The purpose of this paper is to give
an analysis and explication of the notion of a natural order of human affairs,
which is logically independent of any metaphysical or theological system.
-
Natural
Law: A Logical Analysis, Frank van Dun
In this paper, Frank van Dun (FvD) offers an examination of
Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism and its presupposition of a natural order –
based on natural law and natural rights.
In short, anarcho-capitalism, in
its Rothbardian form, stands or falls with its supposition that there is a
natural order – a natural law – of the human world and that each human person
has a place in that order that is delimited by his or her natural rights.
It is important that van Dun clarifies that he is dealing
with a Rothbardian order, as others base their anarcho-capitalism or
libertarianism on foundations other than natural law. Rothbard’s version is not driven by views on
efficiency, but on views of human beings as human beings.
It is important, therefore to examine just what is meant by
natural law – at least as van Dun sees it.
As he notes, “‘Natural law’ is a controversial concept.” One reason it is controversial is that it is
often connected to the metaphysical, or otherwise connected to a particular
theology. While one cannot escape
Aquinas when discussing natural law, this certainly does not make it a Catholic
convention – or invention.
However, the fact that some
theories of natural law are metaphysical or theological does not mean that
natural law is something metaphysical or theological. A theory of mice and men can be metaphysical
but the metaphysics is in the theory, not in the mice and not in the men.
FvD then dives into a very important point – one that I have
often made, yet still find misunderstood.
Natural law legal theory and natural law ethical theory need not be
identical. Such thinking results in an
unnecessary either / or situation:
…either all natural laws are mere moral
admonitions or all of them are legally enforceable requirements. That ambiguity has plagued the interpretation
of natural law theories ever since Thomas Aquinas identified natural law and
reason.
Natural law: either suggestions for ethical behavior or a
system by which to implement a theocracy.
But neither extreme is necessary, and in any case not at all intended by
Aquinas. Forgive the very long cite, but
this is a tremendously important point:
…Thomas clearly distinguished between
mere sins (that merit disapproval and repentance) and injustices (that merit
‘action in justice’ and redress). He also
distinguished between vices of the sort no virtuous man would engage in and vices
that threaten the existence of ‘society’ (not this or
that particular society but
‘human society’ as a general form of conviviality or symbiosis): murder, arson,
theft, fraud, robbery, assault and other crimes against persons and
property. (Summa Theologica, IaIIae,
question 96, art.2 (concl). Only with
respect to injustice and especially crime can the coercive power of ‘human law’
intervene. In short, while all virtues are necessarily lawful (sanctioned by the
rational appreciation of their agreement with divine providence), and all vices
are consequently unlawful, only a few vices of a particular sort should be made
illegal. ‘Legislating morality’ was not on Thomas’ agenda.
FvD uses the terms “unlawful” and “illegal” to make the
distinction. Unlawful being a violation
of natural law; illegal being a violation that gets you thrown in prison (or
justifies violence in response).
This is consistent with my point that the non-aggression
principle fits quite well as a theory of punishment, but not as a theory of
ethics. Violations of the natural law
that are also aggressions against person or property are subject to the “coercive
power of human law.” Non-aggressive
violations of the natural law are not, in my opinion, subject to this same
coercive power.
I will leave aside, as it is rough around the edges and will
be dictated by local custom as much as any other factor, the specific
application of the word “aggression.” I don’t
think the edges of this term are identifiable by evermore purifying attempts at
applying libertarian theory. Human
beings don’t work that way. Different societies
will figure this out in a way that works for them.
FvD next looks at a comparison of natural law and artificial
law. Whether in physics, biology, or
chemistry, science attempts to identify the natural order of things. It is no different when working to identify
the natural order of persons. This order
exists, waiting to be discovered, based on the characteristics of human beings
as human beings.
This as opposed to artificial law: “An artificial law is an order
of artificial things. Here we shall consider
it only as an order of artificial persons.”
FvD offers as an example, the artificial person known as a “citizen.” States and corporations also qualify. These are defined by the relevant artificial law.
To find out about natural persons,
go live among them; to find out about citizens, consult a lawyer!
A breakdown in artificial law happens when people refuse to
play by the rules. This could be because
they refuse to do so (including for reasons that the rules violate natural law)
or when the rules are overly complex and ever-changing. A breakdown of natural law happens when
people do not heed the distinction of one person from another. (Egalitarianism in all its forms, run amok.)
What of any obligation for a person to respect the natural
law? This, van Dun suggests, is an open
question requiring serious thought:
What a natural person can do does
not translate into what he may do. What
such a person ought to do does not translate into what he must do.
