Our Contemporary Tower of Babel

 

I decided to do some lighter reading – novels, books where I would not be so focused on disciplined study and the like.  So I picked up The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

Yeah, I know.  Not the lightest reading.  But the reasons why behind choosing this book will be made clear at my other blog in a few weeks – basically, this novel was recommended as a good novel for a Christian man to read.

I don’t know how often I will post something from this book, but some quotes will be too good to pass up.  To begin:

In the majority of instances human beings, even the evil-doers among them, are far more naïve and straightforward than we suppose.  And that includes ourselves.

This seems to suggest that we need not find some complex plot, or deep organizational momentum behind many of the actions we see around us.  People go in the direction that they go, because that is what they want to do.

They are “far more naïve and straightforward than we suppose.”  How might this be understood?  Well, since the novel was recommended by a Christian for Christians, I will go to the Bible:

Ephesians 6: 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

During the reaction to covid, there were emerging countless articles on this idea that there had to be a spirit – an evil spirit – behind the actions of many of the government and political leaders everywhere around the world.  They all acted in concert, in a manner that was clear at the time – and even more so today – that was purposefully designed to crush humanity.

All of humanity was under siege.  From Ephesians 2: 2 “… according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.”

Were they naïve?  Perhaps many who were driving humanity into darkness were not aware of the spiritual hosts of wickedness which they were serving.  Can someone always know when he or she is in the grip of an evil spirit?  As they are sons of disobedience, they just do what they do because that’s what they want to do.

As to straightforward?  This seems clear – there was an objective to crush mankind.  They did not mess around, no games or trickery.  Like bulls in a China shop.

But, note the quote from Dostoyevsky, the end: “And that includes ourselves.”  We all live driven by a spirit.  The question to ask ourselves: What is the spirit that drives us?  Pray it is this one:

Romans 8: 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

Returning to the book, Alyosha (the third son) answered just the question of which spirit drives him:

No sooner, having given the matter some serious thought, had he been struck by the conviction that God and immortality existed, than he immediately said to himself: ‘I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no half-way compromise.’

Are we that driven?  Am I that driven?  No half-way compromise?  We know what is said about lukewarm Christians:

Revelation 3: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

Matthew 5: 13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.

There is no such thing as a half-way Christian.  You are either all in – 100% – or you are out. 

Alyosha was struck by just this point:

An Enemy of Liberty

 

Finally, after almost four months of genocidal behavior by the state of Israel and genocidal cheerleading by Walter Block, there is a response from someone meaningful in Block’s intellectual orbit and not just from a random libertarian affiliate of Block’s or a random bug like me:

An Open Letter to Walter E. Block, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Block, to his credit, has published countless articles that pass muster by libertarian standards and there are likely many more to come…

Block has done this, no doubt.  He will remind anyone who will listen about how much he has published.  He will often write of someone with whom he has a disagreement, “we agree on perhaps 95% of all topics,” when writing of economics or the application of the non-aggression principle.

This is true for me as well: I agree with Block on all of the simple things: minimum wage, rent control, etc.  It is the important things – those things that contribute to a peaceful life that approaches and maintains liberty – where I find him an enemy of humanity and peace.  And his call for genocide is certainly one of these things.

Hoppe makes a rational, point-by-point, critique of Block’s claim that the Jews – as a group – had the right consistent with the non-aggression principle and Lockean property notions to displace Palestinians from their homes and land in 1948.  It is a topic that I covered six years ago, here.

Block’s argument hinges on, among other things, DNA and cultural continuity – neither passing muster from a libertarian viewpoint, and either opening the door for a war all against all – as we all have DNA and cultural characteristics from both past victims and past perpetrators.

On the DNA point, Hoppe makes an interesting comment:

(Interestingly, it appears that the closest genetic similarity to ancient Jews could be found among indigenous Christian Palestinians.)

Coincidentally, just a few days ago, Ron Unz wrote on exactly this point, within an article that covers extensively the DNA story of those who today are identified as Jews:

The tremendous historical irony that the current Palestinians—now suffering horrifying massacres in Gaza—are almost certainly the closest lineal descendants of the Biblical Israelites was highlighted by Sand and had been similarly emphasized by Beaty in his 1951 book.

