Monday, July 23, 2018

Christianity



I have skipped ahead to Casey’s review of the European Middle Ages.  His first chapter regarding this period is entitled “Christianity,” as seems appropriate if one is discussing freedom’s progress in the Middle Ages.

For its first three hundred years, Christianity was a non-establishment religion.  Christians learned to live beyond the action of the state, without state protection, and even had to struggle against the state:

These three centuries established an abyss between the domain of government and the domain of religion….

When Constantine turned to Christianity, much of his reason was for the support that this religion could bring to the Imperial State.  Initially, Caesaro-Papism (with the head of state also head of the Church) held sway.  This arrangement continued in the East until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

In the post-Roman West, the story was somewhat different.

In the wake of the Rome’s demise, barbarian kingdoms emerged – Visigoths, Franks, Lombards.  As tribes accepted Christianity, for a time Caesaro-Papism continued.  However from the eleventh century onward, this would all change.

Tom Palmer regards Gregory VII’s issuance of Dictatus Papae in 1075, in which the independence of the Church was announced, as “the first of the most significant moments of the past thousand years.”

The power of the Church gradually increased in the subsequent years, such that papal power came to know no national bounds in wielding imperial authority.  While ecclesiastical independence was a welcome event, it seems to have consumed itself in power, coming “to a shuddering halt with the onset of the Reformation.”

Setting aside the religious and theological issues, this result allowed for a return of local Caesaro-Papism, primarily in the areas under the sway of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but also in many Catholic regions as well.  This result also gave birth to what we now know as the modern state:

The modern state, in the form in which we have come to know it – the sole sovereign power in a defined territory, exercising a monopoly on (allegedly) legitimate violence, with the power to commandeer the resources, including the persons, of its citizens – had come into existence.

There was no “state,” as we know it, until the Reformation.  Again, set aside the theology; this is something worth understanding for those concerned about liberty…it seems to me.  Of course, the Church was not faultless in bringing on this result, as noted by Casey.

In any case, Casey is getting too far ahead in the story.  While Christianity had no immediate impact on the political environment, it did establish fundamental building blocks for what would become subsequent political thought.  Casey offers three important factors:

…first, the idea that there are two centres of human allegiance; second, the development of the gold and silver rules, together the rule of reciprocity, as the basis of human conduct; and third (and for my purposes in this history, most importantly) the value of the individual as a creature made in the image and likeness of God, whose ultimate goal is to know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him in the next.

Casey examines each of these in turn – as will I shortly.  However a few interesting points are raised: to the first, competing and decentralized governance authorities; to the second, the silver rule is insufficient; to the third…this one is interesting. 

If the purpose of “individual” is to “know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him in the next” (as opposed to “anything peaceful”), is it appropriate to carry forward the concept of “individual” absent this purpose?  The individual minus God equals…what, exactly, to a political theory based on the individual?  Curious.

In any case, let’s examine each of these three in turn:


Two Centres of Human Allegiance

There was the spiritual and the temporal, each having a claim but neither able to make a claim to the exclusion of the other.

…Christianity…involves a realization that there is no political solution to the problems of human existence…Without the separation of political authority from transcendental authority, there is no limit to what the political is and what it is meant to achieve.

It was in the spaces in between these two authorities where the political freedoms of the West found room to grow.  It is easy to point to the destruction during the time of the Middle Ages – the wars, the intrigue, the corruption.  To solely focus here without acknowledging the creative release due to this tension between two competing authorities is to do a disservice to the understanding of where and how liberty grows.

The Rule of Reciprocity

The silver rule and the golden rule.  The silver: do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you: “This is the rule of justice.”  The golden: do unto others as you would have them do unto you: “this is the law of love.”

The Bolognese monk Gratian, in his Decretum, otherwise known as the Concord of Discordant Canons, assimilates both versions of the rule of reciprocity and describes this assimilation as natural law.

Gratian composed this work in the mid-twelfth century, divided in three parts and addressing dozens of points of law.  Before considering further this combination of silver and gold, perhaps some background on this work:

Gratian tried to harmonize apparently contradictory canons with each other, by discussing different interpretations and deciding on a solution.

And a comment attributed to Tom Woods:

The Decretum was called "the first comprehensive and systematic legal treatise in the history of the West, and perhaps in the history of mankind – if by 'comprehensive' is meant the attempt to embrace virtually the entire law of a given polity, and if by 'systematic' is meant the express effort to that law as a single body, in which all parts are viewed as interacting to form a whole.

