Given the debate occuring in the "The Libertarian Revolution: The Proletariat Revolution?" thread, I thought I would make clear, once and for all, why I think opposing non-aggressive social evils is a necessary part of a truly libertarian politics.
Fundamentally, what I value is eudaimonia, best translated as human flourishing. It is the actualization of each person's unique potential, living intelligently, fulfilling one's natural end as a rational, social, and political animal. Different goods and habits (virtues) make up one's eudaimonia, including rationality, pride, productivity, benevolence, etc. (some of the major virtues) and health, wealth, honor, friendship, etc. (some important goods). The individual weighing of goods and virtues, and what actually constitutes them, is ultimately up to one's practical reason.
However, one must be in control of their actions for them to be truly good; if you aren't making decisions for yourself, you aren't flourishing. This is because no one can have more knowledge of what constitutes your natural end than yourself; it is dependent on personal attributes that differ from person to person. Thus, one must be autonomous and in control of one's actions, just as a precondition (not a guarantee) of flourishing.
This is why aggression is wrong; fundamentally, it is the control of one person over another (you can think of property as being an extension of self in this situation). By initiating the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, you are imposing yourself on a person and preventing them from flourshing. What's more, you yourself are impeding your own flourshing. As rational, social, and political animals, humans have the potential to communicate and interact peacefully, and without the use of aggression. Given that this potential is uniquely human, and a universal part of everyone's natural end, aggressors, to the extent that they are using aggression, are not flourishing.
However, there is more than just aggression that can comprimise one's autonomy. Manifestations of collectivism, such as racism and patriarchy, can also constrain one's choices in a way that leads one to deviate from one's natural end, through no fault of their own. This, of course, cannot be solved through the use of force; that would be aggressive, and acting aggresively, as I stated earlier, is fundamentally not an instance of flourishing. It can, however, be solved by non-aggressive means, including but not limited to education, economic boycott, and social ostracism.
There are also other related reasons why non-aggressive social evils should be opposed. For one, they tend to encourage instances of aggression; racist attitudes encourage lynchs, patriarchy encourages rape, and so on. For utlitiarian reasons, then, one should also oppose such systems. Also, collectivism (which all social evils are ultimately manifestations of) is fundamentally irrational; by judging people by which arbitrary class they belong to, rather than the quality of their character or what they have to offer you in free association, you are going against your own natural end.
For more, see "A Groundwork for Rights: Man's Natural End" by Douglas Rasmussen, "Aristotelian Liberalism" by Geoffrey Allan Plauche, and "Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin" by Charles Johnson
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Too much to respond to in one go.
wombatron:This is because no one can have more knowledge of what constitutes your natural end than yourself
And yet you prescribe to a position on libertarian politics where you determine for others what are illegitimate barriers.
You can't have it both ways. I'm fine with you opposing you being sexist or racist, but the hypocrisy of claiming to know for others is complete nonsense.
If I have misunderstood this, I apologize in advance.
Also, racism = lynches and patriarchy = rape. Are you being serious?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: And yet you prescribe to a position on libertarian politics where you determine for others what are illegitimate barriers. You can't have it both ways. I'm fine with you opposing you being sexist or racist, but the hypocrisy of claiming to know for others is complete nonsense. If I have misunderstood this, I apologize in advance.
No, I failed to make a distinction. There are both universal and particular elements to human flourishing, and I think that opposing non-aggressive social evils, in addition to aggression, is one of the universal elements.
liberty student:Also, racism = lynches and patriarchy = rape. Are you being serious?
They encourage it. If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people, then what actions would that tend to produce? It's not an essential point, but such utilitarian concerns are useful to mention.
This is just in general to your last response, I don't have a problem with eudaimonia, I have a problem with the utopianism, collectivism and paternalism associated with it. There is an obvious "we know better than you, you cannot solve your own problems or realize your own eudaimonia without our guidance and our prefernce values on what is good and bad".
wombatron:If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people
I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook.
Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first.
Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim.
I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose.
I gotta sleep.
wombatron:Fundamentally, what I value is eudaimonia, best translated as human flourishing. It is the actualization of each person's unique potential, living intelligently, fulfilling one's natural end as a rational, social, and political animal. Different goods and habits (virtues) make up one's eudaimonia, including rationality, pride, productivity, benevolence, etc. (some of the major virtues) and health, wealth, honor, friendship, etc. (some important goods). The individual weighing of goods and virtues, and what actually constitutes them, is ultimately up to one's practical reason.
We are like identical twins. I am also an eudiamonist. Do I suspect a new strand of Anarcho-Capitalism presenting itself? Perhaps it can be called "Longinists"
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
wombatron,
Thank you for this primer on thick libertarianism. It's just the kind of summation I've been wanting to read.
As can be seen from my recent run-in with Giles, I abhor bigotry. So I'm definitely with you in supporting non-aggressive means of combatting bigotry.
However, I think thick libertarians (is that really the moniker you want?) err in placing that worthy stance within the concept of libertarianism. Certainly the ideals of anti-bigotry resonate with libertarianism, but that does not make it part of libertarianism. You wrote:
That's what "thin libertarianism" is all about; if it isn't aggression, it isn't a concern for libertarian politics.
The bit after the semi-colon seems to be a tautology. Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn't exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. If aggression isn't involved, the state isn't involved. If the state isn't involved, then it's not a matter of politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it's a social issue: not a political one.
I am glad you don't advocate aggression in response to bigotry. But by wrongly classifying bigotry as a political issue, you place it in an ambiguous position between vice and crime. This position could very easily tempt future thick libertarians into nudging it fully into the crime column.