As to the cultural continuity, I won’t – nor am I qualified to – go into much detail about the various meaningful changes in Hebrew / Jewish cultural practices through history.  It is clear that the Hebrew religious traditions at the time of Moses and Joshua and David were quite different than the traditions of Second Temple Judaism which are also quite different than the traditions that developed in the centuries after Christ.  (I touch on this second change here.)

Returning to Hoppe, he then moves on to the editorial co-written by Block about four months ago, which I had written on when I became aware of it. 

…it is this screed of his, then, that reveals Block as an unhinged, bloodthirsty monster, rather than a libertarian committed to the non-aggression-principle…

Yes, that’s how I felt about it at the time.  The evidence since then has only proven out what any thinking person knew was to come.

Avoiding the Obvious

Many people are seeing and recognizing that society is falling apart.  Many who once would have proudly claimed to be classical liberals are recognizing that something went amiss with their project, and a few, very few, of these are admitting that the derailment was built in to the system.

Jordan Peterson is one of these, sort of (well, unless you are Palestinian).  He recently held his first ARC conference.  Despite the fact that he recognizes the current system is falling apart, and despite the fact that he has done more exploring of Biblical and Christian thoughts and writings than most who came out of his classical liberal pond, the main points in the conference were: free markets, individualism, Lockean property rights, etc. 

In other words, classical liberalism.  You know, the thing that failed – in fact, the thing that opened the door to where we sit today.

Christopher Rufo has written a piece: The New Right Activism.  In it, he rightly focusses on both language and institutions.  Yet he also embraces some form of classical liberalism:

We don’t need to abandon the principles of natural right, limited government, and individual liberty, but we need to make those principles meaningful in the world of today.

Fair enough.  But there are important questions to be answered.  On what basis?  What will provide the foundation?  Why will it be different this time?  What went wrong last time these were tried?  In other words, how will we make these both meaningful and sustainable?

Before coming to this…He makes important points: get this idea of neutrality out of your head.  There is no such thing as “neutral.”

Following a libertarian line, the conservative establishment has argued that government, state universities, and public schools should be “neutral” in their approach to political ideals.

The libertarian approach is neutral.  The property owner is free to decide the rules for his property, the behavior, values, etc.  Hans Hoppe cites Murray Rothbard, writing:

…logically one can be—and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular—and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics.

Every property owner will be something; what he will not be is neutral. 

Returning to Rufo, a second important point:

The popular slogan that “facts don’t care about your feelings” betrays similar problems.

Just the “facts” of the last few years demonstrates that feelings win out over facts.  Covid, George Floyd, mostly peaceful riots, 2020 election, January 6, Ukraine, Israel.  The list is endless, and in each case, the facts lost.  (And if the last four years – to say nothing of the last 125 years – doesn’t bury the Enlightenment idea of placing reason as the god in control, nothing will.)

Finally, the conservative establishment has appealed to the “free marketplace of ideas,” and the belief that the “invisible hand” will rectify cultural and political problems organically.

Ideas have to be defended, even more than property or person – it is because we value more foundational ideas that we came to embrace the idea that property and person must be defended.  In other words, there is a foundation on which rights in person and property are valid rights.

I agree with all of these observations – these shortcomings in thin-libertarian thought and non-libertarian conservative thought that have left the door open to the disaster in which we are living and the greater one that we are headed toward that will make today look like a day in paradise.

Rufo’s answer?

Atomistic Individual Curation

 

I have received a few replies to my post, Where is Murray Rothbard?   I will interact with a summary of these, but first a short summary of the purpose of that post: Rothbard wrote about and integrated several disciplines in order to come to a complete understanding of liberty.  Beyond even economics and political philosophy, he would write about natural law, revisionist (honest) history, the corruption inherent in the modern state, an appreciation of the western civilization that gave birth to our notions of liberty, and entrepreneurship. 

