Yes, it's an arbitrary distinction, like any, but I notice that free marketers, classical liberals, and liberals of the Austrian tradition in general tend to safely avoid discussing matters of social taboos and sanctions, in order to sound credible.
It's also the right thing to do.
But I remember an article by Rothbard I read recently which very boldly claimed there was a connection. The argument and example in favour of it was not much so - he said that the war on drugs was a means of hurting people's economic liberties because cash would now be a means of carrying drugs and you are required to do large transactions through government-controlled banks.
Again, very poor example, but since he brought it up, do you think liberals should worry about civil liberties?
I think it's a dangerous ground to tread into, knowing full well that a private property-based society could enforce restrictions and discriminations on personal actions and behaviours of people who are seen as undesirable. That would make a lot of those points moot, so what do you think?
You cannot have civil liberties without economic liberties. It can be shown that without private property rights, no other rights can be exercised. Private property rights and economic freedom are in all practical terms, synonymous.
Without control over the disposition of scarce resources one can not do anything. If the 'state' or the 'community' chooses who gets paper, they choose who may publish.
Of course, under certain circumstances, a certain amount of control of resource uses may be called for. When chaos reigns, you will have license and not freedom. Freedom without order is anarchy. This is why, for example, there is censorship of press in Singapore on political topics: to prevent the inflammation of democratic tendencies.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Liberté: Freedom without order is anarchy
Define anarchy? If you are using it as synonymous with chaos that's one thing, but if you are implying that some coercive and monopolistic central authority must exist for order to emerge, then I'm afraid that I must disagree, as many others here will also.
Liberté: Without control over the disposition of scarce resources one can not do anything. If the 'state' or the 'community' chooses who gets paper, they choose who may publish. Of course, under certain circumstances, a certain amount of control of resource uses may be called for. When chaos reigns, you will have license and not freedom. Freedom without order is anarchy. This is why, for example, there is censorship of press in Singapore on political topics: to prevent the inflammation of democratic tendencies.
The problem is that "certain circumstances" is arbitrary. If X is required for the government to be able to perform Y action that it desires you can be sure that the government will be certain that X will occur.
DD5: Liberté: Freedom without order is anarchy Define anarchy? If you are using it as synonymous with chaos that's one thing, but if you are implying that some coercive and monopolistic central authority must exist for order to emerge, then I'm afraid that I must disagree, as many others here will also.
Self-government is impossible, you will wind up with some sort of coercive central authority - there is no 'natural law' or 'natural right' which is either automatically emergent nor obvious to all rational men (as though men were rational to begin with). The question is what kind of authority, or who's authority? Frederick the Great or Adlolf Hitler? This is a matter to be decided by the spirit of the nation, people get the government they deserve.
This is not to imply that there is no emergent law (or customary law) merely that such customary law always codifies itself into heirarchies, commands, authorities, privileges (privilege means private laws) where the interests of the elite define what is - and what is not - to be tolerated. If your elites a simpering left-wingers, you will end up with Democracy (or its splinter, Communism); otherwise you have a chance at some actual civilization.
That is why you need a good government, with good incentives, and which can ignore 'popular' opinion.
Liberté: Self-government is impossible, you will wind up with some sort of coercive central authority[.]
Self-government is impossible, you will wind up with some sort of coercive central authority[.]
Why?
Liberté: [T]here is no 'natural law' or 'natural right' which is either automatically emergent nor obvious to all rational men[.]
[T]here is no 'natural law' or 'natural right' which is either automatically emergent nor obvious to all rational men[.]
Neither is there any "natural [way to build computers] which is either automatically emergent []or obvious to all rational men". But of course, that does not mean that either we need to instate a monopoly to build computers or just forget about being able to get them.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
1. People are not only social but heirarchical in their modes of operation.2. People are status seeking, and will ally themselves to 'leaders' who have their own status and power and promise to bring it to their followers.3. Actual power relationships to exist, and will manifest themselves formally in complex of command and obedience.4. Elites have an interest in forming corporate bodies for the protection of their property and privileges.5. Truthful power structures are stable and conducive to the development of civilization.
But of course, that does not mean that either we need to instate a monopoly to build computers or just forget about being able to get them.
I do not propose any specific programme for all peoples at all times, only state that there will be such a structure and it is both inevitable and desireable that it exist. Just as it is desireable to have computers.
One must have peace, then security, then order. Only then can one have liberty, only then can one exist in an environment where an extended market order becomes meaningful. This is not to say there must be a single overarching control figure - just as more than one corporation producing PCs can exist, so more than one sovereign corporation exist. Nonetheless, they provide an invaluable service and can not be replaced by democracy - either democratic centralism (IE, welfare-communism) or Maoism (i.e. left-libertarianism). Both are recipes for cultural suicide.
Liberté: [...]just as more than one corporation producing PCs can exist[...]
[...]just as more than one corporation producing PCs can exist[...]
In the same territory? (When you said "central", I assumed that you meant territorial.)
I. Ryan: Liberté: [...]just as more than one corporation producing PCs can exist[...] In the same territory? (When you said "central", I figured that you meant territorial.)
In the same territory? (When you said "central", I figured that you meant territorial.)
It will be territorial. Not for any primarily economic reasons (as Nozick contends) but because humans are territorial, and because the control of propaganda and social organization requires a territorial sovereign - and elites do not form sovereign corporations merely to protect imagined 'rights', but to protect their power, their privilege, their property and their cultural organization. To make sure communism is illegal, not merely 'immoral'.
