"A good many people fret themselves over the rather improbable speculation that the earth itself might be blown asunder by nuclear weapons. The grimmer and more immediate prospect is that men and women may be reduced to a sub-human state through limitless indulgence in their own vices--with ruinous consequences to society generally."
Russell Kirk, The Wise Men Know What Wicked Things Are Written on the Sky, 1988

Well said. If the consequences of unchecked vice are a grave threat to society generally, then the community is justified in limiting vice. For if the society perishes, the liberties it protects will perish with it.

The flaw in the logic being the premise that "the community" is the guardian of liberty. Everywhere and always throughout the course of history, the state has worked against liberty and for an ever advancing collectivization of human society.

The notion that something of which members of society are engaging in voluntarily and for their own benefit can be "a threat" to that society is inherently nonsensical. The community is merely a grouping of individuals, not a third party which is somehow independent of and superior to them. To say that "the community" is justified in limiting vice is actually saying "some members of the community are justified in dictating how other members of it will live their lives, in accordance with the preferences of the former".

The notion that the use of organized violence to maintain what is obviously a undesirable status quo (if it was not, the use of organized violence to maintain it would be unnecessary in the first place) is a far greater threat to liberty than a hit off the ol' bong ever could be.

The community and "the state" are not equivalent. Your historical claim, applied to communities, is false.

"The notion that something of which members of society are engaging in voluntarily and for their own benefit can be 'a threat' to that society is inherently nonsensical."

Nonsensical? We understand the notion. Do you mean to say that it is false? Inherently false? Contradictions are inherently false, but I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps you could spell it out. The fact is, it's perfectly obvious that such behavior can be destructive to society. Do you doubt that vicious people choose worse leaders and laws than virtuous people? Aren't bad leaders and laws a threat to society?

"The community is merely a grouping of individuals, not a third party which is somehow independent of and superior to them."

Of course a community is "something" (in a completely different sense than a person) other than the aggregate of people in it. Consider this: Is a university merely the people in it, John, Joe, Sally, etc.? No. It is "something" more.

"Violence" or force (for you, they are synonyms) is necessary to enforce law. By definition a law is a restriction of liberty. Are you suggesting that laws are inherently unjust? Or are you saying that, because some members of the community would break the laws, the laws maintain an undesirable status quo? So a law is good only if it is useless, i.e., if everyone would follow it? A curious position.

Dan- This is the least libertarian quote you have run in a while. It is a good one too. I am w/ Kirk here. If you look objectively at what our society was able to do to itself destructively, since say the late 50s when you had school kids doing silly drills of getting under desks in case of nuclear attack, then it is easy to see what he means. Gosh, just look at the millions of dead babies.

Ben-T,

You are trying to make a libertarian argument but it is coming out anarchist, which from reading your comments I know you will shy away from. Take it more piecemeal and you won't push yourself so far twds anarchism.

Ralph,

I definitely agree w/ your conception of the community as greater than its aggregate parts. That is why I had an issue in an earlier post about what the community (let alone the state) is morally bound to do vis a vis the suffering of other nations. It's the old metaphysical problem of parts and wholes. But the lack of total congruity (how much symmetry is there?) between the moral responsibility of the individuals and that of the community can be seen in the difference between a common good and the personal good. Take Aquinas's example of the mother of the man who is to be put to death for murder. It would actually be morally objectionable for her to will the end of his death, even if it is a just punishment, yet it would be morally objectionable for the state to not so will it in pursuit of the common good.

All this is why for me any discussion of these issues must include two intervening institutions/groupings in the social or communal order in between the individual and the state, namely the Church and the family. These are dropped out by modern political thought, very much including libertarian thought, as Ben-T illustrates.

Bruce,

I would qualify the claim that the distinction between the individual and the community is that between part and whole. Certainly a community is a unity as opposed to an aggregate, and in this sense it is an@logous to the unity of parts in a whole. But a community is not a unity of individuals in the sense that, e.g., a molecule is a unity of atoms. Atoms and molecules are in the same logical category, whereas, person and community are in different logical categories (what categories there are is a very interesting and, to my mind, very open question). To borrow an example of Ryle's, if a person were taken to a university and shown the library, the dorm, the cafeteria, and the classrooms, and then asked 'But where is the university,' they would be commiting a category mistake. A university is not another building, or even the set of buildings. It is a different kind of entity. When discussing the relation between individuals and communities, the an@logy with parts and wholes can fall into this mistake if we're not careful. No doubt, uberfrau could help us out with understanding such institutions.

Concerning the separate roles of political community, church and family, I'm reminded of something I recently heard a professor of medieval philosophy (an expert on Scotus) say: There are two different views concerning the role of the political community and the teaching of virtue. The first holds that the role of the political community is to instill virtue through law. The second is that it is not the role of the political community, but of the church, to instill virtue. The role of the political community is merely to create a stable space for the church to operate in. The latter is the modern view, the former, the classical view.

Ralph,

Re: your - "The first holds that the role of the political community is to instill virtue through law. The second is that it is not the role of the political community, but of the church, to instill virtue. The role of the political community is merely to create a stable space for the church to operate in. The latter is the modern view, the former, the classical view."

Did you inadvertently swap your "latter" and "former"? If I understand you correctly, I would say that the "first" (the "former") is the modern view (think "hate speech," anti-discrimination" and many environmental laws, for example). For the "second" or "latter" I wouldn't use "classical" to describe it, but "medieval." And I certainly do not intend that description as a pejorative: I think on this point the medievals were right and we moderns are wrong.

