A recent Salon story bashed libertarianism. But forget politicians' phony version -- here's what it's really about.
The following post is a response to an earlier Salon story critiquing libertarianism.Salon
Libertarianism as direct experience: My defense of a misunderstood philosophy
Chad Nelson
Also at Salon, Will Moyer, Why I left libertarianism: An ethical critique of a limited ideology
I value many contributions libertarianism makes to challenging power. But here's why I no longer associate with it
40 comments:
right-wing libertarianism (in its most extreme form) is such a logically flawed and intellectually impoverished ideology the only question I really have is: what makes people want to believe in it? What kind of personality type is attracted to this way of thinking, despite all its obvious inadequacies?
I can understand adolescents going for it since it is simple and tells them they can do as they please as long as they don't aggress physically against others except in defense of person or property.
The obvious problem is that it is simplistic, which young proponents often come to realize as they mature.
The contention that individual sovereignty, property rights, and the non-aggression principle are sufficient for a complete and comprehensive social, political, economic theory, based on the claim of self-evidence that these are "natural," boggles the mind.
Libertarian arguments for the individual in society are at their apex when cooperation and regulation begin to cause more harm collectively to the society or to the individual. They approach a nadir when individuals act selfishly and cause harm to a group.
While none of us agree on even basic issues of right, yet when things go horribly wrong and clear harm is being done, like in the case of our Patent and Copyright system, libertarian arguments can be far more persuasive arguments compared to conservative and progressive arguments for the system they've created. Libertarian ideal financial markets at the moment seem a completely crazy way to allocate.
It is portrayed as being tricky because issues quickly boil down to very basic issues of life itself and consciousness and how we develop a sense of right and wrong and what it means to exist and exist with others, families, and the various groupings we find ourselves in but it really isn't that complicated to figure out when to cooperate and when it isn't worth it? It shouldn't be anyway.
"While none of us agree on even basic issues of right, yet when things go horribly wrong and clear harm is being done, like in the case of our Patent and Copyright system, libertarian arguments can be far more persuasive arguments compared to conservative and progressive arguments for the system they've created."
I'd describe what you're saying as a form of reasonable libertarianism as opposed to the simpleton rantings of "right-wing libertarianism in its most extreme form".
A basic difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism on the political compass is differences in belief about how responsibly people will act when accorded different degrees of freedom.
This boils down to the belief about whether people are essentially good or are fundamentally flawed. Those believing that people are essentially good hold that each is a law unto oneself. hose believing that people are essentially flawed hold that law and order needs to be imposed through controls. There's a wide range of views between that of total freedom and total control.
Probably most people think that there needs to be some kind of leash, but how long it should be and who holds it are the sticky questions. The reactionary position is a cage controlled by those in authority (security state) and the radical position is freedom to roam without a leash (no authority). There are many alternatives between these extremes.
Each axis of the political compass is a range lying between the extremes, and a population is distributed across this range, in this case authoritarian and libertarian. The other axis is right-left, delineating four quadrants.
I'm not sure that political compass really makes sense in the case of right-wing 'libertarianism', or 'anarcho-capitalism', which are really very authoritarian, i.e. in which power or authority is distributed according to wealth, which really boils down to the ability to use force to command control over resources..
One way to think about it is in terms of creating a video game like Civilization that starts with the minimalist position, which is "the state of nature," i.e., individuals competing for satisfiers with no rules. This is where Hobbes and Rousseau begin their investigation of social and political theory. Hobbes assumes that competitors are most likely to be brutal and ruthless, whereas Rousseau assumed "the noble savage."
If this game were played with a wide sample of participants, there would be many types of move based on the disposition, attitude and ability of the players.
In the Hobbesian worldview, the game would soon be taken over by players that provided their avatars with the most powerful force and other players would be overwhelmed if they did not respond at least at an equal level.
So early on, most would find it advisable to move in the direction of self-defense if not offense. And since players can coordinate efforts to dominate through cooperation and organization, teams would develop as well as organizational principles.