Liberté:Self-government is impossible,
Limited government is impossible.
http://media.mises.org/mp3/audioarticles/2874_Hoppe.mp3
or
http://mises.org/daily/2874
Liberté:you will wind up with some sort of coercive central authority
So worse case, we'll end up where you want to begin.
But this type of argument is rooted in a type of Marxist myth, that free markets naturally converge to monopolies. Do you believe this?
Liberté:there is no 'natural law' or 'natural right' which is either automatically emergent nor obvious to all rational men
There does not need to be any such law. Or more accurately, not all people need to believe that there are any such "natural laws' or whatever, however, there are fundamental human action axiomatic laws, and there are also propositions of economics that can be deduced from such laws.
The order that is required for the modern society can only emerge spontaneously and not by any sort of centrally planned authority. There are knowledge problems with the hierarchical structure of the centrally planning board. Such hierarchical authoritarian and coercive structures can only exist on a limited scale as parasites in the spontaneous order that has already emerged. There must first be production before the thief can loot.
Liberté:That is why you need a good government, with good incentives, and which can ignore 'popular' opinion.
Basically, you want a benevolent dictator. But you will also need a dictator with God like features so he can overcome the knowledge limitations that are inherent in any such centrally oriented structure. Are you familiar with the knowledge problem? Or it's counterpart, the socialist calculation problem?
Look, Liberte,
The debate can be reduced to this. What type of services do you think a civilized and ordered society must have but can only be produced by coercion, as oppose to voluntary action?
Liberté: Why? 1. People are not only social but heirarchical in their modes of operation.2. People are status seeking, and will ally themselves to 'leaders' who have their own status and power and promise to bring it to their followers.3. Actual power relationships to exist, and will manifest themselves formally in complex of command and obedience.4. Elites have an interest in forming corporate bodies for the protection of their property and privileges.5. Truthful power structures are stable and conducive to the development of civilization.
You are saying: "People are" and "Actual power..." and "Elites have..." and "Truthful power structures are..." [my emphasis]
In other words, you are saying these are the realities of existence for humans. To put it directly, you're saying these are laws of nature pertaining to human existence. Such laws that humans can't avoid but actually partake with for better or worse.
I don't propose any such thing. I propose a sovereign, independent and responsible government. One that derives its revenues from property values and its support from the privileged super-rich. I could give a damn about Republican delusions.
No, if you spread the no-government myth you wind up with a bunch of fake-no-government propaganda and left-wing lies leading to decentralized and maniacal government (like the United States). You need real sovereignty and real authority.
Not at all - those who don't want to organize a controlled society which ruthlessly deals with troublemakers and actually creates order and security (something the no-government plan can not do, except by luck for a short term with the right population) will set up a government. If not them, someone else who wants power and status. Someone who denies this does not understand history, much less economics.
The order that is required for the modern society can only emerge spontaneously and not by any sort of centrally planned authority.
Yes, like Hayek, I have read my Burke. The law is customary, as is authority. There is authority nonetheless because of this. No one voted or unanimously appointed the King of England. It was simply the case that he was sovereign.
Basically, you want a benevolent dictator.
Yes. I also want there to be some reason for him to be benevolent (as the CEO of a corporation is generally benevolent towards its shareholders and employees, within reason of maintaining the corporate structure itself).
But you will also need a dictator with God like features so he can overcome the knowledge limitations that are inherent in any such centrally oriented structure.
I am not talking about central economic planning, moreover I do not much care for the 'knowledge' interpretation as opposed to the ontological limitations on interpersonal comparisons of utility. That, however, is beside the point. What I am talking about is a sovereign, authoritarian government - not a totalitarian government dominated by Progressive fantasies of omnicompetence.
What type of services do you think a civilized and ordered society must have but can only be produced by coercion, as oppose to voluntary action?
Crushing barbarians, internal and external.
Liberté:Crushing barbarians, internal and external.
Your entire argument is centered around straw man attacks, thus, you have no argument. You are confusing the voluntary society with lawlessness and chaos. Your argument is just asserting the equivalence with no attempt to prove it. Maybe you don't understand the premises of the free society that I am making. namely, that law and order are economic goods that are bought and sold on the market. They can either be provided by a coercive monopoly, or by voluntary institutions in a free market. There is no middle.
Liberté: I propose a sovereign, independent and responsible government.
Does this "sovereign, independent and responsible government" finance itself by expropriation? Does it claim its sovereignty, which I will interpret as monopoly over law and violence over a given territory, by force or threat of force?
If you answer yes to either one, they we are talking bout a limited government. It makes no difference that you have some other better idea on how to implement one. Or you can call it what you want, but in principle, it's the same thing. Let's not argue over terminology.
Liberté:and responsible government
Are we still dealing with human beings or not? Because if not, then I have nothing to argue against. But if we are, then "responsible" is a big word for politics but absolutely useless in our discussion. How do you keep this "government" from deviating from its initial duty of being "good and responsible"? And the knowledge problem is very important here although you are underplaying it. If these alleged services are to actually provide a service to its alleged "customers", then knowledge is vital.
Liberté:Yes. I also want there to be some reason for him to be benevolent (as the CEO of a corporation is generally benevolent towards its shareholders and employees, within reason of maintaining the corporate structure itself).
Only because of the nature of private property owners engaged in voluntary exchange. No type of government, or a monopolistic coercive institution si compatible with the above. Only the voluntary free market. You are entangled in endless self contradictions.
You are confusing the voluntary society with lawlessness and chaos.
