The
Free Society, by Laurence Vance
Most Americans think they live in a
free society.
So writes Laurence Vance as the opening sentence in the
introduction to this book, a compilation of 127 essays on the topic of a free
society. Americans think they are free
because of the variety of choices on the grocery store shelf, channels on the
television, access to the world via the internet, and the ability to play video
games in mom and dad’s basement.
While we should not discount such features of American
society (well, I might discount a couple of these), these are not the only
measures of freedom, and Vance demonstrates this through more than 400 pages.
It is an insightful introduction. If we are to measure “freedom” solely via
measures of economy and market, there is little to complain about in American
society – certainly when compared to many other places in the world and most
certainly when compared to past times.
Further, globally, more people have such “freedoms” than at
any time in history. Other than the
abject poor in third-world countries, we all live better than the royalty of
even two-hundred years ago.
But this isn’t “freedom,” although many libertarians use
this as their yardstick. “The market”
comes out quite strongly in the debate regarding immigration, but not solely
here. Yet freedom, as Vance
demonstrates, is much more than “the market.”
The essays are divided into seven chapters:
·
Libertarianism: Theory
·
Libertarianism: Practice
·
Libertarianism vs. Liberalism / Conservatism
·
Discrimination and Free Association
·
Victimless Crimes
·
The Free Market
·
The Free Society
There are several intriguing essays within these
chapters. I will touch on a few of
these:
The Morality of
Libertarianism
Violence is justified only in defense
of person or property against violence.
While not a statement of morality as extensive to that
offered in the Bible, it seems rather foundational. I wonder what people mean when they say
something like “I used to be a libertarian, but….” Like what – “I used to think it was wrong to
come upon a stranger and punch him in the nose, but now I think it is OK”?
Perhaps the most foundational morality is to be found in the
non-aggression principle – not the only
morality, but it is impossible to imagine a moral society that doesn’t embrace
this at its foundation.
Libertarianism and
Abortion
Because a child in the womb is
helpless, not initiating violence, not committing aggression, and not there of
its own accord, I believe, that to be consistent, libertarians should not only
be opposed to abortion, but in favor of making it a criminal act…
Vance offers that the type of penalty to be imposed is a separate
question; the primary issue is the violence initiated against the unborn child.
I know libertarians such as Rothbard and Block deem the unwanted
unborn child to be trespassing, hence committing a violation of the woman’s
property in her body. I disagree, and I
have dealt with this here.
But from a moral standpoint: it is difficult to find any consistency
in a non-aggression principle that demands the right to aggress against the
most vulnerable and most innocent humans on the planet. If libertarians can make this aggression fit
within the NAP, there really is no room to complain about taxes or regulations
or drug laws or pretty much anything else.
The Right to Refuse Service
Every individual and business should have the right to refuse
service. In a free society, every
individual and business owner would
have the right to refuse service. It is
part and parcel of the inviolability of private property…
We are lectured – even by many libertarians – to be
tolerant. But without tolerance for the
property owner’s right to discriminate as inviolable, I have no idea what
libertarianism even means.
Conclusion
I personally find Vance’s work on the hypocrisy of Christians
on the topic of war as his most valuable, and he
has done significant work on this topic.
Yet he does not come up short on the topics covered in this book. For anyone interested in gaining an
understanding of the meaning of freedom and liberty and its breadth and depth, The
Free Society, by Laurence Vance, offers a wide-ranging examination.
I decided to take a break from today's article and read, in full, your magnificent paper "Libertarians and Abortion". As human beings, emotion motivates but logic justifies. As far as abortion goes, I feel it is wrong but I was unable to give a logical, consistent and persuasive argument against abortion. You have provided that argument - I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your argument cannot be extended to cases of violence / rape / incest. In those cases, the resultant pregnancy is not contractual or voluntary with the result that abortion would be an alternative that may fall within the NAP. Given the negative emotional issues involved with such acts, perhaps it is best left up to the individual in those cases.
Thank you, Woody.
DeleteIn an earlier version of the abortion article I did write something about rape, etc. I decided it wasn't a very strong argument (it was the easiest place to attack my broader point) and also if I couldn't convince on voluntary cases, there would be no hope of dealing with such involuntary cases.
With that said: per the NAP aggression is justified only against the initiator of violence. Whatever the unborn child is in the case of rape, it most certainly is not the aggressor. As far as the unborn child is concerned, his situation is no different than the situation of an unborn child via voluntary union.
>> Whatever the unborn child is in the case of rape, it most certainly is not the aggressor. As far as the unborn child is concerned, his situation is no different than the situation of an unborn child via voluntary union.<<
DeleteI understand what you are saying and it certainly would be the most merciful and charitable thing to do. However, you're asking a woman to go through a huge amount of emotional trauma as the pregnancy and the natural maternal attachment to the resulting child will be a constant reminder of the violence and personal violation she experienced. It would take a woman of extraordinary strength to deal with that.
I think that this side of the coin may be the opposite extreme of Walter Block's argument and you're not going to find many people willing or able to do that.
This is why I left it out of the final version of the essay. It complicates the issue ten-fold, and if we can't find agreement on the voluntary case, there is no hope to figure out a way forward in case of rape, etc.