Returning to Casey:

Whereas libertarianism springs unproblematically from the silver rule, the golden rule could be problematic for it.

Were the golden rule turned into law, individuals would be required by law to do things for others.  Not libertarian.  Yet, Gratian describes the combination of the two as “natural law,” the foundation on which many libertarians build the non-aggression principle.

Keeping in mind Gratian developed this in the twelfth century, perhaps as Casey further develops this history we might find that Gratian took the idea of natural law further than originally conceived or understood.

The Individual Made in the Image and Likeness of God

Dangerous territory, so I will let Casey do the talking:

The individual human being, a creature made in the image and likeness of God [imago dei], is a being of supreme importance – not the tribe, not the city, not the nation, not even the family.

The emergence of the individual from these Christian roots was slow in coming:

…it wasn’t until around the twelfth century that the individual began to stand out from his various social groups – family, society, community, guild and city….

And a major impetus of this emergence was increased commercial activity, not necessarily theological discovery – commercial activity that made possible survival away from the family and tribe, making the family and tribe less functionally important to the individual.

Other no less important factors that contributed to the emergence of individual were the residual insistence on freedom from restraint deriving from Germanic tribal traditions and the germ of a theory of natural rights emerging from the rediscovered and reabsorbed Roman law.

Casey uses the term “natural rights,” not “natural law.”  This is in the twelfth century, coincident to the time that Gratian combined the silver and – most problematic for libertarian theory – golden rules and called these “natural law.”  I am way out of my depth here, but I can’t help but consider that the golden rule, when considered as a foundation of natural law results in natural rights.

Casey notes that this emergence of the individual was not without a downside…

…as it coincided with the birth of the modern powerful, centralized and jealous state, whose ambition was to emasculate or eliminate all politically significant intermediate social groups that might vie with it for the allegiance of a mass of potentially weak, isolated individuals.

But it seems to me more than just a downside, and not merely coincident.  One of the key questions: does the focus on and liberation of the individual lead to the increase in the power of the state?  In other words, are these correlated and not merely coincident?  Robert Nisbet would say yes.

Casey draws an interesting conclusion, and one quite different from mine (and we will see if he subsequently convinces me):

This ambition [to emasculate or eliminate all politically significant intermediate social groups] was to be realized in the twentieth century in the reversion to tribalism that we witnessed in Fascism, National Socialism, and Bolshevism.

It seems to me that while National Socialism and maybe Fascism can be described as tribal, I don’t understand this description for Bolshevism.  But more importantly: the elimination of competing intermediate social groups was bound to lead to the most horrendous forms of the state witnessed by man.

Tocqueville saw this coming as early as 1840; I have argued that its roots are to be found in the Renaissance and Reformation, with the biggest push given by the Enlightenment.  This would correspond with Tocqueville’s assessment.

In other words, I don’t see these “isms” caused by a “reversion to tribalism” but instead a result of isolated individuals looking for a home – and finding a home in the only social structure allowed by the state to exist: the state.

Remember the context of the term “individual” in this history, as Casey earlier offered:

…the value of the individual as a creature made in the image and likeness of God, whose ultimate goal is to know, love, and serve God in this life and be happy with Him in the next.

It could be that the individual minus God equals…“Fascism, National Socialism, and Bolshevism” (and perhaps many other “isms” of political thought).  In other words, maybe the issue isn’t tribalism.  After all, it was during the tribalism of the Middle Ages that this idea of freedom was founded in the West. 

Epilogue

From the endnotes:

Asks Leah Bradshaw: “Is it the case that ‘the detachment of secular liberalism from its religious foundations in Christianity threatens the future of the West?”

Mmmm…yes.

The contemporary West is perhaps the first major world culture to undertake the experiment of systematically dispensing with a religious foundation for its social and political structures.

In your heart, you know how this will turn out.  There is one context in which the idea of “individualism” works.  Casey has offered it.

16 comments:

  1. I liked your “Defending the Defendable” here:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/12/bionic-mosquito/circumstances/

    But it may to be enough to progress to true freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bionic: "...Were the golden rule turned into law, individuals would be required by law to do things for others. Not libertarian. Yet, Gratian describes the combination of the two as “natural law,” the foundation on which many libertarians build the non-aggression principle..."

    I don't look on the teachings of Christianity as compulsory. In fact, I would say that the introduction of compulsion can and has turned Christianity on its head.

    My own beliefs on this subject can be summed up by the old hymn:

    Know this, that every soul is free
    To choose his life and what he'll be
    For this eternal truth is given
    That God will force no man to Heaven.

