The “political” debate between anarchocapitalism and limited government follows from much deeper, though undetected, disagreements. The most fundamental one is metaphysical: What kind of freedom does human nature allow — and to what extent is man unfree, or determined, in his actions? FULL ARTICLE by Moshe Kroy
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13960/political-freedom-and-its-roots-in-metaphysics/
Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics
Previous post: Is a Reduction in Unemployment the Key to US Economic Recovery?
Next post: History of Science: Whiggism Gone Wild
{ 93 comments }
Whatever its other merits, this article seems to make an elementary mistake in confusing Rothbard’s explanatory subjectivism about valuation in economics with moral subjectivism. Rothbard makes clear that he believes in both (i) objective moral norms that govern the use of force and (ii) objective moral norms relevant to the rest of life. He simply maintains that libertarianism as a political philosophy involves only (i); in doing so, he is not denying the reality of (ii). This general mistake on the part of the article is illustrated by the discussion of breach of contract, in which the difference between the question, “When does a promissory obligation?,” and the question, “Under what circumstances may force be used to compel someone to meet a promissory obligation?” is elided.
Question should have been “When is there a promissory obligation?”
Generally I find Hayek a better place to look for ‘limited government libertarianism’ or Whiggism (of the British variety, as he liked to call it) rather than Rand who’s objectivist theories are rather suspect.
Rothbard is for a one-size-fits-all style of anarcho-capitalism. David Friedman, on the other hand, has not laid down an objective morality framework, but rather recognizes that the market will decide morality. He also recognizes that an anarcho-capitalist society could easily degrade into a state if that’s what the demand was for. I think his views are more realistic and representative of history.
I think that what Rothbard discusses is prior to what you attribute to Friedman. As Mises said, in order to change institutions, you must first change people’s mentality. It is this metality that Rothbard discusses as an anarchist. What is right or permissible (derived from natural law that is available and known to everyone by reflecting upon their own nature.) and what is not right. Thus in order to have a market that produces correct decisions, you must have a libertarian, or justly based mentality, that can lead to good market decisions. Menger points out that as societies progress, they produce fewer imaginary goods. Imaginary goods are things that we think will satisfy our needs but in fact do not (think snake oil). As society progresses, or rather in order that it can progress it must produce fewer imaginary goods and more consumer and/or producer goods. Thus people must change their metality towards the ideas that lead to imaginary goods (government would be an imaginary good to an anarchist) in order to convert the energy and resources wasted on government (producing imaginary goods) into the production of real consumer and producers goods. Friedman’s market anarchists will not produce the correct “moral decisions” without Rothbards correct mentality. If an anarchist society arises, it will not disintigrate without a prior change in mentality towards statist ideals.
George – if you can, can you point me to where david friedman discusses this please, I’d like to read it.
“He also recognizes that an anarcho-capitalist society could easily degrade into a state if that’s what the demand was for.”
He doesn’t say it in those exact words, but he recognizes that a market will provide what the customers want, and that is not necessarily libertarian values. You can read it in The Machinery of Freedom, which is now available online for free, legally (just search for it).
I think you may be confusing two different points:
1. I argue that the market for law will respond to consumer demand, hence that while there are reasons to expect people, on the whole, to want libertarian laws without necessarily being themselves libertarians, the market could provide non-libertarians laws—my example is a law against heroin—if opinion in favor of such laws is strong enough..
But that isn’t a case of anarcho-capitalism “degrading into a state.” It’s a case of anarcho-capitalism generating unjust laws. After all, you wouldn’t argue that the existence of some theft in an anarcho-capitalist society means it is no longer anarcho-capitalist.
2. I also discuss the possibility of anarcho-capitalism leading to a new state. But the argument there isn’t about what people want but about equilibrium in the rights enforcement industry. If you end up with a monopoly enforcement agency, or a number of agencies small enough to make a cartel agreement practical, the agency or agencies might convert into a state, not because that’s what the customers want but because that’s the best way of serving the objectives of the agency or agencies. That would presumably be harder if the population consisted of hard-core anarcho-capitalists—but I don’t assume that the population of an anarcho-capitalist society will consiste of hard-core anarcho-capitalists.
The wonders of the internet. This is like that scene in Annie Hall where Marshall Mcluhan appears from behind a screen to clarify his position and Woody Allen says “Boy, if only life were like this.”.
Or is criteria for what a -libertarian- A-C society would be are simply stricter than Friedman’s… Whatever the merits of Friedman’s work, Rothbard is better at developing the groundwork of a workable framework for an A-C society (see how many times I snuck “work” into there?
)
I was a libertarian until I read an article by Karl Rahner about the theology of power. We have power over each other because we can affect each others consciousness without their consent. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory, a completely arbitrary definition. Why should I follow it? The Catholic Church for example, in its wisdom, is in favor of compulsory child support laws. Since it was the Catholic Church that gave us Western Civilization, who qualifies to contradict the Church on this principle?
Rothbard’s principle also cannot be applied to all cases. Consider the following scenario: An armed robber comes to you and says,”Give me $1000 or I’ll burn your house.” You persuade him that you don’t have $1000. He then says,”Tell me where your richest neighbor lives, and I won’t burn your house and I”ll give you 10% of the loot.” A libertarian has no basis of deciding. A person who believes in God does: He will follow the ten commandments and his conscience.
The Catholic Church, like any other political organization, just makes it up as they go along. Organized religious groups and God’s word are never in line with one another. What makes any religious group the authority on the subject, especially when much of the support of those groups is in disagreement with the basic religious tennents it claims to support?
A libertarian has no basis of deciding. A person who believes in God does: He will follow the ten commandments and his conscience.
Seriously, David? A libertarian would decide based upon the non-aggression principle and his conscience. Why was that so difficult for you?
Oh, I forgot to respond to this nugget:
“He will follow the ten commandments and his conscience.”
So, you bring up the Catholic Church and this at the same time. Here are passage from Exodous 20:
3 Do not have any other gods before me.
This is a violation as the Church, not God, is being worshipped. Earthly religious groups also push individuals to worship the leader of the religion (the Pope for example) and frequently believe in the concept of the State, which it expects the followers to worship.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the Earth.
Again, huge violation of this commandment to bring up Catholic Church law. The Catholic Church is not God. Same goes with the State.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for hte iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
Whoops, you just damned your great grandchildren for worshipping the Church.
13 You shall not murder.
Oops
15 You shall not steal.
This sounds like taxation
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house…or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Oops, socialism
When you read the scripture (not listen to some blowhard in a church tell you what he thinks it means), it’s fairly clear that Christianity is libertarian.
It’s important to understand the history of Jesus and his sacrifice. Jesus did what he did as a protest to the Jewish temple system. He was appaled by the materialism that infected the Temples, he was disgusted by their decision that the Temple leaders were the political and Earthly authority over all people, he hated the corruption and how they constantly twisted the Old Testament to fit their own desired ends.
Jesus came and told his followers to reject all earthly authority and listend ONLY to the word of God. Tell me, how does the Catholic Church fit into all of this? It sounds just like the Temple system that Jesus fought and died to get people to reject.
“Since it was the Catholic Church that gave us Western Civilization, who qualifies to contradict the Church on this principle?”
It was the people of the West who gave us Western Civilization, not the Church. I have my doubts that the Church continues to support that civilization.
@ Beefcake
Tom Woods, a senior fellow at the Mises Institute literally wrote the book on the topic. You might want to check it out. It is entitled “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization”
@ J Murray
You might want to think about just exactly what the Word of God that you suggest Jesus tells His followers to listen to and the premises supporting Christianity before launching an attack on the Catholic Church.
I respect Tom Woods’ work, but he’s trying to square the circle here.
Tell me, what specific criticisms of Mr. Woods’ research and argument do you have? I like to think Austrians try to achieve logical consistency and avoid obvious impossibilities like “squaring the circle”.