The purpose behind my question was to search for anyone or any group continuing this work:

While I admittedly am not familiar with everyone doing any work along the lines that Rothbard describes in this work, I am not familiar with any meaningful individual, group, or institution that is carrying it out.

This, other than Hans Hoppe, who stands singularly tall in this work…in my opinion.

As to the comments, several individual names were mentioned.  Of course, Hans Hoppe, but in addition: David Gordon, Gerard Casey, Ryan McMaken, Jorge Guido Hulsmann, Jeff Deist, Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Lew Rockwell, Dave Smith, CJ Engel, Pete Quinones, and Gary North. 

This listing points to the reason for the title of this post.  Are we left individually to curate our own content?  This is no way to sustain and build a movement.  Individuals create, but it is institutions that sustain and build.

Yes, I did ask for individuals as well as groups or institutions.  I received many of the former, but only a couple of the latter.  As far as institutions, the Mises Institute was offered; as far as groups, “the Mises Caucus guys.” 

As for the individuals, there are some fine names offered.  There are also some that, for one reason or another, I have stayed away from.  For example, one of these, a few years ago, physically demonstrated the highest hypocrisy on an issue he loudly spoke against.  Another I have found unsteady, unwilling or unable to follow through on commitments.  No, I won't name names.

As for the institution and the group, I know little about the Mises Caucus.  For the Mises Institute, it will be nice seeing who replaces Jeff Deist.  Under Deist’s leadership, many of these various disciplines were pursued.  From where I stand, it is only this Institute that has the potential, currently, to continue this work. I don’t know if this will continue, and have seen some evidence via an article posted at the site and also some oddities about a couple of upcoming conferences that this may not be the case going forward. 

Conclusion

Having said this, there is enough from the list to do something with.  A conference with a few of those mentioned as speakers, focusing on the integration of two or more of these topics, or a listing of relevant work – some form of site that brings together the writing and podcasts from a few of these individuals that also address specifically the integration of two or more of these disciplines.

It is quite unfortunate.  Rothbard’s multi-discipline legacy is everywhere in all of these names.  But it is to be seen if it will be found under any institutional umbrella.

Where is Murray Rothbard?

 

All of my work has revolved around the central question of human liberty.

This is the opening line to the Preface of The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray Rothbard.  I have been giving a lot of thought to this line and this book lately.  While I admittedly am not familiar with everyone doing any work along the lines that Rothbard describes in this work, I am not familiar with any meaningful individual, group, or institution that is carrying it out.

Wait.  I will correct that last statement.  If there is one individual, it is Hans Hoppe.  He has carried it out through his writing, his talks, and through his Property and Freedom Society, including its annual conference.  As it is, Hoppe wrote the introduction to this present volume of Rothbard’s work; I will reference it along with another work of his during this examination.

With this exception noted (and I will not repeat it, but it applies every time I make this absolute statement), Hans Hoppe is only one individual – granted, a giant among men in Rothbard-adjacent circles, but one man.  And it is for this reason that I ask the question posed in the title.  But to get at this further, more from Rothbard’s work:

For it has been my conviction that, while each discipline has its own autonomy and integrity, in the final analysis all sciences and disciplines of human action are interrelated, and can be integrated into a "science" or discipline of individual liberty.

Rothbard continues by commenting that his earlier, comprehensive work on economics was value-free – as economics properly theorized must be.  But for liberty, this focus on value-free economics alone is not enough; a positive ethical theory was required:

I at no time believed that value-free analysis or economics or utilitarianism (the standard social philosophy of economists) can ever suffice to establish the case for liberty.

Rothbard wrote these words in 1980, but this was no recent revelation for him.  In 1960, he would write:

What I have been trying to say is that Mises's utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty.

To establish this full case, Rothbard would continue, requires an absolutist ethic “grounded on natural law…”.  This would be the focus of this book by Rothbard.  Actually, the first several chapters are dedicated to natural law; the bulk of the work thereafter is focused on the natural rights to be derived when the theory of natural law is properly applied to human relationships.  While I disagree with a couple of his applications, on the whole the conclusions are solid.

