Feser on Natural Law and War
Mar 27th, 2006 @ 08:22 am › David Gordon
In the last of a series of three posts on a blog for conservative philosophers called Right Reason, Professor Edward Feser has raised disturbing charges against Murray Rothbard’s libertarianism. The “Rothbardian view of the world,” he claims, “is radically subversive and paranoid.” Rothbard’s worldview “parallels Marxism” and is incompatible with natural law and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic supporters of Rothbard are “acolytes of St. Murray of the Holy Anarchy.” Feser’s harsh remarks are the latest stage of a remarkable intellectual evolution. A scant three years ago, he was himself still a libertarian. FULL ARTICLE ON LRC
Categories: Uncategorized
Home
RSS Feed
E-Mail
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
45 Responses
It’s very distressing to see a smart guy like Feser go over to the dark side.
If that is what passes for “intellectual evolution” then as a Catholic Rothbardian I’m glad to live in pre-historic times surrouned by the acolytes of anarchy.
It’s is mystery how people can so easily conflate faith in God with faith in the State. Feser’s entire foreign-policy program presumes a State with god-like traits: omniscience and omnipotence, for starters.
Smart guys are especially vulnerable to corruption. Intelligence doesn’t mean wisdom. A smart man will often approach the world with a messianic hubris. He feels that if he can just impose his idea of propriety on the ignorant masses all will be well. He comes to view this as an entitlement by virtue of his superior intelligence. He forgets that most morons are wise enough to live their own lives but even the most brilliant man lacks the means to live another man’s life for him. I think we often get wrapped up in the idea of economic incentives luring people to become shills for the state. The darker truth is that people do it for what little power they can get. What power does a scientist have if he espouses the view that climate change results from natural phenomena or doesn’t occur at all? If he adopts the position that furthers the interests of regimentation (he may even be able to delude himself into believing it is true) he might just get to participate in making plans that his fellow citizens are compelled to follow. The temptation to sell one’s soul is strongest for the brilliant.
1 or 2 years ago Feser had an article in JLS. His more conservative libertarianism was quite fascist.
Funny, I claim the exact opposite, Rothbard’s libertarianism is the only political movement fully compatible with the catholic church…
“…Rothbard’s libertarianism is the only political movement fully compatible with the catholic church…”
I don’t see how it can be, given what Paul and Peter have written on the subject of government.
“Why cannot Rothbard hold that people best flourish if they are free to choose for themselves how to conduct their lives, so long as they do not forcibly invade the rights of others?”
To answer David’s question, because you have no right to engage in immoral acts, regardless of whether or not they invade the “rights” of others. That is basic Christian theology which, of course, I would not expect non-Christians to accept.
…because you have no right to engage in immoral acts, regardless of whether or not they invade the “rights” of others.
I suppose you could say that. But I have no right to interfere in your immoral acts. So actually, yes, you do have a right to engage in immoral acts, if they don’t affect the rights of others.
Reactionary,
“To answer David’s question, because you have no right to engage in immoral acts, regardless of whether or not they invade the “rights” of others. That is basic Christian theology which, of course, I would not expect non-Christians to accept.”
But by whose authority do we possess free will? Would God leave to the criminal state the enforcement of morality when even He did not impose it himself? No. A person’s got to choose his own path and answer for himself when that time comes; and the state can go to hell.
“Would God leave to the criminal state the enforcement of morality when even He did not impose it himself? No. A person’s got to choose his own path and answer for himself when that time comes…”
Governments are ordained by God and Christians are under a duty to submit to them. See Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Obviously, a Christian cannot obey government where to do so would violate the duty to love God and keep his commandments; both Paul and Peter were executed by the Roman Empire, after all. Nevertheless, I don’t see how Catholic teachings and the Scripture can be used to support anarcho-capitalism, which relies on the human-based market to set standards for justice.
A State is by design setup to explictly violate pretty much every commandment, so how can someone who claims to follow the commandments support an institution that stands in direct violation of them?
Let’s simplify that a bit:
Governments are ordained by God and Christians are under a duty to submit to them [unless] to do so would violate the duty to love God and keep his commandments.
So, essentially, every command of government is either superfluous or evil. Sounds like anarcho-capitalism to me.
I should probably begin by saying that I am neither a Catholic or an orthodox Rothbardian. I am an anarchist in the classical Bakuninist tradition. I respect Rothbard’s contributions to anti-state and anti-imperialist thought, particularly his emphasis on polycentric common law, the primacy of foreign policy, his criticisms of the alliance between state and capital, his contributions to historical studies, his reconstruction of the conventional left/right model of the political spectrum and his approach to strategic considerations. I generally disagree with his Thomistic-Lockean-Randian natural law/natural rights outlook and some of his more conservative economic views. Instead, I am a Nietzschean-Stirnerite egoist in the realm of moral philosophy and a traditional Proudhonian mutualist/syndicalist in the economic realm (www.mutualist.org). These things being said, Rothbard’s anarchism was simply a modern application of the classical Augustinian view that states without justice are mere robber bands writ large. As a moral skeptic, I don’t really believe in the notion of “justice” in an abstract Platonic (or Catholic) sense. However, the question I would ask of someone like Feser would be this: When has there ever been a state with “justice”, even by conventional Catholic standards? There is no evidence, from history or the contemporary world, that any state has ever been motivated by anything other that the expansion of its own power, the exploitation of its subjects, the protection of its ruling class and the monopolization of territory and resources. The only possible exception might be some impotent microstate somewhere (like Liechtenstein).
