Political Theory

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Merlin — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:01:19 GMT

FlyingAxe:

The truth is: governments have historically eradicated local dialects and actually wiped out fully independent languages upon invasions of countries. Absent of governments, languages and dialects tend to drift very much.

Let’s not be too quick with that. Notice how every example of a huge number of languages spoken in a small(ish) territory always involves societies with no markets whatsoever. Indeed, it makes no sense in a society that depends of trade to have each family speaking its own language. The government truly has extinguished many languages, but the market does that too (perhaps the market is, at least in Europe, by far the largest ‘culprit’). The difference seems to be that the market tends to select surviving languages based on (at least partly) their quality.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Marko — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:28:28 GMT

(And yes, Soviets and Russians before them persecuted Ukranian-speakers.)

No they didn't.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Anenome — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:25:26 GMT

SkepticalMetal:

Okay, but let's use the USA around the time of it's inception. My question is, in a society where the state is as minimal as possible, would it be acceptable to have a national language?

Probably not. What would be the point exactly. Any use of coercion to force people to speak a certain language would be opposed by the principles of that society.

Think in ad hoc terms, in ad hoc self-organization, languages take care of themselves via something like a social supply-and-demand. If a certain region speaks X language, businesses will try to cater to them in that language. Etc., etc.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

David B — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:21:02 GMT

John makes the great point that the dividing line is one of coercion. In the market, the producer of a service or product looks to deliver the product to the widest range of customers, so he has to do an internal assessment of his ability to deliver products to whatever the local demographic is. The only reasonable libertarian objection will be to the use of force to prevent the use of a language.

If you open up a restaurant in waco, texas and none of your staff speaks Spanish, you might not be a very smart businessman. But the market can work that out.

Also, I think understanding the effect on the marketplace and on the social group when you have two populations within a social environment that speak different languages. You'll end up with different groups within the larger group that could be classified by the language(s) they speak. Anyone would reasonably fear feeling isolated within a social group because you aren't able to effectively communicate with the other members. But that's a market opportunity waiting to happen. If I'm that individual, I could learn a new language through a service provided (or through my own initiative and hard work). Speaking both languages would be a valued set of skills as it would open up a broad range of employment or entreprenurial opportunities to serve as a bridge between parties who are interacting socially, or to work for companies that wish to provide products and services to group members that speak only one of the languages.

The mistake is to bring the political means (coercion, theft, violence) into this discussion. It exacerbates an already difficult situation instead of mitigating it. The inability to communicate with another member of a social group is a source of economic and social friction. Adding force makes it worse. Learning to communicate and cooperate reduces that friction. Eventually one of the languages or perhaps some mutant hybrid of the two languages will emerge and dominate that group, that's natural and historically demonstrable. The pity is that we reach for guns and laws, instead of translators and education.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Autolykos — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:19:22 GMT

What FlyingAxe said. The point of an official language is to require official (i.e. state) business to be conducted using that language. As far as businesses are concerned, whatever languages it chooses to conduct business in can be considered its "official languages".

By the way, some Northerners still can't understand some Southerners. :P

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Bert — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:35:11 GMT

It would be region specific, if anything, while catering to the next largest language. Ever go into a China town in an American city? Seldom any English.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

FlyingAxe — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:34:20 GMT

I think it is an interesting question to think about.

The truth is: governments have historically eradicated local dialects and actually wiped out fully independent languages upon invasions of countries. Absent of governments, languages and dialects tend to drift very much. My favorite example is some lake in South American forest, where Native tribes speak dialects of the same language family. There are several villages around the lake, and the closer the villages are, the greater the chance of their people understanding each other. The dialects of the villages on the opposite shores of the lake are not mutually understandable.

Then there is the anecdotal stories of Northerners not being able to understand the Southerners during the Civil War.

So, in order to do business in an anarchist society, one would need translators, just like one needs translators today. One would also need standardization, and that would be accomplished by several independent (and competing) authorities.

Btw, the case of the government having an official language is not just a case of the government limiting itself. It's the case of the government forcing its citizens to speak some language when involved in legal activities. When living in Eastern Ukraine, I hated having to speak Ukrainian, since I grew up speaking Russian. (And yes, Soviets and Russians before them persecuted Ukranian-speakers.) Recently, there was a riot in the Ukrainian parliament when Russian was proposed to be a second official language.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Aristippus — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 23:17:28 GMT

'Libertarian government' or even 'anarchist government' are not necessarily oxymorons. They are only so if 'government' is for some reason synonymous with 'state'. Why should that be so? Government refers to the institutions of order in society. That the terms state and government are so closely linked together is simply a result of a long barrage of statist propaganda, which seeks to attribute all order to the state. But, as Albert Jay Nock recognised, they are not the same things.

Anyway, in answer to the OP, choosing a single language for a non-statist society is indeed quite ridiculous and perhaps contradictory. The very reason that the state is opposed is due to the harmful nature of centralized vs. decentralized governance. Why should language - perhaps the best example of the emergence of order without central planning - be any different?

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:59:57 GMT

Ah, I see.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

Phi est aureum — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:57:14 GMT

As JJ said, "libertarian government" is an oxymoron, but a monopoly on the threat of or use of violence can presumably do whatever it wants.

An anarchist society, on the other hand, wouldn't have an official language. It could have an unofficial, much like English is the unofficial language of the US. That is, there could (and quite possibly would) be a language that is most widely used and known and, therefore, easiest to conduct business in. Imagine, I can create a gibberish language in an anarchist society and refuse to speak anything else. If I am selling apples, may have a difficult time doing business since only I would know the language I am speaking. But nothing would stop me from attempting to.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:33:58 GMT

Interesting. I see your point. But let's try this - what about in an anarchist society? What would the situation on language be then?

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

John James — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:30:51 GMT

I'm not sure what sort of issue anyone would have with a government instituting (and actually observing) restrictions on itself.

I suppose a case could be made that because a government forces you in other ways, if it has a mandate that every communication it makes must be in one specific language, then it is indirectly placing one more forced burden on the public (i.e. that they must know that language).

But at the same time, I'm not sure how one could logically make the case that this is somehow inconsistent with the premise of government, or that it somehow goes against what a government "can" do.

Again, the whole point is mandates, instituted and enforced through violence and coercion. So if someone accepts the legitimacy of such a thing, I'm not sure how one could logically make a case against a government having an official language.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:20:38 GMT

I certainly don't agree with the "everyone has to speak this language and no other...or else" idea. It's the second one you listed that I am referring to.

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

John James — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:18:24 GMT

Even though some people allege that defining of terms is useless and unnecessary, It really depends on what you mean by "national language".

If you mean, "everyone has to speak this language and no other...or else." That's one thing. If you just mean that all governmental business/documents/signs/statutes, etc. must be done/made available in some language, that's a completely different thing.

I mean, I could start my own club and mandate an "official language".

Re: Language in a Libertarian Nation

SkepticalMetal — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:08:46 GMT

Okay, but let's use the USA around the time of it's inception. My question is, in a society where the state is as minimal as possible, would it be acceptable to have a national language?