According to Mises, the Church is/has been on all sides of any given issue, as a consequence of its massive imperial structure, world-wide (oft pragmatic) reach and internal diversity. I am assuming that Dr. Woods knew this even without consulting Mises. I wish I had a copy nearby to see how/if this is addressed. E.g. Liberation Theology and its exponents vs. traditionalists in the Church; examine LT activities in Central America over the past 60 years. An analogy (albeit cynical) would be with the US state apparati, the DEA and CIA. Certainly they are working against each other in Central America– one is ostensibly against the drug trade, the other, involved in it.
Calling Dr. Woods…
Diversity of opinion in the Church is a feature, not a bug. Even so, it is not true that “the Church is/has been on all sides of any given issue” since the Church does make official declarations which must be believed in order to be/remain a member. For such things, known as dogmas, there can be no diversity of opinion.
The issue gets complicated in areas, such as economics, where the Church has made no solemn pronouncements. Of course this is natural since Catholicism is a religion. Yet, though Mises sometimes held some very negative views towards the Church, Catholics like Dr. Woods and Jeffrey Tucker, as well as the founder of mises.org, Lew Rockwell, can appreciate both the Catholic religion and secular Austrian economic thinking without problem. Take the time to read Dr. Woods’ book and you will see that being a Catholic and Austrian is not such a ridiculous thing.
Ah, but the Church has indeed made pronouncements concerning property, etc., which necessarily has economic implications. Is there an issue that papal encyclicals have not covered? Though it is true that the Pope and his cadre set down inviolable dogma, how these dogmas are interpreted often vary greatly. In add, look at the uproar over Obama’s health bill. There was widespread open defiance of the US Council of Bishops on the matter. Or review Catholic activities during the Nazi conquer of Germany and Rome. Seems like some officials were into self and Church preservation while others acted like Christians willing to face the Emperor’s lions. Though these actions might have been commanded. I am not judging, just pointing out.
I did not say that economics is not compatible with the Church. God just needs to make it clearer to the Pope that the Austrians are right.
Encyclicals are not dogmatic. There are differing levels of teaching authority in the Church and the oft-cited Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno which are used to support the case that the Church is opposed to Capitalism both fall under the Ordinary (fallible) Magisterium. Also under this are the day to day teachings of bishops e.g. USCCB, actions or teachings by various prelates under various governments or wars etc.
Formal dogma has been solemnly declared only twice in the past 156 years by the Church. Both cases relate to the status of Mary. These definitions and declarations do not, as you say, admit great variance in interpretation.
Of course when the pope speaks under the fallible “ordinary magisterium”, Catholics pay special attention. However, it is doubtful that the Church would ever pronounce dogmatically on Austrian economics since that is not, in itself, a religious issue.
Thanks for the clarification on the encyclicals. I did not know of these stipulations.
Mises Blog rocks. I learn something every time I drop in. I like how so many things are challenged- and so often in a quality way.
Interesting article–I tend more towards Rothbard than Rand, I guess. I don’t believe that you can contract yourself into slavery. George is right to point out that there might be other options than Rand or Rothbard for libertarian metaphysics, but they do seem to be the major camps.
“For a Rothbardian, though, a promise does not create an obligation. A promise is a declaration of an intended action, or a declaration of a present decision to do something in the future. It has no moral significance beyond that. The same fundamental freedom of choice that makes it possible for you to promise makes it possible for you, later, to cancel the promise. You cannot be sued for canceling promises.”
Even a 5-year old knows what a “promise” is, and it is not merely “a declaration of intended action”. If one is not prepared to pay attention to the meanings that are attached to words by the overwhelming majority of a society, then one has no business attempting to elucidate principles by which that society should comport itself or govern itself. For a social “system” to even qualify to be called such, it must have certain common denominators of definition and meaning. A promise may well be a declaration of intended action, but it is clearly a declaration whose main intent is to induce others to rely on it.
Um, that is exactly what a promise is…
I disagree Gurrie, promises are generally contingent upon other conditions in order to occur. I can make a promise that I’ll give you 100$ in a week, but if I lose my job and am now unable to give you 100$ I did nothing wrong, as long as I give you back whatever you gave me in exchange.
The meaning or likelihood you would believe a promise is going to be fulfilled is based much more on your knowledge of the person and trust they have gained than the word they have used in the conversation.
I may receive a “promise” from someone to pay me back in a week, but if it’s a friend who normally takes 2 months, I’m not going to believe him based on history regardless of what he told me
Matthew, you are trying to decorate the word “promise” with what are generally known as “conditions” (facts which must exist before a promise becomes binding) or “excuses” (facts which have occurred to prevent the fulfillment of the promise). This is what courts of law are for — to decide whether or not the promise was unconditionally binding in the first place, or whether there was a subsequent valid excuse for not fulfilling the promise. Neither of these changes the fact that an unconditioned promise is supposed to be kept, not broken. As to a friend who takes two months when promising a week, I wouldn’t sue him or her, but I would certainly bring to mind the old saying “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”.
Trying to defend state on moral grounds is like trying to defend mafia. Fundamental difference between ancaps and minarchist is much simpler and less cloudy than this long wall of text suggest and it is more consistent adherence to NAP – ancaps are called voluntaryist for a reason. Also it does not follow from Rands philosophy that we need violent monopoly over provision and upholding of law – just that we need law and police. Notice I said Rands philosophy not Rand herself.
I think a lot of minarchists, like myself, have concerns about government’s tendencies to expand its mission, unintended consequences, tendency towards nationalism and militarism but we find anchro capitalism daunting because it starts with so few “givens”. For example; I enjoy private property. I am willing to defend it myself but I do enjoy the benefits of knowing where it starts and ends.
By the way as 25 year business owner I agree that contracts do tend to be more about intended action than commitment. People do change their minds and businesses usually make allowances for that possibility.
What an outstanding article. This is an issue I have responded to recently, started by Huerta De Soto’s article on the favorability of anarchocapitalism. http://mises.org/daily/3791
I agree the debate will never end as long as there are those willing to engage in it, but most of the points made in this article and this blog are really settled issues of contract law. Principles of contract law are derived from the natural laws of property, and beneath that layer is the key question posed by this author:
“… What kind of freedom does human nature allow — and to what extent is man unfree, or determined, in his actions?” As a society, we ultimately determine the answer to this question. As individuals, we decide what we accept, change, or flee.
There seems to be those who view anarchocapitalism as the ultimate state of an enlightened society, and even if it were to ever be established, it runs the constant risk of “degenerating” into statism. However, I think it is no exaggeration to say that capitalism would be impossible to support beyond a primitive “barter” system without a framework of property and contract law. The ability to know when a promise becomes an enforceable commitment is fundamental to capitalism. And if a contract is enforceable, then there has to be a system of enforcement, with some form of coercion as a necessary element of that enforcement. Otherwise, it would be necessary to forego the development of higher levels of social organizations, human nature being what it is; we would merely be trading one compromise of individual freedom for another.
If the principle of non-aggression prevents any form of direct enforcement beyond “shunning”, then the time-frame within which the means of production may operate are very short indeed. A capitalist will not work for a year to build a factory merely to find that upon delivery, the buyer has changed his mind. Therefore, the desirability of higher forms of social organization seems like a given, and therefore both contract and property law and commensurate enforcement. Otherwise, we would be living in a world where it is everyone for himself, which is, I think, rightly or wrongly, the popular interpretation of anarchism
So, the fundamental question is, as the author points out, “how free is free?”
By way of analogy, we may debate the optimal size of a farm and conclude that 100 acres run by a family is more productive per acre than 10,000 acres run by a corporation-factory, but we need not conclude therefore that the family farm should also have no fences, should not disturb the wild animals that compete for the crops, etc. Just how free should the farmer be if he has any impact on his neighbors in pursuit of his own property interests? This is not a debate of the details, it is a metaphysical question. Are we connected or not? If so, we must compromise perfect independence at the margins of cooperation. Fundamentally, it is a free exchange, assuming we are free to choose.