How I see this: A natural person can punch someone in
the nose for no good reason; it does not follow that he may do
this. A natural person ought not
live in a drunken stupor; yet this says nothing about what he must do
regarding the consumption of alcohol.
Such an is-ought question is not an issue at all for artificial
persons and artificial law. Here, the
law is whatever the law is, and the person is whatever the law makes him to be. This is positivism, and it is clear why
positivism is anathema to anarcho-capitalists – and many libertarians. Positivism ignores, and even denies, the idea
of natural law.
Conclusion
In this paper, van Dun is not attempting to justify natural
law, only to examine it and its relationship to anarcho-capitalism. He concludes:
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the notion
of natural law as an order of natural persons rather than a binding set of
rules or commands. As a normative theory,
it holds not only that we have good reasons to respect the natural order but also
that we have no right not to respect it.
Building liberty on any other foundation is flawed; it is
not sustainable. Only this foundation of
natural law takes human beings as they are, not as someone wishes them to be.
Bravo! Truly. Bravo! Peg
ReplyDeleteThank you, Peg.
Delete"Only this foundation of natural law takes human beings as they are, not as someone wishes them to be."
ReplyDeleteThis is where the rubber meets the road in human relationships and it is where all of us fail, some more than others.
In attempting to make someone else fit our desire of what we want them to be, we create a situation in which it is impossible to be free and at liberty--either for ourselves or for the person(s) we are trying to manipulate. This results in a strain or estrangement in our relationship which must be resolved, forgiven, and overcome if we are ever going to be truly free with each other.
This is an individual action, but it affects society at a very base level. If individuals refuse to be free (allow others to be free) in their personal relationships, then there is no chance that they will be free in the larger society. If we are not free within ourselves, then we will not allow others to be free either and liberty on a wider scale will be necessarily limited.
The natural order of things: God, individual man, society. God is free, individual man can be free, society will become free as individual man is set free.
Ultimately, the system which will arise out of such a scenario will be one of love for the people around you. If you love them, you will not attempt to manipulate them into being what you want them to be, but will aid and assist them into becoming the person God intended for them to be. Freedom will naturally spring out of this.
Jesus takes human beings as they are. We should also.
"The natural order of things: God, individual man, society. God is free, individual man can be free, society will become free as individual man is set free.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the system which will arise out of such a scenario will be one of love for the people around you"
Excellent conclusions I think sir. I would like to bolster it by saying that love for people around you needs Love of God to make sure it doesn't turn into well intentioned destruction of ways that are not our own, as we attempt to turn them into our own, in one way or another. This is the progressivist trap and solipsism.
Love of God as distinct from love of creation, is distinguishable because it includes Fear of God. Worldly love and worldly fear cannot exist together.
"Jesus takes human beings as they are. We should also."
We Muslims agree with this, it's just that we hold that many other Prophets of God (sent to all Nations) did as well.
BM wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is consistent with my point that the non-aggression principle fits quite well as a theory of punishment, but not as a theory of ethics. Violations of the natural law that are also aggressions against person or property are subject to the “coercive power of human law.” Non-aggressive violations of the natural law are not, in my opinion, subject to this same coercive power."
This is a very important point I think sir. What Tradition has used to fill in this gap can be around ethics, but it is always related to aesthetics at least. Beautiful and graceful manners, in speech, hospitality and conduct, are a requirement to be the cultural "outer garment" of natural law. As you suggest, this has been provided by different customs and formalisms for different ancestries/religions.
Mortal humans cannot be God. This means that the naked Truth, like staring into the Ark of the Covenant, will often end up melting the flesh from our bones. The tabernacle is by default veiled for a reason, but for special times and places held sacred.
Without that veiling and respect(/Fear), when confronted with the Truth (about ourselves), our limited humanity takes the road of adopting perceptual blinders like solipsism, prejudice, hypocrisy and subsequent "triggering" projections as protective mechanism.
Under such conditions, I would argue that faithfulness to natural law doesn't stand a chance.
Yes, which is why we must be humbled first. To be humbled, we must first be broken. We are going through a time of being broken in the West. It is in God's hands the depth, duration, and the result on the other side.
DeleteIn the meantime, I write and I pray.
Interesting, I didn't think of that.
DeletePersonally my family's rediscovery of the value of good manners and veiling (Li, Adab, and Skillful Speech in Chinese, Muslim and early Buddhist terms) didn't require us to be broken, it felt like the opposite in some ways. It did however require us to go down to the roots of connecting with our Ancestry.
