Posts
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood
I have borrowed the title of Frost’s poem; it is also the
chapter title from Gerard Casey’s book, Freedom’s
Progress?, in which he discusses the political philosophy of Johannes
Althusius.
A brief introduction from Casey:
Daniel Elazar notes, and I believe
he is correct in this, that the Althusian view lost out to the Bodinian view of
‘reified centralized states where all powers were lodged in a divinely ordained
king at the top of the power pyramid or in a sovereign center.’
Had the Althusian and not the
Bodinian conception of the locus of sovereignty prevailed, the course of
political history might have been very different.
Different…how? Bodin
gave us the centralized and sovereign State; Althusius offered instead a
decentralized and voluntary polity. This
idea has attracted me to study the thought of Althusius more closely, given
that decentralization is libertarian theory put into practice.
Further, Althusius is writing at a time after the
Reformation, after the decentralizing benefits of a unified Christendom are
lost; he is constructing a political theory that captures the decentralization
of medieval Europe without the benefit of the competing governance authority of
the Church. This is even a more
significant issue today as the West no longer even has the benefit of a dis-unified Christendom.
I grant up front: the lack of even a dis-unified Christendom
(more specifically, the lack of faithful Christian leaders in the West) – let alone
the loss of a unified Christendom – seems to me to be the issue that makes moving toward sustainable liberty impossible. Given that eventually we will have faithful
Christian leaders, developing decentralized political theory is a worthwhile
endeavor.
Politica:
Politics Methodically Set Forth and Illustrated with Sacred and Profane
Examples, by Johannes Althusius (Edited and translated by Frederick S.
Carney). I will begin with some introductory
comments from Carney, who begins by noting that Althusius’ thought remained in
obscurity for two centuries – when it was revived by Otto Gierke in the
nineteenth century. Gierke saw in
Althusius’ thought…
…something of a culmination of
medieval social thought and a watershed of modern political ideas. The chief features of this theory, Gierke
felt, were to be found in its contractual and natural law principles.
Althusius, born in Westphalia in 1557, was a Calvinist; yet
in his thought one will find commonality with the Spanish school of social philosophy
at Salamanca. He received his doctorate in
Basle in both civil and ecclesiastical law in 1586. Eventually becoming the Syndic of Emden, he
exercised an influence there similar to the influence Calvin had in Geneva.
The purpose of political science,
according to Althusius, is the maintenance of social life among human beings.
This is described by Althusius as “symbiotics”…
“…the art of associating men for
the purpose of establishing, cultivating, and conserving social life among
them.”
Althusius has no interest in theories about human rights; instead,
his focus is on the question: does the association – any association – fulfill the
purpose for which it was formed? He opposes
tyrannical rule not because it is tyrannical, but because it is ineffective in
supporting the purposes for which men joined together.
Persons enter and remain in
association with each other because outside of the mutual communication of
things, services, and right they cannot live comfortably and well; indeed, they
cannot live at all.
Yet, foundational to Althusius’ view is that each
association remains voluntary – initiated and maintained via a covenant among
the “symbiotes.” The foundational
association is the family. Althusius
sets forth the obligations that a husband owes to a wife, a wife to the
husband, and the kinship obligations that both owes to their family.
I know that this last bit is hard to swallow for many
libertarians. If you are one of these, I
cannot help you. Either one finds in the
family the fundamental building block of a functional and free society, or one doesn’t.
All is not sweetness and light in Althusius’ world:
Althusius’ discussion of the
province contains one of the few basic inconsistencies in the elaboration of
his political system. For the ruler of
the province is responsible not to the organized community over which this
person presides, as is the case in all other associations, but to the supreme
magistrate of the commonwealth.
Had Althusius won out over Bodin, I suspect this defect would
have been corrected by now – in practice, if not in theory. Where Bodin placed the authority over the
commonwealth in an individual or the state, Althusius placed it in the people –voluntarily
joined – as a whole. For this reason, if
the province (provincial leader) does not fulfill the purpose for which it was
formed, those within the province are free to secede.
As to the administration of the commonwealth, the supreme
magistrate should be guided by political prudence. His discussion here is guided by his
knowledge of both the law and the contingent circumstances to which law is to
be applied:
The discussion of law at this point
is an extended treatment of the relation of the Decalogue to natural law, and
of the role of these two together as common law in the formulation of proper law
for particular societies.
If one becomes a tyrant after gaining legitimate title to
this supreme office, he is to be resisted by – and only by – those public authorities to whom this authority has
been entrusted. Yes, I see libertarian
eyes rolling here. But I suggest:
whatever the words say – whether those of Althusius, those of the US
Constitution, or those of any one of the dozens of contracts or agreements one
enters into in life – there is no hope for proper governance unless the nobles
act noble. And, for this reason (among others), I keep
returning to the idea that there is no hope for liberty unless Christian
leaders actually act like Christians.
