a) One of the themes that emerges from power-elite analysis is that the Elites have more in common with each other than they do with the people they rule. This is particularly obvious in Europe where monarchs are frequently "imported", that is, come from a House that has its origins in another nation. The Queen of England, for a contemporary example, is actually of a German royal House (Saxe-Coburg Gotha), a point which is not talked about openly in polite English society.
b) Long before the UN, there existed an international law code called lex mercatoria (the Law Merchant) that provided the "ground rules" for international trade where it would be difficult or impossible to bring a dispute before a court in either trading partner's home country due to bias, etc.
c) During the Medieval era when lex mercatoria was flourishing, much of Europe was feudal, meaning that serfs were "bound to the land". Feudal titles could be bought/sold - in compliance with locally varying rules - they could be amassed through marriage or they could be captured through battle following the medieval laws of war in which non-combatants were not to be harmed and nobles were not to be executed without proper trial. I'm not saying it was paradise, but neither was it the Bosch-like hell painted by popular history.
d) As a matter of historical analysis, large discontinuities in the power structure are very rare and those discontinuities that do occur usually consist of a triumph of a 2nd-in-line over the sitting ruler, whether through outright coup or subtler methods. I reject as ahistorical the picture of the 19th and 20th centuries as "the death of monarchy/triumph of democracy". This narrative is simply false. Monarchy is alive and well, all around the globe and democracy has lately been shown to clearly be a sham (so clearly, even the masses are starting to catch on).
e) I understand that the Royal houses actually have something called "house law" which is kind of like the by-laws of a corporation - the house law dictates the rules of inheritance, disinheritance, name-taking, sale, acquisition and nationalization of estate assets, and so on. Because the Royal houses are inherently international, my guess is that they are in a position with respect to each other very similar to that faced by international merchants - they simply cannot take their disputes to national courts and, for privacy reasons, would never want to in any case. But this logic extends from the well-known Royal houses to the family dynasties of wealthy industrialists, such as the Rockefellers or the Mellons. Note that these families operate something called a "Family Office" which, in any practical respect, is a lot like having house law, that is, the Family Office is charged with administering the policies of the family (that is, the patriarch) with respect to its assets.
f) The de facto rights of the wealthy and powerful are very much like the rights that we describe as obtaining in Ancap/Libertopia, that is, they are secure in their persons and property, they are not subject to the arbitrary dictates of a legislature, and so on. While they exploit the masses (a right that we do not desire to have in Ancap/Libertopia), they must - by dint of logic - treat each other as peers.
g) On the basis of the prior observations, I surmise that there exists a kind of "lex mercatoria" - perhaps we could call it lex regalia - between the handful of the world's absolutely most powerful and wealthy dynasties (and no, I don't mean the "13 bloodlines" which I think is a bunch of disinfo crap). This "lex regalia" is a law system that does not assume any compulsion to moderate disputes because the parties at the table actually have the plenary power to launch war campaigns with all the assets at their disposal - military, financial, diplomatic, media, (yes, even religious) etc. Hence, the law which emerges in this very cloistered environment is extremely rational, equitable and fundamentally liberal (there are no monopolies of law at this level).
Hence, we see that - if we restrict the analysis to just the Elites (ignoring the masses) - they are an Ancap/Libertopia. What's interesting is that, on this view, not only are the statists who complain "But there's never been an Ancap/Libertopia!" just plain wrong, they completely fail to appreciate the fact that the actually existing Ancap/Libertopia rules most of the planet. So much for your "but national armies would wipe them out." No, the Ancap/Libertopians own and operate the national armies around the globe.
In closing, this leads to at least one novel observation. Perhaps - rather than trying to "eliminate government" - what we should be seeking to do is to extend the already existing and actually just legal system enjoyed by the Elites downward into ordinary society. If we could do this, we might break the chains of the de facto system of serfdom that dominates the masses who are trapped in the national statutory law system.
Clayton -
This literally is a stone's throw from an endorsement. I mean, liberals will love this perspective. "We don't want Ancap/Libertopa because this is what you get...exploited!" Power will be amassed by the most clever and avaricious at the expense of the dimwitted and gullible.
I get what you are saying, too. Don't think I am misinterpreting your point. But, the masses (the profane) will twist this so that they can get their democracy to rule your power-monger...ers.
We probably need to mention their use of the masses when they aquire their property. Religion has a lot to do with the power struggles of the old world. Each sect and Monarch may have treated each other with respect, but that is only proof that two dozen ultra rich people can get along and respect each other in between wars...bob's your uncle.
