Jeffrey Tucker: Brutalist?

Look, I will admit that when it comes to plumbing the depths of libertarian theory and philosophy I am not the deepest thinker – instead, rather a simpleton.  I do my best to consistently apply the non-aggression principle, nothing more.

Jeffrey Tucker wrote what is overall a very good defense of property rights and a good explanation of the value of free-market-derived feedback, using as the context the recent Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage: “Everyone Needs Freedom to Discriminate.”

To make the case against such laws [laws disallowing discrimination], it ought to be enough to refer to the freedom to associate and the freedom to use your property as you see fit. These are fundamental principles of liberalism. A free society permits anything peaceful, and that includes the right to disassociate. Alas, such arguments seem dead on arrival today.

So let us dig a bit deeper to understand why anti-discrimination laws are not in the best interests of gay men and women, or anyone else. Preserving the ability to discriminate permits the market system to provide crucial information feedback to a community seeking to use its buying power to reward its friends and noncoercively, nonviolently punish those who do not share its values

Good enough.  But something seems not quite right.  I am recalling Tucker’s infamous “brutalist” essay from a year or so ago:

There is a segment of the population of self-described libertarians—described here as brutalists—who find all the above rather boring, broad, and excessively humanitarian. To them, what’s impressive about liberty is that it allows people to assert their individual preferences, to form homogeneous tribes, to work out their biases in action, to ostracize people based on “politically incorrect” standards, to hate to their heart’s content so long as no violence is used as a means, to shout down people based on their demographics or political opinions, to be openly racist and sexist, to exclude and isolate and be generally malcontented with modernity, and to reject civil standards of values and etiquette in favor of antisocial norms.

To simpleton me, this raises a question: when Tucker wrote about brutalists, was he referring to himself?

Parsing Blame

From my recent post, Damned:

Whatever opinion one has of the Greek people, the truth is that this entire mess was caused by their politicians and by the bailing-out of European banks. 

Eliciting this comment from βιβλία July 6, 2015 at 9:14 AM:

A point of order: "This entire mess was caused by their politicians” and the politicians were chosen by the Greek people, or some of them, and tolerated by most, or all, of the Greek people. So the Greek people are not entirely innocent.

And my reply:

Perhaps "entire" was too strong a word. I will come down to 98%, as those who stand to make billions are quite effective at manipulating those who are in it for hundreds.

Not to excuse those who are manipulated, only to recognize the tremendously effective toolkit developed by and available to those doing the manipulating.

Who is to be blamed?  The actors, or those who give (or allow) the actors to have power and authority?

I will assume you are familiar with the argument by Étienne de La Boétie, to summarize: "Every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance."

The people, more or less, get what they want; hearts filled with envy demand action by their political leaders.  There is much truth to this position.

Setting aside the examples where the politicians and bureaucrats act in direct contradiction to the vocal will of the majority of the people (and setting aside the desires of each individual in the minority), is this the balance of the issue?  The people vote (or acquiesce) and therefore the people are to be blamed – to some meaningful degree, at least?

If individual responsibility for action is to mean anything, it seems to me that the direct actors bear the vast majority of the blame: “He made me do it” doesn’t seem an appropriate way to allocate guilt among adults, especially when the “made” does not come with the threat of force behind it.  “I was just following orders” is not the strongest defense.

As already suggested, “entire” was too strong, and “98%” might also be too high.  Let’s try this:

Whatever opinion one has of the Greek people, the truth is that the overwhelming preponderance of this mess was caused by their politicians and by the bailing-out of European banks. 

Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth

Matthew 8:12 “But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The Supreme Court ruling apparently has Christians living as exiles in their own country, this according to Rod Dreher:

…orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country.

You might think that the verse I cite above is in reference to these exiled Christians in the United States.  You would be wrong.  I mean it as literally as Jesus meant it; this might help:

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”

Back to Dreher:

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

Dreher is right – the sky isn’t falling; it fell, long ago.  Nothing has shifted tectonically with this decision. 

It was American Christians that led the charge to public funding of education.  Millions of American Christians continue to send their children to public schools today.  The state will educate your children – how did that work out?

It is American Christians who demand that their Christian private schools meet all standards of government curriculum.