No, I am not. I am saying that nature abhors a vacuum, and that people without a corporate sovereign will proceed to lawlessness and chaos sooner or later. The formation of that corporate sovereign by the elite is inevitable, and depending on the constitution of the people it can be good or not, but in any case it is better than the chaos that results from 'no-government' over the long term. Anarchy is a democratic myth, which was known long ago.
They can either be provided by a coercive monopoly, or by voluntary institutions in a free market. There is no middle.
Are you from another dimension? Coercive and voluntary have many shades, and what is important is order not how it is achieved.
Does this "sovereign, independent and responsible government" finance itself by expropriation?
Ideally it owns a portion of property-equity and an income derived thereby. You can call it whatever you want.
Does it claim its sovereignty, which I will interpret as monopoly over law and violence over a given territory, by force or threat of force?
If necessary. Of course, all governments rely on consent (excepting supermajority countries militarily ruling tiny ones).
If you answer yes to either one, they we are talking bout a limited government.
It's not limited government. It is authoritarian, absolutely sovereign and directed solely to the interest of its owners and operators (i.e., the ultrawealthy and those in association with them).
Only because of the nature of private property owners engaged in voluntary exchange.
Naturally property owners are not going to surrender themselves to a sovereign unless they feel they can trust it to protect their actual property. The whole purpose of the corporate body is to, more or less, maintain property values.
Liberté: It will be territorial. Not for any primarily economic reasons (as Nozick contends) but because humans are territorial, and because the control of propaganda and social organization requires a territorial sovereign - and elites do not form sovereign corporations merely to protect imagined 'rights', but to protect their power, their privilege, their property and their cultural organization. To make sure communism is illegal, not merely 'immoral'.
Wait, what? Where in that contains the argument that "[i]t will be territorial"?
Liberté: because humans are territorial
because humans are territorial
Just the fact that "humans are territorial" does not prove that a state has to exist. I mean, it is pretty uncontroversial that Rothbard envisioned that private property would exist in his "ideal" society.
Liberté: [...]because the control of propaganda and social organization requires a territorial sovereign - and elites do not form sovereign corporations merely to protect imagined 'rights', but to protect their power, their privilege, their property and their cultural organization. To make sure communism is illegal, not merely 'immoral'.
[...]because the control of propaganda and social organization requires a territorial sovereign - and elites do not form sovereign corporations merely to protect imagined 'rights', but to protect their power, their privilege, their property and their cultural organization. To make sure communism is illegal, not merely 'immoral'.
So just because X requires Y, Y has to exist? Just because the enslavement of the people of an entire territory requires a lot of willing participants, those "willing participants" have to exist?
Liberté: They can either be provided by a coercive monopoly, or by voluntary institutions in a free market. There is no middle. Are you from another dimension? Coercive and voluntary have many shades, and what is important is order not how it is achieved.
You either threaten and support the initiation of physical aggression, or you don't. (NAP)
Please enlighten me on what these "many shades" are.
"and what is important is order not how it is achieved"
And what on earth does this mean?
Wait, what? Where in that contains the argument that "t will be territorial"?
You must have control of a region, its inhabitants and its activities in toto to attain cultural and social order. This is why China censors the internet.
"Just the fact that "humans are territorial" does not prove that a state has to exist."
Human elites will form corporate groups to protect their interests (which are temporally more important than the 'freedoms' of the plebians) and will impose them upon those around them. This is called civilization.
"You either threaten and support the initiation of physical aggression, or you don't. (NAP)
Please enlighten me on what these "many shades" are."
This whole assertion is just silly to me. One does not have a definition of torts (aggression) if one does not have actual customary law and enforcement, there is no mystical (or 'rational', if you prefer) definition as to what is 'aggression', and certainly no a priori reason why 'aggression' is 'bad'. I support the 'initiation' of any sort of 'aggression' whatsoever is necessary to stomp barbarian faces into the mud before they bring their mob ape-olitics into my home. I couldn't give a damn about 'rights'. The whole point of bombs is to 'violate people's rights' and 'initiate aggression'.
Liberté: You must have control of a region, its inhabitants and its activities in toto to attain cultural and social order. This is why China censors the internet.
Why should we want "to attain cultural and social order"?
Liberté: Human elites will form corporate groups to protect their interests (which are temporally more important than the 'freedoms' of the plebians) and will impose them upon those around them. This is called civilization.
People said that same thing about out-right, private slavery. But it appears to be quite rare at this point.
Liberté: "You either threaten and support the initiation of physical aggression, or you don't. (NAP) Please enlighten me on what these "many shades" are." This whole assertion is just silly to me.
This whole assertion is just silly to me.
Well, you failed to prove or elucidate these "many shades", all you really did is try destroy the concept.
Liberté:One does not have a definition of torts (aggression) if one does not have actual customary law and enforcement, there is no mystical (or 'rational', if you prefer) definition as to what is 'aggression', and certainly no a priori reason why 'aggression' is 'bad'.
