The Beginning of the Ron Paul Season
George Will writes a commentary on the prospect of a presidential bid by Ron Paul, and here is a commentary on Will that attacks Will's insinuation that Paul is a eccentric out of touch with the glorious modern world of the Leviathan state.
Will has always been a big-government man - Straussian links of some sort - but, more importantly, he is among the multitudes who sees no sense in talking about an ideal that he can't imagine coming about. But talking about what can and should be is what pushes history forward. The willingness to do so is why some people change history and others are just along for the ride.
Comments (46)
For Mr. Will I assert that 50% of the people with voting rights are practicing libertarians. That choose not to exercise it. And that is for the big kahuna Presidential election cycles. It is primary day where I live, for such posts as State Supreme Court, and the mind boggling turnout of 10% is expected.
People DO want to be left alone, by and large, it is the squeakiest centrist 20% that make up our "democratic" structure. It was that squeaky 20% that the Constitution was designed to stop.
It is Conservatives like Will (and the National Review) that drove me, at last, from the Republican ranks. Will is an elitist jerk.
Published: February 20, 2007 8:42 AM
Get ready...
The big-government types (both Republicans and Democrats) will portray anyone as a "kook" who thinks the founders actually meant it when they said they believed in a limited government. This despite the fact the Constitution was their quite obvious and full-blown attempt to establish just such a government.
The big-government crowd pays lip service to the Constitution while completely ignoring it. People like Ron Paul — who actually think the government should exist within the boundaries established by the Constitution — will not be tolerated. Hey, it's one thing to admire the Constitution with your WORDS but quite another to actually attempt to APPLY it to government...
Published: February 20, 2007 8:44 AM
You have to love George Will here. Ron Paul is a "cheerful anachronism" because:
(1) He opposes subsidies to rice farmers;
(2) He opposes the war in Iraq;
(3) He opposed both campaign finance reform and the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2006, and
(4) His opposition to the aforementioned derives from his adhering to a libertarian political philosophy.
[Will also implies that if Ron Paul had been a Congressman in 1803, he would have opposed the Louisiana Purchase, which is probably true, but is an issue that is unlikely to arise in the forseeable future, since the U.S. reached its natural frontiers long ago.]
If being "practical" means supporting a 3-trillion dollar leviathan, then I guess I'll side with Ron "cheerful anachronism" Paul.
Published: February 20, 2007 9:14 AM
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/ron-paul-wins-straw-poll-again-pajamas-media-removes-his-name/
Published: February 20, 2007 9:58 AM
forget about polls, do the google test: giuliani vs. ron paul.
See who comes out ahead....
Published: February 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee.
Ron Paul's 14th District is not in South Texas. If anything, it's in East Texas, aka, the Gulf Coast region.
An error, and in only the second sentence.
Published: February 20, 2007 10:48 AM
Someone should remind Mr. Will that, when he was a strapping lad, environmentalists were little more than "health food nuts" or anti-technology "kooks."
Published: February 20, 2007 11:44 AM
George Will has successfully developed a writing style where he tells you what he thinks without telling you what he thinks. Very irritating.
But now I know that Ron Paul has a photo of Mises in his office. ;-)
Published: February 20, 2007 12:16 PM
Well lets see. The Republicans (Of which Will is a more well known one) are for war, big government, subsidies, industrial protection, and Entitilements-The Warfare State. The Kooks are for limited government, peace, individual liberty, the Constitution, etc.-The Kook State.
I wonder if George realizes that the Kooks who normally side with the Warfare State Republicans did not participate in the last election and the Republicans got crushed.
I wonder what Goldwater and Reagan would think about the current Warefare State Republicans?
I also wonder if WIll realizes that it will be a lot Kookier if we live in the Hillary State?
Published: February 20, 2007 5:41 PM
Okay.
That's pretty lopsided.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:25 AM
A much better article on Ron Paul… here.
It's by Reason's Radley Balko.
Published: February 21, 2007 12:29 AM
Brad, you are dead wrong. Every poll and every vote demolishes the idea that the populace is libertarian. Those who do vote tend to be older and more wealthy/educated than the general population (which correlates with leaning more libertarian), so if all the non-voters (which includes me, because voting is irrational) were to give their input, we would have even more government.
Published: February 21, 2007 1:49 AM
Black Bloke you're right, I see were I went wrong: I left out the ""s on Ron Paul.
The again if you do "Rudy Giuliani" or "Rudolph Giuliani" vs. "Ron Paul" it is not so lopsided...
Published: February 21, 2007 4:01 AM
This is fun:
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Ron+paul%22&word2=%22Rudolph+Giuliani%22
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Hillary+Clinton%22&word2=%22Barack+Obama%22
Published: February 21, 2007 4:12 AM
You have to admit Paul's chances in the Republican primaries may be slimmer than as a third party candidate. Will describes him as a cheerful and useful anachronism. That seems right on. Paul has no chance of winning in his lifetime. But his running may get people to start rethinking their devotion to the State and the sorry condition of the Constitution today. And that, someday, may lead to real change. That devotion and commitment by Ron Paul and those like him are what we should praise, even if he only gets 1% of the vote.