Returning to the book, Rothbard writes:

It was furthermore clear to me that no one was engaged in trying to fill this crying need.

Which, forty years later, seems to still be the case. 

As mentioned, Hoppe wrote the introduction to this edition.  In it, he raises some key and complimentary points:

In an age of intellectual hyper-specialization, Murray N. Rothbard was a grand system builder.

He was not merely an economist.  Hoppe notes the practice of separating economics from ethics – yet these two had to be combined if one was to speak of liberty:

Rothbard's unique contribution is the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.

I will go a step further: Rothbard’s integration extended far beyond even that which is found in this work (but in much of his other work).  It included revisionist (or realistic, honest) history, an examination of the modern state as presenting everything that is antithetical to liberty, an appreciation of the western civilization in which the idea of a healthy individual liberty blossomed, and an appreciation of the role of the entrepreneur (as opposed to the rent-seeker) in providing for the economic flourishing of man.

All of these were areas of focus for Rothbard, and nowhere do I find anyone doing the work necessary to further develop and integrate these into a whole.  In other words, nowhere do I see this integration continuing.  And this is to the detriment of liberty and in some ways a repudiation of Rothbard’s accomplishments.

Overcoming Clown World

America became the model liberal nation, and, after England, the exemplar of liberalism to the world.

-          Ralph Raico, describing America after the Revolutionary War

It didn’t last long, but it was true for a time.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-          John Adams

No, this isn’t a  post about the excellence of the US Constitution, as I side much more with Lysander Spooner on this:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

In fact, a moral and religious people require little of what the US Constitution, or any constitution, has to offer.  A moral and religious people would live in accord with the natural law – and, for those Christians who don’t like those words, the Ten Commandments.  In those commandments, one finds enough governance to keep the peace, enjoy property, and respect life.

So, what is this post about? It's a look at the post-liberal West.  World War One certainly was the suicide of the West, as described by Jacques Barzun. Whatever classical liberalism that existed prior to the war was murdered in the war.  For the balance of the twentieth century, the West has been living on the fumes of that previous order.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn describes why, in his 1983 Templeton Address:

…if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire 20th century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: “Men have forgotten God.” The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.

Somewhere between the reaction to September 11 and the reaction to covid, the last remaining fumes of classical liberalism all disappeared.  We now speak openly of a post-liberal time.  At the same time, we speak openly of a meaning crisis.  The roots of both are the same; the solution to both is the same.

Jonathan Leeman has written A New Christian Authoritarianism?  In this, he challenges the notions of those like Doug Wilson and others – those he labels as ““general-equity theonomist,” “Christian nationalist” “magisterial Protestant,” “Roman Catholic integralist,” or, in legal circles, “common good constitutionalist….””

Such as these point to the failure of liberalism – something many people are now speaking to, in what is certainly a post-liberal time.  Leeman summarizes this view as follows:

The middle ground of classical liberalism’s restrained approach to governmental power has proven inadequate for maintaining a moral, religious, and just society. The liberal DNA of the American Experiment, following secular Jeffersonian and Madisonian trajectories, has betrayed us.

And in this summary – setting aside if it is an accurate portrayal of those about whom Leeman is writing – one can see the flaw in the entire issue, the flaw for any who view that the failure (or solution) is primarily to be found in classical liberalism. 

Certainly, classical liberalism offered a door through which such a failure could walk; it has no means by which to defend this door.  Classical liberalism wasn’t designed to guard this door – and it was the guards of this door that allowed for the failure of the promise of classical liberalism.

The Stomping Boot

Paul VanderKlay (PVK) did a video reviewing, among other things, Tucker Carlson’s recent Heritage Foundation talk – the one that some point to as one more reason for his ousting.  Following are some of my reactions to this.

PVK asks, what is the answer to the divide seemingly caused by these various cultural and political issues?  In my view, the only peaceful answer is secession and decentralization.  Secession means gathering with others who share similar cultural, political, and religious views – and excluding those who hold contrary views.  Decentralization means governance at ever-lower institutional levels – at the lowest reasonable level (e.g., family). 

And this happening, but not in the traditional way.  The traditional way would result in The State of Jefferson.  But we know that the US government has a history of not allowing peaceful transitions.  Not in the United States, not in Korea, not in the former Soviet Union – even Ukraine today.  Not anywhere.

But back to how it is happening today.  People are migrating – seceding in the way they can.  California and New York are losing people, Idaho and Tennessee are gaining people.  Unfortunately, this isn’t an answer for everyone, or even many.  It can only happen on the margins.  But it is happening.

There is no law of God that says three hundred million people have to live under the same rules or in the same culture.  When God created the earth, He didn’t draw the political boundaries on His creation.  These aren’t carved in stone, so to speak. 

We have a culture that freely ignores what God carved in stone, and violently defends that which God did not carve in stone.  Abraham Lincoln ignored what was carved in stone by God, and violently defended that which was not carved in stone by God.  And he is considered by many as our greatest president – especially so by many Christians…sadly showing how long the road is that must be traveled.

Carlson, when speaking of the culture-destroying actions we see all around us, said something like: The weight of the government is behind it.  PVK: “I agree with this, but they aren’t thinking through it either.”  I think this is a naïve statement by VanderKlay.  He attributes good intentions where such attribution isn’t deserved – or, he doesn’t attribute malevolent intentions when such attribution is richly deserved.

PVK, commenting on one of the many theological points made by Carlson: “He’s not at a theological podium; he’s at a political podium.”  VanderKlay would often comment: “Politics is downstream from religion.”  He is right.  In other words, it’s all theological.  It’s just a question of which theology.

PVK: Don’t back your enemies into a corner unless you are planning to do something final.  From this, two points: liberal democracy does not have the tools necessary to defend itself; its enemies don’t play by the rules of liberal democracy, and nothing in liberal democracy is available to counteract this.  Second, one side in this discussion is happy to just be left alone – in other words, they will tolerate, but don’t demand that they affirm.  The other side demands more than toleration; it demands even more than affirmation.  It demands subservience.

Then PVK asks: “Was Donald Trump just more pantomime?” 

The Road Ahead…

…and what is to be done.

 

Through a link from a post by Chuck Baldwin: I Hope America’s Evangelicals Are Sleeping Well, I found the following: ‘Death to Christians’: Violence steps up under new Israeli gov’t

Jerusalem – Nothing about the attack or what happened since surprised Miran Krikorian. The Armenian owner of Taboon and Wine Bar in the Old City of Jerusalem was not surprised to receive a call the night of January 26 that a mob of Israeli settlers was attacking his bar in the Christian Quarter and shouting “Death to Arabs … Death to Christians.”

Attacks against Christians in Jerusalem have been on the rise.

A couple of days later, Armenians leaving a memorial service in the Armenian Quarter say they were attacked by Israeli settlers carrying sticks.

It isn’t only Armenian Christians:

Hostility by fundamentalist Jews towards Jerusalem’s Christian community is not new, and it is not just Armenian Christians who suffer from it. Priests of all denominations describe being spat at for years.

At the beginning of the year, 30 Christian graves at the Protestant Mount Zion Cemetery were desecrated. In the Armenian Quarter, vandals spray-painted “Death to Arabs, Christians and Armenians,” on the walls.

And keep this in mind the next time you hear something from Christians United for Israel:

At the Church of the Flagellation, someone attacked a statue of Jesus with a hammer.

About a century ago, the Christians made up a quarter of the population of Jerusalem; today, they represent less than one percent.  Consider that under Ottoman Muslim rule, the Christians were better protected than under the rule of Israeli Jews.

There are thirteen churches in Jerusalem; a small population divided so many ways.  It has come to the point where the fragmented Christian population is starting to understand that they must come together if they are to survive.

Christians in Jerusalem are starting to increase engagement within and between communities.

“The new generation is growing up with the idea that Christians must cooperate with each other in the city to keep the Christian presence,” said Dzernian. “If we keep saying that we will work alone, we will lose in the end.”