It was part of a deep "unschooling" and "un-Westernising" process though, so perhaps it is indeed the same thing. Taking down the reign of discursive thought (which in Sufism is known to be from Satan anyway) in our lives, and back towards a more authentic being.
Perhaps you did not have to live through being broken in the same way because you were not as "proud" (really, undeservedly arrogant) as much of the West is about itself.
DeleteWell, pride in ancestry didn't always mean what it infers these days. I reckon a willingness to not shame one's own, whilst not being blind to faults, is a fine thing. Turning back from error (repentance from sin?) is much easier when one is confident that one's Peoples will have your back. The Mercy and wisdom of "giving face"... even as unfortunately the Chinese too often use it as rationale for moral cowardice, but all Peoples have different strong and weak spots we can learn from, if we are willing to see and reflect.
DeleteWhat I wrote to Roger above seems pertinent to any "Western arrogance":
"Excellent conclusions I think sir. I would like to bolster it by saying that love for people around you needs Love of God to make sure it doesn't turn into well intentioned destruction of ways that are not our own, as we attempt to turn them into our own, in one way or another. This is the progressivist trap and solipsism.
Love of God as distinct from love of creation, is distinguishable because it includes Fear of God. Worldly love and worldly fear cannot exist together."
So be gentle! "Pride" here is not wrong, and worship of God is indeed higher than any "Way of the Ancestor" in this age. It's just that the two needs to be in healthier relations to ground the "exultant" urge upwards, away from roots and the body, that comes from Christianity, I think.
I'm certainly glad and grateful to have been brought up in the West.
Roger wrote:
ReplyDelete"If individuals refuse to be free (allow others to be free) in their personal relationships, then there is no chance that they will be free in the larger society."
This is very tricky when it comes to intergenerational relations. Indigenous cultures that (up until recently) have maintain their lineages, languages, values, land and ways of life for thousands of years, simply cannot do that by allowing children to be "free" in the same way that modern people now do by default.
Of course it is not possible that these cultures would survive by doing the opposite of what modern people conceive of as the opposite of "free" with their kids either. This is a false dualism that needs to be unpacked, lest the next generation simply rebel from whatever solution we are able to come up with this time.
When I wrote the line quoted above, I was not thinking about parents or grandparents restricting the "freedoms" of their children. Rather, I was more concerned with individuals of more or less equal stature within the society, i.e., they are mature adults who are (or should be) responsible for themselves and manipulate (are manipulated by) those around them. To the extent this happens, they are not free.
DeleteNevertheless, you are probably right about certain cultures (Aborigines, Amish, etc.) who dare not allow their children the "freedom" the rest of the world experiences. If they did, it would not be many generations hence that culture became extinct.
The Amish, at least, have a workaround. They keep their children on a very tight leash, training them rigorously in the ways of the 'faith', but then when they reach their 18th birthday, turn them loose into the world with no restrictions. This is called Rumspringa and the youngsters often practice it with abandon. The Amish do this knowing full well what will happen and run the risk of losing them entirely. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, after a short period of total, uninhibited freedom, the young adult returns to his roots and the safety of the Amish community, gets married, and never looks at the world again in that way.
Paradoxically, the parent who loses his child by setting him free, eventually gains him back and the relationship is stronger than it ever was in the past.
Unfortunately, the Amish (from my perspective as an "English") are not free and never will be, however, they may exist as a sub-culture within the larger society for a long, long time.
Dear Roger, thank you for the reply.
DeleteYou wrote:
"When I wrote the line quoted above, I was not thinking about parents or grandparents restricting the "freedoms" of their children. Rather, I was more concerned with individuals of more or less equal stature within the society"
I understand, but Principle is Principle. If it applies anywhere well, it must apply everywhere, or to try and stand on it is a very tenuous endeavour. And (healthy, not drugged up and indoctrinated) kids sense that first, will always push back on any whiff of hypocrisy and ad-hoc rule making.
"Paradoxically, the parent who loses his child by setting him free, eventually gains him back and the relationship is stronger than it ever was in the past."
Precisely, but again it comes back to modern ideas of "freedom" vs Traditional ideas. In Islam and Chinese "Pagan" Tradtion, it is quite clear we are only properly free when we are properly accepting slaves of God/Heaven's Will and Providence.
PS. Reading what you said again Roger, I can only emphasise being wary of the modern false dualism/prejudice.
DeleteDear Roger,
DeleteTo flesh out what I mean by the above false dualism, here is an Indigenous Elder describing how he was brought up, and how that is very different from both the "freedom" and "tight leash training" we usually talk about in the West.
https://www.globalresiliencesummit.org/MJy245?r_done=1
Start about 4 minutes in, up to about 8 minutes for the point I want to get across (The rest I have a few issues with, especially any "present moment as Eternity" argument... not relevant here).