Published: February 21, 2007 9:50 AM
I keep thinking that the US economy is set up for a fatal economic disaster that will kill most of the US economy and the welfare state along with it.
When that happens a lot of those with bias against Ron Paul will be dead bankrupt and have nothing to loose. And a lot of others "in the know" will have much to gain from Ron Paul being elected.
I am not writing off Ron Paul yet. With 400 Trillion in over-leveraged derivatives contracts, and 50 Trillion in excess global liquidity, a huge amount of change can and will happen over the next few years.
Published: February 21, 2007 11:40 PM
Ron Paul is a steadfast and principled man--a moral exemplar who serves in Congress, consistently votes against legalized plunder and bloodshed, and intends (I don't doubt this) to decline his pension. I enthusiastically voted for him when he ran for president as the Libertarian candidate.
Still, the idea that Mr. Paul can make a difference in the battle for liberty by running for president again doesn't fly. Few are likely to be persuaded by Mr. Paul's message, which ironically lacks a compelling and inspiring moral vision.
Most contemporary libertarians, such as Mr. Paul, understand and effectively articulate why big government is destructive of prosperity; of personal financial security (at least among the productive); of our freedom of choice in many areas of contemporary life; of personal independence, intellectual integrity, and business innovation; of the lives and security of American soldiers and helpless foreign populations caught up in American wars. These libertarian arguments are effective at proving that State action harms some people.
Yet these arguments are woefully inadequate because they state only what libertarians are opposed to: the Big State and the harm it inflicts on people. To rally people to our cause, libertarians must explicitly elaborate and prove a positive moral system that explains what people long to know: of what does moral virtue consist? For what moral values should I live?
That people everywhere ache to know the answer to this question is obvious. Soldiers volunteer to fight, bleed and die in foreign wars, in sincere pursuit of mistaken moral values. Idealistic Muslim children, indoctrinated in the putrid moral stench of self-immolation, willingly step forward to blow themselves and innocents around them to bits. Sincere Left-liberals in the US and Europe, their dream of a worker's paradise reduced to rubble, pine for their warped moral vision of untrammeled nature--unblemished by man's supposedly hideous footprint, or by his achievments. Conservatives preach that individuals must subordinate themselves to the allegedly higher moral value of "family"; or of marriage, happy or unhappy; or to the "rights" of a four week fetus; or to all things "American"--including foreign wars. Both Left and Right consistently preach the moral virtue of self sacrifice as the pathway to heaven--on earth or in the hereafter
What do libertarians, including Ron Paul, offer in contrast to the dominant vision of the virtue of self sacrifice? Platitudes about the Constitution--more thou shalt nots--and the absurd observation that "most people are born libertarians". Few are inspired by a movement that loudly proclaims what it stands against, but falls silent about its vision of moral virtue. Libertarians are for individual liberty. But why is individual liberty a moral value? Why should one not so now disposed value laissez faire capitalism? For that matter, why should one value prosperity? Or beauty? Or physical health?
Answers to the problems of moral philosophy won't be discovered through a "spiritual reawakening" to the alleged miracles of religion, or by staking out one's own "personal philosophy", or by arguing that no one can figure this stuff out anyway, so why worry? Moral philosophy, together with a coherent and powerful case for the value of individual liberty, flourish in the writing of Ayn Rand, Tibor Machan, Eric Mack, Nathaniel Branden, and others of a broadly Randian outlook.
Of course, this claim is unsettling, even offensive, to quite a few libertarians schooled in the belief that any discussion about the source and nature of moral principles, particularly from a Randian perspective, is heretical and bad manners among Austrian libertarians. That is unfortunate, because without coherent moral philosophy, libertarianism is doomed to fail. I recommend readers check out Tibor Machan's "Capitalism and Individualism: Reframing the Argument for a Free Society" and "The Virtue of Liberty"; and Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness", "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal", and "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"
Published: February 24, 2007 1:11 AM
Nicely said, Mark, but ultimately, arguments by Rand and the others are no more convincing (to most people) than any other argument put forth for freedom. The primary problem is that individual liberty is just that: individual. Each individual has to use his own reason, and use it without logical fallacies or emotional bias, to realize the value of freedom. No rational argument, no matter how logical or valid it is, can easily overcome emotional bias or partial irrationality.
You might recall how "Atlas Shugged" ends, with only a small number of people going to Galt's Gulch. And yet the "vision" of Galt's Gulch was less impressive to me than the scene of Eddie Willers' futility at trying to keep the train running...
Published: February 24, 2007 2:10 AM
Libertarianism doesn't have a defendable moral theory - instead it is just a theory of 'making morality follow the boundaries of purely concrete property ownership'. All the criticism Austrian's have against using science as a model for economics applies to using 'concretes' as a model for morality!
In practice, the idea that society can exist with a given set of 'violence rules' but without an underlying moral base, is likely only fantasy. An immoral population will commit non-violent 'crimes' until they have consolidated enough power to change the rules. Libertarianism leaves us with the same problems as before.
There is no real definition of 'sin' either ... which of course is one of the most observable elements of human action. 'Do unto others' seems a good start, and far better than 'self-ownership'.
The real effect of 'self-ownership' is to pre-define a host of moral issues in terms of 'purely negative rights' ... i.e. there is no positive responsibility to any other person. Instead, we end up moving to a broader sense of justice, rather than self ownership. Justice is a given (and a gift), not subject to a variety of proofs or chains of reason.
So is the fact that a good family is the root of a good society - that is also a given - clearly observable, not subject to volumes of argumentation about alternate universes where it could be 'not so'.
The general prescription (even if only by weight of public opinion) against alternative marriage lifestyles is correct, as alternatives increase the breaking of physical reproduction from caring for one's children. The psychological effects toward children follow these physical realities, and in my view is a serious deviation from the observable natural order.
"Self-ownership" implies that 'children can be abandoned' or other such nonsense ('Crusoe' cannot be the right starting point of an entire theory of ethics - he has no physical possibility of reproduction! Is that really how things are?).
This amazing reductionism continues to "there are no rights that aren't expressed in concretes" like property rights (I cannot sell my ideas because I cannot own them ...). Ideas can be sold, and they sometimes command a giant market premium (CEO's), so they are scarce. Or prescriptions against any statutory rape laws. Or prescriptions against conferred risk (DUI, etc).
Or the (apparently) foolish prohibition against libel or slander - a person can do 10,000 times more damage by telling falsehoods than poking a person in the chest with their finger to make a point, but the latter is legally actionable while the former is not ...
I think that to have real liberty, there has to be a commitment to limited government and the right commitment to fellow men (and children). Any other system is bound to fail.
Maybe I misunderstand, but I don't think so. I've been an avid reader of libertarian thought for some time. In my view, libertarians need to get it down to a few core principles and add on a necessary moral structure which does not have these problems...
Published: February 24, 2007 8:32 AM
BTW - I see no reason to believe Ron Paul has any of these shortcomings ... and in fact the reverse - it seems like he wants to move the U.S. back to Constitutional government which is a step toward liberty, but not toward Rothbard's moral viewpoint.
Published: February 24, 2007 8:39 AM
JIMB, after all this time it's clear that if you wanted to understand, you would, but since you don't, you won't.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:31 AM
David - I think the arguments deserve a better look: There's too little response to serious criticism.
When I argue from the libertarian perspective on on religious sites - for example, noting that God has made men with the power of choice, and we have no authority to take it away - I get much the same response.
I also get the same response from scientists who believe that 'theory' is as immutable as 'facts' and that observed 'facts' are as immutable as logically true statements (example: the theory of evolution is considered as truthful as the measured facts in support of it - but in contrast I think facts point in many directions depending on the initial assumptions and the breadth of knowledge. It is probably the case also that facts are more changeable than logical laws, g might not always have been 9.8 m/s^2 or the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere may may have been different; however, it seems correct to say that 2+2=4 has always been true).
Published: February 24, 2007 10:54 AM
JIMB
The point you make regarding Libertarian supporters concentrating on negatives (thou shalt not) and not promoting a positive moral structure is exactly the argument put forward (and eloquently defended) by one of my best friends.
I understand Libertarianism to have a powerful moral content but others do not agree. Putting aside my opinion, I would like to understand more about what you see as the problem and what you would recommend as a solution.
Care to comment further? I'd be interested in your perspective on this, especially where you consider a solution to lie.
Talofa!
Sione
Published: February 24, 2007 11:58 AM
Michael Clem's comment that the justification for individual liberty is ultimately "individual", reflects the theme of Humean atomistic individualism that dominates neo-classical economics, including the Austrian School. According to this view, considerations of morality lie outside the realm of reason and "science". Economics is "science", according to this outlook, because man is essentially atoms-in-motion, acting in pursuit of purely subjective desires, perpetually seeking to maximize his "utility". Moral philosophy, on the other hand, is simply religious "feeling" or subjective "convictions" that some believe are important in life, but which can never be proven objectively.
So I think I understand and can appreciate Mr. Clem's skepticism about the validity of insights from philosophy. However, I think the Humeans are in error. I think philosophy, including ethics, CAN prove that moral principles are real; and I think that all people need the guidance of morality to live well. Moral principles define the values that people ought to seek, for the purpose of achieving their potential as human beings, given the objective requirements of a living a fully human life. Tibor Machan's short book, available from the Foundation For Economic Education (FEE), entitled "The Virtue of Liberty" is an excellent introduction to this much negelected and fascinating subject.