To restate the question more broadly: will freemarket adjudication result in just decisions? 29 Leoni (1961) provides a theoretical framework on which we can build an answer to this question. We offer a sketch of his theory.30 In a market, economic operators regard prices to be ultimate data upon which they base their calculations and actions, fully realizing that these are flexible to some extent, but quite fixed for a particular transaction. By analogy, Leoni suggests that legal operators regard legal norms to be the ultimate data upon which they base their actions, fully realizing these are flexible to some extent, but fixed for a particular adjudication. Extending the analogy, Leoni notes that
29 Here, we regard justice to mean what libertarians take it to mean, fully recognizing that even libertarians dispute particulars. We follow de Jasay (2002) in noting that justice is simply justice, and not any other social concept.30 See Leoni (1961), specifically the chapter “The Law as Individual Claim”, p. 189- 203.
the economist does not regard prices to be fixed at all, but subject to immutable rules of distribution acting on contingent facts. Likewise, the proper legal theorist does not regard legal norms to be fixed, but subject to immutable rules of argumentation acting on contingent facts of cases within particular cultural contexts. Indeed, the direction of causation of these social elements is often misapprehended. It is the offers to buy and sell in the market that causes prices (the norms of the market) to settle into relative fixity; they are not fixed before agents enter the market, though it appears that way to most economic agents. Likewise, it is the advancing of legal claims in an adjudicative setting and hearing the arguments on both sides that determines the outcomes of proceedings; and the outcomes of many proceedings thereby establish legal norms. It is not the case that legal norms are fixed before legal agents advance their arguments, although it appears that way to lawyers who learn legal norms in law school and then apply them to cases to guess how judges will rule on cases.
But does this mean that legal norms could be anything at all? No, and a number of libertarian theorists have explained why.
As Hoppe pointed out, by rationally advancing your claim against another, you are implicitly claiming that your claim is rationally defensible to a greater extent than your opponent’s: “…any ethical proposal, as well as any other proposition, must be assumed to claim that it is capable of being validated by propositional or argumentative means.” (Hoppe 1993, Ch. 10) All who make claims; or who criticize torts, crimes, legislation, laws, and judicial decisions—in short, all who debate legal norms—implicitly hold that there is a standard against which these decisions are to be measured.
Narveson agrees, applying the insight in the context of egalitarianism:
Here I need merely remind the reader that we are talking about arguments for equality, as distinct from sheer assertions of it. Appeals to intuition—that the commitment to equality is “moral bedrock,” as I have heard it said—must, on the face of it, count in the latter category. As a device for supporting equality, this invites the response that, unfortunately, my “moral bedrock” might be something quite incompatible with the proponent’s: say, that equality is a snare and a delusion. Strange bedrockfellows! So where would we go from there? If it’s anywhere, it’s going to have to be either back to arguments, or to non-rational or irrational activity, such as politics—waving flags, Bosnia, etc. [Narveson 2002, p. 51]
But if the continual clash of individual claims results in rational adjudications, to what legal norms are we led? Narveson takes the case of murder:
It is absurd to say that what’s wrong with murder is that I don’t like it. The obvious response is: “So?” The reason it is the obvious response is that if we are out to regulate the behavior of people in general by suggesting a rule for their deliberate action, then the plausibility of our effort is zero if it turns out that all my proposal has going for it is that I want it or would like it. Who, indeed, cares? Until I can explain why others should care, my proposal will be irrelevant to them. And if it isn’t directed to them, we’re wasting their time. [Ibid.]
Hoppe and Narveson have much in common in their arguments about arguments. Narveson notes that the appeal to universal norms is necessary from the first. That is, if A and B come together to adjudicate a dispute in a milieu devoid of background legal norms, to what do they address their arguments? Hoppe writes: “Quite commonly it has been observed that argumentation implies that a proposition claims universal acceptability, or, should it be a norm proposal, that it is ‘universalizable.’” (Hoppe 1989, Ch. 7). Narveson quite simply notes: “No generalization, no morals.” (Narveson 1988). But this is not the only rule. Narveson again:
When in general will a proposal [for a norm] be reasonable for a certain set of people? The very general answer to this is that it will be so when it serves each person’s interest well enough, and at least as well as any other obviously available proposal. That is the general thesis of contractarianism in morals. [Ibid.]
We favor Narveson’s approach, so we will outline his contractarian program a bit more.
On the right view of the foundations of morality, there are no moral bedrocks. Everything is arguable, and arguable by reference to considerations that have to be meaningful to those concerned, antecedently to the moral theory put forward—namely, their various values and preferences, whatever they may be, plus a variety of empirically manageable factual claims. [Ibid.]
It is the grounding of morality in fact that makes moral values fundamentally different than mere preferences. But what are these facts? One of Narveson’s favorite facts is Hobbes’s disturbing (but true) claim that almost every person, no matter how weak, has enough strength to kill the strongest among us, and also the power to make others’ lives quite miserable. He goes on to show that the Prisoner’s Dilemma is “the paradigmatic situation to which morals addresses itself”. With the relevant facts (including valuing one’s life, and one’s life “projects”) distilled into the Prisoner’s Dilemma, he shows that rational actors will choose to cooperate instead of defect, and encourage others to cooperate. This is the “contractarian case” for morals. Since the very term “contractarian” is a bit confusing to some, a clarification is needed:
The general idea of [contractarianism] is that the principles of morality are (or should be) those principles for directing everyone’s conduct which it is reasonable for everyone to accept. They are the rules that everyone has good reason for wanting everyone to act on, and thus to internalize in himself or herself, and thus to reinforce in the case of everyone.…Contractarianism can be made to seem arbitrary and silly: consider, for instance, the suggestion that long, long ago our remote ancestors made this deal, see, and from that day to this everyone has had to go along with it!…The problem is that morality is obviously not the result of a literal contract: and, indeed, it cannot be… Clearly, the sense in which morality is founded upon or due to or represents an “agreement” is going to have to be less straightforward than that. [Ibid.]
Narveson explains further:
[Contractarian morals are] the output of a course of deliberation…[chosen to have] the best chance of realizing values actually held by the agent. Those values, of course, need not be and in the first instance cannot be “moral” values. Morality is an output, and what makes it rational is the same as what makes any action or decision rational: it best fills the bill specified by one’s general set of values, whatever they are. [Ibid.]
This subjectivism of values is important to Narveson, and he regards it as a defining element of the liberal tradition:
…the liberal must justify principles, policies, and institutions, to any person affected by them, by showing that person they are for his or her good as seen by that person… Each person is regarded as being the ultimate authority on what is good for himself. [Ibid.]
But where will all of these arguments be advanced? Indeed, where will the complementary arguments of Hoppe (1993), Kinsella (2008), and others (Kinsella 1996) be advanced? We argue that two of the important venues for these arguments, or at least practical applications of them, are mediations and arbitrations.
Section Conclusion
Narveson’s vision of norms is well-adapted to considering the question of this section. The arbiter of a dispute is led by contractarian logic to choose minimally-constraining norms to apply to disputes. One way to consider contractarianism is as a philosophical theory of how free-market adjudication of norms results in the minimal legal norms of libertarian ethics. This theory of adjudication is confirmed in history. All of the historical free or nearly free markets in law (Roman law, common law, Law Merchant, etc.) have resulted in libertarian-leaning decisions and legal norms.
Liberté:I support the 'initiation' of any sort of 'aggression' whatsoever is necessary to stomp barbarian faces into the mud before they bring their mob ape-olitics into my home. I couldn't give a damn about 'rights'. The whole point of bombs is to 'violate people's rights' and 'initiate aggression'.
To the support of attempting to destroy the concept and muddy the waters, I gather there is a reason you put 'initiate' in brackets. Is this because you understand that fundamentally - defense against aggressors, is not actually initiation? You've merely worded it this way to get a rise out of people?
Seems like you would have a tendency to do that - as you yourself admitted when introducing yourself elsewhere.
So? It's true in one case, and not necessarily true in the other. Though, on the average, I do think there are examples of chattel slavery operations that have raised the average level of social integration in an area.
You fail to understand the absurdity of the concept of axiomatic 'aggression'. What is or is not 'aggression' is a social convention, not an extrapersonal fact.
I'm well aware of customary law. The point is that customary law abides simply be the interest of those who make and are involved in the law. The corporate entities that enforce the law within a coherent domain are what are known as governments. These are not necessarily states - they are simply people interested, and powerful enough, to prevent barbarians from running around willy-nilly.
To the support of attempting to destroy the concept and muddy the waters, I gather there is a reason you put 'initiate' in brackets.
I say you can call it what you want, I care about results acceptable to me, not your normative nonsense.
Liberté: So? It's true in one case, and not necessarily true in the other.
So? It's true in one case, and not necessarily true in the other.
Yeah, that was my point.
In response to the OP, yes i think there's a connection, but I tend to think that economic freedom is more important than civil freedoms, for me at least. I'm not gay and I have no need for abortions.
Liberté: Why? 1. People are not only social but heirarchical in their modes of operation.2. People are status seeking, and will ally themselves to 'leaders' who have their own status and power and promise to bring it to their followers.3. Actual power relationships to exist, and will manifest themselves formally in complex of command and obedience.4. Elites have an interest in forming corporate bodies for the protection of their property and privileges.5. Truthful power structures are stable and conducive to the development of civilization. But of course, that does not mean that either we need to instate a monopoly to build computers or just forget about being able to get them. I do not propose any specific programme for all peoples at all times, only state that there will be such a structure and it is both inevitable and desireable that it exist. Just as it is desireable to have computers. One must have peace, then security, then order. Only then can one have liberty, only then can one exist in an environment where an extended market order becomes meaningful. This is not to say there must be a single overarching control figure - just as more than one corporation producing PCs can exist, so more than one sovereign corporation exist. Nonetheless, they provide an invaluable service and can not be replaced by democracy - either democratic centralism (IE, welfare-communism) or Maoism (i.e. left-libertarianism). Both are recipes for cultural suicide.
Freedom without order is anarchy. This is why, for example, there is censorship of press in Singapore on political topics: to prevent the inflammation of democratic tendencies.
1. Freedom is meaningless, anarchy is a joke. I suppose one could bring up things like power, but that would tend to obfuscate meaning as it has too much baggage to give the term much useful meaning. As far as democratic vs autocratic preferences, calling one set of principles "elite" and "civilization" is just choosing vanilla over chocolate (unless you just mean who happens to be in power at the time).
2. People tend to be status seeking, hierarchical and social signaling beings, perhaps why in this day and age the left wing will always prevail. There is a plethora of reasons and ways the left allows more people to gain in social signaling (at least the kind that resonates with people, hence why it is in power). I do not think this can be underestimated enough when considering why the left is and most likely will remain in power for some time.
3. I am very curious as to where you are getting your sociology from. I could be wrong but, it seems kind of ad hoc and trying to justify an aesthetic and a political position, not that most sociology (that I have come across) isn't, sociology seems to be the Zeppo Marx of science.
4. What concern should people have for civilization (Civilization?)? The way you seem to define it, is it possible to say that it has been empirically proven to be a failure? That is it doesn't exist and people will most likely continue to reject it for any forseeable future. So wouldn't talking of such things be the equivlent to talking about Easter Bunnies and ghosts?
