Do Libertarians Have a Problem With Authority?
My article today at The American Conservative. Here’s the opening:
A silly episode on Facebook recently underscored one of the tensions in the liberty movement: many people are attracted to libertarianism because they simply don’t like rules. This attitude stands in contrast to conservatives who also disdain big government but who don’t reject authority per se — their problem is with illegitimate authority. Although many types of individuals are united in their opposition to military empire abroad, the drug war at home, and confiscatory taxation, their underlying philosophies of life are vastly different.
A debate on all these matters started innocuously enough. I had put up a frivolous Facebook post telling my “friends” (most of whom are fans of my economic and political writing) that my office phone number was only one digit removed from that of a local pizza shop, and that the people erroneously calling me were “lucky my alignment was Lawful Good.” This was a reference to the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons, which has an elaborate scheme to classify the ethical and moral views of its characters.
I was surprised to receive a fair amount of pushback, with many people surprised that I had described myself as “lawful.” They thought this meant I endorsed the actions of the U.S. government and that I was letting others tell me how to live my life. How could someone who had written a booklet on “market anarchy” be placed in such a category?
Well, to be fair, the Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral alignments are more associated with anarchism within the world of D&D. A Chaotic Good character favors change for a greater good, disdains bureaucratic organizations that get in the way of social improvement, and places a high value on personal freedom, not only for oneself, but for others as well.
And we’re a bunch of freaking nerds. I’m ok with that, though.
That said, some of the comments to your well-written article scare the crap out of me. Gian’s odd conception of justice I disagree with, but stuff like this:
“People must be controlled, led, coerced, and enslaved. That is their purpose, that is their lot in life, and most people are satisfied to live that sort of life.
Libertarians are mentally ill because they oppose this natural state of humanity. Humanity is meant to be enslaved, whether physically or mentally, they are incapable of functioning under liberty and freedom.”
Sounds like it is coming straight from the Templar in Assassin’s Creed. (Oh, video game reference.) I am sure that this commenter is assuming he will be a member of the enslaving caste, as well.
WTF?! The fact that someone could say that absolutely scares the crap out of me.
Are Christians not “mental slaves”, who believe humanity cannot function without Christianity, or at least without religion?
Remember, some folks think God is a slave master.
As a Christian, no. The religion states that men are imperfect morally, and therefore cannot enjoy the bounty and grace that God offers without accepting the sacrifice of Christ suffering in their place.
You are perfectly free, as I understand it, to languish in the void, neither enjoying the presence of God and the bounty of heaven, or suffering the torture of hell. But that is not the traditional line on hell, though.
As an atheist, I have to say “No”. I think Christians are people who have chosen to believe in a particular God and everything that goes with it. Religion and faith by themselves are intensely personal matters. So, it would be incorrect to characterise all believers in this manner.
Bala and Matt:
If God created me, or if God did not create me, and I am going to go to heaven or hell no matter what, is that not like a slave master telling his slave he’ll be going to either slave cage A or slave cage B? If not, why not?
Please note that my reply was to this statement by MF.
“Are Christians not “mental slaves”, who believe humanity cannot function without Christianity, or at least without religion?”
The key word out there is “humanity”. Every individual who believes in a God has just chosen to believe in that God and the principles that go with faith in that God. How that translates into believing that all of humanity cannot operate without their God is beyond me. That’s why my answer was “No”.
This seems somewhat silly. One could equally say atheists are slaves to the objective circumstances around them.
What?? You can’t fly? You’re a slave to nature.
If God exists, whatever rules or laws he has set up are exactly like the objective environmental factors that non-believers have to deal with anyway.
Bharat:
Right, but believers believe even atheists were created by God, so the objective laws that atheists are compelled to live with are God’s plan, and because those are the laws for humans, since humans can’t do anything about them, why isn’t that God imposing slavery on everyone?
Telling me that you can equally say atheists are slaves because they can’t fly, is actually reinforcing my point. Why didn’t God create beings with true freedom? Why the Earthly cage?
It would be like an Earthly slave master telling his caged victim “Stop complaining! You can move anywhere you want in the cage! You can say anything you want in the cage. What are you going to complain of next, that you can’t fly?”
Why did God enslave everyone with such laws that are akin to a slave in a cage? Sure, the Earthly slave in a cage has fewer options that we do, but we have fewer options that we would have if God didn’t limit us to the Earthly cage!
Telling me it’s not the same thing is like telling one Earthly slave in a big cage that he isn’t really a slave, because he’s not in a smaller cage like that other Earthly slave.
Isn’t the Earth, indeed the universe, a giant slave cage, where we are all chained by the constraints God put on us and our surroundings?
“we have fewer options that we would have if God didn’t limit us to the Earthly cage!”
Uh, no. If God exists, then you have two (maybe three) options: acceptance (Heaven), rebellion (Hell), and possibly refusal to decide (the void). If He does not, you have zero options – you will just not exist after death.
That’s more options. What your statement sounds like is declaring anger (at a God that supposedly does not exist) for not going and CREATING more options.
“Uh, no. If God exists, then you have two (maybe three) options: acceptance (Heaven), rebellion (Hell), and possibly refusal to decide (the void).”
Right. Slave cage 1, slave cage 2, or slave cage 3.
