that.

      Good Law should be in accord with the ‘nature of things’, and especially not the opposite of that. [Here, think of the abolition of private property, and the Socialist calculation problem.]

      There is much more, I’m certain.

      Christian morals, I believe, fall into the Good Law/Morals/Customs category. As far as Old Law goes, what has a better track record than prohibitions on murder and stealing?

      From the utilitarian perspective, as I’m trying to understand it, it is easier to see what law was good in hind-sight. Did it work to reduce conflicts and sustain the nation/civilization/tribe that adopted it?

      Again, just some thoughts. I doubt I can/will go any deeper on this topic than this.

      Delete
    6. bionic mosquitoJuly 13, 2017 at 8:29 AM

      gpond, I agree with your descriptions of what makes for "good law." I guess I am trying to understand - because I am not familiar with the work of Mises on this topic - is this also how Mises described it?

      In other words, on what basis was "good" determined in the mind of Mises? Is it as you have described, or on some other basis?

      Delete
    7. gpondJuly 13, 2017 at 8:42 AM

      bm, I don't recall if Mises spoke of good and bad law. I do know that he did not agree with Rothbard regarding objective ethics.

      The essay I will link is the best write-up on Mises' utilitarianism that I have ever come across. It may at least whet your appetite for understanding Mises' position on such things.

      https://mises.org/library/defense-misess-utilitarianism

      Delete
    8. bionic mosquitoJuly 14, 2017 at 4:00 AM

      gpond, thank you for the link. My thoughts here:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-why-of-liberalism.html

      Delete
  2. Ron Colson, IIJuly 12, 2017 at 6:53 AM

    Mr. M.,

    I, too, am always so formal...until I know someone personally. Blame it on my southern up-bringing (did I just mention culture?)...

    You've brought me along on this journey, and I am at the same place...though not fully comfortable with all aspects of this locale - and I understand that you feel similarly. Notwithstanding that, I do sincerely appreciate you bringing me along with you.

    With that said, unfortunately this new-found understanding/appreciation of some of the "feelings" inherent in the patriotism/nationalism has not helped me relating to practitioners of the same. I mean, my family-members are stereotypically reactionary, unprincipled (at least purposely), flag-waiving, walking contradictions. They, naturally, "feel" a lot of these things, natively, without any of this well-thought-out, principled, foundation.

    In my effort to "meet them halfway" (in my mind, while watching their tilting), I still struggle...does any of this make sense? Anyway, more thinking (and reading your thoughts) to do. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bionic mosquitoJuly 12, 2017 at 9:17 AM

      A friend's son was thinking to join the military. This friend wears his church affiliation on his sleeve.

      I decided to say something, pointing out the many contradictions. We have barely talked since. Several years.

      It seems the mirror ALWAYS lies.

      Delete
    2. Matt@Occidentalism.orgJuly 13, 2017 at 2:22 AM

      The cult of the soldier is utterly incompatible with liberty or even rational discussion. How often have you seen the refrain, often from current or former government mercenaries, "we protect your free speech so shut up!"?

      I've never heard anything approaching sensible thought from these types, except for the former soldiers that managed to deprogram themselves.

      Delete
    3. Veterans for Peace IndianapolisJuly 13, 2017 at 7:56 AM

      I'm reading "Enduring Vietnam" now. It seems like many in that war, if they were ever programmed, quickly deprogrammed upon arriving in Vietnam.

      Eric Morris

      Delete
  3. Veterans for Peace IndianapolisJuly 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM

    HOAs are certainly no Godsend (meant literally and not taking the name in vain). It seems the same flag-waving, badge worshipping, crony-connected end up in control. Certainly a better, less government worshipping culture would help. However, it gives me great pause that these type of super-majorities are the hill for which we are "fighting".

    Eric Morris

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave NarbyJuly 12, 2017 at 10:41 AM

    It's interesting to me that some of the more erudite libertarian thinkers are finally rediscovering something that predates America itself: American Colonial Common Law.

    This is essentially community standards; which used to be enforced by filing claims against people after you had exhausted all avenues to settle your controversies in private.

    Only in this example, you are using a "covenant community" referendum to settle these sorts of disputes.

    Ether way, these sorts of restrictions ALWAYS occur and are NECESSARY at a local level for civil society.

    If you don't like your community's standards, you really should move.

    Or as I like to say: Don't do anything that makes the first 12 people walking out of WalMart want to throw you in a cage.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)