American Christians support the military and wars; the killing of countless millions of non-combatants – people who never presented a threat – does not cause a flinch.  On every holiday, they turn their house of worship into a house of warship.

American Christians support the brutality of the State of Israel.

American Christians support torture.

American Christians leave benevolent good works to the state.

American Christians support the drug wars, turning individuals who – at worst – have an unhealthy habit or addiction into hardened criminals.

American Christians look to salvation by the state:

Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Now?  NOW?

How stupid do you have to be, American Christian, to have ever believed in salvation by state?  For by State are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of the Republican Party.

Name one example of when voting Republican “saved” you.  You have served yourself up on a silver platter.  Now you are being skinned.

Dreher’s solution?

It is time for what I call the Benedict Option….Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

This takes courage; it takes dedication.  The cost will be high.

American Christians couldn’t stand tall when the cost was minimal; why will they do so now?

And the Winner is…

So Greece voters have said no.  It isn’t clear what will come next; in fact, whatever path the voters took would lead to an unknown.

But there is a sure winner in all of this.

If you wanted to break the burden of funding others, but didn’t want to get “blamed” for cutting the purse strings, what would you do?  If you carried the public burden of several times before shattering the peace and didn’t want to be blamed again, how would you approach the situation?

“Play by the rules,” you would insist.  “A deal is a deal.”

The winner?  Say Germany wants out – wouldn’t you do exactly what the German politicians and technocrats have been doing?

Some say Merkel has egg on her face.  I am not so sure.

Damned…

…if they do, and damned if they don’t.

Please note: the glee that I obviously cannot hide in this post is due to my pleasure of watching the EU bureaucracy flail; for the Greek people – who have opened themselves up to a who-knows-what tomorrow – I pray for the best.  Whatever opinion one has of the Greek people, the truth is that this entire mess was caused by their politicians and by the bailing-out of European banks. 

The Greeks overwhelmingly vote no; now the drama really begins.  Ambrose Evans-Pritchard spells it out rather plainly:

The shock result effectively calls the bluff of eurozone leaders and the heads of the European Commission and Parliament, forcing them either to back down or carry out drastic threats to eject Greece from monetary union.

That which is unavoidable eventually becomes inevitable, and the Greek voters have served it up on a silver platter.  If Eurozone leaders back down, expect similar popular revolts in other member states.  Alternatively, if they kick Greece out of the club, expect markets to force the issue toward the next sickly patient.

Oh to be witness to the moment when fantasy-dreamtime is jolted into reality.  As they say, to be a fly on the wall…

The EU's leadership was in utter confusion as it became clear during the day that support was swinging back to the "No" camp, despite blanket coverage from the private TV stations warning that a "No" meant Armageddon.

Many European leaders are stuck, having painted themselves into a corner:

Martin Schulz, head of the European Parliament, was still insisting on Sunday that a "No" vote must mean expulsion from the euro, but his view is becoming untenable.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission's chief, is equally trapped by his own rhetoric after warning last week that a No vote would be a rejection of Europe itself, leading to calamitous consequences.

They thought Tsipras and other Syriza leaders would be run out of town after the vote; instead, might we see the EU leadership given the boot?  That would be…luscious!

What to do when rhetoric is faced with reality?  Can they so easily change their tune?  Do they have a plan?  Apparently, not yet:

French president Francois Hollande said he would bend over backwards to keep Greece in the euro despite voting no. He is to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Paris on Monday to draw up a joint response…

There are mounting signs that the creditors are stepping back from the brink, conceding that they may have to renew talks with Syriza after all, though it is far from clear what this means.

“We didn’t really mean it” will only raise the temperature in other countries saddled with false “austerity”: there is no austerity for banks and other entities who have lent money to Greece, yet this is where the austerity should begin.  Perhaps it will now.

There are a couple of options open to Greece – both of which will only further propel the disenfranchised in other countries to follow a similar path:

"If necessary, we will issue parallel liquidity and California-style IOU's, in an electronic form. We should have done it a week ago," said Yanis Varoufakis, the finance minister.

"The first thing we must do is take away the keys to [governor Stournaras’, a holdover appointee from the past conservative government] office. We have to restore stability to the system, with or without the help of the ECB. We have the capacity to print €20 notes," said [a hardliner in the Syriza Party].