Althusius draws on Aristotle and Cicero, Spanish Catholic writers
on constitutional government, writers such as Botero and Lipsius who find
common interest in political prudence, legal writers including Bartolus and
Gail, Calvinist theologians, historians who were expert in ancient Israel and
Rome, and finally, several opponents in political theory.
Conclusion
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Unfortunately we did not follow Mr. Frost’s example.
The more you write about this Althusius character the more I like him.
ReplyDeleteWe need to keep the discussion going about how to decentralize and how that means alternative power structures. Individuals don't have power unless they are bound together for some cause. But then how do we still honor individual freedom and respect? I think the community here has the best ideas on how that can happen.
I’d like to understand what is meant by “decentralization.” If the word references decentralized political power, then the word references “democracy,” as there is no further decentralization of political power possible than a numerical superiority using political power to impose their preferences on the rest.
DeleteIf the word references “secession,” then how does breaking up a large nation into several smaller nations change the political structure, without further consideration of what the new structures will be.
For example, I read an article at Mises.org written by someone familiar with the situation, that Catalonia is a majority socialist population, wishing to secede from socialist Spain. How does using the word “decentralization” as a reference only to secession, alter either population’s preference for a socialist political system.
At the moment I consider the word as something invented by a thought leader, as Bionic aptly labels them, referencing an alternate reality, with an alternate form of human beings, acting just as expected. Yet, many very popular libertarians use the word as a solution to socialism. What am I missing?
I don't view it as a solution to socialism; after all, what if the people who wish to secede desire to live in a socialist polity? Who are libertarians to say that they cannot establish governance as they choose.
DeleteIf you are interested in an honest discussion on this topic, start here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/10/mes-que-un-club.html
I am terribly sorry. In that peculiar internet way in which one reads a blog author and comments and thinks of all as friends, I did not think about the fact that while I know your goals and values, as you have published them for me to read, you know nothing of mine. Let me clear that up. My preferred political relationship is stateless libertarianism.
DeleteMy intention is to ask some questions here, in hopes the answers reconcile indecision on a few conclusions I have made in my own pursuit of truth, as I have no libertarians available for discussion, other than on the internet. I want to ask these questions whenever they coincide with your articles and discussions.
I chose this group because I have been reading this blog for years, and despise, as does everyone here, the current postmodern indoctrination of successive generations with the idea that everyone can magically create their own reality and populate it with people acting just as each expects as the resolution to social and political disagreement. That, not you folks, was the target of the snarky comment in my initial comment; I was aiming my wrath at an education system serving themselves and their political paymasters with postmodern propaganda.
I share your group’s valued end relationship of separate, values oriented communities reconciling the social hostility of value differences, in which each chooses to tolerate value differences only when personal rewards are greater than intolerant separation. This was established with a post of yours, in which you imaginatively created exactly this and some thought this community existed and wanted to move there. (I can’t find that article now.) I often disagree on means selected as inadequate for stated ends.
I’ll start again, if you’ll permit, with this article and “Mes Que un Club,” as well as Marta Hildago’s article on Mises, which is the article of which I was thinking.
DeleteThis statement, a quote from Jeff Deist, in “Més Que un Club:” “For libertarians, self-determination is the highest political end, In political terms, self-determination is liberty.…..The often misused term for this degree of complete self-determination is anarchy.”
Agree that complete self determination defines stateless libertarian anarchy, (not the bomb throwing statist coercion redefined as anarchy.) Disagree that self determination is a valued end that can be pursued. Have concluded instead, that self determination is an immutably universal human characteristic that is the universal origin of human action, altered with nothing less than omnipotence.
From this perspective liberty is not a shared value, but a shared means; for stateless libertarians that is absolute freedom from coercion as the specific form of interaction necessary to the stateless libertarian shared end value, that of peaceful co-existence.
With your comment, I also disagree, that “Hidalgo argues for the other side – Catalan must not be allowed even a vote to secede. “ Her argument is the opposite: “I want freedom for Catalonia, and if it means they are out of Spain, so be it. But it must be done legally.” The last sentence I understood to be non-violent legal secession, as opposed to a revolution, inevitably destroying that which Catalonians wish to preserve, many of their lives and much of their profits and property.
Agree with your paragraph, “Perfect libertarianism will be achieved when every single individual has complete, autonomous authority over every decision regarding his life and property – as long as he does not initiate aggression against another in exercising this authority. This suggests something like seven billion political jurisdictions.”