“Occupation makes people very cold, very separate. ‘I am [Syriac], I am Catholic, I am Orthodox, I am Evangelist’,” remarked Hani the restaurant owner. “But with the threats, the violence, the vandalism, now the people are coming together. The churches are waking up. We were blind for 50 years, but no more.”

I find this entire story very applicable to Christians in the West – really, the United States – today.  So much arguing, hostility, etc., between denominations and traditions.  Fighting about trees and losing sight of the forest.  We will continue to have less influence until we come to the point of Jerusalem’s Christians, it seems.

But by this, I don’t mean to include all who label themselves as Christians.  Those who cheer on the war machine, those who bow down at the call of masks and close churches at the whim of some politician, those who see the state of Israel – even with this persecution of Christians – as a state worthy of Christian devotion, those who cannot understand that God made them male and female; I exclude them all.  None of these will be useful in this fight.

Which brings me, once again, to Doug Wilson: A Ham Sandwich With 34 Slices of Felonious Cheese.  The first part of this is just hilarious; he is speaking of the charges against Trump:

Fine Wine

 

Come and have a taste

A rare vintage

All the finest wines

Improve with age

-          Count of Tuscany, Dream Theater

The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, and The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis, both came out eighty years ago, in 1943. Via an article by Micah Watson, C.S. Lewis on the Specter of Totalitarianism, I came across this: Ayn Rand’s marginalia on C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

“It’s true, some wine improves with age. But only if the grapes were good in the first place.”

-          Abigail van Buren

After eighty years, let’s see which wine started with good grapes.

Regular readers know that I believe Lewis’s Abolition may well be the book that best describes our condition today, how we got here, and what is necessary to get us out – out, meaning out of the meaning crisis and out from under tyranny and toward liberty. 

I lean on Lewis’s book heavily in the two “books” I have written, to be found here.  One is The Search for Liberty, and the second is Natural Law and the Meaning Crisis.  I also began this journey long ago, if you will, on Rand, discovering her through the band Rush and a reference to her short novel Anthem.  I consider my travels as having taken me from milk to meat.

While I still find value in Rand’s work, as I have developed my thought the shortcomings in her view become ever more obvious – and even contribute to the mess of society we live in today.  Certainly, when we needed him most at the beginning of covidmania, John Galt was nowhere to be found; John Galt is not our savior. 

But Rand’s biggest and most damaging shortcoming is found in her views of Christianity and religion, and the tradition developed through this.  Well, this and her acerbic personality.  Which is where I will begin.

The aforementioned marginalia positions comments and reactions by Rand against various sections of Lewis’s book. In her marginalia, she refers to Lewis (not what he has written, but as a person) as follows:

·         The abysmal bastard!

·         …this monster…

·         The cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-meta­physical mediocrity!

·         (The bastard!)

·         This is really an old fool – and nothing more!

·         This incredible, medieval monstrosity…

·         The lousy bastard…

·         The cheap, driveling non-entity!

·         This monstrosity…

·         The abysmal caricature who postures as a “gentle­man and a scholar” …

·         The bastard…

·         (The abysmal scum!)

And in the midst of a dozen ad hominem attacks, she accuses Lewis with the following:

·         Ad hominem!

But enough of examining Rand’s less-than-cheerful personality.  What are her substantial comments?

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

Lewis writes: “If [the Innovator] had really started from scratch, from right outside the human tradition of value, no jugglery could have advanced him an inch towards the conception that a man should die for the community or work for posterity.”  To which Rand replies: “You bet he couldn’t!”

Rand, of course, is well known for her virtue of selfishness.  So, the idea of working for the community or for posterity – for the sake of the other and not for the sake of one’s self – is anathema.  Therefore, any tradition that advances such an idea – that you have some sort of obligation to care for your fellow man and your future men – is not merely a bad tradition, but an evil one.  In other words, what Jesus did for humanity is the worst evil one could do. 

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

Lewis: “Each new power won by man is a power over man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger.”

Here Lewis is writing of the control of some men by other men – recall from Abolition that man conquers nature, after which he conquers his fellow man.  If this wasn’t obvious to Rand in 1943, it most certainly is obviously clear today.  Lewis saw this, and is ridiculed by Rand for seeing this.

