Two Views on Social Order: Conflict or Cooperation?
There are two clear and present dangers to liberty in America, writes Lew Rockwell. One is known as the Left, and the other is known as the Right. They are dangerous because they seek to use government to mold society into a form they seek, rather than the form that liberty achieves if society is left on its own. They have both overlooked the discovery of society's capacity for self organization that was the great intellectual contribution of the classical liberal school that gave rise to the American Revolution. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (16)
What do you mean, Communist Menace?
The Communists are our allies in the War on Terror.
We have always been at war with Terror . . .
- G.O.
Published: June 6, 2007 9:31 AM
Eh. I am reminded of a lefty quip about how convenient it is for the rich to vote for Capitalism. Yet that statement could be turned around such that it is convenient the way in which the poor vote for Socialism. Or for workers to vote for Trade Unionism/Syndicalism. Duh! Of course people are going to vote for the system that works the best for them.
Yet I wonder what the type of person who wants to vote for Libertarianism is? Is it the meat-in-the-sandwich middle class? Those who pay the most taxes yet get little in return because they're too rich for welfare yet too poor for incorporation, subsidies, etc.? Or alternatively, especially if we're talking A.C. Libertarianism, is it the D.I.Y. person who doesn't want to take any orders from anyone? A person who figures they do better own their own than in a group? A person who wants to interact with others solely for trade and that's it?
All in all, I'd say the principle of being an individualist is a case of 'it's not going to happen'. Sure many people are strong enough to be self-sufficient and not take cheek from anyone else. But the reality is most people are weaklings (such as yours truly) and can't survive on their own. People have always assembled in families/communities/tribes to counteract the power of the strong individuals as well as other groups. A strongman may lift and transport a heavy table that a weakling can't, but four weaklings working together can. Similarly, one well-off person may own their own home and enjoy the solitude. However, if to make ends meet, comparatively poor people live together and share the living expenses then they can have a better experience than trying to be poor and live on their own. Unfortunately although their living standards are better such poorer people, if they want to keep sane living in the home, have agree to some sort of rules to stop all sorts of unfairness and craziness.
So too is it with society. Most Libertarians must be, I'm guessing, are probably self-employed types who figure they'd do better on their own. Problem is most other people are better off in a larger group entity called 'society' with all of its collective trappings. Heck righties like talking about how they don't like taking orders either but they don't want dismantle society.
Published: June 6, 2007 10:19 AM
So, why do you suppose they chose September 11 for their attack? I've given you one hint. Another is, "1683". These are very historically minded people we fight.
Published: June 6, 2007 10:42 AM
TLWP Sam: "Most Libertarians must be, I'm guessing, are probably self-employed types who figure they'd do better on their own. Problem is most other people are better off in a larger group entity called 'society' with all of its collective trappings. Heck righties like talking about how they don't like taking orders either but they don't want dismantle society."
I have no problem whatsoever with those who wish to act as some sort of collective group -- provided they don't force anyone to join them or pretend that their group has more rights than its individual members.
I am absolutely in favor of a civilized, non-isolationist society. That's why I'm an A.C. libertarian: government is fundamentally anti-society.
Published: June 6, 2007 1:05 PM
"So too is it with society. Most Libertarians must be, I'm guessing, are probably self-employed types who figure they'd do better on their own. Problem is most other people are better off in a larger group entity called 'society' with all of its collective trappings. Heck righties like talking about how they don't like taking orders either but they don't want dismantle society."
Society in the abstract does not exist. There are in fact millions of societies that people can be members of. A corporate enterprise is a society joined by people for the purpose of producing marketable goods. A church is a society. A town is a society. A club is a society. The diversity of societies that make up humanity is essential to the flowering of civilization.
These societies can enter into conflict with each other. Libertarianism is a theory that promotes peace and cooperation amongst the different societies, while socialism seeks to merge all societies into the state and destroy their diversity.
Published: June 6, 2007 1:52 PM
I am reminded of a lefty quip about how convenient it is for the rich to vote for Capitalism. Yet that statement could be turned around such that it is convenient the way in which the poor vote for Socialism. Or for workers to vote for Trade Unionism/Syndicalism. Duh! Of course people are going to vote for the system that works the best for them.
What if someone "votes" for a system where, in a series of Viking-style raids, I take over your town, murder your children, rape your wife and mother, and steal your valuables?
By your logic, I would make out pretty well!
My point is that just because some faction decides to steal from others via a government agent instead of doing it themselves doesn't mean that the theft is in any way legitimate.
Plus, as a matter of economics as opposed to morals, the overall economic prosperity will only reach its potential via a free market, regardless of how people vote.