This is the perfect apolitical, zero coercion of stateless libertarianism, however. I disagree that statists can apply stateless solutions to state issues. My reason is the opposing forms of defense between the two. The confusion of state and stateless solutions by the current LP is responsible for its recent disintegration, especially the contention over immigraton policy caused by confusing stateless DIY defense with the statist necessity for border surrounded national defense. This is also a conclusion of which I am not entirely certain. When immigration is again addressed in an article, I’ll ask for reconciliation. But I’d appreciate comments on rest, whether agreement or disagreement.
jr
Delete“My preferred political relationship is stateless libertarianism.”
Of course, I am sure that you accept that others may not choose the same political relationship.
“My intention is to ask some questions here…”
I do not see any questions, just statements. It isn’t clear to me exactly how to proceed, but I will do my best.
“I share your group’s valued end relationship of separate, values oriented communities reconciling the social hostility of value differences…”
This is a helpful statement, as it gives me some orientation to your overall view. But I will suggest that just as people might have preferences regarding different social relationships, they might also have preferences regarding different political relationships. Further, they might use political means not deemed as “libertarian” by those outside of the group to ensure that the group remains true to its desired social and political relationships (see Hoppe).
“(I can’t find that article now.)”
Here it is:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/07/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire.html
“Disagree that self determination is a valued end that can be pursued.”
Please note clearly what Deist wrote: “For libertarians, self-determination is the highest political end.” It is the highest political end, but this does not mean it is the highest end one might choose in life. This highest political end leaves the most room for an individual to pursue his own highest ends.
“Have concluded instead, that self determination is an immutably universal human characteristic…”
I get nervous when I read sentences like this, as they come close to sounding like “being free from want, in order to make my self-determined life come to fruition.” Very socialist, or at least left-libertarian.
“…that is the universal origin of human action, altered with nothing less than omnipotence.”
Also altered by the real-world. Choices have to be made. While political self-determination may be immutable, the hunger in my belly and the desire to live in peace with my neighbors might be even more immutable.
“From this perspective liberty is not a shared value, but a shared means”
I believe this is consistent with Deist’s statement.
“Her argument is the opposite: “But it must be done legally.””
Her “legally” argument was that the legislature in Madrid must approve the secession. Look at her requirement: “To change the current political system, a referendum should start in the national Congress, with a law approved by the absolute majority in Parliament.”
Is this what you agree with? If so, you will never find a national legislature in the world willing to allow you self-determination.
“The last sentence I understood to be non-violent legal secession, as opposed to a revolution…”
Of course, if the national government respected the people, then there would be no need for revolution.
“…inevitably destroying that which Catalonians wish to preserve, many of their lives and much of their profits and property.”
What if they wish to preserve their own desired polity even more than preserving their profits and property? Are you placing your values on others?
“I disagree that statists can apply stateless solutions to state issues.”
I do not understand at all your point.
So enemies, not allies. Ok, I have a quiver full of snark arrows and can give as good as I’ve gotten. (Sprinkled with question marks, as requested. )
Delete“Her “legally” argument was that the legislature in Madrid must approve the secession. Look at her requirement: “To change the current political system, a referendum should start in the national Congress, with a law approved by the absolute majority in Parliament. Of course, if the national government respected the people, then there would be no need for revolution.”
Did you happen to notice that this is my argument against statism? Hidalgo’s argument is that Catalonia would lose a revolution, as the rest of Spain has better weapons and more soldiers. My take on her article is that she is trying to prevent tragedy for Catalonia.
I see no difference between “legislature approving secession” and “To change the current political system, a referendum should start in the national Congress, with a law approved by the absolute majority in Parliament.”
Would you explain the difference? Have you noticed that all states have the same legal prohibitions against revolution?
“Of course, I am sure that you accept that others may not choose the same political relationship.”
Of course, I do not, as when collectivists consume, without replacement, all available resources in their own countries, they will invade any productive area on the planet, on the pretext of saving the world from “capitalist exploitation.” State and stateless libertarians can certainly co-exist side by side, until the libertarian state is transformed into a welfare state. Because this: No matter how limited initially, “When legal coercion is offered, the offer is irresistible for all but those who know that the consequences of politicized theft are the same mass starvation as would arrive with undeterred criminal theft.” That infers a global majority, due to the reach of modern weapons, must recognize these inevitable consequences, before anyone is free to pursue a preferred political relationship, or anarchy, neither of which can be collectivist, nor any degree of coercion more than state libertarianism. Do you agree or not? If not, what degree of state coercion or zero stateless coercion, will achieve your preferred political relationship? (Yes, I know that’s as impossible as your attempt to convince all Americans to accept Christianity and European cultural traditions.) Did you ever notice, postmodernism's propaganda aside, that cultural traditions, like turkey dinners and Christmas, can’t be oppressive?
“Please note clearly what Deist wrote: “For libertarians, self-determination is the highest political end.” It is the highest political end, but this does not mean it is the highest end one might choose in life. This highest political end leaves the most room for an individual to pursue his own highest ends.”