Very interesting stuff. It sounds like what you are saying is that the elites have unlimited liability regarding each other. They hold each other accountable for their actions, but only regarding their fellow elites. But if they do something to one of the peons of society, they do not care to honor this strict concept of liability.
If I'm reading you correctly, it seems like the best way forward is to push for unlimited liability. But not just regarding cops beating up and arresting people unjustly (though that would be a great start), everyone has to be held accountable for their actions.
Well, I think the best way forward is for us lesser folk to push for holding each other accountable, and eventually more people will see that the elites should not enjoy their double standard. Push for the cops, lawyers, and judges to be held accountable for their actions, and then show that their is an immense conflict of interest in having agents of the state hold other agents of the state accountable. Who watches the watchmen? If we can get people to that point, then it's all smooth sailing from there!
EDIT: I like how Aristophanes and I had completely opposite reactions to your post.
But, the masses (the profane) will twist this so that they can get their democracy to rule your power-monger...ers.
I guess I'm arguing that this is so irrelevant that the Elites themselves have co-opted democracy as a weapon against each other. Regimes are toppled with "democratic revolutions" in order to punish the ruling power by deposing its puppets. I think this dynamic began after the French Revolution. I believe this because I cannot believe that the monarchs of Europe simply laughed off the French Revolution then got eaten alive by the very same democracy that separated King Louis XVI's head from his shoulders. To say that the most cunning, ruthless, competitive people in the world were outsmarted by "the masses" and their "populist leaders" again and again and again - while never learning lessons from the mistakes of their fallen peers - strains credulity beyond the breaking point.
The larger point is that there is no "we don't want" about it - we already have it. We are exploited by virtue of the fact that we (the masses) do not require the same rules of justice which the Elites themselves insist upon. As gotlucky points out, we can start by insisting on fair dealings with each other since we're not even in a position to demand it from our superiors. This can act as a starting-point from which to build up to a fairer, more just society.
I imagine it's more Machievellian than libertopian. Libertopia is based on the exchange of private property. In the Machievellian world there is connections, promises, manipulation and things of that nature.
It's Mafia style order, not libertarian order.
And in Libertopia, people are not free to form associations, bonds and other complex networks with the aim to arm-twist their opponents through extra-legal means to whatever extent they can manage?
Arm-twist probably isn't the best expression for you to use but I get your point.
In Machiavelli-land the Mafiosos have no private property. It takes place purely in the psychosocial realm.
One can use Machiavellian tactics within libertopia but contract law/private property would remain the overriding constant. No such order can exist when you're talking about a psychosoical order. The concepts as I'll use them are diametric. Law (in the Spooner sense) on one side with the Mafia on the other.
This is further illustrated if we make the point that the more Law is established among individuals, the weaker the Mafia is- taken to its logical conclusion Mafia land vanishes and the "de facto rights" of the elites with it. The rights then are purely illusory as they were just part of a social game within a violent system and not anagolous with the rights as defined in libertorpia.
There are no rights for the masses to 'join the elites' so to speak- the elites "rights" are within a predatory construct from the libertopia perspective.
the elites "rights" are within a predatory construct
True but only when you include the exploited masses within the analysis - I specifically excluded them in order to make the point that with respect to each other, the Elites have rights not unlike those that we imagine should obtain in Libertopia. I think the exploitative element of the social order explains why only a tiny minority has anything resembling natural* rights. So eliminating the exploitation and extending the natural rights out to the rest of the population are one and the same thing, they are directly correlated because they are both symptoms of the very same phenomenon.
*I use this term advisedly because I don't really care for natural rights analysis that well, even though I think it comes pretty close to describing the "expected outcome" of a free social order
The key to your analysis is that what matters is the relationship amongst individuals. This is why ancap-ism does exists and is practiced all the time; because ancap-ism exists amongst people who practice it amongst each other. This is why I make the argument that the USA military is a private defense agency* to those people to accept it as such by voluntarily paying taxes to the USA government so that it can protect them from foreigners. This is no different than a person being a father to one person while a thief to another. What matters is the relationship.
* Like making this argument to people who claim that PDA's could never survive against a state and, thus, the state is needed to protect them against other states; what they don't understand is that the state, in relation to them, is a PDA because they voluntarily accept it as such.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Your essays about how the elites play a domineering game are pretty interesting. While I know for sure that they are doing this, the only questions I have are about the extent of it, and whats really going on behind the scenes. I think this is an interesting idea, although I am unsure about how accurate it is that elites live under a liberterian-like law amongst themselves.