“If He does not, you have zero options – you will just not exist after death.”
I am talking about options now as well.
“That’s more options.”
Why not unlimited options while alive?
“What your statement sounds like is declaring anger (at a God that supposedly does not exist) for not going and CREATING more options.”
Sounds like? Well, what it IS is a statement that God created limited options.
Like how an Earthly slave master creates a limited set of options for his slave. If the slave master offered the slave the extra option of death, would that mean the Earthly slave master is creating options for the Earthly slave?
“Why not unlimited options while alive?”
This is mere petulant whining.
“I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world” – C.S. Lewis
When you get over your anger at God having created anything at all, and daring to stop there, maybe you can find some peace with the nature of things.
Anon,
“Right, but believers believe even atheists were created by God, so the objective laws that atheists are compelled to live with are God’s plan, and because those are the laws for humans, since humans can’t do anything about them, why isn’t that God imposing slavery on everyone?”
The situation is exactly reversed if atheists are correct. If there is no God, we are all slaves to our environment, including the poor theists who didn’t believe the environment came to be in a the same way atheists did.
From the rest of your comment, I’m just missing whatever point you’re trying to make. It seems to me that every thing you bring up could be seen as “slavery” even if atheists were right. I agree with Matt, it just seems like you’re complaining.
You live for a while but eventually you will die. Why couldn’t the environment or evolution or whatever grant us the ability to live forever, without the iron shackles of eventual mortality enslaving us?
Matt Tanous:
“Why not unlimited options while alive?”
This is mere petulant whining.
Yes, the same thing is said by slave masters to their slaves. Stop whining! I am giving you shelter, food, clothes even!
OK, call me a whiner. Now address the point I am making instead of evading it.
“I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world” – C.S. Lewis
When you get over your anger at God having created anything at all, and daring to stop there, maybe you can find some peace with the nature of things.
You mean at peace with slavery? How is that a response to what I am saying?
It’s obvious you don’t even have any answer to what I am saying, and you are turning your confusion into hostility against me.
………………………….
Bharat:
“Right, but believers believe even atheists were created by God, so the objective laws that atheists are compelled to live with are God’s plan, and because those are the laws for humans, since humans can’t do anything about them, why isn’t that God imposing slavery on everyone?”
The situation is exactly reversed if atheists are correct. If there is no God, we are all slaves to our environment, including the poor theists who didn’t believe the environment came to be in a the same way atheists did.
Yes, but I am talking about theists and their belief that God exists. If you say that an atheist would have to admit that reality is enslavement, then you’re saying that God, if God exists, is equally enslaving, because then He would be the creator of such laws, rather than some other process.
From the rest of your comment, I’m just missing whatever point you’re trying to make.
That God is a master and we are slaves.
It seems to me that every thing you bring up could be seen as “slavery” even if atheists were right.
Correct! And by implication, everything I bring up could be seen as slavery if theists were right. That is what I want to address. That is what both you and Matt are evading.
A simple yes or no, and why, would suffice.
I agree with Matt, it just seems like you’re complaining.
Yes, just like masters thought their slaves complained. I get it. I am complaining. But identifying that doesn’t make my complaints unwarranted!
You live for a while but eventually you will die. Why couldn’t the environment or evolution or whatever grant us the ability to live forever, without the iron shackles of eventual mortality enslaving us?
That’s what I am asking theists who said God designed it all!
Okay, sure, I guess you’re a slave then. If slavery means having limits placed on you, then all of God’s creations, by definition, are slaves, unless God creates another omnipotent being.
However, I personally don’t believe that’s what slavery means. As a libertarian, I believe that the non-aggression principle is a universal ethic individuals come up with through reason, however, universal only among human beings and not applicable to creatures without the same capability of reason.
WIth that being said, God (if he exists) is not a human, and his laws and rules are not aggression, because he is above us. Saying we are slaves to God would be akin to saying a pet dog is the slave of its owner, and the owner is aggressing against the dog.
“Libertarians are mentally ill because they oppose this natural state of humanity. Humanity is meant to be enslaved, whether physically or mentally”
This is new ground for me. I’ve been labeled a lunatic once or twice, but never for rejecting slavery.
I must admit, I’m not so interested in the fact he holds this position, but I would certainly like to hear the mental steps he took to get there.
I’m pretty sure conativejj was talking tongue in cheek to stir people up. Do a search and read some of his/her other comments on AmCon.
However, without putting it in words exactly like that, I often encounter a “desire to be enslaved” attitude when people are confronted by the concept of liberty.
I pretty much got the feeling he was being sarcastic.
‘Well, to be fair, the chaotic good or Chaotic Neutral alignments are more associated with anarchism within the world of D&D”
That’s true – but, and this is a strong but – on RPM’s behalf, finally someone who understands that “Lawful Good” is not the same as “endorses the arbitrary whims of government, whatever they may be.”
After all, also within D&D, there are chaotic governments, and I would argue they’d be nothing to write home about. (of course, Anarchists sy no government is anything to write home about, but we’re talking within the concepts of the game alignments).
Heck most game designers don’t even grok this point. Murphy is spot-on when it comes to what constitutes Lawful Good as a philosophical concept (to take the aligment system a bit too seriously – but, heck, why not?)
