Sunday, July 1, 2018

The Chicken or the Egg


A continuing dialogue with Nick Badalamenti.  The specific conversation was started by Anonymous (Sag) June 24, 2018 at 1:45 AM, at this post.  It has evolved such that my reply is long enough for a post:

In the most recent comment, Nick offers that those who initially came from Europe to America to settle did not bring a culture with them.  I know we must be speaking past each other, because I don’t get this at all.  In any case, after his describing his view, he asks:

What of the above do you disagree with?

I interpret Nick’s statements on this matter to place far more emphasis on the “soil” part than is justified and far less emphasis on the “culture” part than is warranted.

People create and maintain a culture.  When I use the phrase “cultural soil,” I use the term “soil” as symbolism, if you will.  Certainly, it cannot be denied that America became America in part due to the various geographic features of the land, but this is tremendously a secondary consideration.

In this specific case, American Indians (or whatever I am supposed to call them these days) lived on this “soil” for countless generations, yet did not create anything approaching the classical liberalism / libertarianism of “America.”  Why?  Whatever it was, it couldn’t have been the “soil.”

My point is: the “cultural soil” of America existed before the first European settler arrived; it was on the ships that came from the old world, in the human passengers that travelled on these ships.  My point is: the cultural characteristics – certainly not decentralized medieval law (most certainly not Catholic) – still held many (but not all) of the valuable characteristics that pre-dated the Reformation and Renaissance (which was also true in parts of Europe even in this time, perhaps being fully purged in France at the time of the Revolution).

Finally, my point is: they came to basically virgin land – unclaimed by any power that had the means to truly defend a previous claim.  I will suggest: not in the collapse of Argentina or in the collapse of the United States will this be true.  For example: if the only “change” in America (even Argentina) is a collapse followed by some form of decentralization, what happens to the military and police in either country when you tell them: “no more jobs, no more pensions”?

So, I suggest: if libertarians want to see something approaching liberty in the future, we (some libertarians will suggest that I should use the word “they”) might want to consider the cultural soil necessary to allow liberty to grow.  The key part of the term being “cultural.”

Which country is moving more towards liberty and away from socialism: Russia or the United States?

Of course the answer to this is a simple answer; however it comes with complex and important underlying factors.  In the 1930s, Stalin imprisoned and killed by the millions; in the 1940s, FDR imprisoned a couple hundred thousand.  From this starting point (and hundreds of other political and economic examples of similar extremes) we can easily answer the question.  The starting point is meaningful to your question – in fact, I could leave it here and fully answer the question without allowing your question to make the point that I think you want to make.

But I will go further: why is the breakup of the USSR a great example (and hope) for others?  Why did “peaceful” work there?  The various former republics were each relatively uniform in their underlying culture (including, not at all insignificantly, religion).  In fact, where we have not seen a peaceful separation in the former USSR is precisely where this wasn’t true: internally within Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan are such examples; various provinces within Russia also offer examples.

On the other hand, compare the process and outcome of the recent “revolution” in a very uniform Armenia with revolutions elsewhere in the region.  It seems the United States didn’t even bother to try to co-opt this revolution; likely there was no point.


Yes, on the whole the decentralization of the Soviet Union was peaceful; however, within previously established borders where cultures collided, it was (and is) not.

How would this play out in the US, where the “culture” of the inner cities vs. the suburbs is like night and day; where the “culture” of the elite vs. flyover country could not be more different?  Where there are no meaningful borders to separate these groups from each other?

How will this play out in a collapse in Argentina?  A bunch of locals will allow the rich, white Norte Americanos to live in peace on their libertarian Galt’s Gulch, riding polo ponies and playing tennis – “watching it all play out on the big screen”? Whatever remains of “government” in Argentina, which side will they back?

…the argument that a nation could exist without a king was claimed to have been scoffed at by King George.

But, of course, King George was wrong.  During the Middle Ages and for up to 1000 years in various parts of Europe there was no “king,” not in any definition fitting the definition during the time of King George (or six centuries before in the land he ruled).  Before the Jews asked Samuel for a king, they had no king.  So, it seems to me, historical arguments are on my side.

I believe that setting limits on what can be done based on historical precedents are intellectually stifling.

I believe that removing all limits from the examples of human history and human nature are intellectual masturbation.  Post-Enlightenment (even post-Renaissance) political theories almost all fall into this camp.

We aren’t talking about stretching the boundaries of physical science – “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”  We are talking about human nature – a social science.  Science experiments involving human nature have never ended well for those on whom the experiment is attempted.

Whether one believes human nature is the result of billions of years of evolution or is the creation of God, it seems to me that those who ignore these “limitations” and “boundaries” of human nature are both naïve and dangerous. 

I have been criticized for thinking critically about libertarian theory and classical liberalism.  I have offered my “why” for doing so: to learn where and why it all went so wrong.  You would think this a topic worthy of examination, not derision (no, not by you Nick). 

How do I examine this without understanding the historical precedents?  Why would not those who favor liberty want to learn from this experience?

The Money Question

As of now, the substance of "disagreement" between us appears to be a chicken vs. the egg conundrum.

Which is more plausible: fewer laws in a society with a common culture or fewer laws in a society of contrasting and even conflicting cultures?  On this point, I think we agree. 

Which comes first, good law or good people?  On this, maybe we don’t agree: I say good people; you say good law (the NAP).  However one defines “good” in good people, I say this must come first – and one cannot say the definition of “good” in good people is the following of the NAP; this reasoning is circular and nonsensical. 

Further, I am suggesting specific cultural characteristics and traditions that make for this “good people” if by “good law” one is hoping for something approaching libertarian law.

I used to believe which came first was irrelevant – to the extent I even considered the question.  I have come to the view that one must precede the other if something approaching liberty is to be both achieved and sustained.  Good people create and sustain good law; it isn’t the other way around. 

The following statement is offered by some: in a libertarian society, destructive cultural behaviors will not survive because they will not be subsidized.  I agree with the statement.  However, the statement leaves unanswered the “how” of the birthing and maintaining of a libertarian society. 