This may be an ad hominem argument, but Feser strikes me as far too intelligent and knowledgeable a man to take his expressed views seriously. It goes without saying that being just another Republican apologist is more career-enhancing that being a strict Rothbardian. What did Rothbard say about the “court intellectuals”?
You’ll get no argument from me that most of what the modern social democracies do is immoral and criminal. But a government that, say, restricted its activities to punishing homosexuals and pornographers would be in complete accord with Christian teaching despite the fact that these vices might be perfectly consensual. I say this not to promote the government outlawing homosexuality and pornography, but rather to show that Christian theology cannot be used as an argument for anarcho-capitalism, that is, for a completely consensual society.
Incidentally, here’s an SSPX member’s take on the matter (and no, I’m not Christopher Ferrara, nor am I Catholic):
http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2005_January/Opposing_Austrian_Heresy.htm
Keith,
“…Rothbard’s anarchism was simply a modern application of the classical Augustinian view that states without justice are mere robber bands writ large.”
I would characterize Rothbard’s view of the state slightly differently: states are inherently without justice, and they can never be anything other than robber bands writ large.
“I don’t really believe in the notion of “justice” in an abstract Platonic (or Catholic) sense.”
Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by this statement? Is there a sense in which you do believe in justice?
Let’s get this all 100% straight.
Read Fester’s work and you can’t go wrong in determining where his sympathies lie. Fester is a collectivist. He does not support individualism and he certainly isn’t a libertarian (small “l” or big “L”), let alone an anarchist. Fester’s ideology is bog stock big govt (approaching totalitarianism). He is yet another statist who supports the welfare/warfare state. In his case he dresses up the words to make ‘em a bit pretty. An intellectually dishonest and misleading creature indeed.
Forget about him. “Let his name not be mentioned.”
Sione
Reactionary
I had some quite time this morning so I read the piece on http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2005_January/Opposing_Austrian_Heresy.htm
Goodness! Gracious! Doesn’t it just drip with self-rightousness. The author, sure does not like liberal Jewish thinkers. Scratch the surface and I reckon the anti-semitism would roll right on out of the guy.
All the writer does is claim moral authority comes from some super-natural being (the mysterious infinite spirit/monster/dragon/beast, omniscient, omnipotent and all good) and that certain senior officials of his organisation have said so. Then he quotes a few writings he can say are like minded before getting stuck into stating the Austrain School is wrong (from his view it is an evil system of thought, make no mistake about that).
No logic is evident from this author (a lawyer!). His work is all assertion and claim, with a few quotes and some comments from the writings of fellow travellers and “experts.”
I really liked how freedom isn’t freedom. Really gets himself tied up in knots there. Had to laugh (out loud) at that.
He has one thing completely correct though. You can’t be consistently religious and at the same time a promoter of Liberty or Capitalism.
Sione
Reactionary,
“…a government that, say, restricted its activities to punishing homosexuals and pornographers would be in complete accord with Christian teaching despite the fact that these vices might be perfectly consensual.”
Perhaps a government which has entered into a covenant with God as the nation of Israel had would be justified in dealing such justice to those subject to it. However, even then it seems there was a caveat:
Did Jesus not revise the covenant? Didn’t He have something to say about the punishing, i.e. the stoning of the adulteress, for instance? And He was speaking to people under the covenant.
But there is no such government today that is under a covenant with God, and for sure not in Washington. And it is especially plain that those least qualified to throw stones are today’s political and bureaucratic parasites who commit fraud on and openly steal from the productive class and lord themselves hypocritically over them. I suspect they are more in the class of Biblical times’ lowly old tax collector. I would expect Christians, including Catholics to plainly perceive this.
——–
But your point was “to show that Christian theology cannot be used as an argument for anarcho-capitalism, that is, for a completely consensual society.”
While this may be true, there is also no incompatibility. What anarcho-capitalism leaves open is the option for private individuals to form consensual covenants, which is exactly what Israel had entered into before the dummies asked for a King instead. In making this request, they screwed themselves thoroughly, and they got what they deserved. There is nothing un-Christian about recognizing this fact, even if it took us several thousand years to do so.
“He has one thing completely correct though. You can’t be consistently religious and at the same time a promoter of Liberty or Capitalism.”
How so?
And while you answer, consider that there exists some pretty consistent and zealously religious atheists on this planet. Surely at least a few of them could promote liberty while not compromising their faith in the proposition that there is no God.
Paul
What is a religious atheist?
Sione
How about we ignore Paul’s weird comment on atheists and address whether religiosity is incompatible with liberty. Can you explain your reasoning on this?
Thanks for the chance to read Ferrara again. It is hilariously heated and nuts–in a total frenzy about the great threat of Austro-libertarianism. Why, these people dare to question the legitimacy of the state!!
I get some pleasure out of reading these things because it makes me feel like our side is somehow making advances. As for answering him, it really doesn’t seem worth any effort.
In the 19th century, the rap on Catholics was that they stood for Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. Bring back those days!
Paul,
I’m a moral skeptic in the tradition of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Stirner, De Sade, Nietzsche, Crowley,Russell, Sartre, Foucault… thinkers of that type. What people think of as “justice” I regard as a matter of subjective individual emotions, opinions, prejudices, preferences, perceptions, psychological make-ups, cultural patterns, etc. In a certain sense, “justice” may be an instrumental concept used a guide to the practical management of interpersonal relations. Ultimately, I would regard our existence as a permanent war of each against all with the only true “laws” being the will to power, survival of the fittest and might is right.
http://www.attackthesystem.com/physical.html
As to how this relates to my political anarchism, what I do is attempt to convince political dissidents of all stripes that we have a common enemy in the modern Leviathan state, particularly the New World Order of US imperialism, and that our respective agendas are best advanced in a decentralized social system whether our motivations be prevention of US “war crimes”, individual liberty, preservationism of some sort (racial, religious, cultural or ecological), the advancement of this or this social class or economic grouping (the “proletariat”, the “peasantry”), the sovereignty or liberation of this or that social group (indigenous peoples, Palestinians).
One interesting question where I agree with Edward Feser is his recognition of the fact that in a decentralized system there would be no central authority imposing a uniform set of values on the entire society or preventing local groups from forming exclusionary social arrangements of their own. There might be sovereign neighborhoods, villages, enterprises, even whole cities or towns and, eventually with migration, provinces or micronations organized exclusively or near exclusively for black nationalist NOI-types, white nationalist CI-types, anarchists and libertarians of whatever kind, commies, homos, Jesus freaks, Islamists, eco-freaks, Satanists, papists, UFO cultists, Biker gangs, street gangs, NAMBLA, sex-drugs-n’-roll, etc.
This does not mean that I agree with social reactionaries like Feser or this Ferrara character. Far from it. Their rhetoric about homosexuals, pornographers, drug users, prostitutes and other similar groups is simply the modern incarnation of similar rhetoric employed by their ideological ancestors concerning witches, Jews, heretics, pagans, anabaptists, etc. There’s no reason to take them seriously. Theocratic reactionaries have absolutely no influence in modern society. The modern ruling classes are the most secular in history. The contemporary persecution of groups like drug users by the state is rooted not in religion but in the modern ideology of the therapeutic state (Thomas Szasz has written extensively about this), combined with the usual political and economic opportunism.
“Theocratic reactionaries have absolutely no influence in modern society.”
Ummm except for their influence over the Republican Party, the White House, and US foreign and domestic policy.
Jeffrey,
You can’t seriously believe that freaks like Pat Robertson or James Dobson actually run the United States, can you? The Republican elite might thrown a bone to these buffoons here and there but they privately snicker at them. I’ve been watching the religious right as a movement since it started in the 70s (I grew up in Lynchburg, Virginia). The Republicans have done absolutely nothing for them. There are more abortions now than ever before. There are more restrictions on religion in the schools than ever before. There’s a lot more porn nowadays and gays also have higher standing than ever before. Name one victory the religious right has actually achieved. Even my own state of Virginia, headquarters of both Falwell and Robertson, can’t get even modest restrictions on abortion passed, even those allowed by the Casey decision.
Bush’s Christianity, like everything else about Bush, is a fraud, a sham, a political tool and nothing else. Occasionally, a real fundamentalist finds his way to high office but they don’t last long. Where’s Ashcroft now? How does the religious right control foreign policy? The Christian Zionists are just stooges for actually powerful Zionists in Hollywood and Manhattan. What did Pastor Bob of the Antioch Baptist Church of Holy Rollerville, Bible Belt USA have to do with the PNAC? How do the Bible-bangers control domestic policy? Because eleven states voted down gay marriages in the 2004 election? The very fact that gay marriage was even on the ballot in the first place shows how far the cultural left has come since the 60s and 70s. You sure wouldn’t have seen something like that on the ballot of a state referendum back then, whether it actually passed or not. The religious right is like the Klan-a movement for dullards and losers.
Roy
I don’t think Paul’s comments are weird. I’ve read too many of his contributions to write off a comment from him as swiftly as that. My expectation is that he must have had something in particular in mind. I’m not certain I know exactly what he was getting at, so I sought clarification.
Here is my understanding. Atheism is the absence of religious faith. My understanding is that atheism precludes any religious practice. As such an atheist can’t be religious.
