Potpourri
==> For those who somehow missed my earlier blast, remember to register for the live video presentation Carlos and I are putting on, September 26.
==> A friend sent me this fascinating piece saying that Rothbard was very friendly to Catholic thought. I had known that independently–if nothing else, many of the people he was closest to near the end of his life were staunch Catholics–but this article put things nicely. An excerpt:
It seems safe to say that Rothbard, in his efforts to understand the intellectual roots of libertarian thought, found plenty to admire in the Catholic tradition. What emerges from his historical investigations is a truth I have also come to understand: that there is never a choice between a mythic “individualism” and collectivism. Human beings are born into a state of dependency; someone or something is going to have to care not only for their bodies, but for their proper socialization and moral formation. The historical choices are generally the family/parish/community, or the state. Rothbard became increasingly aware of the dangerous insanity of the the latter option. His articles exposing the religious-left as the inheritor of Yankee pietism (and Hillary Clinton as its prophet) demonstrate this well. If Bill Clinton’s 1992 inauguration was, as Rothbard described it, “a horrifying display of a neopagan, multicultural, New Age religious left at work”, then Obama’s entire campaign, which is steeped in the rhetoric of radical religious leftism, is simply off the charts. [Bold added.]
That part I put in bold is very important. It is what bothers me about a lot of the “lone wolf” libertarians I encounter on the internet. They really do fulfill the caricature of libertarianism that conservatives sometimes mock. You even see people (and I think without irony in some cases) saying that (singles) tennis or golf are “more libertarian” than soccer or baseball.
==> I liked this piece from David Gornoski (HT2 Gene Callahan) on scapegoats and Trump. Check this out:
But Trump is a monster! Yes, but given the right circumstance, so are you. His ugliness is simply more apparent than that of other managers of the state’s sacred violence. Let’s be frank here: though his speech is scarily vulgar, the violence he promises is already occurring.
Think his call to deport illegally undocumented workers is fascist? The Obama administration, garbed as it is with the shimmering rhetoric of victimhood, has already deported over 2,500,000 human beings—23 percent more than Bush.
How about his pledge to torture suspected terrorists? Clinton-Bush-Obama beat him to it. They just don’t talk about it like he does. And let’s not limit it to foreigners; Obama didn’t bat an eye as elderly tax protester Irwin Schiff died of cancer chained to a prison bed far away from his family for breaking the sacred taboo against being too stingy in sharing his resources with the collective.
How about the time Trump promised to target terrorists’ families? Obama, the great defender of Islam, already trumped that when he murdered people like U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who hadn’t seen his father for two years. This teen and his friends were blown apart by the Nobel prize winner while having a campfire dinner, apparently for the sinful dreams of his father.
Let’s not pretend it is avant-garde to vilify Trump. Everyone’s doing it, especially the cool people, the ones, like us, preoccupied with social status but hiding it in speech always patronizingly preening about victims. From Buzzfeed to Vanity Fair, CNN, the New York Times, broadcast networks, Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, academia, Hollywood, music stars, Silicon valley, and NPR, to both party establishments, everyone’s united in this orgy of outrage….
Still, scapegoating partially unifies. Just why is it that old enemies like Romney, the DNC, and the media unite to expose Trump’s shady timeshare-like university gimmick but offer deafening crickets for Hillary’s use of the Haiti earthquake to secure an exclusive gold-mining contract for her brother? Trump’s shamelessness reveals the banality of the establishment’s passe violence.
The thing that drives this outrage mob mad is the mirror Trump’s vulgar speech holds up to the state’s violence-based unity. The one thing the crowd can’t stand is a scapegoat’s refusal to apologize for its sins.
Family is not a voluntary relationship. Most of my family are strongly left leaning, and pretty much socialist. Many had government education, worked for government their entire lives, never questioned that the bureaucrats know what’s best, they love their unions, automatically suspicious of anyone who makes a profit. I was brought up with a strong sense of envy whenever someone was better off and I spent years learning not to carry that pile of garbage.
That’s not to say I dislike them as people, I just think they grew up in an era where the general vibe was that they didn’t need God because everything was scientific and well organized and what happened was that the State stepped into the vacuum and subconsciously people began to worship government as a substitute for God. Once people get into the habit of doing that for most of their lives, they feel comfortable with it, and they really do trust officialdom to look after them. There’s probably elements of Pagan tribalism infused into that, which I’m OK with. Small circle Bible Christians are structurally not so very far removed from Pagan tribal circles… although of course the Bible is an important difference in terms of guidance. If you look at some of the Unitarian groups they tend to borrow widely, taking a very eclectic approach… I’m also OK with that.
