Riggenbach has an excellent Mises daily on Milgram's experiments in which he mentions an edition of de la Beoties Politics of Obedience titled The Will to Bondage with an introduction by James. J. Martin. The quote in the article piqued my interest so I search Martin and found this Reason article from the mid-70's. In it, Martin sums up my current views on the usefulness of evangelizing liberty:
REASON: One more question. Your ideas on the libertarian temperament are somewhat unorthodox among libertarians. Would you care to state what they are? MARTIN: Well, I don't think they're original with me. But my attitude that seems to disturb the majority of people is my insistence on the biological and genetic basis for the substance of philosophic and ethical views and that's not something I invented, it was something I was exposed to years ago in the writings of the woman radical named Voltairine de Cleyre. She wrote to this effect around the turn of the century--a very much neglected and overlooked lady revolutionist and thinker of great importance in this country. I'm amazed that nobody's discovered her recently. Voltairine de Cleyre advanced the notion that at bottom, if you kept going down to the bottom, in an attempt to search out the reason for the existence of this or that individual attitude toward ethical, philosophical, and related questions, you got back down to a biological basis--what she called temperament--which was not capable of being understood or measured by any kind of rational approach; and that it was a genetic factor. I mulled over that for a long, long time and am still doing so and am applying it everywhere I can. I can't find any way to crack her case, and as a result I've adopted it. It explains my attitude of casual lack of interest in propaganda tactics, in the hopes of maximizing the existing number of libertarians. In this I've been influenced by additional forces, including the whole circle of Ernest Armand in France in the 1920s and 1930s who mulled over the problem themselves to a great extent, wondering why the ranks of libertarians increased so slowly, if at all. And it has dawned on me over the years that Voltairine de Cleyre explained why--that there's a problem of the inability of the genetic process to produce libertarians in any larger volume than exists. In looking over the scenery a little more closely I didn't see any evidence that persuasion by way of literature, conversation, preaching, psychic intimidation, nor any other known device, had maximized the number of such people and that in most cases in which it was reported by individuals that they had gone through some magical transformation from whatever they were to some libertarian position, all they had done was to find out what they really were. They had come to such conclusions as a result of self-exposure so to speak--they had revealed to themselves what they really were and had not gone through any conversion at all. They were psychically conducive to that attitude, as a matter of temperament. They had been inhibited from such awareness for a variety of reasons involving all kinds of things ranging from religious or home pressures or various other things which prevented them from taking wing. Now it would be pleasant for me to adopt a contradictory position and believe that by the expenditure of a lot of money and a great deal of exposure to literature and much eloquent talk we would suddenly convert all the totalitarians and authoritarians of the world into libertarians. And I would suggest that before that happens, as Krushchev said, you will probably hear shrimps whistle. The process of conversion is futile. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the ranks of the libertarians will always be small, that they will probably be in about the same ratio to the total population as they are now, and I'm satisfied to contemplate that situation without developing suicidal tendencies or becoming morose, depressed or anything else. It happens to be a fact of life and I'm ready to put up with that and I will change that view when I have some evidence for it. In my own lifetime I haven't seen one scrap of evidence to the contrary.
MARTIN: Well, I don't think they're original with me. But my attitude that seems to disturb the majority of people is my insistence on the biological and genetic basis for the substance of philosophic and ethical views and that's not something I invented, it was something I was exposed to years ago in the writings of the woman radical named Voltairine de Cleyre. She wrote to this effect around the turn of the century--a very much neglected and overlooked lady revolutionist and thinker of great importance in this country. I'm amazed that nobody's discovered her recently. Voltairine de Cleyre advanced the notion that at bottom, if you kept going down to the bottom, in an attempt to search out the reason for the existence of this or that individual attitude toward ethical, philosophical, and related questions, you got back down to a biological basis--what she called temperament--which was not capable of being understood or measured by any kind of rational approach; and that it was a genetic factor.
I mulled over that for a long, long time and am still doing so and am applying it everywhere I can. I can't find any way to crack her case, and as a result I've adopted it. It explains my attitude of casual lack of interest in propaganda tactics, in the hopes of maximizing the existing number of libertarians. In this I've been influenced by additional forces, including the whole circle of Ernest Armand in France in the 1920s and 1930s who mulled over the problem themselves to a great extent, wondering why the ranks of libertarians increased so slowly, if at all. And it has dawned on me over the years that Voltairine de Cleyre explained why--that there's a problem of the inability of the genetic process to produce libertarians in any larger volume than exists.
