Posts
NB: All previous chapters can be found here.
Theory is easy, application is hard. The concept of Natural Law and the principle
of non-aggression – grasping the ideas is one thing, putting these into
practice is quite another. While developing
a detailed examination of Natural Law is beyond the scope of this book and my
capability (although I do intend to examine some of the characteristics of
Jesus as the Form of the Good for human ends and purposes), we will, in this
chapter, examine application of the non-aggression principle.
So…I kind of told a fib already. Application of the principle of
non-aggression is only difficult for those who believe that libertarian
theorists must define to the nth degree the application for every event,
transaction, transgression, and possibility.
I am not one of these. Application
is easy if one accepts that the underlying culture, customs, and traditions
will answer the questions offered by the continuum – and that this underlying
culture is generally accepted by the subject population as one conducive for
maintaining peace.
What do I mean by the continuum? Consider the term “aggression.” At one extreme, the idea of random,
pre-meditated murder we all understand; at the other, a loud voice. It is easy to describe the first as a
violation of the non-aggression principle and the second as not. But what of everything in-between?
Putting hands on my body?
Is it in self-defense? What is
self-defense? When is it justified? In what proportion is it acceptable? Punishment?
In what amount? Restitution? Pollution?
What of smoke from your grill moving over the neighbor’s yard? Is it a violation or an invitation or a mere
nuisance to be ignored?
What of property?
Many libertarians agree with Locke and the mixing of labor with
land. How much mixing is sufficient
mixing? Did the tribes mix enough labor
on the lands of the Great Plains? Reparations? For whom, in what amount? On what evidence? What of those who will now be displaced?
There are countless essays attempting to answer these
questions in ever finer detail. Why? As Silva offered to James Bond in Skyfall
after a long chase and big shoot-‘em-up and where Silva believes he has Bond
cornered:
“You see what comes of all this
running around, Mr. Bond? All this
jumping and fighting. It’s
exhausting. Relax. You need to relax.”
No one will pay any attention to your opinion of their
cultural norms. I am not speaking of the
extremes, where violations (or not) of the non-aggression principle are easy to
identify. I am speaking of the continuum
– the vast middle between the easy extremes, the space in which there are many right answers.
There are two ways for this continuum to be regulated – as this
must be regulated if anyone is to survive.
One is regulation by a generally accepted, common cultural tradition –
evolving naturally, as all traditions do.
The second is by force – government dictating detailed rules and
regulations, all enforced at the end of a gun and incarceration.
This is why maintaining and defending a common cultural
tradition is mandatory if one wants to maintain a libertarian society, and this
is why government works to ensure that common cultural traditions are
destroyed. When culture doesn’t regulate
and provide governance, the state will happily do so.
“Oh, but you are saying I have to conform to traditions that
I might not fully agree with if I want to live in liberty! It doesn’t sound like liberty to me.”
We all have to conform if we want to function in society,
the question is via what method: reasonably voluntary culture and tradition, or
force backed up by a gun and prison. There
is no third option – not if interaction with other humans is desired.
Conclusion
Just a couple of thoughts: first, the necessity of
conforming to local custom and tradition is one reason that decentralization is
the proper political option for those advocating for liberty. It is easier to conform comfortably the more
choices one has; the more society is decentralized, the more choices one has.
Second, there are many who work for or advocate for the
destruction of the cultural traditions of the West – including many well-known
libertarians and libertarian institutes.
Will this joint desire result in more liberty, as the libertarians
claim, or in more control, as is clearly desired by others? The answer to this is easy.
I have some random thoughts that were sparked by this article. Hopefully they are interesting.
ReplyDelete"Did the tribes mix enough labor on the lands of the Great Plains?"
Good question. They did mix labor by the way, just not in a way that Europeans would recognize, but all over North and South America.
On the plains specifically, the Indians practiced mass burning in order to extend the grassland. The forest naturally would have extended much further Westward but for it. They did this to increase the area the buffalo had to live. I would say that is enough labor mixing to warrant ownership.
"There are two ways for this continuum to be regulated – as this must be regulated if anyone is to survive. One is regulation by a generally accepted, common cultural tradition – evolving naturally, as all traditions do. The second is by force – government dictating detailed rules and regulations, all enforced at the end of a gun and incarceration."
I think there are actually 3. First, I want to comment on how the Roman state and then Gothic kings actually wanted to use Christianity as its common cultural tradition. Emperor Constantine specifically legalized Christianity for this purpose. He was all about unification culturally using the Church. I think Dan Brown was way off of most if not all of his claims in The Da Vinci code, but there was some grand design for Constantine. The councils, the creeds, and much of the like were to help that along, for strictly political reasons. This movement is also the reason there was so much syncretism in the Church. All the dissenting groups were grafted in, both sides compromised to include them within the Church. It was great for Constantine politically and probably help promote peace, but it was disastrous religiously. Probably one of the factors that brought the Reformation.