    I believe that it was the introduction of compulsion to religion in general that produced the seed of the all-inclusive state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woody, this is why I am hoping that Casey further writes about natural law, Gratin's composition / interpretation, perhaps some earlier history / interpretation, and what this all means for those who lean on natural law as a basis for the NAP.

      Delete
  3. Two Centers: No doubt it was the competing authorities of the middle ages that gave rise to the West's realization of freedom. It is here, in the idea of competing authorities, that the medieval natural law conception of freedom (FvD) and that of the modern anarcho-capitalist (Hoppe) are reconciled, where decentralization meets libertarianism.

    Rule of Reciprocity: I think that the golden rule poses no problem for libertarianism and that the silver rule is superfluous. To me, "do unto others" implies also what you don't do unto others, and therefore no silver rule is required. It is the same with the commandment though shall not steal; this commandment implies thou shall exchange with consent of the owner. The golden rule may be interpreted to contain positive obligations to others, but it in no way implies these obligations should be enforced by means of aggression. Positive cultural obligations are perfectly compatible with the NAP.

    The Individual Made: This passage reminds me of when I was making the case here that Christianity, and not just Protestantism, is inherently individualistic, and that therefore not all individualism is anti-freedom and culturally degenerating. It is the individual that is saved, not the community. The individual Christian may find refuge within a Christian community, but he faces the transition between this life and the next alone. He faces judgement by God for his actions alone.

    "In other words, I don’t see these “isms” caused by a “reversion to tribalism” but instead a result of isolated individuals looking for a home" - BM

    ...in a new tribe.

    I think Fascism, Bolshevism, and Nazism can all be explained by the need of individuals to form a newer and more powerful tribe (state) in the wake of or coincident with the marginalization of the older more natural varieties (family, community, faith). In other words, I think both are forms of tribalism. So like there is good and bad individualism, there is also good and bad tribalism.

    Again, it's all about culture and ideas.

    By the way, do you know of any limited government monarchists (like Kuehnelt-Leddihn) during the revolutionary period (middle 1800s)? I'm looking for the liberty minded monarchist reactionaries, not the absolutist ones. I have this idea that in the same way that lumping all socialists and classical liberals together on the Left in their opposition to monarchy in the revolutionary period is unfair and severely imprecise, lumping all monarchists together of this same period on the Right must also be a disservice to historical thought.

    I think I've found one in Karl Ludwig von Haller, but I can't find much on him in English. I don't know German so I can't read his "Restauration der Staats-Wissenschaft." From what I've gleaned so far, he seems promising. Ever heard of him? I wonder if Frank van Dunn has written on him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “To me, "do unto others" implies also what you don't do unto others, and therefore no silver rule is required.”

      I don’t see it this way. If I “do” something to another that is unwelcome, this is different than not doing something that he may or may not welcome if I were to do it. By “doing” something, I impose something. Just because I might want that thing done to myself, doesn’t mean he wants me to do it to him. But, by not doing something, I cannot stand accused by him – unless I “owe” him something: owe either legally (perfectly libertarian) or (supposedly) morally (i.e. a positive right; not libertarian).

      “…that therefore not all individualism is anti-freedom and culturally degenerating.”

      I am trying to grasp this, this point of internal conflict where I stand in the camp of the methodological individualist and am also now exposed to the road where “individualism has led and has been used by the state to aggrandize the state.

      I think individualism without an appreciation for community (in its meaningful sense) is lost to liberty. I think this is the issue. But I cannot say that I am standing on firm ground…yet.

      “...in a new tribe. I think Fascism, Bolshevism, and Nazism can all be explained by the need of individuals to form a newer and more powerful tribe (state)…”

      I think you are right, and in hindsight this is the interpretation I should have made of Casey’s point….

      “By the way, do you know of any limited government monarchists (like Kuehnelt-Leddihn) during the revolutionary period (middle 1800s)?”

      I have never spent any time here, so I cannot really help.

      Delete
    2. "If I “do” something to another that is unwelcome, this is different than not doing something..." - BM

      Light and darkness are two different things, but when you shine a light you create certain patterns of darkness. When you obtain a reputation for being honest, people will tend to assume you won't lie to them. I think the negative space of the golden rule is just as important as the positive space.

      To me the Golden Ethic, or the golden rule universalized within the realm of politics, would be this: you deprive yourself of the rights you deny others.