Atheism is not a type of theism. It is the absence of theism. It is the absence of theistic ideas, practices and faith.
(Atheism) = (absence of religious faith)
Of course none of this makes atheists necessarily good people. Many atheists are right awful and you’d be right to cross the street rather than associate with them. There are plenty of examples. Atheism does not make people necessarily evil either. There are plenty who are not bad people at all. All that can be directly concluded about atheists is that they do not hold a religious faith.
Note. Atheists are not necessarily promoters of Libertarianism or Capitalism (or anarchy). Some are collectivists (the ignorant twits). Many are not.
As far as my comment about consistency is concerned, I am referring to a situation where acting according to Libertarian or Capitalist philosophy would contradict a person’s religion. In such a situation the person would be acting inconsistently with regards to their religion. It is a common enough occurrence.
Put it like this, were a religious person to be confronted by a situation where their religion prescribed a particular line of behaviour that happened to be in contradiction to Libertarianism/Capitalism (I should have added anarchy as well) and they acted according to Libertarianist/Capitalist/Anarchic principles in preference to religious ones, they would have betrayed their religion. Such a person would be behaving in an inconsistent manner with regards to their religion’s laws and strictures. They would be a part-time religionist. Inconsistent indeed.
There are examples. One would be a case in the newspaper recently. I got to read this on an intercity train (taking express trains can be a really good way to travel- recommended in parts of Australia). It turns out that there was a 15 year old girl who had an affair with a married man. After a few months they stopped seeing each other physically and seem to have gone their separate ways. Several months later she discovers she is pregnant and decides to terminate the pregnancy. Prior to her fronting up for surgery the parents find out about the situation (I think they were informed by the doctor). Now the question is how should her parents behave. What should they do? According to which principles do they make their decision on how to act?
If they are Catholic (which according to the newspaper they are), then the rules are very clear. She must allow the pregnancy to proceed to term and deliver a baby. Her parents must see to that, regardless of her personal wishes. Further, she has committed a Cardinal Sin and cannot be forgiven by anyone except for God (a priest can’t offer forgiveness although she can confess to him). She’ll be carrying this stigma for the rest of her life until the day she dies.
On the other hand, should her parents accept her argument that it is her decision to make and it’s her body etc. etc. etc., they would have breached with the strictures of their religion. Sure, they’ve granted her the freedom to act but they have not followed their religious obligations. No matter what they say, they have broken with their religion. They are inconsistent in their practice and observance. At this point the religion considers this young girl as an adulteress and also a killer. That’s two Cardinal Sins. Her parents, by not acting to prevent the termination, are accessories. So their choice is, do they act consistently with their religion or not. It’s even tougher for the girl (especially should she be religious).
That would be an incredibly difficult situation and a shockingly hard decision to be making. I certainly do not want to belittle the magnitude of what is being asked of anyone involved here.
Now this is but one example and there are those who will argue black is white about it all day. Nice one fellas. Really! An important feature of the Catholic Church is that it is most clear in its teaching and very definite about the rules. Fair enough. This clarity is important. It is how a religion should be. Not all religions are as honest by any means. Anyway, the point is that in certain situations it is difficult if not impossible to remain consistently religious while respecting Lib/Cap principle.
There are plenty of other scenarios that can be examined. Here be an interesting question. A direct conflict between Catholicism and Austrian economics occurs regarding the proper calculation and evaluation of wages. Which approach is correct- Catholicism or Austrian School? You can’t subscribe to both approaches as they are in contradiction. The consequences of which approach you take are profound.
My original posted comment refers to the situation where religion and Libertarianism/Capitalism do not coincide. It is not then possible to promote the Libertarianism/Capitalism approach while remaining religiously consistent. There is no problem with this. It is to the good that most people are religiously inconsistent. It’s often when they are not that trouble occurs (certain fundamentalist bomb makers come to mind).
People have asked me where my objection to theism lies. The answer is, I object to that aspect which is blind faith. “Faith of the unknowable” is how Oily Moses put it (I remember a funny story about his son, Siotu, which I post on Reisman’s essay blog). Having said that there is much that is good to be found with certain religious people.
My late friend Fr. Doolan was an interesting man to talk with. He was a fierce debater. I do not know many who could hold their own against him. When it came to scripture, theology and apologetics he was a master. He knew a fair bit about history and literature as well. Even so, it was he who first explained the “Catholic double-standard” to me. Widely feared, he earned great respect and close friends.
Fr. Doolan introduced me to his family. There are many in the clan; uncles, aunts, brothers, Brothers, sisters, Sister (only one), nieces, nephews, cousins, second cousins… It’s a great raucous extended family. Mostly, but not exclusively Catholic. He also introduced his friends (which is how I met David Solomon- those two could discuss and debate and ENTERTAIN with great erudition for hours). These decent and civil people were a great strength and comfort to him. They are an embodiment of the real decency of people that sometimes keeps aspects of spirituality and aspects of religion relevant as cultural phenomena They, decent people, are the good that exists within religions, not some super-natural mystery. All power to them.