Back to my first comment. I agree that governments have done much to create culture at the end of the gun. I think that is much of the story of the 20th century. However, what we are seeing the US in the 21st century is the coopting of large corporations to solidify and enforce Progressive culture. It is enforced not so much by physical violence, Antifa being the exception, but shaming through Twitter mobs and loss of employment for publicly voicing a different opinion. I would argue loss of employment is aggression as it can harm people greatly, even more so that a punch to the nose.
"We all have to conform if we want to function in society,"
Probably the most important statement you make. If a person doesn't want to conform at all, the only option is to live in autarchy out in the wilderness. If you want to live around other people you have to get along with them, build relationships, love others, and the like. Love is a willful decision to limit yourself for the benefit of others (and reciprocally for yours). Back to Jesus and the 2nd greatest command.
Many will point to Constantine as a disaster for Christianity. At the same time, the resultant Church also did good work for Christianity. Love and humility, lacking too often on all sides of this (and I do not mean to imply you or your statement here; just the reactions I get in my real life when such topics are discussed).
DeleteRegarding your third way...I was thinking about this when considering the reaction Tulsi received after putting the dagger in Kamala last night. One could consider the same for Ron Paul in his two most recent runs - and could also consider the same for Trump...maybe...
There was a time when a politician or high profile public figure in the US got too uppity, a bullet did the trick.
Now, the corporate media does the dirty work. This is certainly effective given the brainwashing most children get pre-K through college.
"When culture doesn’t regulate and provide governance, the state will happily do so." - BM
ReplyDeleteI think many so called libertarians and classical liberals would be happier under a one world state tasked with enforcing universal tolerance, immigration and free trade between geographic regions and cultural groups. Under such a state there would surely be plenty of 'anarchy', as in widespread politically protected and interested corruption, vice, and crime. Gresham's Law could be applied to the degradation of culture in that the political undervaluation of good culture in favor of the bad would drive the good out of the cultural market (or at least into hiding).
Prostitution legalized? You betcha! Want the finest array of psychedelic and intoxicating drugs with snazzy brand names? We got that too! And much, much worse of course, considering how far it had gone already with the Clintons, the Epsteins, and the Weinsteins of the world.
Here are a few conclusions I've begun to reach, and I'd like to get some thoughts on them.
1. For the conservative, governed primarily by tradition, liberty is tending toward an order of self-determination bound within a customary moral and religious framework, whereas for the liberal, governed primarily by reason, liberty is tending toward an order of universal rights emancipated from any fixed moral or religious restraints.
and
2. Libertarianism does not necessarily mean universal free trade, it means the mutual exchange and transport of goods by consenting property owners. Therefore, if an owner of a road outlaws the transport of drugs, porn, or Chinese products on said road, he would be justified in using force to prevent people from doing this. His customers would have to be made aware of the prohibition, for sure, but I see nothing inconsistent with the NAP in this circumstance. Even if it is in the road owner's economic self-interest to allow these things to be traded or transported on his property, he still many outlaw them (or he may join a legal association which does), because realistic man is not Homo economicus.
"...so called libertarians and classical liberals would be happier under a one world state..."
ReplyDeleteJacob Hornberger described this as his ideal (I think in the comments when addressing one of my posts regarding his open borders worldview). One reason I don't pay any attention to him anymore - it demonstrates either horrendous naivete or horrendous evil. I think it is naivete, because the truly evil wouldn't openly admit this as their objective.
To your first point, it is a thought I have also been having: define liberty first, before deciding that all who are after liberty (including libertarians) mean what you mean. You have very succinctly summarized the two definitions that I have been grasping at.
On point 2, I fully agree - it is why there will be no such thing as open borders (for goods or people) in a world that truly respects private property.
I have heard some Hornberger interviews where he sounds good. His articles on Mises.org are always kind of loopy though.
Delete"There are two ways for this continuum to be regulated – as this must be regulated if anyone is to survive. One is regulation by a generally accepted, common cultural tradition – evolving naturally, as all traditions do. The second is by force – government dictating detailed rules and regulations, all enforced at the end of a gun and incarceration."--BM
ReplyDelete"The fruit of the Spirit is...self-control." (Galatians 5:23)
Man, a self-conscious, self-determining being will either control himself as an individual created in the image of God or someone else will control him in the image of the culture in which he lives.
When men refuse to control themselves in the image of God, they will submit themselves to the control of someone else who has submitted himself to the religion of power.
I agree that the continuum must be regulated, but it must be regulated by men and women who refuse to conform to the "...generally accepted, common cultural tradition – evolving naturally, as all traditions do...", as Jesus did.
