tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1918198183592403254..comments2024-03-22T17:43:18.211-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: For Spoonerbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19723708057131983302018-07-17T16:40:39.915-07:002018-07-17T16:40:39.915-07:00(cont):
To the postscript:
“What would a realist...(cont):<br /><br />To the postscript:<br /><br />“What would a realistic modern day return to that which was good in the Middle Ages look like if not Hoppean-esque, contractual/covenant communities?”<br /><br />It might look like this, but it will require much more than “contract.” Because there was more than “contract” (as we understand the term) involved – and I believe Hoppe understands this quite well. At minimum, Hoppe understands the requirement (not just nicety) of what would be labeled a traditional Western Civilization culture.<br /><br />But there is more. The nobles of the time were “noble” in the best sense of the word (and I haven’t looked in a while, but it would surprise me if Hoppe has not also said something similar). Contractual / covenant communities don’t stick to the charter absent nobles acting noble. This includes living with a view that recognizes that there will be justice either in this life or the next.<br /><br />I would add: the “oath” of the time was more than a contract; it included God as a party. I know this freaks a lot of “libertarians” out. It is my opinion that absent today’s religious leaders taking the Gospel seriously, there is little to no chance of moving toward anything approaching a sustainable liberty.<br /><br />I don’t know if we will ever again see any of this. What I do see hope for is political decentralization. With this will come more choice and more possibility to find a “home.” And why I write about the value (and necessity) of culture (and of a certain type) for liberty is to demonstrate to non-libertarians – or those on the fence – that not all libertarians are kooks.<br /><br />That’s enough for now.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-60175326869800428732018-07-17T16:40:09.817-07:002018-07-17T16:40:09.817-07:00Spooner, I will leave the trivial housekeeping alo...Spooner, I will leave the trivial housekeeping alone, as these circles will never end…and your one question is, perhaps, complicated enough (let alone your postscript).<br /><br />“What do you mean by a ‘Contract For Liberty’?”<br /><br />I just heard something by Paul VanderKlay, paraphrased: describe everything in your room. You can’t do it. You can understand all of it when you see it, touch it, want to use it. But you will never be able to describe and capture all of this on a list.<br /><br />Something like this. This is how I see a contract as complicated (and important) as one for my liberty. I should leave it at this because everything else I am about to write will only confuse this simple insight. So, if there is any confusion due to the following, refer back to this simple statement for context. <br /><br />I guess we could have a simple sentence: do not violate the non-aggression principle. But now…define aggression; define property; define appropriate punishment for all the various possible violations of the principle. <br /><br />Libertarians cannot even agree amongst us regarding these definitions, and most certainly not on application. Yet, somehow, we all (libertarians and non-libertarians) generally figure out how to live peacefully together (with the main confusion introduced by the acceptance by too many to the violations by men wearing official badges). But don’t ask us to put it all in writing and agree. It can’t happen.<br /><br />Because putting it in writing is another level entirely. I can deal with some stranger getting an abortion – even my neighbor (better if I don’t know about it); just don’t ask me to sign a contract putting my name to “legalizing” such a thing.<br /><br />Anyway, let’s say we agree on these definitions and applications – so, we have a contract with a few thousand definitions and applications. Now…all this does is open me up to live in a community that I abhor – sex orgies (or 1965 Chevy Novas on blocks, for your wife’s sake) on the front lawn and all that. This doesn’t work for me and my liberty. So now we have to agree on an entirely new and additional list.<br /><br />Anywhere in this process you could stop writing words and leave determination up to a tribunal or some such, I guess. Kind of like a supreme court?<br /><br />Or, we can live within a culture that has a functionally common understanding of the definitions, applications, and other civil behavior. Much simpler that writing a contract – one that would be impossible to write and even more impossible to sign.<br /><br />Now…I don’t want to suggest it is either / or. I put out the somewhat provocative post to examine the value of one vs. the other, to get feedback, to sharpen my thinking. Common culture can survive without a contract; contract cannot survive without common culture.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61241513687863619692018-07-17T10:27:10.234-07:002018-07-17T10:27:10.234-07:00Don't come over here / [And have orgies at] my...Don't come over here / [And have orgies at] my gate<br />Save it just keep it off my [lawn]. – Soundgarden [-ish]<br /><br />Regardless of how logically I explain to my wife that there are no clauses in our arrangement prohibiting blog posts as wall decor, she refuses to let me frame this and hang it in our living room...<br /><br />What follows is a single question preceded by (surely trivial) housekeeping (so long as you read “housekeeping” as “I’m-not-good-at-just-dropping-it”). Once I know the answer to the single question, I hope to be able to actually contribute something useful to the discussion. <br /><br />First, some (more) apologies: I chided you for equating covenant communities with hiring/electing a strongman -- terribly sorry, I read that totally wrong. Also, I am sorry for petulantly pooh-poohing your 1000 years. (As for your Dying Cheer lament, I have an addition for you to consider: 1 Samuel 8:6-19.) Last but not least on the apology front, if you consider beating a dead horse to be a violation of muh NAP then let me apologize in advance for the following:<br /><br />BM(-ish): “I’m not saying any serious thinker is offering that contract is sufficient for achieving and/or maintaining something like a libertarian order, but, not for nothing, I have to point out that Block has a framework that is all contract, and moreover, Hoppe’s model suggests to me that his framework is also all contract as well. I know: not exactly what I said was being offered, but you must admit it’s not far off. As for who it is that is literally offering that ‘contract is sufficient for libertarianism’ the answer is: kooky (self-styled) libertarians.”