This would then lead to customs, covenants, and conventions that would develop in the direction of institutions and competing power groups. Since hierarchical organization proved itself the most efficient and effective militarily over history, it might be presumed that hierarchical organization would be selected in and others selected out in the competition for superior power.
In the Rousseauvian worldview, individuals would instead agree to a "social contract" in which they transfer individual sovereignty to popular sovereignty in order to live in community under the rule of law to which all individuals agree to be subject. Since the law is determined by individuals acting in concert, self-determination prevails even though not every individual will agree with every law arrived at through the action of the "collective will" operating through a political process in which all have an equal voice. This implies that all are free and equal in community under a rule of law that is self-determined.
IN the Lockean world view, there is a natural right to life, liberty and property, and there is freedom of choice within this minimalist context.
continued
continuation
Historically, the Lockean view became the basis for economic liberalism, which resulted in Dickensian times in England. This provoked the reaction of social liberalism, in which classical liberalism was modified by utilitarianism and the greatest good for the greatest number. Mills view developed into the mixed economy as a compromise between economic liberalism. or capitalism and social liberalism, or the welfare state.
These are some of the basic positions in modern Western thought. The Hobbesian view led to the authoritarian state, the Rouseuvian view to socialism, and the Lockean view to neoliberalism, and the view of Mill to the modern political liberalism as an accommodation between capitalism and welfare, or the common good.
Finally, there is the theocratic worldview that is still operative in some circles, and players in those circles would likely conduct themselves on this basis.
I would venture to say that games played in the West would organize themselves along these lines, whereas in other regions the game might be quite different depending on cultural and institutional background.
Now it might happen that in some games all the players prefer a minimalist starting position of individual sovereignty, property, and a aggression principle. A sampling of such games would show how that works out.
Of course, other alternatives can be conceived.
These scenarios are theoretical on one hand and on the other hand the testing is by simulation through actual people interacting in a fictional setting. I suppose reality shows could be constructed along these lines, too.
Some of us who lived in experimental communities played such games and can report that they are very instructive if not revealing. People do the darndest things.
Regardless of the result, however, not much is proved other than in terms of a model and simulation.
The actual challenge is getting from here to there, given millennia of human experience and the development of diverse cultures and institutions, as well as the many different kinds of people measured on different scales, such as disposition, attitude, beliefs, education, abilities etc. This makes any minimalist position difficult to impossible to achieve at this point.
Societies evolve and change is sometimes fast and obvious but it is usually a long time building, so that in the broader view social change proceeds not only slowly but dialectically in fits and starts, alternative among different views and positions.
Details of Nelson's critique aside, it exemplifies what I think of as one characteristic weakness of libertarianism, that it is aimed only at government and not at other powerful groups and institutions. IMO large corporations pose a greater threat to liberty than governments. Despite their imperfections, at least we have some say in our own governments.
The salon guy's defense takes libertarian aim at government, but libertarianism is not antagonistic to government it is antagonistic to authority...
govt is just the institution we use to administer our authority...
That said, I guess you could understand libertarians going after the govt as it is associated with authority...
But what they are really opposed to is our authority...
Authority is from the Greek word exousia or literally "out-being"... its like something is there without its actual physical presence...
iow you are driving 55 mph obeying the speed limit even though there is not a state trooper sitting in the passenger seat next to you all the time... to borrow the driver in a car analogy...
you comply with the laws even though there is no enforcement agent physically present observing your actions ... libertarians dont do this or at least dont like doing this and often do not comply with laws... (silk road bitcoin, "industrial hemp", guns, etc...)
Then the guy writes: "Taxation, the government’s main source of revenue, occurs on a massive and impersonal level. The federal government’s financial arm, the IRS, siphons off people’s incomes in amounts it deems necessary to fund all of its activities,"
So this is the libertarian pov right here that denies that our govt administrative institution has been delegated any administrative authority to directly act in the operation/imposition of our overall human authority...
libertarians are anti-authority not just anti-govt... its more complicated, goes deeper than just "anti-government"...
rsp,
iow its just like the guy says with the road rage analogy, if the "consequences" are physically present, then a libertarian probably will comply... BUT, take away the physical presence of the enforcement agent, and they (often) dont comply...