      For instance, if what I want to 'do unto others' is take their stuff, I have no grounds for complaining when they take mine. Or if I like to hit other people unprovoked, I have no cause for justice if I'm hit. I think this 'golden rule writ large' resolves itself logically into libertarianism, since any initiated violent or nonconsensual act committed against others would not only be returned upon the aggressor without a violation of the ethic, it would, if the aggression was generalized, result in widespread conflict, which is contrary to the very purpose of ethics (as Hoppe would say).

      So the golden rule universalized into a political ethic, recognizing that the purpose of ethics is to reduce or eliminate conflict, yields the libertarian philosophy, at least when considering the shade or the negative space of the golden rule (that which is not done unto others).

      I think if you expand this experiment into the light or the positive space of the golden rule, (that which is done to others) you'll find that traditional family and Christian values win out here too, as all other values (all degrees of libertinism) create conflict.

      "I have never spent any time here, so I cannot really help." - BM

      Dang. Thanks for thinking about it anyway. I have to think that not all the monarchists of this time period were sexually promiscuous sycophants of an 'absolute' king. Where are the true nobles surviving from the middle ages? I think Karl von Haller may have been one, but surely there are others. Perhaps he is the German contemporary of Edmund Burke?

      Delete
    3. "For instance, if what I want to 'do unto others' is take their stuff, I have no grounds for complaining when they take mine."

      Your way requires that people follow a logical argument: if this, then that.

      You have an awful lot of faith in mankind. I go for "simple."

      Delete
  4. Continued...

    From Wikipedia on the book mentioned:

    "In this he uncompromisingly rejects the revolutionary conception of the State, and constructs a natural and juridical system of government, arguing at the same time that a commonwealth can endure and prosper without being founded on the omnipotence of the state and official bureaucracy. The first volume, which appeared in 1816, contains his history and his rejection of the older political theories, and also sets forth the general principles of his system of government. In the succeeding volumes he shows how these principles apply to different forms of government: in the second to monarchies; in the third (1818) to military powers; in the fourth (1820) and fifth (1834) to ecclesiastical states; and in the sixth (1825) to republics. It was written primarily to counteract Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract"

    That sounds pretty great to me. I'm considering learning German just so I can read this dang book. Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL

      Sounds great indeed. Want me to translate it for you? As you already know from the Jung example, I'm a pretty close reader.. ;)

      -Sag.

      Delete
    2. Sag,

      You should definitely translate this if you feel so inclined, though I think it looks like each volume is over 500 pages. It would be a monumental project.

      I still think you're mistaken about that specific book, but I'm not a Jung defender, nor do I care to be, so I'll defer to your judgment on the rest.

      You're a knowledgeable European conservative. Do you know of any limited government, non-absolutist conservative (medievalist monarchist) thinkers during the revolutionary period? Of course there's Edmund Burke. Karl von Haller seems very promising, but are there others?

      Delete
  5. It seems to me the State cannot enforce "goodness" -- it can only restrain and remove "wickedness". The only way true individual freedom can flourish is through self-government, but only if there is cultural agreement on what is good and what is evil. A truly effective Justice system will identify and restrain the evil individual. Some actions are so destructive to freedom and the community that those who commit them must be removed by the community. Goodness must be allowed to flourish on it's own within groups. The POWER of the state grows because wickedness is not stopped in it's early appearance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Goodness must be allowed to flourish on it's own within groups. The POWER of the state grows because wickedness is not stopped in it's early appearance."

      I agree.

      The words "ethics" and "morality" derive from the idea of traditional / common practice. Identifying good and evil, if there is to be justice, requires a recognition of this traditional practice.

      In the west, there was a time that this meant something; today, legislation is written intending to destroy traditional practice, meaning to destroy ethics and morality.

      Delete
  6. I have 3 comments to make about your article. First, these are very interesting. Thanks for writing about what you are reading. It is a great benefit to see you go through this book. Here we go.

    1. The Golden Rule - Not sure I agree with how the golden rule is being used in the discussion. The golden rule is a proverbial statement and as a proverbial statement shouldn't be treated as absolutely true in all cases or shouldn't attempted to be implemented in every detail of life. To take it as a proverb simply means to treat one another with love, acceptance, and respect. To turn this into a legal requirement to give things to other people by coercion seems to turn the idea upside down. Like ATL mentioned, the silver rule is rather implied in the golden rule. I think it is reasonable to state the people in general want to be left alone to pursue their own needs. That alone provides a logical case for combining the 2 "rules". Everybody could want other people to give them things, but that violates how they want to be treated. The supposition starts with how you want others to treat you. Then and only then are we to decide how to treat others. No will say I want others to force me to give them things. So it is a moot point.

