Pages

Friday, July 6, 2018

Medieval Libertarianism


The stateless Middle Ages were the only example of a functioning anarchic order in the West.


Forgive the length of this post and the multiple links.  I am thinking it is necessary to capture and summarize my thoughts on this topic, and have found this work by Storey to be a good vehicle through which to do so.

Storey offers a summary of his conversation with Frank van Dun (FvD).  Storey introduces the piece with his starting point:

Like many anarcho-capitalist libertarians, I believed that the Church, far from being a hindrance to state growth, was the primary promoter of centralised statism in Northern Europe.

Storey offers a summary of his view – how he came to reach this conclusion.  He reached out to FvD, hoping to maybe learn something but also to receive confirmation of his views.  As you can tell from his past-tense use of “believed,” Storey received much more of the learning than he did the confirming.

Except where noted, the remainder of this post (to include the quote at the top of this post) offers some excerpts from FvD’s response to Storey.  So there is no confusion about where FvD is headed, he begins his response:

Most of your comments fit what is still the PC-view of the medieval period and the role of the Church in it.

I began my education on this topic by reading Fritz Kern’s Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages.  I learned that the Dark Ages were not so dark; serf’s had far more freedom and protection in the law than we do today; every individual could veto the decision of his lord if proper cause could be demonstrated; medieval law was the most consistent expression of libertarian law to be found in the west (and likely the world); and a written constitution served to protect the state from the people – and not the other way around.

My further reading of many books on the time only reinforced these views and added additional insights to the period.  For example, From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, by Jacques Barzun.  While the focus of his book is post-Reformation Europe, he offers in his introduction the following:

The truth is that during the 1,000 years before 1500 a new civilization grew from beginnings that were uncommonly difficult….showing the world two renaissances before the one that has monopolized the name.

…the Germanic invaders brought a type of custom law that some later thinkers have credited with the idea of individual freedom.…no rule was held valid if not approved by those it affected.

From The Medieval Machine, by Jean Gimpel, I learned of the medieval industrial revolution – from whole cloth came energy and mechanization, mining, the mechanical clock, and pre-Renaissance renaissance men.  I learned that it was not until 1277 (if one can pinpoint such events) that the Middle Ages began down the road that would stereotype the entire period – that of questioning scientific and technological progress (and, here again, not everywhere uniformly and simultaneously).

From Those Terrible Middle Ages: Debunking the Myths, by Régine Pernoud, I learned of the liberalizing society of the Middle Ages: artistic and literary achievements; the difference of serfdom and slavery (there was virtually no slavery in medieval Europe – and serfs were most certainly not slaves); women were human, too; there was religious tolerance (forget what you think you know about medieval witch burnings and the like); finally, it really wasn’t so good to be king.

I can list an additional half-dozen books that helped to purge me of this “PC view” of the Middle Ages, books that demonstrated libertarian law in its most manifest expression and for a most extended period.  No evangelizing, no theocracy, no absolute state, no king as sovereign, no “Dark Ages,” none of it. 

You would think libertarians would be happy to find such a reality, to find a working model from which we could learn.  No, most aren’t; they get upset.  Why is there such pushback by many libertarians on recognizing this history?

Back to FvD:

The origin of the modern state in the West is indeed in the transformation of medieval “rule” into modern “political government”. It reached its full expression in the 16th century….

Wait a minute!  The Middle Ages had kings and a Pope and stuff like that.  What is FvD talking about?  What made the earlier period distinct?


The idea that the king was essentially a primus inter pares [first among equals], with special prerogatives but no superior rights, was as good as dead.

The king had no superior rights during medieval times?  He was equal with his peers?  No he didn’t, and yes he was.  To make a long story short, the king had a duty to enforce the law; he could not create law.

That transformation was of course a drawn-out process with many local variations.

In England the birthing of the idea of a “state” came with the Norman Conquest in the eleventh century; in France not long thereafter – perhaps at least in part in reaction to Noman invasions (albeit I have not studied this specific point).  If there was ever a horrendous medieval war, it was the 100 Years’ War, between – guess who – England and France.

Statism is the idea that the ruler should have not only the power to rule (as supreme commander in times of war, as diplomat, and as judge in some but not necessarily all disputes among his subjects) but also the power to govern.

This, as opposed to the authority of the medieval ruler:

A medieval ruler ruled his realm but did not govern anything within it except his own household or «economy».

The new ruler not only could enforce law, he could make law: “[the king’s] dominium extended as far [his] imperium.”  “Governing” was no longer in the hands of the head of household.

And with this, the “king” became “monarch.”

During much of the Middle Ages, it was the Church that held back the king from usurping and monopolizing governance:

…the Church could always be counted on to stand up for the autonomy of real households against attempts to merge them into a single fictional economy under a central government — in particular, attempts to transform kingdoms into monarchies.

If you consult the historical record then you notice soon enough that the medieval Church was the great protector of “private law systems” — although it would be more accurate to refer to them as private systems of governance.

Why the pushback by so many libertarians on this topic?  I think there are two reasons: first, universalist libertarians don’t like private law systems, as these leave room for non-libertarian laws.  Second, for libertarians to understand, recognize, and appreciate this topic, one has to utter an unutterable (to many libertarians) six-letter word: Church. 

I could offer a long list of universalist libertarians; and libertarians who find organized religion of any “Christian” sort (and more broadly, traditional Western Civilization) an anathema to liberty are a dime a dozen.  I have written numerous posts on such as these, but I don’t want to waste time and space for this in this post.

The Church focused on keeping the various private law systems compatible with each other, by emphasizing “natural law.”  But it took good men to protect this good law:

Not having an army of her own, the Church had to rely on the good will of others, i.e. on her moral and theological prestige and authority (her intellectual capital).

Now…if you were a king who wanted to become a monarch, what would you want to do?  How about diminishing the role of the Church?  And then along came Martin Luther.  Another hairy topic.

Yes, Luther had legitimate complaints about the Church; yes, he was not the first to raise these complaints; yes, the Church resisted necessary changes because these were deemed as threats; no, Luther did not want to destroy Christendom; yes, he lamented what he had created.

OK, now that that’s out of the way…Whatever your preferred slice of the Christian pie, the history is the history. 

Today, the best-known brand of anarcho-libertarianism is probably some kind of “Rothbardian” anarcho-capitalism, which (as do so many other modern Anglo-American theories) presupposes a (what I call) Lutheran individualism…

I have covered this issue of the Reformation and “Lutheran individualism” as well, through three books:


The Great Heresies, by Hillaire Belloc; the most relevant post – on the Reformation – can be found here.

Finally, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order and Freedom, by Robert Nisbet; Nisbet goes into great detail about the troubles of “individualism” if one wants liberty – albeit, he does it without mentioning the Church or the Reformation (at least that I have found or can recall).  My posts on this book can be found here (along with one or two other posts based on other work by Nisbet).