Thanks,
--Eric

Eric,

I too am using "classical" as a word of praise, but I have not mistakenly switched "former" and "latter." The professor held (rightly, in my view) that the classical view (from Aristotle to Aquinas) of the political community holds it to be the teacher of virtue.

Ralph,

Yeah, I disagree with Aristotle here, esp. if we are talking speaking of the State level. If you want to confine the "political community" in its role of fostering virtue to the local level, then I am right there with you. But beyond that, I see the State possessing only a negative role of protecting life, liberty, and property from foreign and domestic threats. The State should do nothing to undermine church and family, so that they can do what they are designed to do: raise virtuous citizens and show the way to God.

"The community and "the state" are not equivalent. Your historical claim, applied to communities, is false." - Ralph

The state is a monopoly on the legal use of coercive violence within a given geographical area. How else do you suppose that "the community" would enforce its will to "restrict" behavior? If you have some other way I am open to hear it. The state is the only way for some people within a society to use force to compel other's to live as some other member's of society would choose. Thus, in this case, they are the same.

"Nonsensical? We understand the notion. Do you mean to say that it is false? Inherently false? Contradictions are inherently false, but I fail to see the contradiction. Perhaps you could spell it out. The fact is, it's perfectly obvious that such behavior can be destructive to society. Do you doubt that vicious people choose worse leaders and laws than virtuous people? Aren't bad leaders and laws a threat to society?" - Ralph

Bad leaders and laws are features inherent to the state, not voluntary action. The state operates on inherently involuntary action, enforced through arms. Voluntary action may never involve the state as part of its apparatus.

"Of course a community is "something" (in a completely different sense than a person) other than the aggregate of people in it. Consider this: Is a university merely the people in it, John, Joe, Sally, etc.? No. It is "something" more." - Ralph

A university is a firm, a business selling a product: education. The people who attend it are its customers, the people who work at it are its employees. Now then: What the university is is the sum of its employees and employers. If these people were not around, there would not be a university, there would only be a mass of buildings being put to no particular use. There is not some third party entity independent of these people called "the university" which can express its will over the employers, employees, and/or customers of the university.

The community here simply refers to the mass of people living in a given geographical area. Because the university is nothing more than a voluntary association of its employees and employers, it does not exist outside of them. There is not "something" that is a university. It is simply a group of people using their property and their talents to sell a product. Likewise, the community does not exist outside of the people who are its members. There could not be a community of 0 people.

""Violence" or force (for you, they are synonyms) is necessary to enforce law. By definition a law is a restriction of liberty. Are you suggesting that laws are inherently unjust? Or are you saying that, because some members of the community would break the laws, the laws maintain an undesirable status quo? So a law is good only if it is useless, i.e., if everyone would follow it? A curious position." - Ralph

Any law which exists for some purpose other than maintaining property rights will always and everywhere be inherently unjust. The community has no right to tell me that I may not smoke marijuana, because the community has no justly derived property right over either myself or my property (in this case, the marijuana) and as such their approval or disapproval of may action can bear no relevance on the question of whether they have a legal right to employ organized violence against me to prevent me from doing it.

Violence and force are not synonyms to me. The dictionary defines violence as "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws."

A police officer who restrains a thief employs force.

A police officer who arrests someone for smoking marijuana employs violence. Because the "community" (which is to say some members of the community who wish to violently enforce their will over other members of it)has no justly derived property right over either the person or his property, a law which exists for some purpose other than protecting property rights would never be justifiable, and thus would always and everywhere be an example of violence.

Bruce:

Roderick T. Long's "Ten Objections to Libertarian Anarchism": http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

Is a fairly compelling argument. I'm not entirely convinced that Market Anarchism is the way to go, but I would definitely say I am getting there.

Eric,

There wasn't a distinction between local and non-local government in the polis, of course. And "the state" is a modern concept.

It seems to me that you are making a practical point (viz., that local governments are better at determining the ethical needs of, and therefore the laws for, the communities that they govern) as opposed to a theoretical one (viz., that civil government as such should not be in the business of instilling virtue). For the most part, I agree with the practical point.

Ralph,

Yes, though it is also a theoretical point. But it sounds like you, me, and Bat Man are in general agreement - though when it comes to the State I am also in general agreement with Ben-T. In other words, I do believe in the principle of subsidiarity, though I think responsibility beyond defense peters out pretty darn quickly once you get beyond the neighborhood and the village.

Bet-T,

The number of confusions and errors exhibited in your response is too numerous to address each one. Let me focus on two.

(1) "Bad leaders and laws are features inherent to the state."

So there's no such thing as good laws and leaders? Or is it that good laws and leaders belong to some institution that is distinct from "the state"?

(2) "Any law which exists for some purpose other than maintaining property rights will always and everywhere be inherently unjust."

How about a law against incest? It is not possible to subsume a law against incest under property rights. Suppose a father and a daughter over the age of 18 choose to have sexual relations. Suppose they also would like to get married, etc. Is it your position that forbidding them to do so would be inherently unjust?

"So there's no such thing as good laws and leaders? Or is it that good laws and leaders belong to some institution that is distinct from "the state"?" - Ralph

That's my fault, I presented that poorly. What I am saying is, because rulers and ruler-given laws are inherent to the state, the problem of bad rulers and bad laws are by extension also inherent to the state. Voluntary action does not raise this danger, we would have to cross over into non-voluntary action to find it.

However it is important to note that because a state is a monopoly, even if there was a state with nothing but angels ruling it, it would do its job poorly. Absent a price mechanism to communicate data about what is being demanded, it is impossible to know exactly what legal service packages should be produced for whom and at what times, etc.

"How about a law against incest? It is not possible to subsume a law against incest under property rights. Suppose a father and a daughter over the age of 18 choose to have sexual relations. Suppose they also would like to get married, etc. Is it your position that forbidding them to do so would be inherently unjust?" - Ralph

Yes. Though my position on the issue of state-issued marriage licenses is that the state shouldn't be able to give them to anyone at all. So finding a church willing to marry them may be something of a task.

Secondly you aren't allowing for non-restrictive ways to discouraging this behavior. For example, a incestuous couple is likely to face social ostracization for their disgusting behavior. This is a very real punishment which is non-violent nad non-restrictive for incest.

But if you are simply asking: Should we actually use organized coercive force to keep a father and his daughter from engaging in incest if they so wish, I see no reason why we should. The conservative fallacy on this issue is taking the question "Should we use organized coercive force to prevent X" and attempting to turn it into "Do you personally approve or disapprove of X?"

P.S: Ralph, next time you find yourself unable to refute the points made in an argument, you might do better to simply concede that there could be some value in what your opponent says, instead of dismissing it in your usual arrogant and bellicose tone. Trust me, I've been guilty of this sin enough times to know what you are doing.

“Ruler-given laws”? As opposed to what? Are you making the obvious point: Rulers and laws are features of government, a fortiori, bad rulers and bad laws are features of government. If so, I agree. The relation between this point and your next sentence remains obscure.

So, any government is a monopoly, monopolies necessarily function poorly, therefore, any government necessarily functions poorly? Isn’t there competition in, say, our form of government? Or how would you characterize elections? Obviously, once we select a group of rulers, they are the ones that rule. Just as once I select an electric company, they are they ones that light my house.

Your allegiance to liberty is certainly interesting (though misguided). Let me ask you this. What if an action does not violate anyone else’s property rights, but it invariably (or for the most part) leads to actions that do violate other people’s property rights. I’m thinking of the use of “crystal meth,” for example. The drug addict, driven by his addiction, invariably (or usually) becomes a thief, etc. Or suppose that some drug had the unfortunate side effect of enraging its users so that they were very likely to commit assault or murder. Would it be just to prohibit their use of these drugs?

Finally, why do you hold liberty in such high regard?

"“Ruler-given laws”? As opposed to what?" - Ralph

Well there is the Mosaic Law of the Jews. This isn't given by a ruler (unless you want to count God). They are communally upheld and enforced absent a state doing it. There is also the Canon law of the Church. While the Pope is the head of the Church, he is not the ruler of it in the political sense, because it is a purely voluntary organization. Again the canon law is not a state-based law. It is upheld purely through voluntary means.

"So, any government is a monopoly, monopolies necessarily function poorly, therefore, any government necessarily functions poorly? Isn’t there competition in, say, our form of government? Or how would you characterize elections? Obviously, once we select a group of rulers, they are the ones that rule. Just as once I select an electric company, they are they ones that light my house." - Ralph

Democracy is nowhere near as efficient as a price mechanism for choosing what resources to allocate where, when, etc. A firm can simply see if a given course of action is profitable. If is profitable, then the plan is working at satisfying consumer demands and should be pursued. If the firm suffers a loss, they know that it isn't working and they should stop or modify their plans. Firms that operate well in responding to consumer demands will flourish, ones that don't will fail. In this way the profit/loss mechanism minimizes losses and maximizes the efficient and correct allocation of resources.

An elected leader has no such constant flow of information on all fronts. Firstly, they are elected too rarely. "Elections" in the market take place every single day when consumers go to the store. For president, once every four years. Second, they don't sell their specific products. They are elected on huge package deals and simply given mandates. Thirdly, even if you elect a different President to be the commander of the US military, for example, you have no option of opting out of the US military as your protection agency. Thats the one you have, period.

If there was some kind of "market" for President, for example, Bush would have been gone long ago. People would stop buying his product.

"Your allegiance to liberty is certainly interesting (though misguided). Let me ask you this. What if an action does not violate anyone else’s property rights, but it invariably (or for the most part) leads to actions that do violate other people’s property rights. I’m thinking of the use of “crystal meth,” for example. The drug addict, driven by his addiction, invariably (or usually) becomes a thief, etc. Or suppose that some drug had the unfortunate side effect of enraging its users so that they were very likely to commit assault or murder. Would it be just to prohibit their use of these drugs?" - Ralph

Firstly, that crystal meth would lead to crime if it were legal is not established. Secondly, no. Arresting people on the correlation between their behavior and crime is an indefensible standard. Or why not just arrest all young urban blacks and get it over with? After all, there is a very high correlation between a young urban black and committing crimes.

"Finally, why do you hold liberty in such high regard?" - Ralph

Presumably the reason you believe the community should restrict certain social behavior is because you believe that, in the end, this would be best for the community? But by the very fact that you want what is best for the community, you have to believe that there is some intrinsic value to human beings in the first place (otherwise, who cares what happens to them?).And once you accept that human beings do have intrinsic value, it follows that there is certain things that it is not acceptable to do to them. Among these is to subject them to violence. Thus, if you do actually care about what is the best end for the society, liberty is the only answer, because it is the only one which does not subject at least some members of that community to violence. If you do not take issue with subjecting them to violence, one must question why it is that you care about the community in the first place, since it is nothing but a group of humans, and by endorsing violence, you have agreed that there is nothing intrinsic to humans that you object to treating them unjustly.