Anarchocapitalism is not a perfect system of social organization. It is not even popular. There are no meaningful historical examples. It is as like debating whether a person with five hands is a superior model to the two-handed variety in abundance; an attribute of “market acceptance” on an evolutionary scale. The question is, it seems to me, not how many hands are optimal, but rather what is the optimal purpose for the hands we possess? Therefore, the problem is not one of resolving the question of whether libertarianism is a higher form of organizing principle than anarchocapitalism, or whether one is contradictory to the other at the margins of social organization, but rather how can the principles of fundamental libertarianism be applied to acceptable change from the direction the status quo is leading us to an alternative vision, such that it “catches on” and becomes a driving force in the market of ideas and among organizing principles?
If we were somehow able to begin incremental, transitional change today, and each day we saw realistic evidence that it was progressing, how long would it take before it was necessary to grapple with the question of that final, ultimate form of perfection? From an evolutionary sense, it is a meaningless debate. Even so, there would be plenty of time for speculation as we got closer to our goals. What is meaningful is to set our minds to the task of popularizing those fundamental principles of individual freedom and smaller, less intrusive government that can drive a natural, evolutionary change in the history of the American experiment, (not to ignore our European brothers, Professor De Soto). We have lost our way. Much of what is gathered here (LVM) is sufficient to remake our course. The questions are how, when, who, and with what catalysts of change?
to wildberry:
you really should check out these benson papers: http://mises.org/journals/jls/10_1/10_1_4.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE5_1_2.pdf
i believe they address most of your questions.
newsom,
OK, I’ll check this out, but how about a hint? It appears you think I’m uninformed in my view, but how about throwing me a bone? What do you think the problem is with what I wrote?
“primitive” societies had sophisticated legal structures. lack of state doesn’t signify lack of order. just different control-mechanisms.
Newsom,
OK, I checked them out. Although I didn’t read the entire articles, I see that they are about natural law. They seem to merely make the point that natural law arises from dispute resolution among a people. In each case, it appears, the society in question developed its own system of enforcement. The fact that there are alternatives to the enforcement schemes does not change the basic premise; natural laws exist and the legal system of a society builds upon these natural laws. For example, the first law of property is the law of capture; the first person to exert dominion and control of property owns it. Sounds libertarian, doesn’t it?
There is a name for the process of building upon natural law through a history of specific cases of dispute resolution; Common Law. That is not to say that the mechanisms that evolve for the enforcement of natural law cannot be usurped to enforce “un-natural law”, i.e. legislation.
So, the enforcement of natural law is not the issue, nor is the existence of natural law. It is the enforcement of statism through the enforcement of legislative laws which violate natural law, i.e. fractional reserve banking, etc.
A change towards a natural law governmental system requires that the purpose of legislation be re-directed based on an articulated set of principles and values. For example, any monopolistic legislation should be overturned. That would result in a more natural form of capitalism and the application of natural laws (which are much simpler, by the way) to dispute resolution.
That’s the way I see it. How about you?
yes. i disagree only as to the means. i don’t see that change is going to happen primarily through the political avenue. i believe that the positive work of this site and ron paul is to educate those unhappy with the orthodox teaching of economics and political science.
newson,
I suspect this thread is getting stale, so there is a good possibility you might not see this final post, but just in case, I have a question about what you mean.
Suppose you, this site and Ron Paul are wildly successful in the endeavor to “educate those unhappy with the orthodox teaching of economics and political science.” What then? Wouldn’t we be right back to the question of the most appropriate mechanism for change? You appear to be a subscriber to the non-aggression principle, so you can’t be talking coupe…
Whatever you have in mind, if it would be appropriate to use that mechanism after everyone became enlightened, wouldn’t it be desirable to take a bite at the apple now?
It seems to me that your position absolves you of any personal responsibility to be an agent of the change you believe in. How does that help?
Well said, Wildberry. I particularly liked your closing statement that we should set our minds to the task of popularizing fundamental principles of individual freedom. To do this, we must first recognize and admit that a great deal of the private wealth and private property that exists today was acquired using statist powers. Land grants, railroad franchises, manufacturing protectionism, tariffs, government contracts, favored tax treatment, and on and on have been the rule throughout the history of even the relatively free United States. Corporate welfare is rampant and vastly outstrips all other forms of welfare. It seems to me that our first task has to be to convince our own, our brethren who are blessed with entrepreneurial tendencies and skills, that one cannot lead others away from the trough if one is feasting there right along with the others. Free markets are more efficient and more moral, but to make them popular, it would be necessary to approach the process of educating others with what the law calls “clean hands”.
Great post Gurrie although I’m not sure I’d say corporate welfare vastly outstrips all other forms of welfare. However, I definitely agree that we who believe in free markets and entrepreneurship would make a more effective case to others if we were more vocal in showing that capitalism and legal maneuvers by business to secure tariffs, subsidies, contracts, favorable laws etc. are incompatible.
Jordan, I will meekly admit that I have no statistical back-up for my hyperbole about corporate welfare. I guess I just get more exercised about it because most of the recipients are not “needy” and are merely taking advantage of their competitors and potential competitors, both foreign and domestic. What I had in mind generally, though, is the fact that government contracting in areas such as defense and road building is often skewed to favor people who may or may not be good at their jobs but are virtually always good at playing the game of politics. In my mind, this gives it some of the earmarks of corporate welfare. The biggest playground of all is banking. The list of subsidies given in this arena is so extensive, I don’t even want to get started in this short post. All I guess I am trying to say is that one of the main reasons that common sense does not prevail in the economic sphere is that the people who should be making the case against government interference are often the very ones who used their power to start it in the first place, and did so for their own benefit.
Thanks Gurie, Isn’t it ironic that if we presume that the road leading away from serfdom is smaller government, particularly in those types of interventions you mention, that the mechanisms to accomplish that are those in the state itself. One blessing that stands above all others, in my mind, is that in America, we are given the constitutional tools to make this change. That one freedom is absent in so many other governmental forms accross the world. Yet we have one of the lowest voter participation levels of any civilized country, and the general knowledge and awareness of the average voting-age citizen is dismal. If this is the way it is, any serious agenda for change must begin with where we are. I take some measure of hope from the Tea Party movement, because they are bringing to the national dialogue some fundamental principles which are consistent with the libertarian/Austrian view. Just because they are not equiped, perhaps, to debate “pure” libertarianism v. anarchocapitalism doesn’t mean they can’t see why larger, more intrusive government, in cahoots with unions and certain corporations, is hurting them. They are saying “NO” to the status quo, but the time is ripe to fill in the details of “what’s next”. They don’t have to eat everything on the menu to contribute their support to a vision that is founded on a different set of values for self-governance. Wouldn’t that be worthwhile? I think so.
I sadly cannot contribute such value to this chain, but thought I would say what a very informative and interesting thread this: I’m keenly awaiting the next instalments. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is learning a lot from this exchange!
Gurrie,
While I agree that what you say is true, a voluntary sacrifice by those who have benefited from the statist systems they helped create and support is not a reasonable expectation.
I think change will come because the forces of coercion that work today will not work tomorrow because of a fundamental change in consumer preferences, and alternative principles of organization.
As with all entrepreneurs, the first principle is the ability to understand and/or create demand for something you can produce. Next comes filling that demand. In this way, markets that didn’t exist can grow very rapidly, what some authors have called the “tornado effect”.
Isn’t that what we’re talking about here? Anyway, that’s what I’m talking about.
Re-read the article – if Moshe is correct about Rothbard, Murray wasn’t saying that a contract was unenforceable, only that violation of the contract required a different form of restitution than Rand would require. So someone who takes a year to build a factory won’t be at a loss from a contract violation–they would merely hold a different asset, instead of the expected one.