Western default "organised awareness in cognition" and "conceptual discursive thought" mentioned here, so different to what is Primordially human, as that which wants to systematise everything with no remainder. 666 sinlessness anyone?
Australia,
DeletePrinciple is principle, as you mentioned above, and I am on board with that, but love often trumps principle. I have strong principles, but sometimes have to go against them to give my wife what she needs out of a spirit of love for her welfare. I dare say any married man has done the same thing, that is, if he loves his wife.
Children, especially very young ones, however, can be dealt with on principle. Children must be trained in everything from the beginning to the point where they can make their own decisions (and deal with the consequences) in a responsible manner.
No good parent, not even aboriginal ones, would allow their toddler to play with poisonous snakes or to put their hand on a hot stove. No good parent would allow his young child to play on city streets in the middle of heavy traffic. These instances are sufficient for my purposes, but they could easily be multiplied.
The point is that there are times when a parent must do what is necessary for his child, against the child's desires, always looking ahead to the time when that child can be turned loose in the world to make his own way. Not only is this principled, but it is love in action. It has nothing to do with 'freedom' (Western or indigenous), but everything to do with responsibility and duty as a parent.
The principle I have learned from experience, often bitter and acrimonious, is that children want to be free to make their own decisions and should be allowed to do so as much as reasonably feasible. If I could live my own life over again, I would drastically change the way I deal with my (step)children. Life is hard, though, because we often get the test first and learn the lesson afterwards, that is, unless our parents are teaching us the lesson first, as they should be.
One other thing I understand from experience is that hard-headed, stubborn, obstinate principle can be just as disastrous as none at all. Maybe worse, because sometimes the damage cannot be undone, no matter how much one desires. After close to 20 years, one of my step-daughters still will not speak to me and all I can do is hope and pray that eventually love will win out over principle.
To hold to principle is good, to love is better.
Australia,
DeleteThanks for the link, but I lost the sound card on my computer some time ago and have not replaced it. I am able to view videos, but not able to hear them. Sorry, mate.
I may never change this.
Dear Roger, no worries mate (are you Aussie too :D?)
DeleteSorry you had no chance to see the clip.
What this way of bringing up kids, which is not too dissimilar I think to the homeschooling process when it is done well, is not either "freedom" or a "tight leash". Charlotte Mason speaks of not abdicating from the God given authority of the parent to be "king and queen" for their children. This doesn't mean being a tyrant, but it doesn't mean running a democracy either. The integrating of those dualities leads to kids that feel like they have a real home to always return to.
Why the tribal story appeals to so many (albeit usually Left tending, but maybe to others too just not as loudly) Westerners I think is because the false duality of freedom/tight leash both fails to inculcate a feeling of safety in belonging. Further it fails to provide any injunctions by which one can embody and recommit loyalty and fidelity to that belonging.
That's one thing I have found quite surprising in accepting Sharia as a Muslim revert - having a legal tradition to follow and guide in every aspect of life, with no secularised lacunae, is actually very reassuring ultimately, once some balance is achieved. You feel like you can be home anywhere, for you are able to constantly demonstrate loyalty to a God that placed you wherever you are as part of His Perfect Plan. I think He allows you to not forget that as return for this loyalty. I am certain all Traditions have version of this.
Peace.
"... having a legal tradition to follow and guide in every aspect of life..."
DeleteI am no expert in Sharia; I hope this isn't true. It sounds too much like a wind-up toy.
"...you are able to constantly demonstrate loyalty to a God..."
This doesn't seem to follow. It demonstrates loyalty in the same way that my computer displays loyalty to the software code that controls it.
Like I said, I am no expert in Sharia; I hope this isn't true.
Matthew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
These are the commandments for rational beings.
Dear BM,
DeleteIn Islam, across the various schools of Jurisprudence, there is the agreement that disputationalism (again, not an easy Arabic to English translation, so hold it loosely for now) is forbidden, or at least blameworthy.
I think this has to do with the difference between one who speaks/conjectures/debates on the basis that the Pharisees in the Messiah's time did, vs the basis that the Messiah did himself. Even as the Pharisees did indeed hold the seat of Moses and should be treated as such, they did so on the basis of no actual "authority". That is, Knowledge and wholesome instantiation. Yes, I know, this angle from that part of the NT is from Jordan Peterson... still, it makes (above rational but not in conflict with rational) sense.