Ben-T,

Before I discuss your rationale for making liberty the greatest good, I want to be give you one more example. If you are consistent, you must oppose any law that would prohibit driving a car while drunk, even though driving while drunk greatly increases the chance that the driver will violate others property rights. Correct?

Well I oppose state provided roads. In a market system, agreeing not to utilize roads while drunk would be handled contractually.

State misallocations of resources (such as the state building roads) often create moral quandaries which are impossible to get out of. If you support a law prohibiting drunks from driving, you are subjecting people to violence. If you advocate an absence of those laws, you are going to have large numbers of needless car accidents. I would say the only way to truly solve the problem is to do away with state roads and utilize a market for the production and upkeep of roads. Within the context of state-run roads, the question is a moral paradox.

I think I understand you now. You want to eliminate civil government and replace it with corporations that provide the same services. You want citizens to become customers.

What you say about roads applies to the military, the police, the courts and every other governmental entity. For to have any of these as governmental entities requires taxation, and if even one citizen does not consent to pay, taxation constitutes "violence."

How does that sound?

Actually as I mentioned to Bruce earlier, Roderick T. Long's "Ten Commmon Objections to Libertarian Anarchism" has me somewhat convinced of Market Anarchy. I consent freely that Market Anarchy is, from justice, the best "regime". The only reticence I have comes from the danger that if the state were to disappear, another, worse, one would be raised in its place.

So the libertarian-anarchist utopia you advocate could not defend itself?

Implied in the concept of "utopia" is the notion that some change in the nature of man is necessary to realize it. Market anarchism is only taking the nature of man to its logical conclusion, and so cannot be classified as a utopia.

If you are seriously interested in understanding the subject (I doubt this.) I recommend you read that transcribed lecture of Long's that I posted above. Also good is "If Men Were Angels: The Basic Ana-lytics of the State versus Self-Government" by Robert Higgs:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1982

P.S: For a good article on this issue specifically (and on why a free society would be more, not less, culturally conservative than the statist solutions conservatives usually reach for) check out "The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

http://www.mises.org/story/1766

A "utopia" is a regime that is "nowhere," i.e., it does not exist in past or present space-time, but is in invention of the intellect. Libertarian anarchism qualifies.

That is literally what the word utopia means, but it does not actually correlate with the idea of utopia in common usage. Or else we would have no difference between a utopia and a dystopia.

Regardless, if we were to define the state in the Weberian sense, as an organization with a monopoly on the use of coercive force within a given geographical area, there are historical examples of political systems which are at least very similar to market anarchism. Medieval Iceland and the American West are two of the most popular ones.

Well, I'm off to diner, so we'll have to continue this discussion later.

Make that dinner at a diner.

I'll be watching the Red Sox Yankees game. Be on later tonight though.

P.S: Dan these "Worth repeating" posts are the best ones on the blog. They are always well chosen and usually provoke the best discussions. Keep up the good work.

Why should we accept Weber's definition of "state"? Perhaps being an "organization with a monopoly on the use of coercive force within a given geographical area" is a necessary condition, but it is certainly not sufficient. Certain mob organizations or street gangs could have a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. It wouldn't follow that they are "states."

Without historical precedent, there is no telling how libertarian anarchism would fare. In that regard, it is comparable to Marxism in the 19th century. And for all we know, its actuality would be as disastrous as that of Marxism.

You will likely respond that, unlike Marxism, libertarian anarchism "takes the nature of man to its logical conclusion." Thus, your argument for libertarian anarchism reduces to an argument concerning human nature. Notice, however, that Marxists, Aristotelians, etc. all make claims about what is proper for man.

In a previous comment you said, "once you accept that human beings do have intrinsic value, it follows that there is certain things that it is not acceptable to do to them. Among these is to subject them to violence." By "violence" I understand you to mean depriving another person of liberty (when the deprivation is not a response to that person's having deprived another person of liberty, e.g., putting someone in jail as a consequence for theft). Thus, you are claiming that acceptance a person's "intrinsic value" is incompatible with depriving them of liberty. This, of course, is not self-evident. It is a conclusion in need of an argument.

"Why should we accept Weber's definition of "state"? Perhaps being an "organization with a monopoly on the use of coercive force within a given geographical area" is a necessary condition, but it is certainly not sufficient. Certain mob organizations or street gangs could have a monopoly on the use of force in a given area. It wouldn't follow that they are "states." Ralph

Monopoly on the legal use of force, is the definition. States are in effect, however, large gangs.

"Without historical precedent, there is no telling how libertarian anarchism would fare. In that regard, it is comparable to Marxism in the 19th century. And for all we know, its actuality would be as disastrous as that of Marxism." - Ralph

The social sciences are immutable and a priori. History is not a sample and there is no way to perform experiments in the social sciences. Marxism failed because, without a price mechanism, it is impossible to calculate what resources should be invested and where. The Austrian school economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk refuted Marxism in his Theory of Capital & Interest (1884).

The libertarians knew Marxism was doomed to failure, and said as much throughout the Cold War, while the cold warriors were busy throwing millions to the slaughter in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, ostensibly in an attempt to "contain" the spread of unstoppable communism. Of course, the libertarians were right. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord under the weight of its unworkable economic system.

"You will likely respond that, unlike Marxism, libertarian anarchism "takes the nature of man to its logical conclusion." Thus, your argument for libertarian anarchism reduces to an argument concerning human nature. Notice, however, that Marxists, Aristotelians, etc. all make claims about what is proper for man." - Ralph

Not at all. I would respond that because of features inherent to its system (price, profit, & loss) only capitalism can transmit data about subjective utility in consumers and therefore create the optimal allocation of resources in a given industry. I would leave it to you to either object to the notion that capitalism creates the optimal allocation of resources, or explain why the fields of national defense & law are uniquely different from all other industries and must be handled by a singular monopoly.

"In a previous comment you said, "once you accept that human beings do have intrinsic value, it follows that there is certain things that it is not acceptable to do to them. Among these is to subject them to violence." By "violence" I understand you to mean depriving another person of liberty (when the deprivation is not a response to that person's having deprived another person of liberty, e.g., putting someone in jail as a consequence for theft). Thus, you are claiming that acceptance a person's "intrinsic value" is incompatible with depriving them of liberty. This, of course, is not self-evident. It is a conclusion in need of an argument." - Ralph

Ethics, as it applies here, is the study of what it is and is not acceptable to do to your fellow human beings. If you believe that human beings have some intrinsic value, you must believe that there are things which is not acceptable to do to a human being.

From there, if you wish to subject a human being to force, the burden of proof would be on you to explain from whence you have derived your right to subject them to force. If you propose a law saying "no man may smoke marijuana", and you believe human beings have an intrinsic value (and thus that it is in fact possible to treat them unjustly) you must explain how you have come to have the right to apply force to them to keep them from smoking marijuana.

Ben-T,

Not to jump in the middle of your debate here with Ralph, but one point of order. You write above: "The libertarians knew Marxism was doomed to failure, and said as much throughout the Cold War... Of course, the libertarians were right. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord under the weight of its unworkable economic system."

This is not exactly true. The Marxist economic model was Communism’s "Achilles' heel," yes, and it was its own undoing. But like Achilles' heel, it had to be struck to be brought down. Ronald Reagan exploited the Soviet's economic weaknesses, did his best to sabotage their economy (by working against and then destroying their Asian pipeline project through a technological "time bomb") and pushed them over the edge with the arms race. Reagan's efforts were indispensable toward the collapse of the Soviet system and the Warsaw Pact. And though I agree that it would ultimately have collapsed completely of its own accord (if not reformed, a la Red China), there is no reason to presume it would have even by now. If nothing else will convince you of this fact, Paul Kengor's The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism should. It is well worth your read, I assure you.

--Eric

"Monopoly on the legal use of force is the definition."

You've added the word "legal" to the definition. Laws are effects of a state. Therefore, your definition begs the question: A state is a monopoly on the state sanctioned use of force.

"The social sciences are immutable and a priori."

That's quite a claim! Do you have an argument to go with it?

I prefer to say that there is a good for man. That good is happiness, and happiness is the result of virtue. Liberty, insofar as it is a means to virtue, contributes to happiness. Insofar as liberty is a means to vice, it contributes to unhappiness. Men ought to be happy, and therefore, men ought to be virtuous. Impediments to virtue, such as misguided liberty, should be removed.

The reason I do not murder or steal is because such actions are contrary to human nature, and thereofore, they are contrary to my own happiness.

Ralph,

"The reason I do not murder or steal is because such actions are contrary to human nature, and therefore, they are contrary to my own happiness."

But what if murder and theft makes someone happy? I watched a rerun of "Criminal Minds" last night where a would-be serial killer said that he felt happy killing a bird for no reason, and presumed he would too if he killed a woman. Ironically, there was a special on Jeffrey Dahmer on MSNBC? at the same time. He certainly felt a rush and "happiness" as a result of his atrocities.

Moreover, I would argue that in an important sense that murder and theft are very much a part of human nature, fallen as it is. This is why there are the Commandments addressing murder, theft, and envy. Jesus built on the last by saying that whatever we harbor in our heart we are guilty of in transgressing the Law. And it is clear that we are all guilty in this regard, and so all mankind needs a Savior and a scapegoat, which He is for us, being impotent to save ourselves given our nature.

All this is to say that your argument doesn't leave you in a better place than Ben-T's does, and presents problems of its own.

--Eric

"This is not exactly true. The Marxist economic model was Communism’s "Achilles' heel," yes, and it was its own undoing. But like Achilles' heel, it had to be struck to be brought down. Ronald Reagan exploited the Soviet's economic weaknesses, did his best to sabotage their economy (by working against and then destroying their Asian pipeline project through a technological "time bomb") and pushed them over the edge with the arms race. Reagan's efforts were indispensable toward the collapse of the Soviet system and the Warsaw Pact. And though I agree that it would ultimately have collapsed completely of its own accord (if not reformed, a la Red China), there is no reason to presume it would have even by now. If nothing else will convince you of this fact, Paul Kengor's The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism should. It is well worth your read, I assure you." - Eric

Theres little evidence I know of to suggest that an increase in Soviet spending on the military was the cause of its collapse. Economic collapse and attempts to reform the system had begun as early as destalinization.

"You've added the word "legal" to the definition. Laws are effects of a state. Therefore, your definition begs the question: A state is a monopoly on the state sanctioned use of force." - Ralph

If I have its because of a typo on my part, earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

The weberian definition is mentioned in the first paragraph.

However I don't disagree with what you are fundamentally getting at, that states and gangs are roughly the same thing under that definition.

"That's quite a claim! Do you have an argument to go with it?" - Ralph

Because you cannot isolate variables, it is impossible to perform experiments in the social sciences. Thus, if any knowledge in the social sciences can be gained, it has to be gained through a priori axiomatic reasoning.