<br /><br />I see where you are coming from. But to be sure: neither Block nor Hoppe (nor any other libertarian thinker to my knowledge) has offered that ‘contract is sufficient’. As for the kooks actually making the offering: can you point me to such an offering? (It’s not that I doubt they exist, I just want to investigate one for myself.)<br /><br />As for constitutions vs contracts, I’m happy to be proven wrong regarding the following, but -- respectfully -- I still say you’re the one missing it: to claim covenant communities will fail based on examples of the (spectacular) failures of constitutions is a non sequitur. To claim covenant communities will fail based on examples of constitutions-where-all-residents-signed would be valid. But I (still) know of none?<br /><br />Now, for my question: what do you mean by a ‘Contract For Liberty’? You reference it throughout much of your post but I’m not sure what it is you mean by it?<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />[Note: just skimmed your latest article (All Men Created Equal) just prior to posting this comment and at the risk of getting ahead of myself, it seems you’ve anticipated where I intended to head next (depending on your meaning of ‘contract for liberty’): ‘what would a realistic modern day return to that which was good in the Middle Ages look like if not Hoppean-esque, contractual/covenant communities?’ The article also hints at the issue of the transition from sacred oath to contract (which I think may be the root of what you and I are discussing here): I hoped to make the case that while the development of contract and contract law coincides with the beginning-of-the-end for our 1000 year example, and that while its advancement followed to some degree the decline into decadence, to think that the advent of contract (as a sort of replacement for oath) was part of the decline is to mistake correlation for causation (I think). The argument I want to layout is that (written) contract and (written down) contract law was more of a culmination (a crowning achievement, even) of the time period, so let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water (I think). Looking forward to reading the post more closely this evening. Will chime in if I think I can be of use.]<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02417331313154273493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79499010985586454422018-07-16T15:53:31.683-07:002018-07-16T15:53:31.683-07:00I think this is right, which is one reason I belie...I think this is right, which is one reason I believe that church leaders have a role to play - and one in which most today are currently failing miserably.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-5092939413329415502018-07-16T15:51:55.735-07:002018-07-16T15:51:55.735-07:00ATL, you say "the market," or is it &quo...ATL, you say "the market," or is it "THE MARKET"?<br /><br />In other words, decentralized or universal. The only libertarian answer is "decentralized."<br /><br />Then I will move to the region populated by true nobles! People like Pat Buchanan and Walter Williams, and not [fill-in-your-favorite left-libertarian names here].bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15774634421170660022018-07-16T10:23:09.833-07:002018-07-16T10:23:09.833-07:00The issue in all human interaction, as I see it, i...The issue in all human interaction, as I see it, is honesty, understanding of context and pride. Culture is vital as far as the first two items are concerned and can go a long ways in alleviating the third but pride will always be an issue.<br /><br />Written contracts (and lawyer notes :-)) serve the ultimate purpose of making sure all parties stick with the contract, which is necessary in a society of prideful liars who are more than willing to twist any context to their advantage. In our culture, such written instruments are vital - in a culture of integrity, completely unnecessary.<br /><br />May I propose, therefore, that any libertarian culture must enthrone integrity as a cornerstone with severe social penalties for its violation.Woody Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07174366266746908252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-29013324453123508782018-07-16T09:33:49.493-07:002018-07-16T09:33:49.493-07:00"In other words, custom might leave more room..."In other words, custom might leave more room for flexibility than does codified law. As long as custom is respected – in other words, “old” is accepted by default unless shown to be deficient in keeping the “good” of the law – this flexibility seems to me to be a benefit." - BM<br /><br />When law is overly codified, or defined for every possible situation, I think it just becomes law of, by and for the lawyers, who then become judges, congressman, and presidents. An overly defined law might seem too rigid on its face, but it is actually far too flexible. Over-defined law belies the power to define the law, and once a power has achieved this level of legal potency, it will continue pressing its advantage further and further by expanding law and bending the interpretation of prior laws in its favor. This process can't end well, certainly not for liberty.<br /><br />Having said that, there does need to be a code to make explicit some of the more important cultural norms of society, so where do we draw the line?