So laws are often meaningless to a libertarian UNLESS the enforcement agent is directly physically present... we who can understand "authority" or literally "out-being" need not observe the local physical presence of an enforcement agent to be able to comply with the laws/regs, etc...
rsp,
You can see the Lord point this characteristic out about the Centurion in this excerpt from the Greek scriptures:
a centurion came to Him, entreating Him
6 and saying, "Lord, my boy is prostrate in the house, a paralytic, dreadfully tormented."
7 And he is saying to him, "I, coming, will cure him."
8 And answering, the centurion averred, "Lord, I am not competent that Thou mayest enter under my roof, but only say the word and my boy will be healed!
9 For I also am a man set under authority, having soldiers under me, and I am saying to this one, 'Go,' and he is going, and to another, 'Come,' and he is coming, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he is doing it."
10 Now, hearing it, Jesus marvels. And He said to those following, "Verily, I am saying to you, With no one in Israel so much faith did I find." Mat 8:5
The centurion was designated to have MUCH faith ie "belief" (the Greek "pistis") due to his ability to understand that a physical presence is not required for "authority" ie "out-being" to exist ...
So the (or at least one) "measure of faith" (Rom 12:3) is the ability to understand or have knowledge of authority or exousia or this "out-being"...
So I think this is as Tom observes a "matter of degrees or measures" and we can see "trade offs", yin-yang, etc.. some people just get more "faith" than others and those of little "faith" end up basically blind to "out-being" or in English 'authority'...
Then we see what "faith" or "belief" or 'pistis' is here: "1 Now faith is an assumption of what is being expected, a conviction concerning matters which are not being observed;" Hebrews 11:1
So the libertarians have trouble with all of this...
getting all of this straight within themselves... they are given a smaller measure of "faith" (FD I do not believe they "choose" to be this way...) which means they cannot understand/view "authority" and then all the trouble starts within humanity, chaos, etc..
Pretty frustrating...
rsp,
"libertarianism is not antagonistic to government it is antagonistic to authority..."
That's not correct. Right-wing "libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists" believe that authority should be based exclusively on 'private' wealth, with the wealthiest people having the greatest authority, or power, within society. Basically, right-wing "libertarianism" advocates rule by oligarchy or plutocracy. This is what they mean by "freedom" or "liberty". They use language in very deceitful ways.
Hans Hermann Hoppe:
“the natural outcome of voluntary transactions between private property owners is non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority... Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families."
http://mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp
Murray Rothbard:
“If, then, inequality of income is the inevitable corollary of freedom, then so too is inequality of control. In any organization, there will always be a minority of people who will rise to the position of leaders and others who will remain as followers in the rank and file. Robert Michels [fascist sociologist] discovered this as one of the great laws of sociology, "The Iron Law of Oligarchy." In every organized activity, no matter the sphere, a small number will become the "oligarchical" leaders and the others will follow.
In the market economy, the leaders will inevitably earn more money than the rank and file. Within other organizations, the difference will only be that of control. But, in either case, ability and interest will select those who rise to the top.
“If, then, the natural inequality of ability and of interest among men must make elites inevitable, the only sensible course is to abandon the chimera of equality and accept the universal necessity of leaders and followers. The task of the libertarian, the person dedicated to the idea of the free society, is not to inveigh against elites which, like the need for freedom, flow directly from the nature of man. The goal of the libertarian is rather to establish a free society… In this society the elites will be free to rise to their best level… we will discover "natural aristocracies" who will rise to prominence and leadership in every field. The point is to allow the rise of these natural aristocracies”.
http://mises.org/fipandol/fipsec4.asp
y,
'authority' and 'power' are two different things here...
'authority' is exousia or "out-being" while 'power' is dunamei is "ability"...
So we have "out-being" and "ability" here which are two different things... they are perhaps related but there is important nuance here...
