Sunday, November 4, 2018

Ideology


Jordan Peterson did an interview with GQ Magazine UK.  It’s pretty long, certainly worth watching if you have an interest in the topic of the Peterson Express.  The woman doing the interview learned well from previous individuals in her position – none of this, “so what you’re saying is…” stuff.

Just one comment I want to touch on, beginning at about the 1 hour 8 minute mark.  The context: many of the interviewer’s views are plumb-line tyrannical male-patriarchy stuff.  Peterson decides to challenge her on it – challenge not just the idea, but her as an individual:

I see that there’s two different realms, the realm of values and a realm of facts.  In the realm of facts, science reigns supreme, but not in the realm of values.  You have to look elsewhere.  That is what the humanities were for, before they got – what would you say – hijacked by ideologues. 

She believes it is just a small handful of college professors that are causing all the trouble.

And you know, the idea that some things should be consistent – you were talking about the necessity of consistency in ideology, it’s like I’m not hearing what you think.  I’m hearing about how you are able to represent the ideology you were taught.  And it’s not that interesting, because I don’t know anything about you.  I could replace you with someone who thinks the same way and that means you’re not here.  That’s what it means. 

Wow!

And it’s not pleasant.  You’re not integrating the specifics of your personal experience with what you’ve been taught.  To synthesize something that’s genuine and surprising, and engaging in a narrative sense as a consequence.  And that’s the pathology of ideological possession.

This point about not integrating her personal experience fits within the context of the interview up until this point, as the interviewer offers personal experiences that are counter to the ideology of tyrannical male-patriarchy – or at least she is unable to counter Peterson’s counter-examples.

And it’s not good.  It’s not good that I know where you stand on things once I know a few things.  It’s like, why have a conversation?  I already know where you stand on things.

Mmmm…

A few years ago, I was accused of being dogmatic.  It didn’t bother me, I relished it and said so.  I also wrote the following:

Someday I might conclude that one or more of the above requires modification.  So far, none of the above items have even been at minor risk of getting modified in any meaningful way.

Today is that “someday,” I guess.  In the subject post, I offered six statements.  A few of these require a revisit, I think:

I hold to the non-aggression principle as the only proper view regarding the use of force in society; this is based on an absolute commitment to the concept of private property.

Absolutes are a real problem when it comes to the application of philosophy, I have come to learn.  While property in the Middle Ages was far more secure under the law than property is today, commitment to private property as we understand was not absolute.  The property owner could not destroy his property, for example; there were varying interpretations of the legality and applicability of usury, as another.

Maybe this idea of how practices developed in the longest-lasting-closest-to-libertarian-law society we have known shouldn’t matter, but maybe it should.  Practices developed over decades and centuries for a reason, after all.

I support fully free markets for all transactions and relationships that are not in conflict with the non-aggression principle.

See my response regarding property, above.

I believe that for a society to thrive – even survive – that governance (not government as it is known today) is required.

No change here.

I believe this governance is best provided first by family and kin, thereafter extended to church, community, social and benevolent organizations and the like.

I still fully agree with this, but I don’t feel I placed enough emphasis on “church,” either as a moral instructor or as a counter-balancing center of authority.  I have learned quite a bit in the intervening years, I guess.

Voluntary governance is further extended via contract.  The right to contract on any matter is absolute, as long as the object of the contract is not in violation of the non-aggression principle.

See my response regarding property, above.

Contracts can come in many forms.

No change here.

Conclusion

Here we go again…”I knew it.  Bionic isn’t a libertarian!”

I guess it depends what you mean by the term “libertarian.”  If you mean Libertarian – as compared to Republican or Democratic – Party, no I am not.  Although, if Tom Woods is successful in moving the LP toward actual libertarianism (assuming this is his objective), then I could change my mind on this one.

If you mean “libertarian” like the theory is the one true faith or some such, then no, I guess I am not.  But I don’t believe I ever was; it’s just now I understand better why this is so.

If you mean “libertarian” like working to find the application of the theory in a world populated by imperfect humans, well you can breathe a sigh of relief...assuming this label as applied to bionic means anything to you.