<br /><br />In all of these libertarian questions of 'where to draw the line,' I say this is precisely where we let the market decide. Providers of the service in question stake their future and wealth on a particular 'line' and customers, guided by economy, competency, and culture, take their pick; may the best line win. The smart providers of law and order will undoubtedly draw theirs most nearly to the cultural norms of the population around them. Supply and demand on an open market will give us the best mix of life by contract and life by cultural consent.<br /><br />"Conversely, liberty secured by commonly accepted cultural tradition? That’s a pretty easy one to navigate."<br /><br />But how do we secure liberty, or old and good law, along cultural lines without inadvertently setting up a power capable of redefining not only the interpretation of what liberty, or the old and the good, is, but what the culture holds them out to be as well? Where do we draw that line?<br /><br />Again, it's gotta be the market. This is why libertarianism first and foremost needs to be the premiere anti-monopoly tradition, anti-monopoly in everything, including the provision of law and its enforcement. And of course I don't mean supporting anti-trust legislation. I think one of the keys to the success of the Middle Ages was their non-monopolistic dispute resolution system. The king held court, but so did the nobles, and their powers, while nobles were actually noble, were actually independent of one another.<br /><br />I reread your post "The New Nobles" and I have to say it is a fantastic one. So glad you do what you do.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67271885588553418272018-07-15T11:11:06.238-07:002018-07-15T11:11:06.238-07:00Thanks BM. In re-reading, I understand it better n...Thanks BM. In re-reading, I understand it better now. And spooner was indeed correct.<br />I must confess though that I have never followed either football or soccer. And am unfamiliar with the rules of either.<br /><br />That said, I can see why you made the comparison, your post explains that just fine. rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27798844530115576332018-07-15T09:04:03.123-07:002018-07-15T09:04:03.123-07:00Tony: "I certainly prefer, e.g., Supreme Cour...Tony: "I certainly prefer, e.g., Supreme Court justices who adhere to a strict, constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution"<br /><br />Not to pick on you, I see this line all over. But it is inherently funny. First you pick a way of interpretation, and then you look at "the written law". In other words, the written law is in this perspective subject to the interpretation. Not the other way around. So in the end you do the exact same thing as the living document proponents.<br />rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15277658428025425582018-07-15T09:01:04.527-07:002018-07-15T09:01:04.527-07:00Rien, technically Spooner is correct in the object...Rien, technically Spooner is correct in the objection. What I offered, it seems to me, is the more flexible possibilities ofr solution in the old and good law - a way to resolve this point.<br /><br />More important - and it came to me while watching the first half of the World Cup Final: I wrote a post specifically on the regimentation of American football and the free-flowing nature of international fútbol.<br /><br />I think this is helpful in examining precisely this point:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/12/football-vs-futbol.html <br /><br />If I had remembered it earlier, I would have included in the post.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67153124071731451672018-07-14T05:43:25.560-07:002018-07-14T05:43:25.560-07:00As a libertarian, I'm not sure codification is...As a libertarian, I'm not sure codification is such a bad thing. I certainly prefer, e.g., Supreme Court justices who adhere to a strict, constructionist view of the U.S. Constitution over those who espouse the "living document" bastardizations. <br /><br />Yet, I agree the "old and good law" evolves over time. Perhaps this subject warrants further discussion. <br /><br />Your deft observations on law and trust dovetail nicely with this blog's ongoing open-borders exploration. Homogenous societies are high-trust societies. That's why multicultural societies almost invariably come unglued.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05242683448708605585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-39166829714920050542018-07-14T04:42:29.314-07:002018-07-14T04:42:29.314-07:00Agreed!Agreed!Eric Morrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-45100811673539701152018-07-13T23:38:24.012-07:002018-07-13T23:38:24.012-07:00Spooner:> You complain that contracts can never...Spooner:> You complain that contracts can never capture all possibilities, and I pointed out that neither does old and good law, and asked what the difference was.<br /><br />BM:> It is a good objection, and one for which I don’t think I have a good reply.<br /><br />Me:> And then you proceed to give just the perfect reply: codification freezes the contract, 'law' can evolve with time. 'law' overrides contract so while you are free to write any contract you like, with an evolving law we keep the necessary flexibility to adjust the terms where and when necessary.<br /><br />But I would offer 2 another reasons why not everything can be covered by contract: the line between acceptable behaviour and unacceptable behaviour does not exist. Some behaviour is acceptable from certain people, but not from others.<br /><br />And second: law and trust are interrelated. Trust rises law, law rises trust. And trust, more than law or contract is the true glue of society. Replace law with contract and trust disappears, society stops functioning.Rienhttp://overbeterleven.nlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69319097381491874752018-07-13T20:31:23.923-07:002018-07-13T20:31:23.923-07:00Thank you, Mark.Thank you, Mark.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-21074519759867386412018-07-13T17:52:21.172-07:002018-07-13T17:52:21.172-07:00Yet, another great post. Many thanks for all you d...Yet, another great post. Many thanks for all you do. <br /><br />I would make a comment but I just can't find anything to add, or to quibble about. :-)Mark Stovalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786242384416215872noreply@blogger.com