Sione
I’ve never heard of a religion which is consistent within itself, let alone consistent with ideas of liberty. I heard a podcast on the subject late last year (this is the one) which made me laugh so hard I almost had a stroke. Religion is a mental illness.
(I understand people who say atheism is a religion to be saying that atheists too simply accept on faith that there is no god, since there’s no evidence of there being no god. But that’s a stupid argument. First, atheists are not generally opposed to the idea of god – if a god showed up tomorrow and supplied sufficient evidence as to its godhood, no atheist would refuse to believe in it; they simply don’t currently believe in it, since it hasn’t shown up and given them a reason to. Second, evidence of the non-existence of something is rather hard to come by. Third, people who claim to know religious “truth” spout all sorts of nonsense inconsistent with observable reality. That constitutes evidence that those people are wrong. [And I don't think there are any religious people who don't profess inconsistent nonsense])
Sione,
Thank-you for your kind words of support. And i must say the feeling is mutual.
My meaning of religious atheism is this: I think that it takes very little faith or that one need not be seriously religious to posit that there may be a God. And correspondingly, it takes very little faith to presume that God may not exist. To say “you have not proven God exists” is, arguably, to say not much really. But! To say “I know there is NO God”, now there speaks a man of religious faith, and therefore, a man of a religion. It is not belief in God that is at the root of his religion, yet he strongly believes or knows something in the spiritual realm of which he has (and is likely to acknowledge he has) no concrete proof. This is all i mean. In hind-sight, it isn’t an important point in this context. Anyways…
Although I do understand what you are driving at in the reference to inconsistencies, each example you present doesn’t work for me for one reason or another, but yet, I am wondering if I can come up with a suitable (if contrived) example myself. Perhaps this: say you’re a religious sect that does not believe in swearing, and the penalty for swearing among your people is twenty lashes in the public square. So the question is this: is this religious belief inconsistent with belief in liberty and capitalism? Well, this question boils down to: does belief in liberty and capitalism preclude a belief in contracts and covenants? I don’t think so. To argue it did, one would argue against property rights and would fall into an internal contradiction.
Therefore, a religious community in anarchy could form their own covenant, where it is mutually agreed that one is not allowed to swear on which the penalty is 20 lashes. I would argue that this is consistent with liberty, capitalism, and even a restrictive code of behavior based on a religion. There is no necessity for religious inconsistency to advocate libertarian anarchy and yet hold to, agree to, and enforce conservative or religious values.
In fact, the whole beauty of anarchy is the potential for covenantal communities, where people live according to their beliefs and under mutually agreeable constraints.
Keith,
Thanks for your response. If I may probe your position further,
“…What people think of as “justice” I regard as a matter of subjective individual emotions, opinions, prejudices, preferences, perceptions, psychological make-ups, cultural patterns, etc.…what I do is attempt to convince political dissidents of all stripes that we have a common enemy in the modern Leviathan state, particularly the New World Order of US imperialism, and that our respective agendas are best advanced in a decentralized social system whether our motivations be prevention of US “war crimes”, individual liberty, preservationism of some sort (racial, religious, cultural or ecological), the advancement of this or this social class or economic grouping (the “proletariat”, the “peasantry”), the sovereignty or liberation of this or that social group (indigenous peoples, Palestinians).”
Do you believe that your stance against leviathan is any more justified than the stance of the statists who take the opposite view? Do you believe your arguments in favor of decentralization, individual liberty and against imperialism and war crimes are more valid, or more justifiable than those who hold to opposite view? If not, what compels you to make these arguments in the first place? If, on the other hand you do, would you not agree that what can be justified, is also what is just, or a reflection of justice? And if so, are you in fact not at all a moral skeptic, but rather a firm believer in justice in the common use of the word?
Reactionnary;
French “austrian” author Jean-Yves Naudet, who wrote a lot on ethics, explain in his book ‘Dominez la terre’ (my translation; “Dominate the earth; plead for an economy at the service of man”) how and why classical liberalism in it’s many shapes is the only doctrine compatible with the Catholic Church..
Paul,
It sounds like you’re trying to define “justice” according to empirical methodology-”Do this and you will get these results”. I believe the positions I take and the arguments I make are more conducive to the ends that I seek, like individual liberty and sovereignty for captive peoples. As to whether these ends are objectively “just” in their own right would seem to me to be a question that cannot be answered definitively. What I am skeptical of is the traditional idea found in much of Western philosophy like Platonism and Thomism (and the Randian or Rothbardian view) that “justice” has some sort of metaphysical property that exists outside of individual perception. I generally side with the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker on this question. Tucker started out as a natural rights theorist (influenced by the Lockean-Jeffersonian-Spoonerite tradition) but then came to embrace Max Stirner’s egoistic rejection of the state. This approach utilizes political anarchism as a means of advancing one’s own subjective personal or ideological interests. An anarchist of this type might say: “I am an anarchist because I believe anarchism is the best political framework for me to (pick one) achieve sovereignty for the Palestinians, preserve the Aryan race in isolated mountainous compounds, use drugs, worship God, make money, etc,.”