How will it spring forth from a society where socially destructive cultural behavior is today subsidized?  How will it spring forth when aggression is both subsidized and supported?  How will it spring forth when half of society wants to have orgies on the front lawn and the other half doesn’t?

This road only goes one way: law reflects the society and its culture.  Good law cannot come forward from corrupt society.  The closest thing known in history to libertarian law came forward from a specific people with specific characteristics, cultures, and traditions – this in the Germanic, Christian Middle Ages. 

Good law was not waiting on the American continent for the first European settlers to find it.  Good law isn’t waiting today for some collapse to allow it to break free from its shackles.  If and when the collapse comes, will you find more freedom in the custom and traditions of Manhattan or Winnemucca?  Why?

51 comments:

  1. Hoppe should create room for an extra speaker at the PFS 2018 meeting!

    BM (and @Nick also) thank you, this is what constructive dispute is really all about, to bring the discussion to the next level and contribute to libertarian thought and maybe even action. Great stuff.

    -Sag.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Libertarian society is free market society. That is all. The libertarian society will take root by way of the market transaction rather than by way of any political reform. One day - and soon - a corporation will BUY SOVEREIGNTY outright from a nation state in woeful financial shape, which by now is most of them. The security for such place will be provided by competing private corporations, as will the provision of justice, water, electricity, internet connectivity and the manufacture of paper clips.
    In ten years it will be the wealthiest place on the planet. Other corporations will buy up nearby territory in sovereignty deals of their own. In no time the whole nation state will be sold off in a slew of additional free market society deals. Their collective wealth will multiply exponentially to the point that spin off corporations will buy out the sovereignty of all other nation states. This is the mechanism by which libertarian societies will unwind the ten thousand year reign of political power structures. And whereas all political regimes came into being by meting out ruthless brute force, the free market society will colonize and absorb politically controlled territories by artifice, by finesse, by simply buying out those wielding political power. I hasten to say this is an immensely PRACTICAL undertaking not at all a UTOPIAN flight of fancy though we can surely anticipate criticism along those lines. But no matter. Free market society does not mind. To the contrary it will be a society ceaselessly directed and corrected by the forces of the market, not at all the whimsy of Utopian dreamers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you really believe this?
      "a corporation will BUY SOVEREIGNTY outright from a nation state in woeful financial shape"

      A corporation is a creation of the state and all of the debts of the state can be at the whim of the state forced onto the individuals and contractual entities (Corporations) in the state. Look at many examples in Venezuela for proof.

      Delete
    2. Take Bryant Park in the very heart of socialist union dominated Manhattan. Under the control of the socialist political class of New York Bryant Park had become a dangerous trash strewn dump by the 1970s. In the early 1980s, the private Bryant Park Corporation essentially bought sovereignty over the park in a deal with New York's ruling political class: We'll give you a cut of the revenue generated by events, shops and eateries provided we have our own private security, our own gardeners, maintenance crew, landscapers, and private administrative organization to oversee the running of the park. New York was so broke it agreed to the corporations terms. Within ten years Bryan Park changed from a dangerous urban blight to a lush oasis - the most popular spot in the whole city. Nothing to do with good culture displacing bad culture. Rather free enterprise was able to finesse a buy out the corrupt socialist political elite.
      And that is the crucial point. The people who now work to make the park such a wonderful oasis hail from the same cultural background as the people who once made the park a hideous no man's land. The determining factor was not at all their cultural background but entirely the way in which their talents and energies were channeled. In the one case it was through the destruction of socialism, in the other, the miracle of the free market.

      Delete
    3. The park is still under the jurisdiction of the City which is part of the State of New York which is part of the USA. The transaction you refer to is rent. And the place is still paying taxes to the various levels of government. Therefore it is NOT in any way free or separate.

      And don't think for one minute that the City of New York just can't take the park back. It could pass a massive tax increase on the park making it worth the while of the managers to allow a buyout of the agreement.

      Delete
    4. Ok, here's the fundamental point: The Bryant Park Corporation did NOT take the position that owing to some widespread cultural predisposition toward socialism and some animus against free market / libertarian society it would be a fools errand to try to arrange for Bryant Park to be brought under private management. To the contrary, the Bryant Park Corporation TOOK MASSIVE ACTION. It had a simple idea: FREE THE PARK FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF SOCIALISM. RETURN IT TO PRIVATE CONTROL UNDER WHICH IT WILL THRIVE AND FLOURISH. It then told the city upfront EXACTLY what it wanted to do aka was totally transparent in its INTENTION. This gave it tremendous CREDIBILITY. It made its PROPOSAL then ASKED for the sale. It listened attentively to the city's objections - acknowledging and agreeing with them - but treating them as complaints rather than objections. It then took out a contract and politely said 'Heres the contract, sign right here'. And closed the deal.
      The point is it did NOT talk itself out of the sale by telling itself its plan could never work given the cultural milieu of the city. Nor did it postpone its intention until it could lecture and convince enough people on the merits and virtues of libertarian society. To the contrary by CREATIVE AND INVENTIVE MEANS IT FINESSED THE SALE IN SPITE OF THE CONSENSUS. This is the way libertarians must think. LIBERTARIANS HAVE TO BECOME SALESMAN FOR SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL ECONOMIC LIBERTARIAN TRANSACTIONS. They must dump evangelizing in favor of entrepreneurship.
      MAKE IT HAPPEN. DON'T WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME AND ENERGIES IN DOCTRINAIRE DEBATE ON HOW IT MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAPPEN.

      Delete
    5. Victor - Excellent observations and strategies. Thanks!
      It will be interesting to see how corporate "culture" takes root as the potential common binding for the societies that grow with it.

      Delete
    6. BDev, if Victor continues to scream at this audience, it will be the last observation he makes at this site.

      Delete
  3. BM: "derision"

    Yes, that is what you get when livelihood is at stake, even perceived livelihood.

    The following may sound a bit flippant but I think it is valid: I am reading 'the blank slate' and it seems that humans have a build-in circuitry for moral behaviour. But the moral itself is not (completely?) filled in by nature, that is done in early life.
    So to all the libertarian scientists out there: Why has nature not discovered NAP and preprogrammed it as the best solution?