The Highest (Political) Value

What is the highest political value, or end?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.

– John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, The History of Freedom

Yes, that’s my answer as well.  Liberty.  Now, that answer needs some explaining, because liberty is understood or developed very differently by different people.

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” – George Bernard Shaw

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” – United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

“Liberty," boomed Wednesday, as they walked to the car, "is a bitch who must be bedded on a mattress of corpses.” – Neil Gaiman, American Gods

“We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” – Mikhail Bakunin

“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade...” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

And this:

“Cultural liberty is a vital part of human development because being able to choose one’s identity – who one is – without losing the respect of others or being excluded from other choices is important in leading a full life.” – United Nations Development Program

To further clarify my answer and use of the word: I have liberty in my person and in my justly acquired property.  I have no unconditioned liberty beyond this; I have no right to encroach on another’s person and property without permission.  In other words, liberty is conditioned by the non-aggression principle:

The non-aggression principle is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense.

This raises a question, and a real point of confusion for many.  Which is the highest political value: liberty or the non-aggression principle?  Or, to put it another way, is libertarianism sufficient for liberty?  Wait, I think I asked this question once before:

If liberty is the objective, is the non-aggression principle sufficient?

My conclusion:

Is libertarianism [the non-aggression principle] sufficient for liberty?  Everything about man’s cultural and moral evolution answers with a resounding “no”; everything about how cooperative relationships are formed answers with a resounding “no.” 

What is the objective?  Is it to live lives of NAP purists and theoreticians, or is it to achieve liberty?  Which is the higher political value?  What if both cannot be achieved – which is preferred?  Murray Rothbard opens his book, The Ethics of Liberty, with the following:

“All of my work has revolved around the central question of human liberty.”

The man who has written more about liberty and the non-aggression principle is clear that his objective is liberty, not the purification of the NAP.

Now, one will say, “without the NAP, you do not have liberty.”  Fair enough.  But what if with only the NAP I also do not have liberty?  Also fair enough.  What should I then aim for: liberty or the NAP?

(Paper) Thin Libertarians

 

…you cannot protect the value of respecting each other’s liberties with the value of respecting each other’s liberties. That value has to come from somewhere…

David French & the Vapors of Civic Virtue Escaping from a Mystery Box, Douglas Wilson (video)

It has been a while since I have written something directly and specifically about the non-aggression principle and libertarian political philosophy.  This blog started that way, and soon enough I figured out that it was not the foundation for a society that respected liberty.  In other words, paraphrasing Wilson, you cannot protect the value of liberty by using the value of liberty.

This could have been written by Hans Hoppe – he has written along these lines more than once.  Hoppe is, like Wilson, an outcast in respectable circles because he notes that a society that expects to achieve and maintain liberty will have to use values other than liberty to defend liberty.  In other words, paraphrasing Hoppe, sometimes you have to forcefully throw the bums out.

As I have noted: my libertarian society will not look libertarian to many on the outside.  You want sex orgies on your front lawn?  No, not in my libertarian society – I don’t care that your front lawn is your private property.  Such a libertarian society will not retain liberty for long.

Of course, the paper thin libertarian will retort: “you can just make the rules such that those who don’t voluntarily agree can’t join.”  Yes.  But this is my point: my “rules” won’t look libertarian to most libertarians.

This is where I came to grow weary of those who screamed “thin libertarian” as the path to liberty.  Now, admittedly, I once believed such things.  Libertarianism for children, as a good friend and well-respected (in our circles) libertarian once described such as these to me.  Yes, I once was this (look early in my archives…).  But I try not to be too hard on myself; some of the “children” are much older than I am and have been in the movement much longer – and have yet to mature.

It was through Hoppe that I came to understand that something deeper was required as foundation if one was after liberty.  I don’t recall if he put it exactly this way, but I do recall that he said something like you may occasionally have to throw the bums out if you want to preserve the liberty of which you are after.