Someone who argues against a political position like my own might say that statism, imperialism and tyranny are justified for the advancement of civilization or the opportunities for the demonstration of nobility and bravery brought about by war. One could defend the ancient Egyptian pharoahs or the Chinese emperors who used slave labor, often working the slaves to death, on the grounds that these produced great architectural achievements in the pyramids or the Great Wall. There are thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Alexander Kojeve, Leo Strauss and others who regarded war as uplifting the human spirit and and cultivating the virtues of discipline, sacrifice, bravery, comradery and so on. One might find these kinds of views personally unpleasant or distasteful but are those who hold them objectively wrong in the same manner that someone who denies the heliocentric solar system is objectively wrong? I suspect not. This is where my moral skepticism comes in to play.
Keith, I think you are underestimating the role of evangelical religious ideology within the GOP, the White Houses (heavily staffed by grads of evangelical colleges), the impact of certain strains of fundy political theory within evangelical culture, and–crucially–the impact that fundy theory has on heartland (as versus elite) political opinion. Bush never misses a chance to tell evangelical visitors to the White House that he invaded Iraq at God’s request. They really go for this stuff, as incredible as it may sound. In many ways, the people who believe this were the driving force in the last election and in the direction of US policy. Yes, there is resistence too–and, sadly, the resistence is often no less statist. No ruling class gets to enact its full agenda all at one time.
There used to be a libertarian strain in mainstream evangelical politics but I don’t see that much anymore. They are as enamored with the uses of power as the left is.
“how and why classical liberalism in it’s many shapes is the only doctrine compatible with the Catholic Church.”
An overstatement. Feudalism is likewise compatible with the Catholic Church.
Sione, your argument and example seem to center on the Catholic Church, instead of on religious belief in general, which was the subject of your original statement. I agree that Catholicism is almost certainly incompatible with liberty in some ways, but what about religious belief in general? Also, the example about abortion is not the best one, in my opinion. The fact that Catholics are adamantly against abortion does not, in itself, make them anti-liberty, if they don’t agitate for anti-abortion legislation. The example of a minor wanting to get an abortion is a bit of a grey area, although I agree that it is more on the side of anti-liberty if the parents deny her the abortion. But also, it’s not at all agreed among anarcho-capitalists, even nonreligious ones, that abortion is justifiable. My personal opinion is that legislation against it is not legitimate from a libertarian perspective, but I partially understand the other side of the argument.
There are much better arguments against the Catholic Church’s compatibility with liberty/capitalism, though I’m sure you know them.
As to calling Paul’s comment “weird,” I should explain. I understood his comment, and indeed I mostly agree with it, but I found it weird in the context of the conversation. I am reminded of his declaration in one of the Ayn Rand threads that truth originates in Jesus Christ (or something to that effect).
Anyway, I’d still like to read how religious consistency is incompatible with liberty and capitalism.
I think Paul Edwards is quite correct to say that religious communities can thrive in a free society, as they would do so merely as voluntary collectives within it.
On the other hand, the individuals withing those collectives would be intellectually compromised, as there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile freedom with the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being. It simply can’t be done.
David,
“…as there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile freedom with the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being.”
Stepping away from the question of how we might voluntarily restrain ourselves in the light of how we might construe our alleged creator’s expectations of us, let’s consider the simpler realm of the physical world.
Let’s take drug fun and drug addiction. Let us say we believe, as anarchist libertarians in good standing, that we being free, have every right to enjoy the benefits of partaking in a fine hit of acid. Are we being intellectually compromised when, on recognizing this right, we yet still abstain, in the knowledge that one hit might just lead to another, and that in the end, our lives will be a mess? I don’t think so. It merely reflects another choice we freely make; one thing over another. Peace of mind and a sound mind and body chosen over some fun and wild moments at the expense of trouble later on.
In the end, I think we necessarily must choose our gods. They can be drugs, money, sex, pleasure, or even our own sense of responsibility, right vs. wrong and self discipline. There will always be something which we allow to run our lives. Anarchic libertarianism is simply the true way to know we chose it ourselves.
Jeffrey,
Your points are well taken but I am still unconvinced. I have been on both sides of this issue. As I mentioned in a previous post, I grew up in Lynchburg, Virginia. My parents were associates of Rev. Falwell early in his career. I went to fundamentalist-run private schools where dispensationalism was taught as the norm until I was fifteen. I went to a Christian Reconstructionist church until I was seventeen or eighteen. I eventually rejected of all that. When I was in my twenties (late 80s, early 90s) I was a leftist radical and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, People for the American Way, Americans United for Church and State, and other anti-religious right groups who were supposedly sounding the alarm about the imminent fundamentalist coup. But I eventually came to see all of that as paranoia and scapegoating.
http://www.attackthesystem.com/religiousright.html
The Republican elite and the neocons both started trying to cultivate a relationship with the then-nascent religious right in the 70s in response to the takeover of the Democratic Party by the New Left in 1972. The Republicans play to the social conservatism of the evangelicals as a counterpart to the leftism of the rank and file Demos. But it’s all a smoke and mirrors “wave the flag” show. Who are the leading candidates for the GOP nomination in ’08? Rice, McCain, Giuliani and Allen. Not a one of these is a member of the religious right. Allen is fairly rightward on foreign policy and “law and order” but he’s moderately pro-choice on abortion and when he was governor of Virginia he would spend like there was no tomorrow. The Republicans would never be so foolish as to nominate a hard-core member of the religious right because it would make the Goldwater debacle look like a victory. Hard-core religious righters can’t even get elected to statewide office here in Virginia, one of the most conservative states in the country. Ollie North lost to LBJ’s son-in-law when he ran for the Senate in 1994, even though the Republicans swept the elections nationwide that year. In 1993, when Allen was elected governor, the GOP candidate for Lt. Gov. was Mike Farris, who was involved in starting one of the conservative Christian colleges you mentioned, and he lost to a conventional liberal Democrat even the GOP one in virtually every other race than year.
The religious right are simply useful idiots for the GOP establishment and the neocons. The neocons play to them because of their common Zionist views (the only issue the neocons really care about). Even the more intelligent and perceptive leaders among the religious right, like Paul Weyrich who co-founded the Moral Majority with Falwell, recognize that their movement has been a failure. As I said in my last post: What have they ever achieved? Abortion is probably their biggest issue and the one where religious right opinion is most unified. Who has Bush put on the Supreme Court? Members of the Right to Life Committee? Hardly. Just two stooges who will acquiesce to executive power.
The present day Republican Party is indeed a very sinister lot. They’re basically what the Nazi Party of Germany was in the 1930s: an alliance of corrupt crony capitalist and corrupt racial nationalists (neocon Zionists) pursuing a program of overt world conquest under the ruse of avenging a previous national humiliation (Versailles for the Germans, September 11 for the Americans). But this isn’t the fault of the Jesus freaks. Do you really think Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Kristol, and others of their ilk sit around reading Left Behind novels for inspiration? Bush might tell the Bible-bangers what they want to hear. He might even half-ass believe some of it himself. But is he even the real power in this administration? Or is he just a figurehead like Ronald “Wake me up in 8 years” Reagan or Prince Charles of England?
I know plenty of ordinary people who vote Republican. Some of them are evangelicals and some are secular. Both camps have basically the same political philosophy-”Cut my taxes and nuke those towelheads”. The religious Republicans might be a little more serious about the whole pro-life thing but that’s about it. Dobson, Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson, LaHaye, etc. are not going to takeover the US anymore than Al Sharpton or Barney Frank are going to do so. Much of the evangelical subculture you mention is just a variation of mainstream pop culture with a cross on top of it. Like Christian rock stars with “Jesus” tatooed on their necks and crosses for body piercings. This hardly indicates a subversive trend. There’s nothing in US religious culture to rival the genuinely theocratic radicalism that we see in the Islamic world.
Keith,
“It sounds like you’re trying to define “justice” according to empirical methodology-”Do this and you will get these results”.”
Actually, I believe that Hoppe’s argumentation ethics shows us that justice is truly a cold hard matter of logic, and the fact that humans argue.
“I believe the positions I take and the arguments I make are more conducive to the ends that I seek, like individual liberty and sovereignty for captive peoples. As to whether these ends are objectively “just” in their own right would seem to me to be a question that cannot be answered definitively.”
This is where we differ. I claim it can be answered in the affirmative definitively and indisputably.
“What I am skeptical of is the traditional idea found in much of Western philosophy like Platonism and Thomism (and the Randian or Rothbardian view) that “justice” has some sort of metaphysical property that exists outside of individual perception.”
But the act of justifying a proposition such as this one, presupposes that it can be shown valid, or not. Otherwise, why put the argument forward. If you seek only to modify the reader’s perception, rather than show the truth of the proposition, you may succeed in the former, but will you be satisfied that you have failed in the latter? Or in other words, if my perception says your statement is wrong, is it wrong? And your perception says it is true, it is true. This unfortunately suffers from internal contradiction, a fatal flaw in demonstrating the validity of a proposition.
“I generally side with the individualist-anarchist Benjamin Tucker on this question. Tucker started out as a natural rights theorist (influenced by the Lockean-Jeffersonian-Spoonerite tradition) but then came to embrace Max Stirner’s egoistic rejection of the state. This approach utilizes political anarchism as a means of advancing one’s own subjective personal or ideological interests.”
Assume I completely followed you there (I may hesitate to admit I may not have), the question in my mind remains: do you consider this position justified, or merely a matter of your perceptions and if my perceptions differ from yours, is my view equally justified.
“An anarchist of this type might say: “I am an anarchist because I believe anarchism is the best political framework for me to (pick one) achieve sovereignty for the Palestinians, preserve the Aryan race in isolated mountainous compounds, use drugs, worship God, make money, etc,.”"
Or someone, such as me might argue: “I am an anarchist because anarchy is the only political framework that can be justified”.
“Someone who argues against a political position like my own might say that statism, imperialism and tyranny are justified for the advancement of civilization or the opportunities for the demonstration of nobility and bravery brought about by war.”
But would that someone be justified in saying so, if none of those conditions can be justified at all?
“One could defend the ancient Egyptian pharoahs or the Chinese emperors who used slave labor, often working the slaves to death, on the grounds that these produced great architectural achievements in the pyramids or the Great Wall.”
They could indeed, but would they be justified in doing so?
“There are thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Alexander Kojeve, Leo Strauss and others who regarded war as uplifting the human spirit and and cultivating the virtues of discipline, sacrifice, bravery, comradery and so on.”
Yes there are, and they would even advocate the telling of lies and deceptions to implement these policies. But again the question returns to us: are they justified?
“One might find these kinds of views personally unpleasant or distasteful but are those who hold them objectively wrong in the same manner that someone who denies the heliocentric solar system is objectively wrong? I suspect not.”
I, on the other hand, can say that these kinds of views are indisputably unjustified. And for this I am grateful to Hans-Hermann Hoppe for presenting the insights necessary to see this.
“This is where my moral skepticism comes in to play.”
I understand. This must be a most unsatisfying position to be in. If it is, I recommend reading and studying Hoppe’s work on argumentation ethics. It’s really quite something else.
Roy,
“I am reminded of his declaration in one of the Ayn Rand threads that truth originates in Jesus Christ (or something to that effect).”
If you’re attributing that statement to me, your memory does not serve you.
To be truly free, i.e. allow free will and full liberty, you must permit evil BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF EVIL. Not some other arbitrary definition.
This is why I find some AnCap authors tiresome. They suggest cannibalism or slavery or such, but the one example they don’t give is “if your son is dying of cancer, will you violate the property rights I hold sacrosanct to save him”. Not if you will eat another human being or contract to become my slave.
Inscribe your own commandments in stone, and then tell me I have liberty, but not to violate those written by you on your tablets.
It is a contradiction.
Christian Liberty is heaven, or paradise. It means a banquet where thousands of delectible foods are there instead of the dozens at the largest ones here. Where the library has every possible (righteous) thought possible and I just have to desire knowledge. Where every possible good thing I can choose in this world is replaced by an infinite number of far better things in the next. Some would call these infinite choices slavery. Such will only find liberty in the utter isolation and desolation of hell – they will be free, but it will be a freedom devoid of choice.
In this world the most freedom comes from tolerating a great deal of foolishness, unreason, and even petty and/or contained evil. You should be free to burn your own house down if the burning won’t damage others, but it will be very hard to do. And even Jesus taught (as do the Catholic Saints practice) forgiveness. If I really value your free will, and you wish to strike me, I can either forgive you (catholicism), or strike you back (anarchocapitalism A), hire someone stronger to strike you back (ancab B), go get a policeman (statism), or learn to enjoy it (masochism), or imagine it didn’t really happen (christian science).
tz,
I sincerely believe that bound up in that above post, there is something i would like to address. Unfortunately, i found it just beyond my grasp. I just didn’t follow you very well. Can you say it again slightly differently?
If you’re attributing that statement to me, your memory does not serve you.
Ah, sorry, it was Laurence Vance. But I’m still reminded of it.
tz is merely demonstrating yet again that he doesn’t understand what he’s arguing against. [You (tz) should immediately go and read the chapter on "lifeboat situations" in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty]
LOL.
Roy, please, you shouldn’t apologize; especially when you really don’t feel apologetic about your error. It seems you may feel it actually helped make your point regardless of it being a misattributed quote.
Can’t say I blame you: from your perspective I’m sure it’s “once you’ve heard a loony argument put forth by one irritatingly fanatical religious nut-case, all other arguments by similar sounding nut-cases just blend together.” It’s cool.
Paul
WRT your comment about athieism. Got it. I see what you mean. It’s a fine point. I think that it likely boils down to a case of “on he who asserts the positive falls the burden of proof.” I’ll go think on it some.
Twenty lashes is a bit severe! I reckon you’d want to steer well clear of those fellows!
An interesting situation occurs outside the confines of their private property. What happens when a member swears when standing in (say) a train station belonging to some other group of people? Is he to be chastised with the lash?
Interesting questions are raised on the group’s property as well. What if a non-member swears at a member while present on the property of the group?
The most important question in the example is what this group believe to be an ideal society for Man. Clearly they must have something in mind for that is why they apply their rules (including severe ones). Do they accept the free society they exist within or do they merely tolerate it while working towards something “better”? What happens when the principles of the free society (and hence other people) contradict their own?
Good to correspond with you.
Regards
Sione