Serious thinkers have known for centuries that society is a complex, spontaneous order, which cannot be centrally directed at gunpoint, writes Robert Murphy. How long will it take the politicians and pundits to grasp this fact? Iraq, for example, suffers not from a lack of a violent group imposing their will on a subject population, but rather Iraq suffers precisely because it was originally subject to the “law and order” vision of Saddam Hussein, and now the “law and order” goals of US politicians, to be followed by the “law and order” of whatever group seizes power next. [Full Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3069/liberty-and-order-home-and-abroad/
Liberty and Order, Home and Abroad
Previous post: A Struggle for Power
Next post: Rothbard on Liberty and Order
{ 10 comments }
Perhaps the simplest way to view the tension between liberty and order is to view “rights” as negative. Consequently, there are things that none has a right to do, such as depriving another of the free exercise of his faculties.
If we are to maximize freedom, people can only be free to the extent that they do not impede the freedom of others. Here, we would not consider something as “free” if its consequence were to reduce the freedom of others. Thus, one is free to own the fruits of his labor, for this does not deprive anyone else. (Similarly, there can be equality before the law.) However, one cannot be free to steal, for this reduces the freedom of others. (Similarly, there cannot be freedom to redistribute wealth, which is inequality before the law.)
Consequently, freedom is absolute once one precludes activities which remove it from others. Perhaps this view is similar to that of Kant who permitted as moral only that which can be made universal.
The sense of property is the irreducible, indispensable commons of civilization. This is commons in the sense of “the tragedy of the commons.” Anyone/everyone is free to despoliate it, and many (thieves, murderers, socialists) do, more in some places and times and less in some other places and times.
The more “we” (at least some of us) respect and develop this commons, the more there is for all of us (literally all of us in this case). And the more it is despoliated by some, the more danger this puts the rest of us in of being fools and hosts to the parasites.
It is a slippery slope, indeed.
A balance between liberty and order is needed for long term planning.
When talking about liberty or freedom, it is important to distinguish which types you’re talking about. I think some people get confused over that. The freedom to fly to Jupiter, or lack of, is not a political freedom or restriction, but a natural or technology one. I see political freedom as the freedom from coercion. But, as Allen points out, I see freedom as a universal ideal, that is, as a universal rights-based theory.
I don’t have a good formulation for justifying its universalness, but certainly it seems to me that my freedom is greatly enhanced by the freedom of others, a statement that should be obvious to any free market supporter. Legally, how can one justify denying freedoms to some people, but not to others? Perhaps the burden of proof should rest on those who want to deny universal freedom instead.
It is unfortunate the word “anarchy” has two distinctly different meanings. Anarchy can mean absence of government, or it can mean disorder. As Robert Murphy states, it is often the government that causes disorder and chaos. E.g. you can or must do something I am not allowed to because we have different skin color, but next year, or next week the rules change. One company is required to provide employees certain benefits and another is not because the second company employs one less person. A butcher shop is required to have wet floors so meat particles don’t dry and stick to the floors, and it is also required to have dry floors so nobody slips and falls. Compare this confusion and capriciousness to the spontaneous order of capitalism and the free market when government stays out of the way. Anarchy (the absence of government) allows society to function with less anarchy (disorder).
Real freedom is freedom from, not freedom to.
Freedom to, takes away from my freedom and gives
you more, not true freedom. Unfortunately this
me generation does not understand anything but
ME and cannot grasp the meaning of Freedom
What we seem to have ended up with is the rather more damaging political anarchy of Nation States, despite the pretense of this “International Law”.
I remember this essay I found, linked from Roderick Long’s site (which I can’t seem to access right now) called “Do we really get out of anarchy?”, pointing out that government bureaucracies have a kind of internal anarchy anyway. This is bad because of the sort of politics “on the inside” has little relation to reality, on the whole. Wish I could get to the essay…
Nathan:
I believe that it is here:
[L=http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf]http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf[/L]
The essay is correct. Politics are merely political anarchy in action. Political anarchy is in stark contrast to market anarchy in that political anarchy is anarchy of coercion and force. Market anarchy is anarchy of voluntary agreements and cooperation. Hence, politics are chaos, while the free market is order.
Here is another essay on why the government as the vast majority of people think of governments does not exist:
Text
Hence, what we are dealing with is nothing more than a group of individuals who are acting in a statist manner. They only get away with this because the majority of the population has adopted pervasive myths regarding the “right to rule.”
Oops, I botched the first link above for the article “Do we ever really get out of anarchy?”
Try this one.
Check this out …
Shopkeepers with family members in prison are exempt, as are those with relatives in the police force and those who suffer a bereavement, who are let off a single quarterly payment. New shops setting up in the area are obliged to make a hefty downpayment. Mafiosi coming into the area from outside have to pay 3 per cent of their take to the local bosses.
The quarterly payment is collected by young mobsters with nice manners who usually have no criminal record. Most shopkeepers, claims La Repubblica, are happy to pay up.The fact that the jewellers of Palermo’s Via Giovanni Meli don’t need to lock their doors is thanks to the pizzo. “In Giovanni Meli it is forbidden to rob, forbidden to harass. The 30-odd jewellers along the street all have their doors open.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=602576
The only differences between the Mafia and the Government are that some people think the Government has a right to exist, and that the Mafia is more effective. The parallels between business licensure, property taxes, sales taxes, and payouts, protection, and a “piece of the action” are so obvious and juicy that it makes great inroads in getting the broad points of anarchism across to a newbie.
If you want a good “Gilligan Unbound”-like discussion of politics in action, rent the movie “Used Cars” with Kurt Russell. Great stuff!
Comments on this entry are closed.