Those Hoppe/Rothbard people are creating factions/sects within mankind for their own purposes via perhaps "power" or "abilities" they achieve
...you are correct that they seek this "power" no doubt but again this "power" is simply the "ability"...
but they achieve this or perhaps are led to seek this "power" or these "abilities" due to the fact that they have very little to no true "faith" and hence no knowledge/understanding of what we look at as true human 'authority' or 'out-being'...
iow people like ourselves can be subject to each other without having some enforcement entity in our faces constantly coercing us/threatening us... because we understand human 'authority'...
Think of the 'good Samaritan' who did not feel "at liberty' to walk by the guy left for dead but instead was compelled (and NOT by an enforcement agent) to see if he could help the guy to whatever expense it became to him personally...
I submit that someone like yourself would not walk by a guy left for dead (or become indignant at the sight of economic injustice) because you understand human 'authority', ie you understand that we are beholden to one another and not because someone is constantly in your face about it ...
if you remove this understanding of human 'authority' then the person just seeks raw power of their own or within a faction/sect of humanity they end up being part of...
Again imo this is frustrating that this occurs and we have to endure these morons among us...
rsp,
y,
See verse 4 here:
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom1.pdf
"power" is dunamei is "ability"...
I cant argue with you that these people seek "power" but that is simply the "ability".... and yes they constantly seek it and sadly sometimes even achieve it...
Ultimately 'authority' is more important to recognize though imo...
rsp,
In purist Libertarianism and Rand's Objectivism, there is only self-authority. There is no divine or natural authority over individuals, such as has been used to justify the external authority of an institutional church or state.
Purist libertarians also reject the concept of a social contract in which individual sovereignty is given up to popular sovereignty, since they view that as the tyranny of the majority.
Power, however, is natural and in nature goes to the physically strongest. The non-aggression principle is added in order to counter this.
Purist libertarians of the right aka Libertarians and Randian Objectivist also posit a "natural right" to private property, even though the in Nature territory "belongs" to the physically dominant. So in order to counter this dominance, the property right is added to the aggression principle.
This leaves power open to other levers of control than physical prowess. This is why the libertarianism of the right is essentially conservative. The basis principle is that inequality is natural and so some people are "better" than others. Since ancient time, this was ordinarily decided by force and dynasties lasted as long as they could maintain power through force.
Contemporary conservatives generally posit merit as superior to force and therefore advocate meritocracy, in the sense of dominance of the "best" without resort to force other than for self-defense and protection of property. They assert this is the outcome of "natural leadership" rather than the rule of the strongest; hence, it is humane and an advance over the rule of the jungle without need to resort to the Hobbesian Leviathan as traditional conservatives believe.
BTW, Libertarianism can be made compatible with those forms of Protestantism that emphasis that individuals are solely responsible for interpreting scripture. So one can posit the exogenous authority of God for oneself, but that authority only operates through an individual and so individuals have no right to impose their interpretation regarding divine authority revealed uniquely to them on others, although they may have a duty to "admonish the sinner." So they can offer advice individually but have no authority to impose their views other than on themselves.
This is hard saying for many conservatives that hold to the tradition that the husband has authority over the wife and children, for example.
So it will be interesting to see how religious Libertarians handle these issues between political philosophy and theology.
"This leaves power open to other levers of control than physical prowess. "
Tom I look at the "levers of control" as a metaphor for what I see as "authority"...
I'd also put you in the same category as the Lord put the Centurion in the excerpt from Mat 8 above, ie "MUCH faith"...
so I dont know if we can really assess what is going on with these libertarians among us, as they do not possess the faith to see this authority and it just remains a dog vs dog contest of "ability" or "power" for them... there are "no controls" in their view...
I dont think we can "think like them"... its impossible for us as we have faith and knowledge that they simply do not possess...
We can see the "controls" and they cannot, imo we are NOT arguing with them over "who has the controls" ... they do not even have the slightest idea of a "control"...
they are in a contest of pure power, a sectarian libertarian civil war that we are like "collateral damage" within/around.
Perhaps we can hope they wipe each other out eventually...
rsp,
Authority is institutional, e.g., a paradigm case in the military chain of command, and it is generally related some type of legal institution such as religious law or positive law of the state such as a constitution that establishes political authority. So authority is formal in this sense of being established exogenously. Authority rests on some justification.