Please note clearly what I wrote: “Disagree that self determination is a valued end that can be pursued.” I am not criticizing anyone, yet you seem to be defending people, not opposing my conclusions. Why is that? Seems to me, the people that need defending are Jeff Deist, HHH and your old self from your new self.
_I_ am looking for the truth. My incentive is that human beings do not have survival instincts, but must use knowledgeable predictions, originating from experiences derived, not just from self, but from a perpetually increasing store of experiential knowledge gathered by all people who ever lived. This knowledge is that of the nature of all acting entities, allowing everyone to accept life preserving opportunities and avoid life threatening circumstances, in order to survive and thrive. As all of this knowledge is now on the internet, every individual can take an electronic device anywhere in the world and know what to do, _before_ personally confronting any danger, human, plant and animal.
DeleteTherefore any errors, especially errors unwittingly mistaken for knowledge, concerning what exists immutably and what can be altered by human action, are life threatening, sometimes fatal. This is why no one mistakes the nature of a rattlesnake with that of a bunny rabbit, no one plays monopoly with lions, drives a rose bush to work, nor negotiates with gravity for a degree of weightlessness allowing self propelled human flight. This is also why we can all fly, anyway, once someone discovered forward motion lessens the effects of gravity. You’ve read Ayn Rand; she quotes Francis Bacon’s famous recognition of “Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed.” What do you find wrong with that?
“The Truth,” is not, however, a single revelation, blinking on a neon sign discovered by following Diogenes. It is a gradual lifelong process by which accepted errors, one’s own and those of education, formal and parental, are discovered to be errors and discarded. This process continues until one possesses a mind in which no conclusion contradicts any other conclusion inside one’s mind, and all conclusions represent, rather than contradict, the circumstances existing outside all minds. Is that what you are doing, or something else? If the latter what?
Cont'd....
DeleteI disagree that statists can apply stateless solutions to state issues.” “I do not understand at all your point.”
The immigration issue is the best example of my point. A defended border is necessary to all states. All political parties, including the LP, have agreed that the only defense of the American population necessary is at border checkpoints, where all foreign aggressors, criminals, terrorists and armies of conquest will cooperatively stop and reveal their intentions. Because all people can lie, background vetting is applied to each immigrant, which actually does reveal intent, but only at border checkpoints. All other foreign entry, at any other part of the border, does not deter those intending to murder and steal. That is because collectivist propaganda has slapped all immigrants with the stereotype of “hard working brown people looking for a better life,” and every immigrant and all refugees are presumed to be a universal prosperity producing benefit to every American citizen. Is this not today’s so called national defense?
All political parties, including the LP, now taking its own tax funded ego trip, claim that all objection to this pretense of national defense is xenophobic racism. For libertarians these consequences have nothing to do with welfare, as that is addressed with limited coercion, (ironically taxation funding national defense.)
Rather the refusal to defend the entire border has resulted in a tax funded, massively increased, over armed state and local police presence, to which national defense from foreign criminality has been transferred. The lack of national defense has also resulted in loss of lives, profits and property to those immigrants who just can’t seem to live as required by their propaganda assigned stereotype.
This is double taxation for the same service, and begs the question of what the LP intends to do with their limited tax collection. Pocket it,like the rest of D.C.?
The stateless do not need borders, other than personally defended property lines of homes and business, as none separate foreign aggression from domestic, nor political aggression from criminal.
My point is that stateless DIY solution to foreign criminality, applies to neither borders, nor not state implemented national defense. Does that clarify my point? If not, with what do you disagree?
How about this advice from stateless to state libertarians? Discard this farce of an LP and get a real one.
“Is this what you agree with? If so, you will never find a national legislature in the world willing to allow you self-determination.”
This has been my (stateless libertarian )argument all along. Have you conceded the argument or are you disagreeing? If the latter, please explain how anyone acquires self determination from any state legislature? I consider stateless self determination the origin of a myriad of separate values oriented communities, where, as Jeff Deist says in his video clarifying his “blood and soil” article, the cultural chips (and I presume religious chips, as well, ) will fall as they may.
This is getting a bit lengthy. I wouldn’t mind concentrating on just this one, as it is more important to me. )
DeleteI am arguing with _an idea_. How many people possess this idea, I do not know, nor who they are, but I’ve found it in every book I’ve ever read, (not as many as you) that values are the origin of human action, _all_ action, including, not limited to, political action. I would like you to settle down and take an introspective moment to look into your mind and see whether or not your mind uses this same process, which I have concluded, but am not certain, as I’ve never asked for flaw revealing corrective criticism, is that with which every human being, no exceptions, originates all their actions. Can you please do that? (Will you loose as many snark arrows as you can; I’m running out of arrows?)
