Posts
Taken from a comment at the post “Trade Winds”:
Anonymous
February 9, 2018 at 5:56 AM
There's so much fracturing within
the libertarian movement for a variety of reasons currently and a host of ill
will being generated as a result that seems to be making it difficult for
movement towards common goals.
To which I replied:
I have been thinking quite a bit
about this recently, the idea of a “libertarian” movement. I am wondering…if
the objective is to achieve a move toward liberty, perhaps it isn’t a
“libertarian movement” (as the term is generally understood) that will get us
there.
Further along in the conversation, I added:
I don't think there is a meaningful
"we" when it comes to libertarians. Where left and right libertarians
overlap is minuscule relative to where (and, more importantly, on what issues)
we diverge.
Those on the libertarian left hold
to more of a "we" with Gramsci and Soros; those on the libertarian
right hold to more of a "we" with Pat Buchanan and Walter Williams.
What follows is my attempt to work out my thoughts on this
matter; writing (and getting your feedback) is about the only way I know how to
do this. In other words, be kind with
your criticism…this is my first attempt to put these thoughts into words.
Let’s start with the basics: in order to address the concept
of a “libertarian movement,” we should have some common understanding about
what is meant by a political
movement:
In the social sciences, a political
movement is a social group that operates together to obtain a political goal,
on a local, regional, national, or international scope. Political movements
develop, coordinate, promulgate, revise, amend, interpret, and produce
materials that are intended to address the goals of the base of the movement.
Libertarianism, to the extent it is a political movement, is
for one thing and one thing only: to increase liberty. For libertarians, this means adherence to the
non-aggression principle (NAP), and this must be based on inviolate property right.
Now this simplicity leaves much room in the tent for an
almost infinite number of varying “goals of the base of the movement,” as
almost any “goal” is acceptable as long as it does not violate the NAP.
I have yet to meet a libertarian who defines himself (as an
individual) strictly with the NAP. Each
libertarian has “goals” beyond this – none of the goals in violation of the
NAP, yet many of the goals in conflict with the goals of other libertarians. A simple example might be gay marriage: this
need not be a “goal” for every libertarian even though the idea does not
violate the NAP.
I will now offer a series of intellectual exercises in order
to better allow for (I hope) a proper examination of this topic.
Exercise 1:
Let me know on which of the following social issues all
libertarians agree, such that these can be the goals of a political movement. Now, to be clear, I am not speaking of making
any of the following illegal; I am merely asking a question about social /
political “goals.” I will make my life
easy and use the chapter titles from Walter Block’s “Defending the
Undefendable”:
The Prostitute, The Pimp, The Male
Chauvinist Pig, The Drug Pusher, The Drug Addict, The Blackmailer, The
Slanderer and Libeler, The Denier of Academic Freedom, The Advertiser, The
Person Who Yells “Fire!” in a Crowded Theater, The Gypsy Cab Driver, The
Ticket, The Dishonest Cop, The (Nongovernment) Counterfeiter, The Miser, The
Inheritor, The Moneylender, The Noncontributor to Charity, The Curmudgeon, The
Slumlord, The Ghetto Merchant, The Speculator, The Importer, The Middleman, The
Profiteer, The Stripminer, The Litterer, The Wastemakers, The Fat
Capitalist-Pig Employer, The Scab, The Rate Buster, The Employer of Child
Labor.
I have little doubt that Walter has examined each of these
through the lens of thin libertarianism and found each of these to not be a
violation of the non-aggression principle.
Of course, this does not mean that Walter believes that these items are
wholesome or that practicing any of these will make the world a better
place. Just…these are not violations of
the NAP; each libertarian is free to be “pro” or “con,” and also to act
accordingly.
Achieving any one of these items may be a goal for some
libertarians and may be irrelevant to others.
Frankly, some libertarians may rightly feel “if this is the liberty I am
fighting for, you can keep it”; for example, this could be the case if it is
felt that achieving some of these goals will ultimately destroy liberty.
Fair enough. But let
me ask you: on your personal subjective value scale, where does adherence to
the thinnest of thin libertarian principle rank if placed on a list with the
above items (whether you are socially for or against the item)?
Is strict adherence to the non-aggression principle so
important to you that you will fight and die for it so that others may be free
to practice any of the above? Is it more
important to you than adhering to social values that will make for a world in
which you would like your children and grandchildren to live? Is it your view that in a world that accepted
such practices liberty would stand no chance?
Look…I am not advocating for the state; I am not advocating
against the NAP. I’m just asking simple
questions. If you won’t honestly
contemplate and answer these, and instead want to attack my libertarian street
cred, the problem is yours, not mine.
Exercise 2:
Now, if Walter’s list isn’t enough, what of the following:
abortion, open borders and immigration, religion, hierarchical / patriarchal
governance?
There are libertarians who believe that one side or the
other on each of these issues is the only proper libertarian conclusion. I have written enough about my opinion on
each of these; I need not go into it further now. I will just suggest: for some libertarians,
one side or the other of these is deemed both the proper libertarian answer and
necessary if one is ever to have a hope of achieving a libertarian society.
These are not small issues.
For example, abortion. Since 1980,
there have been 1.5 billion
abortions worldwide. Let that number
sink in for a minute.
Let’s assume, as many libertarians do, that abortion is not
a violation of the NAP (a laughable position for a libertarian to take;
imagine, a non-aggression principle that makes it OK to aggress against the
most innocent and least able to provide self-defense – 1.5 billion times); is
it possible that being against abortion is more important to some libertarians than
being for the NAP?
Is it possible that in a world that accepts this level of aggression against its
most innocent and vulnerable, that the non-aggression principle doesn’t stand a
chance? Look, I’m just asking.
Exercise 3:
Imagine a Venn diagram with two circles. The circles overlap for 5% of the area of
each circle; 95% of each circle is independent of the other circle.
Let’s call each of the two circles the different views
individuals hold on dozens of social topics – a short portion of which I have
identified above; you may think of one circle as left (or liberal) and the
other circle as right (or conservative) – I merely use this shorthand for
convenience.
Let’s call the subset the non-aggression principle – the one
thing libertarians both left and right (should, but don’t always) hold in
common; the one thing that the “movement” could get behind.
I suggest that left libertarians hold far more positions in
common with leftists of all stripes than they do right libertarians; I will
suggest right libertarians hold far more positions in common with rightists of
all stripes than they do left libertarians.
I certainly know this to be the case from all of the interactions I have
had.
Yes, we have a choice: libertarians can focus on the 5%, the
common ground – which is basically one thing, the non-aggression principle –
and therefore band together on this. It
would make a lot of sense if one believes the non-aggression principle to be
the one true faith – that this principle, by itself and without any supporting
foundation, will be both sufficient and accepted such that liberty will be
greatly increased.
In other words – it would make sense if it is true that as long
as libertarians agree on the 5%, the other 95% will have no impact on the
future of liberty or will otherwise take care of itself. It might be so. Let’s just say that for me to believe this
would take the faith of about 10,000 mustard seeds.
Exercise 4:
But that’s just my opinion.
So, let’s try it another way: some believe that the non-aggression
principle is sufficient in itself – that a liberty-supporting culture will come
forth on any underlying cultural soil; liberty can be built on any set of
traditions.
Alternatively, I believe a generally accepted common culture
and tradition is necessary as a foundation for a libertarian community to
develop and survive, and that this tradition can be found in what is generally
understood to be Western Civilization.
In other words, I believe that the 95% that is different will
overwhelm the 5%; other libertarians believe the 5% will be enough in common to
keep at bay the 95%.
So, shall we play a game?
If these others are right (focus on the NAP, and liberty will follow),
we get liberty; if they are wrong, we live in hell (read the above list again; is
this a world you want to live in? Have
you known those to hold to leftist views, as the term is used today, ever to
call for less government involvement?).
So what happens if we try it my way? If I am right (focus on the right culture,
and liberty will follow), we get liberty; if I am wrong, well…we still get
something pretty close to liberty (just check the relative liberty of those
living within Western Civilization over the last 2,000 years relative to the
liberty to be found anywhere else).
I like the low risk option myself; even if I lose, I pretty
much win. No need for mustard seeds!
Conclusion
The answer?
Decentralization. You know the
problem with this? Recall how many
libertarians hated the idea of Catalunya seceding from Spain. In other words, libertarians don’t even share
this as a goal. After all, if liberty is
for all then we must think universally – there is no such thing as secession
from the universe, after all.
Look, if libertarians would do nothing more than focus on
decentralization and anti-empire and anti-war, I am all in. You want to hear something funny? I find more in common on these points with The Saker
– not a libertarian from what I have gathered – than I do with many
libertarians. What does that make me, I
wonder? And what does it say about
focusing on a “libertarian movement” as opposed to some other group movement?
Exercise 5:
I really don’t know about this “libertarian movement” and
focusing on common ground thing. Would
libertarianism have been better off if Murray Rothbard made peace with Cato and
just focused on privatizing municipal garbage service, making the state more
efficient, etc.?
Epilogue
I have to ask for you, as I always must when writing along
these lines: “Is bionic dumping the NAP?”
No, not at all; it is a wonderful political concept that has
a great role to play in a society that deserves it and can keep it. I am just not expecting more from it than it
is capable of delivering.
The libertarian problem is not at all one of 'reforming' political power the better it conforms with 'NAP'. To the contrary the libertarian problem is how to completely dismantle political power of any and every kind in order that all service, particularly security and justice are mediated exclusively within and by a free market. The libertarian goal is to put the consumer, and the consumer alone, in control of security and justice services. Millions and millions of consumers interacting with security and justice services moment by moment in the market, is the process by which such services are FORCED to abide by the NAP. Libertarianism is NOT at all a political movement but rather an totally anti-political movement.
ReplyDeleteHi Victor,
DeleteIn my haste to put in a few words myself, I kinda overlooked your comment. I tried to say something you said best right from the start.
Cheers from Amsterdam,
Richard
Sagunto / Victor
DeleteI must say I am confused by this meeting of the minds. Please clarify:
Victor, are you adding the necessity of Western culture and tradition in order to achieve liberty, or Sagunto, are you subtracting it.
I truly would welcome as answer, as I am feeling jealous about being left out…or not.
That statement sums up with libertarianism is doomed to be eternally ineffectual. You can't win when only the other side is striving for power. As Prof. Randall Holcomb demonstrated, there will always be a State, and thus Power.
DeleteHi BM,
DeleteCan't speak for Victor of course, though he's not addressing Western culture in his post, other than free markets. And I agree 100% that the NAP follows from and is implicit in free market interactions.
In my opinion, the synthetic and idolized version of the NAP distracts from the real life "NAP" implicit in markets (and in Western civ, culture/tradition).
So I see an analogy here with the culture/tradition point I made in my other 2 comments in this thread: NAP proper is embedded in Western Civ (def. Raico), and it should stay there. It becomes a highly synthetic "principle" when Western culture/tradition is subtracted, as in Block's approach and that of other open borderites.