1. Freedom is meaningless, anarchy is a joke.
I'm using it in the sense of civil freedom or Manchester freedom. I do not here intend to imply that people ought to intrinsically favor this. What I do mean is that, given plausible alternatives, this is what I prefer. I know my Stirner as well as you do.
as far as democratic vs autocratic preferences, calling one set of principles "elite" and "civilization" is just choosing vanilla over chocolate
What I mean by civilization is the increase of commercial integration, security and cultural development. One could be against civilization (there are lots of gang-banger types who are, not to mention Bob Black). I just happen to not care what these people think/want.
There is a plethora of reasons and ways the left allows more people to gain in social signaling
Unfortunately for the left with its decentralization it thins power to the point where most people don't even care to try for it. What's more, it is also inherently implosive. This is not to say I am 'right-wing', more that I am anti-left. Of course, realistically, nothing I say will have any impact in my lifetime on my actual circumstances. This is sociology for the sake of entertainment, and also the fun I have messing with libertarians and other lefties.
3. I am very curious as to where you are getting your sociology from.
Well, I'm informal and lazy about it, but I take mostly from the good economists (Mises), Robert Nisbet, Edmund Burke, Carlyle, Oakeshott and a bajillion other people. It's definitely patchwork, but I think it's consistent. And my 'sociology' I do not mean that nonsensical pseudo-science taught in Universities.
4. What concern should people have for civilization (Civilization?)?
Whatever they please. My purpose is not to convince anyone, but to have fun proposing alternative scenarios to the an-caps and Progressives. Ones I happen to think could be enjoyable (from my own perspective), and would therefore be more than happy to see forcibly imposed, but not ones I am expecting (or even encouraging) anyone else to support.
This
Liberté: I support the 'initiation' of any sort of 'aggression' whatsoever is necessary to stomp barbarian faces into the mud before they bring their mob ape-olitics into my home. I couldn't give a damn about 'rights'. The whole point of bombs is to 'violate people's rights' and 'initiate aggression'.
makes you one of those "barbarians".
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: This Liberté: I support the 'initiation' of any sort of 'aggression' whatsoever is necessary to stomp barbarian faces into the mud before they bring their mob ape-olitics into my home. I couldn't give a damn about 'rights'. The whole point of bombs is to 'violate people's rights' and 'initiate aggression'. makes you one of those "barbarians".
I disagree. Then again I do not believe in magical 'rights' or some sort of automatic delination of 'aggression'. These are all things made up by people with no real existence outside of social conventions and individual imaginations.
Liberté:I know my Stirner as well as you do
That is always a good thing. I have some semi rare links and Amazon finds if you want me to send them your way.
Liberté:Well, I'm informal and lazy about it, but I take mostly from the good economists
Thus far the best I can come up with for sociology is mixing history (taking a somewhat empathetic or nihilistic look at the subject, as I refuse any consistent grand theories), biology, anthropology, and most importantly social psych (which, like all psych, can get cranky) mixed with Mises and Hayek (though I am no expert on either of the two). It is still too much work and effort to have any worth for a personal view at this point, I have been hoping to be pointed to a decent modern sociology that someone could recomend. It is sad that hasn't happened, as it seems like a promising field that got botched by lefties or polemics in general. I have been wondering if all that matters for "sociology" is social psych for a "quicky" view of decent sociology.
Liberté: Well, you failed to prove or elucidate these "many shades", all you really did is try destroy the concept. You fail to understand the absurdity of the concept of axiomatic 'aggression'. What is or is not 'aggression' is a social convention, not an extrapersonal fact.
Of course, because rape is only the initiation of physical aggression in certain places where it is considered so, in the proper social convention.
"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
Rothbard, For A New Liberty, p. 23. See also idem, The Ethics of Liberty: "The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership" (p. 60), and "What … aggressive violence means is that one man invades the property of another without the victim's consent. The invasion may be against a man's property in his person (as in the case of bodily assault), or against his property in tangible goods (as in robbery or trespass)" (p. 45)"
What is so hard to understand?
"Consider the universal status of the ethic of liberty, and of the natural right of person and property that obtains under such an ethic.For every person, at any time or place, can be covered by the basic rules:• ownership of one's own self,• ownership of the previously unused resources which one has occupied and transformed; and• ownership of all titles derived from that basic ownership -either through voluntary exchanges or voluntary gifts.These rules -which we might call the “rules of natural ownership”- can clearly be applied, and such ownership defended, regardless of the time or place, and regardless of the economic attainments of the society. It is impossible for any other social system to qualify as universal natural law; for if there is any coercive rule by one person or group over another (and all rule partakes of such hegemony), then it is impossible to apply the same rule for all; only a rulerless, purely libertarian world can fulfill the qualifications of natural rights and natural law, or, more important, can fulfill the conditions of a universal ethic for all mankind."
Furthermore go read "Physical Invasion".
And.. ah, lol it's not customary law.
Liberté: To the support of attempting to destroy the concept and muddy the waters, I gather there is a reason you put 'initiate' in brackets. I say you can call it what you want, I care about results acceptable to me, not your normative nonsense.
I recommend you contact Jacob Bloom, you guys would hit it off.
Liberté: JackCuyler: This Liberté: I support the 'initiation' of any sort of 'aggression' whatsoever is necessary to stomp barbarian faces into the mud before they bring their mob ape-olitics into my home. I couldn't give a damn about 'rights'. The whole point of bombs is to 'violate people's rights' and 'initiate aggression'. makes you one of those "barbarians". I disagree. Then again I do not believe in magical 'rights' or some sort of automatic delination of 'aggression'. These are all things made up by people with no real existence outside of social conventions and individual imaginations.