Returning to FvD:

Almost unknown today is the original medieval libertarianism, which was anarchistic not only in the sense that it was concerned with and situated in a stateless environment but also in the sense that it was intended to be anti-state (i.e. opposed to the concentration, a fortiori centralization of political power in monopolies of government, enforcement, legislation, adjudication and much else).

In the face of 1000 years of evidence, instead we look to solely the non-aggression principle to free us from the State – as if a principle can function without institution.  An example of this wishful thinking can be found here:

“[It] says no, and must say no, to the absoluteness of political power and to the worship of the might of the mighty in general… and in doing so it has shattered the political principle’s claim to totality once and for all… it forms the only definitive protection against the power of the collective and at the same time implies the complete abolition of any idea of exclusiveness in humanity as a whole.”

What is the “It”?  Is it the NAP?  Private property?  Libertarianism?  Ha!  I tricked you.  Would it help if I told you that the quote came not from your favorite libertarian theorist, but instead from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)? 

Yes, the “It” was the Catholic faith as made manifest by the authority of the Church.  There was a time that this was true; it certainly isn’t true today and given the direction the Church has taken, it likely will not be true again for some time…if ever (at least not through the same institution).  (By the way, for an interesting take on when and how and why the Church turned at the time of the Renaissance, see this; I make no claim regarding this history as I am completely ignorant on the topic.)

Ratzinger always stressed the continuity of Catholic theology from its ancient and in particular medieval formulations to the present. That theology was explicitly libertarian — albeit not in the sense of modern (i.e. Lutheran or post-Lutheran) individualism.

Did we ever get to the bottom of why they forced this guy out in order to replace him with what seems to be his opposite?

Returning to the transformation that came with the Reformation:

The (modernized) Roman law obviously appealed to the early modern rulers (i.e. political monarchs, no longer mere kings or heads of their tribe) because it derived all authority from the emperor through a hierarchical ordering of societal positions, each of which was responsible only to higher authority, not to its peers let alone its own subjects.

The monarch’s power was now absolute; he was sovereign – a concept alien to medieval law, which recognized no sovereign as we use the term (if one needs to find a “sovereign” in the Middle Ages, the closest would be the law). 

The rise of the concept of sovereignty was the logical deployment of this new concept of freedom in the political sphere. The Sovereign (at first the absolute monarch, later the independent state) is the absolute master of his territorial domain and is not responsible to anybody else for what he does there. Thus, the whole spectrum of modern political thought from anarcho-libertarianism to absolutist statism formally fits the same idea of law.

This last sentence should be read carefully, and consider: when liberty is defined solely in terms of an individual and his private property, what stops the property owner from shooting a child for picking an apple?  Don’t say “proportionality”; to turn this abstract idea into objective reality requires guidance not deducible from the NAP.  What stops the anarcho-libertarian from becoming an absolute statist on his own property?  FvD answers the question:

Modern anarcho-libertarianism has no logical objection to this, if it accepts the elimination of the “old” theory of natural law (with its emphasis on person-to-person responsibility) and accepts the modern theory (which declares ownership of material resources and freedom of contract to be the only “natural rights”).

To summarize: nothing stops the private property owner from shooting the child.  He is sovereign on his property.  This, for many, is the ultimate expression of liberty.

Conclusion

Whereas modern anarcho-capitalism remains an armchair exercise, medieval anarcho-libertarianism was an actual experience. It would be disingenuous to try to understand it without an appreciation of the Church’s role as its moral authority and guardian.

I don’t write about theocracy, I don’t attempt to evangelize, I don’t care to get into theological debates.  I want to understand this history, given that it is the only example of a long-lived libertarian society; eventually I want to consider how this history can be applied today – and also, how it no longer can be applied. 

I leave it to the “armchair” theorists to dream and write about salvation via libertarian corporations, bitcoin, the gig economy, or a libertarian society miraculously appearing after the coming economic calamity.

To say nothing of the Cultural Gramsci-ist libertarians, who are working actively to lead us to hell.

54 comments:

  1. This is a very well written article, kudos.

    I don't begrudge "armchair theorists" speculating/dreaming about different ways libertarian outcomes may arise, nor do I think the past is a positive indicator of when can/can't happen in the future. (Russia, the recent zero hedge article on Cheran, Mexico- etc.)

    In fact, in man's progression it's often been the "dreamers" that have pushed him forward in many areas. You seem skeptical obviously in your conclusion in this regard.

    Regardless, many of your points are well taken on Lutheran individualism, the role of the Church as a counter-balance to sovereign power, etc.

    It's a good write up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Nick.

      “You seem skeptical obviously in your conclusion in this regard.”

      My feelings on such dreamers run along a continuum, ranging from “thrilled that they exist” to “they must be the dumbest people on earth.” Of course, I could be wrong on either extreme.

      I heap my skepticism (more like abuse) on the ones I consider the dumbest people on earth. For example, those who: a) ignore that there are people in this world who are evil and that many of them exist in government; b) believe that just because corporations are nominally private that they value free markets and your freedom; c) insist that culture is irrelevant to developing and maintaining a free society; d) ridicule the specific culture that achieved the longest lasting anarchic society.

      I am sure I am forgetting a few others.

      There are plenty of “libertarians” within these categories. So, for dreamers like these, yes, I am skeptical. I especially don’t like that they a) damage the value of libertarianism in the eyes of many who would otherwise happily become fellow travelers, and b) attract the precise type that give libertarianism a bad name.

      Delete
    2. "For example, those who: a) ignore that there are people in this world who are evil and that many of them exist in government; b) believe that just because corporations are nominally private that they value free markets and your freedom; c) insist that culture is irrelevant to developing and maintaining a free society; d) ridicule the specific culture that achieved the longest lasting anarchic society."

      It's fair set of criteria, I think I agree with all of it.

      Delete
  2. @All

    For those who can't make it to Hoppe's PFS 2018 meeting where FvD will speak about the Reformation before and after, here's the text:

    (right-click > "save target/link as")

    What Exactly Did The Reformation Reform?

    -Sag.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BM,

    Great read, and what a wonderfully succinct argument and treasury of resources for us libertarian medievalists to refer others to!

    Here are some more resources for the libertarian medievalist, though they are certainly not as clear and concise. I've linked to them before, but in the interest of adding to the resourcefulness of this awesome post (maybe my favorite of yours!), please consider the following:

    1.) Lord Acton's, "The History of Freedom and Other Essays"

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/acton-the-history-of-freedom-and-other-essays

    "The liberties of the ancient nations were crushed beneath a hopeless and inevitable despotism, and their vitality was spent, when the new power came forth from Galilee, giving what was wanting to the efficacy of human knowledge to redeem societies as well as men." - Acton, THoFi Antiquity

    "Cherishing their citizenship of a kingdom not of this world, they despaired of an empire which seemed too powerful to be resisted and too corrupt to be converted, whose institutions, the work and the pride of untold centuries of paganism, drew their sanctions from the gods whom the Christians accounted devils, which plunged its hands from age to age in the blood of martyrs, and was beyond the hope of regeneration and foredoomed to perish. They were so much overawed as to imagine that the fall of the State would be the end of the Church and of the world, and no man dreamed of the boundless future of spiritual and social influence that awaited their religion among the race of destroyers that were bringing the empire of Augustus and of Constantine to humiliation and ruin." Acton, THoFi Antiquity

    "In the height of their power the Romans became aware of a race of men that had not abdicated freedom in the hands of a monarch; and the ablest writer of the empire pointed to them with a vague and bitter feeling that, to the institutions of these barbarians, not yet crushed by despotism, the future of the world belonged. Their kings, when they had kings, did not preside at their councils; they were sometimes elective; they were sometimes deposed; and they were bound by oath to act in obedience with the general wish. They enjoyed real authority only in war." - THoFi Christianity

    ReplyDelete
  4. Continued...

    2.) Oliver J. Thatcher's, "A Source Book for Mediaeval History. Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age"

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/thatcher-a-source-book-for-mediaeval-history-selected-documents

    "Kings are chosen for their noble birth;2 military leaders for their valor. But the authority of the king is not absolute, and the war-leaders command rather by example than by orders, winning the respect and the obedience of their troops by being always in the front of the battle. . . . These troops are not made up of bodies of men chosen indiscriminately, but are arranged by families and kindreds, which is an added incentive for bravery in battle. So, also, the cries of the women and the wailing of children, who are taken along to battle, encourage the men to resistance." - Selections from the Germania of Tacitus, ca. 100 ad

    "[In the assemblies of the tribe,] minor affairs are discussed by the chiefs, but the whole tribe decides questions of general importance. These things, however, are generally first discussed by the chiefs before being referred to the tribe. They meet, except in the case of a sudden emergency, at certain fixed times, at the new or the full moon, for they regard these as auspicious days for undertakings. They reckon the time by nights, instead of by days, as we do. . . . One evil result arising from their liberty is the fact that they never all come together at the time set, but consume two or three days in assembling. When the assembly [4] is ready, they sit down, all under arms. Silence is proclaimed by the priest, who has here the authority to enforce it. The king or the leader speaks first, and then others in order, as age, or rank, or reputation in war, or eloquence may give them the right. The speakers depend rather upon persuasion than upon commands. If the speech is displeasing to the multitude, they reject it with murmurs; if it is pleasing, they applaud by clashing their weapons together, which is the kind of applause most highly esteemed." - Selections from the Germania of Tacitus, ca. 100 ad

    3.) And one final quote for the ladies out there.

    "It is of importance to repeat to those who are the advocates of rights founded on the past, that it is liberty which is ancient, and despotism which is modern. In all the European states founded at the commencement of the middle age, the power of the king was limited by that of the nobles. The Diets in Germany, in Sweden, in Denmark before its charter of servitude, the Parliaments in England, the Cortes in Spain, the intermediate bodies of all kinds in Italy, prove that the northern tribes brought with them institutions which confined the power to one class, but which were in no respect favorable to despotism." - Madam de Stael

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/556

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Don’t say “proportionality”; to turn this abstract idea into objective reality requires guidance not deducible from the NAP... To summarize: nothing stops the private property owner from shooting the child. He is sovereign on his property." - BM

    You knew I was gonna. =)

    The corollary of the principle of self-ownership is the mutual recognition of others as self-owners. Otherwise it wouldn't be a universal (or communal) principle but simply an egoist or Stirnerite maxim. The former principle does not justify the individual as sovereign, but rather the mutually recognized law which is above any given individual. The latter maxim, however, does support individual sovereignty and does suffer under your (and FvD's) critique. Where your critique fails is that Max Stirner's egoism is not synonymous with Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism.

    Underlying the principles of anarcho-capitalism is a deep-seated reciprocity. It's found in trade (I'll give you this, if you give me that), in rights (you own yourself, if I own myself), in defense (if you can defend your land, I can defend mine), and in punishment (eye for an eye). The seat of this Golden Rule goes so deep, its foundations may precede humanity itself. But regardless of how deep it goes, it is written in the nature of the human condition.

    Anarcho-capitalists recognize the NAP as the most consistent formulation of this natural reciprocity, or natural law, and those who do not see the merit of the European Middle Ages either don't know the real history, have a cultural distaste for this period, or otherwise fail to appreciate the degree to which this reciprocal natural law reigned during this period.

    "Thus, the whole spectrum of modern political thought from anarcho-libertarianism to absolutist statism formally fits the same idea of law... Modern anarcho-libertarianism has no logical objection to this" - FvD

    Anarcho-capitalism is not man-made law like that of the modern legislative or dictatorial state; it is the recognition of the natural law with the benefit of hindsight of thousands of years of history and hundreds of years of philosophical investigation.

    For the anarcho-capitalist, the law is above the individual (even while it guarantees his right of self ownership) just as it was under the Germanic kings and princes governed by the immaterial, faith bound, ecclesiastical right of resistance and the material, honor bound, Germanic right of resistance.

    Sorry for blowing up your site today. It's been a slow day at work, and I've been having a lot of fun. Lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “…in punishment (eye for an eye).”

      Doesn’t work. You poke out my eye, I get to poke out your eye. But you steal $10 from me, do I then get to steal $10 from you? That doesn’t make any sense – what kind of punishment is that? So, do I get my $10 and then another $10? But if so, then why didn’t I get to poke out both of your eyes. But that isn’t proportional – at least I can still see, but now you are blind. What is proportional about that?

      You rape my daughter. Do I get to rape your daughter? But what did your daughter have to do with any of this? So am I stuck doing the deed with you? Wow, which one of the two of us is being punished? Maybe I can use a broomstick (forgive my being graphic, but this idea that somehow the concept of proportionality can be deduced strictly from the NAP needs to be skewered). Vaseline on the broomstick? If so, how much would be “proportional”?

      Now, I am sure you can point me to something written by one of the very intellectual libertarian legal thinkers wherein all of this is logically and precisely addressed. Of course, this will be irrelevant to 7.5 billion people in the world (just like the possibility that their “proportional” might be quite different from my “proportional”), each one of which lives in a society that has worked through these things. Other than at the extremes (e.g. shooting a child for stealing an apple), many “punishments” for the exact same crime can be deemed “proportional,” depending on local custom – yet be deemed not “proportional” (or even aggression) in another society.

      So, does the property owner get to decide on his own? I say no - but then I have limited his property rights. But then who decides? On what basis? Because “an eye for an eye” doesn’t work.

      “Proportional” and punishment cannot be deduced from the NAP.

      Delete
    2. "You poke out my eye, I get to poke out your eye. But you steal $10 from me, do I then get to steal $10 from you?"

      My word clearly isn't (and shouldn't be) the final one on this subject, but I think there is a fundamental difference between these two scenarios. If you steal $10, whether or not you spend it, a proportional punishment, as far as I could tell, would be to either 1.) give me my $10 back plus interest accrued (at some reasonable rate) for the time period you deprived me of the $10, or 2.) you would need to give me $20 with the stipulation that I would return $10 of it to you after a period equivalent to the period I was deprived of my $10.

      In regards to poking out an eye, a proportional response would not be to deprive you of both your eyes since, I have only lost one. If you could have somehow stolen my eye while keeping it viable for reattachment, the punishment would be two eyes: one of which would be my own eye returned, and the other would be your eye kept viable for an equivalent duration that my eye was deprived me. But this is just a mental exercise in literal proportionality.

      "So am I stuck doing the deed with you? Wow, which one of the two of us is being punished? Maybe I can use a broomstick"

      How's the wine Bionic? Lol Prost! =) I think a civilized Christian society would not take the "eye for an eye" principle quite so literally, but I believe it would try to preserve it's proportional nature. Even among the "barbarians" they had the concept of the wergeld or 'man price.'

      I'm not denying the role of culture to define proportionality, but I'm convinced that proportional punishment is derivable from the NAP. I'm also not denying the role of culture in the definition of external property and aggression, but I'm convinced the NAP is irrefutable as a norm of human behavior.

      Private law societies or defense insurance companies will tend to delineate the intricacies of what is proportional, but they will have to cater to the widely held opinions in the cultures they serve.

      I don't see the antagonism between the recognition of the importance of culture and the validity of libertarian theory. The NAP is the skeleton and the culture is the flesh and blood. Without culture, the NAP is just a pile of lifeless bones. Without the NAP, or a conception of law approaching it, culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny.

      Delete
    3. "I'm not denying the role of culture to define proportionality, but I'm convinced that proportional punishment is derivable from the NAP."

      It will be derived differently in different cultures, and what will be acceptable in one cultural tradition will be deemed unacceptable in another while both may be not inconsistent with the NAP.

      Your own responses make this clear, and a brilliant libertarian legal theoritician's ability to put this in words better than you or I can won't change the reality of my response because his response will be irrelevant - if not unknown - to most people, to repeat:

      It will be derived differently in different cultures, and what will be acceptable in one cultural tradition will be deemed unacceptable in another while both may be not inconsistent with the NAP.

      Delete
    4. ATL,

      First of all, I would like to thank you for your many posts and references, in which I have learned much and "almost" always agree with. In regards to the question of "proportional punishment" especially your link to Kinsella and "A Libertarian Theory of Punishment", with which I generally agree.

      I also concur with your statement "The NAP is the skeleton and the culture is the flesh and blood. Without culture, the NAP is just a pile of lifeless bones. Without the NAP, or a conception of law approaching it, culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny. "

      I would add however that the NAP and "Property Rights" is the skeleton...." The combination, imo, is essential as one seems incomplete without the other. I'm "pretty sure", from your previous posts, that you also believe this. In fact I see the NAP as the safeguard of property rights and not the whole of libertarian philosophy.

      I respectfully disagree though that "I'm convinced that proportional punishment is derivable from the NAP." I cannot see any method or ability to reach that conclusion, without extreme mental and ethical gymnastics.

      In relation to your quote that "The NAP ( and property rights) is the skeleton and the culture is the flesh and blood...", I believe this fits with Bionics statement, with which I totally agree that ;

      "It (proportional punishment) will be derived differently in different cultures, and what will be acceptable in one cultural tradition will be deemed unacceptable in another while both may be not inconsistent with the NAP."

      This seems irrefutable to me and I thank both of you for providing the dialog which allowed me to reach this determination. This has also helped me to "believe" that Property Rights and the NAP, can be successfully utilized by "most" cultures in today's world to establish freedom.

      Bionic, what a wonderful community you have here. I often feel like I am a fly on the wall at a MENSA convention. Thank you for your time and commitment in providing such an experience!

      Tahn

      Delete
    5. Hi ATL,

      This is exactly the point..

      "Without the NAP, or a conception of law approaching it, culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny."

      ..among many other gripping issues, were the discussion here at BM's really gets interesting.

      I'd say that there was no NAP in sight in the stateless societies of medieval Europe. There was however something we might describe as Medieval Libertarianism. I wouldn't describe that culture as "just a sack of flesh".

      And standing up against the designs of tyranny was achieved pretty well back then, only with another backbone than the NAP, as described in the article.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    6. Hi Sag,

      I am not speaking for ATL, who needs no one to speak for him, imo but since I agreed with his statement above, I will defend it.

      He clearly stated "Without the NAP, "or a conception of law approaching it", culture is just a sack of flesh not capable of standing up against the designs of tyranny."

      I have not read (or remembered) Bionics summary of the exact principles involved in the medieval period of law, except that they were "old and good", based on customs and the king could enforce law but he could not create them.

      I would respectfully venture that these "laws" approached the NAP but did not totally equate with it, such as in the major requirement that the NAP applies equally to ALL. That may be one major reason why the medieval laws did not "stand up to the tyranny" of the nation state. The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all, may have a better deterrent on tyranny, at least I hope so.

      Bionic, please forgive me for not having a more complete grasp of exactly what the old and good laws and customs were. I will keep reading.

      Tahn

      Delete
    7. "The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all, may have a better deterrent on tyranny, at least I hope so."

      Imagine the level of tyranny required to bring this about.

      Delete
    8. "Imagine the level of tyranny required to bring this about."

      I see a group of free and independent people, united in defending a common principle (property rights and Non Aggression) as "Freedom" rather than tyranny.

      If it requires a tyranny to impose it, then it is not by definition, "Non Aggression" nor a free society.

      Tahn

      Delete
    9. "If it requires a tyranny to impose it, then it is not by definition, "Non Aggression" nor a free society."

      Without a tyranny to impose it, you will never have "The application of the Non Aggression Principle applying to "Everyone" (no exceptions) to protect the property rights of each and all..."

      You are a dreamer. Nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    10. LOL Bionic, I am a dreamer.

      I dream of a day when everyone treats their neighbor as they themselves want to be treated. I dream of a day when peace and harmony rules the world instead of war and conquest. I dream of a time when property rights are respected and non aggression is the law of humanity.

      And yes, I dream of ways to accomplish this, without force but by example and voluntary compliance.

      As Jefferson said, "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." But we must study the past, to know which dreams to pursue.

      I am a dreamer Bionic and I feel fortunate and blessed to be a dreamer of freedom, rather than an architect of tyranny.

      Just because I dream, doesn't mean the dreams can't come true.

      Thank you for the compliment Sir. I am honored.

      Tahn

      Delete
    11. Tahn,

      "I would respectfully venture that these "laws" approached the NAP but did not totally equate with it"

      You nailed it. I was drawn to the Middle Ages because of its stateless libertarian-ness, and as Bionic often says, it was the longest, most significant period of quasi libertarian society the world has ever known. I'm sure Sag will disagree with me, but I believe their political success (or freedom) was due in large part to their approximation of the NAP (regardless of their motivations), as evidenced by kings having to provide solemn oaths to their subjects and by these subjects swearing oaths to obey the king on the condition he holds to old and good custom.

      The right of resistance, whether from the Church or the Germanic pagans, is a recognition of the desirability or naturality of law approaching unanimous consent. The NAP is simply a universal guide for life by consent.

      Delete
    12. Hi Tahn

      Sure, always happy to disagree with you. That's how we progress in the end, right?

      So here's your assumption and it's not entirely inaccurate:

      "I'm sure Sag will disagree with me, but I believe their political success (or freedom) was due in large part to their approximation of the NAP"

      Your first sentence is right no matter what, since I have an axiom myself: always start by disagreeing with Tahn ;)

      But I think the disagreement is a bit more subtle. Forget about debatable points as to "how large a part," or the false dichotomy you seem to introduce between the Church on the one hand and Germanic "pagans" on the other etc. That's small beer as we say over here in our little Dutchie swampland.

      No, I could in fact travel a long way in your company and the approximation argument wouldn't be reason for us parting ways in the end. Reason would be that this "embedded NAP" as I would describe it, is something read into a culture of many centuries past. From medieval tradition/culture to the NAP however, is a one way street. And that's were we part ways, since you seem to argue that a deracinated/ deculturalized universally applicable (how?) NAP can or should be introduced in whatever cultural surroundings. I say it can't be done, because NAP outside of the libertarian test-tube is nothing, and besides I'm not at all sure it should be done (BM covered that, so I won't elaborate).

      -Sag.

      Delete
    13. Hi Sag,

      I always enjoy your posts as it gives me an opportunity to look up new words or phrases I am unfamiliar with, not that I will remember them but I find it interesting. Among them this time was "approximation argument" and "deracinated".

      However, since I didn't mention pagans in my post and ATL did, I perceive that you were addressing ATL, in your last post above, except perhaps for the part where I "believe" (I don't want to present an "ipse dixit" ;-) that the NAP is applicable to all societies and cultures worldwide.

      I do believe this.

      Show me a people, of whatever culture or nationality, that does not believe that they have an innate right to life, to their property and to the results of their honest toil? Show me a people who believe that someone else has the right to murder them, rob them, kidnap them or molest their families. Show me a people who believe they don't have a right to be secure in their homes? Oh, I'm sure there are many who have learned to accept such atrocities because they are not strong enough to prohibit them but they believe.

      I also believe that these feelings are universal among mankind, not a result of a particular culture. I mentioned previously the concept of "mala in se" versus "mala prohibita". "Mala in se " is explained by Wkipedia as something that "most people" believe is wrong, such as those I listed above. This universal belief in the right to life, liberty and happiness, is why I am convinced that most people and cultures would readily accept property rights, protected by the Non Aggression Principle, if they could be made to understand what it would do for them. Convincing statists is another matter of course, as most do not want to give up power.

      This is what I see as the major problem, spreading the understanding of libertarianism (free markets, property rights and the NAP) and more importantly, how to implement them into their societies, without it being perceived as a threat to their culture in general. LvMI has done a remarkable job of exploring all the variable and intricate details of the philosophy but I feel that more could be done to spread the actual basic concept, in plain language of the benefits.

      I realize that there are some who do not believe the concept is workable or if it was, would not actually be a benefit to Humanity but I believe both. Maybe the argument should be re-framed from "Non Aggression" to something like "Should anyone have the right to subject yourself and your family to robbery, home invasions and kidnapping, when you have harmed no one?" or something similar. The Magna Carta (I think) ignited a people by the simple concept of "Every mans home is his castle". That's the kind of meme we should be creating and spreading, IMHO.

      We should encourage succession and private communities based on private property and non aggression but it took a genius in the form of Professor Rothbard and others to formulate the concept and expecting others to work out a similar philosophy on their own is asking too much. Perhaps it did take an enlightened Western culture to formulate the concept but once it is put into a simple language, I believe that all humans everywhere would embrace it.

      Sag, let me ask you. "Should anyone have the right to subject yourself and your family to robbery, home invasions and kidnapping, when you have harmed no one?"

      Tahn

      Delete
    14. "The Magna Carta (I think) ignited a people by the simple concept of "Every mans home is his castle"."

      This concept was ignited long before the Magna Carta or any other written constitution. It was ignited in a people with a specific culture - one that didn't think in terms of the NAP, but in terms of liberty.

      It existed in England before the Norman invasion in the 11th century, and the Magna Carta was only required because of this invasion - when William II invaded the island and claimed all land was his.

      You are looking in the wrong places for "ignited" ideas. Why didn't such liberty "ignite" elsewhere around the world, and sustain itself for a millennia?

      All these universalist libertarians (who wanted to ignite, but didn't?) and ten thousand years of recorded history, and no other society organized in such a manner for any meaningful period.

      Just curious.

      Delete
    15. Bionic,

      As always, I thank you for your historical knowledge and for correcting mine.

      Am I wrong in perceiving that there is a difference between a culture that can discover and then articulate a concept but then having that concept "ignite" and spread to others that were perhaps unable to conceive the initial idea but could perceive that the concept was a good and valid one, that would benefit them and then implement it?

      Did not Christianity develop in a culture very different to that of the many places it spread?

      I am not disagreeing that the concept could have only been developed in the Christian Western culture (although I have no real knowledge of this) but I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it, while still retaining their "culture", as long as property rights and the NAP were superior.

      However, my main point was in hoping that the libertarian community could develop a catch phrase that could ignite people the way that "Every mans home is his castle" did. Is this classic phrase so very different from the concept of property rights and the Non aggression Principle?

      I am saying it poorly.

      Tahn

      Delete
    16. "...I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."

      2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess.

      Delete
    17. Hi Tahn (ATL)

      Silly me! Seems my axiom includes two people now ;) Where I was delighted to disagree with you, it now appears that it was ATL all along. Thank you for putting me straight.

      And indeed the last part of my comment really did apply to the point you have been making here at BM's, so not all of my effort was off target. Before I get back here to try and answer your question, there's one more addition to make, a FYI for both @ATL and you.

      I say this because i.m.o. it can not be stressed often enough, that Rothbard's NAP was based on his historical rendering of "individual natural rights" - a deviation from the medieval Natural Moral Order - in which he implicitly involved the post-Reformation individual. He then proceeded to strip even the "Arminian" Protestant residue (but a very important one!) of Locke away, and this natural rights distortion led to the formulation of his 20th C. libertarian theory, starting from the NAP (but ultimately not founded on it).

      So with this in mind one simply can not argue the case of "the NAP" being present in medieval society, because the type of human was firstly a product of the Reformation, and with the Reformation removed by Rothbard, the type of "individual" involved became even more artificial. That's why the NAP is a thoroughly sanitized and secularized construct, fit for abstract individuals, which unsurprisingly tends to stimulate visions of universal applicability. All on paper.

      -Sag.

      N.b.: @BM, at the LvMI; article titled "Is Libertarianism utopian?"; In the comments section, someone mentioned an Asian "stateless" culture/tradition called Zomia when I asked him to provide a non-Western libertarian example. Seemed like a variation on the Amish option. Asked him if he wanted to live there. He said no, but that it was beside the issue. Oh, well.. Perhaps something for your cross-cultural quest outside Western Civ.? Not convincing though i.m.o.

      Delete
    18. Here is "Zomia":

      http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/03/anarchy-unknown-ideal.html

      You will see that this was written more than six years ago and well before I began on this medieval journey.

      Also, given what I remember of it, it doesn't work for my quest: keeping in mind that it has been, obviously, a long time since I read the book, it was an anarchy "against" something (primarily the Han Chinese, as I recall), not so much "for" something; mostly describes a way of life of the periphery, in a land little desired and inaccessible - in other words, anarchy almost by default and life on the edges. I don't recall anything about a law that might be described "libertarian."

      Unlike the west, with the overriding and long lasting medieval culture grounded in the Germanic and Christian, the overriding and long lasting culture in the east was the Chinese; most definitely not libertarian.

      In some ways, it was the land that no longer exists: "anarchic" only because a state hadn't yet built a railroad yet to reach it. We might describe, in varying degrees, many aboriginal peoples in a similar way. Western Europe was reachable by all of the powers of Western Europe, yet retained this “libertarian” law.

      As to “would I live there”? Heck, I wouldn’t want to live in 1250 in Western Europe either – but my answer is obviously influenced by all that I am today. The more relative question: was there “law” that allowed man “liberty” and would I want to live under it? In Europe, the answer was clearly yes; in Zomia, I found no such “law” – and whatever the answer, Zomia was peripheral to the larger society.

      So, yes, in Zomia they lived in some form of anarchy; in Western Europe, the LIVED it. The first was almost by default, the second was actively defended.

      Delete
    19. "2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess."

      Bionic, Perhaps I was not clear or misunderstand you, either of which is quite possible.

      My understanding of libertarian history, esp. concerning Professor Rothbard, dates back only to the 1970's or so. This would be less than 50 years since conceived and has spread quite rapidly since, not 2000 years.

      Tahn

      Delete
    20. Tahn, you are too intelligent to be ignorant of the conversation that has taken place here over the last several years.

      What game is it that you keep playing here, because I do not believe you are an honest actor?

      Delete
    21. Bionic,

      Perhaps you are over estimating my intelligence or at least my ability to communicate but I am certainly not playing games, I'm trying to understand.

      As I understand this discussion, on my July 9, 7:27pm post, (above in this thread) I suggested that there was a difference between the genius of developing the concept of Non Aggression and the abilities of others to accept it.

      The paragraph which you extracted that one line from was :
      " I am not disagreeing that the concept could have only been developed in the Christian Western culture (although I have no real knowledge of this) but I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it, while still retaining their "culture", as long as property rights and the NAP were superior."

      You then replied in your July 9, 8:46 pm post: (first quoting me)
      "...I am saying that once developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."

      - "2000 years and no other examples. Sure, anything is possible...I guess. "

      This is what confused me as I was referring to the creation of the NAP in the 1970's. In re-reading this I should have stated "I am saying that once (the NAP) developed, other cultures can assimilate and adopt it..."

      I don't believe that my lack of a clear statement or my follow up request for clarification, should lead to your accusation of me "playing games" and certainly not the accusation of "not being an honest actor".

      Having said that, this is your property Bionic and I totally respect that, so if you would like me to withdraw from commenting on your blog, I most certainly will. No need for incorrect insults to achieve that, although I do apologize for my lack of education and my ability to properly articulate my thoughts and very much appreciate your tolerating my questions and point of view, which you have never failed to answer or post.

      Tahn

      In re-reading my above response, I really believe that I am not to to the level of thought and conversation which is evident here. Thank you Bionic for everything.

      Delete
  6. Bionic,

    Thank you for this post and to all of the related links, which I am slowly perusing. Your knowledge of history and your sharing of it is appreciated.

    A question please: Have you found any link between the slow erosion of "ownership" of property by individuals exclusively, compared to "ownership" of property by entities other than individual humans (church, state, etc.) and a similar slow erosion of "freedom", whether causal or otherwise?

    Tahn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure I am following your question. Clearly, during the Middle Ages, much wealth was concentrated in monasteries. This contributed to the ability of the Church to play its role in governance.

      After the Reformation, and certainly in the Protestant areas, this property was taken from the Church.

      So beyond such basic statements, I would really need to understand your question before saying anything more.

      Delete
    2. I "perceive" from my uneducated perspective, that "ownership" in property evolved from that of (1.) an individual exclusively (to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of ownership), to that of (2) an "organization" (church, state or other) to "owning" property.

      I was wondering if there was some correlation of "non-human" ownership, to the loss of individual freedoms.

      I really apologize for my lack of the correct language in describing my question but I "feel" there is perhaps, a direct analogy between the granting of property rights to "non humans" (as in created entities ) and the destruction of freedom and the subjugation of human beings to a superior entity, whether church, state or corporation.

      It's a question of "property rights" that I know I am not asking correctly. Please excuse my awkwardness.

      Tahn

      Delete
    3. Tahn, it seems to me clear that an individual is free to donate property, pool his property together with another for a common purpose, etc.

      Now, as to whom or what this property is donated (a church) and / or in what form of entity is the property pooled (a corporation, or partnership - and I will stay away from the lack of personal liability issues brought forward via the concept of today's corporation)....

      I think all that matters is the purpose to which the new entity puts the property. For simplicity, I will use the NAP as the ethical boundary: if they are using the property consistent with the NAP, I see no issue; if they are violating the NAP with the property, there is an issue.

      Underlying all of this: I don't see how society would ever advance beyond bare subsistence absent the pooling of property. I think I am on quite solid ground suggesting that the monasteries of the Middle Ages - with pooled property of the voluntary donations from nobles and hard work of the monks - were a fundamental factor in both the intellectual and material progress of Europe through this time.

      Delete
    4. Tahn, are you thinking of the Pareto principle and or the power-law?

      If so, then I believe you are right. Granting property rights to 'legal entities' will tend to accumulate wealth in institutions like the church. In fact without a redistribution principle all wealth would eventually end up in the hands of a single entity.

      Delete
    5. Bionic,

      I certainly agree with you that donations, pooled resources etc. to or with another human are well within the rights of libertarian philosophy and the results of such shared resources and labor, as you represented by your reference of the nobles and monks, often results in a superior project.

      My question was if in your reading, you had determined any perceived relationship between the rise of "non human" entities owning property and a subsequent loss of personal freedoms or rights. Since libertarianism is based on property rights, this question interests me.

      I have long felt, that governments and/or corporations have a distinct advantage over us mortals in their extensive life spans and perhaps the nation state formed themselves to combat the longevity of religious orders. Certainly modern business has had to invent new methods of combat, such as L.L.C's and other measures but as you mentioned, they often lack personal liability or moral responsibilities, just as government does.

      Somehow, the whole "created entities that outlive us" thing, to me, stinks in relation to their "rights" and certainly to their ownership of property. With the rise of AI and robotics, this can bring a whole new set of problems, such as a self aware robot claiming "personhood".

      I would be perfectly fine (I think) with all property rights being confined to humans. If there are going to be self aware robots or large business entities, let them be property, owned by a human who is also responsible for it. Thank you for answering my inquiry and sharing your historical knowledge and thoughts of this period of human history, which from your writings, certainly seems to show that "something" happened, both to increase human freedoms for a time and then to limit them.

      Tahn

      Delete
    6. Rien,

      I was unaware of the Pareto principle. Thank you!

      Tahn

      Delete
    7. Tahn

      “My question was if in your reading, you had determined any perceived relationship between the rise of "non human" entities owning property and a subsequent loss of personal freedoms or rights.”

      I cannot say that I have read on this point specifically. I can say that it is a problem in direct proportion to the amount of state intervention in the markets. Just for one example: would corporations exist in their current forms with their current legal protections absent state intervention in markets? This one questions raises dozens of points of analysis which – in my opinion – suggest that such entities do contribute to a loss of personal freedom and are able to do so solely due to state intervention in markets.

      “Somehow, the whole "created entities that outlive us" thing, to me, stinks in relation to their "rights" and certainly to their ownership of property.”

      Maybe. I guess it depends on what basis this occurs. A transcendent Church occurred organically – no king passed a law on this point; in fact, where possible, laws were passed to diminish the role of the Church.

      Corporations and the like? Again I revert to my earlier answer. If such a thing as the modern corporation could have occurred organically, I would find no reason to protest. But I think the evidence is clear that this isn’t the case – and, in fact, the state passes laws to defend the modern corporation and to ensure and protect its existence.

      Delete
    8. Tahn,

      "I was unaware of the Pareto principle"

      See Murray's essay, 'Toward a Reconstruction of Welfare Economics'

      “What [Lionel] Robbins actually accomplished was to reintroduce Pareto’s Unanimity Rule into economics and establish it as the iron gate where welfare economics must test its credentials. This Rule runs as follows: We can only say that “social welfare” (or better, “social utility”) has increased due to a change, if no individual is worse off because of the change (and at least one is better off). If one individual is worse off, the fact that interpersonal utilities cannot be added or subtracted prevents economics from saying anything about social utility” - Rothbard

      "Therefore, the very fact that an exchange takes place demonstrates that both parties benefit (or more strictly, expect to benefit) from the exchange. The fact that both parties chose the exchange demonstrates that they both benefit. The free market is the name for the array of all the voluntary exchanges that take place in the world. Since every exchange demonstrates a unanimity of benefit for both parties concerned, we must conclude that the free market benefits all its participants. In other words, welfare economics can make the statement that the free market increases social utility, while still keeping to the framework of the Unanimity Rule" – Rothbard

      https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1

      Delete
    9. Thank you ATL,

      I have added that to my reading list, although I am convinced that voluntary, exchange via a free market is the absolute best method of allowing all to prosper and I also believe the Welfare State is both immoral and inefficient, except in keeping people depending on the state, to their detriment.

      Tahn

      Delete
  7. Bionic, I think youre absolutely right that the Medieval era gets a bad rap - and mostly because the nationalist Protestant historians who followed it worked on behalf of the political power structures which displaced medieval ones. Medieval society was neither irrational nor anti-scientific contrary to what post Enlightenment historians would have us believe. In fact the scientific method developed out of the rules of evidence requirements in the Catholic courts of Inquisition: Did the smallest set of disinterested and mutually exclusive facts convincingly establish the accused's guilt ? Science merely borrowed this idea and applied it to theories about natural phenomenon.

    I think in general terms political power in the Medieval era was limited to territorial control while the Catholic Church regulated society, administered social governance. It is when territories grew in size so that their borders approximate modern nation states that political power expropriated the social regulatory power of the church. I think we see this in the reign of Henry 8. I think that is the reason political power of the Medieval Era appears relatively benign in comparison to that of the modern nation state. What I cannot quite work out however in your original and thought provoking posts is this: I understand libertarianism's goal as the elimination of all political power in favor of the consumer controlled free market free enterprise society of voluntary transactions. What I sense in your writing however is an assertion that some form of political power must remain present in order to see to it that society develops properly, in order to ensure the preservation of culture, virtue, decency, morality and so on. It is as if you sense an inherent defect in a pure free market society which, whatever other marvels it bequeaths us, runs the risk of collapsing into cultural barbarism. In brief you oppose the State, yet support the creation of other smaller political structures, perhaps informed by the culture of Medieval Europe, as being essential
    for the stability of virtuous society. For you the problem is more a kind of reform of political power rather than its elimination ? Does that synopsis do your point of view any justice ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “What I sense in your writing however is an assertion that some form of political power must remain present in order to see to it that society develops properly, in order to ensure the preservation of culture, virtue, decency, morality and so on.

      “For you the problem is more a kind of reform of political power rather than its elimination? Does that synopsis do your point of view any justice?”

      Victor, this is a very good question. From a practical standpoint, I don’t see an escape from political power (this doesn’t mean I advocate for it). I have said often (and stole the idea from Ryan McMaken at LvMI): libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice. In other words, I support every act of political decentralization, as this gives people more choice as to which governance scheme they choose to live under. I think this is certainly what the west is going through today.

      Now…philosophically…if culture has to be defended by “force” as in, some form of state, then no – I don’t support this view. Frankly, it would be enough if the state didn’t work to destroy culture – with all of its culture-destroying subsidies and initiatives.

      Now, I am getting ahead of myself as I haven’t worked through all of this in my head or in my studies. So, I will offer a glimpse of what I today only very vaguely see….

      Culture must be defended by example built on a solid foundation. Ideally Christian leaders would lead here, but most do a poor job, and the larger the flock the worse job they do…it seems. Some would say that the possibility is lost forever now that Christendom is fractured into 1000 pieces. Maybe so…infinitely way above my pay grade; this is one of those things in God’s hands.

      Culture must be defended by ostracizing, by not subsidizing (via forced funding of) culture-destroying behaviors. Absent the subsidy, the culture will take care of itself, because then only life-enhancing traditions would survive – by definition. In the west, what are those life-enhancing traditions? These are to be found in the best of traditional western civilization – and I believe these would come to the fore absent subsidy.

      But until Christian leaders lead, I don’t see this happening – this is why I say the proper culture must come first, before we are ever to get good law. For sure I don’t see it happening at the end of a gun. During the Middle Ages, the Church did not do it this way.

      Jesus didn’t do it this way, and look at the success He has had.

      With all of this said, I will settle for continued political decentralization. It would just be nice if I find a polity that views sex orgies on the front lawn to be unacceptable.

      Delete
    2. Hi Victor

      Good one indeed.

      "For you the problem is more a kind of reform of political power rather than its elimination? Does that synopsis do your point of view any justice?"

      Possible answer, phrased in "medievallian":

      Political power (governance) should be as decentralized as possible and always subservient to the Natural Moral Order of persons (rather than prot. "individuals") i.e. the framework or common "conscience" handed by the medieval Church.

      In such an environment, that of the convivial order, a genuinely free market would flourish and serve society.

      When I imagine a tabula rasa scenario, with all of bussiness having to start from scratch, then free markets would go a long way towards a free society. Whether it would suffice, I'm not sure though.

      Back to the not so decentralized here and now. With the Sorosses of this world working 24/7 towards their distopian "order out of chaos," what would happen if the state were abolished/"self-destructs" as we're all hoping for? Markets will guide us? Or will they be guided by powers no longer in need of the State to further their interests and agenda?

      -Sag.

      Delete
    3. Victor, I will add two thoughts:

      1) There are times when culture must be defended with a punch in the nose - not by a "state" or smaller political body, but by a husband in defense of his wife's honor.

      2) Culture can also be defended by a polity deciding who is or is not allowed to take up residence within that polity (best example might be Swiss Cantons). To put this in "libertarian" terms, consider it a homeowner's association with the right to decide who moves into the neighborhood (perfectly valid within the NAP).

      Delete
    4. Yeah bionic some sort of private club model could play the behavioral / disciplinary role now played crudely and ineptly by the state. Hoppe's private and privately supervised residential neighborhoods come to mind. If you have a bad reputation you are denied admittance. If you behave badly you get thrown out. Private club based society really encourages developing a good reputation and makes it very costly and inconvenient not to.

      Delete
    5. Victor, I believe for such a "private club model" to remain "libertarian" requires something transcendent, something beyond the values of the living members.

      Think about organizational transition; think about all of the think tanks that have lost their way after the founder or first generation has passed on.

      The examples are countless and demonstrate clearly, it seems to me, that absent something transcendent - something guiding the leadership beyond the goodwill of the existing members - such "private clubs for liberty" will not last long.

      Sure, they all had Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, etc. – in other words, the exact requirements for a “private law society” envisioned by many libertarians: “oh, just sign a contract.”

      Yet these “contracts” failed to protect the Mission beyond one lifetime.

      Delete
    6. Yeah yeah youre right. Big corporations deal with this problem by bidding up the price of good CEO's. Or good CEO's vie for control of companies which have lost their way. Apple nearly failed after it threw out Jobs. Jobs eventually returned and eventually launched iPhone. While nothing is certain in free market free enterprise society incentives act to get things right and put thing to right when they go astray.

      With regards to fostering a noble and ennobling transcendent vision of life, for experiencing in life the sense of being in an enchanted and sacred realm which evidently was commonplace in Medieval Europe - that may no longer be possible in modern society. In fact that is the real reason the Church opposed the publicizing of Galileo's sun centered universe. The Church correctly anticipated that a world re-ordered in scientific terms would make it impossible for the world to be experienced in sacred terms. All we have now is a profession of faith. Protestantism has become the spectacle of publicly proclaiming you have faith the world is divine. The direct experience of the world as divine, commonplace in the Medieval Era, is long gone.

      Delete
    7. Victor

      "The direct experience of the world as divine, commonplace in the Medieval Era, is long gone."

      Not sure about this emphasis on "enchanted" or "sacred" experientialism (sounds like the William James protestant portrayal of religion). Anyhew, the most prominent view of the world in medieval times was that of a world created by a reasonable being, and thus intelligible by (partly) reasonable creatures. The medieval age of Reason, so to speak, and in certain parts of Europe the age of "Libertarianism."

      -Sag.

      Delete
    8. Victor, these various foundations and think tanks with assets in the hundreds of millions or billions are unable to solve this riddle, and you dismiss this with a "yeah yeah."

      And libertarians wonder why few people take them seriously.

      As to your comments regarding science and reason during the Middle Ages, the situation was not so simple.

      Delete
  8. Excellent clarifying and summation post (of sorts). Nice to see it all in one. I really do need to read more by FvD. I know your too read pile/list is heavy, but I did come across a book at a used bookshop on vacation that may need to be added to your list.

    Liberty and Order in Early Modern Europe: The Subject and the State, 1650-1800 - Joe Shennan (1986)

    From his obituary in The Guardian a few years back (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/03/joe-shennan)

    "This also surfaced in two works on a wider scale: The Origins of the Modern European State, 1450-1725 (1974) and Liberty and Order in Early Modern Europe: The Subject and the State, 1650-1800 (1986). In the former, Joe considered how the traditional princely power characteristic of medieval Europe came to be superseded by manifestations of a modern conception of the state as something impersonal or abstract. This process was gradual, uneven, and still in its infancy by his closing date of 1725. By then, nevertheless, the notion of a state possessing an existence distinct from both ruler, however powerful, and subjects, while claiming the loyalty of both, was decisively gaining ground among both theorists and practitioners of politics.

    He argued that the principal engines of this process were not the socio-economic forces that preoccupied so many historians of his generation, so much as international conflict and commercial rivalries. These forces allowed “princes” to exercise their individual and reciprocal ambitions, increase their own powers, and exert transformative pressures on their realms and subjects.

    A vital thread within this story of “state-building”, according to Joe, was the long-running and sinuous duel explored in his next book. The emergence of modern government involved, among other things, the erosion or downright destruction by centralising rulers of old liberties – those of hierarchical “estates”, such as the clergy, nobility and commoners in pre-revolutionary France, corporate bodies, and communities large and small. Into this space flowed new ideas of individual freedom and rights, presenting rulers with new challenges in their defence – whether dutiful or self-interested – of order. He concluded that in this struggle it was indisputably, and perhaps inevitably, order that tended to prevail, leaving only private thought as an area of inalienable personal freedom. His regret at a conclusion he regarded as bearing on the present and future, as well as the past, was undisguised."

    Sound familiar?

    -M

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this. Sounds like he has walked the ground I am currently walking.

      Yes, unfortunately too many books, too much work, too many other responsibilities....

      Delete
  9. BM,

    I noticed that you're back on Lew Rockwell's (weekend edition) with this article. The subtitle even read "Heroic!"

    What does it refer to. An added nickname of sorts? Heroic Bionic?

    Anyway, nice to see it there.

    -Sag.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sag, what Lew decides to publish and how he presents it on the opening page I leave to him, and am always grateful when he picks something up.

      I cannot answer the intent behind this phrasing.

      Delete
  10. IMO, If real-world libertarian societies are gonna happen, it'll only be in relatively small enclaves, such as we see with Amish, Mennonites, etc. Perhaps we'll see some heroic attempts to form somewhat workable virtual communities via technology, but it's likely they'll fizzle quickly. In any case, methinks that a sustained move into the direction we hope for can only really take hold if hundreds of thousands of such small, tightly-knit communities spring up everywhere. http://www.jakubw.com/2013/12/why-almost-everyone-believes-in.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Storey here, author of the original article. Many thanks for your interest and for contributing. I am currently writing my second book on the legal philosophy of FvD so please keep in touch -- my email is: richardjastorey@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Richard

      Great to hear from you here at BM's. If ever you'd need assistance re: Frank van Dun's work in Dutch (>English), please let me know.

      -Sag. (Richard)

      Delete