I even think that the NAP-firsters (often, but not always left-libertarians) pose a threat, both to the liberty "movement" and their beloved NAP itself.
Speaking of Block, and since you mentioned him in your blogpost, I think he could be useful as a perfect illustration of what I'm saying.
He has written many outstanding articles about free markets, but his main "claim to notoriety," I'm afraid, will always be the Undefendable stuff.
Those books, together with his open border libertarianism, belong to the "NAP-First" cult.
This cult is extremely harmful to any group of people who aspire to join together in the fight for Liberty in the political arena. NAP-firsters attract many people whose convictions are a threat to Western Civ. itself, while they scare off the ones that are needed most if there's ever to be some sort of Liberty "movement" in the real world.
I've come to the conclusion that NAP-firsters don't really want to talk Western culture and traditions, so they're stuck with theorizing about some artificial NAP Libertopia and then wonder why it fails to inspire a broader movement.
That's all from Amsterdam,
Richard
Redd, there hasn't always been a state; it does not follow that there will always be one.
DeleteThere has always been hierarchy and governance; this is not the same thing as a state.
Bionic, I would define liberty in both the negative and positive sense. Negatively in the sense of being free from the threats and violent coercion of gangsters, gangs, and political rulers who are really just gangsters in a monopoly gang. And positively in the sense of 'voluntarily' participating in markets as a both a consumer and a producer.
DeleteRedd, I looked up Holcombe who I thank you for calling to our attention. There was a great interview with him at mises: https://mises.org/library/markets-and-quality-life-interview-randall-g-holcombe
The question we all think about was put to him, paraphrasing, how did America go from beacon of freedom to siren of socialism.
HOLCOMBE: I've been working on a book for some years tentatively titled, From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government. So you can guess my answer from the title. When the founders created this country, the underlying philosophy of American government was liberty. What the founders meant by liberty was freedom from government oppression. Their view was that liberty's enemy is government. So they wanted a government that would only protect rights and liberties. That was the point of the Constitution.
But today, most people think the underlying philosophy of government is democracy. How do we decide what public policy should be? We find out what the majority wants. This idea is completely antithetical to the founders' view. By degrees, we became increasingly democratic and let this notion of liberty fall by the wayside. There is a relationship between the rise of democracy and the decline of liberty. Democracy, as we understand it today, is antithetical to liberty.
Sagunto, I offer, from one of Victor’s comments below (and I seem to recall the same concept from him in the past): “Instead [libertarianism] must be pursued exclusively through market operation and market mechanisms.”
DeleteSo…we will await Victor, and see if you two truly are fully aligned. Really…my confusion needs to be addressed!
As to Block, from your comment: “Those books, together with his open border libertarianism, belong to the "NAP-First" cult.”
As Block has openly labeled libertarianism “the one true faith,” I think no interpretation of his position is necessary; I think labeling such a position as a cult is reasonable. And I agree, such a view is detrimental to the possibility of moving toward liberty.
Victor, our comments crossed. My question to you is simple: do you see the necessity of traditional Western civilization (or any common cultural tradition) as a necessity for a libertarian society, or are markets sufficient?
DeleteHi BM,
Delete"if you two truly are fully aligned."
I replied to one specific post. Didn't have other comments by Victor in mind. The one I reacted to did not concern itself with culture/traditions.
My comments about Western Civilization thus far speak for themselves, but just to be absolutely clear: market operation exclusively, then no.
That would really amount to subtracting culture/tradition (historically speaking), though, as I said, free markets were part & parcel of this very "Western" European culture, insofar that they sprang from the area that for historical reasons escaped/fought off despotic absolutism which was also part of Europe in a wider sense.
In other words, no free market philosophy without the precondition of radical decentralization, which was a characteristic of this special area in Medieval Europe. Free markets were embedded in the geographically fragmented landscape, so to speak.
"Traditional Western Civilization," in the wider sense doesn't necessarily imply free markets. Some nations were of crucial importance though, for the survival of the whole of Europe in the sense that they (e.g. Catholic King of Poland) were finally able to defeat the mohammedan invaders (Vienna, 1682). But that's a whole other story, quite difficult to grasp for some open borderites on the other side of the Atlantic.
Anyhow, as is the case with the NAP, one can make the mistake of idolizing free markets as a concept in isolation, and then ultimately wonder why we're not seeing much more of it around us today.
So that's why culture/tradition is of utmost importance, I'd say, not as "context" or "attitudes," but as human action on the very ground (literally) that these concepts originated from.
That is one of the reasons why I keep making the distinction between Western Civilization, which refers to a specific set of unique historical circumstances present at about the geographical location that I happen to be commenting from right now ;) and the cultural values that for a long time were embedded in the fabric of some European nations..
versus
today's "West," which boils down to something quite different (modern fantasies about "democracy"), as I described in my posts about Eric Voegelin's analysis of modern Gnosticism.
Cheers from Amsterdam,
Richard
Richard,
Delete"He has written many outstanding articles about free markets, but his main "claim to notoriety," I'm afraid, will always be the Undefendable stuff."
He's written and spoken extensively on libertarian environmental reform as well, which I consider to be very noble, or at least certainly not 'undefendable.' He's also offered the most advanced and comprehensive conceptions of the privatization of roads and water resources.
"I even think that the NAP-firsters (often, but not always left-libertarians) pose a threat, both to the liberty "movement" and their beloved NAP itself."
I don't think putting the NAP first is a bad thing, but I would say it certainly matters what comes second and third on a libertarian's value scale (culture, tradition, religion, morality). The NAP is the civilizing principle, and to the extent it was adhered to, progress, both moral and material, was achieved in Western Civilization.
I believe that to the degree someone discards the nonaggression principle, to that same degree they are advocating for aggression (defined as the nonconsensual use, abuse, or destruction of the person or property of others) otherwise known as the 'law of the jungle' where 'might makes right.' And if they believe in the law of the jungle, to whatever degree, why engage in a peaceful activity like argumentation at all; why not just kill or beat the opposition into submission?
I suppose like all apologists of aggression, one must recruit a following in order to make sure it is one's own version of violence that is exerted on others. He must cooperate with some to coerce others.
In the absence of the NAP there is only a vacuum to be filled by the superior capacity for aggression. In the absence of cooperation by consent, there is only cooperation by coercion. Would you say that it was former or the latter principle which led to the growth of the modern totalitarian state?
Look, I'm all for realistic aggression minimizing political moves in the direction of the NAP, such as subsidiarity, self-determination, secession, and managed borders, but I'm not going to criticize those who, despite the aggression friendly environment all around them, hold the NAP in the highest regard.
What I would criticize is their extra-NAP positions, such as open immigration, gay/black/trans-rights, prostitution, drug use, horizontal hierarchy, or equality of wealth objectives (among many other things).
In other words, for me, the NAP isn’t the highest ideal, but it is the one everyone should be able to achieve. It is the low bar of ethics.
Bionic, Sagunto makes a good case for Western Civ as a necessary precursor to / incubator of libertarian society. Rights based discourses seem to have first emerged in Western societies going back as far as classical Greece when Greek philosophers wrote about the need to care for the self. By contrast in the East, as the self is treated as more illusion than reality, there is little philosophical speculation as to its care. It is precisely because the self was understood to be real in the West that philosophers developed a rights based theory, a concept of individual liberty which does not seem to have any analog in non Western societies. The paradox is that though rights based discourse developed in the West, by no means have Western societies ever been fully or even mostly free. At the same time, independent and apart from this Western tradition of philosophical concern for the individual freedom there is the concrete reality of the voluntary i.e. free market- which seems to be the greatest actual realization or manifestation of the liberty considered and sought at the more abstract philosophical level.
DeleteHi ATL,
DeletePlease help me understand the first point you're trying to make. When I specifically address the Undefendable books, you point out other things that Block wrote. Yes, and?
I've read those and wrote that "he has written many outstanding [..] free markets."
Then you say that putting the NAP first isn't a bad thing, which is interesting because that claim merits some explaining. But I don't see much of that, to be honest.
Then you proceed to discuss your beliefs about people advocating/acting as apologists for aggression. I really can't see how any of that has anything to do with my comment or any other of my contributions in this thread.
Then in conclusion, you say something about holding the NAP in the highest regard.
Well, yours truly might just be searching for another kind of NAP, the real life NAP so to speak, to perhaps hold in even higher regard. Who knows? Well, I hoped to have made that sufficiently clear in my comment(s) ;)
So I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. It's about understanding culture. Let me illustrate our different viewpoints, and for that I'd like to quote from your post:
"The NAP is the civilizing principle, and to the extent it was adhered to, progress, both moral and material, was achieved in Western Civilization."
With this one beautiful sentence, you indicate that you've not understood one single thing I said about culture and tradition in Western European Civilization. And I don't say that just for the sake of argument, but because I really do find these kind of misunderstandings fascinating.
I say misunderstandings, for I may have missed your point completely, so let me try to illustrate how I interpret your statement about how Western Civ came into being because people suddenly followed the NAP.
The way I see it, you put forth this NAP principle as a given. like some kind of written law; and if only people consciously adhere to it, poof! Western Civilization springs into existence and progress is somehow achieved as long as people follow the NAP.
I've slightly exaggerated your point, to better understand the meaning of it, but this is it. To me it all sounds extremely artificial, but this is precisely what i.m.o. is wrong with this NAP theorizing in absence of a thorough understanding of what culture is and how it actually works.
Your NAP argument amounts to putting the proverbial Cart (artificial NAP) before the Horse (culture as practices/tradition/unreflexive habitus).
So in my view, you've made the point for me. You distil some kind of "principle" out of a specific cultural/historical matrix and then, in order to explain how this culture works, retroactively put it back in there as some kind of leading principle for the people.
My point was that the real life NAP didn't "lead"; it followed from, or better still, was implicit in those decentralized circumstances, free market practices, the Christian emphasis on both the fallible person and free will, and all of the other recognizable aspects of Western Civilization.
Thank you for your comment ATL, appreciate the exchange.
Cheers from Amsterdam,
Richard
Bionic said "Redd, there hasn't always been a state; it does not follow that there will always be one. There has always been hierarchy and governance; this is not the same thing as a state."
DeleteI use "state" and "government" interchangeably, and was referring to Prof. Holcomb's much-discussed monograph, "GOVERNMENT: UNNECESSARY BUT INEVITABLE". Found at http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_1_holcombe.pdf
I find Prof. Holcomb's arguments compelling. and am thus convinced (along with Mises) that (a) anarchy is both impossible and undesirable, and (b) since libertarians forswear coercion to maintain liberty, any libertarian movement is untenable and futile. Thus my shift after many years to the Alt-Right.
Richard,
DeleteI'm saying Block has other claims to notoriety. Perhaps the undefendable stuff isn't the most important of them.
In your criticism of my claim that the NAP is the civilizing principle, you made the case that I've completely misunderstood what you've said concerning the importance of culture in the history of the West.
But notice what I did not say in that sentence of mine. I did not say that people consciously adhered to the NAP and this is why the West prospered. I simply said that to the degree it was adhered to (for whatever reason: culture, ethics, blind luck, etc.), civilization prospered. I also did not say that the NAP is all you need. I have argued elsewhere that adherence to the NAP requires a culture that supports it.
"Then you proceed to discuss your beliefs about people advocating/acting as apologists for aggression."
In my experience, when people denigrate the NAP or those who believe in its value, they are looking for a reason to justify aggression against others. It appeared that you poking fun at 'NAP-firsters' was just that. Perhaps I did not understand what you meant by the term 'NAP-firsters.' If all you meant by that is that it requires a strong ethical culture before you get laws approaching the NAP, then I concede I misunderstood you, and I agree.
"My point was that the real life NAP didn't "lead"; it followed from..."
Not controversial to me in the slightest, nor does it contradict my "beautiful" sentence.
Thanks for the discussion. =)
ATL: "I have argued elsewhere that adherence to the NAP requires a culture that supports it."
DeleteRicard, just FYI - this is quite correct; ATL has been consistent in this since he began commenting at this site.
Hi ATL & BM,
DeleteFirst off, thank you both for clearing some things up. Now I see where it is exactly that we differ.
This:
"adherence to the NAP requires a culture that supports it."
I agree that the NAP can't operate in a vacuum, but that is not the point were we differ. I'm pushing a bit here, because where we differ is where discussion might lead to something. Of course, we can call it a day at this point, and that's fine, but I'm confident that we'll meet again, discussing the same thing some other time then.
So one last attempt for now.
You (ATL) still maintain when you talk about Western Civilization in a historical sense, that culture is a means for adhering to the NAP, right? But that's just reading a modern day concept back into Western European culture of old. Let's forget for now what you think about "culture" and how it operates, because there's another difference we might have some discussions about.
I say that in fact, the NAP at the time was unimportant for Western Civilization, to state it bluntly. The territory was radically decentralized, markets couldn't be controlled and the Church provided opposition to grand aspirations of local kings. Notice there's no NAP in sight, not as a "civilizing principle" and it isn't needed to explain why for a period of time, freedom flourished in these lands.
I understand that many libertarians would like the NAP to have been present at the time, supported, of course, by culture and what not, but I maintain that the more one knows about the history of that period in Western European society, the more the NAP evaporates as an explanatory device.
Free markets, culture and tradition is all one needs. I see today's NAP theorizing as an indication that it is precisely these aspects of Western Civilization that we've lost. As I said, the NAP is a perfect example of what we're left with after "subtracting Christianity" (and culture, and free markets).
Please, do not agree with this ;)
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Richard
Richard
DeleteI think good law cannot spring forth from a corrupt culture; the good culture must come before the good law.
I believe it is fair to say that the thought I suggest is supported by the history as you see it.
In other words, the NAP was not just waiting in Central Europe for the wandering tribes to stumble upon it.
Is this correct?
Hi BM,
DeleteCan't speak for Central Europe as a Dutchie, and historically speaking, I think today's Western Europe would be more accurate, to describe the heartland of free trade and radical decentralization (approximately Lotharingia inferior, British isles).
The history I brought to the fore here, is found in Ralph Raico's lectures about "liberalism". Thought it would be a nice start to get the geography right, doesn't mean I agree with all of it. Note that the lecture I provided the link for, did not concern itself with the NAP, yet it provided enough historical background to understand the economic miracle that took place over here, and the relative freedom the people enjoyed for some time (freedom as absence of central government).
You're not equating good law with the NAP or something approximating it, but just in case someone else would: nothing in the historical development of what Raico describes as "the West", nor its most important elements (decentralization, free trade) necessitates any kind of NAP, most certainly not as a driving force/principle and not even as a post-hoc explanatory device.
And sorry to bring it up again, but when I read an explanation that just forces this modernist NAP concept upon a society with a specific history and culture, seeking to use the NAP to explain economic prosperity, then I just can't help but to try some Ockham's Razorian counterbalancing.
In other words, the NAP concept isn't needed to explain the historical miracle of Western Civ.
To that I might add that the times/places were extremely violent, and not all of that violence was in self-defence, to put it mildly. Free trade needed peace, yes, but it was protected aggressively and violently all of the time. Radical decentralization was in no way a precursor to NAP-style law making, nor was it the expression of "peaceful coexistence" (wink to this fantasy about left and right libertarians settling peacefully in their own communities).
Radical decentralization was part coincidence, partly due to geographical characteristics, but mainly the result of the fact that no ruler could subdue the territory for long enough time. Meanwhile there was incessant feuding and warring among all of these cutesy little independent cities, principalities, bishoprics and so on that Raico mentions with affection in his lectures. War and preparing for was an integral part of life.
People (myself included) who want to read the NAP into the history of Western Civilization need to address this, before they seek to revise European history to correspond with well intended modern day political fantasies.
All the best from Amsterdam,
Richard
Richard,
Delete"Please, do not agree with this ;)"
You are a riot! =)
Alright fine. I won't agree with you on everything...
"The territory was radically decentralized, markets couldn't be controlled and the Church provided opposition to grand aspirations of local kings. Notice there's no NAP in sight"
Except it just so happens that all these you've mentioned are libertarian (and hence NAP abiding) goals. Maybe I just have a cataract in my eye in the shape of the NAP, but I believe it is to be found in decentralization, uncontrolled markets, and ethical opposition to the absolutist tendencies of state executives.
"Free markets, culture and tradition is all one needs"
Depends on the culture and tradition. If they are founded in consent and private property rights, free trade and prosperity will follow. If they are founded in coercion and public property...
"nothing in the historical development of what Raico describes as "the West", nor its most important elements (decentralization, free trade) necessitates any kind of NAP, most certainly not as a driving force/principle and not even as a post-hoc explanatory device"
Free trade and decentralization (i.e. the miracle of the West) are consistent with the NAP. I realize this does not necessarily mean that it was the belief in the NAP that resulted in free trade and decentralization in the West. I am open to any and all reasons why the West ended up decentralized and free to trade.
What I am saying is that the NAP fits (or nearly fits) the mold of success during this period, therefore, it may be used as a way of helping to recreate that success in our modern and different circumstances.
"Libertarianism is not and can never be a true movement as we might think of the conservative or progressive movement. Libertarianism is only concerned with the use of coercion and aggression. The problem with this, is that any movement with exclusively political core values will eventually adopt nonpolitical ones or it will collapse."
ReplyDeletehttps://anarchistnotebook.com/2016/09/23/why-libertarianism-could-not-and-will-not-ever-be-a-real-movement/
Much good food for thought here, bionic, thank you. I look forward to the replies and for you working through the process with this one.
ReplyDeleteI think it may be beneficial to narrow to a few points as you work through it. Maybe along these lines?
Are there other non-negotiables that must be held in addition to the NAP? Or maybe not non-negotiables/must, but some that would be of benefit? If so, which?
Are there some viewpoints that cannot be held with the NAP, almost as if negating whatever commonality may be found with the 5% NAP? If so, which?
Then the thought that keeps coming up.
Is there something of more importance than the NAP? While the NAP is important in its limited realm, there are more important issues/considerations? (Gasp!)
Enough for now. Thanks again, bionic.
-M
“Are there other non-negotiables that must be held in addition to the NAP? Or maybe not non-negotiables/must, but some that would be of benefit? If so, which?”
DeleteMuch of what is held by those labeled right-libertarians.
“Are there some viewpoints that cannot be held with the NAP, almost as if negating whatever commonality may be found with the 5% NAP? If so, which?”
Much of what is held by those labeled left-libertarians. But not just negating it; destroying the possibility of moving toward liberty.
“Is there something of more importance than the NAP? While the NAP is important in its limited realm, there are more important issues/considerations? (Gasp!)”
It seems to me that it is the culture / tradition generally understood as Western Civilization: Christian, Patriarchal (not that every individual must self-identify as a Christian and also be a father, but that they accept and respect the general traditions).
But now see what you’ve done? You have caused me to destroy this fledgling movement before it even got its legs!
:-)
Exactly. The moment you approach libertarianism from the framework of 'consensus building' it collapses right back into a political structure.
DeleteInstead it must be pursued exclusively through market operation and market mechanisms. For example, Hoppe points out immigration control used to be enforced only at the level of private property deed restrictions - the only place it matters, and the only place it does not violate the NAP. It is the expression of private property rights within a free market that make it possible to pick out the concept of NAP, not the other away round.
Well, I wasn't expecting you to answer the questions. You've done a great job in doing so in previous posts and in this latest one. Pretty clearly, too. I was just trying to summarize your points/exercises into questions to be asked. My weak attempt at summation.
DeleteWhat do you think of this question though (input requested): :)
Are there going to be times that we right-libertarians side with (work with) left-libertarians (about 5% of the time - your stat)? And then other times when we do not (about 95% of the time - your stat)?
Do we become discerning like Rothbard and choose our battles and friends (and enemies) well? And change allegiances as needed or as circumstances change? Or does some objective truth or guiding principles forbid us from doing so? Working through all of this myself too with you.
-M
The Non Aggression Principle.
ReplyDeleteIt falls flat because I can find no two libertarians that agree on the definition of "aggression". It has been said before, but NAP adherence is dependent on something that is undefined, and cannot define itself. Therefore adherence to the NAP is impossible.
Aggression is pretty easily defined. I do not agree that it is impossible to find “two libertarians that agree on what it is.” Words have meanings. The problem is so-called “libertarians” who try to redefine basic words to fit their agendas.
DeleteMatt: I do not accept that the NAP falls flat. Do not initiate aggression; this isn't a bad bit of advice, it isn't a bad principle on which to base law.
DeleteInterpretation and application becomes tough, but the task would be easier in a wider population if the principle was accepted.
Dr.: I don't know that aggression is so easily defined, and the point isn't to find two libertarians to agree (although even among libertarians there is disagreement); the point is...if there is to be a movement (meaning putting theory into law), non-libertarians must also agree.
Matt,
DeleteBecause people disagree is no indication that objective truth does not exist. It seems Rothbard anticipated your objection in 1982 when he wrote the following:
"Another common charge is that natural-law theorists differ among themselves, and that therefore all natural-law theories must be discarded. This charge comes with peculiar ill grace when it comes, as it often does, from utilitarian economists. For economics has been a notoriously contentious science and yet few people advocate tossing all economics therefore into the discard. Furthermore, difference of opinion is no excuse for discarding all sides to a dispute; the responsible person is the one who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind. He does not simply say a priori, "a plague on all your houses!" The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such "hard" sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes. No man is omniscient or infallible - a law, by the way, of man's nature." - Ethics of Liberty, p 10-11
Without a common culture or understanding of what is libertarianism, how can libertarians use the word we? They must first go through a litany of issues to be agreed. If libertarians accept shortcut to in lieu of a point-by-point agreement, say "membership" in, or agreement with, the Libertarian Party, are they not seeing themselves as part of a collective?
ReplyDelete"The Dishonest Cop"
It depends on what is being dishonest about.
An excellent write up and I'm honored you reference our discussion.
ReplyDelete"Look, if libertarians would do nothing more than focus on decentralization and anti-empire and anti-war, I am all in. "
That's excellent! That's a much easier bar to attain "politically" than arguing for the NAP and then watching everyone disagree/argue over what the NAP "is" or "isn't", and for the record culturally speaking I fall mostly in line with your and right leaning viewpoints.
"Would libertarianism have been better off if Murray Rothbard made peace with Cato and just focused on privatizing municipal garbage service, making the state more efficient, etc.?"
I'm going to suggest there is a very real possibility that if Rothbard found a way to stick around Cato, or at least maintain SOME kind of relationship, that he might have had a significantly positive influence on them, compared to what they are today- and maybe libertarians would have had a little more political power and might have been able to better preserve some liberty in the country.
I still love the Mises Institute, etc., but my hope is decentralization is the answer to the subjective issues surrounding the NAP and the best hope IMO for attain that is to take a ecumenical approach to the "libertarian" movement, but then let freedom of association/disassociation take over so that people find their cultural fit.
This is basically the libertarian movement now.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.imgur.com/HOy6WLw.png
The cartoon is spot-on. With a large percentage of "libertarians" converging to the left, any libertarian movement has become untenable. Rational libertarians know that social and cultural norms conducive to liberty must be defended and enforced. That's the Alt-Right.
DeleteThat depends on the manner in which they are defended and enforced. Many elements among the Alt-Right are open to socialism, so long as it's socialism for whites. Are you suggesting the rational course for libertarians in the promotion of freedom is to adopt white socialism? If not, I apologize for the bold suggestion.
DeleteATL,
DeleteI think that if there was a straight trade of universal socialized medicine in exchange for a future for white people in the USA, most on the alt right would take that deal. It isn't like that deal is on the table, though.
The alt right would argue that in a predominantly white country the base demand for socialism would be much reduced from the level of demand that exists today, what with the tens of millions of non-whites in America that are, very frankly speaking, mere indigents if spoken of charitably, and consciously parasitical if spoken of objectively.
There are ethnic groups in the USA that are, in the aggregate, a net drain on the country (correctly speaking, they drain the white people). If these people were to leave the US then the monstrous government deficit stops immediately - the government would be in surplus.
Lets get into specifics. Blacks in the aggregate contribute -$389.71 billion to the government. That's MINUS. Hispanics in the aggregate contribute -$411.95 billion, also minus.
You can't make up for that loss in volume because each black person costs America an average of $10,016 more than they pay in taxes. For Hispanics its $7,298 more than they pay in taxes.
Removing these two populations from America would be the most libertarian thing that anyone could do. Its indisputable that the liberty of white people would increase. And white people you ask?
Whites contibute PLUS $553.52 billion or $2,795 per capita.
None of these figures include the incredible losses in wages and other impacts resulting from affirmative action and other anti-white policies. Really, the above just scratches the surface of the costs imposed on white Americans. More can be found on the link below.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
Texas Libertarian, the Deep State and its media presstitutes are frantic to define the Alt-Right so as to kill it; but the fact is that socialism in any form is rejected. The best effort so far to define the Alt-Right is Vox Day's 16 Points, which state at the outset that "Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right."
DeleteRead more about it at http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html
Redd,
DeleteI hope you are right about the Alt Right, and I agree with many of Vox's points, but I'm not so sure Vox is in a position to define the movement. Richard Spencer has been given this mantle by the media, probably for the reasons you've mentioned. I'm happy that you identify more with Vox Day. I really only take issue with his economic policy of protectionism. Thanks for the response.
Matt,
DeleteIf those numbers are correct that is a big problem, but so is socialism. It will ruin white people just like it has ruined blacks and hispanics; it may just take a bit longer.
Texas, I don't agree with all of Vox Day's "16 points" either; nor do I think he's claiming the mantle of either ultimately defining or leading the Alt-Right. But the 16 points are a worthy effort to explain "what the Alt-Right is", and thus well worthy of discussion. See, e.g. John Derbyshire's column about them at http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/derb-at-the-mencken-club-am-i-alt-right/
DeleteATL,
DeleteRothbard always said that the most important thing was to reduce the overall burden, not to tinker around the edges. Resolving the issue that I described above would do more than any act of Congress, any tax cut, or anything else that is within the realm of the possible.
As for blacks and Hispanics being ruined, no, they are doing just fine because whites are paying for the racial redistribution of money. If anyone has been destroyed by this racial socialism, it is whites.
Matt,
Delete"Removing these two populations from America would be the most libertarian thing that anyone could do."
That may be your idea of liberty but it ain't mine. This is a radical 'ends justify the means' sort of proposal, not a liberty loving conservative one.
You'd need an extremely powerful state to remove all those people. After their gone, is the totalitarian power you've invested in the state supposed to wither away? I doubt it. You'd be left with less liberty than you started out with, because many white people (especially those attracted to positions in the state) don't have any problem exploiting other white people.
What if the state decided that killing all those black and brown people was more cost effective than escorting them elsewhere? Would that also be a step forward for liberty?
This is exactly the kind of thinking that validates the importance of adhering to the NAP. The end result of this removal plan may be a government running surpluses (though I highly doubt it), but at what cost to conscience?
ATL, I think the following was written before you joined this community:
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-try-little-direct.html
Please note: although the post starts with a reference to a comment by Matt, the origin was not Matt. Also, I use "you" and "your" often in the post; this again was not intended to be aimed at Matt.
With that said, I know Matt will address the questions you raise; Matt knows I do not agree with him on everything, but I respect the texture he brings to the dialogue here.
ATL,
DeleteI chuckled when you immediately went to 'murder as government policy' as a method to resolve this problem. Surely we can do better than that?
One could simply end welfare end welfare payments to these groups, but agree to pay them welfare for a time if they emigrate to overseas locations (for many it will be their homelands).
If you say that is discriminatory, then you must explain what obligations whites have to keep funding the status quo. When will enough be enough?
ATL,
DeleteBlack and Amerindian populations in America are tools of tyranny for the oligarchical class and, as Matt pointed out,net tax consumers. To deprive the oligarchs of this weapon would be in the interest of peace and freedom for our people. The already present Black population could have been managed just fine if freedom of association was permitted but after the racial revolution of 1964 that will never be allowed by the system. As for the flood from the South (and soon from Africa itself considering the population bomb waiting to explode), it will ensure the present ruling class will never be democratically beaten- and this would happen even if immigration was shut down completely provided there were no mass deportations.
This leaves only two options
1. Population relocation done mostly peacefully
2. Violent Ethnic conflict for control of territory
I find it interesting that you recognize that population relocation on the scale Matt is talking about would require a state. That is correct because you would need a mechanism to coordinate and direct this operations. The fact that the USG/oligarchs have created a problem so vast that it would require a totally new kind of state to solve in an orderly fashion should give more cause for complaint than trying to figure out the best way to solve it.
States come and go but mass movements of populations can alter or destroy a people forever. As was the case in Egypt, India, Iran, or the American Indian.
"This is a radical 'ends justify the means' sort of proposal, not a liberty loving conservative one."
When the end is survival all means are justified. Your only responsibility is to use only as much force as is necessary. Why should we tolerate a system that allows racial strangers to prey on our women and children and makes us pay for them to do it? I wonder if there are any libertarians in South Africa...
ATL: "You'd need an extremely powerful state to remove all those people. After their gone, is the totalitarian power you've invested in the state supposed to wither away? I doubt it."
DeleteYou think that the FedGov has not already given itself the "legal" authority/power to do forcibly remove all illegal aliens? Where have you been since, say, POTUS Eisenhower?
As UC stated in his 2 options, and I ask, you really think that is would be better if we, the militia, put hands to the task of removing the illegals? By better I mean, less violent and structured.
"Lets get into specifics. Blacks in the aggregate contribute -$389.71 billion to the government. That's MINUS. Hispanics in the aggregate contribute -$411.95 billion, also minus."
Delete"Removing these two populations from America would be the most libertarian thing that anyone could do. Its indisputable that the liberty of white people would increase. And white people you ask?"
No. It would only be the most racist thing to do. I don't say that as an insult, and I'm aware that most white nationalists won't take it as one.
By the evidence and logic you've provided, the most libertarian thing to do would to remove the individuals that are a net drain on the government. It would be a lot easier to determine who stays and goes. No need for genetic testing. The data is already there.
If I might add, the whites at the top (banking, merchants of death, etc.) are far more destructive to my liberty and far more costly to my pocket than any welfare queen of any color.
DeleteUC,
Delete"Why should we tolerate a system that allows racial strangers to prey on our women and children and makes us pay for them to do it?"
I don't think you're so concerned with the preying on women and children so much as your are concerned about racial strangers doing it. If it were otherwise, you'd be advocating what Jeff LeVesque has rhetorically suggested: remove those dependent on the state regardless of race.
It's a battle of ideals, not skin color. Skin color can be an empirical indicator of ideals I will concede, but empiricism only gets us so far in the realm of human action. I also don't believe this justifies alienating those of other races who share our ideals more completely than many who share our skin tone and erecting a totalitarian state in the process. What good is a white totalitarian hellhole? That's not something I would fight for.
Jaime,
Delete"You think that the FedGov has not already given itself the "legal" authority/power to do forcibly remove all illegal aliens?"
He's not talking of just removing illegals. He's talking removing millions of citizens, some whose families may have been here longer than his. This would require a leviathan of a different magnitude.
Matt,
Delete"One could simply end welfare end welfare payments to these groups, but agree to pay them welfare for a time if they emigrate to overseas locations "
That would be an acceptable program, though I don't think it would be feasible. No one would leave. They would just see it as the end of welfare (which would be great!).
Would it be applied to whites on welfare as well? Would they also be incentivized to move back to their European homeland? What other country would be so insane as to accept all these individuals (white or not) who've proven themselves incapable of adding value to society?
Jeff,
Delete>By the evidence and logic you've provided, the most libertarian thing to do would to remove the individuals that are a net drain on the government.
Ultimately my position is not based on taxes or the budget, like libertarians I would like to see a total overhaul, but it's funny that doing it by individuals would have the same result- the removal of Africans and Amerindians in mass.
ATL,
>...so much as you are concerned about racial strangers doing it.
1. They do more of it and do it worse (if you want numbers I will provide)
2. They would do exactly 0% of it if we didn't allow them here or in Europe in the first place (or in the case of America if our children weren't forced to go to school with negros thanks to forced integration)
3. It is ALWAYS worse to ruled over by alien groups or to cede political power to them. The Koreans in Philadelphia are being disarmed of *bullet proof glass* in their storefronts by an act of negro political aggression. Spain has had rough periods but none was worse than the Muslim conquest. American Indians are nearly extinct. Millions of Russians died under Jewish commissars in the Soviet Union. The examples are endless.
They have to go back.
"They have to go back."
DeleteThe vast majority of blacks were born here, and so were their ancestors going back several hundred years. If you're going to draw this kind of multi-generational collective line in regards to property rights, then logically you're opening yourself up to the legitimacy of black arguments about reparations for slavery and Zionist arguments about Jewish land ownership in Palestine.
"It is ALWAYS worse to ruled over by alien groups or to cede political power to them."
I agree, but blacks in the South are not what anyone (or hardly anyone) here considers an alien group. Sure there are often some hard feelings between the groups for a variety of reasons (mostly thanks to statist attempts at social engineering), but neither side has any ground to stand on in claiming the other is alien. Maybe northern communities can say that since blacks only migrated there in large numbers in the middle of the 20th century (so their presence is fairly new).
"Millions of Russians died under Jewish commissars in the Soviet Union."
This is a bit off topic, but do you know of a reputable resource on Jewish involvement in the Soviet Russian State? This is something I am interested in. I know Trotsky was Jewish, but that's about the extent of my knowledge on this subject.
Thanks for the discussion. I always appreciate your perspective, and it is through conversations with you (and others who aren't afraid of race realism), where I continually refine my own positions on the issue based on new evidence and arguments.
STL
DeleteWho is talking about removing citizens?
Jaime,
DeletePerhaps I'm misunderstanding them but UC says "they have to go back" while discussing blacks, and according to Matt above "removing these two populations [blacks and hispanics] from America would be the most libertarian thing that anyone could do" given his cited statistics showing that blacks and hispanics as groups are net consumers of tax payer funds.
I couldn't say whether these are purely rhetorical arguments or if these are actual proposals.
I think any plan to remove large segments of the citizen population of the country would simply be the flip side of the Neoconservative coin of apologizing for a 'totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.' Neocon Bill Buckley said we needed it due to foreign policy, and these fellows (Matt and UC) say we need it for domestic policy. Either way is a loss for liberty in my estimation.
"I don't think you're so concerned with the preying on women and children so much as your are concerned about racial strangers doing it. If it were otherwise, you'd be advocating what Jeff LeVesque has rhetorically suggested: remove those dependent on the state regardless of race."
DeleteWhy bother with a national budget at all? If we cannot prioritize our own people, then tax funds from americans should be equally distributed to all peoples of the earth. That is what you are saying.
Now perhaps you will turn around and say there should be no government at all. But that isn't an option on the table so you are an advocate for racial looting.
"Ultimately my position is not based on taxes or the budget, like libertarians..."
DeleteThis is what I was poking fun at. I know that this particular issue is not about the government's budget for you and Matt.
I don't think the libertarians that frequent this blog care as much about the government's budget as you think. I think most of us here care more about culture.
>but UC says "they have to go back" while discussing blacks,
DeleteI also said the already existing black population could have managed *if not for the the so called civil rights movement,* since that is not being reversed you have to confront the reality that political union with blacks is against the interest of whites. So I see about three options.
1. A Black nation in North America
2. Blacks live among whites but are prevented from achieving political power (Jim Crow)
3. Blacks go back to Africa and be compensated for it
I freely admit that it was an injustice to all parties concerned that they were brought here in the first place and I respect Black Nationalists like Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey. Jim Crow was how this problem was previously dealt with and it was no doubt not always just to Blacks, but since the end of Jim Crow we have turned over entire cities to Black disfunction( Detroit, Baltimore, etc).
I find it very frustrating that people who address these uncomfortable truths are besmirched and shut down (and I am not saying you are doing this ATL) when ignoring the problem only makes it worse. Political union must come to an end and it is my hope that it can be done as peacefully as possible.
ATL, out of curiously would you support a peaceful ethnic cleansing firm? If people like Matt and I wanted to pay to have descendants of former slaves return to Africa would this be OK? Because honestly forcing blacks to live under some Hoppean scheme of hardcore property rights would actually be *more* oppressive to them than anything I would propose.
STL
DeleteYes, you misunderstand. The "they have to go back" is for illegals first. Then, green card holders and a moratorium on legal immigrants.
There is an order in priorities the possible use of peaceful inducements to encourage self-deportation.
The only citizens in jeopardy are the naturalized citizens found out to have committed fraud in the application. Which is no change from current law.
UC, I will offer a fourth option - let's call it my preferred option.
DeleteDecentralize based on the 2016 presidential election map by county. This comes with the added benefit of ridding from my polity the whites I want to be rid of.
"so you are an advocate for racial looting."
DeleteAs long as there is a state there will be legalized looting. Many blacks here in Texas share my culture, at least as much as most whites do, so why should I care if they loot me or if whites do it?
"Why bother with a national budget at all?"
I don't really. It's a lost cause. The only political entity I care enough about to try to change is Texas. Here we have just about every race or ethnicity on the planet. I believe the white race is important (our ancestors gave birth to the greatest culture known to man), and I believe that it is important that whites stay in the majority if freedom is to have a chance within any political structure. Any black or hispanic libertarians out there who cannot agree with this are deluding themselves.
My problem with deporting citizens, even those chronically dependent on welfare, is the precedent this sets. Every time one considers proposing an action of the state, one should also consider the consequences of that action in their political opponents hands.
Many of these people here in Texas have every right to be here that I do. Different cultures can be reconciled within a nation, but there has to be a libertarian law between the cultural groups, and each group must be able to set their own laws among themselves.
"If people like Matt and I wanted to pay to have descendants of former slaves return to Africa would this be OK?"
DeleteAs long as it was voluntary for all parties involved, I'd have no problem with it.
"Political union must come to an end and it is my hope that it can be done as peacefully as possible."
I agree here. Political decentralization is the key. I think the only peaceful option would be to allow black nations to form where blacks currently live. I'm not advocating forced segregation, but I think naturally many would self-segregate. Some black communities may wish to exclude whites, and some white communities may wish to exclude them. Some blacks may want to go back to Africa, and I imagine some whites may help fund their trip. Some may wish to live together with whites. I see nothing wrong with any of this.
"I respect Black Nationalists like Malcolm X"
I also respect Malcolm X. He may have been a real force for healthy cultural change within the black community (much more so than MLK) had he either lived longer (he was getting more and more enlightened about race relations) or never been associated with that poisonous hypocrite Elijah Muhammad. It cannot be denied that he was an extraordinarily honest and brave man.
"I find it very frustrating that people who address these uncomfortable truths are besmirched and shut down"
Yes it is unfortunate that most are not mature enough to handle the empirical realities of the races. I think the solution is not necessarily separation but consensual law. The closer we get to it, the better race relations will become.
There is a black culture in the South that is embedded in Southern culture. Whites and blacks have lived together for hundreds of years in the South. I am proud of this culture. I will be the first to admit, however, that even in the South there are culturally poisonous black populations (rap culture for one - can this be blamed on Sumner Redstone?), but the same can be said of some white populations as well.
“Different cultures can be reconciled within a nation, but there has to be a libertarian law between the cultural groups, and each group must be able to set their own laws among themselves.”
DeleteInterestingly, the Ottoman Empire offered a decent example of this for much of its existence; obviously the last decades went completely the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_(Ottoman_Empire)
“In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was a separate court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws.”
If the legal matter involved individuals of two different confessions, the following applied:
“When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law.”
As mentioned, this decentralization worked well…until it didn’t. When tensions surrounding the loss of Empire mounted (the Ottomans losing control of North Africa, the Balkans and even the Middle East), the rulers (Ottoman Turks) decided purging the minorities was the right answer. Deadly for millions.
When push comes to shove, it sucks to be a member of a racial / religious minority.
I think the Swiss have the best answer in the modern world. Protestants, Catholics, four languages, very different geographies and cultures. Yet a very peaceful and productive society.
"This comes with the added benefit of ridding from my polity the whites I want to be rid of."
DeleteI lol'd over this comment.
The law of the victim governs in disputes between different law groups. That's a wonderful norm.
Delete"the rulers (Ottoman Turks) decided purging the minorities was the right answer. Deadly for millions."
I thought it was the 'progressive' Young Turks that began the purge of the Armenian Christian minority and not the Ottoman monarchy.
"I think the Swiss have the best answer in the modern world."
There is much to admire about the Swiss, both culturally and politically. I wonder if it was a combination of the Protestant principle of sphere sovereignty and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity that played the largest part in guiding the formation of the highly federalized and decentralized Swiss government.
How is the Ottoman Empire differ from the Roman or even these uSA since 1865?
DeleteAs long as the subdivisions (states,estados,millets,counties,cities) do not overstep their boundaries they can pass all the Laws they wish.
The key to any agreement is the explicit text indicating the power by any party to leave. Leaving things implicit ... well, ask us in the South.
ATL,
DeleteSorry forgot to provide you with the source you asked for. See Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together: https://track5.mixtape.moe/svjjjx.pdf
That would be the place to start but also look at key NKVD figures like Genrikh Grigoryevich Yagoda. Basically the nutshell story of Jews and the USSR is that Jews dominated the ranks of international communism, killed the tsar, and came to dominate the NKVD. It not really possible to understand the "anti-Semitism" of the 1933 revolution without taking into account the fact that key Germans were well aware of what was going on in the east and the Jewish culpability in it. However Stalin out played Trotsky (Jew) and eventually started executing his former agents for Zionism. This led to a flight of Jews from the USSR to America and Israel- and that's where neo-conservatism comes from.
ATL: “I thought it was the 'progressive' Young Turks that began the purge of the Armenian Christian minority and not the Ottoman monarchy.”
DeleteThe Ottoman dynasty under the Sultan lasted until 1922. Yes, the Young Turks were leaders during the Armenian Genocide, but not during other destructive actions against minorities toward the end of the 19th century or after the Great War.
Jaime: “How is the Ottoman Empire differ from the Roman or even these uSA since 1865?”
DeleteJaime, I offered the example in the context of an earlier comment; I did not suggest it was libertopia for the minorities.
As to how it differed? Christian minorities (and Jews) lived in relative peace in the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years – pretty good compared to the peace under the US Constitution that didn’t event last four score and seven years. With this said, being a minority population is rarely the safest path to take.
Basically it took white (so-called) Christians from Britain, France and then the USA to ensure the destruction of the Christian populations in these Muslim countries. They are still at it.
I did not mean it that way. Empires like the ones mentioned allowed self-rule, to a point. I was not focusing on the idiosyncrasies of the subservient states.
DeleteUC,
DeleteThanks for the resource and the summary. Sorry for the delayed gratitude. This commenting system isn't a convenient for responding as say Disqus.
Me thinks free markets, Western culture (not Westernized/Americanized society)/nations/traditions first, and the NAP will follow. The non-agression part is implicit and when you pull it out of this context, it becomes artificial and a plaything for specialists in high libertarian theory.
ReplyDeleteOne LewRockwell there has been a series of articles about "subtracting Christianity," and I think that the libertarian NAP is a perfect example of just that. The search for culture and tradition (quest for community, Nisbet), the effort to "recontextualize" the principle, may very well lead to the conclusion that culture and tradition together with free markets are the real life originators of the post-Christian NAP construct.
If there ever is going to be anything resembling a movement that has a chance of rolling back the welfare state, it will not be a NAP movement, so no libertarian movement (and that's fine).
Also, a sound economic foundation (Austrian Economics) should accompany NAP theorizing/politicizing in one's thinking. Without it, the libertarian NAP becomes a focal point for all kinds of voluntaryist, decentralized hippie2.0 movements (sites like Corbett Report), that won't pose any threat whatsoever to the state.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Richard
As short as I can, as a Dutchie non-native speaker:
ReplyDeleteA political concept which leaves room in the tent for "libertarians" whose political views would utterly destroy what's left of the culture and traditions of Western Civilization —the real life structures/institutions that made the very idea of the libertarian NAP possible in the first place.. (where was I?).. is not a good political concept.
So from the moment it allows left-"libertarians" any space inside the tent, the NA principle becomes a self-destructive concept.
Just my 2 eurocts
I have been involved with libertarianism for over 50 years. My family and I were Goldwater Republicans as you find many libertarians who have been around as long as I have. I was introduced to the Foundation of Economic Education by the great Austrian economist,the late Dr. Hans Sennholz. Little did I know that my ife and the views of my family were about to be changed forever when I read Leonard Read's book Accent on the Right. Read called the Fed a legalise counterfeiting scheme and taxation theft. Life has never been the same since and ones perspective on life and the world changes when you realise things for what they are - taxation is theft, war is murder, government is a big con game and criminal enterprise. One thing I have learned being around what I will call for want of a better phrase the libertarian movement - those who think of themselves as being libertarian are individuals who desire maximum freedom and minimum regulation/control by the state. While I would welcome anarchy I know that I would be satisfied with very limited government. The market for libertarian materials would dry up considerably were government to massively downsize regulation, taxation, the military and adopt a gold based currency. I like many libertarians find enjoyment in work providing goods or services to the market not necessarily in fighting government day and night. Unfortunately we must live in the world in which we find ourselves and try to find freedom in an unfree world as the late Harry Browne said. This is the libertarian movement the giant stream of mankind going around and over the barriers and dams of the state as we head to the open sea of freedom.
ReplyDeleteLiberty was formally lost in America when the 18th-century Enlightenment founders made liberty a goal (almost a god) instead of a corollary of implementing Yahweh's perfect law of liberty (Psalm 19:7-11, 119:44-45, James 2:12) as the supreme law of the land.
ReplyDelete"[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law ... they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind...." (Hosea 8:1,7)
Today's America is merely reaping the inevitable whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers.
For more, see Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of free online book "Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.
Then, find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of the 85-page "Primer" of "BL vs. USC."
Thinking on the 5% of which all libertarians would agree, it occurs to me that group of all libertarians would necessarily include a large number of people I would not personally consider libertarian at all. It also occurs to me that those non-libertarians all view the present political system as a means to advance their myriad causes. I see the present political system as a means to destroy the liberty of most people, and willful engagement with its mechanisms is at best pointless if not self defeating.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to call anything a libertarian movement, it would not be the writings or political positions of those who "identify as" libertarians. Being a libertarian is no more a social construct than is gender IMO. It is defined by action more than by some abstract love of liberty hardly anyone can even agree on.
No, the "libertarians" I think will advance the cause of liberty are those who defy governmental controls and live their lives accordingly, some of them as entrepreneurs on Block's list of undefendables. They are people who regularly face the tyrants on their home ground and who largely prevail. They are the consumers that ultimately fund the technology and products that resist and diminish government power.
There are other groups that resist government in a more confrontational way which I believe is much less likely to lead to greater liberty for anyone, but they too are more libertarian (though no less deluded) in my book than many of the people who call themselves libertarians.
A question please in a very interesting conversation.
ReplyDeleteIf the "undefendables”" are somehow "controlled" by methods violating the NAP, whether by state or tyrant, how would that get us to a different place than where we are now, where 'mala prohibita' rules are predominate and controlling?
There will always be "something" that someone wishes to control whether flag burning or Koran burning, with such control leading us away from freedom towards tyranny, in my opinion.
Shunning or ostracism yes but aggression no. What is the alternative?
Tahn
Tahn, I think a community that views itself as libertarian will not necessarily be libertarian toward those on the outside, and would not look libertarian to outsiders.
DeleteThis is why I focus on decentralization, as libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice.
Thank you for your comment/question, it was well thought out.
Delete"Shunning or ostracism yes but aggression no. What is the alternative?"
That's one of the reasons I posted my excerpt on shunning/ostracism the other day- I felt it is an example of of how to control "undesirable"(channeling Molyneux's UPB for a moment) behavior without violating the NAP. (though I think some left leaning libertarians might disagree)
As for an "alternative", there are also contractual means.
For example:
I am a member of "Altrua" health care sharing, which among other things says that I must do my best to live in a Christian manner(yet interestingly, I don't have to be a Christian) in order to be a member and further, if any of my actions that result in a healthcare event aren't Christian, I will not be covered. (like getting shot robbing a bank, or catching a venereal disease due to sex outside the marriage)
In other words- my ethical/behavioral standards have to adhere to a certain cultural subset via contract, which I can either voluntary agree to, or not participate/benefit.
Bionic, Limiting such social behavior in a small community of like minded people, I agree may result in a peaceful community but I do not see how it can be called “libertarian” (according to Smiths definition) if it allows or promotes aggression to do so, nor do I see how it can achieve world peace over a larger area by attempting to dominate or outlaw undesirable behavior using aggression to do so. I can see an endless progression of conflict such as the “30 years war” but perhaps I am myopic in this regards.
DeleteNick, I agree that there are other methods of “control” such as the voluntary societies you mention and also through CC&R’s and other contractual means.
Woody, I concur that “Liberty requires self restraint” but restraint in not aggressing against others, regardless of your feelings of their actions, assuming that their behavior is between consenting adults.
Perhaps in error but I have been operating under the assumption that: “A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.” — L. Neil Smith
Perhaps if we used the word “theocracy” or “ecclesiocracy” or “oligarchic” we might reach a more common agreement although I am not well versed in most of the various forms of governments that have been tried in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
I personally “believe” that the Non Aggression Principle is the highest commandment of the Creator given to man and is the only possible method I can conceive of to achieve true world peace but again, it has to be the highest commandment for all.
Bionic, Your discussions are most interesting. Thank you.
Tahn
BM, is it possible that some of your frustration, for lack of a better word, is less with the left-libertarians than with what should be a bukwark of both liberty (especially with subsidiarity) AND culture, my (and I posit your) Roman Catholic Church?
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
Eric Morris
Eric, first regarding my relationship with the RCC...if I explained to you my Christian background and upbringing, you would either be totally confused or totally stunned as to why I write what I write.
DeleteI think as to the RCC (and I will add Protestant / Evangelicals to this), they have almost entirely abandoned the Prince of Peace; they have almost entirely abandoned their role as a governance institution.
I don't know that this explains my frustration (for lack of a better word) with left-libertarians; it does explain the mess and reduction in liberty in the west.
BM, I love being stunned and confused (at least by intelligent people), so win-win for me. Obviously, I understand a reticence at this point in your journey to explain further.
DeleteThat’s the frustration: if the one entity that should be our greatest ally and champion actually undermines much of that, then I (or a collective like-minded) need to cavort with them (leftists, though I don’t actually consider Block a leftist at all, but overuse lack of shorthand) for of all things spiritual succor.
Exercise 1: Defending the Undefendable.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, I have found that people who engage in many of these activities are often selfish, violent and undisciplined. People of this type are more likely to cave to totalitarian pressure or to be aggressive when it suits them regardless of the NAP.
One would need to examine each of these things and discover what it is that attracts people to them. If the situation caters to an individual’s baser instincts then it will, most likely, be anathema to liberty. Liberty requires self-discipline and indulging one’s baser nature tends to lessen that discipline.
Exercise 2: Additional Items.
IMO, Bionic has made the case against abortion and, as I have pointed out several times, history teaches us about the destructive effects of open borders.
Some religions violate the NAP, so belief systems would need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.
So far as governance is concerned, that implies a monopoly on coercion – at least in a given geographic area. If you think about it, monopolies of coercion exist even in libertarian and anarchistic thinking – after all, who controls coercion within a parcel of property if not the property owner? Monopolies of coercive power must always exist regardless of political theory whether or not the individual choses to exercise that power.
Exercise 3 / 4: Common Ground.
While, with some individuals, that 5% in common may be the most important thing to them, it is much more likely that items among the 95% not held in common would be more important than items among the 5%. Were it not so, we would not be talking about right and left libertarians.
Exercise 5: The Movement
I find the NAP a wonderful measuring device to help me gage the appropriateness of my actions and ideas. However, that is all it is and, like any other measure, it can only be used in its appropriate sphere. If I want to know the weight of something, measuring its dimensions can give me an approximation but if I need exact measurements, a weight scale is more appropriate. The NAP cannot give us ethics but it can be a valuable tool in helping us discern what is appropriate and what is not.
Not sure that any of this helps, Bionic. However, I would agree with your assessment that a culture of liberty must come first. Culture is the most important influence in shaping our thinking and how else can we establish and maintain liberty unless the culture supports it? We could hardly expect to find a culture of liberty in a society that is dependent on "Fearless Leader" to tell them what to do ...
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/r__/images/7/7a/Boris-and-natasha-and-fearless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20161015015052&path-prefix=rockyandbullwinkle
Woody,
Delete1. I totally agree.
2. A monopoly on coercion creates the law. Property owners still must live under it. They can live without law if they choose, but the freedom to live as an outlaw is also the freedom to die as one.
3/4. You very well may be right. I would argue libertarians have more in common than 5%, but the difference between left and right is non-trivial to say the least.
5. "The NAP cannot give us ethics"...
Are you suggesting that the law governing the just use of force in society has nothing to do with ethics? I'm convinced the NAP is the foundation of ethics. It is the low bar over which all ethical acts must pass. If I give the money I have stolen from peaceful others to charity have I behaved ethically? If I put a gun to an innocent man's head to force him to tell me the truth, have I behaved ethically? Have I forced him to behave ethically?Please (anyone?) name for me an ethical act which requires the initiation of violence. I cannot think of one, but perhaps this is a flaw in my powers of reason and not in your argument.
The ends don't justify the means. This is what separates true conservatives from true radicals.
ATL,
DeleteI appreciate and thank you for your feedback.
#2: My point is that, under libertarianism / anarchism, a property owner is considered sacrosanct over his own, which means he has monopoly rights over his property, including a monopoly of force / violence. You would not be considered in violation of the NAP if you took violent action against a trespasser (for example), since trespassing would be considered an initiation of violence.
#3/4: My point is this: if ANY percentage of beliefs not held in common causes ANY sort of schism, then that percentage is non-trivial ... such as the current schism between right and left libertarians.
#6: "Are you suggesting that the law governing the just use of force in society has nothing to do with ethics?"
No. What I am saying is that it can only give us a general idea of the ethics. The NAP says "No initiation of violence". It says nothing, for example, about the amount of violence one can apply to NAP violations - hence Walter Block's statement about "killing a child who steals an apple" is perfectly within the NAP.