Power is endogenous and may be informal. It is wielded by those that possess it and it also resides in objects, e.g., money has great power as an incentive to action. It is said to reside in things in addition to institutions, as in "the face that launched a thousand ships and "even saints are afraid of a beautiful woman."
Libertarians are more cognizant of authority and power than most people because they are preoccupied with them and know the difference between them. They want to eliminate all authority other than self-authority while recognizing that power is one of the relationships among those that are not equal. Power is the ability to control others but without exerting authority as something that is established institutionally.
As a result Libertarians tend to be anti-institutional. Sometimes they deny that institutions play a major role in society, influencing social, political and economic relationships, but when pressed admit institutional influences while asserting they should be suppressed in the interest of greater freedom for individuals.
The distinction between authority and power is key to understanding Libertarianism. They understand quite well that social, political and economic power are institutional and embedded in the authority that institutional create and impose exogenously.
Many would say that institutional power is not actual power since it is based on factors that are exogenous to individuals. Take way the institutions and individuals competing in free conditions will reveal the true basis of power in personal merit. Of course the most powerful will dominate, but it will be the result of actual achievement that was earned rather than authority that is imposed institutionally.
"They want to eliminate all authority other than self-authority while recognizing that power..."
Tom I dont know if there CAN be such a thing as "self-authority" as the word 'authority' is exousia which is "out-being" and has the "exo" prefix in there... ie "from without"...
So 'self-authority' might be an oxymoron...
Like it would mean "inner-out-being" or something... which is just "being" because the "inner-out" just cancels itself out...
It looks like all true authority is "exogenous" as the word has the actual prefix "exo" in it...
So all these people are left with is a personal/factional internal/endogenous quest for power... that's all they have to work with...
I'm sorry but these people are really disgraced in this regard imo.... as opposed to us who should be thankful about this...
rsp,
"They want to eliminate all authority other than self-authority while recognizing that power is one of the relationships among those that are not equal. Power is the ability to control others but without exerting authority as something that is established institutionally."
Hoppe clearly disagrees with you on that:
“the natural outcome of voluntary transactions between private property owners is non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority... Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families."
And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught as one that had authority, and not as one of the scribes.
Mark 1:22
Matt, there's your "exousia," again. The notion embedded in this and the Centurion example you used is that of the "Great Chain of Being." This Areopagitian doctrine was brought back into Christian theology by John Scotus Erigena. The idea was that higher order thinking came from "angels" or "archangels" or even higher "exousia." The people in question presumably had the capacity to distinguish between mechanical regurgitation of dogma and "the living word" speaking from the spiritual world through a human individual.
Modern people (Libertarians being just an extreme example) have "problems with authority" because they rarely have seen examples of real "exousia" and wouldn't be able to recognize it if they did see it. The Libertarians aren't totally wrong to insist on "self-authority." It is after all a possiblility for man to develop and is the key to all genuine morality. The problem with the L's is that they think they have "sovereign individuality" just as they are, even as it is rather obvious that they are rather stunted individuals due to their buying into a stilted neo-Kantianism with its arbitrarily defined "limitations on knowledge" and the rest of it.
You are right to say that it is a problem of "lack of faith." One must first have the capacity to believe in the possibility of a higher development to begin to develop it or even to recognize it. So in my view, "faith" is the beginning for what the well-meaning libertarians say they want. Christ was a "sovereign individual." He had "exousia." Those few others who received or developed the power "to become children of God" had it too. Most of us aren't there yet.
"So 'self-authority' might be an oxymoron"
"individual sovereignty" too.
This is a criticism of those assumptions.
The Hoppe is not a bona fide libertarian. He is a champion of aristocracy posing as one, as as some other so-called "Libertarians" trying to dupe the rubes into an new oligarchy in the name of greater individual freedom.
I should make the distinction here between political authority, i.e., authority that includes power and control, and the authority that comes from mastery.
Experts in a field are said to be "authorities" but they have no exogenous control over others because of it. However, this can also be translated into institutional power to give particular cohorts power and control based on special knowledge, for example. This is a basis for technocracy.