"I prefer to say that there is a good for man. That good is happiness, and happiness is the result of virtue. Liberty, insofar as it is a means to virtue, contributes to happiness. Insofar as liberty is a means to vice, it contributes to unhappiness. Men ought to be happy, and therefore, men ought to be virtuous. Impediments to virtue, such as misguided liberty, should be removed." - Ralph

Which virtuous activities should be subsidized by the state? Which activities should we outright ban? Exactly how many resources should we allocate to subsidizing virtue and punishing non-virtue? To whom should we allocate them and when should they be allocated? What is the correct price that the society ought pay in foregone productive opportunities to keep people from engaging in non-virtuous activities? Are there answers to any of these questions, or have you simply concluded "Virtue is good, non-virtue is bad, therefore the state apparatus is the means to make people be virtuous."?

Liberty is of course the only organic means to encouraging virtue, and the one that most coincides with Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle said that happiness consisted in harmony with one's natural end, and the natural end of man is reason. The market, happily, punishes unreasonable activity and rewards reasonable activity. Hoppe discusses this at length in the article I linked above, "The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism". One simple example is that the way to curb the use of crack cocaine is not to make crack cocaine illegal (this has done nothing but create an organized crime empire specializing in the illegal drug trade) but to abolish the welfare state, and in so doing force people to face the costs they bear by using drugs.

Secondly, repealing the state will mean that people have to rely on traditional sources of support, such as family and Church, to help them out when they are down on their luck. Unlike the state, which just hands out paychecks without stopping much to question how they are used, these groups take an active interest in the subject's life, and are much less likely to continue paying him if it becomes clear he is using his money to life a life that is, well, non-virtuous.

Eric, Aristotelian ethics (which Ralph is espousing) are probably the best formalized ethics any philosopher has ever produced. Will make another post about them later, if Ralph doesn't explain precisely what he means (it makes much more sense than one would think at first glance).

One point about the classical v. modern view debate between Ralph and Eric:

It seems to me that Ralph is wrong when he says, in "the classical view (from Aristotle to Aquinas) of the political community holds it to be the teacher of virtue." In the classical view, there are many "teachers" of virtue, and the laws (not so much the political community) are a key one. But so is, of course, the family, friends, and for Christians, the Church.

In addition, I think that the statement doesn't lack truth, but probably is too simplified to be of much help. The modern state certainly views itself as being able to legislate morality (though the concept of virtue is utterly lost), and modern philosophers differ quite a bit on the issue. So it it right to say that the modern state (or its philosophers) happily restrains itself from teaching its view of virtue? No. And it is not quite the case that the modern happily accept the role of the state to make room for the Church's operations. More often than not, they view the Church as a illegitimate rival to their own authority, or (at best) perhaps as just another part of the free public square.

Ben-T,

I am arguing with Ralph mostly as a "devil's advocate," but I do think his argument needs some fleshing out. And, fwiw, my political philosophy is a cross between James Madison, George Washington, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, F.A. Hayek, and King Arthur. And I much favor the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, as given in the Scriptures, to Aristotle.

And do read that book.

Sincerely,
--Eric

"And I much favor the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, as given in the Scriptures, to Aristotle."

You don't think that Aristotle was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

On that note, I must adjourn for the day. Apparently I must take leave from commenting on FlynnFiles to do something called "work."

No - certainly not in the sense that Scripture is God-breathed (and I assume you are being tongue-in-cheek?"). Aristotle was wise, but some of his teachings are exactly what the Apostle Paul is denouncing when he speaks of the "wisdom of the world." So I see Aristotle's teachings as a useful tool, but not any sort of foundation Christians should rely upon.

Whats an example of Aristotelian teachings being condemned by Paul, Eric? That is intriguing to me, because I have always considered Aristotle to be the greatest philosopher and something of a proto-Christian.

P.S: Regarding the classical view of politics, it seemed to me that they didn't differentiate between the community and the *political* community. For them, the state and the society were the same thing. For example, Aristotle famously defended government by saying that "The man outside the city is either a beast or a God." He did not seem to realize that this was a defense of the concept of communities, not of the state.

Eric,

On your point to Ralph that murderers experience "happiness" when killing, I would counterargue that what they are feeling is pleasure, not happiness. It speaks to the success of a philosophy of hedonistic utilitarianism that the two concepts of pleasure and happiness have been so confused by us in the past 200 years. But to refute the murderer who says he is made happy by his deed we only need to refute the equation of happiness w/ pleasure . . . and then we need to lock him up as irrational and bad (meaning arguing w/ the murderer is rather pointless).

"Bruce",

I agree with you very much.

But I would also note that Christians that know Christ, have Him as their savior, seek prayerfully and mightily to follow His will in all things, can also - for a time at least - be un-"happy." They can suffer from all sorts of persecution and struggles - a la Job - such as depression, and not commit grievous and intentional sin. So I'm not sure "happiness," however defined, can be a good enough ground to build design government and political philosophy around.

Ben-T,

I'm not sure Paul was ever addressing any particular teaching of Aristotle's. But it is clear that he had the whole spectrum of Greek - and by extension, all the world's - philosophy in mind in passages like Col. 2:8; 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16; 3:18-20; and 2 Cor. 1:12, given the cultural milieu in which his ministry was focused. He is addressing the Greek philosophers directly - and esp. the Stoics and Epicureans - in Acts 17.

My point here is not that Aristotle is of no value to us - he most certainly is. But it is folly to make his teachings a foundation, according to Paul. God's wisdom is foolishness to the world, so be it. The world’s and the Greek’s and even Aristotle’s wisdom is foolishness to God, in the final an@lysis.

Further, I often hear from Catholics and even many Protestants this claim that Aristotle was a "proto-Christian." I object to this characterization for a couple reasons in addition to the above. First, it suggests that one can reason his way to God and salvation. Reason is a tool, that is wielded best when rooted in faith - and that faith is in Christ, and is itself a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9). But reason is corrupted by the Fall just as much as every other human faculty and aspect of the human soul. Second, the "proto-Christian" terminology suggests that Christianity spawned, at least to some extent, from Aristotle (whether those who use this term intend it in such way or not). This is just plain false. Christianity is based on Christ and His person and mission - being the fulfillment of Redemptive History, which was revealed through the Hebrew people. And Hebraic culture and thinking was much at odds with the Greeks.

All this is to say that I think it better to say that some of Aristotle's teachings coincide with the True Wisdom revealed by God, and are therefore edifying and a useful tool for us to use. But I deny that any foundational basis should be granted his teachings.

Respectfully,

--Eric

Eric: Nobody here has suggested that Aristotle's teaching can be the foundations of Christianity, or that they influenced Christianity. And one can certainly overdo the (vague andmisleading) "protoChristian" talk, but you should not mock the idea that the Holy Sprirt could have inspired Aristotle in some ways. Here's a proof: There is no wisdom apart from the Holy Spirit. Aristotle has some serious wisdom. He must have got it from God.

Also, one can reason to a position that God exists, and one can reason to a position that humans need salvation. A whole lot of Christian dogma is not capable of being supported without reveleation, but I think you might be overdoing the fideism here.

uberfrau,

I think you are missing my point. I didn't say that anyone said that Aristotle was the foundation of Christianity. I did say that there is that implicit link with the proto-Christian language. But I am talking about his philosophy being a foundation for government or political philosophy, as if the form of his teaching and arguments are unassailable or should be *the* Christian approach to such topics.

I agree with you that one must be inspired by God, as the ultimate cause of all things in Omnipotence Himself. And we are called to recognize wisdom in the world, esp. from our elders, in many places in Proverbs, as long as it doesn't contradict Scripture. But the Bible talks of inspiration in infallible terms, such as prophecy. Aristotle was not a prophet, and there is no reason to grant his words the status of even those of Balaam's Ass. Having said that, we can rightly honor and respect - and gain very much - from his sagacity.

Bare bones theism and recognition of ones sinfulness is certainly within man's capability. (See Romans 1 and 2, e.g.) But that doesn't bring one to Christ. Jesus must call his own, and his Revelation is indispensable toward that end.

We seem to be getting away from the main point of this thread, viz., making fun of libertarians.

Ben-T,

Let's start at the beginning.

Why are men owed liberty? Presumably you think it is a natural debt. What about man's nature entitles him to liberty?

Is liberty a means or an end in itself?

It is axiomatic that people own themselves, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has pointed out. A person arguing that other people do not own themselves, or that he does not own himself, would be caught in a performative contradiction.

Firstly, he must assume that he owns himself to even make the assertion "I do not own myself", or else from whence has he derived his right to speak? Since he does not own himself but is the property of another, he would need to get permission from his owner before performing any action, among these speech. If you take the democratic position and believe that members of a community are owned by that community, you would have to argue that any person living inside a community would have to get the permission of each other person (or at least a majority) within the community before performing any action. This would of course be impossible, since even the act of inquiring is in and of itself an action.

Secondly, by arguing that other people do not own themselves, he immediately agrees that, in fact, they do. By the action of using persuasion rather than force to have others agree that they are not self-owners, he is implicitly assenting that they have a right to disagree with his proposition. This is in and of itself an implicit assent that they are self-owners. If they were not self-owners, they would have no right to be disagreeing in the first place.

If you propose that you have the right to apply coercive force against others, you must support the assertion that these people do not own themselves, but that you have some justly derived property right over them. This is however, logically impossible.

Eric,

In your response to me you agreed I think w/ my claim that happiness needs to be understood as separable from pleasure but then your example of the Christian who is un-"happy" b/c of suffering assumed just the same identification of happiness w/ a feeling of pleasure.

Let me make my point this way which will actually involve two pagan Greeks and then Christianity. Socrates gives an example of a tyrant who likes to put people in huge ceramic bulls on spits and then roast them alive. Socrates says that to understand true happiness as the human good we have to imagine that the virtuous man, even while being roasted in the bull is a happy man. Aristotle's response to this story is that one can maintain the happiness of the poor fellow (you can think Job here) only if "defending a thesis." That is to say that it so goes against our natural way of thinking about happiness that to say that one who is suffering unto death is happy seems simply wrong. Yet, reading Aristotle he doesn't really change the understanding of happiness that Socrates demonstrates w/ his extreme example, happiness is still a disposition of the soul to act in accord w/ virtue (act in accord w/ the good). Aristotle, as a protector of natural opinion, sees that it seems crazy to call someone so completely devoid of pleasure like Job "happy" even if they are acting in accord to the good, but he still doesn't want to reduce Happiness to simply the presence of a feeling of pleasure.

I would suggest that this squabble between Socrates and Aristotle on the one hand, and between philosophers and laymen on the other (w/ the latter tending twds a hedonistic understanding of happiness) is resolved by Christianity. The concepts of Beatitude and redemptive suffering explain how Man's true happiness is located and achieved. Apply those concepts to Job's situation and we can then still maintain that Happiness is not reducible to feelings of pleasure as Socrates and Aristotle would agree, while recognizing w/ Aristotle and common sense that it sounds false to call Job "happy."