In other words, Hoppe’s libertarian society will not seem libertarian to the bums (libertines) on the outside.  And I say…count me in.

Murray Rothbard, very early in his career (1960), understood this quite well:

What I have been trying to say is that Mises's utilitarian, relativist approach to ethics is not nearly enough to establish a full case for liberty. It must be supplemented by an absolutist ethic—an ethic of liberty, as well as of other values needed for the health and development of the individual—grounded on natural law, i.e., discovery of the laws of man's nature.

A society holding to liberty requires something more than liberty if society is to retain liberty.

Returning to Wilson:

The virtues that are embedded in our customs, mores, and laws, and which are barely hanging on anymore, are not “without father or mother” Our public virtues are not “without genealogy.” They actually had a “beginning of days.” They grew up in the black soil of a robust Christian consensus, as Francis Schaeffer cogently argued…

Our liberty, what little remains of it, came out of a specific culture, a specific tradition, grounded in certain customs and mores and laws.  It is grounded in what came out of the Christian West, and one can point to the mixing of Christian charity with Germanic honor as the source.

Of course, this came with many ills – both regarding Christianity and regarding honor.  Progress does not flow in a straight line, with no bumps, no setbacks, no difficulties.  Every culture, every tradition, suffers these.  But only one bore the fruit of liberty in any meaningful sense.  If the bad comes in every flavor, I prefer the one that also offers good.

Stopping the Flood

There is a theme running through many intellectuals and wanna-be intellectuals – those who at least see that without Christian values and culture the West is headed to some version of hell.  It’s something like: good religion is important for other people and society, but I don’t need to really believe it.  Anyway, I am too smart for that.

People like this really don’t get the reality that to get (or keep) the society they think they want they will have to quit standing on the sidelines, merely cheering on those who have placed themselves in the game.  It is as if they are saying, “It’s important that people dumber than me believe Christianity to be true, such that I can get the society I want.”

Jordan Peterson offers a version of this: “I act as if it’s true.” This rings equally hollow…and shallow.  Nothing was built or changed by playing games of pretend.  Very few people die for make-believe.  Well, maybe other than Peterson.  He may be the exception that proves the rule, given that his “acting as if it’s true” nearly cost him his life.   (And here, I am assuming he is acting – as opposed to hiding his conversion.  A reasonably safe assumption.)

Some people look at our current state and pine: it kind of worked even just a few decades ago – this “acting as if it’s true” stuff, this hoping that enough dumb people believed – such that society held together.  In other words, we didn’t need to overtly hold to Christian truth and, see, we were doing just fine!  On the one hand, yes.  On the other hand, the cards were dealt well before Obama became president and well before the pill.

We cannot really say "it worked" until just the last couple of decades.  The twentieth century was a catastrophe for the West, all the way around.  Communism was born in the West, as was Naziism, as was critical theory, as whatever it is that you want to say about the monstrosity of the American state, etc. 

Jacques Barzun describes World War One as the suicide of the West.  Now, no one wakes up one day going from well-adjusted to suicide.  The collective “West” didn’t do this either.  The motive power behind the depression and aimlessness was in place well before the suicide occurred.

So, then.  What was it that drove the West to this suicide?  Solzhenitsyn suggested that the reason the West fell into WWI was that men have forgotten God.  It is the best explanation for that otherwise unexplainable war that I have heard. 

When did men forget God?  This can be found in the Enlightenment.  The roots of the suicide of the West can be found here, when men forgot God.  Sure, in different parts of the West God lived on in the fumes of memory longer than in others.  But even early on, He was pushed out of polite society, to be kept in the attic bedroom like some crazy uncle.

Some will say it was earlier than the Enlightenment.  It was the Renaissance, or the Reformation, or the Great Schism.  Or, later: It was Marx, or Gramsci, or Marcuse.  But, in the former, there was still God.  And in the latter, there was not God.  It was in the Enlightenment that men forgot God.

What does this mean for us individually?  I believe that this picture that I painted (or some other such version of our historical reality) should make clear that we, individually, are impotent to fight against this massive flood.  The current is much too strong.