My conclusion on the origin of human action is that all values are _thoughts_, cultural, moral, political, material and valued relationships. They remain thoughts in each mind, because these self interested, subjectively selected values choices inform a supportive physical body, only of why it must act to acquire values. A million dollars, a tropical vacation, a career, valued relationships, personal, social and political, world peace, lunch, all thoughts. Thoughts do not act, nor create any physical consequences. Do you agree? If not, why not?
A second choice is the actual origin of what is always self determined human action, that of an objectively derived choice of means, necessary to acquire a subjectively derived end value. This second choice is that of a mind informing its physical body, how it must physically act to transform a value inside a mind, into physical existence outside all minds. Only when effort expended is considered inferior to value gained, does action occur as a means to ends process. Do you agree? If not why not?
This is a continual, complementary, life long process by which each individual, uses both mind and body to alter unsatisfactory circumstances into satisfactory circumstances. This will culminate in a preferred lifestyle with a variety of relationships pleasing to each mind, and the acquisition of a preferred amount of goods and services, satisfying each mind’s supportive physical body. But only when means selected actually cause the desired effect. Right or wrong?
There are only two means by which values are acquired; that of theft, political or criminal, or cooperative creation and trade, including charitable interaction, the trade being material goods for emotional satisfaction. Is that so?
Now one can correctly categorize and accurately predict human action, discarding the error that is collectivism’s imaginatively acting sets of values. One still does not know who prefers politicized or criminally acquired values, or who prefers cooperative interaction, as these are concepts, none physically existing. That knowledge is acquired only with individual interaction, including internet blogs and comments, books and papers, TV, radio, video and magazine articles. Agree?
Cont'd....
I know how everyone on this blog will act to acquire their values, because I’ve been reading exactly that for years. And what most here want is this;
Deletehttp://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/07/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire.html. (This article is the one of which I was thinking.) Is that what you still want? If so, that is not state libertarianism, but stateless. No legally ruling authority coercively compelling obedience from the rest; hired arbitration instead, with agreement to accept and abide by the decisions. Is it not? If not, why not?
Or do you think, instead, that a set of values labeled “Western European Christians” walks around on its tiny white, Christian, Western European, male, heterosexual legs and either oppresses all others, or serves as the sole origin of civilization, depending on who has successfully chosen a concept from what is now a postmodern rolodex of fake identities, and sent it out in the world to act as expected? Did you ever notice that individual identity cannot be separated from individual existence, no matter how many postmodernists think otherwise?
You have two opposing origins of human action, inconsistently going on in your blog. When you use a preferred set of values as the origin of action, Western European Christians are all good guys, every one; when you use categorized actions, some of these people are good guys and some bad guys. But they are all the same people, viewed from two opposing contexts. The context of every conclusion is the existing circumstances of reality. Is the context that of individualism, supported by an immutably existing human nature, with one single universal characteristic originating all human action, allowing each to self determinedly act in only one way and no other? Or is the context of reality the collectivist myth that sets of collectively determined values can act?
3000 words....(sigh)
DeletePlease, if you have a question, ask it...succinctly. If you have five questions, that's OK too. Just, as they say in Jeopardy, please state your answer in the form of a question. Don't state your question in the form of an answer.
If you have a criticism, that's OK too. It would be helpful if you could state it in fewer words than the longest post I have ever written.
If you truly want a conversation, please do this; you have been here long enough, it seems, to know that I am actually capable of engaging, learning, changing my views, and defending them when I believe these should be defended.
However, until you write with some focus, I am acting on the belief that for some reason you are here to distract me. On this, I won't spend time or energy.
I too prefer concise,however every word is defined differently by just as many people, and “separating the abstract from the concrete” as you wrote ensures more words.
DeleteMy conclusion on the origin of human action is that all values are _thoughts_, cultural, moral, political, material and valued relationships. They remain thoughts in each mind, because these self interested, subjectively selected values choices inform a supportive physical body, only of why it must act to acquire values. A million dollars, a career, valued relationships, world peace, lunch; all thoughts. Thoughts do not act, nor create physical consequences.
A second choice is the actual origin of human action, that of an objectively derived choice of means, necessary to acquire a subjectively derived end value. A mind informs its physical body,how it must act to transform a value inside a mind, into physical existence outside all minds.
This is a continual, complementary process, each individual using both mind and body to alter unsatisfactory circumstances into satisfactory circumstances. This will culminate in a preferred lifestyle with a variety of relationships pleasing each mind, and acquisition of a preferred amount of goods and services, supporting a physical body. But only when means selected actually cause this desired effect.
There are only two means by which values are acquired; that of theft, political or criminal, or cooperative creation and trade, including charitable interaction.
Now one can correctly categorize and accurately predict human action, as aggressive or cooperative, discarding the error that is collectivism’s imaginatively acting sets of values. One still does not know how every individual intends to acquire values, as these are concepts, none physically existing. That knowledge is acquired only with individual interaction, including internet blogs and comments, books and papers, TV, radio, video,magazine articles. But categorical predictions with sets of values, rather than categorized actions, are always wrong.
Would you please consider the idea and reveal any flaws?
jr, let’s give it a go.
DeleteI think the crux of your aim is at the very end, but I will work through certain of your points until then.
Regarding values as thoughts: I will put it this way: values are subjective. Often, even the person holding the value cannot describe exactly why he holds it, cannot put it in objective terms, cannot know anything more than “this is more valuable to me than that,” without knowing why or knowing how much more is more.
As the individual does not know this of himself, it is certain others cannot know it of him. All others can know is to consider the actions, and from this get at least some idea of the persons values. “He’s a workaholic,” “he attends Bible study four days a week,” he drinks and smokes a lot.” But, in each case, we see – at best – a shadow. Maybe he goes to Bible study four times a week because he has found it a great way to meet single women!
“A second choice is the actual origin of human action, that of an objectively derived choice of means, necessary to acquire a subjectively derived end value.”
I would say it slightly differently: A second choice is the actual origin of human action, that of A SUBJECTIVELY OR objectively derived choice of OBJECTIVE means, necessary to acquire a subjectively derived end value.
Our choice of means is probably subjective when it comes to attempting to achieve a social end or an unproven physical end, and objective when it comes to achieving a proven physical end. My choice of means in order to get a date with the girl at Bible study is, it seems to me, subjectively derived – as no two girls will react the same way to a guy who looks and acts like me asking for a date. Conversely, if I want to boil water, my choice of means is derived pretty objectively.
“Now one can correctly categorize and accurately predict human action, as aggressive or cooperative…”
I am not so sure: the definition of “aggression” is subjective, just as is the definition of “cooperation.” I think any given society or polity comes to form functional definitions of these over time, via custom and tradition – and have done so and can do so without government laws forcing a definition on us.
“…discarding the error that is collectivism’s imaginatively acting sets of values.”
But we don’t get to discard this error, as we interact with humans every day who hold these; even more complicated, we are impotent to keep them out of our polity or society. You owe them property because they believe that the way you acquired it was via aggression. Who are you to say that this is an error? As far as they are concerned, you just have wrong criteria for categorization.
“But categorical predictions with sets of values, rather than categorized actions, are always wrong.”
I am guessing that this is the point you are really after, everything else setting the table.
What matters for a society or polity to live peacefully together is dependent on how people act, not the values that underlie their actions. However, it seems clear to me that a reasonably common set of values is necessary for ensuring that actions continue on a reasonably predictable course – I would say that this idea is fundamental to my view of achieving and maintaining a reasonably libertarian society.
If you want peace, and therefore less reason for “someone to do something about” conflict (i.e. government), it is quite helpful if actions continue on a reasonably predictable course – and this has a better chance of being sustained if underlying values are shared. Again, fundamental to my view.
Within the context of this discussion, a society or polity made up of people who generally agree on the definition (as objectively observed) of aggression will have a better chance of remaining in peace. We see this in Europe, where the traditional Europeans see a woman in a skirt and don’t find this as an invitation; conversely, some of the newer arrivals see such a woman as loose and available and ready.
“You owe them property because they believe that the way you acquired it was via aggression. Who are you to say that this is an error?” Nay,these are oppressor/victim stereotypes, the hallmark of every degree of collectivism, including America’s; as enforced wealth redistribution and legal discrimination. You’ve been opposing this since I’ve been reading; perhaps you haven’t been calling these errors “stereotypes” as the word now applies only to racism. But in many history books, a commander is leading his troops, then suddenly the Americans defeat the Russians. The context changed from individual action to collective action; categories reified into stereotypes. The author doesn’t notice, as every mind represents the same circumstances of reality, where no two things exist in the same place, at the same. Whichever reality is believed to exist is the context for conclusions, regardless of agreement with actual reality.(Try to conceptualize your house and your car in the same place, at the same time.)
Delete“A second choice is the actual origin of human action, that of A SUBJECTIVELY OR objectively derived choice of OBJECTIVE means, necessary to acquire a subjectively derived end value.” We agree! All choices are subjectively derived; means to valued ends are objectively derived, accurate or inaccurate. These are choice driven hierarchical values; we call them “priorities” because we don’t want to keep typing the other:) These priorities change daily and as we progress trough childhood, marriage, children, retirement. We address our constantly changing surroundings, interact with different people, with just as many different values, alter many things, but must accept what is immutable. But means to values are not hierarchical,but limited to aggression and cooperation.
“I am not so sure: the definition of “aggression” is subjective, just as is the definition of “cooperation.” I have been thinking of this, too, and agree. That’s why many are troubled by the NAP. As was I, when using value choices as the origin of action. I once received a reply that included “utopian dream.” Not one to look gift criticism in the mouth, I realized this was correct. The NAP is not a subjectively chosen value; it is a principle, universally true for all.