Just so as well when we think on the afterlife of the soul the concept of pleasure (in all its tactility) seems to fall away and is replaced w/ the felicity of the Beatific Vision.

With 50 posts here, I'm probably posting at the bottom of a well, but here goes:

Ben, I think your muddying concepts, not to mention running from well to well dumping poison. Here's what I'd like to ask: What one person--or group of people--conceived of liberty and why does he--or do they--get the final word on it?

Our concept of liberty comes to us in a document that was ratified by The People. It's not just some people who thought so. Our system, Constitutional or otherwise, cannot work with such loose definitions as you give it. There has to be a People and not just a bunch of people, in order for me to within my freewill, respect your freewill. Because in granting you rights, my full-blown liberty--if I am at liberty to define it--is limited. Otherwise, given all the actions I could prefer, I might prefer to thwart your freedom of action.

Please don't give me any of quasi-Randian "self-refuting" garbage. Because actions don't refute, nor are they meant to. They aren't principles, they are facts. That's why what has been done is "de facto".

If I act one way and then another, I am not refuting myself, I'm being arbitrary. If I reserve a special place for myself, then I maybe inconsistent with what "some other people" think about equality.There is no guarantee that thinking about other people as equal to myself is "for my own benefit"--theoretically, yes. But if I have sovereignity over my life, then I also have the freedom to decide when to forgo theory for results, "for my own benefit".

Additionally, we can only think about refuting on a ground of agreements. And if there is no authority aside from the individual--who your scheme gives a sort of dubious authority, at that--then there is no binding on anybody who wasn't a direct party to the agreement. Others would be free to take it as the "opinions of some people", which would then have no binding on them.

There must be authorities in order for their to be an authoritative concept of "liberty", otherwise, it's just whatever you want, including doing whatever you want.

Face it, I can tell by the way to write about it that you have a devotion to liberty that is larger than just yourself. How can that be unless liberty is more than just a thing that people think? You denegrate the state, but it was the instruments of the state that defined and can often be caught making stabs at upholding and enforcing it. Making sure that anybody who sees "their benefit" there, cannot play a shell game with it.

When you say "liberty" you're not just saying that you prefer a concept you have in your head, but a concept that has taken on a life of its own through the ratification process of a community agreement. We have agreed that liberty is good, but we have also determined that government is necessary for the restriction of the corrupt nature of man.

Bruce: "I would suggest that this squabble between Socrates and Aristotle ... is resolved by Christianity."

I can kind of see that. Ben-T is being ridiculously reductive. But there is wisdom in "a seed falling into the ground to die" and become something bigger than the seed. Faith has always built up, and it runs counter to reductionism, which sees the gaps between "A Community" and "a bunch of people who annoy me". There is no difference in the facts. The only difference is between what "A Community" can do and what "a bunch of people who annoy me" can do.

Ben-T,

I own my dog. He does all sorts of things without my permission. In fact, he does many things against my wishes. My lawn grows without my permission. I’d prefer it not. My car breaks down when clearly I would rather it keep running. Does it follow that these do not belong to me?

Assuming that another person does “own” themselves, why must I respect their property?

Eric: I guess my concern with this really has to do, ultimately, with one's understanding of the relation between nature and grace.

But let me put it this way. I think all Christians will grant that all wisdom must come from God, someway, somehow.

No we are left with two options about those people who do not self-consciously know Christ: either they have no wisdom, and we might as well burn their books; or they are, even if they don't know it, truly in some way, fed by by God's wisdom: the wisdom they speak is breathed into them by God (they are "inspired").

I think those are our two options. The first is really barbaric and self-righteous and is not unknown in the history of monotheism (see Islam, but some Christian fundamentalism as well, esp.).

Sea King: My conception of liberty is simply as a system of property rights, beginning with people owning themselves. Perhaps that sheds light on it.

"I own my dog. He does all sorts of things without my permission. In fact, he does many things against my wishes. My lawn grows without my permission. I’d prefer it not. My car breaks down when clearly I would rather it keep running. Does it follow that these do not belong to me?

Assuming that another person does “own” themselves, why must I respect their property? " - Ralph

Cars, grass, and dogs, are not rational, freely choosing actors. A dog may be to a limited extent, but much less so than a human. The simplest answer as to why a dog does not own itself is because a dog has no notion of property. Dogs deal with each other entirely through force.

A human political order must be fit for humans, not for dogs. Humans have a level of rationality and consciousness that they are capable of dealing with each other in ways other than force. This requires self-ownership.

Why should you respect the property of others? Well, that depends on your end. If your end is to live in a society with other human beings, then you must respect their rights as you ask them to respect yours. What are rights, specifically? Rights must be derived rationally, rather than simply being a willy nilly collection of societal traditions and folk beliefs, because man is a rational being and if he seeks to flourish he requires rational values on which to base his life. Self-ownership, and the property rights which follow from them, are the only rational basis for a system of theoretically consistent rights within society which I know of.

If your end is NOT to live in a society with other human beings, I cannot criticize that. Ends are subjective. However, one wonders why you are bothering to engage in a discussion about how best to organize society, if that is your view.

P.S: Want to restate that I am not necessarilly self-identifying as a market anarchist. I remain unconvinced on the issue of whether a minimal state is an organic outgrowth of human societies. I have a reason for this which I believe does not contradict self-ownership theory. Will post it later though, need to go now.