Published: June 6, 2007 2:35 PM
"I am reminded of a lefty quip about how convenient it is for the rich to vote for Capitalism. Yet that statement could be turned around such that it is convenient the way in which the poor vote for Socialism. Or for workers to vote for Trade Unionism/Syndicalism. Duh! Of course people are going to vote for the system that works the best for them."
That's why Hayek makes the point that democracies are no protection against tyranny. Of course, the ironic thing is that a free market system (capitalism) is most beneficial to the poor. It's the only economic system in which they have the freedom to rise from relative poverty to relative wealth. A socialist system means that creating and accumulating wealth is much more difficult, if not impossible.
I also think that you're mixing up libertarians and classical liberals with loners. We're not the same. I can't run my company (yeah, I'm one of the poor who created and accumulated wealth after leaving a socialist country to come to America) by myself. But all of the communities I'm in are volunatary. All (or largely all) transacations between us are volunatary and not mandated by the government. The issue isn't groups of people, the issue is how much coercion goes into creating them and whether some in the group use the coercive power of government to steal from other members of the group.
Published: June 6, 2007 3:48 PM
Another fantastic speech by Lew Rockwell. Many thanks for sharing these insights.
Published: June 6, 2007 9:12 PM
Well actually aren't all systems of human living democratic in the sense that we all make choices? People can vote in elections. Or with their dollars. Or with compliance, with non-compliance, by them helping others, not helping others, erect borders to keep others out, etc.
Actually G. Gaskell, heh heh, I think Methinks answered your question. Well depending on what people value will determine their primary behaviours. If most people have no problem with beating others and stealing their money then such a society would naturally be violent, regardless whether people get to vote or not. When there were times in which most people saw slavery and decent and profitable, the slave industry was thriving. Fancy that?
Few people really want to smash the system which probably reflects that maybe most people realise once the State is gone that the results will probably suck worse than before. Maybe therefore Anarchists represents the ones who think their lives would improve . . .
Published: June 6, 2007 10:13 PM
I believe it's all a matter of time preferences.
Anarchy isn't really a political philosophy. It is a description of how the world works.
On a global, international scale, the world is completely anarchistic. Even in places like the US, the presence of a State doesn't change the fundamental anarchistic nature of our existence.
The State is just a parasitic organization that goes around bullying people and stealing their money. It's reach (and thus its harm) might be more or less severe from time to time, but a State is always something grafted on to, and parasitic on, a host society.
Why do people support the existence of this parasite? Because its supporters identify benefits that flow from it to them in the short term.
In the long term, we would ALL be better off without a State. But people have a tendency to be short-sighted.
Street crime is a form of short-term thinking to an acute degree. Mutual cooperation is always more profitable than crime, over the long run. But in the short run, the criminal benefits (at the victim's expense), thus making the crime appear to the criminal to be a rational economic decision.
The State is criminal in much the same way, and for the same reasons. The State is slightly better at long-term planning than a guy robbing a liquor store, considering that those in the State have managed to convince many of their victims that compliance is better than resistance, and expanded the size of the gang to include many thousands of co-conspirators. But the State is still just a criminal gang.
Published: June 7, 2007 10:19 AM
That speech by Lew Rockwell was very well formed. Nice job.
TLWP Sam> Of course people are going to vote for the system that works the best for them.
People make choices they believe will work best for them.
TLWP Sam> Libertarianism, is it the D.I.Y. person who doesn't want to take any orders from anyone? A person who figures they do better own their own than in a group? A person who wants to interact with others solely for trade and that's it?
Perhaps it should be obvious, but I guess not to you. Someone who believes they'll be better off by trade is by definition not a DIY person. You followed that with some nonsense about self-sufficiency, as in the loner sense. Libertarian theory is nothing other than a social theory, so it is always about the nature and rules of conduct between people. It is not a loner theory by definition, and never has been.
TLWP Sam> So too is it with society. Most Libertarians must be, I'm guessing, are probably self-employed types who figure they'd do better on their own. Problem is most other people are better off in a larger group entity called 'society' with all of its collective trappings. Heck righties like talking about how they don't like taking orders either but they don't want dismantle society.
It is usually a good idea to actually read the article, and have at least a half-cocked idea of what it is saying before making a statement which is completely ignorant and contrary to what was actually said. Nowhere does Rockwell or any other libertarian I know of claim that they are better off divorced from society. In contrast, they believe the advantages of association with society are enormous. That is why they develop an entire theory concerned with nothing other than the rules and nature of social interaction.
The article is replete with comments that demolish any idea that libertarians want to "dismantle society." For example: "Let us begin with the question: why should we have confidence in the notion that society can develop on its own, that it contains within itself the capacity for self management?" There is simply a question if society can self-regulate, rather than any suggestion of a dismantling of society. You conflate government with society. I'll say most libertarians do not. For example, read the first paragraph of Paine's Common Sense.