Print their own Euros – won’t that be a kick in the pants!

Let Greece off the hook via some combination of less demanding budgets and/or debt restructuring, or kick Greece out of the Euro and maybe even the European Union.  Damned if they do and damned if they don’t – the perfect position for the bureaucrats and technocrats that shepherded the European project to this point:

Damned.

Family as Foundation

I have received several comments to my post Libertarians and Culture.  I have decided to address selected comments via this post.

Robert Wenzel was gracious enough to publish my post at Target Liberty.  I will begin by addressing one of the comments from Wenzel’s site, regarding this paragraph of the original post:

Every thriving – even surviving – society requires governance; not government as the term is currently understood, but governance.  The lowest level, closest to most voluntary, most decentralized level of societal governance, is the family.  Destroy the moral foundations of family and you destroy society.  Of this there is no doubt, and history has enough examples.

The comment:

I don't share the same view of how sacred the family is. This smacks of conservative moralizing. Genetic connection is one of the least voluntary connections. Family members are often people one would never choose to affiliate with otherwise.

Who said anything about sacred?  Unless one falls into the Bakunin camp of anarchist thought, there will be hierarchical structures in human institutions.  Anarcho-capitalists desire that these hierarchical structures are – to a maximum extent – voluntary. 

There will be governance.  As an adult, I voluntarily submit to many forms of this: to my customers (whether a boss or consumer), to my spouse, to my church, to social norms (within bounds that I find reasonable).

There are some basic facts about family: every single person on earth has a father and mother – maybe not present (but this issue only furthers my point), but a father and mother nonetheless; except for cases of rape, the relationship between the father and mother was voluntary – I suspect most would agree the most intimate voluntary relationship.

Children are raised in a family – again, I am quite aware of the dysfunction in society today where this is not always or even often the case, but this only furthers my point.  For children, the relationship isn’t voluntary in any sense that fits within the generally-accepted meaning of the term, but libertarian theory has more than one incomplete answer when it comes to the issue of children.

Once children reach maturity – however you care to define the term – off they go, responsible for their own way; the relationship between child and parent is re-defined, and now voluntary.  If the now-mature child – or the parent – no longer wishes to associate with the other, feel free.

But where was the foundation laid?  There is no institution on earth that is more common to all than family, and in no other institution could one say that the foundation for and application of governance (not government) is as widespread.  None.

From whom should children receive this governance if not the parents (because, protest as you might, a child will receive governance) – public schools, head start programs, mandatory pre-school, government paid supervisors, television?  Can it be argued that third-party intellectuals, on average, know better what is good for the day-to-day raising of your child than you do?  A peek into any of these bureaucracies and institutions will provide a decisive answer to the question.

Regarding the dysfunctionalities that I touched on above, these are nothing more than breakdowns in the foundation of family.  It need not be labeled “conservative moralizing” to suggest that children being raised in a two parent home have a better chance at a successful life – meaning a life where they can contribute positively to society; there is evidence of this in every racial and socio-economic group.  Look around you and tell me otherwise.  I don’t mean as exceptions – of these there are many.  I mean as a rule.

Can it be argued that this foundation in a family is irrelevant, that however a child is raised for the first five, ten, eighteen or whatever years doesn’t matter?  Once they get out of the house they start with…nothing…a clean mental, intellectual and moral slate?  I am no sociologist or psychologist, but I know enough to know the answer to this question.

I know that libertarians – myself included – point to various voluntary organizations to provide governance and support in the absence of a state: churches, civic organizations, social clubs, etc.  There are two important things missing in each of these that are present in the family: first, none of these are as universal; second, by the time someone joins, much of the foundation for what an individual will be has already been laid….in the family.

Now, what about destroying society if the family is destroyed.  This won’t take long: the results speak for themselves.  In most environments, cultures, and communities where the family is not valued, civil society isn’t to be found.

For those who believe that this is all just conservative moralizing, consider the possibility that a libertarian society will be a far less libertine society than what we live in today.  Who will subsidize the libertine lifestyle in a libertarian society, as the state does today?  Children out of wedlock is perhaps the most obvious example, but if I want to spend some time on making a list, I can come up with a few more.

Now, on to some of the feedback at my site: