Libertarianism and Cultural Differences
The easy path to kicking up a storm in the libertarian world is to say: libertarianism doesn't account for cultural variation throughout the world, and not everyone is actually prepared for liberty and prosperity; indeed, certain cultures prefer kinds of authoritarian and community rule. So it is with Tyler's post here about his libertarian heresies (if you want people to respect your point of view, call it a heresy), with good responses by Robert Murphy and Daniel Klein.
This is hardly a new criticism of libertarianism. In the 1960s, when the Volker Fund had been backing so much great scholarship, some higher ups in the organization were converted to the idea that culture and religion was actually more foundational than politics and political ideology, and so this is where the focus must be. An edited book came out of that new insight: The Necessary Conditions for a Free Society edited by Felix Morley (1963) -- a book that contains insight but didn't amount to much actually.
I once asked Guido Hulsmann about this issue of culture as it relates to freedom. What about societies that are internally warlike or communitarian, or that eschew individualism in favor of group privilege and family rule, or are not inclined toward entrepreneurship or in which ideas such as individual rights just don't matter, or where contracts and fairness are not recognized as values as important as conquest and domination? Should libertarianism account for the reality that there are vast preconditions for liberty to emerge that require some cultural upheavals?
What I was trying to get at is the critical question: what should the state do about this? His answer really stuck with me, but I won't attempt to quote him directly. What he said is this. Whatever the cultural conditions and preferences of a people, no matter how strong the tendency toward conquest and graft, regardless of whether contract and fairness are respected or not, there is nothing the state can do to improve the situation. A society might be warlike and poor without the state; that is true. It might be brutal and impoverished. But imposing a state on that society will only exacerbate its worst tendencies and crowd out its best tendencies. The state offers no benefit to any society under any cultural conditions anywhere in the world. The state institutionalizes and entrenches bad things and forestalls the emergence of good things. Thus the focus on the state in libertarian doctrine.
Actually I found that answer very compelling, and haven't forgotten it.
Comments (30)
Byzantine
Along these lines, I've argued that anarchy does not mean everybody in society follows the Non-Aggression Principle; it just means that no single individual or group has a monopoly on overwhelming force. There will be different polities of differing character, and the state of anarchy--i.e., the radical decentralization of power--means that when you're unhappy with the rules, you can take your ball and go join a different game.
Possibly, an anarchist social order could be independent of geographic location. However, since this presents a free rider problem I think the more likely evolution will be the purchase of sojourner's rights for someone who switches their fealty but wants to stay in the same location.
Published: May 30, 2008 9:17 AM
fundamentalist
“But imposing a state on that society will only exacerbate its worst tendencies and crowd out its best tendencies.”
Hulsmann is right that the state only makes things worse. But we have to keep in mind that the state reflects the values and culture of the people. Few states today have been imposed upon the people from outside. The British tried that and it took in India but not many other places. With the end of colonialism, states came into existence that reflect the culture. Many cultures have no problem with huge differences in power between groups, nor do they see as corrupt (such as bribery) that the West condemns. Equality of all before the law is a very Western concept that didn’t exist before the Dutch Republic.
Also, the idea of the “rule of law” is a western concept. Hedrick Smith wrote in “The New Russians” that the average Russian thought that following abstract laws was a foolish thing; people should follow their rulers. We know that capitalism requires the rule of law. Without it, free markets provide nothing but the opportunity for the rich and powerful to steel all that they want, as they did in Europe for centuries, in Russia after communism, and as they do in most of the third world today.
The American Thinker web site had an excellent example a few months ago. An American contractor tried to work with Iraqi sub-contractors in doing reconstruction after the war, but he got very frustrated and eventually quit. He said that Iraqis don’t consider cheating and dishonesty in business to be a bad thing; it’s considered clever business. As as result, few people honored contracts and subcontractors took every opportunity possible to cut corners, do shoddy work, steal, and use inferior materials. I lived for a while in Morocco and had a Moroccan contractor tell me the same rules apply in his country.
The role that culture plays in economics is a fairly new field and has met with a lot of opposition. A good book that surveys the field is “Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress” by Lawrence E. Harrison, Samuel P. Huntington.
Published: May 30, 2008 9:20 AM
Michael A. Clem
After my efforts with the Libertarian Party, I came to realize that "politics follows culture", and that political success will come after the culture changes, not before.
While I wouldn't advocate full-fledged Objectivism or anything, I would suggest that libertarians do look at the broader view of culture, society, and economics that political philosophy is embedded in, and that the success of the liberty movement will have to be outside of politics and work its way in.
Of course, the libertarian political philosophy itself is just that, a political philosophy, and rightly concerns itself with government, law, rights, etc. But let's not forget the bigger picture: life and how we live it.
Published: May 30, 2008 9:43 AM
Byzantine
"He said that Iraqis don’t consider cheating and dishonesty in business to be a bad thing; it’s considered clever business. As as result, few people honored contracts and subcontractors took every opportunity possible to cut corners, do shoddy work, steal, and use inferior materials. I lived for a while in Morocco and had a Moroccan contractor tell me the same rules apply in his country."
Sharp practice and low trust levels are the norm for business in much of the world. This is a point of immense practical importance often overlooked by anarcho-capitalist theorists, who are overwhelmingly of Anglo-Celt and Western European descent.
Published: May 30, 2008 10:42 AM
Michael A.Clem
Sharp practice and low trust levels are the norm for business in much of the world. This is a point of immense practical importance often overlooked by anarcho-capitalist theorists, who are overwhelmingly of Anglo-Celt and Western European descent.
Is that why the Western World progressed so materially while most of the rest of the world has been hanging on our coattails? If so, then in what way is AC theory incompatible with the "real world"? Cheating and dishonesty have real-world consequences that affect standards of living and people's ability to accomplish desired goals.
Published: May 30, 2008 11:35 AM
Byzantine
"If so, then in what way is AC theory incompatible with the "real world"? Cheating and dishonesty have real-world consequences that affect standards of living and people's ability to accomplish desired goals."
My point is that in the cocoon of the Anglo-European sphere, theorists tend to discount that most other cultures aren't too hung up on transparency in business transactions or the rule of law. There are, in fact, cultures that are a threat to a liberal social order. Thus, the liberal society faces the dilemma of having to use illiberal means to preserve its ethos in the face of cultures that are antithetical to it.
Published: May 30, 2008 1:02 PM
Michael A. Clem
There are, in fact, cultures that are a threat to a liberal social order. Thus, the liberal society faces the dilemma of having to use illiberal means to preserve its ethos in the face of cultures that are antithetical to it.
Where to start? Cultures cannot be a threat to anybody--people are. Cultures may be bad influences on people, but no culture survives without having something worthwhile to it.
The second part of your statement sounds suspiciously like using immoral means to achieve a moral end. I don't buy it. Since you're referring to AC, let's look at the non-aggression principle: if no one's initiating force or fraud against you, you have no moral right to initiate force or fraud against someone else. If someone is initiating force or fraud against you, then you are morally justified in using defensive force, or with proper procedure, retaliatory measures, against the initiator. Defensive force and appropriate retaliatory force are not violations of the non-aggression principle, but are quite in line with it--no immoral means are required to protect a moral end.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "liberal social order", so I'm not sure how closely this would relate to AC and your criticism.
Published: May 30, 2008 2:10 PM
fundamentalist
Michael A. Clem: “If so, then in what way is AC theory incompatible with the "real world"?”
I don’t know that it would prohibit the formation of an AC society, but one wouldn’t function very well. The problem with traditional societies in which corruption is considered desirable is that the attitude extends to the police and courts. So you have police who are on the payroll of large criminal organizations (like drug cartels in Mexico) and judges who bend their decisions to the group paying the highest bribe. In that case, there is not way to enforce contracts or protect property, so capitalists tend to consume their capital instead of re-investing it, or they send it to safer havens, like Switzerland.
These problems are the main reason that most business in third world countries are family owned. You can’t trust anyone but family members. Transaction costs are high because it’s difficult and time consuming to find quality products at reasonable prices from reliable vendors. All business is done on a personal basis with people you have come to know and trust over the years.
Part of the genius of capitalism was to make impersonal exchange possible. Socialists, communitarians and others decry the loss of personal relationships in exchange, but those are very costly. Impersonal exchange reduces transaction costs in many ways and increases our standard of living. But for impersonal exchange to work, you must have reasonably honest police and judges, the rule of law, and legislation that enforces contracts and protects property.
Published: May 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Michael A. Clem
I don’t know that it would prohibit the formation of an AC society, but one wouldn’t function very well.
I think I understand what you're saying, but like economics, it's not the job of AC to decide what people want, merely to help them get it. If people want to radically increase their standard of living, then they would want to do things to encourage and improve impersonal exchange, and in AC, as opposed to a state, that will be easier to do. But people who don't want to do those things, for whatever reason, will still generally find their own goals easier to do in AC. How many times have people talked about communal communities existing in AC? ?The same would apply to highly religious communities or other "alternative" communities.
Perhaps I'm taking too broad a view of all this, and I certainly want to avoid the "utopia" trap, but I think the objection is taking too narrow a view of AC and its possible permutations. Just because *I* can't imagine every possibility doesn't mean that those possibilities don't exist.
Published: May 30, 2008 4:37 PM
Erick Vasconcelos
These arguments about cultural differences across the globe generally treat culture as a given, as if people who didn't respect individual rights shouldn't start doing so. If there are intolerant societies in the world, well, they should stop being intolerant, not start looking for another ethical-political theory that suits their intolerance.
Published: May 30, 2008 6:38 PM
Walt D.
Fundamentalist wrote:
But we have to keep in mind that the state reflects the values and culture of the people.
I think that this is a key point. The state is nothing more than a group of individuals drawn from society at large. In a democracy, the elected officials reflect the mentality of the electorate.
Published: May 30, 2008 6:43 PM
Peter
The problem with traditional societies in which corruption is considered desirable is that the attitude extends to the police and courts. So you have police who are on the payroll of large criminal organizations (like drug cartels in Mexico) and judges who bend their decisions to the group paying the highest bribe.
What you're describing is a good thing, from a libertarian point of view. It'd be better if the police and courts didn't stick their noses in where they don't belong (e.g., "criminal" organizations grown up around drugs), but if they do, it's better if they can be bribed to go away. See "The Dishonest Cop" in Defending the Undefendable. Of course, it's a problem when they can be bribed to ignore real crimes, too, but the one thing is related to the other - under AC, the former would cease to exist, and therefore the latter would soon follow (there is no "culture in which corruption is considered desirable" for it's own sake; only because the state is already corrupt and the "desirable corruption" allows a little freedom back in)
Published: May 30, 2008 8:01 PM
fundamentalist
Here is a good description of cultural differences regarding corruption:
"When you hear - and these days you frequently do - that a senior Arab official is standing trial on charges of corruption - it is reasonable to assume that this wretched official was not corrupt enough. This is because charges of corruption have no meaning unless they take place in an open and transparent regime, with known and fixed rules and regulations, clear foundations for accountability, and independent and neutral apparatuses to deal with it."
"In contrast, in the Arab [world], where there are absolute autocratic regimes, the concept of corruption loses all meaning, as the law is the ruler's will; he decides what is permitted and what is forbidden, and his bonuses and gifts are a legitimate livelihood."
"If the ruler so decides, he will give his sons a monopoly on import or export; will permit them to purchase abroad at a tenth of [the merchandise's] value and be reimbursed for the full price by the state treasury; will allow his friends and cronies to use public property or state revenues, or will give them land. In these cases, we are talking of the embodiment of legitimate gain."
"This means that the only 'corruption' is disobeying the ruler… In the pact between the ruler and the men of his court, his entourage, and his protegees, everyone gives up their humanity, abnegates their opinion and conscience, and competes in obeying the ruler. In exchange, the ruler rewards whomever he wishes."
"Therefore, in transparent regimes what is regarded as 'corruption,' is the essence of the regime in just about all Arab lands. In transparent regimes, the borders between [public] and private funds are clear, and the rules for financial dealings are defined. The ruler is no more than an official of the people, and a defined salary is set for him in exchange for his services. The budget is known, and is widely published, and the people determine its clauses through their representatives in the elected parliament."
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP41102
Published: May 30, 2008 8:43 PM
fundamentalist
I heard a history professor from MIT say many years ago that people get the government they deserve. He explained that he believed that people with self-control and high ethical standards have minimal government while those with little self-control and low ethics have a very tyrannical state. I don't know if he was right, but I have pondered it a lot over the years.
Published: May 30, 2008 8:46 PM
Walt D.
fundamentalist wrote:
He explained that he believed that people with self-control and high ethical standards have minimal government while those with little self-control and low ethics have a very tyrannical state.
I think he was spot on. Both democrats are pandering to blue collar workers, promising benefits such as health care to be paid for by some form of wealth transfer.(Tax the rich code word). In other words the candidates themselves do not respect the right to private property. People who vote for them do not respect the right of other peoples property. As a result corrupt people vote for corrupt politicians.
On a biblical note, the 12th commandment relates to covetousness. Covetousness is insidious - it causes people to break other commandments. Not so long ago, hard work was the key to success in America. Even new immigrants, by working as a family and working long hours could achieve the American dream. Now people expect the American dream as a birth right. It is like something out of the play "The Ice Man Cometh". People have lost hope in the system and are looking for a big government handout/bailout.
It reminds me of growing up in England after WWII where people used to participate in a weekly lottery called the football pools. The hope of winning big, however improbable, was enough to keep people's spirits up.
Published: May 31, 2008 12:56 AM
TLWP Sam
What does it mean to 'impose a State'? A reference to the notion that a government in an external entity that situates itself by ambling down to a 'stateless' society and declaring themselves the new rulers, expecting tributes in the form of tax or else? What then are the hierarchies that develop within a tribe or village? Or on the other hand how is a Home Owner Association not a monopoly ownership of territory with the right the use force if necessary?
Published: May 31, 2008 2:10 AM
Curt Howland
What I find interesting is that the "Iraqi Contractors" got away with shoddy work, inferior materials and theft.
In such an environment, a simple adaptation of "I will pay you when the work is finished to my satisfaction" will take hold.
It may very well be the "culture" to do shoddy work. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. If I cannot adapt to the situation, I deserve to have shoddy work done with inferior materials, and be robbed.
Nothing about this has anything to do with "capitalism", anarchic or totalitarian. In fact, because the state always makes the situation worse, such "free market" remedies as making your remuneration dependent upon performance will only be hindered rather than helped by anything other than "A.C."
The argument that "people will act in bad ways" is what is constantly used to rationalize the state. "We need laws against private guns, because otherwise your neighbor will shoot you because you didn't mow your lawn."
"We need government regulation of business because otherwise people will try to cheat you" is no different an argument, and just as ignorant.
But back to the original subject: What if there is no state, and a particular culture has very low business ethics? Then, people will avoid doing business within that culture without stringent requirements.
And when people within that culture sees the rest of the world flourishing, and they living in squaller, they might start wondering why. And no one need use coercion for it to happen.
What if it doesn't happen? So what? Really. They could open a theme park: Squallerville. Come and be filthy and have a short lifespan for only $50/day. Use your American Express card and get a free malaria upgrade.
Published: May 31, 2008 7:22 AM
Curt Howland
> "how is a Home Owner Association not a monopoly ownership of territory with the right the use force if necessary?"
The difference is that no one can be held to the home owners agreement without their having explicitly agreed to it before hand.
Please show me the Social Contract I signed that said I would pay unlimited taxes in return for vague and unreliable services that I don't want?
Published: May 31, 2008 7:45 AM
newson
i too have often wondered why south america countries attract the caudillo, or christ-come-bolivar to realize their aspirations.
or why putin enjoys such high popularity in russia for being seen to restore (partially) national glory.
i personally think that culture, shaped by history, is a bit like soil in which the seed of liberty is planted. the seed is the same in all populations, but some soils are particularly barren, and very few have just the right mix of water and nutrients to grow an especially florid specimen.
Published: May 31, 2008 9:16 AM
TLWP Sam
Duh! You'd validate a HOA or landlord contract by being there (a.k.a. not moving/leaving). Unless you were a descendant of some property-owning family before the formation of the U.S.A. then your family were the ones who agreed to the way the U.S.A. is run when they immigrated. Just as you couldn't migrate to Australia and then suddenly argue you don't have to show any respect the Australian Government, the laws and the people already there.
Published: May 31, 2008 11:07 AM
Curt Howland
Sam, I wanted to write "You can kiss my Mayflower butt", but that wouldn't be a civil comment.
Really, with the ways that the "social contract" terms are constantly being changed, I don't think your "you agreed to this already" holds water.
Anyone who came to America prior to 1968 can still buy guns through the mail? No. Anyone who came to America prior to 1933 didn't have their gold confiscated? No.
Can you see what I mean?
Published: May 31, 2008 4:45 PM
TLWP Sam
How is that my problem any more than a landlord changing the terms of an agreement? It still seems the 'love it or leave it' is everyone's favourite argument when you get to use it.
Or at least how were any of the various changes illegal or unconstitutional? Was it a case of 'well it's technically legally but despicable' or 'well the various Amendments (presuming the 11th onwards) distort the meaning of the original Consitutional such that the changes would've been originally unconsititutional but now isn't'.
Published: May 31, 2008 7:44 PM
fundamentalist
Curt: "In such an environment, a simple adaptation of "I will pay you when the work is finished to my satisfaction" will take hold."
There are a lot of ways to fool contractors. They have to hire inspectors to pass the work because they don't have the time to oversee every worker. Sub-contractors bribe the inspector to pass shoddy work. That's a huge problem in construction even in the US. You don't learn about the bad work until months later. Or the sub uses inferior material, such as too much sand in the concrete, and you don't know about it until the foundation cracks. But say you catch a sub doing poor work and refuse to pay him. That might work just fine in the US, but in the Arab world they might take you to court and win a judgment against you because the judge is a relative. More likely, the sub would create a scene and draw a crowd. Then the crowd would decide your fate. Or, the sub might just leave and the next day you find all of your work destroyed. Believe me, Arabs have been cheating each other for millenia. Americans can't even begin to imagine all of the ways they can be cheated. They know the system and how to game it better than any American could ever start to understand after decades working among them.
Curt: "The argument that "people will act in bad ways" is what is constantly used to rationalize the state."
No. What happens is this: the majority gets tired of the lawlessness of a small group of criminals and seeks someone with the power to control them. Europeans abandoned early parliaments at least once in favor of absolute monarchs who could reduce lawlessness. You can't assume that all people in the world think like Americans. They don't by a very long shot. Americans are risk takers and independent by the standards of the rest of the world, so much so that the rest of the world think we're crazy people. Because of their poverty, the ROW has much more to lose than do Americans, so they're much more conservative. Their traditions honor strong, ruthless leaders, too. They fear chaos and lawlessness much more than Americans. Where Americans see freedom, they see lawlessness, crime and chaos. Plus, never having had much freedom, and having experienced a great deal of lawlessness, they'll gladly trade most of their freedom in exchange for a few years of rest from the lawlessness.
Curt: "And when people within that culture sees the rest of the world flourishing, and they living in squaller, they might start wondering why. And no one need use coercion for it to happen."
The entire world has watched the West flourish for over two centuries, but they still refuse to follow our example. Why might that be? Partly, it's because socialists have been telling them for a century that we stole everything we have from them. Partly, it's because criminal elements in government don't law and order that would prevent them from stealing more.
Published: May 31, 2008 7:46 PM
newson
tlwp sam says:
"Just as you couldn't migrate to Australia and then suddenly argue you don't have to show any respect the Australian Government, the laws and the people already there."
you certainly could come to australia as a permanent and pay no respect to the people or the government, as long as you obeyed the laws of the land. a pro forma pledge of allegiance was part of the citizenship process.
only very recently (2007) was a citizenship "test" introduced, where some knowledge of australian values was required. the test had popular appeal, but dubious efficacy and questionable philosophical foundations.
Published: May 31, 2008 9:11 PM
roy e smith
what do yall think...that nobodys following our examp?LOOK at capatilism n china and india.the socialist themselfs appear 2b saying hey america u got it right.were going capatilist.socialism failed over here.by the way why r u people hell bent on repeating our mistakes....did we not set a bad enough example4 more than a half century of statism,liatin up america IT DONT WORK
Published: May 31, 2008 9:56 PM
fundamentalist
Roy: "what do yall think...that nobodys following our examp?"
China only opened up in the last 20 years, and then only very little. India started about 10 years ago. The main reason they opened their economies a tiny amount is that their people were starving to death. It wasn't our shining example that persuaded them, else they would have changed sooner. And reforms in India have stalled due to socialist opposition. I doubt China will become much more open in the future, either. The Communist Party is still in control.
Published: June 1, 2008 8:39 AM
Curt Howland
Fundie, you fail to take into account that "they" are the ones in power. They like their power. To "follow our example", they would have to give up some, even most, of their power.
Why is the US running head-long into fascism and socialism, condemning the vast majority to ever decreasing standards of living? Because the leaders like their power. They want more.
Fascism and socialism give the people in power fantastic quantities of power. They like power. They want more.
As you state, they only loosen their grip when faced with mass starvation and the violent revolution such want tends to foster. In other words, they are still only acting to maintain their power.
You want my real opinion of what "we" should do? Nothing. Divest our own governments of every bit of power, flourish as much as possible, let the petty dictators alone but sell their people all the guns they want.
Selling guns is a peaceful market transaction. Lots and lots of guns, as cheaply as possible.
Then, how about publishing books about the joys of shooting tax collectors, in native languages? Comic books? "How to spot a government informant"?
Published: June 1, 2008 11:21 AM
fundamentalist
Curt: "Why is the US running head-long into fascism and socialism, condemning the vast majority to ever decreasing standards of living? Because the leaders like their power."
Also, the leadership is giving the Ameircan people what they want--socialism.
Published: June 1, 2008 4:56 PM
newson
fundamentalist says:
"The main reason they opened their economies a tiny amount is that their people were starving to death."
in fact, the i.t. industry only flourished because it grew under the radar screen of the state. the government was too slow to figure out how to regulate it. i think the software industry's success was an embarassment to those who still embraced nehru's socialist model, and an encouragement to the reformers.
i'm not so sure that starvation has ever caused socialists to reconsider their ideology. in india's case, it was a severe liquidity crisis faced by the government that allowed reformers their chance.
Published: June 1, 2008 8:57 PM
P.M.Lawrence
"...Iraqis don’t consider cheating and dishonesty in business to be a bad thing; it’s considered clever business. As as result, few people honored contracts and subcontractors took every opportunity possible to cut corners, do shoddy work, steal, and use inferior materials."
That sounds a lot like European descriptions of 19th century US practice and attitudes towards it, especially in New England. Trollope in his North America particularly remarks on how widespread cheating workers of their wages was, and how unacceptable that would be in the UK. And, of course, the USA was a byword for cheating Europeans out of their investments by repudiation.
Published: June 2, 2008 6:31 AM