    ReplyDelete
  4. BM

    Today on LR's, an interesting article covering similar ground: Progress: The Road to Utopia or Dystopia?

    -Sag.

    P.s.: probably shouldn't do this, but JP actually makes a decent (half) point here:

    "As an aside, I was astounded by the brilliant Pinker’s lack of perceptiveness when Peterson asked him if the ground sowed by Christianity might have prepared for the awakening of the European Enlightenment, (~57 minute mark) that he so admires. Just after explaining how nowhere else in time or place has such an Enlightenment occurred, apparently he cannot begrudge even the slightest view that science and reason existed before the 18th century."

    Pity this man, while making a good point about Christianity and science, still has to reinforce the usual Enlightenment propaganda. But hey, glass half full.. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A successful blind squirrel, perhaps?

      :-)

      Delete
    2. BM -

      Hello. Permit me this aside.

      Gramsci is at work on the pages of Reason's Hit & Run blog this evening in a post penned by Brian Doherty.

      Doherty rakes Ron Paul over the coals because of a cartoon which depicts a black man and jewish man, inter alia, as the forces of cultural Marxism throwing darts or spears at western civilization. The cartoon was later deleted and Doherty writes that RP claimed it was mistakenly posted.

      Doherty contends that cultural Marxism is a bugaboo bandied about by cranks and that friends of liberty need not fear it.

      In the comments section, I castigated Mr. Doherty for being unwoke to Gramsci and his influence.

      The left libertarian drift continues.

      Liberty Mike

      Delete
    3. Mike, somehow libertarians such as those at Reason believe that liberty will be found once all the roots for liberty are destroyed.

      Had someone told me that Reason was a communist rag, I would not be surprised. They cheer the destruction of liberty and call it liberty.

      Delete
  5. Holy cow! I leave for the weekend and come back to a dedicated post/response!

    LOL! Thanks!

    I'll read it in detail this morning and get back(if necessary)

    Best,

    Nick

    ReplyDelete
  6. There are several misunderstandings/mischaracterizations I have to correct:


    "Nick offers that those who initially came from Europe to America to settle did not bring a culture with them."

    That is incorrect- my specific comment was this:

    "
    The Europeans that came here did so mostly for reasons of economic opportunity and freedom(usually freedom from oppression in a variety of areas). The land they entered in the initial stages(America) had no overarching "culture" in the initial stages/influx of this migration. IMO, the "M&A" you refer to I call a common desire, which then over time "organically" became a culture of "liberty". This transcended to some degree(but not all) some of their cultural roots from their homeland(that is why they left after all)."

    This is a key point and part of my argument.

    There is no doubt that cultural influences came with the migration of Europeans to the US, the question is this:

    What remained and what was left behind?

    My argument is that a key few components are shared desires across cultures of very different makeup are what drew a certain TYPE of person regardless of cultural makeup. I previously(and continue to) cited Asians as an example of this.

    Right off the top of my head those two values(but more) are economic opportunity and "liberty". They are transcendant to the cultural differences.

    Does that mean that SOME of the cultural "soil" that immigrants brought with them from Europe didn't impact the organic forming of a "liberty culture" in the US at the time? Of course not. But I do see culturally transcendent values that promote voluntaryism as possible in newly formed communities regardless of tertiary cultural differences. (within reason of course)

    Let me go further in saying this:

    I have no doubt that there are currently places in the world where for cultural reasons, geopolitical(cultural influenced), and(help me for saying this) even IQ driven reasons that the shared desires(culture?) of liberty in it's general population is a far lower percentage than say some regions of Middle Ages Europe for example-

    But that being said, how it be argued that that means that all said people originating from said cultures all possess the "commie" gene with no hope for redemption?

    This alludes to very specific point I'm going to argue with you about what makes "good people".

    The "nothing" in terms of both culture and structure(gov't) in the US was the draw to a SPECIFIC type of person even if the culture they came from was predominately not liberty driven. (and that includes many parts of Europe btw as well)

    (cont.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Yes, on the whole the decentralization of the Soviet Union was peaceful; however, within previously established borders where cultures collided, it was (and is) not."

    First, I'm glad we agree, second Russia has a 100+ year history of anything but "liberty" and it appears you acknowledge that.

    So the implicit question, which I'm not sure you address, is how they've managed to start a transition to a more free society despite ostensibly no culture of freedom for a good amount of time and virtually NO outside immigration?

    It's a question that deserves to be asked, even if we can't answer it.

    "How would this play out in the US, where the “culture” of the inner cities vs. the suburbs is like night and day; where the “culture” of the elite vs. flyover country could not be more different? Where there are no meaningful borders to separate these groups from each other?

    How will this play out in a collapse in Argentina?"

    This is more of a subjective question, it's an important one to me as I have young kids and I don't plan on getting caught up in any civil war- but I'm really not going to address it(though I thought your characterization of Casey's Argentinian community was funny though perhaps slightly unfair, but it really doesn't matter).

    Everyone has decision to make in that regard. I've got acreage and managed my life away from a big metropolis, so I could theoretically hunker down if things get crazy- but I've an obligation to family to explore ever option. I like when Daisy Luther posts are run on LRC, but the civil wars/disruptions are no joke and not to be taken lightly. I'm not risking my kids on the basis of a demographic trend I can't overcome.(a subjective judgement of course) Roving gangs of thugs are a problem in any breakdown of society and government is never there to help.

    "Which comes first, good law or good people? On this, maybe we don’t agree: I say good people; you say good law (the NAP). "

    So again I have to point out this is a characterization of my viewpoints as noted above, but the important question to me is: What makes "good people"?

    I think there's an argument to be made that "good people"(hard working, property rights respecting, etc.; traditional libertarian values) can come from any cultural background even if the odds of certain cultures producing them are lower. Further, I cite Russia as an example of both cultural "progression", perhaps based on years of economic misery in conjunction have combined to put them on a better path.