I sympathize with JIMB's comment that 'libertarians need to get it down to a few core principles and add on a necessary moral structure which does not have these problems'--meaning (I assume) problems that JIMB identifies in Murray Rothbard's system of ethics. First, I agree that Rothbard's attempt to justify individual rights in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" was inadequate and in important respects wrong. But whatever the inadequacy of his attempt at proving political/ ethical principles, Rothbard understood that such principles are essential to the defense of the moral value of individual liberty. Most libertarians do not understand what Rothbard emphasized: arguments about what the State should or should not do to people boil down to disputes about moral principles. Economics proves that free markets produce prosperity, and that socialism and interventionism produce poverty and stagnation. But this begs the question: to what extent should people pursue prosperity, as opposed to sharing, or preserving pristine nature, or preserving their national culture, or stamping out foreign dictators?...and so forth.
One can make sense of all these issues, in the form of coherent and logically satsifying moral philosophy that is based on the reality of human nature. "Philosophy: Who Needs It" and "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand are a great place to begin.
Published: February 24, 2007 3:03 PM
JIMB,
First if all, the law, properly speaking, IS negative, precisely as Bastiat said -- http://www.barefootsworld.net/the_law.html -- being fundamentally no more than the Golden Rule as articulated by both Confucianism -- "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others" -- and Judaism -- “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men."
But it all begins with individual sovereignty, which has nothing to do with atomism and everything to do with man in society. Why? Because even if man is a gift of God, then surely God gave each man to himself and not to anyone else.
Thus is each of us his own property and no one else’s, no matter that promises are made that obligate us, either formally or informally, to do certain things (be loyal to our spouses, be responsible for our children, make payments on our cars, etc.). We may commit ourselves to act in these kinds of ways, even for the rest of our lives, but in so doing we do not sell or otherwise convey ownership of ourselves to someone else. Instead, we retain the exclusive moral right to control our own bodies and minds—our selves—this being the essence of self-ownership.
And from self-ownership it follows that one has the right to preserve oneself and that one must therefore have the liberty to do so. As this necessarily entails the acquisition of material goods, and thus of property, it follows that life, liberty, and property constitute the inalienable rights of every sovereign individual, the recognition of which is what constitutes a free society. Indeed, a society is free in proportion to which it recognizes these rights and protects them accordingly. And thus does this make theft the common denominator of all offenses. For to murder or injure someone is to steal his life, to enslave or incarcerate someone is to steal his liberty, and to rob or defraud someone is to steal his property, thus running the gamut of offenses that one can commit against another.
From this is follows that the non-aggression principle (embodied in the "ethic of reciprocity," otherwise known as the Golden Rule) is the essence of the law and its sole determinant, beyond which it only remains for courts to establish through precedent (rather than legislatures through statutory decree) what constitutes aggression and what the punishment should be, such precedents evolving over time with the understanding that, with Jefferson, “error of opinion [is] tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
And to confront the state as it relates to these matters is to confront the fact that since it has no money of its own, the state can only sustain itself through theft—i.e., by confiscating the property of its subjects (taxation) and/or the subjects of other states (pillage). Thus is the state inherently an aggressor and therefore inherently immoral; thus was Thomas Paine absolutely correct when he said that the state is “at best a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one"; and thus should the eradication of the state the be primary goal of mankind, that we might rid ourselves at long last of institutionalized aggression and thereby free ourselves to realize our vast and all but untapped potential.
For that is the essence of the social enterprise, and that is why freedom is essential to it, not so that atomist individuals can do as they please but that naturally social individuals can socialize to the maximum benefit of man and society.
Published: February 24, 2007 4:46 PM
David White spins out Rothbard's concise and simple justification for the "non-aggression axiom", which is that self ownership is nearly self evident. Given the premise of self ownership, libertarian ideas of private property, individual freedom, and capitalism can be deduced.(Incidentally, Murray Rothbard derived other less appealing positions from his nearly "self-evident" principle of self-ownership, such as the "right" of parents to starve their children, or to abort a fetus seconds before birth.)
However, Rothbard's defense of his political/ethical principles do not withstand logical scrutiny. For "ownership" is an ethical concept. To use this concept as the primary premise and starting point in a chain of reasoning that purports to prove that ethical principles exist, is circular reasoning.
When I argue that contemporary libertarianism is deficient, I mean that it concerns itself almost exclusively with arguments from economics that protest various State activities, to the exclusion of essential underlying philosophical insights. Political philosophy is not worth much if it does not stand on prior demonstrable truths about the nature of man, including epistemology (a study of how man knows what he knows) and ethics (a study of the nature of moral values).
As Sione pointed out, Libertarianism incorporates a powerful moral content into its ideas, "but others do not agree". She's right: many libertarians explicitly disavow moral content in their defense of capitalism. Free market economics is the frontline of defense among contemporary libertarians, and economics is said to be "value-free"--an analytical framework that is indeed necessary to spin out logical truths about human action. However, these same Austrian and Chicago School economists--fervent defenders of individual liberty--smuggle moral values into their defense of markets unannounced, through the back door. For example, the idea from Mises that socialism must fail because economic calculation is not possible without private property and free prices presumes the moral value of prosperity, and of individual choice.
To properly defend free enterprise and individual liberty, one must prove that moral values, and their derivative, which is individual rights, do exist objectively, as requirements of human life. Moral philosophy is not optional to defending liberty; it is essential. To further illustrate what I'm driving at, David White stated that the Law is "properly" negative; "properly" is a moral concept that relates to that which a person "ought" to do. But how does one actually KNOW what is "proper"? By feeling fervently about it? No. One must prove it.
The "non-aggression axiom", hailed by Rothbardian libertarians as their Ethical Rock of Gibralter, is overly simplified and fails as a principle of ethics in certain circumstances. Imagine, for example, that I fall off my 18th floor balcony and grab a flag pole on the 17th floor, from which I kick in the neighbor's window and gain entry, thus saving myself. I have trespassed and, without permission, wrecked my neighbor's window and flag pole. Should I have properly plunged to my death, out of respect for the "non-agression" axiom? Of course not. Moral values, and their derivative, individual rights, exist for one purpose only: to uphold individual autonomy for the purpose of promoting human life and flourishing. In this emergency, saving myself from death is proper, because life is the ultimate standard of moral values, as Rothbard himself affirms in his book on ethics.
Published: February 24, 2007 7:37 PM
Mark - this alleged failure of the axiom on non-aggression as overly simplified comes from the misunderstanding of its meaning.
Using (or destroying) someone else's property without permission is OK if you are forced to do so by the circumstances, and are prepared to compensate the owner in good faith for all his losses. It does not violate the Golden Rule to grab somebody else's flagpole when ypu're falling - because the owner of the flagpole would be happy if he is allowed to do the same in the similar situation.
Aggression is always premeditated. The honest mistake or involuntary act isn't.
Thus if you do someone damage in circumstances where you can show you acted in good faith, you're not an aggressor. But if you refuse to make amends to the party which suffered damages as the result of your actions - *then* you are an aggressor.
Published: February 24, 2007 9:22 PM
Mark Humphrey,
As it is self-evident that being is good, since all beings strive to perpetuate themselves (the rare exceptions proving the rule), this simple fact is sufficient to establish the moral ground of human action. For as its corollary is self-evidently that non-being is bad, it only stands to reason -- i.e., it is rational -- that as individual human beings seek to perpetuate themselves, they acknowledge fact that other human beings strive to do the same.
Hence the Golden Rule and the non-aggression princple, the denial of which (and accidents to not constitute aggresion, as averros said) is irrational and, in practice, inimical to the social enterprise. That is to say, it is immoral, since human beings naturally strive to perpetuate themselves in and through the company of others.
Published: February 25, 2007 8:03 AM
Sione - English Common law provides a good starting point ...
Spooner's view I think correct: Every citizen has the right to ask "Where's my unforced signature that I agreed to abide by these 'laws?' ". The voting system of course makes the 'agreement' a communist fiction, but (unfortunately, and in error) psychologically justified to many people.
David - I'm not sure you've responded to any of the criticisms. There are several central claims:
1 - Libertarianism (Rothbard) has a theory of morality that is observably false (although it presents an excellent theory of the state).
2 - Justice cannot be properly supplanted by self-ownership.
3 - The libertarian gap in logic between 'the way things are' and 'the way things should be' makes a deficient theory of morality. True: I can exert more control over myself than do other people - but why believe that is the way things should be (individuality) rather than the observed truth that the strong should dominate the weak (as they can be observed doing). I think the gap in logic is a clear demonstration that a choice which observed fact to hold as right mandates that the concept of justice is superior (and necessarily used) in lieu of 'self-ownership'. Hence the arguments against Rothbard's treatment of children are valid by the same concept - justice - that are used in libertarian arguments.
4 - If ownership is control, you'd need to define what 'control' really means - we have full ownership of nothing, as we do not fully control the things we own. We are at best partial owners because we are partial 'controllers' ... our existence is subject to natural laws outside our power. The concept of control doesn't seem very well grounded, nor does self-ownership. While 'do unto others' appears universally valid.
5 - Libertarianism doesnt have the depth it presumes to ... it presents a theory of the state, a general statement of morality, a theory of economics - but in fact, when all is said and done, the American Constitution and the beliefs of the framing fathers (including their religious beliefs about sin and morality) are a far more nuanced and rich exposition of reality than libertarian anarchic thought.
Published: February 25, 2007 10:15 AM
JIMB,
1 - "Libertarianism (Rothbard) has a theory of morality that is observably false (although it presents an excellent theory of the state)."
Please articulate the theory it and prove your assertion.
2 - "Justice cannot be properly supplanted by self-ownership."
Who said it did? Libertarianism merely states the obvious, i.e., that self-ownership is self-evident from a moral point of view, since it alone meets the categorical imperative whereby the principle must be universal in its applicability in order to be moral.
3 - "The libertarian gap in logic between 'the way things are' and 'the way things should be' makes a deficient theory of morality. True: I can exert more control over myself than do other people - but why believe that is the way things should be (individuality) rather than the observed truth that the strong should dominate the weak (as they can be observed doing). I think the gap in logic is a clear demonstration that a choice which observed fact to hold as right mandates that the concept of justice is superior (and necessarily used) in lieu of 'self-ownership'. Hence the arguments against Rothbard's treatment of children are valid by the same concept - justice - that are used in libertarian arguments."
Again, only universal principles can qualify as moral principles. Thus, dominance of the weak by the strong cannot qualify, as it is no different than might makes right, which is the Law of the Jungle and therefore no law at all.
4 - "If ownership is control, you'd need to define what 'control' really means - we have full ownership of nothing, as we do not fully control the things we own. We are at best partial owners because we are partial 'controllers' ... our existence is subject to natural laws outside our power. The concept of control doesn't seem very well grounded, nor does self-ownership. While 'do unto others' appears universally valid."
The Golden Rule only makes sense from the standpoint of self-ownership, as it's predicated on the notion that you should treat others the way you would want to be treated -- i.e., that you are in fact you and that your being is therefore YOUR being and not someone else's.
5 - "Libertarianism doesnt have the depth it presumes to ... it presents a theory of the state, a general statement of morality, a theory of economics - but in fact, when all is said and done, the American Constitution and the beliefs of the framing fathers (including their religious beliefs about sin and morality) are a far more nuanced and rich exposition of reality than libertarian anarchic thought."
Again, more assertions with nothing backing them up. For one thing, please explain why taxation isn't theft and why the state, constitutional or otherwise, is morally justified.
Published: February 25, 2007 11:54 AM
David - What you ask has already been done right in this thread. Reality just doesn't slice up the way 'self-ownership' slices it. For example: it is a fact (of survival and of morality) that parents 'should' care for their children.
The theory of 'self-ownership' is severely deficient in its origins. A non-contradictory universal could also be 'the strong own themselves and the weak' and every time the strong kill or maim the weak, they are asserting the truth of the universal. Really, the root of proper morality is our sense of shared justice (do unto others ...)
Now if a legal structure is instituted which reflects 'self-ownership' ... what is the contraint to immoral actions (child abandonment, drunk driving, etc) not covered by the philosophy? And what if those immoral actions are so important that it is believed (by the citizens) that it should be codified into law? As long as the society is organized voluntarily, whats the problem? ... Ahhh, but it does disagree with Rothbard who gave us a 'complete' morality based on concretes ...
Self-ownership theory is deficient in other ways: We are as much self-owners as we are not. After all, we exist under natural social and physical laws which punish us for violating them and it seems as if those natural laws ** exceed ** what self-ownership implies. Those additional laws may be as important to sustainability as the (rest of) the libertarian theory of the state.
I believe that libertarianism is not a proper ** theory of morality ** and thus is not a proper theory of state action, and although it gives a lot, it shouldn't be taken without some significant caveats.
Published: February 26, 2007 9:47 AM
JIMB, you (intentionally?) confuse self-ownership with omnipotence. Because your car can be stolen or your house can be broken into, does this mean that you don't own them? How ridiculous. And how ridiculous, then, that you don't own yourself.
Furthermore, it is precisely because the few have historically dominated the many that and that the "political means" have dominated the "economic means" (Oppenheimer, "The State") that universal codes of conduct evolved. For battling injustice is what morality is all about. And building a theory of human interaction around the foremost code of conduct, The Golden Rule, along with the self-evident notion of self-ownership and what it logically entails, is precisely what libertarianism does.
You're welcome to try to refute it, but so far you've merely thrown rocks at it, pretending that the responsibility to care for your children, for exmaple, proves your case.
That said, why you keep posting here beats me, unless you're having trouble with the fact that Christian fundamentalism is incompatible with true liberty, and so the latter must be debunked.
If so, good luck.
Published: February 26, 2007 10:23 AM
I don't have time now to respond at length to the comments posted by Averros and David White. But briefly, about the non-aggression axiom, on one hand I agree that rightly understood human interests are not vilated by my grabbing the flag pole to save myself, and then compensating the owner for damages. But is the owner under some obligation--beyond the idea of reciprocity that sensible people respect--to place his property at my disposal in an emergency? What if i was negligent in topling off the 18th floor? Moreover, other circumstances might occur under which the interests of two or more people in an emergency are without question antagonistic, such as in the case of limited food or an overcrowded life boat in shark infested seas. These are not normal circumstances; they are emergency situations in which the non-aggression "axiom" fails. This doesn't mean I am arguing against individual natural rights or individual liberty. I'm merely trying to point out serious shortcomings in the Rothbardian outlook, despite Rothbard's great achievements in economics and social commentary.
In response to David, I don't have time now to respond properly to the idea that being alive is sufficient evidence that one effectively upholds the principle that life is the ultimate standard of value. This is the same argument I used to rely on to try to make sense of objective moral values. But I think there may be an important distinction between the idea that living is the only affirmation necessary to Life as Standard, and the idea that moral values presuppose and exist to achieve life qua life--life at the level of proper human living, in accordance with the objective requirements of a properly flourishing human life.
Radical greens, who are willing to see great numbers of humanity exterminated for the sake of a "pristine planet"; and radical muslims, who are willing to die as a "virtue" would be unimpressed by the idea that the choice to live implies that one ought to pursue subordinate choices in pursuit of living well.
But perhaps I am confused about this. I'll have to think about it later.
Published: February 26, 2007 3:46 PM
David - The goal should be a peaceful and free society where libertarian theory goes mainstream. It should (I would argue must) have a defendable moral theory.
In my view there is very little that deals with critics of self-ownership (Hoppe an exception: it's a start).
Ownership - in essentials - is power over the use of something. If my house is 'broken into every other day' I would (in effect) not own it, no matter what the law says ...
My argument is simple: ultimately natural law (and the willingness to follow it) determines what moral system succeeds. If there's an observed contradiction with a known fact, or it is arbitrary, then the theory is deficient.
A strong-man that claims 'the strongest shall survive' is not advocating a contradictory claim as you say -
The strong-man is using the libertarian '... from what is ... to what should be ...' line of reasoning. He is denying the mind-body connection has relevance at all in the face of power (he would be right). He is claiming "the strong dominate the weak and that is the observed nature of things" -- it is univerally true, but not ** morally ** right.
No response to this criticism?
Published: February 27, 2007 8:26 AM
JIMB, my response is that because law is natural to man, it evolves out of the social process just as other things do (e.g., money), this being the case with The Golden Rule and hence the non-aggression principle. And insofar as exceptions to the NAP exist, their rarity proves the rule, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good and no law can be established.
As to your statement that "the strong dominate the weak and that is the observed nature of things -- it is univerally true, but not ** morally ** right," the distinction here is between IS and OUGHT. The fact that institutionalized theft (the state) exists does not mean that it ought to. On the contrary, it ought NOT exist, this being the "** morally ** right" state of affairs and thus the proper goal of society.
Published: February 27, 2007 10:04 AM
Michael Clem's comment that the justification for individual liberty is ultimately "individual",
So I think I understand and can appreciate Mr. Clem's skepticism about the validity of insights from philosophy.
Um, that's not exactly what I said, or at least, not what I meant. What I was trying to say was more along the lines of being right is neither necessary nor sufficient for persuasion, at least for far too many people.
Published: February 27, 2007 1:12 PM
Michael, sorry about mischaracterising your remarks.
Published: February 27, 2007 8:09 PM
David- It is libertarian logic that goes from IS (mind controls the body) to OUGHT (self-ownership). Do you not see this? In fact, the is / ought dichotomy is probably a fruitless tangent. Natural law is observable only from the perspective of a thinking mind -- meaning there cannot be any 'is' separate from a framework.
I think Libertarian ethics really needs work (too bad we can't simply try it out and discover where to go from there...) I'd almost say that the 'theory' exposes a good (observable, verifiable) system of liberty, justice, and wealth to easy attack (concrete property rights only, etc).
In my view, a far better defense (at least right now) is utilitarian (nothing else can or does work as an alternative ...) -- that's where I find Mises' (and Rothbard's) arguments the most powerful.
Published: February 28, 2007 7:45 AM
JIMB, I can make no sense whatever out of your last post. None.
Published: February 28, 2007 8:57 AM
Mark H> But is the owner under some obligation--beyond the idea of reciprocity that sensible people respect--to place his property at my disposal in an emergency? [And other similar good questions about crisis situations.] ... I'm merely trying to point out serious shortcomings in the Rothbardian outlook, despite Rothbard's great achievements in economics and social commentary.
The owner is under no obligation. Rothbard's work, and libertarian theory in general, are indeed "social commentary." So I see here what I perceive as a category error. A person in a life-and-death crisis situation is not in society. A crisis situation is non-societal by definition -- the advantages of society are not available to someone in a life-and-death crisis. To apply societal theories to such a problem is a category error. *Any* social theories must be unsatisfactory since they can make no pretense to even applying to such a situation.
A person in a life-and-death crisis is in a state of nature, not a state of society (a "place" where interaction with other humans has decided long-term survival advantages). For example, a societal organizing principle such as "libertarian property rights" has no bearing on a person in a state of nature. Therefore, a person in a life-and-death crisis situation has no duty to "respect property rights."
Say "A" sees "B" fall through the ice on a pond. "A" believes "B" will die if "A" does not act. "A" decides to act to save "B." "C" is not home, but has property in the vicinity of the crisis. "A" notices "C" has left his garage door open, and takes "C's" ladder and rope out onto the lake to save "B," which she fortunately does. Unfortunately, the ladder and rope sink into the pond at the tail-end of the rescue. "C's" property is lost.
Recapping: "A" and "B" were in a state of nature during the crisis time. "C" was in a state of society (and never left it). Do "A" and "B" owe "C" his property back or payment? Technically, no they don't. They were not under the rules of society at the time of using the resource, so societal rules such as "property rights" don't apply. Since the crisis, as a state of nature occurance, was essentially "an act of God," it is no different than if a tornado blew the ladder and rope into the pond. Given a certain "purity" of the crisis, "C" has no claim against "A" or "B."
Perhaps many libertarians might object to this by including a statement such as "well anybody could at any time claim 'crisis.'" Indeed, anyone could claim "crisis," but would it be valid? The mitigating factor is that "C" was always in society, and given the basic advantage of participating in society, "C" can ask his courts to post-judge the claimed crisis. (Society has its advantages! That is why we have it.) "A" and "B" have no court to appeal to for the crisis -- there is no court of nature. The court may, or may not, determine that it was essentially a faultless crisis. If, for example, the court decided that "B" had engaged in some negligent behavior that help create the crisis to begin with, the court may order some recompense to "C" depending some value-judged fractional negligence. (Critiques against this "value judgment" would not be well taken. Value judgement is something people cannot avoid.)
------------------------
Mark H> First, I agree that Rothbard's attempt to justify individual rights in his book "The Ethics of Liberty" was inadequate and in important respects wrong.
and
Mark H> However, Rothbard's defense of his political/ethical principles do not withstand logical scrutiny. For "ownership" is an ethical concept. To use this concept as the primary premise and starting point in a chain of reasoning that purports to prove that ethical principles exist, is circular reasoning.
From the preface to EOL, we have:
"It is not, however, a work in ethics per se, but only in that subset of ethics devoted to political philosophy. Hence, it does not try to prove or establish the ethics or ontology of natural law, which provide the groundwork for the political theory set forth in this book. Natural law has been ably expounded and defended elsewhere by ethical philosophers. And so Part I simply explains the outlines of natural law which animates this work, without attempting a full-scale defense of that theory."
Since "natural law" is the philosophical generator of the social principles of individual rights and individual liberty, it is hardly surprising that you've found EOL unsatisfactory in this way since the author explicitly said at the outset he wasn't handling these in the text (at all).
What you ask for is perhaps always the most difficult problem. Basically you're asking for the bedrock principle -- some kind of compelling argument for the axiom. One cannot "prove" an axiom in the strictest sense. "Rationality" won't help -- there is no "ratio" to take on the bedrock principle -- the ratio comparison to the bedrock is the bedrock itself.
We could and should distinguish "reason" from "rationality." I could only envision a collection of empirical/observational looks at human life, and work that together with reason to come up with liberty as a compelling argument for social organization. A "hard proof" is a ghost -- language itself does not have a sharp enough edge to accomplish such a task. The argument cannot be "better" than inductive. There is no deduction of an axiom.
I think David White has a feel for this similar to mine. He has made many good comments before, some in other threads. That said, I, as you, would like to see a better, more formal, and well-organized development. (This is no slight on David, he has done quite better than most.) I do believe a good job could be done by an ambitious and insightful individual.
I suspect that liberty as a bedrock principle could only sit on the razor's edge between existence and non-existence, given the diffulties of description and argument for any axiom. However, that is enough to blossom all that follows (including "property rights"), I do currently believe.
Published: February 28, 2007 2:45 PM
David - Curious. That's what you said last time. In fact that was Kinsella's response as well (I would think he'd be a little gentler to Spooner, who in my view, was a darn smart guy - not a heretic - and on the libertarian side).
It's pretty clear the contradiction: libertarians can't use what IS (like self-ownership) and then go to OUGHT (morality) without at the same time affirming contradictory theories which are 'equally' valid by that chain of reasoning (strong men do exist and they do dominate the weak - that situation IS - ... but we agree they OUGHT not to ...)
And that remains a serious problem whether theorists choose to see it or not...
Published: February 28, 2007 4:44 PM
David - To make it as clear as I can think of right now - consider that the argument 'the strongest should survive and should dominate the weak' uses the same format as libertarian arguments : IS (what is observed) - implies - OUGHT (what is moral). Which argument is right?
From my perspective, an argument using the form IS implies OUGHT, cannot help but validate ** any number ** of IS's as OUGHTs.
Published: February 28, 2007 4:54 PM
JIMB,
Who said, "the strongest SHOULD survive and SHOULD dominate the weak"? Not me. What I said, and what I maintain, is that insofar as the strong dominate the weak through force, not merit -- i.e., through involuntary rather than voluntary means -- morality has evolved to confront this anti-social state of affairs and derives its powers accordingly. Thus does it confront IS with OUGHT, this being the very essence of morality.
Published: February 28, 2007 7:30 PM
JIMB - Rothbardian libertarianism does NOT pretend to develop a theory of morality or prescribe some morality.
What it has is the theory of LAW.
A proper law encompasses different moralities, serving to restrict them as little as possible and to prevent conflicts between them as much as possible.
Most of the violence in this world is due to people trying to make their morality into laws. A lot of them don't even understand the difference.
Published: February 28, 2007 11:38 PM
Averros - Like "do not murder"? Besides, you are writing to a person that already understands the difference. The question is more nuanced: what moral strictures are so essential that without them society would collapse? Care of your own children seems to qualify ...
Published: March 3, 2007 7:44 AM
David White - I must have failed to make it clear, but since I can't think of any other way to do so, I will have to leave it to you to reread the posts. Perhaps in a few days the contradiction in the libertarian position will become clear.
Published: March 3, 2007 7:45 AM