I’m not against incrementalism per se, but without a clear understanding of the final goal, incrementalism is too easily overturned or compromised. Minarchism has a problem in suggesting the final goal.
Michael,
Holding the asset you expect is the purpose of a contract. In contract law, a promise is enforceable upon an offer, acceptance and sufficient consideration. The existence of that premise enables capitalism. It is the basis for a right to have specific expectations in business dealings. Also, FYI, criminal proceedings do not recover damages to the victim, but only impose penalties on the perpetrator. Big difference.
On your final goal comment, it is not necessary to arrive “there” in order to improve things “here”. Any change in the right direction is desirable. It is an evolutionary vision, not revolutionary.
I find it hard to believe that so many words have been devoted to this Rand/Rothbard (order is alphabetical, not of preference) difference, which in practical effect is, I suspect, of minimal significance. I am aware that Rand and Rothbard had some major differences, but my sense is that they weren’t really metaphysical. I never thought it would happen, but I think this article may have turned me into an objectivist–I have hitherto been tending more to the Rothbard side. Weird! Go figure, as one of my good friends likes to say…
This article is one one of the biggest wanks I think I’ve ever read. Now I understand that AnCaps & Minarchists love to engage in collective navel-gazing – enuf of that goes on here to prove that several times over – but this article goes head-long into it.
The root problem is in trying to prove Political Freedom from Metaphysics. I would’ve thought that a Philosophy professor, knowing what Philosophy, both eastern & western, has done to Metaphysics, would have more brains than to try that one on! What did Kant do to metaphysics? Have you got an answer for him, such that the subject of your article has any meaning whatsoever? No? Didn’t think so….
Read Van Til. End of section.
The difference is as clear as objectivism versus subjectivism!
Thank you for this great artifcle. I’d not before heard a clear explanation of the philosophocal difference between minarchists and anarchists. This article helps a lot in clarifying my understanding, not only of the differences, but of myself.
In public school I was taught that our society was based upon an ‘implied contract’ between those governing and those governed. Although we today never agreed to this contract, the contract had been signed by implication with the acceptance of our Constitution and lived forever after.
It was not until I had had several children, during which time the subject of abortion rights were hotly debated publicly, that I had very serious second thoughts on this subject. In those days doctors in Catholic hospitials would decide to save the baby even if it required sacrifying the mother, and most other doctors assumed great and total authority over the birthing process, very othen at considerable pain and/or cost to the mother. Does a government ever have such a right? Under what circumstances could this be justified? In those days Protestant Churchs and society as a whole (other than Catholics) believed and defined life as beginning only after a live birth. After some years of experience I came to a very strongly held opposite decision. No government, society, or person other than myself ever has any rights over my body. In no way, ever.
I suppose that the laws at that time derived from the ancient Roman’s practice of placing the right of life over all dependents in the head-of-household. Further, during the early days of our country, there were public and legal disucssion and decision that larger numbers of children were beneficial for the growth of the country, and particularly of farming families. I do not find any justification for todays laws against abortion in any country or religion.
This was only the first of many decisions and experiences. Today I’m rather amazed that anyone would ever agree to live by someone else’s decisions when they are believed to be against one’s own choices.
The problem is simple, cryptocode. If you define life as beginning only after a live birth and that a fetus is somehow not a human prior to that, then yes, abortion would merely be a matter of rights over ones own body.
However, if you believe a fetus is a human life, then abortion is not justifiable as it violates the rights of another person. Ron Paul has written at length on the topic of libertarianism and abortion if you are interested.
It still isn’t that simple. If you believe that life begins in the womb, you still have the mother’s life to consider. By forcing her to have a child against her will, you are saying the child’s life is > than the mother’s life. Not simple. That is why the choice, like all choices, is best left to the individuals involved.
Yes you have the life of the mother to consider which is why even the Church allows treatment to save the mother’s life which may kill the fetus. In the vast majority of cases where the mother’s life is NOT in jeopardy, it is simple. If life begins in the womb, it would not be permissible to have abortions arbitrarily.
Please excuse me. I was not attempting to define the origin of life, merely to give an example of the belief in objective truths leading to totalitarianism of one person (a doctor) over the life of another (choose either mother or child or both). Further down that road, Hitler forced young women to become pregnant and give birth. Personally I don’t know when life starts, nor the definition of life. (Consider the rocks which spawn a type of algae.) Does human life begin only when a soul inhabits the body, as I was taught as a child? And when is that?
Today I am unwilling to suscribe to the existatnce of objective truths. There are statements which many, or the majority of people in an area agree upon. But such agreement does not make them a truth, and to accept such a political agreement as truth constitutes only a statement of political power. Subjective truths have great reality for the subject, and the number of people in agreement with such a truth is irrevelant to it’s quality of truth.
For a community to function, even an anarcho-libertarian community, there needs to be at least a minimum of agreements on ‘facts’. For example, the meaning of words in a vocabulary, the names of objects, etc. Business agreements also will need to be made. But agreement on objective reality and religious reality is not at all necessary to the community as a whole. You are comfortable with all you beliefs and opinions, but please do not require either my agreement or conformity.
I agree that a doctor has no rights over the life of the woman or the (disputed) life of a fetus. I also agree that truth is not subject to the sanction of the democratic process. But that is not the argument I am making.
As for your assertion that there is no objective truth, why assert it if you do not believe that very statement to be objectively true? If your lack of belief in “the existence of objective truths” is subjective, then what’s the point of asserting it?
You imply that I am comfortable with my beliefs and opinions. That is not true. Neither do I “require” your agreement or conformity as I am not the moderator in this forum. However, if you want to push relativistic epistemology, you are probably in the wrong site.
Wow! Thanks for this article.
According to Moshe Kroy, Rothbard follows subjectivism “in the sense that the subject, not the external facts, is assumed to be the source, or generator of values.” Here “the principle of individual rights…[is]…established by reflection on the implications of man’s metaphysical nature: as a fundamentally free agent.”
It seems to me that just as Rand provides an objective basis for morality, so does Rothbard by the philosophy that he asserts. In other words, both provide an objective basis, although their metaphysical views differ. Isn’t it the case that establishing a guide for society requires a conceptual foundation, that claims to be objective, in order to apply universally?
It seems to me that the difference only seems to exist because of an unnecessarily divisive assumption.
And that is that the libertarianism is based upon certain “rights”.
It may be that one can define libertarianism so, but to the extent one does, it is not in my opinion, based on the truth. And I’m afraid I am only interested in libertarianism insofar as it is a statement or presentation of reality, the truth.
Surely reality is what one should seek?
“Rights” are not concerned with the truth so much as to “what I can hang on to”. The search for truth has broken down.
If one redefines the search as based on looking for reality, which includes the realisation that a collectivist unit is an unreal concept and thus simply untrue, one stands more of a chance to find the underlying reality we are looking for.
Sure, one needs the legal structures you discuss in order to exist with each other.
But I don’t think these should really be divisive as long as one conforms to common sense and mercy in their conceptualisation and application.
You may decide the cup is half full which is fine as long as you don’t mind me calling it half empty.
That’s a very well thought out post Wildberry. My son and I have this discussion often. I texted him and told him to read your post. Mises definitely agrees with you as does Hayek (who was not treated too well at this year’s Mises University (it was definitely a Rothbardian year)) as does Bastiat, Spencer; not so much.
I like the philosophy of Rothbard and the practicality of the minarchists. Maybe it is a little like Catholicism, Rothbard being the ideal condition but Hayek, Mises and Bastiat being as close as we can get. Perhaps that sounds too much like pragmatism, and we all know where that leads.
Thank you John.
In my mind, pragmatism leads to success and survival, both beautiful things.
or it can lead to bush, the “neo-liberal”. ideals of minimal receive lip-service only, and enemies of freedom can easily damage the brand image of laissez-faire. see the post on reagan.
taking a radical stand on statism is likely to excite more to a movement than arguments about what size is legitimate for imposed governance. de-legitimization is an important tactical strategy to reduce the size of government.
where i’m from, “neo-liberal” means neo-laissez-faire.
“I was a libertarian until I read an article by Karl Rahner about the theology of power. We have power over each other because we can affect each others consciousness without their consent. Libertarians define power in terms of utility theory, a completely arbitrary definition. Why should I follow it? The Catholic Church for example, in its wisdom, is in favor of compulsory child support laws. Since it was the Catholic Church that gave us Western Civilization, who qualifies to contradict the Church on this principle?”
David, you allowed one article to change you from a libertarian…to what? A socialist? Communist? Fascist? Progressive? Democrat? Republican?
David, IMHO the Catholic Church did not give us Western civilization. Much of what is good about Western civilization did derive from the wisdom of Jesus, but the Catholic Church is not the exclusive fountain of Jesus’ wisdom. In fact in some respects, particularly since its amalgamation with the Roman Empire, the Church’s teaching and the examples set by it hierarchical clergy seem contrary to the teaching and way of life that Jesus led. As one simple example: I noticed the magnificent and obviously very expensive robes the pope wore during his recent “state” visit to Scotland and England, and the same was the case with the cardinals who accompanied him. Catholic clergymen–there are no women clergy–from the pope on down are generally called “father” by those of lower hierarchical rank. This does not seem to square at all with the wisdom of Jesus explicated in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 23:
“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.”
David, I hope you will consider resuming your libertarian status. It is not inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Nor, IMHO, is being a libertarian incompatible with being a Catholic, as long as you don’t take everything uttered by its clergy as the word of God. After all, it is the ROMAN Catholic Church, and much of what Rome stood for is incompatible with both the way of Jesus, whom Rome murdered, and the way of libertarians.
This is my first visit to this blog and I am a recent student of libertarianism. Thanks for your input regarding the Catholic Church’s influence on Western Civilization. I was beginning to feel like the lone non-Catholic reader and appreciate your take on Jesus’ teachings relative to libertarian philosophy. Some of the earlier comments were so “out there” in terms of the role the Catholic Church plays in culture, that it was a little frightening to me to listen to peoples’ take on what the “church” teaches versus what the bible teaches. That’s all I’ll say for now.
It’s all well and good to have your opinion on whether the Catholic Church built Western Civilization; the idea that it has, however, is a fairly well defended thesis by some prominent figures here. It’d probably be a good idea to read up on the matter before commenting.
The hierarchy and its historical basis in the early Christian church are well known to anyone who has studied patristics. You may not agree with the early Christians but they had already established a hierarchy including bishops and deacons as early as the late first century as the text known as the “Didache” attests. Such a text was so close to the time of the composition of the Gospels (particularly John) that it was considered for inclusion into what would eventually become the Bible.
As an institution, the Catholic Church might not have been the only source of Jesus’ teachings but for all intents and purposes it was the only source Western Europe until the Reformation. Other than the Catholic Church, you have the Orthodox Church(es) as the source(s) in Eastern Europe and the Coptic Church in Egypt.
As for the charge of the Catholic Church and the use of the title “Father”, a quick search of any elementary Catholic apologetic work answers that objection. A proper objection, IMHO, should include such apologies for the practice.
Finally, I’ll just assume that your equivocation of Roman Catholic Church with what (presumably pagan) Rome stood for was tongue in cheek. The Roman Catholic Church, for those who might have been misled, is known as such because the Bishop of Rome is its leader (the Pope). To suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is incompatible with the ways of Jesus or of libertarians is to ignore not only Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell’s opinion on the matter but also non-Catholics like Rothbard and quite probably Mises himself. None of these men are infallible by any means though it should give one indication to proceed carefully in criticizing the Church.
So are you implying that the Reformation had no influence on Western Civilization? Your comments reflect your own ignorance of the vast differences between beliefs and teachings in the Protestant churches compared with the Catholic “hierarchy’s” teachings. I won’t even begin to delve into the details other than to say that one of the most fundamental differences is the lack of dependence upon the hierarchy for spiritual guidance and understanding. Protestant churches encourage all believers to study scripture for themselves and do not pretend that only the anointed hierarchy can discern biblical truth. So, your arrogant response to me reflects your own ignorance of teachings outside the Catholic Church. From my perspective, that is frightening for reasons that you cannot appreciate.
No I am not implying that. The Reformation certainly had an enormous impact on Western Civilization. However, my reply was to Ned, not you Julie.
No doubt Protestant churches tend to encourage personal interpretation of scripture judging by the fact there are thousands of Protestant denominations out there. Sorry to hear you are so frightened but you should probably allay your fears of Catholics at a specifically Catholic forum (e.g. Catholic.com) where there are plenty of people willing to hear you out and discuss these issues with you.
I am not afraid of Catholics. Some of the teaching and the hierarchy is foreign to me and also a bit fascinating in that so many educated people accept it. From a libertarian point of view, I would think that the concept of the hierarchy would be offensive as it implies dependence upon other flawed human beings for direction on the application and interpretation of scripture. I am not trying to offend Catholics, and I apologize If I have done so. Some of the comments on this blog sounded as though the Catholic Church was the only legitimate church and it sparked a reaction in me based upon my own understanding of scripture.
Jordan: Nice selection of obscure evidence to bolster an opinion! The Didache.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
You’re likely to be aware that in the early second century there was no unanimity on the point of Christian church hierarchies. The Didache is an interesting testament to the fact that some felt a hierarchy would be necessary. But probably a majority of Christians arranged themselves in covens, groups of about twelve worshippers among whom the duties of officiating the service, giving the Sacrament and giving the reading rotated. This was due to their extreme beliefs that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord.
But religion itself was decidedly not standardized. This was a period where the policy throughout the Roman Empire was to “let a hundred flowers bloom”, and the proliferation of every kind of sect was being encouraged. The early Christians very quickly did become the object of unwelcome official intention because belief in this one religion undercut and marginalized political allegiance to Rome.
Nonetheless there were places like early Alexandria where church fathers existed, and spent quite a lot of their energies anathematising those who believed differently than they. There’s a word, in fact, for those gangs of monks who went around menacing schismatic groups of Christian, Gnostics or other religious factions, burning their churches, pulling the hair of deacons, rending their garments, etc. The word escapes me for the moment.
Ultimately, the epitome of this kind of bishop was Cyril, who suggested to the mob of monks that they flay Hypatia alive, using clamshells as their weapon of choice. With her died the idea of pagan classical scholarship. It’s as good a place as any to say that here the flame went out and the Dark Ages began.
But that’s several centuries up ahead. In the first century following Christ’s death, most early Christians were so egalitarian that men and women were equally considered able to preside over services. And no man or woman was above any other. That’s why the Roman establishment was so hell bent on killing them in devilishly inventive ways. They were largely non-hierarchical heretics, believing only Jesus to be master.
I would incline to the camp that sees the development of the traditional Church as being originated by Constantine, when he decided upon Christianity as being the official state religion. More a patron than a founder, he still set the stage where his imprimatur encouraged ambitious Romans to use the new structure to subjugate the souls of the susceptible. But that’s just my gloss on things. Another way of saying it would be that under Constantine, “religious practises were formalized”.
I realize you were not directing your comments to me, nevertheless, thank you for interjecting an interesting take on certain relevant aspects of early church history. It provided a more pleasant and less biased approach than either myself or Jordan were able to convey. Have a great day.
Michael, certainly the Didache is not obscure to anyone familiar with the history of early Christianity; though I would certainly admit that it is not general knowledge. And certainly the Didache is not speaking of a hierarchy of the Roman system of religion (where the Emperor was mandated to be a god) but rather the hierarchy in the early Christian church.
It is rather telling that you cite examples of “hair pulling” and tearing up clothes in your critique of the supposedly authoritarian Alexandrian church along with the mob murder of a pagan while omitting the far more bloodthirsty persecution of Christians by the pagans. Even more telling is your risible conflation of the so-called “Dark Ages” with Christianity. Historical scholarship has moved far beyond Gibbon in case you haven’t been keeping up.