    As a result, I'm gong to restate that the existing culture is not be necessity a requirement for libertarian outcomes. (but it certainly helps, I don't deny that)

    The problem is that we have to explain why the US is moving in one direction, while Russia moves towards another(even if the US is still more ostensibly "libertarian" currently, and I'm actually not sure of that right now).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got a little sloppy in my writing/editing toward the end:

      "Further, I cite Russia as an example of both cultural "progression", perhaps based on years of economic misery in conjunction WITH GOVERNMENT BREAKDOWN have combined to put them on a better path."

      Delete
    2. One more, a summary line too, ugh:

      "I'm going to restate that the existing culture is not necessarily a requirement for libertarian outcomes."

      Delete
    3. Nick

      I apologize for the misunderstandings/mischaracterizations. I will see if I can do better.

      “The land they entered in the initial stages (America) had no overarching "culture" in the initial stages/influx of this migration.”

      I think we will agree that the early European immigration of the time was based on circumstances that currently (and for the foreseeable future, absent unimaginable catastrophe) will not be duplicated. First of all, perhaps the most safe, secure, and rich land in the world, virtually unoccupied; second, no welfare benefits or social programs, hence providing “natural selection” for those who would decide to make the trip – and further, for those from this subset who would survive.

      “What remained and what was left behind?”

      In reply to this post, I was offered a book to read: Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: a cultural history), by David Hackett Fischer. Probably best that I say no more on this topic until I read it – other than to suggest that those who left Europe had far more in common with the people that they left than they had differences – when one considers the variety of cultures and traditions in the world. But even here, I might be wrong – maybe they had more in common with, for example, Southeast Asian culture than they did European.

      “I have no doubt that there are currently places in the world where…in its general population is a far lower percentage than say some regions of Middle Ages Europe for example….But that being said, how it be argued that that means that all said people originating from said cultures all possess the "commie" gene with no hope for redemption?”

      I agree fully with the first part of this statement, and I have never said anything approaching the latter.

      “So the implicit question, which I'm not sure you address, is how [Russia has] managed to start a transition to a more free society despite ostensibly no culture of freedom for a good amount of time and virtually NO outside immigration?”

      I thought I explained it sufficiently, but obviously not. In Russia there were only two possibilities open to them given the horrendous police state and destructive economic policies beginning with Lenin and especially during Stalin: the death of every single Soviet citizen or an increase in freedom. Whether proactively or by default, they moved toward more freedom.

      In other words, they didn’t need a “culture of freedom”; they decided to survive instead of die. I don’t think it is much more complicated than this, but I am no “Russia” expert. It also didn’t hurt that there is a shared history, at least somewhat binding the population in a common culture / religion.

      Regarding Casey, societal collapse, etc.: “Everyone has decision to make in that regard.”

      As mentioned, Casey is free to do as he pleases, and I agree that finding the best option to protect family is most important. My point is this, and nothing more: it is short term thinking, and – in my opinion – does nothing to improve the odds of survival in case of catastrophe.

      But your model provides both short term “insurance,” and what I would describe as long term thinking – e.g. “roots.” Why did I compare Manhattan and Winnemucca? There are many places in the US that still hold enough of a culture of liberty that make these far better choices than some foreign land where I will be a stranger during times of collapse. Guess who will be targeted? I am quite certain Casey will not be left alone to watch the collapse on the big screen.

      Delete
    4. (cont): “I think there's an argument to be made that "good people" (hard working, property rights respecting, etc.; traditional libertarian values) can come from any cultural background even if the odds of certain cultures producing them are lower.”

      We agree. But if we have examples of what made for good law and good people – generally and societally, as opposed to individually and rarely – is this not worth understanding? Is it not worth incorporating into libertarian thinking? Can we not expect that “possibility,” “probability,” and “plausibility” mean very different things?

      See, these questions have gone unanswered.

      “As a result, I'm going to restate that the existing culture is not necessarily a requirement for libertarian outcomes. (but it certainly helps, I don't deny that)”

      Nick, you don’t get to say “it certainly helps” and dismiss the value of the existing culture (and my point, specifically, is the culture that represented the best of western civilization) in the same sentence.

      The more common the culture, the less need for “laws”; the more closely related that the culture is to the best of western civilization, the more libertarian.

      For the first, I have reason and history on my side; for the second, history.

      “The problem is that we have to explain why the US is moving in one direction, while Russia moves towards another….”

      I have touched on Russia already. For the US, perhaps it is nothing more than a continuation of the loss of freedom beginning with the Reformation, or Enlightenment, or the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitutional Convention, or the Civil War, or the Progressive Era.

      Why? Well, this has been the entire point of my examination of libertarians and culture.

      Delete
    5. "See, these questions have gone unanswered."

      Probably because the topic is so immense/difficult, and trying to use Occam's razor is a natural tendency for all of us and "private property" kind of does that.

      "Nick, you don’t get to say “it certainly helps” and dismiss the value of the existing culture (and my point, specifically, is the culture that represented the best of western civilization) in the same sentence."

      lol- sure I do! You don't have to like it though.

      :)

      My point was there was no culture at the inception of this initial culture of liberty here in the US. It was created by addition with some shared values that transcended a specific/multitude of cultural backgrounds.

      If you don't agree, that's fine, we are still friends. :)

      "The more common the culture, the less need for “laws”"

      I'm in agreement with you, but I think we need to consider locale at this point. I mentioned once before this notion of "Little Italy", "Germantown", "China town", etc. et al in several major American cities. I mentioned this because I think it's proof positive that cultural diverse communities can co-exist under a libertarian framework to some extent.

      The problem comes in when overarching laws span these communities. The complexity of the cultural issues is rearing it's head. But I think there's room here for the notion of decentralized communities interacting under a certain set of understandings that don't involve cultural mandates. (short of killing a kid over an apple, but I'm not so sure that culture doesn't resolve that too....independently of the NAP).

      I of course also need to briefly mention Rothbard was very clear that the NAP was not a moral system and I'm very in tune with the cultural need to have a moral system to accessorize the NAP(echoing others here). Even as an agnostic, I prefer the Christian moral code over all others.

      cont.

      Delete
    6. cont.

      That being said, the issue of "locale" is important and also not clear. I find it atrocious that it's acceptable to cut the hands off of a child in some regions of the world, but I'm not so motivated over it that I'm hopping on a plane to go address it.(obviously I'm not the only one)

      So locale and decentralization are an important/complex key. (I'm not prepared to discuss it further at this time)

      "Why? Well, this has been the entire point of my examination of libertarians and culture."

      Well, I think your study of culture(and make no mistake, I've appreciated it) has been helpful, but my concern is that it might be used to justify something other than libertarian outcomes. Outside of chanting "private property", I'm not sure what system results in long term libertarian outcomes and as I mentioned before I view illegal immigration as most likely resulting in more NAP violations(via tax load) than it reduces(by restricting trade/travel). Some don't agree. Then there's the issue of them or their children voting to take property of others. But there are some here that appear to be concerned with "cheap labor" and seem to lean statist and from that perspective your arguments could be twisted into less libertarian outcomes. (not your fault obviously)

      Aside from trying to understand what make "good" libertarian people(and our brief exchange on Russia is not satisfactory to me intellectually) I think the front and center failure of the US to maintain libertarian outcomes should be explored seriously. For some, the answer will be "immigration"-of the wrong kind of course, but is that a feature of the same cultural palette that allowed for libertarianism to start? Is the natural path of man to create gov't structures that eventually crush liberty over time regardless of their make-up? Only to have the cycle start again after those structures collapse....regardless of starting/existing "culture"? As someone I know and like says now and the, "History is on my side" seems to be the case here.

      *smile*

      Delete
    7. "I apologize for the misunderstandings/mischaracterizations."

      There is no need for an apology. As I mentioned before, we are both intellectually honest people and as such I would never presume it anything other than a misunderstanding. It's important that I clarified things so we could properly exchange our viewpoints/arguments/discussions.

      Delete
    8. Nick

      “Probably because the topic is so immense/difficult, and trying to use Occam's razor is a natural tendency for all of us and "private property" kind of does that.”

      But “private property” as a concept to explain the condition of liberty doesn’t work – unless you believe people will accept it as a religion, on faith. Private property grew in the manner workable for the maintenance of liberty under a number of factors and traditions. To understand private property it takes understanding what it means and from where it came in the culture in which it actually came to mean something supportive of liberty.

      “I mentioned once before this notion of "Little Italy", "Germantown", "China town", etc. et al in several major American cities. I mentioned this because I think it's proof positive that cultural diverse communities can co-exist under a libertarian framework to some extent.”

      Nick, maybe you and I have a definition problem, or some such. These are examples of culturally segregated communities – and workable when one takes into account your next sentence:

      “The problem comes in when overarching laws span these communities.”

      Precisely. And further, when a member of one community has a “right” to move into another community.

      “But I think there's room here for the notion of decentralized communities interacting under a certain set of understandings that don't involve cultural mandates.”

      As long as governance of these communities is decentralized. And I don’t like the word “mandate,” because it sounds too much like “law.” When living in a healthy culture, people don’t act because they are bound by law; they act because “this is how we do things around here and it works pretty well.” In other words, it isn’t viewed as a mandate or law; it is just normal life. Sag used a phrase that was perfect for this; sadly I don’t remember it – but if he reads this, we might get a reminder.

      “I'm very in tune with the cultural need to have a moral system to accessorize the NAP…”

      I think this is where you and I will just disagree. I think the right moral system and cultural tradition comes first, one generally accepted by those living within it. It isn’t an “accessory.” It is a necessary precondition.

      “Even as an agnostic, I prefer the Christian moral code over all others.”

      When someone can point me to another moral system that gave birth to liberty for as long a period as that which the west enjoyed, I am all ears. Until then, I will find the Christian moral code (actually, more a lived experience – albeit I am sure many who lived it were also less than true believers…kind of like agnostics who still abide by the code) to be something more than a “preference.”

      Delete
    9. (cont): “Outside of chanting "private property", I'm not sure what system results in long term libertarian outcomes…”

      But this won’t result in a libertarian outcome. Is libertarianism the one true faith or is achieving liberty the objective? Because these are two different things. If it is the former, we can stop reading at Walter Block (or the shooting-kids-for-an-apple guy). If the latter, we might want to understand how we get there. And instead of using Occam ’s razor for a shortcut, we might want to learn how this was achieved in the past.

      What I am sure of: converting people to our version of private property absent any other cultural foundations or conditions is a futile task – both in “converting” them, and as the only requirement necessary to achieve liberty. Converting people to our version of private property results in shooting kids for stealing apples or chopping hands off of a child – both perfectly consistent with an absolutist application of private property.

      “I think the front and center failure of the US to maintain libertarian outcomes should be explored seriously.”

      As I mentioned, I feel I am and have; I find few others within the broad libertarian community tackling this from a cultural and moral perspective, or from the history of what worked and what didn’t work. I have read many books on the trajectory of western civilization generally and a few on the trajectory of the United States specifically – and have written on these here.

      Regarding the United States…the first big mistake was the Declaration of Independence. It was all downhill from there. The ideals expressed in the opening paragraph didn’t survive the generation that signed the document. The “best” of Enlightenment thinking was in that document, and I have written a few hundred thousand words about why this Enlightenment thinking is a major problem for liberty.

      “As I mentioned before, we are both intellectually honest people…”

      I have always felt this about you; I also appreciate that you don’t view my exploration of these topics as something blasphemous.

      And I still think you ought to start a blog.

      Delete
    10. "I also appreciate that you don’t view my exploration of these topics as something blasphemous. "

      Thank you- as someone mentioned earlier it's important that libertarian minded people are able to dialog civilly/respectfully and maintain friendships even through disagreement so we can advance intellectually. This is something that I've always felt that libertarians struggle with in general as our dispositions generally speaking are contrarian and as such we naturally are more "prickly" people than general society.(and hence with each other)

      Ideally it's best if we can discuss our disagreements in a way that removes ego from the "who is right and wrong" thing and just focus on the issues.(a tough thing for anyone to do, me included)

      "What I am sure of: converting people to our version of private property absent any other cultural foundations or conditions is a futile task"

      I guess my issue with this is that I see some transcendent values that may be common to people regardless of their cultural roots/foundation. I'm not going to ignore reality though and say that the issues of culture doesn't have an impact on the % of people coming to hold said values. (like respect for property,the concept of the NAP, etc.)