DeleteThe baby is innocent. Giving the child up for adoption is available.
DeleteIf the rapist leaves a puppy behind, should he puppy be sliced up into pieces in retaliation?
Yes, rape is a horrible thing. My understanding is that around 1% result in pregnancy. But it is not the baby's fault.
Devil's advocate just throwing in some complications to fight the simplification of the issue...
DeleteBM: "It complicates the issue ten-fold, and if we can't find agreement on the voluntary case, there is no hope to figure out a way forward in case of rape, etc"
There's two parties, correct? Mother and Embryo, Fetus, or Baby as the maturation takes place. The latter is considered "innocent" in all cases, and the former "responsible" in most, but not all cases.
So taking the case of rape, to give the best context of when both parties are innocent, the debate is, who's rights are justified?
We could go down the argumentation ethics line, and this fight is over before it starts.
There's the question, not of where life begins, but of when human life becomes the qualitatively different than any other mammal (or we can go further away, genetically). I find the argument for conception as the demarcation requires philosophical argument that I have yet to encounter (know of any?). I think this is generally the argument used for drawing the line at the end of the 2nd trimester, is it not?
I don't typically evoke mainstream ideas, but in this case I think it is relevant. I believe there must be a point after conception where this qualitative distinction lies. I think this is the reason why instances of rape and incest are not included in the debate for most Pro-Choice people, as they think it is outside the scope of what is relevant.
My internal struggle here, is not whether the line is conception or beyond, but whether it is "pain" and therefore "harm" or the point of Agency (like any good Austro-Libertarian should find). The reason this is a struggle is because I see no use in the pain argument, animals feel pain. Agency is arguably AFTER birth, and in some ways arguably a lengthy time period after birth.
When my thoughts go down this path, I usually end up thinking that there will NEVER be consensus on this topic, and there are other battles more worth fighting.
I know this isn't really relevant to this post, but it seems to touch on issues you raise about culture and front lawn orgies.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedailybeast.com/wild-wild-country-inside-netflixs-crazy-sex-cult-docuseries
Abortion is just another one of those issues. What people think about it is going be decided by moral principles outside the scope of libertarianism. Whatever your view is it's not going to change through an appeal to concepts of property and aggression, but is based on what you believe to be the value of life. If your position is maleable to libertarian arguments you probably aren't someone who takes the question seriously and likely autistic.
ReplyDeleteI find myself agreeing with you.
DeleteThere is a bigger question in the background of this however:
If I find the notion of abortion reprehensible, what do I do about it when it comes to others practicing it?
That's the "big question" IMO. The concept about what is to be "done" is much bigger conceptually than many might think.
I've noted before the practice in some parts of the Muslim world of cutting off the hands of kids who steal- a practice I find barbaric/horrific specifically in the context of applying it to children.
I know it happens, yet I don't fly over there and "white knight" for it for a variety of reasons.(that I think are "sane" obviously)
When discussing abortion- I can agree with you that it's morally atrocious, but how do you draw the line in terms of dealing with others that don't hold that viewpoint?
If, for example in modern day, California decides that abortion up to the day before birth is "acceptable" and I'm living South Carolina am I justified in trying use state power to stop it in California?
We could frame the same argument in terms of voluntary communities and leave the state borders out of the equation.
I'm not offering an answer per se, I'm offering a discussion. I haven't fully gone down the proverbial rabbit hole intellectually.
As you know, I'd like to see a society framed around voluntary communities(rather than state power as traditionally defined)- but I find the topic covers all forms of polity.
I think to some extent that's where the discussion of the NAP comes in, but recently I've started to wonder if the concept of "freedom of association/disassociation"(voluntary) is actually the more fundamental principle of a libertarian society/outcome than the NAP. (and I haven't decided)
Great comment, Nick.
Delete"...I've started to wonder if the concept of "freedom of association/disassociation"(voluntary) is actually the more fundamental principle of a libertarian society/outcome than the NAP."
This is a very interesting thought, and it leads to a question for modern advocates of a total state:
Would citizens have the freedom to renounce citizenship (and leave) if they wished?
Jeff
"If we are to measure “freedom” solely via measures of economy and market, there is little to complain about in American society – certainly when compared to many other places in the world and most certainly when compared to past times."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this equates comfort and lack of poverty to freedom.
I do live much more comfortably than my great grandfather did, even though his tax burden was many many times lower than is mine.
I'm really not one to constantly complain about such things, and I am quite grateful to live in our time and place in history. But should I really need a license to practice shrubbery?
Rodger
You could take abortion and relabel it "evictionionism" and pretend you are just evicting, and not killing, unborn children.
ReplyDelete"Violence is justified only in defense of person or property against violence."
ReplyDeleteThat is not what Taleb would call 'skin in the game'.
Absent religion, the only arbiter is evolution. If violence is restricted to the above rule and that results in non-survival, then the rule must be wrong.
Or you have to take the rule as religion.
Those are the only two options IMO.
On freedom: Freedom is not omnipotence. Omnipotence is chaos.
ReplyDeleteIf not omnipotence, freedom implies restrictions.
Freedom and restriction go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin. Neither the one is possible in absence of the other.
As such, freedom is a subjective experience.