As to your assertion that the Romans persecuted the Christians because Christianity raised the status of women … completely ridiculous. The Romans persecuted Christians because the latter would not worship Roman gods. In general, the Romans cared little about the religious practices of people as long as those practices could be assimilated into the Roman religious system. Christianity, along with Judaism, could not.
Jordan: I see you’ve picked a few threads of my narrative loose, from which to manufacture tiny nits for picking. But my point was not that the reason Christians were persecuted was because they felt females were equal before God. It was rather because “no man or woman was above any other… They were largely non-hierarchical heretics, believing only Jesus to be master.” Which to the Romans was lese majeste.
You put it only slightly differently when you sum up: “In general, the Romans cared little about the religious practices of people as long as those practices could be assimilated into the Roman religious system. Christianity, along with Judaism, could not.”
Also, my comment about the pulling of hair and the rending of garments was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, a great fault of mine. More material would be the fact that the early Alexandrine church (2nd-3rd century AD) was already trying members of other religions (Non-Christian gnostic sects) for heresy and banishing them to the western deserts: in those days, a death sentence. The impulse toward religious totalitarianism was pronounced.
A very popular leader of the day was one of the people named Simon (late first century), this one a proselytizer of life and joy, as opposed to the gloom-and-doom religious view so much in fashion, emphasizing this life of unremitting pain in opposition to the eternal joys heavenly kingdom. Simon said we should go forth and multiply, and be thankful for our blessings. He preached the gospel of joy and celebration.
But he made the mistake of proclaiming himself as being another Messiah. So the Church brought him up on charges, and at the trial the judge asked, if he was indeed the Messiah, could he be walled up in the tomb and arise again on the third day.
Simon pretty much had to say yes. So they walled him up.
What you call “nitpicking” I call making proper distinctions. If your point was indeed not that “Christians were persecuted was because they felt females were equal before God”, you should not have said:
“In the first century following Christ’s death, most early Christians were so egalitarian that men and women were equally considered able to preside over services. And no man or woman was above any other. That’s why the Roman establishment was so hell bent on killing them in devilishly inventive ways. ”
Gender equality is implied in your premise and as such was in error; if it was not part of the premise, then it is an obvious attempt to assert that dubious claim as fact. While Christianity afforded a much higher status to women than was typical – in light of the idea that all people are equal before God – they were, nevertheless, in other contexts still subject to men:
“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”
“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19: Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”
Now I certainly do not believe that it was on the basis of gender equality or a supposed non-hierarchical egalitarian principle that the Christians were persecuted. Rather, it was, as I mentioned, because they refused to worship the Roman gods/Emperor. The differences between our assertions is hardly slight.
Regarding your claim that of banishment to the western deserts, I humbly request a scholarly source for such a controversial claim. Considering Christianity only gained legal tolerance and eventual political power from the fourth century onwards, I have to wonder how Christians from the 2nd and 3rd centuries were able to force non-believers into the desert to their deaths.
Hmm, can’t say I’ve ever heard that story of Simon. Pretty tragic even if it sounds apocryphal. Well I suppose at least he had the courage of his convictions.
There is also the gnostic branch of the Jesus teachings, broadly described in the Nag Hamadi library, which is a currently growing view. This school has no heirarchy similar to the Catholics. In fact it was to oppose these teachings that the nicene council was called to define the books that would become acceptable cannon, excluding all gnostic teachings.
The term “Gnostic”, even when limited to a discussion of those who incorporated the teachings of Jesus into their system, admits a large variety of groups. It is impossible to say “this school has no hierarchy similar to the Catholics” since at least one “Gnostic” was reputed to be a bishop. Indeed it would not be strange that a school of thought as eclectic as the Gnostics would have some variant with a hierarchy, uncommon as it probably was.
Also the Nicene council did not define the Canon of the Bible.
ned is obviously too modest to do so, so i’ll give his jesus-anarchist monologue a plug:
http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/uploads/JesusMarch17th08-_2.pdf
Rothbard’s view on contracts is the correct one for those believing in liberty. Rand’s view, as presented by Kroy, is revolting.
“In other words, the Randist analysis of the nature of crime implies the necessity for a minimal government, which governs with the consent of the governed.” — Contradiction. The State exists without the consent of the governed.
If individuals freely choose to be governed, such a decision is consistent with anarchy or panarchy, not the State.
The only argument in favour of the State that makes any sense, and a perverse and pessimistic sense it be, is that since Man is inherently evil, only an evil institution like the State is capable of keeping homo sapiens in check.
I’m a panarchist: all in favour of a free market in governance.
Let’s see the subsequent article where Moshe Kroy “chooses sides.” I have an idea that he’s a Rothbardian, and not an Objectivist, but it would be good to read his reasoning.
@ Robert
Don’t hold your breath for a subsequent article from Kroy as he went insane and committed suicide sometime in the late 80′s.
newson, thanks for the plug. Not modesty; more in tune with forgetful.
ABR, panarchism is an alluring concept and might be a route to voluntaryism, which is the libertarian philosophy I espouse, but I have to wonder if it could lead to more problems than it solves since I see the core problem for libertarians as being that of some humans governing (ruling) others–by force, for government in essence is force. I used to argue for a constitutional amendment, to wit: “The initiation of force in the conduct of human affairs is hereby proscribed,” but of course that was really just a sneaky call for an end to government.
A key element to panarchism is that membership in a legal society is voluntary. Each society may in some respects mimic a government as we know it today, but the fact that membership is voluntary changes the picture dramatically.
I don’t see panarchy as being an ideal, no more so than a free market is ideal economically. A free market is the best there is, and that’s good enough for me.
Jordan Viray, I am sorry to say that I have not studied patristics, so I guess I was shooting from the Hippo. But I do appreciate your pointing out that and other weaknesses in my comment, which I acknowledge. I have taken essentially the same apparent ambiguity to a Catholic website where I’m sure It will be more fully answered. (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=497098) As you can see, it has already drawn a goodly number of considered responses, which I haven’t had a chance yet to read.
While we’re on the subject of the Church–I plan to also take this issue up on the same Catholic forum at some time in the future–(God willing that I continue to live and have the time and ability to respond), perhaps you would care to defend the Catholic Church’s official–it is in its Catechism–endorsement of taxation, which is a position I doubt Rothbard or Rockwell would approve. It is my primary criticism of the Catholic church and most other christian churches as a libertarian disciple of Jesus. But if you do care to take up this gauntlet on the church’s behalf here, I would encourage you first read an essay to which I have contributed on this issue, which provides a fuller–but not quite complete–exposition of my own views. You can find it here; http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/. And I also recommend an article that Lew Rockwell published on the good Saint Paddy’s day of this year, which is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html
Very briefly, taxation is endemic to nation-states throughout the world, and because it introduces the initiation of force and violence into the otherwise-peaceful conduct of human affairs, it is, IMHO, the worst violation of the wisdom and way of life and death of Jesus, and the gravest violation of libertarian principles since the widespread abolition of slavery. I attribute the Catholic church’s endorsement of taxation, which evidently originated during the patristic period, to its amalgamation with Constantine’s Roman empire. It was at that time that the Catholic church first reaped the benefits of Roman taxes, which could hardly not have influenced its endorsement thereof. And I attribute Augustine’s embrace of a pagan “just-war theory” to that same diabolical influence, which in turn I blame for mankind’s seeming inability to reduce its addiction to the organized, amplified, pervasive violence of war. When both church and state leaders throughout the world resort to the use of violence to obtain their daily bread, what hope is there of eliminating war and violence from human intercourse?
I pray this discussion does not attract any rabid attacks on the Catholic church, whose benevolent influences in other areas by nonviolent means both on Western civilization and on my own good life I recognize and respect. During my life I have met, admired and respected a fair number of members of the Catholic clergy, including a deceased uncle I dearly loved and whose exploits I am prone to recount at the drop of a hat.
“shooting from the Hippo.”
Nice one. Well I can say that you are one of the exceptional few who have sought answers from the horse’s mouth, so kudos. Even if you aren’t convinced in that forum, hopefully the discussion will have been fruitful.
As for the Church and tax, I’ll try to give my best thinking on the matter but people like Dr. Woods and the other prominent Catholic Austrians would probably be more able defenders. I’ve begun reading your PDF (I assume it is the 162 page work) but haven’t finished and so cannot really comment. It looks to be an interesting and thoughtful read so far.
Firstly I just want to state that I agree that all taxation is theft and that the state is radically incompatible with libertarianism. Interestingly, the article from Rockwell’s page you provided analyzes the Catechism and suggests “In short, even the Catholic Church does not understand the Tribute Episode to mean that Jesus endorsed paying Caesar’s taxes.”
Personally I’m not all that convinced by his argument since the Catechism states:
“2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country”
And I wholeheartedly agree that the adoption by the Roman Empire of Christianity as the official religion tended to shift the Christian intellectual balance erroneously in favor of the state.
With Constantine, however, we have to make careful distinction with regard to any kind of “amalgamation” since it is principally the Eastern (later Byzantine) Church where caesaropapism took root. While there were instances of various Patriarchs attempting to exercise autonomy contrary to the will of the Emperor, the absolutist nature of Byzantine government made that difficult. The Western Church, on the other hand, enjoyed far more autonomy from the Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire because of geographical distance and the relative weakness of the Empire in the West.
I’m not sure why you think Just War theory as diabolical since within the Christian context it outlined the possible legitimacy of using force in defense as opposed to pure pacifism. Indeed Coptic Christians more or less maintain their pacifist beliefs.
But to get back to the “Catechism” question, I should lay out some distinctions that I had done in other postings, namely, that there are different degrees of certainty within Church teaching. At the top are dogmas which were defined by the 20 dogmatic General Councils in addition to the two dogmas defined specially by the Pope. These definitions are considered infallible.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not. Since, to my knowledge at least, there has not been a single decree or definition from either the General Councils or from the exercise of Papal Infallibility regarding taxation, it is permitted for Catholics to have differing opinions on the issue. Since the issue of taxation is not a religious issue intrinsically, I doubt the Church would ever make solemn declarations regarding it.
This is a pet area of mine, in which I have done significant reading. The Catechism is an attempt to consolidate Catholic teaching, and is thus quite authoritative, but it is not as fully authoritative as original sources. In addition, separate rules must be read together to avoid contradictions.
The Catechism separately provides that submission to authority is obligatory for “legitimate authority.” Neither the Catholic Church, nor the Catechism, has authoritatively defined “legitimate” authority. And well it could not, as this exists outside the Church’s area of infallibility; however, there are subsidiary principles from which varying answers could be derived.
Thus, the passage on paying taxes must be read together with the passage requiring submission only to legitimate authorities. That is, one has no obligation to pay taxes to illegitimate authorities.
This, of course, means that it is up to lay and clergy alike to explore God’s natural laws and the order of the universe to determine when an authority is legitimate or illegitimate. A rothbardian like myself finds that the compulsory state is always and everywhere illegitimate in a number of acts and spheres (there are exceptions such as where a local governing counsel may do something with 100% consent in a small town, but taxation is almost never among the exceptions).
Perry Mason – Well said. I’m not sure that it is impossible for the Church to define dogmatically “legitimate” authority. However, to the benefit of Catholic anarchists/agorists, it apparently has not yet done so.
Were the Church to “infallibly” legitimize the compulsory state, I imagine we’d find ourselves (I’m presuming you are also Catholic) in a similar situation to Lord Acton upon the pronouncement of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council.
Thank you Jordan Viray. I was unaware of the status of the Catechism, and I shall certainly look into the Church’s “dogmas.” And I especially thank you most kindly for taking the time to read the essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER. If you find fault or flaw I would deeply appreciate hearing your critique, and if it makes sense to me I shall revise it to reflect the same, for it remains a work in progress. It has already been through many revision as the result of comments from some kind folks who pointed out errors in fact or logic, and I am currently working on some revisions to be uploaded in the future, including at least one serious error to correct, which you may very well spot.
The question of interpreting, or rather misinterpreting the incident and Jesus’ pertinent words found in Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20–what I call the “render-unto-Caesar incident”–was the impetus for the essay. Sometime in the mid 1980s I discovered that Christendom in general and the Catholic church in particular had long been interpreting and telling people Jesus’ words–”give Caesar what is Caesar’s”–means, “pay your taxes.” (Some qualify their interpretation to read pay your “legitimate” or “lawful” or “reasonable” taxes.) Of course it is obvious from reading those gospels that Jesus didn’t say “pay your taxes,” and as the essay argues there are scripture-derived, logical reasons to believe that what Jesus really meant by those words was, “don’t give Caesar anything, don’t pay taxes. Starting from doubt that Jesus would endorse taxes, I read many Christian exegetes’ explanations or defenses of their interpretations, and found every one of these illogical and some even so contrived as to appear intentionally deceitful.
The question that the difference in interpretation raises in my mind is this: What if for the last 2000 years it was understood and preached from every Christian pulpit that Jesus Christ opposed rather than endorsed taxation and civil government and even urged his followers not to pay, or at least to resist taxes? Would the world be a different place today if that had been the case? I think so, and a far better world indeed.
As I have understood, or misunderstood, Mr. Kroy’s analysis or Rand and Rothbard, the basis of individual rights is very significantly different. Rand permits individual freedom only to consciously accept or deny objective facts, including the factual needs of humans to sustain life. To the extent that everyone accepts objective reality, everyone will necessarily agree on these needs and their value ranking for sustaining human life. Thus there can be only one heirarchy of values and this heirarchy is the basis of, and becomes, the objective moral principles. The moral authority is created by the agreement of (almost) everyone. “Individual rights” and “property rights” are then derived from, and also agreed upon by (almost) everyone, these objective moral principles. However Mr. Kroy did not state how this derivation occurs.
For Rothbard individual rights are very different. Individual rights are self-evident implications of the metaphysical nature of man for social coexistence. Consequently, it is impossible, in Rothbard’s framework, to speak about any common values that are thereby established as objective moral principles. “Property rights” derive from Individual rights when that property is mixed with work. Because individual rights are the self-evident implications of the metaphysical nature, no agreement from others is necessary to establish those rights. Moral authority vests in each individual, not in agreement by a group.
The absense or presence or religious beliefs could be included in either Rand or Rothbard, although they are necessary in neither. But again there would be a difference. For Randians only the one religion accredited by the largest group would have moral authority and alternate beliefs would cause some friction and a consequent weakening of the total moral authority. For Rothbardians, religious belief would be individual, and there could be as many different theologies are there are people.
@cryptocode,
You are right that Kroy did not adequately explain how rights are derived from objective moral principles however, all of that is extensively explained by Rand herself and the volumes of Objectivist literature available.
What is missing from Kroy’s analysis is the metaphysical necessity of “purpose” i.e. what “end” should one’s actions be meant to achieve? Kroy fails to mention that “freedom” and “choice” of actions necessarily presuposes some goal to be acheived, otherwise why act at all? To place the selection of ones goals outside of moral consideration, as the Rothbardians do, is to place the metaphysical necessity of purpose outside of cognition, outside of evaluation and thus outside of reason, leaving the selection to pure whim. It is an abandonement of the metaphysical world because it does not recognize the fact that life and the desire to stay alive requires certian actions and prohibs others so there is a metaphysical necessity to be selective i.e. to judge.
Hence, in the Objectivist view, morality can only be defined in a context of man’s relationship to existence i.e. metaphysics, such a context is fundamentally one of life or death. Thus the Rothbardians are guilty of what Ayn Rand termed as context dropping because they attempt to describe values outside of a context a living entity—i.e. an entity that requires a continuous and consistent process of action to remain alive. A corpse physically cannot have any goals nor initiate any action to achieve them. Values are simply not possible to the “non-living” therefore man does not have the metaphysical luxury or “freedom” to “choose” amongst a multiplicity of equally relevant, but alternative, ultimate values as the Rothbardians would claim, the only choice, fundamentally, is life or death. Such is the source of a “common” value among men and this is the source of an ethical standard of morality from which “rights”, as Ayn Rand (and the Founding Fathers of course!) conceived them, are derived. The distinction between a value and a non-value is established by the identification of a fact and estimating its impact on one’s life, i.e. does it further or frustrate ones ultimate purpose of staying alive. All other goals must necessarily be considered in relation to this one ultimate goal since, metaphysically, ALL goal directed action ceases once one becomes a corpse.
Notice that while this common goal establishes a universal moral standard for all men it does not establish any single means by which it can be achieved. This is not too say that “any” means can be employed, it means that, while each person holds their own life as their highest value, we all have a different hierarchy or preference as to which values are to be acquired and when. Not all life sustaining values are desired by everyone equally and at all times. Certainly there are some that do (e.g. freedom, justice, equality, etc.) but some others, like family, career, housing, transportation all vary widely depending on each individual.
Hence, if I prefer to forgo a family in place of achieving success in a professional career then that does not preclude someone else from choosing the opposite but we both still act to acquire the values that are most important to our respective lives.
The concept of “rights” only enters into consideration when one attempts to define how one should act towards other individuals i.e. in a social context and, within this context, it does necessarily “limit” the sphere of actions that are morally appropriate in regards to other individuals, i.e. it bans the use of force to obtain any value since it is only when force is absent that one is able to effectively make a distinction between value and non-value and translate that estimation into effective practical action in the material realm.
Yes, I understand Mr. Kroy to agree that the Randian agreement on the heirarchy of values would place the highest value on the maintanence of life (I don’t necessarily agree though) , and that as the Rothbardian position that individual rights are self-evident implications of the metaphysical nature of man for social coexistence would have no necessary common value. I would suppose an Rothbardian individual in a Rothbardian community or culture would be free to adopt that cultures’ values or to develop and maintain his own. In either case such a Rothbardian may well not have the maintanence of life as his highest value. Certainly there are many examples of cultures which have different values and heirarchies in which virtue, strenght, faithfullness, loyality, pride, virility, etc., are held to be more valuable than life itself. “Give me liberty or give me death” is an example in which liberty is a higher value than life.
However I don’t agree that because there is no pre-existing agreement on ‘rights’, but rather that the ‘rights’ themselves are pre-existing and can not be surrendered, that therefore such a position means there is no purpose to base action upon. Rothbardians hold an individual metaphysically capable of conceiving his own purposes and choosing his own actions. (Randians do not permit such choices to humans, but allow tham only to accept objective facts.)
I’m not familiar with the term “metaphysical necessity” so I looked it up. “A proposition is necessary if it could not have been false. But there are various ‘strengths’ of necessity. In some sense, it necessarily takes longer than a day to get to the moon, because we don’t have fast enough rockets to get us there any quicker. But in another sense, we could get to the moon quicker – if we had quicker rockets. But even with faster rockets, it necessarily takes longer than a second – for necessarily, the fastest we could travel is at the speed of light. But again: that’s only necessary given the laws of nature. There’s certainly no logical contradiction in travelling to the moon in a nano-second. In this sense of necessity, what’s necessary are claims like ‘if I travel to the moon, then I travel to the moon’ – claims whose truth follows from logic alone.
Call the three strengths of necessity above ‘practical’, ‘nomological’ and ‘logical’ necessity respectively. Each of them is a ‘relative’ necessity in the sense that they don’t say what is necessary simpliciter: they say what is necessary given certain other facts (facts concerning what’s practically available to us, the laws of nature, the laws of logic, respectively). ‘Metaphysical’ necessity, by contrast, is meant to be necessity simpliciter: what’s metaphysically necessary isn’t just what’s necessary given some other facts, but what’s necessary simpliciter. If a proposition is metaphysically necessary, there’s no genuine sense of possibility according to which its negation is possible.
Metaphysical Necessity is sometimes cashed out in terms of what is true at all possible worlds. David Lewis’s Modal Realism is the most famous attempt to use this to provide a reductive analysis of the notion of metaphysical necessity.” – Wikipedia. Is this relevant?
Cryptocode,
You wrote: “Rothbardians hold an individual metaphysically capable of conceiving his own purposes and choosing his own actions.”
Really? By “metaphysically capable” do you mean that an individual can “will” himself into immortality? Can he change his physiology to become something he is not presently? Can he can somehow change the laws of nature, change a matter of “fact” simply be willing it so? No of course not. So then the concept of “choice” and “free will” can only apply to those instances where an alternative exists. If there is no alternative then there is no “choice” and nothing to be done about it but to “accept the objective fact” and to act accordingly. What you really mean by “metaphysically capable” is that a person can certainly choose to evade these facts but they cannot choose to evade the consequences.
ALL facts of reality are “metaphysically necessary” and the laws of causality will refute those who try to evade them, there is no such thing as an “alternative reality” with “alternative causes” that one can be “metaphysically capable” of choosing as an alternative to this one. This is basically the Objectivist view of metaphysics.
For more on “necessity” go here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/necessity.html
It is only within this “metaphysical context” that a person can make observations, form abstract concepts, create inferences from causal connections, identify practicable (as opposed to mystical) alternatives, establish a preference and thereby create a system of hierarchical values and establish various types of social organizations.
To say that a Rothbardian (or anyone else) can simply choose to start out from “freedom”, “liberty”, or “loyalty”, “pride” etc. as a fundamentally self-evident primaries, without reference to a metaphysical context, completely eschews reality altogether and bases these “choices” on nothing but a person’s whim. Concepts such as “liberty”, “freedom”, “pride”, “integrity” etc. are all genetically dependent on the concept of life i.e. a living entity that is “metaphysically capable” of making choices that can have either positive or negative consequences to its own life, these concepts cannot be formulated outside of it so “dying” for ones “liberty” is not placing liberty over life IT IS life. Liberty is metaphysically necessary for man to live and to survive, that is what makes it a “value”. To speak of liberty as somehow above life is a contradiction. For more on this I would strongly suggest that you read Ayn Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. It really explains a lot. What the Rothbardians are doing is called “concept-stealing”, a term coined by Ayn Rand. They use these concepts but evade the precedent concepts and metaphysical base from which they are logically derived. see http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept–fallacy_of.html
To make the liberty life/death distinction a bit more clear, would it be logical to say that a person who attempts to defend himself from a robber or a murderer is putting “self-defense” over life? No, of course not. The act of self defense is an act of attempting to live, right? Well, so too is dying for ones liberty.
There’s another difference that I don’t see in the article though, and that’s practicality. Rothbard is the more consistent of the two, in a way; however, Rand stresses reality in her writings constantly for a reason–you can’t divorce your theory from reality. Rand’s society would be structured, would allow for long-term planning, and would have a way to clearly define the limits of each person’s individual rights ahead of time; Rothbard’s society has rights and yet has no method of objectively determing the limits of them, and of who is in the wrong (in cases that aren’t self-evident). If a business operates based off of multiple long-term contracts with various parties, it can expect a Rand court to enforce those contracts and allow business to continue, whereas a Rothbard court would allow one or all of those contracts to be voided as long as repayment was made, regardless of the fact that that would completely destroy the company. Of course, that’s assuming anyone even listens to the Rothbard court; after all, it has no objective authority, and any subjective authority granted can be withdrawn at any point. Rand’s concern was fact; Rothbard’s concern was theory, even if both obviously did deal with the other side of the coin.
Comments on this entry are closed.