“to take the aligment system a bit too seriously”
Never. You can never take the arbitrarily defined precepts of a game too seriously.
I have to say that I was also a bit surprised at the response to that post, because I was always under the impression that the backbone to libertarianism was the idea of just law. Sure, NAP and property rights are the basis, but a just system of law seems to be the sought result.
Agree.
Anarchists have a problem with authority. Libertarians believe they must necessarily give up some of their freedoms in order to guarantee protection of as much of what remains as possible. The question being where to draw the line, hence “just system of law” is very arguable in the details, but well supported in principle.
Huh? Anarchism is a subset of libertarianism. Libertarians aren’t by definition minarchists. I would say that virtually every Rothbardian you asked would say they are libertarian.
Tel might have been referring to anarchism in general, not necessarily the libertarian variant.
Maybe, but he followed it up by defining libertarianism in a way that would only include minarchists.
Yes, I see that.
I’m pretty comfortable using the Wikipedia definition of Anarchy, because I think that’s probably the most broadly accepted definition.
Most Libertarians believe it is OK for someone to get a job and work for a company with CEO’s, middle managers, branch managers, what have you. That right there is “hierarchical organization” and in itself not harmful IMHO. I would argue that Anarchy is more extreme than Libertarianism and anyhow, I’m not personally particularly “out there” as far as Libertarians go.
Well, I’ve been pretty open about my dislike of the word “anarchy” being used to describe anti-state libertarians. The first definition above seems to match what most Rothbardians view as the correct definition, with the alternate definition being rather vague in the context of libertarianism.
If one looks at the root of the word “anarchy” they find that it is derived from archon, or ruler. Of course, anti-statists are against state rulers, but I don’t think that they can deny that such a thing would exist in a libertarian stateless society. After all, the owners of private property are essentially the “rulers” of said property (except that this is seen as a “just” system). Sure, it isn’t the arbitrary rule that you’d find in a state system of governance, but it is still present IMO.
Unfortunately, it is this relationship between property and owner that often leads non-libertarians to come to the conclusion that stateless libertarianism is still a state-like system, or that it would still result in many of the same problems present in a state system. Essentially, these opponents believe that property rights is also arbitrary rule.
Also, I don’t think that libertarians (both “minarchists” and “anarchists”) are necessarily opposed to hierarchal structures (the general sense of hierarchy), they just prefer that those involved with such a structure have done so by voluntary means. If they are (opposed to a hierarchy), then they are doing so outside of the sphere of libertarian philosophy (i.e. this belief of theirs is derived from another source).
And indeed property rights can amount to largely arbitrary rule, depending on how they are managed.
Which is why, each and every time you advocate some particular property right, you need to be willing to justify that by explaining whatever benefits you believe are a consequence of that particular property right.
For example, ownership of land encourages the construction of improvements, infrastructure, etc. and neat borders make the resolution of disputes a bit easier.
“Which is why, each and every time you advocate some particular property right, you need to be willing to justify that by explaining whatever benefits you believe are a consequence of that particular property right.”
Yes, you would have to do that if you are a utilitarian.
That view has “the public” being the measure of what counts as property rights.
But that’s logically self-defeating. If you’re part of “the public”, then in what meaningful sense are you obligated to it?
If arbitration services are desired, specific individuals can opt to participate, but it wouldn’t be binding on anyone else. That’s not an example of factoring in “the public”, though.
If a steady supply of trade goods are desired, it wouldn’t be alright to attempt to force others to trade; And if trade is really desired, then you don’t need to manage anything – it will happen among those that wish to do so.
I should also mention that what I said above is very much related to why I choose not to use the word “government” in many contexts, instead preferring the word “state”. Because I believe that libertarianism, even its anti-state variant, very much supports governance, it just doesn’t prefer state-governance.
First, you don’t capitalize libertarian or libertarianism.
Second, you can define words in whatever way that floats your boat, but you are using definitions that most of the self-described libertarians and anarchists on this site wouldn’t agree to. According to your definitions, Rothbard, the man who wrote the libertarian manifesto, is neither a libertarian nor an anarchist. That seems like a weird way to use those words. Especially, when the same source you use, Wikipedia, uses both terms to describe him.
I know I can use words any way that floats my boat, but I deliberately try to use words in the most common standard way possible in order to communicate effectively with a broad range of people. I’m not claiming that Wikipedia is perfect by any means, on controversial issues pages often get taken over and “owned” by an non-neutral point of view. However, I didn’t think this particular question was exactly controversial.
That’s the online free dictionary:
That’s Merriam-Webster:
That’s Oxford:
I think these are closer to my usage than to yours. You may disagree, possibly dictionaries are the mind-control tools of an oppressive state, but communication does require that people at both ends of the pipe are talking the same language. For better or worse, common usage is the final arbiter here.
Tel, what I am complaining about is the way you use those words in your response to Joseph would mean Rothbard wasn’t a libertarian or an anarchist. Rothbard didn’t have a problem with authority as Dr. Murphy pointed out in his piece, and he didn’t favor giving up some of your freedom in order to guarantee protection of as much of what remains as possible. So if Rothbard wasn’t an anarchist or a libertarian, then how would you classify his philosophy?
Rothbard declares his support of anarchism while also admitting that he goes a step beyond what most libertarians are willing to do.
http://mises.org/daily/2801
I might point out that if what you want is freedom to make any choice you like, and reap the consequences of that choice then you have this already. You can turn against the state any time you like, some people are very successful with this approach, and this is the reason we have organized crime gangs the world over. Indeed, it’s often difficult to figure out the difference between organized crime and the State since they pretty much do the same stuff. We also have disorganized crime of course and everything in between.
Thing is, you want a world where people follow some, “non aggression principle” but neither the State nor the criminals are interested in this principle. This itself implies a constraint on freedom.
How was that a response to the question I asked you? I said that based on the way you described anarchists and libertarians, you would be excluding Murray Rothbard from both categories. So I asked how you would classify Murray Rothbard’s philosophy.
You simply pointed to an article where Rothbard declared himself to be an anarchist and a libertarian. Then you follow up that with some nonsense about me wanting freedom to do whatever I want to do. How does that answer my question?
I believe that Rothbard quite clearly explains he supports the “absence of government” in totality so this is consistent with the definitions of anarchy that I listed above.
Thus, I would not exclude Rothbard from the category of anarchists, and neither would he, by his own writing and not by the definitions above either.
Rothbard also explains the confusion in that Anarchy often implies absence of property rights, which he regards as a separate issue but they get bundled into the same word. The dictionary doesn’t help with that, Rothbard admitted it was a problem and he refined his position in the context of this.
What else is there left to answer here?
As for the category of “libertarian”, I personally don’t believe that most libertarians are as extreme as Rothbard was, and in fact he says as much himself. Have I missed some obvious disagreement here? What are we quibbling about exactly?
You want to say that libertarianism must include the extreme “no government whatsoever” position, so have it your way if you like, but that position just is not mainstream, even for libertarians it isn’t mainstream.
Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party don’t take that position, Ron Paul doesn’t take that position. The Tea Party support a lower tax platform, but they certainly are not anarchists.
Tel, obviously I am not making much of a big deal on this issue, but I do have one quibble and a point … Well, a point with multiplicity.
It is my belief, which is mostly based on anecdotal evidence, that Ron Paul is philosophically an Ancap.
I can’t prove it without a doubt, but that is my feeling. I think that the only compromise that he’s made in his political career is that in order to be in politics you cannot be as open as you would wish.
Now, I know that many people will disagree, and they may do so on the grounds that Ron talks about the Constitution a lot. However, I talk about the Constitution, and Tom Woods does, so does Thomas DiLorenzo, and even Bob does from time to time. But, all of those mentioned are still anarchists, ancaps, anti-statists, voluntaryists, or whatever other label might be used to describe an Austro-libertarian. Which brings me to my point …
There are certainly many sects of libertarianism; after all Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian. And I am sure that most people who self-identify with libertarianism in the general sense are indeed “minarchists”.
The subset of of libertarians who identify with Austro-libertarianism are generally anti-state to the core, and prefer the elimination of the state-form of governance.
Now, I definitely won’t make the claim that Austro-libertarianism is the dominant form amongst those who self-identify as libertarian. However, I will say that Austro-libertarianism, and its anti-state variance, is probably the most prevalent form amongst those libertarians who like to actually study political philosophy and its sibling, economics, as well as debate these issues amongst their peers and challengers. IOW, they tend to be the most vocal (plain and simple), and that while some are better or lesser-read than others, it’s clear that within this particular subset of libertarianism, knowledge attainment and engagement of ideas are put at a premium. However right or wrong that knowledge and engagement *is* is another question.
Of course, I am not without my biases, I am an Austro-libertarian of the anti-state variety. But I still think that this type of libertarian will be the most prevalent amongst the deeper conversations about political economy. Especially here, and especially amongst the general population that comprises “libertarians”.
Alright, so you agree with me that Rothbard was an anarchist, which means your claim that anarchists have a problem with authority isn’t necessarily true. An anarchist may have a problem with authority but that has nothing to do with the political philosophy, especially when we are talking about libertarian anarchists. The reason I have been challenging you on this is because that was the point of Murphy’s article.
Also, it isn’t just that I would include Murray Rothbard in the libertarian category, so would he and the minarchists you mentioned. Rothbard wrote a book that was called For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I’m unaware of any Rothbardian who considers themselves not to be a libertarian. Ron Paul, who I agree with Fetz is probably an ancap, also considers Rothbard a libertarian. Gary Johnson considers Rothbard to be a libertarian. Reason magazine calls him a libertarian. So virtually the entire libertarian movement, minarchists and anarchists alike, consider him to be a libertarian. So I find your description of what libertarians believe to be completely inadequate.
Well these definitions are fuzzy concepts, I’m pretty sure I read an article on how Rothbard started out believing in small government, but then decided that out of logical consistency he should go all the way to abandon the State completely.
So yes, some anarchists believe in property rights, and property rights are in effect rules you have to follow. There are Christians who don’t accept the legitimacy of the State (e.g. the Jehovah Witnesses) so they don’t vote, but they also talk about “God’s government” so I don’t think they are really anarchists.
When you get down to it though, if you talk about anarchy vs liberty and you aren’t searching hard for special cases and you are looking for an archetypal example, then the difference is that liberty implies the existence of someone or something to make sure the rules are followed — and that is the “law”, which in effect will be some sort of State, or at least a close equivalent, even if you want to call it something else.
Most people just accept that anarchy represents the extreme position, and liberty represents the not so extreme position. Of course it’s never as simple as that, but how many words would we spend arguing about what a “socialist” is?
I might also point out where we are now (huge State apparatus and getting bigger) makes this kind of a pointless discussion at best. There won’t be any libertarian revolution, because libertarians are few, and the State is massively more powerful.
The State may defeat itself by simply getting so top-heavy it falls over sideways, but hopefully it doesn’t get as bad as that and we can shrink it gradually.
I’ll also point out that fewer laws with consistent enforcement is more “lawful” than large numbers of laws with haphazard and arbitrary enforcement. Corruption and criminality are in their own way a type of anarchy too, but speaking for myself, I don’t see that as a preferable path to liberty.
I added a link at the very bottom of this page, that hopefully presents my perspective.
You’re kidding, right? Don’t we have raging debates where the Libertarians tell us they can secede from any jusridisction — hence law — they don’t like? A large slice of Libertarisn reject the notion and claims of law quite explicitly.
Or they just consider said jurisdictions to be a legitimate authority and don’t necessarily reject law, or rules, at all.
Correction: just don’t consider …
No, because they say this applies to ALL jurisdictions.
Down to the individual’s property, and no further.
It would be cruel to divide a slave.
Not quite, it usually stops at the property line.
Rejection of state law does not mean rejection of all law. Private law is an alternative.
Libertarianism cannot be rejection of all law, since libertarianism is an ethic. It is not nihilism.
Um, I said “just law”, and then followed that up with an explanation of how many libertarians are averse to arbitrary law. I don’t think that I must explain that libertarians for the most part reject the arbitrariness of legislated law, mostly due to the fact that they (statutes) are by the edict of the ruling monopoly.
The ruling majority, the ruling cabal, the monopoly power-center, the influenced representative, the clamoring masses, the mob of opinion; none of these are the source of ethical and just laws, they are merely excuses for unjust laws to be accepted. There is no consistency to be found in such a system of laws!
Certainly, the libertarian conception of just law is based upon the NAP and property rights, but one cannot say (as you have) that libertarian philosophy is opposed to law, or order for that matter. You’re talking nonsense if you make such accusations.
The whole point of law Joe is that it applies even if you don’t like it. Let’s take a fave here, secession. Imagine that the constitution had an explict clause forbidding it. Many here would argue that law is void or inapplicable. Not merely unwise or unjust, but unlaw.
Well, can you name me a law that specifically laws addresses this issue? If not, then there is no law in this case. Therefor, “unlaw” isn’t the right word, “non-law” is more appropriate.
(obviously, since this primarily an American issue with regard to comments on this blog, I am talking specifically about the current US system of laws)
Correction: keep “law” but scratch “laws”. Sorry, I originally phrased that sentence differently, and during editing I neglected to erase that word.
I have repeatedly! Secession is in fact unconstitutional, even absent the explicit provision.
Plus some here, Bob Roddis I think, reject Supreme Court review per Marbury.
Guest just denied that national parks exist.
MLK Jr said. “I think that law is unjust I will break it.” That’s not a rejection of *law*. Airily saying “*I don’t like that law so it doesn’t exist* is.
“Secession is in fact unconstitutional, even absent the explicit provision.”
No, it isn’t. Only things that are explicitly denied the states are unconstitutional state actions.
“Plus some here, Bob Roddis I think, reject Supreme Court review per Marbury.”
The Marbury ruling relies on assuming Supreme Court review to create the power of Supreme Court review. Imagine if we were parties to a contract, and in a dispute over it, I said I was the only one who could decide, once-and-for-all, what the terms actually were. That is precisely what the Supreme Court did in Marbury.
“An unjust law is no law at all.” – St. Augustine
I think you miss the point that for a law to be constitutional in the USA it must:
* Get through Congress.
* Get through the Senate.
* Get past the President.
* And not be struck down by the Supreme Court.
So there are really a sequence of potential veto points in the process, and any of those vetos is just as much a veto as any other.
Ultimately though, if enough citizens hate the law, it won’t last for long, that that’s yet another veto.
Every one of these parties are bound by the Constitution, such that it requires more than their collective assent for something to become law (at the federal level).
The Federalist No. 28
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm
Of course, everyone is bound, so each and every law has already been checked four times by four different groups of people who all agreed that it was a correct and constitutional law.
It takes more than their agreement. Our Founders were concerned about usurpation of authority, as well.
Ultimately, the people are the final arbiters; And by “people”, I mean that if only one person has interpreted the Constitution correctly, then that person is right.
It’s not about concensus. This is why our Declaration of Independence cites “inalienable rights”.
Consensus – the checks in the Constitution – is merely a way to make it less likely that the Constitution will be violated by our representatives.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/bastiat/the_law.html
In a country the size of the USA you are always going to find at least one person who thinks every law is unconstitutional. Guaranteed.
Means nothing.
Again, it’s not about concensus:
The Federalist No. 83
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm
“The whole point of law Joe is that it applies even if you don’t like it.”
Justice is not mere dislike. To declare a law unjust, and thus void, is not the same as saying “I don’t like it”.
“Not merely unwise or unjust, but unlaw.”
If a law is not just, it is not law, but arbitrary whim imposed through force. The clauses of the Constitution only apply to the organizations that agreed to it. If the Constitution explicitly forbid secession this would only bind the current states. Further, it doesn’t, so your argument is void.
It’s not possible for one to forbid oneself from secession. At every moment he retains control of himself.
It’s not something one can logically give up to someone else.
(Walter Block disagrees with this position.)
It is possible to make a promise and then keep your promise.
Sure, a promise made can be a promise kept, there’s nothing wrong with this reasoning. In fact, I applaud that sort of arrangement.
However, I think that what guest is getting at is the problem of free will and self-ownership, especially through the passage of time. Also, within the context of law, it does make sense to distinguish valid promisers vs valid promisees. This relationship is surely obfuscated in current applications of law, especially that of statutory law.
Within libertarian circles, it is the question of validity that is most often to arise. It is not the promise or law that is necessarily in question (though that can often be the case), it is the relationship between the parties in question, and the validity of their agreement (which generally comprises the relationship between the two).
In my experience, the distinct paths of relationship between the promisers and the promisees is quite vague and unconnected, as well are the impositions of such agreements. It is essentially a group of certain individuals making promises for another group of individuals, and the promises made are to yet another group of individuals.
Any concept of law is lost in such a situation. But that is the present reality.
It’s possible to make promises that are logically impossible to keep.
Maybe it helps to distinguish between the nature of a contract and its contents;
The redundant nature of a “non secession” clause (let’s say, for argument’s sake) is a clue that there would be something logically wrong with it.
Why would you need to have a non-secession clause when you can just have the contract say “Failure to fulfill the contract means death”?
As well, a breach of a contract VOIDS the contract, such that whatever was in the contract becomes moot.
If a contract becomes void, neither side is bound by it. The purpose of a contract is to be able to show, in court (or to other people, absent a court), that promises were made, and that any services rendered or goods provided must be repaid (otherwise a theft has accompanied the breach of contract).
It is worse than just the arbitrariness of legislated law, because the level of complexity has reached a point where no one on Earth knows what the law is so actually following the law to the letter has become literally impossible to do. You might find a lawyer who is an expert in some small corner of the whole tower, but it would take a large team of lawyers to cover the whole thing, and even then they would argue.
The police have stopped trying to obey the law precisely and just set the line at what they can get away with, using selective enforcement and seat of the pants judgement. Mostly it works, but we regularly hear of cases where things go wrong, and no one has the slightest idea why.
I don’t see how we can actually call ourselves a law abiding people right now. We are mostly the memory of a law abiding people, but that memory is fading.
I haven’t read any of the other comments (deliberately). Nor do I know anything about Dungeons & Dragons. I am surprised, however, that people can interpret what you said the way they did. After all, while you said “lawful”, you didn’t say what law. You definitely didn’t say “Law”. You didn’t say law-abiding either. It is certainly interesting to see the word “law” triggering images of “The Law” in many people’s minds. It tells you how much of indoctrination has happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
” but it actually must have been the case historically, that people followed laws before it occurred to anyone to create laws”
I find this to be a really interesting point you made out there. Frankly, without a clear concept of things that are “yours” and “mine” and without the implicit acceptance of non-aggression, civilisation and social living are impossible. Right there, you have law without legislation.
Of course libertarians do not seem to like rules. This has bothered me since, oh, 1974. When drug testing was invented in the 1980s, were the libertarians at the forefront of demanding protection for the rights of employers to drug test anyone that came through the door? (No). Do libertarians ever explain that if you want to smoke dope, no one has to hire you, approve you for insurance, or in the case of a private road, ever let you on the private road?
I noticed that the south voted overwhelmingly against Ron Paul in the primaries. Why was there no outreach to pious Christians explaining that they could all live together in a private voluntary community and exclude dopers and pornography and have pious little schools for their kids where they would never encounter a thug or non-pious person.
As Rothbard said over and over, libertarianism is just a political theory that tells you what you may not do to your fellow humans. It does not tell you what to do with your freedom.
There is no reason Christians shouldn’t be libertarians except that the atheist horde of libertarians don’t seem to want to appear unhip to the hipster left.
In the near future, if marijuana continues to be decriminalized, watch for new laws that prohibit “discrimination” against dopers. Will libertarians scream about such laws?
I think there are plenty of libertarians who are christian or conservative in their personal lives. It seems to me that most of the ‘beltway libertarians’ want the hipster left to think they are cool, but among libertarians outside that group, like the group that frequents here or LRC or the Mises Institute, both atheists and theists seem to not really care much about appearing cool to this or that group.
This is key. The Reason magazine types and the official Libertarian party thinks freedom is all about freedom to do whatever you like. They neglect the fact that you can exclude from your own property as well, for the most part. A few of them even went after Hoppe for writing that libertarian communities would likely expel those that don’t support the property norms of libertarianism, and that covenants could exist excluding those that didn’t fit the populace (possibly for being gay, anti-family, anti-property, or so on).
I think the “one size fits all” perspective has become entrenched. People accept the premise of the State, even if they don’t much like the State as it now exists.
Then there remains the practical problem that the State has historically proven to be an effective weapon of war, and in every scenario you will find at least some of the people attracted to the idea of getting their hands on a really big weapon.
I’m OK with employers requiring drug tests, provided employees have been properly notified. The idea that an employer can just pop up and say, “Oh there’s a new rule and today everyone must take a drug test.” seems like a bit of a breach of the implied contract that working conditions won’t change arbitrarily, and it isn’t really voluntary.
I mean, it would be equally valid for a bunch of employees to demand their manager take a drug test on the same basis.
If one of the upfront conditions of employment is that you have to pass such tests, then fair enough. That’s pretty well accepted for machinery operators, train drivers, etc.
I probably wouldn’t work for anyone who insisted upon drug testing me. That’s not the point. The business owner has the right to attempt to make that deal with his employees who can always quit. His business can be boycotted.
My point is that I see little or no outreach to religious people. However, such an explicit statement of the right to “discriminate” against people of a different pursuasion always brings out the bloodthirsty screaming haters of the left calling you “racist racist racist” for your support of a strict policy of total peace. And, or course, multi-ethnic social democracies usually end up in ethnic strife or worse. So who really hates minorities?
I love progressives. I just love ’em. Have I ever mentioned that?
BTW, Lord “Rain Man” Keynes still doesn’t understand the various applications of the concept of economic calculation and has identified poor little me as the vulgar internet Austrian.
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2012/12/back-to-socialist-calculation-debates.html?showComment=1355328185385#c2601577284637985219
I thought a bunch of us smacked him down pretty good on the “Walrasian GE” nonsense a while back.
(1) Lord … Keynes still doesn’t understand the various applications of the concept of economic calculation
So now you have switched from claiming no one outside the Austrian school understands economic calculation, to no one understands “the various applications of the concept of economic calculation”?
(2) “I thought a bunch of us smacked him down pretty good on the “Walrasian GE” nonsense a while back.
Not really. What was demonstrated is that most of you can’t argue without violating the law of non contradiction, for, e.g., M_F argued that Hayek’s price and wage vector was related to Walrasian GE theory but then not related to it.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/11/econ-101-works-price-controls-cause-gas-lines.html#comment-49217
(1) Both are true in your case.
(2) I didn’t say it both was and was not related to it. I said it is related in terms of historical influence, but is logically separate. We don’t need “Walrasian GE” to explain and understand Hayek’s theory. Hayek’s theory is deviations away from the market, but for the sake of communication and simplicity, used GE because the free market is not static and restricted, the way GE is. The key words in my post there are “But in the strict logical sense”. That separates historical influences and explanatory mental tools, from his actual theory grounded on free markets (which are not empirically GE).
M_F, he’s a Keynesian. By definition, he can’t understand the difference between a historical relation and a logical one.
I recommended Mises’ “Theory and History” to him when he first said I contradicted myself, and yet he continues to display the same ignorance.
Maybe when he finishes misrepresenting and vomiting all over Murphy’s “Politically Incorrect Guide to the New Deal”, he’ll find the time.
I think gradually people are getting interested, even if the rusted on Keynesians still insist that “aggregate demand” explains all economic problems.
http://cafehayek.com/2012/12/sandy-and-bob-on-the-efficiency-of-inefficient-free-markets.html
But the argument will come back that small inefficiencies don’t really matter, and some would argue that over the long term the government run economy may be more stable and thus avoid market failures, or just keep saying “externalities” until you justify whatever you like.
I agree that if an employer requires drug tests, then you have to get tested if you want the job.
Is the government going to have access to those records, though? That’s a separate issue to consider, but worth doing so.
It’s my position that employers can change the rules any time they want, if there’s no contract stating otherwise. Contracts, by definition, can’t be of an implied nature.
This video (and much of the associated playlist) has helped me understand why it would be OK for an employer to do these things (At first it may seem unrelated to the issue, but it is):
Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 30: The Scab) by Walter Block
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IiW7WgDcHA
“he implied contract that working conditions won’t change arbitrarily”
My contract explicitly states the opposite – that the conditions of employment can and perhaps will change in accordance with the desires of the employer, and if I don’t like it “there’s the door”.
“I mean, it would be equally valid for a bunch of employees to demand their manager take a drug test on the same basis.”
Sure, if we ignore the basis of property rights behind the whole thing. The employee comes on to my property to work, and I have the right to make whatever conditions I wish for entrance to my property, unless I have contractually agreed to NOT do so. And no “implied” contract exists there.
I mean, it would be equally valid for a bunch of employees to demand their manager take a drug test on the same basis.
Well, they can, can’t they? And if the manager refuses, or the results are not to the liking of those employees they can terminate their contracts with the company. I think in most countries there are less legal obstacles for employees to do this than for employers.
It’s freedom of association. If the employer wants to drug test, it’s within his right to do so. Why it is that you think libertarians should march in favor of employers drug testing, I don’t know. Frankly, I think we have far better things to do with our time. I least, I know I do.
In fact, I don’t recall anyone being “at the forefront” demanding that employers be allowed to drug test. I don’t recall anyone attempting to make it impossible for them to do so, so there wouldn’t be much point in being at the forefront. It seems to me that you are just creating a strawman, and a rather pathetic one at that.
As for anti-discrimination law against those who smoke marijuana (who may or may not be “dopers”, depending on what your subjective opinion of people who engage in that activity might be), I am sure that libertarians would register their displeasure at such laws. They do as much now with, for instance, the right to work laws in Michigan. Will they “scream” about such laws? Well, it depends on how much it bothers some people. Why do you believe that such laws should take high priority when there are so many other causes to consider?
“I don’t recall anyone attempting to make it impossible for them to do so”
It was a big deal about 5 years ago when I was a college freshman. I stood up for it myself in class discussions about current events, but on grounds I would now recognize as fully nonsensical. (It was the conservative argument, and not the libertarian one…)
Too many people believe that law can only come from government or that government is the source of law in most cases.
It isn’t where the law comes from that matters, it is where the enforcement comes from. At the heart of it, the State is a protection racket (ignoring all of the extraneous activity, and ignoring the self justification). So citizens make payments in return for protection from violence.
A private police force would essentially be the same thing — a protection racket.
The question being whether it is practical to have a competitive commodity market buying and selling violence (or protection from violence) such that the buyers get to shop around and choose the seller. For whatever reason, this has generally not been the case, protection rackets set themselves up as a monopoly and the really don’t appreciate competition on their turf.
And some protection rackets like to cause problems so they can be the ones to fix it, and to gain more power.
id say authority is a huge problem in our society today, or rather involuntary authority. the authority of a boss or something like that is valid as its voluntary. however the authority of taxes or most of government is terrible and can only cause problems, as the authority is involuntary. that type of authority will only lead to the unjust use of power against others, and create monopoly’s. i think this kind of authority needs to be abolished in money too. there should be no monopoly on money, as money is just currency, and that should be whatever the hec you and the person your doing business with want. this involuntary authority over money is corrupting our society.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been doodling on this one, graphical explanation of common political positions.
http://lnx-bsp.net/political_spectrum.pdf
Wow Tel. OWS near the liberty end? You don’t remember the human speaker phone, the forcing out of of dissenters, the demands to punish when no crime was committed?
Do you use “Dia” ? I can post up the editable file if you want to come up with your own interpretation. Be my guest.
The “Human microphone” concept seems to require voluntary cooperation from the participants, just don’t relay anything you don’t agree with. Can’t see what’s so authoritarian about that.
Also OWS have not exactly got on well with the police, so I don’t think I can move them to the “Big Government” side of the spectrum, but oh well the world is more complex than just a simple line on a page.
http://occupywallst.org/article/war-on-dissent/
I think the OWS are short of any good answers, but they are asking the right questions. They certainly aren’t your run of the mill authoritarian communists by any means.
It’s a mechanism for groupthink and conformity.
Plus it’s funnier than the dead parrot skit!
Voluntary groupthink and conformity.
No different to Christians studying Bible together, which I’m sure you accept is still within acceptable libertarian guidelines.
Indicative of attitudes and impulses. Plus of course non conformists leave. Then the group thinkers all agree on what they want to impose on others.
I can cite Christian groups that fit t.hat mold! The church fom 1000 to …
Very few are compelled to become cardinals.
In effect, I am saying that enemies of dissent are or become enemies of freedom. OWS asks good questions I agree. Leftist complaints are often well taken. But they are authoritarian to the core
Occupy Wall Street was started by the Marxists. Its purpose is to foment a Marxist revolution.
Yes, most are not aware of this, but they are being used as tools:
Who Is Behind the ‘US Day of Rage’ to ‘Occupy’ Wall Street this September 17th?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/seius-stephen-lerner-invokes-bill-ayers-days-of-rage-to-take-down-wall-street-this-september/
Well give me a little bit of credit, I put it in the Socialist region of the chart (OWS have poor regard for property rights), the decision is between “big government” socialism and “small government” socialism.
Not all Marxists are Stalinist you know. The concept of Trotskyist “Permanent revolution” where the oppressed people at the bottom of the heap have a perpetual obligation (and incentive) to oppose the “Powers the Be”, is not so far removed from OWS theory. Not so far removed from the Vor for that matter.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/10/journal-permanent-protest-ows.html
You see some liberty-related themes in that list (just for example).
I don’t anything about the Trotskyites or the Vor; But I have heard of this concept of “permanent revolution”, before, in the video below.
Some Marxists think that Marxism doesn’t necessarily have to lead to mass oppression or murder. They think that it was only the wrong people in charge – that they diverged from the ideal of communism.
But as the following video shows, due to the inate diversity of desires and capability in humans, Marxist theory MUST, in practice, result in perpetual subjugation of the individual to the Collective Will.
By force. Perpetual force. Mass oppression and murder. This is “perpetual revolution”.
Otherwise, people will, on their own, accumulate wealth as they simply look around them and think of ways to improve their poverty-stricken life;
And it would necessarily be a poverty-stricken life because people would be forbidden to utilize the division of labor, since that makes only those who trade among themselves richer, thus naturally (and justly) creating wealth inequality.
And the “public ownership of production” suffers from a calculation problem, since it can’t know, without prices, whether they are producing too much of one thing or wasting it.
Nor would the “public ownership of production” know how to go about building the capital that would produce more, or produce more efficiently, because the people who would build such machines wouldn’t benefit from doing more than they already do – there’s no incentive for them to build more.
Here is the video:
“Why Marxism?” An Evening at FEE with C. Bradley Thompson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt58gg1DQGk#t=44m37s