Libertarians probably have vastly conflicting views on human nature. From what I can tell, Mises was a compatibalist determinist. I could be wrong about that though. For my own part, I think that morality ceases to exist in the absence of choice, so free will is a fundamental. To address your question about competition and cooperation, I think that we have natural incentives to be cooperative. It's in our rational self-interest. The isolated individual who wishes to live as a hermit is free to do so, but they are essentially damning themself to a life of extreme misery. And I reject the idea that competition in the economic sense equates to war-like behavior. We are competitive in the sense that we have incentives to do better then one another, and we are cooperative in the sense that survival would be virtually impossible without some kind of social cooperation. So I suppose it's both.
Overall, I'd say that libertarians generally tend to reject a Hobbesian or uber-pessemistic view of human nature in which we are equated to nothing more then brute animals who have no natural incentives to cooperate and peacefully co-exist. Left to their own devices, human beings generally do not run around murdering eachother and just taking whatever they can from eachother. That does not necessarily mean that we are blind optimists either though, that we think of humans as perfect angels or something. For my own part, in conjunction with my sentiment that morality ceases to exist in the absence of choice, people cannot be forced to be moral, they have to choose to be moral. Otherwise, we cannot genuinely assign responsibility and virtue to anyone. In my view, we are not inherently good or bad, but only good or bad as a consequence of our free choices.
Brainpolice:we think of humans as perfect angels or something
I've encountered some socialists saying that about us and thus bringing it as an argument against market anarchism. Then again, I've never met any libertarians saying that. On the contrary, they usually express the opposite - men aren't always nice and it isn't required.
The role of cooperation, I think, depends on whether man is egoistic or not. I tend to believe that man is entirely egoistic and therefore cooperation is a tool for satisfying ones needs.
Brainpolice:We are competitive in the sense that we have incentives to do better then one another
About that, I've been thinking and have to say that can't say that our competitivness couldn't be just a measurement so we could place ourselves on the scale of how successful we are.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Brainpolice:Overall, I'd say that libertarians generally tend to reject a Hobbesian or uber-pessemistic view of human nature in which we are equated to nothing more then brute animals who have no natural incentives to cooperate and peacefully co-exist.
Overall, I'd say that libertarians generally tend to reject a Hobbesian or uber-pessemistic view of human nature in which we are equated to nothing more then brute animals who have no natural incentives to cooperate and peacefully co-exist.
So people are not brutish but simply trying to ensure their own survival which might in fact lead to a war of everyone against everyone.
I do not agree with Hobbes on his conclusions and most of my essays try to show why there can still be a stable equilibrium between private 'defence'-agencies, but his actual point is quite goof if you ask me.
Woah, just saw my weird syntax, but don't have time to rewrite now (political-econ lecture at university, but quite controversial due to me not agreing with my prof) and I'm not native english-speaking as well. Anyways, I hope it's still possible to get the point.
Yea well that's a common charge leveled against anarchists (I.E. that they're utopian idealists who think that society would become perfect in the absence of the state). Except no serious anarchist has ever made any such claim. The view that I have stated ad nauseum when argueing with statists is that human nature remains exactly the same with or without the state and the real question is a matter of what we make of it and what institutional framework is best in light of what human nature is.
Another point I try to stress is that argueing against anarchism (or liberty in general) by appealing to the baser aspects of human nature is simply a logical dead end, since the state is made up of human beings too and thus if one is consistant in holding such negative views of human nature then this will be reflected (if not amplified) in the state. If the state is a reflection of "the people" to any extent at all, then the state will represent all of those negative aspects of human nature. Unless they wish to take an elitist view in which the state is made up of specially endowed individuals (the "philosopher king" deal), which is empirically indefensible.
I tend to view cooperation as generally being in one's rational self-interest, so I see no inherent contradiction between egoism and cooperation. I think of it in terms of mutual self-interest. We both "use" eachother to our mutual benefit, in cooperation. Everyone is an egoist on at least a fundamental level (if noone persued their self-interest ever, they would die).