So, 100% cooperation is utopian expectation leaving the cooperative with no defense from any aggressor, yet all obligated to defend their peace.
The NAP actually references means, the cooperative interaction necessary, not to liberty or freedom from coercion, as often thought, as both actions reference the means to peaceful co-existence. I dislike the NAP, too, as non-aggression infers passive inaction. Clarification would state; “cooperative interaction is the principled means to peaceful co-existence.“ Then one would notice the NAP cannot be compromised with any degree of coercion, without altering consequences, as well. While aggression is subjectively derived, the actors and consequences are objectively observable, allowing differentiation of aggression from cooperation. For example, when you and ATL agreed that anyone insulting your wives deserves a punch in the nose, that altered aggression into cooperation. But if either of you punches anyone else for wifely insult, that’s aggression.
Very informative and thank you for your reply. JudyRae
Decentralization just means that power is more divided and therefore attempts at freedom are more likely to be successful. It also means there are more options for people to migrate to if their location becomes totalitarian.
ReplyDeleteI had considered this differentiation of secession from decentralization. As do you, I think, I define “secession” as a statist solution ending for some in the limited coercion/freedom of association of the LP, while others would choose other degrees of coercion, from the limited coercion of state libertarianism to the total coercion of communism.
DeleteBut I cannot concede that the continual session of decentralization, references continual secession into ever smaller areas, eventually resulting in the zero coercion of stateless libertarianism or the limited coercion of state libertarianism, while others successfully secede or remain as smaller states with various other degrees of state coercion.
I rejected that definition as an error in means to ends; these means guarantee certain failure as there is no incentive for the politicized thieves of statism to reduce the size of their hunting grounds or the numbers of their profit producing prey.
This was historically confirmed by the American transformation into a welfare state created by statist land and population annexation. The original American political relationship was that of small communities in which a sheriff simply deputized citizen help for the defense of cooperative people and their cooperatively earned profits and property. All other issues were settled by the people, themselves, in each community.
When legal coercion is offered, the offer is irresistible for all but those who know that the consequences of politicized theft are the same mass starvation, as would arrive with undeterred criminal theft. For the rest self enrichment with coercion is seen as more certain than self enrichment with cooperative competition. Especially when a numerical majority and their political enablers remove all risk of retaliation by ensuring defense from coercion is both illegal and suicidal.
BM,
ReplyDelete"If one becomes a tyrant after gaining legitimate title to this supreme office, he is to be resisted by – and only by – those public authorities to whom this authority has been entrusted." - BM
One of the many reasons I'm convinced of the libertarian doctrine is its superior treatment of the problem of escalating (or centralizing) political authority within a governing body. Libertarianism has the best check on power: an open competitive market based on temporal individual consent.
That's why anytime I read someone else's idea of a political system or governing apparatus, I'm especially curious about how tyranny is proposed to be averted. I'd like to see you tackle Althusius' treatment of this problem in more detail, and to his eternal credit, he has devoted a chapter specifically to this in his "Politica."
His solution? It's the "ephors" which are the "dukes, princes, margraves, counts, barons, castellans, nobles of the realm, imperial cities (as they are called in Germany), and others that are named according to the province entrusted to them" that are responsible for resisting a tyrannical king.
Nothing new here I suppose. This is consistent with the basic medieval Germanic tradition that Fritz Kern details in "Kingship and Law." You have to count on the nobles to overthrow the king. Like you said, we won't have a free society until the nobles begin to act nobly.
"...no one can renounce the right of defense against violence and injury. And the power of correcting an errant king, which the ephors have, has not been transferred to the king and cannot be so transferred. Nor can the supreme right in a commonwealth be transferred, because it is by nature incommunicable, and remains with the body of the universal association." - Althusius
Power resides in the people and cannot be irrevocable transferred to the king or the nobles of the various estates.
"If to the contrary in a realm or universal association there are no ephors (who nevertheless in my judgment are most necessary for properly constituting a commonwealth, for reasons I have stated at the beginning of this chapter), then these duties that otherwise have been entrusted to ephors are arranged for by the consent of the entire people, proposed or obtained by tribes, by curial or centurial divisions, or individually, so that no prescription or encroachment contrary to liberty or to the right of the realm (jus regni) can be undertaken by the magistrate." - Althusius
Even the rights of individuals not governed by a noble are to be respected by the king (though Althusius thinks this unwise), and these persons individually have the right to hold the king accountable for breach of law (since they have not transferred this right to a noble).
"Althusius has no interest in theories about human rights" - BM
It seems he does, however, construct his system off the natural rights doctrine. See below. Human rights and natural rights are often very different in the current political lexicon. Is this what you meant?