    2. Theological Individualism - I agree that humanity has by and large gone from tribalism to individualism through history. However, I would say the idea of individual responsibility before God is ancient and precedes Christianity and definitely Protestantism. There are multiple excerpts from the Old Testament describing personal individual responsibility towards God and disagree with tribal judgment/reward. I wrote an article about this tangentially which includes a good example (http://northvillagechurch.com/blog/post/freedom-where-does-it-end).

    3. New Tribalism - I think Fascism, Nazism, and Bolshevism all represent new tribal movements within modern states. I think what happens is that disadvantaged groups are harmed by the state. Now there is no other organization to appeal to for redress. Therefore, these new tribes form in order to capture the state so that they can turn from a disadvantaged group to an advantaged group. There is only one or the other in today's state. The fascists and nazis were typically middle class people that had some common ethnicity or a new national identity. Bolshevists were typically working class city dwellers or farmers. It is what we call identity politics today. He who controls the state has all the power, so every group is trying to get a hold of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Not sure I agree with how the golden rule is being used in the discussion.”

      Without going back and re-reading what I wrote, I think all I was after here was a) presenting Gratian’s definition of the natural law, and b) how this could be incorporated as a basis for the NAP (which I cannot see). I personally think it takes a good amount of Golden Rule if a society wants to achieve and maintain liberty, but not via enforced law…just by generally accepted cultural tradition – and maybe a good stern look from poppa once in a while!

      “Everybody could want other people to give them things, but that violates how they want to be treated.”

      Who says? It might be how you want to be treated, but there are 7.5 billion people on earth, almost all of them coming from a culture very different than yours.

      “Theological Individualism”

      I offered some thoughts regarding “individualism” in a reply to ATL above. Maybe worth continuing there, unless you feel I am not on your point.

      “New Tribalism - I think Fascism, Nazism, and Bolshevism all represent new tribal movements within modern states.”

      I agree; you are right and ATL was right. I just really missed this; it seemed so obvious the moment I read ATL’s comment.

      Delete
    2. About the golden rule, I don't know that I communicated well. Part of my thinking was some people want other to give them something and they may also want to give others things. But I would think no one (at least practically no one) wants to be forced to give others something. No wants violence or threat of violence used on them if they don't want to give up a possession or possessions. I know, maybe you could find a handful of people in the world that are true masochists, but those are exceptions that prove the rule.

      And the second part of the golden rule is the basis for the action. You start with not wanting to be forced/coerced and therefore you don't force/coerce. It is a restatement of the silver rule within the logical framework of the golden rule. Or at least how I was trying to understand it. Either way.

      For individualism, may main point was the historical timeline of when the Bible introduces the idea. That was pretty much it. It happens very early. I agree with your statements about absolute individualism leading to tyranny. The way I think of the ideal is that there should be value and freedom given to the individual but individuals need strong societal organizations. As I am reading your articles I am learning that those societal organizations need to be powerful enough to at least challenge the state and protect individuals from the state to some level. My main beef with traditional societal structure is that non-state organizations were also market interventionists and involuntary. My hope would be that new organizations could be built that are voluntary and defending of market freedom. If not defending market freedom that at least they wouldn't be able to cartelize industries. I think it is good to have guilds as long as they don't restrict entry into the market and forcefully eradicate non-guild licensed products. Any guilds should be there to guarantee quality but not police businessmen not in the guild. Something like that.

      Delete
    3. "It is a restatement of the silver rule within the logical framework of the golden rule."

      I think this is also ATL's point, above. I offered a reply there, so won't repeat it now.

      "The way I think of the ideal is that there should be value and freedom given to the individual but individuals need strong societal organizations."

      I think I am also landing here, and finding this as the means through which I can reconcile my internal conflict of the value of the individual vs. the tyranny of the individual.

      “I am learning that those societal organizations need to be powerful enough to at least challenge the state and protect individuals from the state to some level….I think it is good to have guilds as long as they don't restrict entry into the market and forcefully eradicate non-guild licensed products."

      I offer a general statement (not specifically about guilds, but any voluntary governance organization), and maybe not a well-thought out statement:

      If an entity is to be strong enough to challenge the state / government, I don’t know that it is reasonable to expect such benevolence toward “the market.” I don’t know that there can be such a thing as a hierarchical organization that is both this powerful and this altruistic.

      I don’t think there can be freedom from the state without governance from some other entity / entities, and such entities – if they are to be sustained – will have some power and will have to wield that power…sometimes in ways we don’t like.

      But as long as there is decentralization and ever-expanding choice, this may be the best we ever see…on earth.


      Delete