I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne:Politics is all about the polis, or state. The state is the state by virtue of its aggression. Libertarianism is a doctrine about politics-- about the state (namely that it shouldn't exist). So by definition, aggression is the sole concern for libertarian politics. Anti-bigotry is an important issue. But it's a social issue: not a political one.
Actually according to Aristotle, politics is about finding the nature of the good in humanity. Basically finding what works for human flourishing and applying that on a larger scale.
Lilburne:I will readily call out bigotry for the disgusting thing that it is. But I do so as a libertarian who also happens to be a decent non-bigoted person, not as some new kind of libertarian.
Like I said, I really, really, like you.
@Wombie, I wasn't trying to nuke the discussion with my last response. I genuinely want to beat this to death until one of us sees what the other is seeing, and I will admit, there is a possibility I have it wrong, or I misunderstand it. But on the characterization of racism as blacks being lynched, or patriarchy as leading to rape of women ... that is stone cold collectivism, just like seeing the "landless labourers" as a class.
liberty student: I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook. Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first. Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim. I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose. I gotta sleep.
Huh?
I really don't see how any of that follows. Was it my use of the impersonal "you"? The comments about rape and lynching were just examples of aggressive behavior that is exacerbated by non-aggressive collectivisms.
Anarchist Cain:Actually according to Aristotle, politics is about finding the nature of the good in humanity. Basically finding what works for human flourishing and applying that on a larger scale.
I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
liberty student:@Wombie, I wasn't trying to nuke the discussion with my last response. I genuinely want to beat this to death until one of us sees what the other is seeing, and I will admit, there is a possibility I have it wrong, or I misunderstand it. But on the characterization of racism as blacks being lynched, or patriarchy as leading to rape of women ... that is stone cold collectivism, just like seeing the "landless labourers" as a class.
I understand. But I'm not saying that all racism or sexism leads to aggression. I'm saying that it makes it more likely. History is rife with examples of how a general attitude of thinking of certain classes of people as unequal or sub-human tends to lead to, well, sub-human treatment. That doesn't transfer anyone's responsibility to some abstraction, but it does help explain why it happened.
liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
Aristotle wasn't infalliable.
liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites.
Cheap shot. Aristotle was wrong.
liberty student:Which is why this paternalism is all starting to make sense to me.
To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
wombatron:To this, I have a question to ask you: do you think the NAP is paternalistic?
That is a valid question. Though I think it needs to be extended to natural law in general.
liberty student: This is just in general to your last response, I don't have a problem with eudaimonia, I have a problem with the utopianism, collectivism and paternalism associated with it. There is an obvious "we know better than you, you cannot solve your own problems or realize your own eudaimonia without our guidance and our prefernce values on what is good and bad". wombatron:If you see blacks or women as inferior, not even really people I always thought you white folks should worry about racism against whites. It's such a joke that some white guy is going to tell someone like me, a visible minority in North America that has put up with a lot of BS in my life, that I should be on the lookout and offended by racism. Humility doesn't seem to factor in to this particular outlook. Americans are some of the most racist people I have met. I don't hear about black people getting lynched ever. I think you really need to get some non-white friends and talk to them as individuals. I'll be the first. Your conception of racism is highly offensive to me, and as Keith Preston pointed out, it is likely the reason why the Long/Spangler/Carson/Johnson orbit is dominated by white middle and upper middle class males that despite being champions for diversity and justice, people of colour and straight females just aren't very interested in. And I am fairly certain that it is because you guys have an outlook that see them as victims. And no one is empowered by being made a victim. I mean, your comments about blacks and women are so crazy collectivist, and it stuns me that you think making gross generalizations about lynching and rape isn't exactly what you claim to oppose. I gotta sleep.
I agree LS,
except:
Americans are some of the most racist people I have met.
^Isn't that kind a collectivist generalization about Americans? I mean, perhaps it is true that some of the most racist people you have ever met happened to be from America, but the way you said that kind of came across as lumping all Americans together collectively as racists.
I mean feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
wombatron:I really don't see how any of that follows.
Not surprised. I got one more reply to finish and I am going to sleep.
You should re-read my post until you understand it. Seriously. I don't think I can rephrase it better.
Anarchist Cain:We are like identical twins. I am also an eudiamonist. Do I suspect a new strand of Anarcho-Capitalism presenting itself? Perhaps it can be called "Longinists"
Haha! I'm on the far left (along with Long and Charles Johnson) of an Aristotelian tendency within libertarianism that streches across agorism, ancapism, and minarchism and also includes Douglas Rasmussen, Douglas Den Uyl, Chris Sciabarra, Geoffrey Allan Plauche, and a lot of neo-/post-Objectivists. We gain members by the day! First, the libertarian movement; then, the world! *insert evil laugh here*
wombatron: liberty student:I believe that according to Aristotle, it's natural for slaves to serve elites. Cheap shot. Aristotle was wrong.
If we're going to make appeals to authority, then let's be clear about who the authority is, and what he stood for based on his own beliefs.
You should try my approach. Don't deify anyone. Borrow what is good and chuck the rest.
Not at all. Care to explain how it is?
And even if it was, would that validate paternalism via thick libertarianism because we have to choose between paternalism 1 and paternalism 2?
Anarchist Cain:Aristotle wasn't infalliable.
Well somewhere along the line, Aristotoleans seemed to believe they were.
liberty student:Well somewhere along the line, Aristotoleans seemed to believe they were.
Ah ah ah...collectivist statement. And I think somewhat strawman'ish'
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap