I offer one of my replies to Nilo Pascoaloto in the comment
thread of the post The One True Faith? As noted, it is one of several comments in our
dialogue, but it well sums up the dialogue – at least up until this point; it
is possible Nilo will still reply, as he has in the past taken some time to
consider my comments and read what I have also linked for clarification.
My comment, as presented below, is slightly modified for
clarification (you will find the original at bionic mosquito January 6, 2018 at 7:06 PM). I will follow with a few additional thoughts.
---------------------------------------
And while your immediate worry is
over the nasty effects of simple principle without tradition, mine also include
the opposite.
Nilo, I don’t merely suggest simple tradition without
principle. When I have written of “tradition,” it has been in the context of a
few ideas, for example:
The “old
and good law”; the law of the Middle Ages. The “old,” of course, is the
“tradition” part. But what is meant by the “good”? It was a “good” grounded in
the Christian faith. I will suggest that this is the “principle” part.” Of
course, this principle is not the NAP, but I will come to the connection
shortly.
A few examples of “good”? Slavery was virtually unknown; serfs had
rights, protected by courts specifically established for the benefit of
grievances; things like witch-burnings were rare. All quite compatible with the
NAP.
So, when I write of tradition, it is this tradition of which
I write – an “old” tradition that existed because of this “good” principle. I
don’t write as if any tradition is
acceptable, e.g. child sacrifices, mutilations, etc.
What does this principle have to do with the NAP? The “old”
and “good” law was also about as close to an NAP-consistent law that I have
found in history. In other words, the tradition of which I write is one that
respected the NAP more so than any other tradition I am aware of involving real
human experience.
Both principle and tradition are, after all, useless if
these do not recognize human reality and the value of human life.
I realize you've crossed that
bridge already - for you, rationalism has nothing to do with, and cannot be
reconciled, with the "good" part of Western tradition.
It is not clear to me why you write this.
Was the time of the Middle Ages irrational? It was not – it was a time when reason alone was not
satisfactory, and was considered incomplete without faith. I find nothing
irrational about this – man still incorporates faith with his reason today,
unfortunately the “faith” in which man places his trust today is corrupt.
The men of the time used reason to bound tradition (while
also using tradition to bound man’s “reason,” meaning bounding man’s ability to
create new laws from whole cloth) – as I have described above. One balanced the
other.
Post Renaissance and Reformation, man walked down the path
of eliminating tradition and applauding reason alone. We are living through the
end times of this transition, with the Cultural Marxists as the current high
priests.
It gets worse – society, now without tradition, is today is
destroying rationalism – Jordan Peterson ascribes this to postmodernist
philosophy. One example should suffice – we are now meant to suffer an infinite
number of made-up, artificial genders, each allowed into any public restroom of
their choosing. There is nothing rational about this; it does not conform to reason.
I have written, perhaps not often enough, that there is much
in the western liberal tradition that is good – however, what I believe to be
correct: the primary advantage has been economic. I cannot say that it is true
regarding our social, religious, cultural, or political lives. I have struggled
with how to sort all of this out – as I have written before, I much prefer the
law of the Middle Ages, while also preferring air conditioning of today
(meaning, even the poorest among us lives better than anyone alive 700 years
ago).
Is it possible to have the “old and good law” of the Middle
Ages with the air conditioning of today? I don’t know, but I will keep thinking
on it.
However, there is no doubt: today the state controls far
more of my life and takes far more of my wealth than occurred during much of
the Middle Ages – even to a serf. Tradition has been destroyed and now even
reason is being destroyed.
And we are the poorer for it, as relative wealth and poverty
cannot be measured solely in terms of the availability of air conditioning.
---------------------------------------
So much for my original, slightly edited, comment.
As long-time readers know, bionic cut his teeth on the
non-aggression principle. So, what started
me down this path of examining culture, custom and tradition? It came from reading and considering “libertarianism”
from some of its strongest advocates. I
will not name them; my descriptions will have to be enough for your curiosity:
1)
The property owner is free to choose any
punishment he likes in retaliation for a violation of the NAP. To suggest anything else makes one a thick
libertarian.
2)
The non-aggression principle allows for every
manner of libertine behavior.
3)
Culture, tradition and the patriarchy must be
destroyed if we want to achieve a libertarian society.
While offering critiques of some of these positions, someone
challenged me to take on Hoppe with the same venom. Well, I
took on Hoppe, but found I could not muster the same venom…because he
actually made sense.
