I will guess that, about as much as anyone in recent times,
I have taken on the concept of “thick” within the context and discussion of
libertarianism. I will not rehash any of
that in this post – for those to whom this is of interest, you likely know the
story; for the rest, suffice it to say any appendage to the non-aggression
principle would be considered thick.
At the same time, I have no doubt that for a society to
survive and thrive, there is need for “thick” – what do people around here
believe? Some common understanding on
issues that are not answered by the NAP is necessary.
Sheldon Richman is out with a very good piece – wonderful,
in my opinion; I wish I wrote it. Despite
having tried on several occasions, I have never been able to explain myself on
this topic as well as Richman has done.
It is entitled “Free-Market
Socialism.” Trust me, there is no oxymoron
in this phrase.
In the piece, Richman connects how the individual becomes
the social – fully in line with libertarian principles. But instead of my paraphrase, here is
Richman:
Libertarians are individualists.
But since individualist has many
senses, that statement isn’t terribly informative.
Virtually all libertarians observe
the common customs of their societies, just as they conform to language
conventions if for no other reason than they wish to be understood. I don’t
know a libertarian who would regard this as tyranny.
As long as the “common customs” are not applied by a
coercive monopoly, there is nothing wrong with this statement – it would be a
reality in a libertarian world, if for no other reason than individuals would
seek out community where they felt community.
Further, however, the NAP does not answer every question of
life – merely the question about when the use of force is acceptable. I will go a step further: libertarians have
not even agreed amongst themselves about the term “force” – or the
applicability of the NAP to specific circumstances.
Is fraud “force”?
What about the applicability of the NAP to intellectual property? Abortion?
Proper justice for a trespass? I
don’t think anyone can say these issues are “settled” within our community.
In fact, as one’s appreciation of
the libertarian philosophy deepens, so does one’s understanding of the crucial
behavior-shaping role played by the evolution of customs and rules—the true
law—that have nothing whatever to do with the state. Indeed, these help form
our very idea of society.
This is certainly a true statement for me. When diving into the depths of some of the
above mentioned topics, I have concluded that there may not be one “right”
answer: if a community decides it wants to implement defense of intellectual
property within their system of law, or define fraud as a violation – I can
find no NAP-based reason to disagree (I will not delve into my reasons here, as
this is well beyond the scope of this post).
Further, it seems clear that a libertarian world would allow
for blatantly non-libertarian societies – as long as the members were free to
leave. If a group voluntarily decides to
hold all property in common, have a field day – they cause me no harm.
The social is greater than the sum of the individuals – if
it was not so, there would be no benefit in forming community. Consider something as simple as the division
of labor; try gaining the benefits of this invaluable process without
voluntarily interacting with others.
Richman comments on prices – freely derived, necessary for a
thriving society, determined by all…the result of countless individual
decisions. He discusses bankruptcy:
…no individual decided to put, say,
the bookseller Borders, out of business. In an important sense, we did it
collectively, but not at a mass meeting with people giving speeches and voting
on whether the principals of Borders should keep control of the company’s
assets. Rather, the demise of Borders and the transfer of its assets to others
were the outcome of many individual decisions, most of which were not
consciously coordinated. It’s just that enough people had preferences
inconsistent with the company’s business plan. So the people who ran Borders
were out, however much they objected.
In a free market, the people control the means of production
– not in a communistic way, but a perfectly libertarian way; or, as Richman
puts it:
In other words, the freed market
would give traditional leftists what they say they want: a society in which
free, voluntary, and peaceful cooperation ultimately controls the means of
production for the good of all people.
No need for any “musts” or “should”: this is a road to thick
that every libertarian could stand behind, without any concern about violating
the NAP.
Posts