One could argue, as I have, that since the NAP is a limit on aggression and violence, one should apply the least amount of violence as will rectify the situation but that is a subjective interpretation and carries no force.
"Please (anyone?) name for me an ethical act which requires the initiation of violence."
Certainly.
Walter Block might argue that purchasing the right to raise a child, then sexually abusing that child is not a violation of the NAP. However, IMO, it would be perfectly ethical to go to that man's house, shoot his sorry butt and rescue the child. It violates the NAP but it would be ethical to most readers of this blog.
Tell me the difference between left and right libertarian. I agree with you on the sexual abuse issue. Not even a parent has the right to harm or coerce a child. Since the child cannot protect them selves, everyone has the right to do it on their behalf.
DeleteIn self defence, it is hard to determine the level or force needed if the person has a gun. You bring up on issue that would not like happen, killing a child who steals an apply, as a starting point.
H. Skip Robinson
DeleteTo simplify left vs right libertarians it might be considered along the lines of modern liberals and traditional conservatives. Much more on this can be found in the tab at the top "Libertarians and Culture," especially within the very first link.
As to killing a child for stealing an apple...yes, not likely to happen...but this is a long-standing thread within this community. I will explain:
A reasonably prominent libertarian believes a property owner can exact any punishment he chooses for an aggression against his property - this is perfectly acceptable within libertarian theory according to him (of course, I disagree both as to theory and application).
So I offered an example: what if a child picks an apple from a neighbors tree while on his way to school? Is the neighbor justified in shooting the child for "stealing" the apple?
The answer: yes!
To me it seems disingenuous of Walter Block to support “open borders” for America as zealously as he does. Why? Because even though he teaches and lives part-time in New Orleans, he’s also a citizen and resident of Canada. It’s all too easy to promote open borders for the U.S. when there’s little chance of open borders happening in Canada, particularly so since he and presumably his family have a "safe space" to which they may flee at any time. For those of us who don't have that option, we will be left to pay the toll. It’s possible that Block is not a partisan in his writings on this subject, but the question hangs. Perhaps he should have recused himself from this topic. Peg in Oregon.
ReplyDeleteBM,
ReplyDeleteEX. 1
“Is strict adherence to the non-aggression principle so important to you that you will fight and die for it so that others may be free to practice any of the above?”
It depends. If I can get my culture across the finish line of the NAP as well in the process, and we actually had a chance at victory, then yes. In other words, if both cultural left and right libertarians can get together to carve out a libertarian order, where each can have their exclusive society as they see fit, then I would certainly fight alongside them. Otherwise, I would probably not fight and die to achieve solely a left-libertine libertarian Utopia of immorality and debauchery, especially not if I had to fight against honorable limited government conservative folks in the process.
EX. 2
“…is it possible that being against abortion is more important to some libertarians than being for the NAP?”
I think this would be a valid position, especially in the case that it was the adherence to the NAP (in their own evaluation at least) which animated their disapproval of abortion. In other words, if they believed abortion to be an act of aggression, opposing it would be consistent with the NAP, and not a violation of it. Whether or not abortion is aggression is, in my view, a complex question concerning the rights of the mother and child. Unquestionably the unborn child is innocent in all cases, so I would lean towards aggression, but I’m not convinced enough to point a gun at someone to disallow them from getting an abortion. I think social ostracism, depending on the circumstances, would be a sufficient check on this behavior. I would here invoke the principle of subsidiarity and let local communities decide. Excellent question by the way.
EX. 3
“Yes, we have a choice: libertarians can focus on the 5%, the common ground – which is basically one thing, the non-aggression principle”
I think being anti-war, anti-imperialism, pro free trade, pro private property, and anti-state comprises a bit more than 5% of the spectrum, but I see your point. My hesitancy in aligning with the left would be due to my skepticism in the degree to which they’d adhere to any of the tenets of liberty above once they achieved power. My money is on them simply imposing leftist culture on everyone by force. I don’t trust the leftist mind. I have the educated suspicion that they will do and say whatever it takes to achieve their social vision for society, including infiltrating cultures of opposition to destroy them from within by expertly subverting the language and twisting the aims.
EX. 4
“So what happens if we try it my way? If I am right (focus on the right culture, and liberty will follow), we get liberty; if I am wrong, well…we still get something pretty close to liberty”
That is an great point. Gambling on the left, we may end up with totalitarian death camps, complete moral and economic decay, and ministries of truth. Gambling on the right (the real right – not national socialism), we may end up with people be punished disproportionately for doing stuff that is harmful to themselves.
EX. 5
“I really don’t know about this “libertarian movement” and focusing on common ground thing.”
I have a theory that in the subjective realm (exchange, relationships), compromise is key, but in the objective realm (the pursuit of truth), compromise is a cancer. I vote in favor of Rothbard’s secession from the unprincipled Cato Institute 1000 times.
Politics nor government creates liberty or at least I've never seen any or one that does. Politics is about pay to play, in order to get access to the taxpayers money in the public treasury. Thus libertarianism is a social movement and not a political one. What organization or individual in their right mind is going to donate to a libertarian candidate when everyone else is donating to those candidates that will gain them access to the public treasury. You see how much Rand Paul raised as compared to say Hillary Clinton? What is Rand Paul going to give a campaign donor other than a pat on the back. A political Party of this persuasive is quite arguably an asinine idea. You really think you are going to raise up the proverbial masses using this strategy? Look how great it has worked so far?
ReplyDeleteWe are smarter than they are but we need to use those smarts to outwit them in our commentaries and in the arena of public discourse. As Friedman pointed out, The 1928 and 1932 platforms of the American Socialist Party are now law in the country and not a single one of them were ever elected to office. Of course they had the Zionist movement behind them so the had a lot of the lamestream media in their pockets by that time.
Skippy
Delete"You really think you are going to raise up the proverbial masses using this strategy?"
What "strategy" are you talking about?
Skippy? FYI: Trolls write that when addressing me back, an "Ad hominem" for having the nickname Skip, like the children did in elementary school when they called me Skippy peanut butter.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question is any form of political movement such as the Libertarian Party. I was the 1992 LP candidate for State House 87 here in Florida.
I received just under 6,700 votes in a 75% democratic District.
I've also written the book, The Achilles Heel; the IRS Notice Of Federal Tax Liens. All the liens they issue appear to be invalid as the never denote the "tax liability giving rise to the lien" on them, as statutory requirement supported by case law. Some suggest it was the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939" that created the first direct Federal individual income tax. However, if that were the case, why would they have had to enact the Victory Tax AKA The "Revenue Act of 1942" to raise more revenue directly from individuals during WWII, if there was already an income tax in existence.
We've got them bu the balls but few have the balls to stand up in the courtroom and face the corrupt prosecutors and Judges. They'd rather go pretend that truth, democracy and voting is going to win back our freedoms.
Libertarianism is a social movement that tries to extinguish as much police powers and taxation as possible. That’s how you gain liberty.
Passive resistance is the only way. Force begets force, so overthrowing the existing nation-state never succeeds in the long run and the U.S. is a perfect example.
H. Skip Robinson
Cell: 561.596.1004
Fax: 561.203.9021
skiprob@live.com
Skype: hskiprob
H. Skip Robinson
DeleteWhen someone shows up for the first time at this site and asks a question that has nothing to do with what I have written, I have a tendency to go on offense.
Now...where did I advocate joining the LP or otherwise suggest that libertarianism will win out through politics?
Quote:
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with the basics: in order to address the concept of a “libertarian movement,” we should have some common understanding about what is meant by a political movement:
In the social sciences, a political movement is a social group that operates together to obtain a political goal, on a local, regional, national, or international scope. Political movements develop, coordinate, promulgate, revise, amend, interpret, and produce materials that are intended to address the goals of the base of the movement.
Libertarianism, to the extent it is a political movement, is for one thing and one thing only: to increase liberty. For libertarians, this means adherence to the non-aggression principle (NAP), and this must be based on inviolate property right.
Now this simplicity leaves much room in the tent for an almost infinite number of varying “goals of the base of the movement,” as almost any “goal” is acceptable as long as it does not violate the NAP.
I have yet to meet a libertarian who defines himself (as an individual) strictly with the NAP. Each libertarian has “goals” beyond this – none of the goals in violation of the NAP, yet many of the goals in conflict with the goals of other libertarians. A simple example might be gay marriage: this need not be a “goal” for every libertarian even though the idea does not violate the NAP."
___________________________________________________________
And my response was, it's not a political movement, it's a social movement.
We are actually against political movements.
To write in such a small area is really frustrating.
Also you said something about defending someone who yells fire in a theater. No, libertarians do not support those that create imminent dangers, like yelling fire in a theater or shooting a gun straight up in the air on New Years Eve in Time Square. Now if you are in Wyoming out on the range, knock yourself out, hopefully the bullet will come down perfectly and hit you in the head for wasting a perfectly good bullet when your drunk while shooting a gun. Lol
I spend so much time teaching libertarianism and because it's actually complex including such things as legal concepts, individual psychology and group dynamics, etc.
This stuff, like imminent danger and self defence has taken me years to learn. People think when their 25 and 30 years old they have enough knowledge to understand all the elements and complexities of socio-economics. Just because you are a libertarian doesn't mean you have all the knowledge to support it. Oh and I love when Statists quote those that are still learning and most likely don't have a full enough understanding of it or when the tax statements out of context. That when you know you have a troll in your presence. Boy, do I know, I had a Radio talk show host just trash me and make me look like a fool using his various logical fallacies they are such pros at using.
H. Skip Robinson
DeleteBecause I defined something (whether or not you agree with the definition is irrelevant) you conclude that I advocate something.
Talk about a logical fallacy.
Libertarianism, ultimately, is orphan of Medieval Scholastic political philosophy filtered through Lutheran individualism. Therefore, offspring though it is, it is a mutated offspring. What libertarianism lacks, is exactly the parts where it departs from Scholastic politics, and that is exactly the thing which makes libertarianism so schizophrenic -- separation of morality and justice. Laws have always involved morality, and maintaining this separation is both unnatural and very hard to achieve psychologically. Thus, left-libertarians (rightly, at least with respect to human psychological makeup) conclude, whatever does not break the NAP is therefore necesserily moral. On the other hand, a Scholastic opposes immorality for the same reason he opposes theft -- something that is not possible within the libertarian tradition.
ReplyDeleteHowever, libertarianism has its own, rather conservative implications. Namely, if self-ownership exists from the moment of conception, and there are no positive obligations toward children, then everyone is a debt “slave” to his parents for having raised him. Now, one may say: “Oh, but I didn't ask them to nurture me, and raise me, nor have I ever consent to it, and thus bear no responsibility for all the expenses.” but obviously, there is no need for consent (e.g. in a situation where a doctor saves a dying man, as long as long as the doctor charges a standard rate, he is full within his rights to demand payment after the man wakes, and there is no need for man to have consented to service, as Stephan Kinsella would explain, for in contractual interactions it is always assumed that both parties are expected to benefit by it – and doctor not saving the patient wouldn't be of benefit to the patient, likewise it is for the child).
"Therefore, offspring though it is, it is a mutated offspring."
DeleteMichael, this is very good. Thank you.
Kinsella points out that private property rights arise only because of scarcity: Clothes and cars are 'rivalrous' goods whereas songs and software are not. The goal of private property rights is to reduce conflict arising from scarce goods. The natural law of private property is discovered law, worked out and reworked by trial and error rather than deployed by political authority. Natural law is that least set of rules best serving to prevent and reduce conflict. It is completely distinct from positivist political law and completely independent of morality.
DeleteMorality by contrast is a completely unstable category which exists as a multitude of political micro-regimes, as multiple competing discourses of power/knowledge. For instance: In the West we have the morality of monogamy. One is permitted one and only one relationship. Even one extra is regarded as immoral. By contrast for the Mosuo of Tibet everyone is expected to have multiple simultaneous relationships. To have just one, particularly if it is exclusive, is regarded as immoral. Morality is 'contingent', arising by chance in a certain place at a certain time. It both requires and implies relations of power. Whereas natural law can only be discovered, morality can only be deployed.
Victor, thank you for offering a concise summary as to why libertarians who do not take into account local culture, custom and tradition are not worth listening to; and why introducing individuals with significant cultural differences will lead to more conflict, not less.
Delete@Victor
DeleteThomas Aquinas writes: "The general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people."
But if you think that property is the sole thing necessary for human flourishing, think again. Society composed of bug-chasing "gay" junkies won't be able to sustain anything, let alone civilisation, no matter how much property rights they have.
Thus, what is called "traditional morality" is not accidental. All successful civilisations, though separated by vast amounts of time and geography independently converged on somewhat similar values. Those cultures that didn't have property, have either gone extinct, or were conquered by those that did. Those cultures that didn't have the patriarchy have either gone extinct, or were conquered by those that did. Those cultures that didn't keep depravity in the closet have either gone extinct, or were conquered by those that did. We ignore the natural law only at our own peril.
Your alleged successful cultures utilized slavery, oppressive taxation and other such deplorable institutions. Other than the Celts between 600 AD and about 1650 AD, who do you deem as successful cultures. The Romans? The Brits? The Spanish? The Dutch were probably the best, and they are even now a small percentage of what they once were. The world is slowing learning that legalizing government force or more importantly acquiescing to it, is a great way to see your culture collapse, both morally and economically. Trying to support its continuation is illogical. It hasn't worked very well at accomplishing the two most important elements of a civil society. It doesn't do what is in the best interest of the majority and it doesn't really protect individual property rights. Instead, it ends up as you noted previously being a conficatory cartel which benefits the ruling oligarchy at the expense of the majority.
DeleteH. Skip Robinson
DeleteIf you are actually the serious individual that you make yourself out to be, go to the top of the page and click the tab "bibliography," Within it, you will find many books and articles on the European Middle Ages. Start with Fritz Kern, then Régine Pernoud. There are others that will also dispel the myths that you live under.
For example: Slavery was virtually unknown, serfs had better rights in property (including lower taxation) than does anyone in the west today, every noble had veto rights.
Depends on where, I agree with the Celts. I will read. Always trying to get my hands on good info.
DeleteHowever, the Romans fed people to wild animals for entertainment and crucified rebels.
Mayans and other cultures gave sacrifices to the Gods.
The Brits and American colonies burned witches at the stake up until 1688 or so.
Read about the Martyrs at Boston Common. You've not a William Robinson, a merchant from England. May have been grand dad.
http://www.executedtoday.com/2010/10/27/1659-the-first-two-boston-martyrs/
>Your alleged successful cultures utilized slavery, oppressive taxation and other such deplorable institutions.
DeleteYeah, let us judge ancient cultures by ideology invented in the second half of the 20th century. Seems like a totally good idea for objective evaluation.
>The Romans? The Brits? The Spanish?
Something that lasts over a thousand years certainly fits the definition of successful, yes.
>However, the Romans fed people to wild animals for entertainment and crucified rebels.
As opposed to what? Let the rebels crucify them? Do you need reminding that libertarianism didn't exist up until 20th century? And even if it did, it's not like it was applicable. If Romans didn't use coercion, they would have been overrun by the Carthaginians and the Persians who were even worse.
>Mayans and other cultures gave sacrifices to the Gods.
And Inca Empire was basically a reneissance-era equivalent of North Korea, except with human sacrifices. So, when Spanish colonization put the stop to sacrifices and Inca communism, how was that not a victory for the cause of liberty?
>The Brits and American colonies burned witches
They didn't. The Puritans did. And Puritans were anti-establishment revolutionaries. ISIS and Jacobins rolled into one neat little package. They were exiled to New England exactly because they were a nuisance.
Yea, they used the force of the sword and slavery so yea it was great for the ruling oligarchy.
DeleteAdditionally it was Boston Bay Colony who was by that time controlled by the Crown.
I know, they don't teach us this in the text and history books. I didn't know either until I got involved in my own geneology research.
Is that what they teach today. You sound like your came from Tory lineage. Actually John Robinson, the Pastor, William Brewster the Church leader and their congregation escaped to Holland after being persecuted for being separatists against the Church of England. The Separatists were also anti-government as the church and state were in collusion at the time. From Holland, they freely left to Plymouth under the Mayflower compact, there governing document.
Delete>Yea, they used the force of the sword and slavery so yea it was great for the ruling oligarchy.
DeleteAnd who was better off? Slaves that the British bought, or slaves (or even freemen!) that remained in Africa?
>Additionally it was Boston Bay Colony who was by that time controlled by the Crown.
Colonists had enormous powers of self-government.
>You sound like your came from Tory lineage.
Neither Whig, nor Torry.
>being persecuted for being separatists against the Church of England
They were persecuted for murdering the king, and instituting the red terror, in the process banning holidays, theatere, pubs, sports, music, ... (the list goes on).
>anti-government
They weren't anti-government in an abstract (like libertarians are). They were anti-not-controlled-by-them-government. They were totally fine with establishing totalitarian theocracy for themselves, however.
>However, libertarianism has its own, rather conservative implications.
ReplyDeleteWell, in addition to the ones asserted by Łukasz Dominiak at any rate:
http://mises.org/library/łukasz-dominiak-culture-hoppes-private-law-society
The term conservative, like liberal are highly ambiguous as nouns. I don't really like to use them if at all possible. If we were to put communism to the far left and libertarian anarcho-capitalism on the far fight, where would both our two major parties be on the single line chart? To me, they would be both fairly far left of center, if you base the analysis on the protection of individual rights and property.
DeleteUntil You cut income taxes on individual labor, you can't do anything.
ReplyDeleteReferencing this post and your Epilogue, Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian himself, said it well: "Only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end of life."
ReplyDelete-M
I love this line. A source?
DeleteWelll...I dunno. As Christopher Morley accurately stated, "There is only one success---to be able to spend your life in your own way." Does that equate to "freedom"?
Deletehttps://mises.org/sites/default/files/Frank%20S%20Meyer%20The%20Fusionist%20as%20Libertarian%20Manque_2.pdf
Deletehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/the-failure-called-fusionism/
DeleteOriginally paper titled "Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian Manqué" by Murray Rothbard. First published in Modern Age in 1981 and then as an Occasional Paper in 1984 by the Center for Libertarian Studies. Also in George Carey's "Freedom & Virture: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate", p. 95.
Cited in Gerard Casey's "Libertarian Anarchy", p. 54 and at the end of Chapter 1 in his "Freedom's Progress?"
Full paragraph:
"If the fusionist position is simply the libertarian position on freedom-and-virtue, then what of the fusionist critique of libertarianism: that it ignores virtue altogether in the pursuit of freedom (or, at least, ignores virtue insofar as it goes beyond freedom itself)? Much of this critique rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of what libertarianism is all about. Thus, Professor John P. East speaks of the traditionalist concern about contemporary libertarianism (which he, as a fusionist, seems to share): "of taking a valid point, in this case the importance of the individual and his rights, and elevating it to the first principle of life with all other considerations excluded".* Even Frank Meyer, uncharacteristically and in the heat of the ideological fray, identified libertarianism as a "libertine impulse [which] . . . raises the freedom of the individual . . . to the status of an absolute end." [4] But this is an absurd straw-man. Only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end of life. Freedom is necessary to, and integral with, the achievement of any of man’s ends. The libertarian agrees completely with Acton and with Meyer himself that freedom is the highest political end, not the highest end of man per se; indeed, it would be difficult to render such a position in any sense meaningful or coherent."
Thank you for the text. This opens up the possibility for an interesting dialogue, one that I will start with a new post, I think.
Delete"Only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest or indeed the only principle or end of life."
Which also means: Only an imbecile could ever hold that freedom is the highest principle or end of life.
Add to this: "The libertarian agrees completely with Acton and with Meyer himself that freedom is the highest political end, not the highest end of man per se..."
What if I hold other principles or ends higher than freedom? Does that make me no longer libertarian?
What if achieving my ends means limiting your freedom? Actually it does, it is just a question of where and what we call property and borders, and how we define aggression.
What if we don't agree on what we call property and borders and how we define aggression? Which one of us is no longer libertarian? Both? Neither?
All good avenues to go, I'll await the post to comment as I've already extended it too far in this thread.
Delete-M
BM,
Delete"What if I hold other principles or ends higher than freedom? Does that make me no longer libertarian?"
I am certainly not the ultimate judge of who is or isn't libertarian, but I believe, given your statement above, it depends.
Do you believe organized aggression is necessary to bring about the fulfillment of your highest ends, or are you simply willing to accept incomplete liberty to achieve your highest ends due to the prevailing political inclinations of those around you who share your highest ends? If you are the former, then I think the libertarian label may not apply, but if you are the latter I believe that it does.
"What if we don't agree on what we call property and borders and how we define aggression?"
I think here is where cultural norms fill in the gaps of the NAP and bring it from an abstract concept into a fully functioning legal order.
ATL, for me it is the latter - and the way you put this has helped me clarify my thoughts (as I am in the middle of writing the aforementioned post).
DeleteAs I have mentioned, I would rather live in a neighborhood of Pat Buchanans than a neighborhood full of many (left) libertarians.
I doubt that Murray would have ever said something so imbecilic.
ReplyDeleteAmazingly, when you place something in context it is much more truthful. When you segregate it, it can become a misconception.
ReplyDeleteH. Skip,
ReplyDeleteYou may doubt that Murray Rothbard said it, but he actually did (or typed it on his trusty typewriter at the least). I don't think it is an imbecilic statement at all. Actually, I think it is very accurate - a very good example of the older, wiser Rothbard.
As for your second post, I don't think seeing it in the full paragraph makes it any more or less truthful. Seeing the surrounding text does give context and it helps to determine what he fully meant when writing it. But either on its own or within the whole paragraph, it is either true statement or not true. I happen to think it is true and a very wise, humble statement. If I were to attach unintended meaning to it or twist it in such a way that Rothbard did not intend, only then can it become a misconception. Neither happened in this case.
-M