I think that ultimately each person does need to make a decision for themselves what they believe in, and you don’t have to live your whole life as a “lone wolf” if you don’t want to, but when it comes to some key life decisions, yeah you really are on your own for those.
If Trump actually wins, everyone who said he’s just business as usual, but more frank about it, will have a lot of explaining to do when it turns out he’s not.
Good thing he’s losing, eh?
“They really do fulfill the caricature of libertarianism that conservatives sometimes mock.”
I’m drawing a blank to imagine what this looks like.
I don’t hold the view that soccer and basketball are unlibertarian – the existence of a team does not preclude each individual consenting with each particular member of a team (or with a team’s manager) to accomplish a common goal.
But I am of the view that the concept of two or more owners is inconsistent with libertarianism and is logically impossible (two people cannot have the exclusive right to use something, which is what ownership entails).
As for the caricature to which Bob refers, there was a South Park episode that made fun of it, but I can’t find it.
Yes, Parker and Stone are libertarian (ish), but at the end of that episode everyone “rejects” the state and simply “agrees” to mutually beneficial rules, the joke being that they ended up inadvertently embracing the state, anyway, and the “libertarian” idea of atomizm (?) is inherently inconsistent.
The caricature is that libertarians hold an internally inconsistent ideal.
I’ve loved the recent seasons of South Park-19 was basically perfect and the season premiere of 20 was everything it needed to be to follow that-but yeah, they’re definitely not hardcore students of libertarian political philosophy.
I kind of have a better conception of what the caricature is, but now I can’t think what the episode of South Park was and it’s gonna bug me. I’ll let you know if I figure it out.
In what sense is winning Nevada, the state that has voted with the winner in every presidential election from 1912 to 2012 with the sole exception of 1976, losing? I’m not seeing much losing from the Trump campaign lately.
Rothbard sounds sympathetic to Catholic thought; however, you will never find in Catholicism anything close, implicitly or explicitly, to a justification for absolute self-ownership, the ultimate axiom of Rothbardianism. Aquinas, for example, starts from a rational proof that God exits and from a rational proof that God created man in His image, with intellect, intelligence, reason and free will. Man cannot claim as his that which does not come from him, starting, most radically, from the fact that he is, that he exists, that he has being; therefore, man cannot be a self-owner. While it appears to Rothbard’s simplistic and wrong headed metaphysics and anthropology that man acts as he is the owner of his body, what Aquinas posits instead is the existence of a power in us (the will or rational appetite) that controls human actions voluntarily. These are precisely the actions which are within our power and which have as their purpose an end that is known us.
Self-ownership as conceived by Rothbard is not only not necessary to explain control over human actions with an end in mind, but is contrary to Catholicism. If one wants to ground Misesian praxeology and be a Catholic at the same time, one better stop looking at Rothbard.
From Rothbard’s “WW 1 as fulfillment of the Intellectuals”:
…
———
Rothbard found affinity with Catholicism because of its more libertarian tendencies, as compared to the do gooder pietists who want to stick their noses in everyone’s business.
FWIW:
I’ve never heard anyone advocate the idea that the Kingdom of God could be brought about by human effort.
I once heard Bill Maher make this claim about Christians, and I was skeptical back then, as well.
I don’t think anyone actually believes this.
This-what Voegelin eloquently called an “immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton”-is rejected by the Catholic Church. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.”
Lutherans apparently reject this sort of thing as well.
Of course it was the American conservative, Catholic William F. Buckley who popularized the slogan “Don’t immanentize the eschaton!”
Choice between family/parish and state – that applies to all religions, not just Catholics. In fact, in For a new liberty Rothbard mentioned how charity in the Mormon church works efficiently (ok, charity, not morality forming but related).
I think the reason why he liked Catholics was that they were in line with praxeology, namely that work is a means to achieving ends, pleasures in life. While for protestants the work was the end. Of course I could be wrong.
Loved the article on Rothbard and Catholicism. Great stuff!
It is what bothers me about a lot of the “lone wolf” libertarians I encounter on the internet. They really do fulfill the caricature of libertarianism that conservatives sometimes mock. You even see people (and I think without irony in some cases) saying that (singles) tennis or golf are “more libertarian” than soccer or baseball.
Yes. Yes. Yes. The idea that there is some sort of “libertarian behavior” outside of the ban on the initiation of force is absurd. Indeed, AnCap is an intensely social endeavor.
I think I have been a proto-Hoppean since before Hoppe discovered Rothbard in the sense that to me, AnCap was most likely to play out via voluntary communities being governed by community bylaws. Thus, religious people could live in religious communities and send their kids to private schools where they would never see a doper or an atheist (if that was their choice). Similarly, New-Age types could live with each other and ban guns and GMOs and/or people who don’t approve of gays. Rothbard’s early claim that child abandonment was not a “crime” only applies to strangers AND only applies to the initiation of force as a response. The perpetrator (who is a stranger and not in contractual privity with others on that subject) could be refused access off of his own property and starved to death (if you want to take things that far). Further, most people will be in contractual relationships that will ban abandoning children, making the entire subject moot. These relationships will be intensely SOCIAL and governed by cultural norms emanating from a society that has banned the initiation of force.
I am always frustrated that this vision does not seem to be grasped by most libertarians. The use of force is limited to a very few activities (someone else’s initiation of force) but this does not leave society without sufficient and effective sanctions for people who act like jerks. It does not mean that all activities other than the initiation of force are “OK” or that you cannot condemn those activities and their perpetrators as evil or otherwise. And it does not mean that condemning non-aggressive behavior is “non-libertarian”.
The vision usually presented by libertarians is basically the USA as it is today with drugs laws and zoning abolished. This would mean that meth cookers could move next doors and their kids would go to school with your kids. That’s not my vision of private lifestyle neighborhoods with enforceable and enforced bylaws and it makes sense that it is rejected by the non-ideological masses.
BTW, there is no murder, pillage, theft or rape with private property. There is no lying with contracts. And we require politics because of what?
“… to me, AnCap was most likely to play out via voluntary communities being governed by community bylaws.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you concede alll the justification that is needed for statism, depending on what you mean by “community bylaws”.
Tom Woods has fallen into this trap, too, saying, in one of his podcasts (can’t remember which) something to the effect of “Why would libertarianism preclude voluntary communities?”
The reason is because you can’t logically be the owner of something and also have some community leader or community cause that overrides your authority (not to mention that only individuals can own something).
For example, in the voluntary communities you have in mind, could the community decide to set aside some land for a public park for the communities’ kids? Well, then, you’ve just granted the premise for national borders and a monopoly use of force to protect “public land”, since size isn’t going to be the issue.
If it applies to a park, it logically applies to states and nations.
Another example: Can the voluntary communities you envision make arrangements, on behalf of the community, with other such communities? Then you’ve just logically conceded the justification for global government, since the community is speaking for its members.
And it will be said, as it is said all the time in defense of socialist governments, that the community members agreed to the “social contract”.
This is why I say that the concept of multiple owners of something justifies all the horrors of communism.
You are attempting to deny the possibility of Incorporated entities. A group of individuals can make contract between themselves and assign some or all of their property to be subject to that contract. Since the contract could in principle be anything, one possibility is the creation of an incorporated entity with rules for government.
Yes, if husband and wife can jointly own a house and lock their front door, then several dozen people can make a contract between themselves to create a mutual border around their land and exclusively allow internal transit for some people and not others (as per whatever they agree upon). It is private land that has been allocated to a governance committee based on contractual agreement. No difference to Microsoft corporate headquarters which is jointly privately owned and can exclude non-employees.
After that it’s only a question of how this scales up. Size does matter in practice because there’s a trust threshold where with a large enough group of people these governance committees get out of hand and the power to conrol them is too diffuse, plus the ability to monitor what they are up to gets too difficult. However, size does not change the principle of the mutual agreement.
There are some questions open, for example when new children are born do they agree with the contract? Probably doesn’t matter since they don’t own any property… but might matter if this contract also requires other rules, etc.
“You are attempting to deny the possibility of Incorporated entities. A group of individuals can make contract between themselves and assign some or all of their property to be subject to that contract.”
A person can make a contract with an individual, not a collective, since only individuals can act; And as long as I’m the owner of something, any authority that anyone else could have over it can only logically be delegated authority, and as soon as I withdraw the delegated authority, any contract I made with any individual is void and I retain my property – it does not belong to any so-called collective.
(Of course, if I’ve received goods or services from an individual while under contract, I will have to compensate him according to the contract, otherwise I’m a thief.)
“Yes, if husband and wife can jointly own a house and lock their front door, then several dozen people can make a contract between themselves …”
I realize this, which is why I reject the premise.
“… where with a large enough group of people these governance committees get out of hand and the power to conrol them is too diffuse …”
I submit that what is actually being attempted in “controlling them” is the violation of the individuals’ right to withdraw delegated authority while retaining property that was never given to another individual or to a collective.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you concede all the justification that is needed for statism, depending on what you mean by “community bylaws”.
You are totally, utterly and completely wrong. “Community bylaws” are CONTRACTS which the parties have entered into freely. And they are enforceable. How does a prohibition on the initiation of force prohibit voluntary contracts? . There is no murder, pillage, rape or theft with private property and no lying with contracts. If there is no murder, pillage, rape, theft or lying about one’s obligations, how is that a “justification for statism”?
The reason is because you can’t logically be the owner of something and also have some community leader or community cause that overrides your authority (not to mention that only individuals can own something).
Of course you can. You could have a condominium association with mutual reciprocal easements where the bylaws prohibit certain activities and which nominate certain individuals or firms as dispute arbitrators. I worked for an attorney in the 80s who bought some rural land and set up a condominium campground/trailer park. There is nothing new or bizarre such an arrangement or about real estate law. In fact, basic common law principles already assume the NAP as applied to personal safety, personal property and real property. The libertarian NAP simply abolishes all of the various exceptions. We are not re-creating the wheel here and most people ALREADY live according to the principles of the NAP in their everyday lives, as MF has explained on multiple occasions to LK.
“How does a prohibition on the initiation of force prohibit voluntary contracts?”
It’s not a valid contract if it’s made with a collective, since only individuals can act.
Separate contracts must be made between each individual.
Once you grant the premise that contracts can be made with collectives – even when the collective is comprised of willing individuals – the argument can be made that the “collective” owns such and such piece of land, and your mere presence on that land obligates you to adhere to the owner’s instructions.
“There is nothing new or bizarre such an arrangement or about real estate law.”
This is not impressive because legalese is not going to be relevant to whether or not such arrangements violate individual rights.
“You could have a condominium association with mutual reciprocal easements where the bylaws prohibit certain activities and which nominate certain individuals or firms as dispute arbitrators.”
So what happens, in your view, when an individual withdraws his consent to reciprocate? A form of Eminent Domain kicks in?
So what happens, in your view, when an individual withdraws his consent to reciprocate? A form of Eminent Domain kicks in?
In a condominium situation, I assume the various sanctions for violations would be included in the by-laws which are part of the purchase contract. Perhaps the violator could be evicted and a forced sale would occur. Or a repeated violator might simply lose his investment. This is all nothing more than a “problem” of good contract drafting, something with which you apparently have no familiarity.
I’m sorry but this “critique” is reminiscent of “Philippe” challenging the meaning of well-known concepts and words. Obfuscation where there is nothing to obfuscate.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/09/privatize-the-borders.html#comment-976354
“… challenging the meaning of well-known concepts and words. Obfuscation where there is nothing to obfuscate.”
Your “well-known concepts and words” are legalese, which is irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter that everyone thinks a contract is legitimate if the law says it is.
America has had to deal with more than a century of laws which are not legitimate.
Again, legalese doesn’t help your argument.
“In a condominium situation, I assume the various sanctions for violations would be included in the by-laws which are part of the purchase contract.”
If you’re purchasing something, bylaws don’t apply to you since you’re the new owner.
Either you own the condo or you don’t. If your use of the condo is subject to a contract, then either you don’t really own it, or you’re delegating authority as part of a trade WHILE STILL retaining the right, as owner, to withdraw that delegated authority, compensating the other party for any services rendered, or the like.
You’re not obligated to remain under contract; You have to repay anything that you received under contract, but otherwise, you don’t stop being the owner.
If you’re purchasing something, bylaws don’t apply to you since you’re the new owner.
That’s nonsense.
A deed restriction (also known as a RESTRICTIVE COVENANT), is a provision in a deed that limits what can be built on a property, or how that property can be used. Deed restrictions “RUN WITH THE LAND,” meaning they apply to all future owners of the property, not just the person who owns it when the restriction is adopted. The origins of these restrictions can vary. Maybe the property is located in a neighborhood with an active homeowner’s association that created the restrictions, or in a historic urban neighborhood where restrictions have been in place for years, or in a rural area where two neighboring farmers made a deal 100 years ago that is still in force.
Wherever they come from, the scope of what deed restrictions can control might shock you.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/buying-home/10-deed-restrictions.htm
“Deed restrictions “RUN WITH THE LAND,” meaning they apply to all future owners of the property …”
That could only be legitimate if a specific individual owns the land, in which case the one who builds a house on that property is not the owner of the land or the house.
Owners are not subject to bylaws. Owners, by definition – not by any legalese definition, as such – have absolute and exclusive right to use something so long as it doesn’t violate the rights of another.
“… or in a rural area where two neighboring farmers made a deal 100 years ago that is still in force.”
In force on whose authority, when either farmer dies?
Deals get their force from the authority of owners. Once the owner dies, the deal is void.
There’s nothing inherent in the land from which restrictions may be derived.
Also, what’s the difference between your two farmer scenario and the territorial monopolies of nations?
None, except size. A nation typically covers a larger territory. So what.
This is the argument that any socialist would use in defense of a nation’s ownership of land.
You are also fulfilling, precisely, the Conservative’s caricature of libertarians that Bob mentions and South Park lampooned.