Special pleading fallacy. Seems like you've come full circle. You are what you hate. That, being the "barbarians".
And you don't believe in self ownership?
I'd argue that one shouldn't buy into the artificially created distinction. Liberty is liberty; both have to do with ones control over ones property.
@Liberte
On a P.S:
A) I think I may abhore your aesthetics, being that if I had to define myself on political terms your word of "anti-leftist" is as good as any makes it some what suprising to me (though politics and econ are somewhat tertiary to my concern, so that could explain the aesthetic gap). If I read it correctly, it seems like some type of "nerdtopia" and a bourgoisie neoscientism / technocracy that overvalues "civilization"; and by civilization I would mean a Hoppe type bastardization of the word considering only the past 250-500 year viewpoint of the "correct" countries with the "correct" lense and terminology ( I also think his view point inherently invites the insanity that is fashionable leftism.) I am usually not one to argue off aesthetics (or what "civilization" means for that matter), but if this is why you ae here, what the hell.
B) I would also think such a view could only be practicly upheld (in any thought experiment I am capable of) by some micro-state/micro-city in an environment that would allow massive decentralization. The "barbarians" could not be allowed to live in the city and would have to be content not to. I am struggling seeing how this is practicle to think about in a "broad" sense, and I don't know if it could even exist in the environment I just gave.
C) You mentioned "emergence" in a previous post. Are you a materialist or do you just use that word poetically/ for convienence? If you are not a materialist and you also would be in an existential egoist/nihilist camp (assuming you mostly agree with Stirner), how do you reconcile that view point?
You have more in common with the liberals than you think. There are no philosopher kings/benevolent wheel turners who "create order and security." Security and order are not things to be created, they are the result of freedom. A society which tries to forcefully create order cannot at the same time be free.
Liberté:Human elites will form corporate groups to protect their interests (which are temporally more important than the 'freedoms' of the plebians) and will impose them upon those around them. This is called civilization.
This is called serfdom. Civilization is a rather vague concept which tells us nothing about the tenability of various forms of societal organization.
Liberté:You fail to understand the absurdity of the concept of axiomatic 'aggression'. What is or is not 'aggression' is a social convention, not an extrapersonal fact.
It's a universal social convention. Civilization must ipso facto (a) understand the concept of aggression (the violation of property rights; the initiation of force against property), and (b) disincentivize aggression if it wishes to exist for any sustainable period of time. Those philosopher kings who thought law and property to be mere arbitrary social conventions had there heads taken off, or were hung upside down and repeatedly stabbed to death, in front of angry crowds. Markets, innovation, order, and prosperity are contingent upon the ability to keep the fruits of your endeavors (property rights).
Liberté:I disagree. Then again I do not believe in magical 'rights' or some sort of automatic delination of 'aggression'. These are all things made up by people with no real existence outside of social conventions and individual imaginations.
Moral nihilism is all the rage these days. There is truth in the universe (the interconnectedness of all phenomena and the regularity of their sequence) and laws of human action; in order to achieve Y one must do X. No state, council, senate, or whatever is able to over-turn or side-step this indubitable fact.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
and by civilization I would mean a Hoppe type bastardization of the word considering only the past 250-500 year viewpoint of the "correct" countries with the "correct" lense and terminology
While I don't quite go along with Hoppe's oddities in many areas, I do basically mean 'techno-industrial western civilization'. As has been pointed out on TakiMag's article "Why Africa Must Go To Hell" there certainly may be groups of people who just can't or don't want that sort of organization. I say, fuck 'em. I like my eurasian technophilia.
B) I would also think such a view could only be practicly upheld (in any thought experiment I am capable of) by some micro-state/micro-city in an environment that would allow massive decentralization.
Yes, it is obviously confined to small, controllable areas where you can attract enough able and willing people. Beyond that at best you can have an imperial sphere of influence where you make the natives behave well enough to let the Chinese traders pass through unmolested. What the rest of the unwashed masses do I am indifferent to.
C) You mentioned "emergence" in a previous post.
I meant it in the sense of 'develops through systemic, contingent circumstances'.
Moral nihilism is all the rage these days.
I wouldn't call it 'the rage' at any time, but what do you mean by 'these days'? Have you ever read Gorgias by Plato? Moral nihilism is as old as curmudgeons.
There is truth in the universe (the interconnectedness of all phenomena and the regularity of their sequence) and laws of human action; in order to achieve Y one must do X. No state, council, senate, or whatever is able to over-turn or side-step this indubitable fact.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with normatives.
Liberté:Which has absolutely nothing to do with normatives.
Of course it does. Once you understand the laws of human action and that there are various natural constraints (scarcity, for example), you can employ logic and figure out what we should do. A king, for example, should not debase the coinage (violate property rights) if he wishes to remain in power, ect.
Liberté:I wouldn't call it 'the rage' at any time, but what do you mean by 'these days'?
Yes, I realize that moral nihilism is nothing new. I was reacting to the fact that there is an increasing amount of moral nihilists here on the Mises forums.
I was actually talking about his (or any other libertarians) interest in actual civilized countries that had just as good of a chance to "break through" or are slightly different than some Western country. Essentially N.Africa, E. Europe, Asia (Think Byzantium, Russia, Calliphites, China, etc). They are more than happy to do some kind of forced genesis in Spain and completly ignore Islamic Scholorship (Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Sina are almost as good as Aristotle) / contributions to market theory for one example.
Granted, at least the past 250 years is all about the West, but still.
And the railing against technophilia was more about it being boring and just another insane integrated system than anything. I still struggle with wondering why anyone would get their jollies off of conforming a society to their interests at the time. Geeks ruling a place would be just as bad as jocks, artists, rednecks, etc.
Yes, it is obviously confined to small, controllable areas where you can attract enough able and willing people.
Doesn't this kind of derail any need to talk about this then? I mean isn't it more important to focus on how to have an environment to create this situation (i.e. the world outside the mini state)? The mini state would just be a by product of the environment; the larger environment as a whole is the real issue, correct?
"you can employ logic and figure out what we should do"
Who is this 'we' you speak of? Such information only gives us constraints as to what is possible, and what actual actions we take depends on the specific values one possesses. Furthermore these values are individuals, incommesurable and may directly conflict with one another.
"I was reacting to the fact that there is an increasing amount of moral nihilists here on the Mises forums."
Blame the jews.
"Essentially N.Africa, E. Europe, Asia (Think Byzantium, Russia, Calliphites, China"
Oh, well, I don't really get the eurocentrism. Europe is one case of spectacular success (in some areas), but there are certainly other races and cultures that probably have the same sort of potential (and maybe more, in the case of awesome Koreans like me).
"Doesn't this kind of derail any need to talk about this then?"
No, I'm not a global crusader. I'm about my kind of people, the miserly, selfish, conceited and vaguely racist eurasians.
Liberté:No, I'm not a global crusader. I'm about my kind of people, the miserly, selfish, conceited and vaguely racist eurasians.
Here is where I am getting confused, or missing the point in a big way. I thought it was about "proposing alternative scenarios..." for funzies. The mini technocracy city-state could be involved in an alternate type scenario, but I would think it would depend on a scenario that would be able to nurture the thing. In other words, it could only be a by product of some other catalyst. I would think that catalyst would be the scenario that would be the important thing to talk about. Either that, or all I can picture is you talking about paying less/zero taxes with some of your computer programming friends in your house/apt and selling shit and maybe hire an outside maid and pool boy if you get rich enough.
Liberté:Such information only gives us constraints as to what is possible, and what actual actions we take depends on the specific values one possesses. Furthermore these values are individuals, incommesurable and may directly conflict with one another.
It not only tells us what is possible (and therefore what is also impossible), but also reveals ways to achieve ends (appropriate means, and therefore inappropriate means). The subjective moral judgments of individuals are unimportant; the consequences of all actions are set in stone. Moral nihilism is just regular old and boring nihilism. If you want to stop an inflation you must slow down the printing press, and if a ruler wants to remain in power he must gain the consent of the majority. This means that he must do what's in the best interests of the majority, and once he fails to do so, his rule must eventually come to an end. Thus, your philosopher King's decree to ban Marxism is meaningless; it can only exist insofar as society allows it to exist.
Every single individual is just that, a mere individual. Individuals have no control over the "extended order." A sustainable societal arrangement is one which is self-regulating; an equilibrium condition (cannot be created; has to emerge). I see no difference between your political philosophy and the political philosophy of leftists. You all believe that you can actually direct individuals into action against their wills for an extended period of time.
Liberté:As has been pointed out on TakiMag's article "Why Africa Must Go To Hell" there certainly may be groups of people who just can't or don't want that sort of organization. I say, fuck 'em. I like my eurasian technophilia.
I know I am reviving an old thread but I just now finally read this article; do you agree with the assessment of this article? It is really only Sub-Congo river Africa (a relatively small chunk of Africa) that had a general lack of civilization. Ethiopia, Kush (present day Somalia), Mali, etc these were all legit civilizations and civilized areas until I think somewhat recently. These people had civilization that was modern at one point (to the standards of the time). This article completely wrote that off. These countries are hell now, but I do not think it is due to a tribalistic genetic predisposition.
Sub-Congo culture could be assessed differently perhaps. I would think the easiest and most obvious starting point to look at though would be lack of contact/exposure to the outside world, a smaller population and gene pool than the outside world, and an environment in which animal domestication/land cultivation/etc is not so easily obtained. Either way, I think there are alternate scenario mental exercises that could be done when looking at history in which it could have "naturally" integrated in with the world economy without "White Man's Guilt".
Note: Outside of maybe Ethiopia or Mali my actual knowledge of Sub Sahara Africa is somewhat limited and after about 1500 almost nil, and usually only in relation to other more prominent civs at the time (e.g. Kush to Egypt). I do not know much (outside of a basic 101 text knowledge) of how the Europeans conquered or governed this area. When and how the shit really hit the fan for Africa I do not pretend to know, though I have my guesses.
Whether or not they would could easily be discovered by ceasing to interfere with African politics. They certainly aren't being helped by western democratic bullshit. Personally I think there is something to the human biodiversity explanation (in population groups and within them), but I am agnostic as to the exact extent of its general influence. Modern society is much to under the sway of obviously outcome distorting ideological and historical situations that make it hard to say just what would happen if these things weren't going on.
Or those societies could have remained tribal irrelevants, and more advanced societies could have usurped the territory (as was the case with Native Americans).
Most of sub-saharan Africa has no history. The Europeans managed to (for a while) run it with some semblence of order. Once the idea of 'national liberation', socialism and people's statism it spelled the doom for the colonial government that had raised the standard of living of these barbarians far above the level they ever would have obtained by their own efforts in hundreds of years. They wanted black government, and the white governments (which still do rule the Earth) gave it to them. Great job they've done of it. Now every half-intelligent African wants nothing more than to leave the country.