Jesus bucked the common, cultural tradition. He was crucified for it and changed the world because of it. Jesus, the Form of the Good, is the example we must follow. Jesus was self-control to the max and even when his life was on the line, he did not deviate from his self-determined course--that of self-control under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
The continuum will be regulated--by someone. There is no doubt about that. The question is by whom. Will it be by men who control themselves in the image of Jesus the Christ, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or will it be controlled by men who have sold out to the siren song of the power religion.
Everyone lives on this continuum. The two extremes are conformance to godliness as exemplified by the life of Jesus and godlessness as exemplified by the lives of men who refuse to live that way. This is a struggle of the individual who knows what is the right way to live and conforms to it versus those who rebel against it. This struggle is inherently individual in nature and plays out in the greater culture and society in which the individual man lives.
There is no answer to the question of who controls the continuum except this one. Man, individual man, must control himself under the influencing power of the Holy Spirit, regardless of the cost, even if it leads to the death and destruction of one's own life.
We must learn to think beyond ourselves. This struggle will last until the end of time. I only have twenty more years. Or thirty at best.
God help me.
Roger
Delete"I agree that the continuum must be regulated, but it must be regulated by men and women who refuse to conform to the "...generally accepted, common cultural tradition – evolving naturally, as all traditions do...", as Jesus did."
Refuse to conform? You mean like the sixties radicals, or the woke left, or the social justice warriors, or antifa?
:-)
Given that my entire context in this search for liberty is a cultural tradition that accepts natural law in a Christian Ethic, I am quite certain that you and I are saying the same thing.
As to your comments about the proper means by which to properly regulate...I agree. As to thinking beyond ourselves and our own lifespans...yes, no doubt.
BM,
DeleteSince I've had a few days to wind down and think about this, I can see that you are correct within the context of your search for liberty. Within the context, I'm sure you and I are saying the same thing in different ways. Perhaps I was a little too hasty. No offense meant.
My thought on generally accepted, common cultural tradition is that it is like most other concepts--a few diehard believers at each extreme and everyone else somewhere in the middle. Common cultural traditions can be easily hijacked by an extreme which then induces the majority to follow along whether they want to or not. Hitler's Nazi Germany or Lenin's Communist Russia, for examples. Hilary Bok's description (see Peg's comment below) of Stanley Milgram's experiments bears this out.
You mentioned the woke left, the social justice warriors, and Antifa. These groups actually are conforming to the culture in which they live or, more probably, they are transforming their culture into their likeness. They are rapidly becoming a common culture, with traditions evolving naturally out of their own stewpot of thought and may very well become a government which forces its beliefs on the rest of us at the point of a gun. If that happens, it will be a very bad time for America and the world. The sixties radicals were a little bit premature, but the seeds they sowed have sprouted and are growing rapidly.
At the beginning of Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye explains about his village's traditions. "We always keep our heads covered and we always wear our little prayer shawls." But Tevye didn't know when, why, or how this tradition began. All he knew is that his life was ruled by tradition which he blindly held to until he was forced to change because of circumstances.
There are many 'traditions' within the Christian religion which I simply do not approve of nor participate in. My principle (stubbornness?) on these matters has cost me a lot in personal relationships.
All that to say I don't put a lot of stock in "generally accepted, common cultural traditions" and sometimes it shows. Jesus broke with tradition. I follow him.
Carry on, you're making a difference. I'll try not to shout quite so loudly next time.
Roger,
DeleteI would say it depends on the traditions. Are the traditions good, bad or neutral in relation to the ends of mankind according to the natural law?
"I don't put a lot of stock in "generally accepted, common cultural traditions"" - Roger
Traditions are often the glue that keep societies together so you should probably reconsider this position. They should almost never be thrown out whole clothe, but there is often room for small improvements in any tradition or culture. Jesus didn't break from tradition, he modified, perfected, and fulfilled an old existing one that had become corrupt. There is plenty new that Jesus added, but my point is that He, for the most part, built upon rather than built anew.
Besides, in following Jesus, aren't you basically putting the most profound stock in a generally accepted cultural tradition? Again, it depends on the tradition. I happen to think you chose the right one.
Perhaps the defining difference I've come to recognize between conservatives and liberals is that for the liberal, they're own reasoning (or the reasoning they've learned from others) is the their guiding star, which often leads them to harbor contempt for traditions, whereas for the conservative, tradition is the guiding star, because they trust more in the track record of mankind than the new ideas of a few designing men.
Liberals, in discounting tradition, may stumble into errors of reason, leading to much new human suffering. Conservatives, in discounting reason, may perpetuate errors of tradition, leading to the continuation of much existing human suffering.
Roger, there is no offense taken.
DeleteI first began thinking seriously about the value of custom and tradition toward liberty when reading the history of the medieval period. I think the first book I read about the law of this period was by Fritz Kern (you will find the subject posts in the Bibliography tab at the top of the page.