One question, what exactly makes one qualify as an elite, according to this post? I ask this because elite can be a vague term.
"b) Long before the UN, there existed an international law code called lex mercatoria (the Law Merchant) that provided the "ground rules" for international trade where it would be difficult or impossible to bring a dispute before a court in either trading partner's home country due to bias, etc."
Interesting how things can be really anarchaic with seperate countries, unless you have a world government. Really shows that some relations must be anarchaic.
"Hence, we see that - if we restrict the analysis to just the Elites (ignoring the masses) - they are an Ancap/Libertopia. What's interesting is that, on this view, not only are the statists who complain "But there's never been an Ancap/Libertopia!" just plain wrong, they completely fail to appreciate the fact that the actually existing Ancap/Libertopia rules most of the planet. So much for your "but national armies would wipe them out." No, the Ancap/Libertopians own and operate the national armies around the globe."
By Ancap/Libertopia, don't statists mean that it applies to all people within a particular geographic boundary, the way that some believe how governmental laws apply? The fact that some people could have a sort of Ancap/Libertopia law amongst themselves, while being bound under/abusing state law in others is an interesting idea. Sounds ironic, but this sounds sort of off.
"In closing, this leads to at least one novel observation. Perhaps - rather than trying to "eliminate government" - what we should be seeking to do is to extend the already existing and actually just legal system enjoyed by the Elites downward into ordinary society. If we could do this, we might break the chains of the de facto system of serfdom that dominates the masses who are trapped in the national statutory law system."
One question, how could this system be extended? This looks more like a means to eliminate government (basically strip its members of coercive power), rather than an alternative, am I wrong?
Schools are labour camps.
Sounds ironic, but this sounds sort of off.
What specifically sounds off? (I'm not being defenseive, but I kind of just had this thought while munching on a burger yesterday and thought I'd post it... so it's not exactly scientifically rigorous).
Well, a couple things. First, it is my view that the Elites are not a "random sample" of the population... they're not just lottery winners whose great-great-...grand-pappy just happened to be in the right place at the right time to become king. They are in a ruling position because their ancestors were very virtuous... what could be termed the martial virtues. Discipline, rigor, persistence, intrepidity, etc. etc. They really are better than the rest of us in these regards. So, having the humility to admit this and to acknowledge that, hey, perhaps we the masses need to get our shit together isn't really that crazy of a thing to say.
Of course, I believe the Elites are also outrageously vicious - they are a pack of blood-thirsty, misanthropic sociopaths (this is why I believe that the Twilight books were actually an allegory about the Elites... vampires are an almost perfect metaphor for the Elites).
Second - regardless of the fact that the Elites are dangerously vicious - the hypothesized "lex regalia" is a just law code precisely because it is not a unilateral law code, like statutory law. As Hoppe points out, it doesn't matter how bad humans are, if they are living under a law system that does not grant privileges, they will still have to restrain their base instincts and respect each other's rights. With respect to each other, the Elites are peers and have to respect each others' rights.
When I say we need to "extend down" the law of the Elites, I simply mean we should swallow our pride and have the humility and honesty to acknowledge the virtues of the Elites and the inter-Elite social order, while having the presence of mind to also condemn their vices and work to rid society of the monstrous privileges that make it possible for such vicious people to be so wealthy and powerful.
What makes the King lose sleep at night is not being murdered by a commoner, but by a noble. Those who are "near the top" in terms of wealth and power are the greatest threat to those who are actually at the top. So those at the top seek to prevent the "dilution" of the privileges they enjoy, which will reduce their security vis-a-vis those directly beneath them. This means that they don't want their underlings to be able to participate in a law system that makes them peers in a dispute. But for precisely this reason we (the masses) should throw our support behind the dilution of the powers of the Elites, that is, we should support bringing about the conditions under which those who are nearly at the top are treated as peers, in terms of legal rights, with those who are at the top. This despite the fact that we the masses won't be "enriched" by this shift.
@The Muff: Nice argument on US military as PDA to patriots. I literally lol'd...
Hmm, so essentially the elites form an ancap community with farming of ordinary humans as the main industry? Animal rights proponents will love this idea.
Clayton, who do you classify as "elites?"
Also do you think there are hierarchies amongst their ranks?
We're certainly living in an anarchy already - it's just an anarchy that doesn't (consistently) respect the notions of self-ownership, non-aggression, and property.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I was tracking with you, Clayton, until I got this:
"They are in a ruling position because their ancestors were very virtuous... what could be termed the martial virtues. Discipline, rigor, persistence, intrepidity, etc. etc. They really are better than the rest of us in these regards. So, having the humility to admit this and to acknowledge that, hey, perhaps we the masses need to get our shit together isn't really that crazy of a thing to say.