Beaners: Brainpolice: Overall, I'd say that libertarians generally tend to reject a Hobbesian or uber-pessemistic view of human nature in which we are equated to nothing more then brute animals who have no natural incentives to cooperate and peacefully co-exist. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but while reading Leviathan I found that Hobbes was actually making quite a good point. He does not refer to humans as brute animals, and even states, that they are obligated to wish for peaceful coexistance by their own self-interest. But because of their mistrust concerning action another human could take due to his own mistrust regarding your plans, people can rightfully take pre-emptive action, which even includes murdering one another. (I do not know what your plans are and you don't know my plans and because we both know that we don't know each other plans, we mistrust each other, knowing that we mistrust each other :P ) So people are not brutish but simply trying to ensure their own survival which might in fact lead to a war of everyone against everyone. I do not agree with Hobbes on his conclusions and most of my essays try to show why there can still be a stable equilibrium between private 'defence'-agencies, but his actual point is quite goof if you ask me. Woah, just saw my weird syntax, but don't have time to rewrite now (political-econ lecture at university, but quite controversial due to me not agreing with my prof) and I'm not native english-speaking as well. Anyways, I hope it's still possible to get the point.
Brainpolice: Overall, I'd say that libertarians generally tend to reject a Hobbesian or uber-pessemistic view of human nature in which we are equated to nothing more then brute animals who have no natural incentives to cooperate and peacefully co-exist.
Perhaps I might be exaggerating a bit about the Hobbesian view but I still think that it is too pessemistic and unfair. The "war of all against all" simply has no evidence. On a small scale, people cooperate all the time. I personally don't entirely trust the people in my neighborhood and I don't share their tastes yet I deal with them anyways. I'm more indifferent or neutral to them then anything else at the end of the day. And on a large scale, it would be physically impossible for people to wage war against eachother as individuals. On the other hand, even across oceans, people indirectly cooperate in all sorts of ways (think international trade). So I'm really mystified by this idea that every single individual is naturally waging war against the other. I see no evidence for it.
Brainpolice: Perhaps I might be exaggerating a bit about the Hobbesian view but I still think that it is too pessemistic and unfair. The "war of all against all" simply has no evidence. On a small scale, people cooperate all the time. And on a large scale, it would be physically impossible for them to wage war against eachother as individuals. On the other hand, even across oceans, people indirectly cooperate in all sorts of ways (think international trade).
Perhaps I might be exaggerating a bit about the Hobbesian view but I still think that it is too pessemistic and unfair. The "war of all against all" simply has no evidence. On a small scale, people cooperate all the time. And on a large scale, it would be physically impossible for them to wage war against eachother as individuals. On the other hand, even across oceans, people indirectly cooperate in all sorts of ways (think international trade).
I see your point and would agree with you, but due to having governments enforce 'peaceful' actions between it's citizens, there seems to be no empirical prove of Hobbes being wrong, because his argument starts at an anarchist level of society.
So my understanding is, that Hobbes should be proved wrong even on a theoretical basis, although the 'real world' already suggests that his view on humans can't be right. This is what I'm currently trying to do and my guessing is, that he missed points on his argument why the attacker should have an advantage on the defender.
So basically I really do agree with your reasoning, but trying to prove this even to my pretty sceptical philosophy profs on a theoretical basis seems like a good way of showing that anarchie does not have to lead to the creation of a state. If there are 'good' essays on this topic from people who really understood Hobbes, I would be glad if you could post them (I only found a couple from people who did not fully comprehend Hobbes, perhaps I spent too little time looking for them).
About your request for essays: Geoffery Allan Plauch linked me to a paper in progress of his that gets into this topic, as well as things that relate to it, fairly in depth. Here's the link: http://www.veritasnoctis.net/docs/persistentanarchyapsa2006.pdf
He's making an arguement, and extension thereof, that is obviously influenced by and related to Alfred Kuzan's work "Do We Ever Really Get Out Of Anarchy?". Here's the link to that: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf
ViennaSausage:What is the Libertarian view of Human Nature? With respect to Austrian Economics. I would conjecture that Free Will plays a primary role in the Libertarian and Austrian view of Human Nature. Are we by nature competitive or cooperative? Both? Neither?
The Libertarian view of human nature is as follows:
*People are generally egoistic
*People are generally rational
That's about it. Both of those are true, but incomplete. People are often irrational and egoism is the root of this. Furthermore, at the heart of human nature is Buddha-nature. Real human nature is Buddha-nature clouded by ego. The "human nature" which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down is superficial and just as reflective of stupidity as rationality.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn: ViennaSausage:What is the Libertarian view of Human Nature? With respect to Austrian Economics. I would conjecture that Free Will plays a primary role in the Libertarian and Austrian view of Human Nature. Are we by nature competitive or cooperative? Both? Neither? The Libertarian view of human nature is as follows: *People are generally egoistic *People are generally rational That's about it. Both of those are true, but incomplete. People are often irrational and egoism is the root of this. Furthermore, at the heart of human nature is Buddha-nature. Real human nature is Buddha-nature clouded by ego. The "human nature" which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down is superficial and just as reflective of stupidity as rationality.
In what sense are we using the word rational? On one hand, every single person is rational in the sense that they possess the faculty of reason and are self-aware. They have the ability to freely make choices (praxeologically, choose among means to desired ends). This is one sense that libertarians may employ the term rational to refer to human action in general. In this sense of the word, noone can be more rational then anyone else because this is merely a description of our fundamental natures.
On the other hand, in terms of their actual beliefs and choices, noone is consistantly rational if we are using rational to mean in accordance with objective reality and their actual best interest. People make all sorts of choices that can easily be demonstrated to be harmful to them, and people believe plenty of things that are not in accordance with objective reality. In this sense of the word, some people are simply more rational then others, make more coherant arguements and better choices.
But when libertarians describe human beings as inherently being rational, we are using the first sense of the word, not the second. It would be disingenous to act as if we are argueing that everyone is consistant in their beliefs, sharp as a bell and makes wonderful lifestyle choices. So you're setting up a straw man.
Brainpolice:Another point I try to stress is that argueing against anarchism (or liberty in general) by appealing to the baser aspects of human nature is simply a logical dead end, since the state is made up of human beings too and thus if one is consistant in holding such negative views of human nature then this will be reflected (if not amplified) in the state. If the state is a reflection of "the people" to any extent at all, then the state will represent all of those negative aspects of human nature. Unless they wish to take an elitist view in which the state is made up of specially endowed individuals (the "philosopher king" deal), which is empirically indefensible.
Well, in the case of the "philosopher king" aren't the specially endowed individuals then the proof that man's nature doesn't include negative aspects? That again would then prove that there must be something wrong with the state and social order. So yes, definitely looks like a dead end.
Don Roberto: Brainpolice:Another point I try to stress is that argueing against anarchism (or liberty in general) by appealing to the baser aspects of human nature is simply a logical dead end, since the state is made up of human beings too and thus if one is consistant in holding such negative views of human nature then this will be reflected (if not amplified) in the state. If the state is a reflection of "the people" to any extent at all, then the state will represent all of those negative aspects of human nature. Unless they wish to take an elitist view in which the state is made up of specially endowed individuals (the "philosopher king" deal), which is empirically indefensible. Well, in the case of the "philosopher king" aren't the specially endowed individuals then the proof that man's nature doesn't include negative aspects? That again would then prove that there must be something wrong with the state and social order. So yes, definitely looks like a dead end.
Yea. I ultimately don't think that the state can be justified by an appeal to human nature in either direction. If the state is attempted to be justified by taking the other route, by argueing that people are generally good, I cannot help but immediately retort that if people are generally good then you don't really need the state.
You just made me seriously doubt whether you have ever read anything on the austrian preferencescales. The individual making his choices is never an object to the objective rationality due to lack of information or his personal differences from others. The acting man always uses subjective rationality to make the best choice available to him.
The objective rationality is something that the utilitarians tend to use. In my opinion this is a serious mistake since even they can't know everything. The objective rationality, I think, could only be used by God or some other entity governing man and the rest of existence.
Brainpolice:[...]
[...]
Thanks for the links, I'll check it out these days. From my first glance he covered major points on this topic and while social contract theory is unbelievable fallicios by itself it seems (at least to me) that he might still be missing one point, that is, whether or not the Natural Anarchy would be stable and not ultimately lead to a Hobbesian-State Anarchy. Once I finished reading, I'll post on this again.
The individual making his choices is never an object to the objective rationality due to lack of information or his personal differences from others. The acting man always uses subjective rationality to make the best choice available to him. The objective rationality is something that the utilitarians tend to use. In my opinion this is a serious mistake since even they can't know everything. The objective rationality, I think, could only be used by God or some other entity governing man and the rest of existence.
Just to clarify: what you're refering to as "subjective rationality" would be whatever the individual's own preference scale is, right? Subjective value. On the other hand, "objective rationality" would be whatever preference is actually objectively good for that person's well-being, which we cannot always know because we are not omniscient, right? And the fundamental sense in which I say that everyone is objectively rational, that I mention above, is something different then both of these things. What I mean in saying that everyone is rational is merely the fact that they have the capacity to choose. It isn't meant to imply that their actual choices will necessarily be the correct ones. It's just a description of the distinguishing feature of human beings, I.E. a higher sense of self-awareness and the capacity to have an intricate subjective value scale in the first place.
Brainpolice: Just to clarify: what you're refering to as "subjective rationality" would be whatever the individual's own preference scale is, right? Subjective value. On the other hand, "objective rationality" would be whatever preference is actually objectively good for that person's well-being, which we cannot always know because we are not omniscient, right? And the fundamental sense in which I say that everyone is objectively rational, that I mention above, is something different then both of these things. What I mean in saying that everyone is rational is merely the fact that they have the capacity to choose. It isn't meant to imply that their actual choices will necessarily be the correct ones. It's just a description of the distinguishing feature of human beings, I.E. a higher sense of self-awareness and the capacity to have an intricate subjective value scale in the first place.
Seems about right
Okay. Just trying to make sure that we're on the same general page.
Brainpolice, you're arguing that action is essentially rational if the agent chooses the means which in his/her subjective estimation will attain the end desired, right? If so I think we're on the same page.
You're correct on Mises - from what I could infer, he is a compatibilist of sorts. He also argues, though, that from the actor's point of view choice is (ironically) inescapable. We always choose from our perspective. He concedes though that from a perfect being's POV, we might be completely determined.
As for Hobbes, his social contract notion suffers from a problem in that he posits that no one in the 'state of nature' would rely on promises made by others. What is one to make of his social contract then? How is it to be enforced, or relied upon? This is a major blow to his theory (one I covered last term in my ethics classes.)
Yes, that's the gist of it. It doesn't mean that their choice of means is necessarily correct, or that their desired ends are necessarily good, in objective reality. It's just a description of the process of choosing.
Very true. Hobbe's own arguements ironically work against him, since he seems to apply totally different rules of human behavior when it comes to the "post-anarchic" society. But as the links I posted earlier get into, there is no such thing as an escape from the "natural" world in the first place.
Nathyn: That's about it. Both of those are true, but incomplete. People are often irrational and egoism is the root of this. Furthermore, at the heart of human nature is Buddha-nature. Real human nature is Buddha-nature clouded by ego. The "human nature" which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down is superficial and just as reflective of stupidity as rationality.
"Buddha-nature"? That certainly sounds debatable.
"...which leads people to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less of a good when the price goes down..."
I'll be charitable and assume that's a typo, that you meant "less of a good when the price goes UP..." This has already been answered from the Austrian perspective, but even from a more mainstream economic perspective, you're missing the point. All other things being equal, then yes, people will tend to buy more of a good when the price goes down and less when the price goes up. In real life, multiple variables are involved, and changing variables tend to have the effect of causing changes to other variables. It's difficult, no, it's impossible to get any grasp of the big picture, all those variables interacting, without a better understanding of how each individual variable works. "All other things being equal" is a way of performing a thought experiment and isolating a single variable so that it can be better understood, since controlled economic experiments are nearly impossible to conduct in real life.
An "evenly rotating economy" is a similar mental construct. It's not intended to explain economic reality, but to isolate individual variables so they can be understood. Once an understanding of the individual variables exist, then you can try to put them all together and get a better, holistic picture of economic reality.
There isn't any one libertarian view of human nature, although there might be some commonalities. My own view is that of Aristotelian libertarianism, which you can learn more about by reading the writings of the following thinkers: Henry Veatch, Roderick Long, Fred D. Miller, Jr., Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, Ayn Rand, and some others.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
I was not certain whether or no there was consensus on a libertarian view of human nature, but it looks like the consensus is there is no consensus, which is an adequate answer for me.
Just to throw in a thought on an earlier point, I don't think I like Mises' definition of rationality. If all active choices are rational, then it seems like we destroy any significance the word might have. It becomes an empty, almost redundant term. That's not to say that I disagree with the underlying point that Mises is making, but I think that definining rationality as something more like "responding properly to reason" allows us to call someone "irrational" if they respond "improperly" to reason, which seems like a useful distinction that Mises' definition doesn't allow us to make.
It's sort of like how "voluntary" loses a significant part of its meaning when you say that "all actions are voluntary," even though under some definitions of the word, that would be true.
Perhaps it was a response to people who were using the term "irrational" to critique ends, rather than means?
It was probably an attempt to ward off psychologism and polylogism.
Roderick has an interesting article that discusses how Mises's Kantian impositionism fails to do so.
"Anti-Psychologism in Economics: Wittgenstein and Mises"