9 comments:

  1. In my observation, the reasons for calling oneself "libertarian" are quite varied, leading to the infamous quotes about cat herding.
    Some are driven by localism and decentralisation e.g. NN Taleb, some are "soft" reactionaries like most European monarchists and American constitutionalists, pure NAPists despite being very institutionally influential are probably a small minority.
    Another quite influentional grouping that gives the others endless grief are the (to use terminology from the Early USSR) Right and Left Opposition.
    Despite calling themselves "libertarian" these people do not radically question the status quo of neoliberal managerialism and it's intersection with CultMarx/Postmodernism. Think CATO, the BHL crowd, most of the mainstream "conservative libertarians", progressitarians/liberaltarians like C. Reisenwitz etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry if the comment came across as rambling but:
      "A libertarian think tank just gave up on libertarianism"
      https://archive.is/gTyei

      Case in point: A bunch of Left Oppositionists declaring they're no longer part of the opposition.
      "Left" Libertarianism always seems to inevitably collapse into either liberalism or leftism (even if C4SS et al retain the fig leaf of "markets not capitalism").

      Delete
    2. Sorry for rambling a bit but:
      Case in point:
      https://archive.is/gTyei
      "A libertarian think tank just gave up on libertarianism"

      "The Alternative to Ideology"
      https://archive.is/UoG5Z

      The Left Oppositionists declare themselves no longer part of the opposition. Left libertarianism always seems to suffer inevitable collapse into either liberalism (hiding under the guise of non-ideological moderation here) or leftism (even if the C4SS et al hide behind the fig leaf of "markets not capitalism").

      Delete
  2. Well, I think that libertarianism is not popular enough to fight about. If it was, the term would already have been co-opted by the cultural Marxists for their use.

    Instead, let's be liberty MINDED and adopt those practices which will provide the most liberty to the most people for the longest time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On your first point, I think it must be that popular because a few of the leftists who refer to themselves as libertarians aren't too far from cultural Marxism.

      On your second point, perhaps a good mission statement for this blog and much of the comment section!

      Delete
  3. "Absolutes are a real problem when it comes to the application of philosophy, I have come to learn. While property in the Middle Ages was far more secure under the law than property is today, commitment to private property as we understand was not absolute. The property owner could not destroy his property, for example; there were varying interpretations of the legality and applicability of usury, as another." - BM

    This always reminds me of the line in one of the Star Wars movies where Yoda says, "only a Sith speaks in absolutes." I'm still not sure I agree that absolutes are a bad thing though. Isn't the alternative moral relativism? Don't we as Christians hold to moral absolutes? Thou shalt _______ and thou shalt not _______ ?

    One thing to consider about the Middle Ages we revere is that something went wrong, because it is no longer here. Hans Hoppe seems to think it was the granting of monopoly privilege to dispute resolution in a given territory. Maybe this was facilitated by the non-absolute conception of private property?

    On a side note, if you haven't listened to Hans Hoppe's recent talk at the PFS on "The Libertarian Search for a Grand Historical Narrative," just published on YouTube yesterday, you must listen to it ASAP! It is brilliant. Maybe his best yet.

    There is just no one else like Hoppe. Rothbard could not have asked for a better heir to his ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATL, I am not sure that I agree either. But ever since I ran into these "prohibitions" in my reading of medieval Europe and recognizing the longevity of the cultural traditions...I have to at least throw it out there.

      Let's say, I feel only a little dirty, but not enough for a shower!

      I haven't listed to Hans' speech, but have read it a couple of times and sections of it more than that.

      I agree about Rothbard not having a better heir; I suspect Rothbard would say that Hans is that one in a thousand student that actually went farther than the master teacher.

      Actually, in Rothbard's case, make it one in one million!

      Delete
    2. "One thing to consider about the Middle Ages we revere is that something went wrong, because it is no longer here."

      How about the plague? That something went horribly wrong for medieval society.

      -Sag.

      Delete
    3. ATL,

      Here's the same Grand Historical Narrative by Hoppe in writing on the LvMI.

      -Sag.

      Delete