Of course, I believe the Elites are also outrageously vicious - they are a pack of blood-thirsty, misanthropic sociopaths"
I guess it's your description of "virtue," as well as your comment that "They really are better than the rest of us in these regards." Have to disagree with you on this one. They surely might be considered more "virtuous" than most in these regards, but I personally know hundreds of folks who far exceed these scum bags in these same "virtues." People who started with next to nothing, other than an idea and the will to accomplish it, and after decades of hard work and complying with the same rules as the rest of the masses have had to, now have successful businesses, employ numerous people, and contribute positively to their fellow man.
A very interesting, complex perspective. I would add that "elites" aren't generally the ones committing acts of violence, but rather they employ people on a (seemingly) voluntary basis who commit violence on their own accord, "for a paycheck" as it were.
In any event, it's good to see a perspective related to my recent comments, where elites are actually the people capable of exercising the most mutually voluntary liberties.
Hmm, I'm not sure how that's an objection to anything I said - I'm not saying only the Elite have these virtues. My claims are two-fold: a) it's not an "accident" that they are the Elites because there are identifiable virtues in their ancestors that led to them reaching the "top of the anthill" so to speak and b) the masses - as a population - do not possess these virtues to the same degree. My claim (b) is not saying that there are no exceptions, just that it's not the general rule. Note that your friends who possess these virtues are also very successful and that goes to support my claim, not refute it - most people are less successful than your disciplined, diligent friends.
Clayton, who do you classify as "elites?" Also do you think there are hierarchies amongst their ranks?
Well, I think this is a good case for "begin at the beginning" - just 100 years ago, the system of European nobility and royalty was in full operation and this system contained an explicit class hierarchy. The King outranked Dukes who outranked Earls who outranked Barons and so on. The Church also has explicit classes, with Priests near the bottom, then Bishops, then Arch-Bishops, then Cardinals and, finally, the Pope. I think the obvious answer to the question "Is this system still in operation?" is yes, of course. I'm not sure how people come to the conclusion that the nobility are "not a factor in politics" because this obviously isn't true. The Queen doesn't pay the upkeep bills on her estate from charitable donations.
In education, there are explicit hierarchies in the degrees, obviously, but also in the Universities themselves with a small group being recognized as the top schools. Having a degree from one of these schools actually does put you in a "different class" in business. In business, there are explicit hierarchies - CEO, CFO, board members, VPs and so on. Even in engineering (my field), there are hierarchies - Individual Contributor (lowest), Technical Lead, Principal Engineer, Fellow, Senior Fellow (highest).
The "murky" question for me is how this translates to the nouveau riche, that is, how it works with the American ultra-wealthy (Rockefellers, Mellons, etc.) who might as well be "nobility" and perhaps also with the up-and-coming ultra-wealthy such as the Larry Page/Sergey Brin types. In England you can be inducted into the ranks by the Queen because she can confer title. In the US, there is no official conferral of title so the induction must be informal, though it is no less real. I guess that's the interesting, open question: are there informal-yet-rigidly-enforced hierarchies? (My bet: yes)
I'm wasn't objecting to anything in the OP, but in your later comment I referenced.
While I essentially agree with you, by stating that "They really are better than the rest of us in these regards." you're not allowing for any exceptions. I know, nit-picking, but that's how it came across to me. Your clarification does straighten this out.
So can we conclude that we should convince/force the elites to be completely socialistic in order to undermine them?
You know the old phrase "shit rolls downhill"? I think that's essentially what the pyramid is. It's the people above forcing/duping/convincing the people below to live in a state of socialistic exploitation.
But if capitalism is their strength, shouldn't we force the elites to adopt a socialist statutory legal system?
Better yet, a vanguard party might be the best way to overthrow them and establish natural rights.
shouldn't we force the elites
Perhaps you missed the definition of the Elites... it's a bit like Southern slaves saying to each other, "Shouldn't we force our masters to take on slavery themselves?" Sorry, but... herp derp derp.
Perfectly legitimitate strategy. The only way to keep them from re-emerging is to keep them down.
As one very famous German Austrian Economist put it:
"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
- Hans-Herman Hoppe
What gives you the idea that it would be like that? There isn't any guarantee for it to be like that. Just like the American inspired constitution didn't remain of effect in Liberia.