"For “by natural law (jus naturale) all men are equal” and subject to the jurisdiction of no one, unless they subject themselves to another’s imperium by their own consent and voluntary act, and transfer to another their rights, which no other person can claim for himself without a just title received from their owner." - Althusius
This seems nearly anarcho-capitalist, but here again we find unqualified "equality" rearing it's ugly head. He probably meant it as equality in regards the law, but who's to say since he did not spell it out?
(All Althusius quotes above were obtained at the online library of liberty.)
ATL, you are already ahead of me with the book review!
DeleteRegarding overthrowing tyrants, in the Preface to the third edition, Althusius commends the residents of Frisia for gaining independence from the Spanish king - a positive sign regarding his views, I suspect. I will explore this in some length in a future post - including looking at the precise history to ensure I have the right context (as I am not bothering with that for this brief comment).
Regarding the use of the term "human rights," it isn't yet fully clear what is meant by this - I found as you did, something a bit contradictory in the phrasing.
Regarding "equal" (and the same could perhaps apply to the use of "human rights"), the translator of this work has already warned that there are words in Latin that don't translate cleanly, or - depending on context - might mean slightly different things in different contexts.
My approach in reading Althusius: given his overall bent toward decentralization and subsidiarity, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the meaning of some of these more difficult concepts - it may be a translation issue; it may be my lack of depth; it may be that leaving a bit of aggression in place is necessary to maintain something approaching a non-aggression-principle-respecting society.
:-)
He's a very interesting character in a lot of ways. Thank you very much for introducing him to me.
Delete"The leftists believe in strong centralization. The rightists are "federalists" (in the European sense), "states' righters" since they believe in local rights and privileges, they stand for the principle of subsidiarity." - EvKL, Leftism
If EvKL's spectrum is to be followed, this makes Althusius an early right wing figure.
Federalism, especially when infused with the healthy principle of subsidiarity, approximates to a certain extent the decentralized competitive market for governance that would exist in a libertarian confederation.
I think this is why the freest (and most successful at preserving freedom) societies chose this model for their republics: The United States and Switzerland. Though in both the US and in Switzerland that limited element of centralized aggression that tied the federated powers together has metastasized on all the wealth created under its authority into a centralized state with little power delegated to the provincial units. I think the Swiss have fared much better in this regard, but its telling to me that the Swiss and the Americans (as far as I know) are the only Western populations where private citizens have kept their firearms.
Power needs peaceful, though not pacific, competition if arbitrary tyrannical power is to be held in check. Federalism is close, and it does often work for a hundred years or so, but in the end, the body tasked with superior coercive authority at the center grows and grows and its influence spreads and spreads while freedom and the authority of the provinces shrinks into the crevices. I'm still overwhelmingly convinced that the libertarian plan is the highest form of the competitive model.
Maybe some aggression is required to keep a society together, but as we've discussed before, if this is true, it should be done outside of governing bodies and with the expectation of punishment.
Decentralization is an expression of the natural law principle of subsidiarity, in which the lower levels of society cannot be forced to act contrary to their better judgment. In such a situation, actions of the higher level of society are always engaged in by "coalitions of the willing".
ReplyDeleteI like to keep social solutions separate from political solutions. So I will ask what you mean by the phrase,"higher level of society?"
DeleteHigher and lower relate to the image of a pyramid, with nation at the top, state, county, municipality "lower" down, and the individual as the foundation and lowest level.
Delete“With nation at the top, state, county, municipality "lower" down, and the individual as the foundation and lowest level.”
DeleteAh, I see. But this pyramid is upside down, as state, county and municipalities are all relationships, caused by the pyramid builders, individuals and their interaction.
Within that context, I still think that “decentralization” is synonymous with secession, with political power wielded by a numerical majority in every secession-created smaller state. It is the presence of a majority of individuals supporting any degree of coercion, that creates a state. One is not decentralizing political power, but replacing the ruling origin of centralized political power with two or more origins centralized political power, via secession.
I’ll look forward to your opposing comment.
Thinking about your concept of hierarchical political systems has convinced me that I am wrong. This is a political pyramid just as you wrote and there is a difference between decentralization and secession.
DeleteThat difference is libertarian intent. The libertarian seceding population initially removes the national layer of rule, another secession removes the state layer, followed by county and city, ending in a libertarian municipality with one political leader. From there the stateless secede from the libertarian state, with no political rule; this is then simply a community, its borders are those of the surrounding states.
Have I got it?
Although, that seems a tad impractical, as aside from all the moving about, the surrounding states of the two libertarian populations could impoverish both populations with tariffs.
Dwight, the conversation has moved on, but if you ever get back to this comment, I'd like to leave a big thank you.
DeleteI don't really need confirmation, this must be the correct definition. I've been thinking about the word ever since it became popular again and I appreciate your explanation, revealing what I'd been missing.
JudyRae