I think a case can be made on such basis that those that have conjecture, even if "correct" conjecture on their side, shouldn't really be speaking at all. This certainly gives us all time to reflect on deeper things a bit more, the only real way to defeat our own prejudices I suspect.
Peace.
PS. BM, this is an excellent summation of where sources of misunderstanding can arise, from an Orthodox Christian expert of Sharia and Fiqh:
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRRVyGDOsTk&feature=emb_title
PPS. Roger, a paragraph was missing from the above to you, here is the tail end again:
"...This doesn't mean being a tyrant, but it doesn't mean running a democracy either. The integrating of those dualities leads to kids that feel like they have a real home to always return to."
PPPS. Roger, re: (changing a bit) "To hold to principle is good, to Love is better", I can only say, YES :D!
"...there is the agreement that disputationalism (again, not an easy Arabic to English translation, so hold it loosely for now) is forbidden, or at least blameworthy."
DeleteAfter holding it loosely for some time, I am left with a question: Are you suggesting that I should ignore you?
Dear BM,
Delete"Are you suggesting that I should ignore you? "
It is a possibility, at least for now. Wholesome instantiation "is no joke, it can take you to the bottom of Hell" as JBP was wont to say, as identifications are purged.
Again in JBP language: sometimes "principles" themselves are actually idols, hoping that they stand on Love/Principle but actually held up only by wilful assertion, and defended via wilful blindness. All covering for some unowned pain, which only a true internet troll would want to exacerbate.
I am recommending "steadfastness, courage and patience" (Subr), for certain.
I in turn will commit to you to visit no more, with God's help. Again my gratitude for your forum and your commitments to it.
Certainly that video with Leslie Wolfe is worth watching though (and no I don't think subscribing to the Theosophical Society channel after doing so is a good idea). Muslim Fiqh/Sharia is not the same thing as essentially Roman Law, it is much closer in line with the Semitic stream, which in turn fits better with Hoppean and Rothbardian concepts (eg. Rothbard's case for blood money). Mr Wolfe makes a clear presentation.
One final area of possible exploration: if looking at the good and bad of the Renaissance is considered of value, and how to "cure" ourselves of the bad, I want to propose it is worth examining Averroes very closely. Many in the West and Muslim world agree that he was central to Western "lift off", for example:https://nation.com.pk/22-Feb-2016/ibn-rushd-vs-ghazali-did-the-muslim-world-take-a-wrong-turn
So the Muslim world and the Christian West were both exposed to Averroes and the secularising path that his "rational as lead" thought/synthesis would lead to. Al Ghazali completely cut that route off for the Muslims (maybe a bit too harshly), the Scholastics took it and ran with it.
Maybe St Thomas Aquinas, after his (eerily similar to Al Ghazali) late life crisis, might have regretted that. Maybe that's why he said "I can do no more. Such secrets have been revealed to me that all I have written now appears to be of little value.", and never wrote again.
Peace, Strength and Blessings to you and your family,
Lionel Chan
Dear Mr Bionic, did you ever read Erazim Kohak? He had some very pertinent things to say about natural law, and our post-Gallileo and Decarte understanding of what nature even is, in "Embers and Stars". It works very well with Wolfgang Smith's recent work too.
ReplyDeleteWe must remember what we mean by nature now is very different to what either Aristotle or St Thomas Aquinas ever did.
I have not read him.
DeleteI do remember the difference.
Mr Kohak (who only recently passed, to God we Belong and is the Return) said that whatever discursive understanding/remembrance we have of "natural law", our consistent principled instantiation of it made a much more difficult task, when we live in a world of reflections of our (technological) works all but only, and out of touch with pre-modern rhythms of time, hour, month and season. It's worth noting that this "season" includes the analogical and Biblical, so that there is a time to sow and a time to reap, a time to be born and a time to die, etc. The mechanisation of time and medical "life support" technology are obvious culprits here, but so too are simple things like artificial lighting.
DeleteThe Heidigger-an and existentialist sense of being moral aliens heroically struggling in an uncaring "foreign land" we are thrown into, a fight we cannot hope to maintain sustainably, is all but impossible for the majority to avoid under such conditions. Only worsened by social media and smartphones no doubt.
He makes the Christian case for why "eye for an eye" or the way of balance in the non-human, including the movement of the planets etc, must be continuous with in order to support "forgive and love thy enemy" as the same "natural law" or morality that ultimately connects us to Principle. A kind of Creation Spirituality, one supporting and the other being caretaker for the other.
Permaculture (plus prayer times that follow the sun's variations, and a calendar that tracks the moon) as one way for "natural law" and morals to make a comeback? That's how I took it anyway, and it seems to work very well for our family so far.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete