Newbies

Re: Defending the aristocracy

William — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:41:44 GMT

locking this old thread, as it was started by a troll.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

AnonLLF — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:40:06 GMT

"I thought egalitarianism was a cornerstone concept of the libertarian-left. Has it been revised?"

There's many kinds of egalitarianism(income,wealth,authority,legal,of rights etc) and a spectrum of degrees ranging from favouring some to complete equality in all ways.And it's not a necessary belief in left libertarianism.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Nitroadict — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 03:04:03 GMT

Brainpolice:

In the context of this message board and anarcho-capitalist theory, that is generally how it's used.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct, nor very keen. People on this forum should think for themselves a bit more, then.

Brainpolice:

Because I haven't disputed that in the first place. In fact, my very first post in the thread aknowledges it.

Will go back & re-read, then.

Brainpolice:

I don't think it's necessarily "anti-heirarchical paranoia" to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism

I would like to see an example of your choosing of Hoppe's words that fit this. I'm not sure crankism is actual word, however.

Brainpolice:

My invokation of anti-authoritarianism isn't socio-economic apologetics, it's an ethical view against subordination.

Are you against morally subordinating people to your own views? I say this to point out the possible subjective nature of what subordination constitutes... physically, emotionally, socially?

Brainpolice:

Okay, but even an anarcho-collectivist like Bakunin doesn't disagree with this sense of specialization and merit. I don't see what this has to do with the broader claim of "natural elites". Hoppe isn't simply talking about specialization, he's invoking cultural norms and refering to a distinct class that is supposed to have social power purely based on natural merit (relative to certain cultural norms). If we don't share those cultural norms and if we don't view social power as necessarily being a reflection of merit, that particular notion of "the natural elite" collapses.

It has to do with a different interpretation of what "natural elites" could be, which can be nothing more than individuals that consistently rising above competition, until better competition comes along to take their "places".

If a 100 people who did not know each other, consistently were high-profile successes, didn't even live near one another, & did not achieve said sucess via involuntary & coercive means, how do they constitute a "natural elite", a possible dangerous elite ruling class, etc.?

Brainpolice:

I don't know, ask someone that actually believes in "making everyone (perfectly) equal" in terms of ability, let alone outcome, which no philosophical egalitarian to my knowledge actually claims.

I thought egalitarianism was a cornerstone concept of the libertarian-left. Has it been revised?

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Nitroadict — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:44:02 GMT

Dondoolee:

I don't think it's necessarily "anti-heirarchical paranoia" to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism.

That is my problem with the whole thing. Any biologist will tell you, evolution doesn't "pick the best", it is quite nhilistic. It seems the terms "natural elite" / "natural aristocracy" are doing nothing more than creating artificial hierarchies and manipulating language (poorly) under the pretext of "science" to do nothing more than try to confirm their own aesthetic. I just don't understand how this is good sociology, or if there is a point to using such definitions.

My point was natural selection occurs, not that it had a preference, but since the state gives certain incentives that would normally be counter-productive, state-society inevitably distorts or skews natural selection in a given population, in addition to the market.

I mean it quite evidently relies upon a hefty amount of people trying to achieve The American Dream, unaware they are helping to stimulate the state & it's processes, by buying into a social reality perpetuated to continue state-society (some call these people sheeple, lowest common denominator, etc.), but it also manages to get it's fare share from people more aware, but between a rock & a hard place in terms of learning to survive state-society, all the while opposing it.

The environment changes, so does the organisms reaction to said environment, & different genes are eventually utilized more often than others, & so forth. Our ancestors probably had to rely on foot travel more often then not, so it's not out of the question that they might've had faster running speeds compared to more modern descendants who are able to use technology to more around more efficiently.

Maybe I should've said that, but I was not implying "pick the best", but obviously, those who survive state-society "best" might succeed. However, the basic principles behind state-society are not exactly something to envy, & it's no wonder that 'best' politicians seem to resemble sociopaths rather than the usual citizen ("The worst get to the top.").

I do agree that natural selection is pretty nihilistic. State society, like any environment, however, has an effect on it. IMO, the state-society is a good example of dysgenics, in action by proxy, on a massive scale (the end exaggerated result being that of Idiocracy). However, from a statist point of view, the state society helps bring about subtle eugenic changes over time, to eventually make more & more compliant populations, which are easier to rely upon perpetrating the state in consent, idea, & execution.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

William — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:53:40 GMT

I don't think it's necessarily "anti-heirarchical paranoia" to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism.

That is my problem with the whole thing. Any biologist will tell you, evolution doesn't "pick the best", it is quite nhilistic. It seems the terms "natural elite" / "natural aristocracy" are doing nothing more than creating artificial hierarchies and manipulating language (poorly) under the pretext of "science" to do nothing more than try to confirm their own aesthetic. I just don't understand how this is good sociology, or if there is a point to using such definitions.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:13:56 GMT

Marko:
In short nothing decisive to justify your prediction of hereditary oligarchy within a generation. Yes a person born into a rich family has better chances to win an Olympic gold seeing he has better conditions for training, but at the end of the day that can't be decisive.

That's why I added the Nouveau-Riche there at the end of my post a few posts back. Of course there will still be the Bill Gates', but there will also still be the Vanderbuilts, too.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Marko — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:38:21 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Marko:
What advantage?

More capital, maybe longer time preference, or a larger "margin of error", due to more resources to squander making incorrect decisions, or engaging in higher risk/reward investments.

In short nothing decisive to justify your prediction of hereditary oligarchy within a generation. Yes a person born into a rich family has better chances to win an Olympic gold seeing he has better conditions for training, but at the end of the day that can't be decisive.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:17:28 GMT

Marko:
What advantage?

More capital, maybe longer time preference, or a larger "margin of error", due to more resources to squander making incorrect decisions, or engaging in higher risk/reward investments.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Brainpolice — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:02:24 GMT

And yet, just because the term "natural elite" may have originated with Hoppe (or whoever else he might've derived inspiration from for the term), does not restrict it's use to a Hoppean perspective.

In the context of this message board and anarcho-capitalist theory, that is generally how it's used.

I don't see why it's necessary to drag in baggage with Hoppe to dispute the possibility of some individuals being more successful than others, or some individuals being more naturally inclined to some things versus other things.

Because I haven't disputed that in the first place. In fact, my very first post in the thread aknowledges it.

Hoppe was an idiot for using this term since it brings up so much anti-hierarchical paranoia in anyone that already disagrees with him from the outset.

I don't think it's necessarily "anti-heirarchical paranoia" to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism.

As for appeal to natural selection, can we now include "appeal to anti-authoritarianism" as a possibility, as well? How much can one deny either natural selection or anti-authoritarianism w/out sounding silly?

My invokation of anti-authoritarianism isn't socio-economic apologetics, it's an ethical view against subordination.

The natural merit I have for rhythm makes me more adept at drums, but might also make less adept at pitch. There are trade-offs with natural merit, even within the individual, so even the so called "natural elite" are not even equal among themselves, let alone within themselves. Sometimes natural merit isn't enough, & the social & probability aspects come into play.

Okay, but even an anarcho-collectivist like Bakunin doesn't disagree with this sense of specialization and merit. I don't see what this has to do with the broader claim of "natural elites". Hoppe isn't simply talking about specialization, he's invoking cultural norms and refering to a distinct class that is supposed to have social power purely based on natural merit (relative to certain cultural norms). If we don't share those cultural norms and if we don't view social power as necessarily being a reflection of merit, that particular notion of "the natural elite" collapses.

A stateless society would reduce obfuscations to natural selection, distortions on merit, & the means to peruse one's own abilities in the market, but it would not instantly make everyone equal (although probably far more equal than in the state-society*). If we're we all equal, why aren't there more people with Down Syndrome, versus non-Down Syndrome roaming the earth? Why do people not actively mate with people with Down Syndrome more often?

I don't know, ask someone that actually believes in "making everyone (perfectly) equal" in terms of ability, let alone outcome, which no philosophical egalitarian to my knowledge actually claims.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Nitroadict — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:48:55 GMT

Brainpolice:

The underlying problem here is what I percieve to be a sort of naturalistic fallacy - the assumption that nature (or the market), absent the state, is a pure meritocracy.

It's more meritocratic, not completely meritocratic, I'm not sure who would say such a thing aside from idealists.

Nature is not all sunshine & rainbows, & neither is reality. A complete meritocracy would probably only exist in a world where chance doesn't exist.

Brainpolice:

And while there are obvious affinities, I think that applying evolutionary concepts from natural science to the social sciences can be stretched too far. Hoppe's notion of "natural elites" very blatantly seems to be an attempt to portray the preferences of cultural conservatism as the naturally arising consequences of a meritocratic nature.

And yet, just because the term "natural elite" may have originated with Hoppe (or whoever else he might've derived inspiration from for the term), does not restrict it's use to a Hoppean perspective.

I'm not making a claim that "cultural conservatism" (I don't remember what you designate as such) is required for membership in the "natural elites", nor that it's necessary to be successful.

I'm saying natural elites is sort of a misnomer for describing people that would be most successful in a stateless society & probably not even know it aside from being acknowledged by his/her peers from praises & people following his example, based on his record of merit.

I don't see why it's necessary to drag in baggage with Hoppe to dispute the possibility of some individuals being more successful than others, or some individuals being more naturally inclined to some things versus other things. Not everyone is capable of being a rocket scientist, but a rocket scientist might not have been a very good carpenter, either.

Brainpolice:

I never proposed an opposition to ability or the claim that greater ability automatically equals coercion. It seems to me that in one's opposition to absolute anti-heirarchicalism, there is a temptation to tend to make the opposite mistake and defend socio-economic "elite" status by appealing to some mechanism of natural meritocracy that doesn't quite exist. The whole problem is that there is a danger of simple socio-economic apologetics via appeal to natural selection.

I'm not defending the "elite", I'm the defending the spontaneous order of various successful peoples in the market that would possibly create a "natural elite". Not everyone one of these "natural elites" would seek to create an imposed aristocracy or elite ruling class, & some of them wouldn't even be aware that they are an "elite" in the first place.

Hoppe was an idiot for using this term since it brings up so much anti-hierarchical paranoia in anyone that already disagrees with him from the outset.

He could've merely suggested his own preferences (instead of extending a crystal ball that more people may become "culturally conservative"), admit the term is a misnomer to describe people that are successful (whether it's due to biological, social, or mere probability advantages) in a stateless society, & move on.

As for appeal to natural selection, can we now include "appeal to anti-authoritarianism" as a possibility, as well? How much can one deny either natural selection or anti-authoritarianism w/out sounding silly?

Then again, I don't agree with egalitarianism, so this might end up being be a moot discussion with you.

Brainpolice:

It simply is not the case that "the market" inherently allocates wealth and social status strictly on the basis of natural merit.

I never said that the "market" does anything like that, nor did i treat it as some sort of entity or deity.

Natural merit might however make wealth & social status easier to acquire, however, just as being born without genetic mutations might make one live slightly longer or have lactose intolerance, than others who don't live as long and/or who can drink milk.

The natural merit I have for rhythm makes me more adept at drums, but might also make less adept at pitch. There are trade-offs with natural merit, even within the individual, so even the so called "natural elite" are not even equal among themselves, let alone within themselves. Sometimes natural merit isn't enough, & the social & probability aspects come into play.

A stateless society would reduce obfuscations to natural selection, distortions on merit, & the means to peruse one's own abilities in the market, but it would not instantly make everyone equal (although probably far more equal than in the state-society*). If we're we all equal, why aren't there more people with Down Syndrome, versus non-Down Syndrome roaming the earth? Why do people not actively mate with people with Down Syndrome more often?

Sure, there is an element of chance regarding the rate of mutation that would affect the percentages of people born with down syndrome, but why does it not proliferate as much as other mutations? How is it selected against?

I guess I'm just making yet another crazy appeal to natural selection, though.

*This is of course assuming that the stateless-society survives long enough to become a viable & eventually more efficient solution as an organization model for society compared to under the state. I don't want to assume it does survive, as I would probably be making an appeal to the stateless society.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Marko — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:43:12 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Those who have accumulated wealth through merit would pass it on to their children, or appoint them to positions in an organization neither of which they may have been able to earn based solely on their individual merits. Thsese people are placed at a competitive advantage, regardless of their intrinsic abilities.

What advantage? In your examples I only see consumption.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Jackson LaRose — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:35:33 GMT

MarketFundamentalist:
Do you think the meritocratic natural elite will suddenly become an oligarchy? Seems like a leap of logic to me.

Those who have accumulated wealth through merit would pass it on to their children, or appoint them to positions in an organization neither of which they may have been able to earn based solely on their individual merits. Thsese people are placed at a competitive advantage, regardless of their intrinsic abilities. Hence, it is my belief than an aristocracy would just devolve into an oligarchy, or a plutocracy with little to no considerations of merit, not including the occasional nouveau-riche.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Marko — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:24:58 GMT

hayekianxyz:

I think this is an excellent point that defenders of the market would do well to realise. Steven Horwitz had a piece about this not long ago and Hayek emphasized this in a chapter of The Constitution of Liberty, it is by no means true that those who do well in a free market do so by virtue of their innate ability, their work ethic or their worth as a person. All too often people get rich who are not particularly talented or hard-working, they're simply fortunate enough to have the right idea under the correct circumstances of time and place.

I would go further and state that just as easily as the point that being successful on the market probably denotes a certain positive property of the said individual the exact reverse point that it is likely an indicator of a serious deficiency of character can also be made. So let me make it:

To succeed on the market one has to satisfy demand. Now unless in an unlikely scenario where one happens to work for a living doing what he would do anyway this means - being dictated by the market! Which could be said is an indicator of a weak willed individual who places great amount of importance to material wealth and hasn't the resolve to instead do things his own way.

For the sake of the argument lets say that we know that Rothbard could have made it as a writer of pulp in the mold of Tom Clancy and earned a ton of cash. Would doing so, instead of writing Man, Economy and State meant he was more of an elite, or less so? What is a mark of great character? Spending time writing what one actually wants to write confident in the belief that what one has to say is easily worth forgoing considerable wealth, or writing airhead best-sellers in order to buy a pool for the backyard?

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Brainpolice — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:11:23 GMT

Nitroadict:

Brainpolice:

assimilateur:

Praetyre:
Defending government officials

Cut the guy some slack, he obviously meant aristocracy as in elite, not people wielding coercive power.

The Hoppean idea of the "natural elite" seems to be a romantisization that excludes all of the political, coercive, and non-meritocratic elements of "the elite" from the picture.

The term elite can be used subjectively: "elite" can be merely another term for "the best market actors in their respective fields" or "the most talented based upon merit" is ignored.

I don't remember Hoppe explicitly endorsing political, coercive & non-meritocratic elements of "an elite", just as he never explicitly endorses monarchy (but provided analysis on it in comparison to democracy, regardless). An actual quote or two from him might clear this up, if he did, in both cases.

Technically, a master / teacher could be a natural elite in comparison to his apprentice. One day, the master dies, & the best of his apprentices / students may take his place, & so on.

Ignoring the subjective use of "elite" by various people in different possible arguments seems to give advantage to anyone paranoid of any hierarchy whatsoever.

How would natural elites not inevitably form (and fall, since natural elites would eventually die, & others would take their place) in the stateless society ("natural elites" in a state-society seems to be a misnomer, since the entire market is distorted from day one due to the state, and it is widely based on anti-meritocratic, pro-coercion, pro-political means)?

It's not unreasonable to see that what is usually thought of as an "aristocracy" (in this case, the elite) in a stateless society would mean something different than in a state society.

I'm not sure if you could call the people who are the very best at their jobs, have widely renowned reputations for such, consistently outperform others while reaping the benefits based on their own merit over those who may be far more mediocre, a "ruling elite", unless we're talking about criminals, politicians, etc.

Not everyone who is good at what they do, fits the bill as endorsing or preforming the "political, coercive & anti-meritocratic" bill of what is usually attributed to said "elite".

Should ability really be opposed on an assumption that greater ability than others automatically equals coercion, because they are not at the same level as others?

Wouldn't those that apply as "natural elites" simply be the result of natural selection?

The underlying problem here is what I percieve to be a sort of naturalistic fallacy - the assumption that nature (or the market), absent the state, is a pure meritocracy. And while there are obvious affinities, I think that applying evolutionary concepts from natural science to the social sciences can be stretched too far. Hoppe's notion of "natural elites" very blatantly seems to be an attempt to portray the preferences of cultural conservatism as the naturally arising consequences of a meritocratic nature.

I never proposed an opposition to ability or the claim that greater ability automatically equals coercion. It seems to me that in one's opposition to absolute anti-heirarchicalism, there is a temptation to tend to make the opposite mistake and defend socio-economic "elite" status by appealing to some mechanism of natural meritocracy that doesn't quite exist. The whole problem is that there is a danger of simple socio-economic apologetics via appeal to natural selection.

It simply is not the case that "the market" inherently allocates wealth and social status strictly on the basis of natural merit, particularly given the element of sheer subjective value involved and the begged normative question of what is virtuous in the first place. In other words, markets function in a cultural context. In a culture that values poopoo, "the market" will produce poopoo, but nothing normatively meritocratic about the poopoo industry necessarily follows.

*laugh* I said poopoo.

Re: Defending the aristocracy

Nitroadict — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:56:52 GMT

Brainpolice:

assimilateur:

Praetyre:
Defending government officials

Cut the guy some slack, he obviously meant aristocracy as in elite, not people wielding coercive power.

The Hoppean idea of the "natural elite" seems to be a romantisization that excludes all of the political, coercive, and non-meritocratic elements of "the elite" from the picture.

The term elite can be used subjectively: "elite" can be merely another term for "the best market actors in their respective fields" or "the most talented based upon merit" is ignored.

I don't remember Hoppe explicitly endorsing political, coercive & non-meritocratic elements of "an elite", just as he never explicitly endorses monarchy (but provided analysis on it in comparison to democracy, regardless). An actual quote or two from him might clear this up, if he did, in both cases.

Technically, a master / teacher could be a natural elite in comparison to his apprentice. One day, the master dies, & the best of his apprentices / students may take his place, & so on.

Ignoring the subjective use of "elite" by various people in different possible arguments seems to give advantage to anyone paranoid of any hierarchy whatsoever.

How would natural elites not inevitably form (and fall, since natural elites would eventually die, & others would take their place) in the stateless society ("natural elites" in a state-society seems to be a misnomer, since the entire market is distorted from day one due to the state, and it is widely based on anti-meritocratic, pro-coercion, pro-political means)?

It's not unreasonable to see that what is usually thought of as an "aristocracy" (in this case, the elite) in a stateless society would mean something different than in a state society.

I'm not sure if you could call the people who are the very best at their jobs, have widely renowned reputations for such, consistently outperform others while reaping the benefits based on their own merit over those who may be far more mediocre, a "ruling elite", unless we're talking about criminals, politicians, etc.

Not everyone who is good at what they do, fits the bill as endorsing or preforming the "political, coercive & anti-meritocratic" bill of what is usually attributed to said "elite".

Should ability really be opposed on an assumption that greater ability than others automatically equals coercion, because they are not at the same level as others?

Wouldn't those that apply as "natural elites" simply be the result of natural selection?