I return to one of my comments to Nilo, from above:
I
have written, perhaps not often enough, that there is much in the western
liberal tradition that is good – however, what I believe to be correct: the
primary advantage has been economic. I cannot say that it is true regarding our
social, religious, cultural, or political lives.
The non-aggression principle is “good” law. But from where does law come if not society? And I am left to wonder: can “good” law arise
from a society that is either unconcerned with (at best) or actively works to
destroy (the current situation in the west) “our social, religious, cultural,
or political lives”?
I know some will say that if we lived under the NAP, such
culture-destroying behaviors would diminish as they would no longer be
subsidized. This is likely true.
There is just one problem: that is a big “if.”
For this reason I focus on culture and tradition when I
consider the application of the non-aggression principle. Someone has to do it, as there are many
libertarian writers today who ignore it – to the detriment of advancing the
philosophy.
Taking this to utilizing in present political realm, and piggybacking on Jeff Deist talking of subsidiarity and decentralization as well, do you suggest we try to takeover the smallest political bodies like the school board and use that as the platform to spread our principles?
ReplyDeleteEric
This could be worthwhile in smaller jurisdictions...I think. It is difficult to imagine getting anywhere with such a strategy in a place like Chicago or Los Angeles.
DeleteGary North has suggested a project for high school civics students: attend city council meetings, local school board meetings, etc. Start a blog meant for the local community - write about what, exactly, they are planning to do to your town, your school, your money.
Again, I could see this might have impact in smaller jurisdictions.
Thank you. And yes, I should have stated in smaller jurisdictions. The big ones are "Lost Causes", not worth making Pickett's Charge against.
DeleteThat Gary North idea makes sense as well. I do drag my youngest Tribe members to city council and School Board meetings, even though (God willing!) they never have to darken the halls of the government school prisons.
BM,
ReplyDeleteLet me take a stab at addressing the concerns you have with some of the 'leading advocates of libertarianism' as you've recognized them.
"1) The property owner is free to choose any punishment he likes in retaliation for a violation of the NAP. To suggest anything else makes one a thick libertarian."
This might be the case if one wishes to live outside of any private law society or association, but if one wishes to be an outlaw, then no law protects them either, certainly not the NAP.
This person may live in peace next to those who do conform to consensual law, but if they start punishing unjustly, let's say by shooting a kid for stealing a candy bar, then they are open to retaliation. Live without law, die without law.
Besides if somebody shot my kid as a form of utilitarian justice, I don't care what the law is, they wouldn't be long for this world. Come what may.
"2) The non-aggression principle allows for every manner of libertine behavior."
This is true, but as you've shown, it also allows for the ubiquitous discrimination of every manner of libertine behavior if a community of private property owners so wishes.
"3) Culture, tradition and the patriarchy must be destroyed if we want to achieve a libertarian society."
This is just left wing garbage slathered liberally onto a noble political tradition. It's statements like this that make me think someone is purposefully trying to sabotage the liberty movement.
Not only will the destruction of culture and tradition tend to promote state formation within a libertarian stateless society, but advocating this now that we currently live under a state leaves us no hope of ever achieving one.
Where is the fulcrum by which these left libertarians mean to pry the state out of our lives? The gay community? They love the state now that it forces everyone to accept them. The feminists? They need the state to be the provider/protector in their lives in the absence of a man. The immigrants? Please. The idea of the non-aggression principle alone cannot do it. It must find people with a culture and tradition that is well suited for it and courage to bring it about and maintain it.
Family, tradition, and community are our only hopes of achieving and maintaining a libertarian stateless society.
"Family, tradition, and community are our only hopes of achieving and maintaining a libertarian stateless society."
DeleteAmen.
"But from where does law come if not society?"
ReplyDeleteI'm likely missing something here, but I thought the point of law being "old and good" was that it was in some way transcendent. I.e., natural law or God's law. If it comes from society, isn't that what you're (rightfully, IMO) saying has gone wrong in the west post enlightenment?
Dave
I wrote that sentence in the context of what came before it: "social, religious, cultural, or political lives."
DeleteAs these have degraded, how can we expect good law to arise? When tradition no longer is respected, can we expect good law (e.g. the NAP) to arise in such a society?
The "old and good law" was law because the society that lived under it respected the tradition.
Let’s take a look, for a minute, at what constitutes a community or society.
ReplyDeleteFirstly; we need to recognize that there is safety, strength and convenience in numbers which is why people form communities in the first place - it is only when people feel generally "safe" (or locally “unsafe”) or feel that there are greater opportunities elsewhere that communities are abandoned for more isolated environs.