      "“I'm very in tune with the cultural need to have a moral system to accessorize the NAP…”

      I think this is where you and I will just disagree. I think the right moral system and cultural tradition comes first, one generally accepted by those living within it. It isn’t an “accessory.” It is a necessary precondition."

      Yeah, we disagree here, but not as much as you might think. My word usage of "accessory" is probably a bad choice. I think the logical progression of the NAP resulting in a situation where it's "ok" to shoot a kid over the theft of an apple, or as one person mentioned the idea you could molest a kid as "compensation" for said theft, is a great example really to show how far it could be taken in a negative sense.

      I do think some code of morality is required to work in conjunction with the NAP but to me it's not so clear that it's constrained to only Christianity. I am reminded of the question CS Lewis presented in "Mere Christianity" that asked the question(paraphrasing), "Where does morality come from?". There's an acknowledgment that it's there even among non-believers.

      I also have trouble throwing the Enlightenment period out of the window in totality(if that's your feeling, I'm not sure) so to speak because logic and reason drove the scientific revolution and all the corresponding improvements in our quality of life and though I can acknowledge the negative "Nietzscheian" outcome of taking reason/logic to the extreme of striking out morality(replacing God/morality with man's logic/reason), it also smacks of proverbially throwing out the "baby with the bathwater".

      Ugh.

      Delete
    11. cont.

      Anyway, in the big picture we agree on much, MUCH more than we disagree. The disagreement between us really only impacts the strategic direction libertarian movements should/might take...but from a bigger perspective that might totally be out of our control. Yes, the movement grown dramatically, but whether you are more accurate in describing the foundations for libertarian outcomes or someone else I can't help but think there's simply a vast majority of people that will never get there philosophically, but I hope I'm wrong.(for whatever reason, the continued loss of "faith"/God, etc.-)

      It could be that libertarian society existed in the early US due to a simply power vacuum and may only exist that way again, but only for brief periods of a time until the vacuum is filled.

      I'm not sure that a Christian theocracy yields libertarian outcomes in the long run either.(not saying that you are pushing that, but it seems a logical deduction from your argument)

      Interestingly, that notion was pitched to me last year by a young women(30's) who was a Ron Paul supporter locally in discussion(her husband is a minister...lol), and she's the daughter of a Mexican immigrant who came here illegally probably around 30-40 years ago. All I could tell her "fine by me as long as it's voluntary".

      "And I still think you ought to start a blog."

      I really appreciate that sentiment, it means a ton coming from you.

      I've got so many competing interests right now: Small business, young kids, I do some motorcycle safety education on the side, my personal workout schedule after work, and other stuff- I just feel I can't devote the proper time to a blog(yet). Maybe in about 5-10 years when at least a couple of my kids are in college.(I have 4 girls!)

      Delete
    12. Nick

      "I'm not sure that a Christian theocracy yields libertarian outcomes in the long run either.(not saying that you are pushing that, but it seems a logical deduction from your argument)"

      Wow, where did you get that Christian theocracy from? Surely you can't seriously compare the Medieval stateless society in Europe to "a Christian theocracy"?

      A logical deduction that on the other hand is not pushed here. Don't see the logic, but if I may, a Christian (of sorts) theocracy was indeed prevented numerous times when fanatical Calvinists were persecuted before some of them came to settle in America.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    13. Nick

      “I do think some code of morality is required to work in conjunction with the NAP but to me it's not so clear that it's constrained to only Christianity.”

      I do not just think of the moral code when I think of Christianity, etc. Most major religions proffer some version of the Golden Rule. What was successful in medieval Europe was both far more and far less than Christianity as offered in the Gospels. Far more: the Germanic ethic of honor; decentralized governance institutions; the highest value in personal oath. Far less: let’s just say that the Beatitudes were not the most influential passage for the time. (My review of the Germanization of Christianity gets into this quite a bit.)

      “I also have trouble throwing the Enlightenment period out of the window in totality (if that's your feeling, I'm not sure) so to speak because logic and reason drove the scientific revolution and all the corresponding improvements in our quality of life…”

      I do not throw it out in totality, but not necessarily for the scientific revolution. Science evolved significantly during the Middle Ages and I don’t think we can say what would or would not have happened absent the Enlightenment in this regard.

      I don’t throw the Enlightenment out totally because I have been so immersed in (brainwashed by?) the words (and sentiment behind) “all men are created equal” that I want to be more certain where and how this does or doesn’t apply.

      “I'm not sure that a Christian theocracy yields libertarian outcomes in the long run either. (not saying that you are pushing that, but it seems a logical deduction from your argument).”

      Hopefully my response above addresses this, at least to some degree.

      Delete
    14. @ Sag

      "Wow, where did you get that Christian theocracy from? Surely you can't seriously compare the Medieval stateless society in Europe to "a Christian theocracy"?"

      The deduction is this(I'm not saying it's true-I'm using BM's statement as P1):

      P: "The closest thing known in history to libertarian law came forward from a specific people with specific characteristics, cultures, and traditions – this in the Germanic, Christian Middle Ages. "

      P: A Christian governance steeped Middle Age German culture will yield libertarian law and hence libertarian outcomes.

      Therefore:

      A Christian theocracy yields libertarian outcomes.

      So there's the deduction. I'm not claiming it's true(in fact, I question it), I'm just explaining how I made it based on BM's argument.

      Delete
    15. @ BM

      "Hopefully my response above addresses this, at least to some degree."

      Yes, it has to some degree, thank you.

      Delete
    16. Nick, when you began commenting several days ago, I thought to myself "Nick hasn't been around for awhile." I thought this because I couldn't recall how long it had been since you last commented.

      Maybe my memory isn't so good, or maybe you have been hanging around without writing much.

      In any case, there has been a long-running conversation here about how close medieval law comes to libertarian law put into practice.

      Certainly one cannot subtract Christianity, the idea of Christendom, and the Catholic Church from this reality, yet it really had nothing to do with a "theocracy."

      If you have kept up to date with this dialogue, then I will leave it here. If you have not, and are interested in a few of the key posts let me know.

      Delete
    17. "Certainly one cannot subtract Christianity, the idea of Christendom, and the Catholic Church from this reality, yet it really had nothing to do with a "theocracy.""

      I have come and gone, and been super busy in answer to your earlier comment.

      I've been reading your posts, but aside from my time constraints I'm not really decided on the issues surrounding cultural soil in general;though I'm concerned that the outcome of these discussions might yield unintended consequences intellectually. (like my reference to a commenter complaining about "cheap labor")

      I haven't commented due to time and I didn't feel like I had anything to add, I was just absorbing.

      It just doesn't seem like a stretch to me to consider theocracy as the lines between governance and the Catholic church were thin during the Middle Ages as it was. If my quote of your summary sentence above is reflective of your beliefs regarding the narrow set of criteria for the formation of libertarian society(the German Christian tradition), I think my deduction is well considered.

      If you do not, I understand. I'm not throwing stones, I'm exploring and deducing.

      My proof was an exercise in testing your theory on libertarian beginnings based on your work, but from a logical standpoint.(not historical obviously) I'm open to it being destroyed.

      That being said, the German's eventually took Catholic church "governance"(guidance)...(hence my reference to Theocracy)- I hate to wiki, but it's easier for me at this time:

      "From the High Middle Ages, the territories of Northern Europe were gradually converted to Christianity under German leadership, and made into nation states under the Church's guidance, finalized in the Northern Crusades."

      Of course, much of what you wrote about was the "bastardiation" of Christianity from a German/pagan standpoint in earlier times, but they eventually fell in line with the Church.

      I'm not one to see wiki as unquestionable truth, it's obviously convenient and at least sourced.(not always well)

      But this sticks in my mind as well:

      "In the German Holy Roman Empire of the High Middle Ages, there was a chronic power-struggle between the Emperor and the Pope, known as the Investiture Controversy."

      I knew this when reading your ongoing commentary from Western Civ classes I took in college 25 years ago and it circled around in the back of my mind, again driving my deduction regarding theocracy.

      I'd like to be very clear in stating I appreciate the excerpts and commentary you've made on the topic even if there are areas I'm not sure I agree with. I know it takes a lot of time to do so and you're obviously a voracious reader, and I appreciate the synopsis's(word?) you make as a result. My reading has suffered the last 10 years in particular, so I lean on people like you.

      If you have posts that you think are relevant that I may have missed I'm always open to them.

      Delete
    18. "A Christian governance steeped Middle Age German culture will yield libertarian law and hence libertarian outcomes."

      Nick, as I have already mentioned, it wasn't a "Christian governance." It was both much more and much less.

      As to relevant posts, start with the several posts I have written based on the work of Fritz Kern:

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/search/label/Fritz%20Kern

      Best if read in date order, I suspect.

      Delete
    19. There are many posts before my time here as a reader- I will do so, thank you.

      Delete
  8. BM,

    "My point is: the “cultural soil” of America existed before the first European settler arrived" - BM

    Great point. We Americans are often referred to as a 'young culture' with no roots, but our roots go as deep as any in Europe.

    "American culture and civilization are, needless to say, as old as their European equivalent. A Californian and a Scottish writer are in time equidistant from Shakespeare. The reality of the Roman-Greek background or the Judeo-Christian inheritance is not stronger in Denmark than in Wisconsin." - Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Liberty or Equality

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL,

      "We Americans [..] our roots go as deep as any in Europe."

      No they don't.

      America was colonized by European settlers, that's right. But the roots of most of them did not reach back far beyond the Reformation. So in the main, you have a certain kind of people, especially the Puritan types, who would have utterly rooted out, if they had had their way, the surviving remnants of the medieval tradition and culture in Europe, discussed here at BM's.

      I believe Rothbard had a thing or two to say about these Protestants whom(? that correct?) he saw as the forerunners of the progressivist Protestants, which he called the New Protestants, who played a prominent role in changing America into the US nanny state.

      Just another aside. I like Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, but I really must say that I have come to thoroughly dislike this "Judeo-Christian" label. Just Christian will do. Every time I hear it, I'm going to mention Judeo-Bolshevism, just to straighten things out a bit. Or in the case of America changing into the US welfare state: Judeo-Progressivism.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    2. "I believe Rothbard had a thing or two to say about these Protestants whom(? that correct?) he saw as the forerunners of the progressivist Protestants, which he called the New Protestants, who played a prominent role in changing America into the US nanny state."

      This. Yep.

      Delete
    3. Sag,

      "But the roots of most of them did not reach back far beyond the Reformation."

      Care to share a comprehensive genealogy?

      Puritans were only one of the types of pilgrims that came here from Europe and they largely settled in the north and as Rothbard and others have pointed out, became what we Southerners call yankees, progressives, liberals, or godless puritans.

      "I really must say that I have come to thoroughly dislike this "Judeo-Christian" label."

      Well, like it or not, we owe much of what is good in the West to those people who represent the Judeo prefix in Judeo-Christianity. Or are you saying that it is redundant because Jesus himself was a Jew? Somehow I don't think that's what you meant.

      "Every time I hear it, I'm going to mention Judeo-Bolshevism"

      Yes they are also responsible for much of what is bad in the West (socialism, communism). Awfully influential folks these Jews! I was about to say the force is strong with them, and then I just realized that the Jedi of Star Wars were a metaphor for the Jews! Mind blown!! I am probably pathetically late to this boat.

      Delete
    4. Hi ATL

      "Care to share a comprehensive genealogy?"

      Well, actually you should be the one doing that, since you claimed something about "roots going as deep as.." without anything to substantiate it.

      Since we're talking about the Medieval period here, it's just a simple matter of looking at the peeps who came as settlers to the US and dominated the resulting culture. So my counter argument is that all of these people came to America when Renaissance and Reformation had ravaged the Medieval Christian culture under discussion here.

      If the settlers had come some 500 years earlier, then yes, you could have made the point about roots going as far as Medieval times, which is relevant for the discussion.

      Now you've just suggested a deeply rooted commonality which simply isn't there. Understanding the difference in "rootedness" may serve some practical purpose maybe, when steps towards more libertarian societies are to be considered. Different strokes for different folks, they say ;)

      -Sag.

      Delete
    5. Hi Nick

      I think we finally understand each other Mr Baggi.. Badalamenti. Why didn't you say right away that you were concerned about a Calvinist theocracy? I'd have been in full agreement, well, about the undesirability of that remote possibility.

      But nowhere does this follow from the point discussed at this blog. You worry about some people applying what's discussed here (Medieval decentralized culture in Europe) and very, very loosely incorporate it in some form of fanatical Calvinist agitation. Now I understand where my confusion came from.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    6. "I think we finally understand each other"

      We are coming closer. :)

      "Why didn't you say right away that you were concerned about a Calvinist theocracy?"

      That really wasn't my primary concern.

      "But nowhere does this follow from the point discussed at this blog. "

      IMO it does, I just made my case to BM. (he may not agree-but read it)

      There's a significant danger here and in fairness theocracy isn't my primary concern-, it was a convenient point of argument for me- which your comment re: "Puritans" reinforced.

      Even though most here(myself included) appear to see a need for a moral code to utilize the NAP fully, we must tread lightly.

      We've witnessed people commenting here making a case for the exclusion of people's entrance to the country based on racial predispositions(culturally, IQ, etc.). There may even be some legitimacy to some of it, but it paints with an awful wide brush and they are using moral arguments as well..."talented 10%" is one term that was thrown around, the recent bemoaning of "cheap labor", mix in a little sanctimonious religiosity and things can get nasty very quickly. The first step to any "war" is dehumanizing your opponent. "Turd world countries" is another term used in such a fashion. There's no question there's an element of truth in some of the racial dispositions...but a lot of atrocities have been committed in human history that started with a perceived "moral high-ground" that is often times coupled with religion.

      We should tread lightly...be honest...have honor, etc.

      I have significant doubts that historic Germanic Christendom is the best chance or initial reason for libertarian society/societies. I may be dead wrong, but we've heard the story of the superiority of German culture before...

      None of this btw detracts for my respect for BM, who puts himself "out there" intellectually several times a week.

      Delete
    7. "So my counter argument is that all of these people came to America when Renaissance and Reformation had ravaged the Medieval Christian culture under discussion here." - Sag

      By this argument, no one in Europe has medieval roots. Since that is obviously not true, your argument falls down on logic alone. No genealogical examination is required on my end.

      Because the immigrants came to the soil of the American continent after the Reformation does not mean these immigrants themselves didn't have medieval or even ancient roots. The Calvinists, the Lutherans, the Puritans (damn Yankees), and the Anglicans didn't just drop from the sky; they were descendants of the same medieval population as European Catholics today.

      You could make the argument that European Catholics preserved the traditions or ethos of the Medieval period much better than did the various peoples of Protestantism, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But this isn't the argument. My argument is that both modern Europeans and Americans share a common biological lineage, and therefore, the medieval and ancient traditions of the European continent 'belong' to both should they choose to remember and venerate them.

      Delete
  9. Economist Hernando de Soto carefully investigated the attitudes toward freedom, free markets, and private property rights in the favelas of South America - a culture which one might expect to be the least favorably disposed toward transitioning to a libertarian society.
    But to the contrary, what de Soto discovered is that even among the poorest of the poor there is extraordinary enthusiasm for dismantling political control and going all in on libertarian fundamentals. The problem is that political law has made it impossible for most people to take title to their property. Without title it is difficult to use property as collateral - to turn it into a source of funds - which is sine qua non, the fundamental requirement for a functioning flourishing capitalist society. The problem is not at all that South American culture is somehow inferior, somehow innately corrupt, defective, is somehow incompatible with and incapable of capitalism and libertarian society. The problem is that an elite political class wield the legal system as a weapon in order to PREVENT the majority, who are all in on libertarianism, from transitioning to libertarian society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure of the veracity of your comment in it's entirety, but I LIKE your comment. (and I'm not saying your comment is untrue, I just truly don't know)

      In my travels in C. and S. America I found many things to appreciate about the various cultures and witnessed many hard working, good people stuck in crappy governance systems. I felt like Rick Steves in Iran.

      I hope you're right even though personally I'm skeptical that we can ever achieve a "majority" of libertarian minded people globally.

      On a spot of good news though, did you see this libertarian happening in Mexico?

      https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-02/mexican-town-overthrew-their-local-government-and-things-are-going-great

      Delete
    2. "I hope you're right even though personally I'm skeptical that we can ever achieve a 'majority' of libertarian minded people globally." Nick, wondering if you've seen Walter Block's article where he suggests that libertarians are motivated in their beliefs by something causal in their DNA, which implies there will never be many libertarian-minded people? Apologies for not having a link. Peg in Oregon

      Delete
    3. Yes, I'm aware of Block positing that notion. It reminds me of something I heard a while back about INTJ's being over-represented among libertarian minded people. I don't know if either is true, I'm pretty sure most such comments are anecdotal or guesses. But if they are, it reinforces the argument for decentralization and voluntary communities as much as possible if libertarian minded people are ever to try to realize their goals.(IMO)

      Delete
    4. Hi Peg/Nick,

      Please post a link here on BM's if you happen to find it (Block's DNA connection). I'm really interested in a good laugh from time to time!

      -Sag.

      Delete
    5. @ Sag

      I saw it first on YT, I can't remember if this was the specific video or not, but he makes his point here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6b2HBJ5wLg

      I seem to recall another interview where he stated those predisposed to libertarian ideas are genetic outliers(I'm assuming based on the usual Darwinian themes regarding evolution).

      Delete
  10. Loved the zero hedge article. My own personal preference is purchasing sovereignty from the political class. In this case it looks like they got the same results while saving themselves a ton of moola :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never forget the Louisiana Purchase!

      :)

      (ok, it was between two "sovereigns", but still!)

      Delete