In looking over the scenery a little more closely I didn't see any evidence that persuasion by way of literature, conversation, preaching, psychic intimidation, nor any other known device, had maximized the number of such people and that in most cases in which it was reported by individuals that they had gone through some magical transformation from whatever they were to some libertarian position, all they had done was to find out what they really were.
They had come to such conclusions as a result of self-exposure so to speak--they had revealed to themselves what they really were and had not gone through any conversion at all. They were psychically conducive to that attitude, as a matter of temperament. They had been inhibited from such awareness for a variety of reasons involving all kinds of things ranging from religious or home pressures or various other things which prevented them from taking wing.
Now it would be pleasant for me to adopt a contradictory position and believe that by the expenditure of a lot of money and a great deal of exposure to literature and much eloquent talk we would suddenly convert all the totalitarians and authoritarians of the world into libertarians. And I would suggest that before that happens, as Krushchev said, you will probably hear shrimps whistle. The process of conversion is futile. Therefore, I'm satisfied that the ranks of the libertarians will always be small, that they will probably be in about the same ratio to the total population as they are now, and I'm satisfied to contemplate that situation without developing suicidal tendencies or becoming morose, depressed or anything else. It happens to be a fact of life and I'm ready to put up with that and I will change that view when I have some evidence for it. In my own lifetime I haven't seen one scrap of evidence to the contrary.
Good stuff.
Clayton -
I don't think there are some with natural propensities towards liberty or statism. That's primarily because I hold admittedly old opinions on the nature of man and the idea nature itself.
It may be true that libertarians have a physical disposition towards libertarianism but that doesn't override their reason or freedom to change opinions. The same I would say for everyone else.
So obviously I still think education is possible and even though not everyone is convinced on an intellectual level, once a certain amount of people come to hold libertarian opinions, it would be a matter of course that the rest would take libertarian opinions on faith.
I mainly disagree with this idea. I think its a FACTOR, but I don't think temperament/genetic factors render someone totally unable to reason. Contributing factor, yes, but overriding immunity, no.
Furthermore, libertarianism has been growing significantly in the United States.
I've always enjoyed Clayton's posts and I've always learned much from them.
but now it's time for me to teach him something...maybe.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that libertarianism (and especially anarcho-capitalism) will never be popular. the ideas and beliefs that lead us to an appreciation of liberty are much less popular than the ideas and beliefs that lead others towards dominance or dependence. that's just how it is. perhaps there's some great genetic battle between the influences of numerous beta and gamma followers that made up the bulk of our old tribal existence and the rugged individualist that led us out of the savannah and into skyscrapers. who knows? who cares?
education is overwhelmingly unsuccessful. in matters such as ethics, people do not want to 'be' right, they want to 'feel' right - they want to have their cake and eat it, too. how many times have you heard something similar to 'yeah, I agree with your logic but...I don't like your conclusions'?
however, this is not to say that proselytizing is a waste of time...but proselyting to the masses is. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html
the anarcho-capitalist is very much like a jedi. like a jedi, one does not create or educate an ancap - one has to be born an ancap. just as no amount of teaching could ever turn chewbacca into a jedi master, no amount of teaching could ever turn naomi klein into an ancap. just as chewbacca does not have the innate powers of the force, naomi klein does not have the innate power of a principled mind. one discovers an ancap, just as one discovers a jedi. but to spot either, one has to have a trained eye as uncovering a potential ancap is much more nuanced than uncovering a potential force user. the main thing to look for is an individual who, when faced with a cherished belief which logically conflicts with itself, will modify or give up that cherished belief. I'll use an example from my own life. I was and and am staunchly pro-life due to a belief that human life should be protected from aggression. however, when I was much younger I believed that in the instance of rape, abortion was an acceptable. the contradiction was pointed out to me and I was forced to either ignore it or modify my beliefs. I admitted the contradiction and modified my beliefs. if you see an individual take a principled approach like I did (not that I'm bragging), then this is the equivalent of seeing a small child on Alderaan force push over a bantha that startled him - this is someone with potential. this is the kind of person you should try to educate, this is the remnant you should try to brace. as we are a smaller group, educating those with potential should be taken very seriously (which the LvMI does). if we do not educate prinicipled individuals to the best of our abilities, we stand the chance of losing them to the darkside of mutualism or syndicalism, and sowing the seeds of the galaxy's destruction.
what is more, a small group of well-educated individuals can enact change much, much, much more effectively than some mishmash group of grassroots malcontents. This change can be for the worse (like the vangaurd of the russian communists) or for the better (like the small monied interests that established and maintained the italian city states or the small group of educated men that formed the US). so having bright minds primed and ready to seize any opportunity that might allow liberty and prosperity to leak back into the lives of some humans does offer hope for the future and a reason to evangelize.
20th century libertarianism has largely been an ideology of the mind, so to speak. Praxeology, the ethics of natural rights, Austrian economis - these cannot be reasonably explained by sound bites. It takes some effort and an inclination to theoretical analysis to grasp these concepts. Theoretical analysts tend to think of more practically oriented people as stupid. Not always, but you know, it happens. And that's the fallacy here. A practically oriented person interested in solving an economic problem will not be impressed by appeals to natural rights or by attempts to reeducate him on methodology. While a fellow "system builder" might continue to ponder these concepts and eventually adopt them, a practitioner will likely just look for a ready-to-go solution elsewhere. The problem is that practically oriented people far outnumber the theorists. According to estimates based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, "masterminds", "architects" and "counsellors" account for 12% of the population at the maximum whereas the "supervisors", "providers" and "protectors" constitute up to 39%. In other words, those who like to question authorities, who have a knack for revolutionary concepts and complex theories - they are outnumbered by the traditionalists and pragmatists by at least 1:3,5. Factoring in that not every theorist is going to be a libertarian, that leaves us with fairly little wiggle room. Mrs. de Cleyre may have a point with her observations on the genetic origin of ideological outlooks, but to be honest, that's a marketing problem and nothing else. Bleeding-heart liberalism attracts a certain kind of people because it is constantly given the moral high ground. Why? Why do libertarians limit themselves to winning theoretical contests when the real political gold mine is situated elsewhere? In closing, it may be true that libertarianism in its current shape and form attracts only a very distinct kind of followers. But that need not remain so, and there really is no reason at all to be that fatalistic about it.
Jackson:that's just how it is. perhaps there's some great genetic battle between the influences of numerous beta and gamma followers that made up the bulk of our old tribal existence and the rugged individualist that led us out of the savannah and into skyscrapers. who knows? who cares?
Well, I think we should care. Before we can understand where we need to go, we first have to understand where we are at and how we got here. I strongly agree with Rothbard's thesis that the primary problem in the argument for liberty is not the consequences of rejecting liberty but the immorality of rejecting liberty. Most of the libertarians I see on these boards fall into one of two camps: a) quasi-utilitarians who believe that, regardless of the moral worth of utilitarianism, the best "strategy" for furthering the prospects of human liberty is to present the utilitarian argument for it and b) natural rights types (Rothbardians et. al.) I think both are mistaken. Rothbardian natural rights theory is a dead-end because its foundation (natural rights) is irreparably broken. Utilitarian arguments also are not the answer.
What we need to address are the moral problems with the actions of tyrants (of the DMV variety or otherwise) and their agents. Only a moral case for liberty has any chance of really changing things (as Rothbard pointed out in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature). But I think that the problem is even deeper than this. I reject the idea that people accept the State solely because they have been brainwashed... the "positive-feedback theory" of the State, if you will. This is the theory that once the State bootstrapped itself to the point that it had its hooks in people's brains, it used bread and circuses to keep them duped and apathetic while it systematically plundered, exploited and enslaved them (to this day).
Hoppe gives an account in one of his online lectures of why people attempt to create States, namely, that someone who controls a State can rule in any dispute even in a dispute involving himself. It is obvious why anyone would want this. Harder to explain is why people accept the creation of a State by others. Hoppe argues that renters (lower income types) seek to avoid the burdens of their legitimate legal obligations and band together under the banner of someone who promises them relief from those legitimate obligations (an aspiring Prince or President). The obvious hole in this explanation is why is it only renters and not land-owners who seek to avoid their legitimate obligations? With much greater resources at their disposal and much greater ease of organizing, land-owners - as a class - are far better equipped to create a system by which to avoid their legitimate obligations.
I think every explanation that avoids biology in explaining the origin of the State fails because it does not take into account that government is culturally universal. Hoppe's argument implies that the rent-avoiders are somehow intrinsically better-organized than the land-owners. Not only is there no reason to believe this there is good reason to believe the opposite.
The hint that has put me onto the path of a biological explanation for the origin of the State is my personal experience in discussing anarchist philosophy with friends and family. I have found that every single person to whom I've explained the moral problems of the State (in the Rothbardian vein) ultimately falls back on the idea that there must be some authority above everyone. This is not a reasoned belief (obviously), it is not based on evidence and it is true no matter how much it is the case that every legitimate service the government produces can be produced in the market without resort to coercion. Humans are, with a tiny number of exceptions, hardwired to desire a leader with whom they do not expect to be in an ethically symmetrical relationship. This leader was probably, in the ancestral environment or before, an alpha male, it then became the chief hunter (later, just chief) and then it became the head of the family/clan, then it became the head of the village, then the ruler of the valley and then the king of the realm and then the emperor of the known world.
This expansion of the magnitude of the power of the "alpha" to whom we are hardwired to be unquestioningly loyal has happened extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms, in just the matter of about 8,000 years (since the Agricultural Revolution when humans began to be dramatically more productive than they had previously been). To the extent that political leaders have succeeded in "bringing home the bacon" - that is, plundering their victims at a greater rate than their own battle losses - they have provided reproductive advantage to their subjects. Hence, evolution must be operating even at the high level of the long-range struggles for absolute political power that have dominated human history to this day. Race is a clearly visible boundary where loyalty to a racially partial leader can provide definite reproductive advantage. So, we have a vestigial loyalty to an alpha leader which has not yet been completely selected out.
The question also remains whether the trait of alpha loyalty is, in fact, being selected out. I believe that it is but it's a pretty involved discussion to explain why I believe that.
All this has to do with why morality is so important. At the social level, there are clearly different "roles" that humans are born predisposed to. I am not even in the running to be a nightclub bouncer or a tight end. In the case of ants or bees, the variety of roles is visible in the anatomical differences of the insects. Queens have certain anatomical features, drones have other anatomical features and workers have yet other anatomical features. In humans, we are all anatomically the same (just stretched this way or that a little) but our brains are extremely different from one another. I think that human brains are different like queen bees are different from worker bees. Some brains are wired with the capacity to be an alpha and others are not. Those who are appropriately wired (and have the right genetic makeup) are in the running to be alphas, that is, political or other leaders. Those who are not appropriately wired are not even in the running.
The accepted view of the human moral sense is that any moral duty or moral prohibition must be symmetrical to everyone. That is, if it's wrong to steal, then it's wrong for anyone to steal from anyone. It's not "wrong to steal unless your name is King John, then you can steal." For an ethical statement to be acceptable to humans, it must be "ethically universal." But I think this is actually a naive view. I think that the biological differences in our brains that permit the emergence of alpha/beta social relationships also permit systematic violation of the simple ethical principle of universalizability. The alpha male in a wolf pack lives by a different set of rules and everybody else in the pack accepts and even enforces this fact. This is very much how humans behave when confronted with the idea that the State is inherently illegitimate. Pointing out the immorality of State actions is itself an immoral act. It's like challenging the alpha by pointing out that he doesn't deserve to get to eat before everybody else or pointing out that he has no more right to all the females than anyone else has. The alpha does not need to enforce his status, everyone else in the pack will enforce his status for him because they're hardwired to do so.
Please note that these ideas are half-baked and I'm speaking very loosely here.
To sum up, I don't think that it's a waste of time to study the problems of humanity and seek solutions. It's just that I suspect we have not yet fully grasped just how bad our predicament really is. There's a lot further to go than most liberals can stomach. I believe we are talking about biological predisposition and I think that the evolutionary arc away from the State and towards natural order will be measured in generations, not years. Of course, to better understand this and to seek solutions to these problems, we must study. But I do question the value of evangelism.
Assuming the statement by Martin is true, the question now becomes how many people are biologically geared towards the libertarian ideology? There could be millions of socialists out there who could biologically predisposed to accept libertarianism. Since libertarianism is marginalized in the mainstream media, only a small percentage of people have been exposed to these ideas. With that said, a lot of things can be called to question about the matter. Libertarianism is very broad. Which parts of it are really rooted in biology? There is individualism, free market, distrust for authority, non-aggression. Which is it really? People typically reject free markets out of fear and ignorance of economics. If that is the case then the reason why libertarians are a minority is simply because most people are fearful and obedient (just like La Boetie said).
In any case, I believe in what Albert Jay Nock said: the best way to change the world is to present it with one improved unit. That is, yourself. Read Human Action, Man Economy and State, and Money Bank Credit and Economic Cycles and you will have achieved a great first step in promoting liberty.
I encourage everyone to read Nock's article 'Isiah's Job'. It is also about ideological conversion and why we don't need to compromise our message to accomodate more people in.
How does it explain the previous anarchist socities? Celtic Ireland, Not so Wild West etc. That is the natural state of things. When a counter veiling force comes in, supported by ideology to try gain legitimacy - those ideas need to be countered, or they begin to hold sway and then influence people.
“But if Ireland was essentially an anarchistic (or libertarian) society, how was law and order maintained? How was justice secured? Was there not incessant warfare and rampant criminality?
To answer the last of these questions first -of course there were wars and crime. Has there ever been a society statist or otherwise – without war and crime? But Irish wars were almost never on the scale known among other civilized* European peoples. Without the coercive apparatus of the State which can through taxation and conscription mobilize large amounts of arms and manpower, the Irish were unable to sustain any large scale military force in the field for any length of time. Irish wars, until the last phase of the English conquest in the 16th and 17th centuries, were pitiful brawls and cattle raids by European standards.
The contemporary Irish historian, Kathleen Hughes, has remarked that one reason why the English conquest, begun in the 12th century under Henry II and completed only under William III in the late 17th century, was so long in being achieved was the lack of a well organized State in Celtic Ireland.
A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority are incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a temporary limitations upon their liberty. Submission to the enemy is viewed as no more than a necessary and temporary expedient to preserve one’s life until opportunity for revolt and recovery of liberty presents itself. The English, of course, considered the Irish notorious in their faithlessness (they repeatedly repudiated oaths of submission and allegiance to their English conquerors); they were repeatedly characterized by English commentators as natural-born, incorrigible rebels, barbarians, savages who refused to submit to the kind of law and order offered by the English State. The Irish, unfettered by the slave mentality of people accustomed to the tyranny of the State, simply refused to surrender their liberty and libertarian ways.”
What's Martins position then? That Celtic Ireland, Wild West etc.. were genetic hot beds for libertarianism? lmao... There may be a role for leaders, but it's a non sequitur to go from that to a need for rulers.
Ideas are what matter. What is presented matters (content). How the message is delivered matters (style, charisma, socratic method etc.) & by who, also matters (context).
The large attraction of Ron Paul, wasn't just what he was saying.. but also where and when he said it (radically anti-war in the Republican debates). His integrity, civility, humility, tolerance, passion for justice in that instance is what made people listen & pay attention. His dedication to a principle is another.
What are the potential factors that get people to the point of possible acceptance? Probably many.
Nature [size, weight, height, genes (not a political philosophy gene..)], nurture [how raised, social norms, the identity of the individual, what role the person sees themself as, or associates with.]
Some people seem to be disposed towards practicality (what works), others are interested in ethics (what is just).
There seems to be also two paths one can go down.. empathy, or envy. Or maybe guilt.
In terms of who needs to be addressed? The idle masses aren't one of them. Trying to dumb things down, water down the message won't do anything. There are many folks who will simply go along with the consensus, they will conform with what is deemed socially acceptable.
If anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism reaches that point... the masses will just go with it. Do you think all those under a monarchy suddenly became part time political philosophers or studied economics before the structure of government could then change?
The speaking heads, the intellectuals of society (not state endorsed) - said this is the way to go, and so they followed.
"These ideas became the basis of the great liberal movements of the 17th and 18th century, movements that involved everyone who cared about ideas: intellectuals, pamphleteers, journalists, teachers, philanthropists, churchmen, students, agitators, businessmen, propagandists, and statesmen. Not one of the groups could do it alone, but inspired by an idea and driven by a moral agenda—carried out over the generations—they finally overthrew mercantilism and perpetual war, and replaced them with the foundations of social peace, the free market, and a free society." - Rockwell, Transformation of American Opinion
That doesn't mean there is no use in mass media, it's an epic way to reach the remnant as well as to unplug others from the matrix.
The problem is that the capitalists, those who are once successful - gain money, prestige, but then use the state to quell the competition. The natural elites are the ones who need to be reached and persuaded to support the anti-intellectual intellectuals (LvMI, FEE etc.) those institutions which promote education in economics and political philosophy, but aren't tied to state funding (Washington Beltway). Hoppe's Freedom and Property Society is another avenue for just that.
"which was not capable of being understood or measured by any kind of rational approach; and that it was a genetic factor."
Where is the evidence for it, or do we just take it on faith & metaphors? Where's this libertarian gene then?
"They had come to such conclusions as a result of self-exposure so to speak--they had revealed to themselves what they really were and had not gone through any conversion at all. They were psychically conducive to that attitude, as a matter of temperament."
Doesn't explain those who adopt it, then drop it.
"b) natural rights types (Rothbardians et. al.) I think both are mistaken. Rothbardian natural rights theory is a dead-end because its foundation (natural rights) is irreparably broken. Utilitarian arguments also are not the answer.'"
Except it's not. Nothing but more assertions. The answer is the combination of both. That is exactly what Ron Paul does, that is why he's had such success. He is following Rothbard's model precisely.