Secondly, to remain cohesive, community members must hold ideals and beliefs commonly held as "sacred" or "important". However, if a community holds to the NAP, one must assume that such a community would take a "Live and Let Live" attitude where communities of a more totalitarian bent would be intent on evangelizing their ideals; first by persuasion, then (usually) by force; which is why libertarian societies cannot exist for any length of time.
Thirdly; because specialization of labor leads to greater individual leisure and economic efficiency, the community will designate, hire or otherwise choose some individual or group of individuals to "police" the community for violators of those ideals that the community deems important. Additionally, these or other designees will be entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the community against encroachment from those who would use violence to take the property or otherwise violate the ideals of the community.
I guess the main issue with Libertarianism is: how do libertarian communities protect themselves from charismatic opportunists? A live and let live approach under the NAP is fine until some charming sociopath bent on power manages to attract a following. Who will be the watchmen for that? How will it be decided that such a movement is a threat to the community and how will an appropriate response be chosen? How will such watchmen be able to convince individuals in the community to protect themselves? What mechanism will be used to coerce the cowardly into protecting their community? How will the community be mobilized into general action?
What if the watchmen themselves are the sociopaths? Who watches the watchmen?
As my best friend so aptly puts it: “people are the problem”. Personally, I look to God for a solution because I have none. While men lust for power and have the means to draw away others to their cause, there can be no permanent peace. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to find peace within ourselves and do our best to assist others to find the same. People who do this are happy regardless of their circumstances.
Woody,
DeleteGreat questions, points, (and final conclusion)! You have raised these issues with the utmost precision and sincerity, so I hope that I can respond in kind. Here's my attempt:
Your statements:
1.) "...there is safety, strength and convenience in numbers..."
I agree completely. Humans are fundamentally social creatures. I, as a hardcore libertarian, am all for society, community, and even nationhood, provided these are formed with at least a close approximation of unanimous consent.
2.) "...to remain cohesive, community members must hold [similar] ideals..."
Human society will always be a continuously evolving and expanding sea of three dimensional Venn diagrams of hierarchical spheres of association, but I agree that it is important (if we're interested in social cohesion, harmony, and progress) that there is more commonality than not, especially in the vital spheres (law, religion, morality, tradition).
3.) "...specialization of labor leads to greater individual leisure and economic efficiency, the community will designate, hire or otherwise choose..."
It is highly likely a community may choose a third party to provide the services of law and order regarding their lives and property. And it is also a possibility that this third party may become a criminal entity itself, declaring itself in word and deed, a property rights violating 'property protector.'
Your questions:
"A live and let live approach under the NAP is fine until some charming sociopath bent on power manages to attract a following. Who will be the watchmen for that?"
That is a great question. I would argue that is the most important question of political science, however, this is not a problem exclusive to a libertarian society.
Nations living under states often fall victim to "charming sociopaths," for this is the nature of the state: to provide a refuge from market forces for narcissistic incompetent sociopaths, who typically have nothing to offer that others wish to freely purchase.
The interesting thing about this objection, is that libertarianism was designed as the societal solution to just this scenario. The recognition that all initiated (or first) violence is unjust goes a long way in ensuring a difficult path for a would be tyrant.
... to be continued.
continued...
DeleteBy not authorizing a single monopolistic path to coercive authority, libertarians make the sociopath's job more difficult. He must compete for authority with independent rivals among a citizenry which views violent territorial conflict over authority as immoral and unjustified unless waged in defense.
"How will the community be mobilized into general action?"
Like any other community under oppressive circumstances; it must convince those working for the sociopath to abandon their support for him, or it must form a militia or other mechanism of violence to free themselves from the oppressive sociopath. It can petition for outside aid as well.
In the libertarian society they can petition outside security providers for assistance in exchange for a new commercial relationship. Help us overthrow the sociopath, and we'll buy your services for 5 years (contingent upon fulfillment of obligations by service provider of course).
There is no perfect solution for the problems of mankind, because despite the changing conditions and circumstances around us, our nature is fixed and flawed. I believe we all have elements of good and evil in us, and life is a constant test over which we let behind the wheel. I don't believe this will ever change.
Any worldly solution will have worldly problems, but I believe it is the Christian's moral duty to speak out against (or at least not authorize) those institutions which usurp natural forms of authority to commit organized murder, theft, slavery and fraud, and especially those which do so on a colossal scale.