Published: June 7, 2007 11:21 AM
I don't know what I missed greg but to tear down the State's duties of roads, police, courts, armies, etc. with private equivalents then that's bordering on rebuilding the State with private interests and presuming that competition will fix things. Hence does that mean such a Libertarianism society should really be called a 'polyarchy'?
This makes me think how many people may been the same at the end of the Roman Empire. Did they gripe about how they send taxes to Rome yet get not much other than more stupid laws and regulations back? When the Central Power collapsed the various landholders and businessmens were now working for themselves and, therefore, doing backflips in delight? But for the average worker on the street or farm it did it make any real difference? Back to work, nothing to see here? It'd be laughable if back then workers and criminals actually liked some trappings of the State if the worker had some higher authority they could take their complaints to about unfair work practices and a criminal could rely upon do-gooders (such as Civil Libertarians) to get soft laws and slaps on the wrist for their wrongdoings. But, of course, I suppose this where I am reminded of how folks would say how the worker can choose a new boss and the criminal now has to find some real line of work (or else), so life is really better off.
Published: June 7, 2007 9:16 PM
BBC's Adam Curtis's latest documentary was aired recently. Orginally entitled Cold Cold Heart - The Death of Altruism and the Lack of Trust or something like that, and retitled The Trap - What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom.
Always intriguing, and informative, Curtis's common theme throughout his documentaries (The Mayfair Set, Pandora's Box, Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares) is systems of control. Often discussing the paradigm shift from the state and it's bureacracies to that of a all encompassing market and it's thoroughly calculating intricacies in human life, Curtis's analysi attempt to focus of the genuine liberty of the individual as opposed to the false consciousness of freedom that the system instills.
In part 1, of the new series, curtis focuses on John Nash, Hayek, Buchanon, R.D. Laing, game theory, the soviet nuclear threat, and societal management.
It's available on the net for download. If you are incapable of obtaining it, let me know, perhaps I can send you a copy.
His documentaries are aired on BBC, but not in the united states, I believe due to copyright issues.
Check google, other films of his are there.
Enjoy
Published: June 9, 2007 8:38 AM
BBC's Adam Curtis's latest documentary was aired recently. Orginally entitled Cold Cold Heart - The Death of Altruism and the Lack of Trust or something like that, and retitled The Trap - What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom.
Always intriguing, and informative, Curtis's common theme throughout his documentaries (The Mayfair Set, Pandora's Box, Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares) is systems of control. Often discussing the paradigm shift from the state and it's bureacracies to that of a all encompassing market and it's thoroughly calculating intricacies in human life, Curtis's analysi attempt to focus of the genuine liberty of the individual as opposed to the false consciousness of freedom that the system instills.
In part 1, of the new series, curtis focuses on John Nash, Hayek, Buchanon, R.D. Laing, game theory, the soviet nuclear threat, and societal management.
It's available on the net for download. If you are incapable of obtaining it, let me know, perhaps I can send you a copy.
His documentaries are aired on BBC, but not in the united states, I believe due to copyright issues.
Check google, other films of his are there.
Enjoy
Published: June 9, 2007 8:39 AM
BBC's Adam Curtis's latest documentary was aired recently. Orginally entitled Cold Cold Heart - The Death of Altruism and the Lack of Trust or something like that, and retitled The Trap - What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom.
Always intriguing, and informative, Curtis's common theme throughout his documentaries (The Mayfair Set, Pandora's Box, Century of the Self, The Power of Nightmares) is systems of control. Often discussing the paradigm shift from the state and it's bureacracies to that of a all encompassing market and it's thoroughly calculating intricacies in human life, Curtis's analysi attempt to focus of the genuine liberty of the individual as opposed to the false consciousness of freedom that the system instills.
In part 1, of the new series, curtis focuses on John Nash, Hayek, Buchanon, R.D. Laing, game theory, the soviet nuclear threat, and societal management.
It's available on the net for download. If you are incapable of obtaining it, let me know, perhaps I can send you a copy.
His documentaries are aired on BBC, but not in the united states, I believe due to copyright issues.
Check google, other films of his are there.
Enjoy
Published: June 9, 2007 8:39 AM
Lew is brilliant here, as usual, and I think he's discovered a new disease! 'Hobbesianism'--the a priori assumption that society falls apart in the absence of the authoritarian state. It must now be listed alongside the other great diseases of our time--statism and collectivism. This triumvarite is a plague and know no ideological bounds, having infected mainstream political thought regardless of political stripe.
Question: Is Lew the first one to put his finger on this disease, Hobbesianism?
Published: July 7, 2007 11:35 PM