The most relevant post to the value of custom and how old and good law was formed and maintained is here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-law-no-not-that-one.html
I also recall a discussion at another libertarian blog about the idea that a property owner is free to decide any punishment he wishes for a violation of his person / property. I thought that was an idea sure to destroy liberty, as I raised the example of a child being shot as punishment for picking an apple on the way to school. Instead, custom and tradition would govern punishment – a custom and tradition that is generally accepted by the society. We could imagine several perfectly good possibilities of appropriate punishment (or not) for such a situation; as long as these are generally accepted by the community, peace will be maintained.
Now…customs and traditions can be for good or evil. Societies that hold to evil customs…well, they might feel as if they are in liberty for a while, but it wont last. This, in fact, is the story of the West certainly since the Enlightenment and gaining full force by World War One.
So, everything depends on the target – at what is the custom and tradition aiming at? Hence, how I have come to my views about Natural Law grounded in a Christian ethic (I add the qualifier of a Christian ethic, because there are dozens of versions and ideas about natural law floating out there).
So when you write about Antifa and the like, “These groups actually are conforming to the culture in which they live or, more probably, they are transforming their culture into their likeness.” They are transforming the culture; they are not an organic product of it. This is why I use the phrase “evolving naturally,” as opposed to the purposeful action of the state – which is the prime force behind Antifa and the like. We can look to all of the culture destroying actions of the state – both active and semi-passive – and thus see how purposefully the culture is being transformed.
Finally, to your comment: “All that to say I don't put a lot of stock in "generally accepted, common cultural traditions"….” If culture doesn’t govern, guns and prisons will. We see it today, as there is no common culture, giving ever-more excuses for the state to impose force on us to conform to their will.
It comes back to…to which cultural tradition will we conform? If we are after liberty, I see only one answer to this question. And the closer society conforms to this culture, the more liberty will be found.
Well, you've given me a lot to think about and knowing my own history, it's likely that eventually I will come around to your way of thinking. Don't know how long that might take, but I guess it doesn't matter as long as I'm moving in the right direction.
DeleteThank you.
"Theory is easy, application is hard. The concept of Natural Law and the principle of non-aggression – grasping the ideas is one thing, putting these into practice is quite another."--BM
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely correct. Men and women who practice living the life of Jesus, i.e., unselfishly, will find themselves shunned, ostracized, and banished from society and all its rules, but they must live that life anyway.
It is easy to conform. It is something else entirely to live as God intended--a life of selflessness in which your neighbor's life is as important as your own. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
We can either conform to the pattern society dictates or we can conform to the Form of the Good, but we must make a choice.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Rush
Hilary Bok wrote an interesting paper on the subject of choosing without choosing: http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu/chang/8bokactingwochoosing.pdf Peg
DeleteFascinating! Peg, thank you for the lead. Now I have to read it again (probably many times) to fully grasp what she is saying.
DeleteI like that Bok said we should strive to live consistently within the morality we choose. I agree and believe the 'decisional conflicts' I am faced with on a regular basis make me a better person. This could just as easily be called the promptings of the Holy Spirit and choosing to follow His lead. Unfortunately, I don't always make the right decision and have to go around again. As it has been said, theory is easy, but application is hard. Application, however, becomes easier the more one practices.
Could you boil Bok's paper down into a few paragraphs? I would appreciate it.
Roger, I appreciate your comments, but I decline your request to summarize Hilary Bok's paper. It was difficult enough for me to read through her very convoluted language in the first place. Peg
DeleteOK, thanks anyway. The convoluted language is why I said I would have to read it again. I've no doubt that if someone could strip out all the "stuff" and rewrite it in a style that was easily readable, it would make perfect sense.
DeleteMan, who is controlled by the Spirit of God, is uncontrollable by other men. He is free. Absolutely free. Society, culture, and government have no power over him. He is completely at liberty.
ReplyDeleteThere is only one way to stop him--kill him.
"Precious in the eyes of the LORD is the death of His saints." (Psalms 116:15)
May we always live so.
Aggression is defined by culture.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this make multicultural libertarian societies near impossible? The USA is an empire, with the various nationalities within attempting to define what is right. We'll never agree because we are not one people. Another reason why a US libertarian movement will not succeed.
Multiple, disparate intranational movements, based on each nations cultural values.,. Now that's something that has possibility.
"Doesn't this make multicultural libertarian societies near impossible?"
DeleteYes.
Not sure if it's politic to quote Ayn Rand, but it seems to fit here: "Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: ‘I'll do as I please at everybody else's expense.’ An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable rights of man, his own and those of others." Peg
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand is always fine here. Yet this quote - fully representative of her fundamental philosophy - provides a model that will fall short of liberty, for reasons that have been presented in this series.
Delete