If the main functions of an institution (those necessary for its survival) violate the 10 commandments on a regular and casual basis, perhaps we God fearing folk should look elsewhere for our worldly authorities.
Woody
DeleteI will begin by saying I am glad that ATL responded to your comments and questions before I did, because he did far better than I could have done.
I will just add one further thought: I suspect a libertarian community will not look "libertarian" to those outside of the community - although those within the community will consider themselves to be living in liberty.
The members of the community will live in a manner - formed by custom and tradition - with certain behaviors that are acceptable within the community; they will generally agree to limitations on various, non-NAP violating behaviors.
If one wants to live among them, he will have to conform or be removed. Hoppe, I think, has this pretty much right.
"'A live and let live approach under the NAP is fine until some charming sociopath bent on power manages to attract a following. Who will be the watchmen for that?'
DeleteThat is a great question. I would argue that is the most important question of political science, however, this is not a problem exclusive to a libertarian society ..."
Well, the non-libertarian "utopian idealist" will tell you that they HAVE solved the problem and, as has occurred on multiple occasions throughout history, the less introspective person (for example, most young adults) will be seduced by this "obvious" solution, often to the point of violence and often to the detriment or destruction of society.
"... narcissistic incompetent sociopaths ..."
... are not always incompetent ...
"The interesting thing about this objection, is that libertarianism was designed as the societal solution to just this scenario ... He must compete for authority with independent rivals among a citizenry which views violent territorial conflict over authority as immoral and unjustified unless waged in defense … it must convince those working for the sociopath to abandon their support for him, or it must form a militia or other mechanism of violence to free themselves from the oppressive sociopath. It can petition for outside aid as well …"
If it is true that “libertarianism was designed to combat this scenario”, then libertarianism is not a very effective solution. The advantages of totalitarianism are speed and cohesiveness. Group decisions are inherently slow and laborious. An entire nation could fall before it could muster the resolve to rise against an aggressive sociopath if left to libertarian devices. Libertarianism dooms us to fighting guerilla-style and after the fact.
Charisma pretty much throws the idea of competition out the window and, as psychologists tell us, one of the characteristics of sociopaths is that they are “charming”: i.e.: charismatic (sorry, I don’t have the reference for that statement and I only have a few minutes to respond) - how does the old saying go? He could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo? Charisma must be used to fight charisma, which means that the success of our totalitarian resistance lies in blind chance.
“Any worldly solution will have worldly problems, but I believe it is the Christian's moral duty to speak out against (or at least not authorize) those institutions which usurp natural forms of authority to commit organized murder, theft, slavery and fraud, and especially those which do so on a colossal scale.”
So … pretty much every government past and present then?
One of the problems I have with the statement that “it is the Christian’s moral duty to speak out … “ is the frequent use of religion throughout history by various parties to influence adherents to the initiation of violence. I raised this issue in a post in Bionic’s earlier post “The One True Faith?” and the somewhat insulting response from “Unknown” was not entirely unexpected. And, as I suggested in that post, a quick review of Amish, Quaker or Mormon history will show the result of “Christian” leaders “speaking out” against threats (to their paychecks and prestige). That is also why I made the statement that I will listen to Christ and not to man.
I do suspect that Bionic is right, that a libertarian community would not look like it from the outside and that Hans Herman-Hoppe may have it right. I need to read more of Mr. Herman-Hoppe’s books – perhaps I can find a solution there but I doubt it. This is a very difficult problem and I fear that the solution is out of our reach, except through God.
Thank you for your time and your responses.
BM,
DeleteThanks for the wonderful compliment! And I think you are right that a libertarian community may not look like a (Walter) Blockean cultural free for all. The community may adopt many positive laws regarding children, drugs, porn and prostitution for example, but all this is still libertarian if it is unanimously consensual.
Sorry left libertarians. Liberty does give you the license to push immorality to the extreme, but it also gives us the ability keep you out of our moral communities.
Woody,
I agree that sociopaths are not always incompetent, and certainly they are competent at manipulating the emotions of others but generally they have a hard time on the market where you actually have to provide something of value for someone else.
"The advantages of totalitarianism are speed and cohesiveness. Group decisions are inherently slow and laborious."
It seems like the freer nations tend to defeat the less free nations, at least in modern times, so this wold seem to contradict the advantages you prescribe to totalitarianism. A libertarian response to an invasion may be initiated by only a handful of natural leaders or CEOs of defense companies. Libertarianism is not equivalent with direct democracy.
"Libertarianism dooms us to fighting guerrilla-style and after the fact."
I don't know that this is necessarily the case. A private defense company could have jets and submarines and all manner of advanced weaponry capable of waging non-guerrilla style warfare. A libertarian nation would not necessarily have to wait for a city to be blown up before it engages the invaders. Credible evidence of an imminent invasion, I believe would be enough, in the same way that someone pulling a gun out is enough of an initiated threat of violence to justify a defensive violent action in response.
"That is also why I made the statement that I will listen to Christ and not to man"
Definitely a good idea. I've been reading a book off and on the past few months called "The War for Righteousness" by Richard Gamble. It details how Christian churches across the US were infiltrated by progressive social reformers and war mongers in the late 19th century culminating in the quasi religious justification for US entry into WWI under Woodrow Wilson. These progressive so-called Christians wanted to evangelize and 'save' the world through total war by means of the US military, except their vital message they wished to spread was really democracy and not Christianity. It's a fascinating but thoroughly depressing read, because so many Christians did not have the sense that you do to listen to Christ, and not man.
Here are two good videos of Hoppe that may whet your appetite for some of his writing.
Private Law Societies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6V0XzJfm8U
Advantages of Small States and the Dangers of Centralization
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBg23AqZlJI
Hi Bionic, thanks for the reply. Didn't expect it to become so high-profile, though... serves me right for not using an Internet pseudonym...
ReplyDeleteThose are all valid points, especially about reason dying along with tradition. And it's great that liberty-minded people such as you are putting effort into theorizing a workable, free society.
As for my original complaint that sparked our exchange in the first place, I'm not 100% certain on how to read this reply/post. You seem to be acknowledging that tradition and principle walk hand in hand. Would you say that it's possible for intellectual outlooks that emphasize one or the other to reach some kind of common ground? As you said, Hoppe just makes sense; even when he talks about "physically removing" those who cling to socialist ideas (within the framework of a private association), I had to grudgingly nod after gnawing on it for a while. Whereas left-libertarians sound little better than a bunch of regular leftists calling for a free lunch.
I do, in fact, agree with you that tradition is the stronger of the pair that title this post. It became gradually but painfully obvious to me, as I matured, that shared principles don't form the kind of bonds that are necessary for a healthy society.
I would just ask that reason be respected as the common ground between all who seek truth. Applied carelessly, without regard for reality, in the laughable belief that the overthrow of religion would make a god of man, "reason" led to some astoundingly terrible ideas and it's fair to call attention to that. But let's not hastily conclude that putting tradition under the light of reason is always and everywhere bad because people inevitably take it too far. I believe that this kind of rhetoric drives away people who could otherwise be interested in hearing you out.
Thanks again.
Nilo, thank you for the comments; I am glad we both chose to continue the dialogue.
DeleteIt was valuable for me to try to put my views in a more concrete manner - as your questions and our dialogue required. It forced me to consider the "reason" inherent in the period that I present as holding to something approaching libertarian law (the Middle Ages) - and to clearly and directly make this point.
I don't believe I had ever made the connection in my own mind in such an explicit manner - I think it was always there, or maybe I took it for granted.
Anyway, I am glad you forced it out of me!
"For this reason I focus on culture and tradition when I consider the application of the non-aggression principle. Someone has to do it, as there are many libertarian writers today who ignore it – to the detriment of advancing the philosophy."
ReplyDeleteHere is a paper by David Friedman, a Jewish man, who seems to have put forward a compelling argument (perhaps inadvertently) in support of cultural homogeneity in reducing conflict. He uses a term called a 'Schelling point' taken from game theory to analyze transactions and interactions between different parties.
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
Schelling points to him are unique points of commonality or agreement when two parties meet with conflicting interests. A Schelling point can be a price that two parties agree on in an exchange, or it can be a principle by which both parties agree to conform in a dispute.
"In order for a Schelling point to provide a peaceful resolution to a conflict of interest, both parties must conceptualize the alternatives in similar ways—similar enough so that they can agree about which possible outcomes are unique, and thus attractive as potential Schelling points. So one interesting implication of the argument is that violent conflict is especially likely to occur on the boundary between cultures, where people with very different ways of viewing the world interact." - David Friedman
The rest of the paper is quite interesting. He tries to derive libertarian property rights through a utilitarian lens rather than from a moral or legal perspective, though the difference between these to me is somewhat small and blurred; there is much utility in morality and law, provided that law conforms with morality.
Have a look at this remarkable little book:
ReplyDeleteAncient Beliefs and Modern Superstitions, by Martin Lings.