Prophets are said to have a kind of self-authority that is connected to divine authority, in that the term "prophet" means to speak for, in this case, God. This authority is not institutional and it often becomes the basis for institutional authority that is claimed on the basis of it. Scriptures are believed by followers to be divinely inspired or known directly by divine incarnations, the God-realized, and seers. This is the basis of Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam, ,Jainism, Judaism, and Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism, or Maxdaism, as well as shamanistic religions.
The divine right sovereignty of kings and the authority of priesthoods are theological notion based on supernormal experience that is held to have a non-human origin and ground, and it is justified on appeal to the authority of scripture as authentically representative of this experience. Thus personal experience is translated into institutional power through custom that becomes tradition embedded in a cultural as a dominant paradigm.
When Hoppe says, "Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority... Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families," what comes to mind is that this has long been the basis for oligarchy and it is also the basis for the conservative position that some are better than others and deserve the privileges of wealth and power that they win for themselves and bequeath dynastically through the political institution of aristocracy, either de jure by title or de facto through the power of ownership and control. Surely Hoppe recognizes this and if the context of the quote matches this view, the it would seem that Hoppe is introducing institutional authority that conveys power and control.
So what we have is the same power and control as applies through states and governments residing in individuals with no checks and balances. That's a form of tyranny.
"so-called "Libertarians" trying to dupe the rubes into an new oligarchy in the name of greater individual freedom."
Those are sort of "libertarians" I am referring to, also known as "anarcho-capitalists". The current so-called "libertarian" movements stemming from the Mises 'Institute', the "foundation for economic education" and various Koch-funded organizations (among others) fall into this category. Fake libertarianism in the service of oligarchy.
"...what comes to mind is that this has long been the basis for oligarchy and it is also the basis for the conservative position that some are better than others"
Right-wing 'libertarians' of the austrian school or Randian persuasion believe that some people are inherently superior to others and so have greater 'natural authority'. This is fundamental to their belief system.
"...and deserve the privileges of wealth and power that they win for themselves and bequeath dynastically through the political institution of aristocracy"
Yes, but they pretend that their ideology is not 'political', because they pretend that politics only exists in the context of 'the State'.
"... either de jure by title or de facto through the power of ownership and control."
In other words, power in the form of the ability to use force to control resources, also known as 'private property'.
'
"Surely Hoppe recognizes this and if the context of the quote matches this view, the it would seem that Hoppe is introducing institutional authority that conveys power and control."
He is introducing supposedly "natural authority" in the form of the social/political institution of private property.
"So what we have is the same power and control as applies through states and governments residing in individuals with no checks and balances. That's a form of tyranny."
Indeed. But the right-wing "libertarian" ideology is riddled with lies and deceit, so the useful idiots that populate its ranks often don't understand what the movement is really all about.
I would say that on the ‘human compass’ the horizontal divisor (that divides people vertically) would be between people who know the divine and those who know not. In the realm of not would be religion and politics; more broadly most of the people on the planet. If you knew the divine there would be no need of belief (religion), nor would ‘saints fear a beautiful woman’; nor would there be any recognition of authority or any division of power (things are the way they are) or any imagined chain of being (there is one SELF). The vertical divisor (that divides people horizontally) only begins below the horizontal divisor - between the people who are ruled by the heart and those ruled by mind. Mind is the dragon swallowing its tail. With ‘the heart of a child’ the ceiling is penetrated. Kabir said all of this ages ago! He didn’t confuse what is going on in the lower mind quadrant with anything else. He understood hope and belief, but said knowing was better.
Prem Rawat expresses it like this:
Clarity
See clearly who you are, and you won’t be disappointed
See the value of each breath, and you won’t be poor
See the wisdom of the heart, and you won’t be ignorant
See the reality of existence, and you will understand the divine
See the value of now, and you will be free
Feel the infinite in your life, and you will understand your morality
Feel the joy within, and you will never be sad
Learn to swim in the ocean of understanding, and you will never drown in doubt
Feel the strength of clarity, and you will never be defeated
See the value of simplicity, and you will be filled with knowledge
Venture everyday with clarity, and you will never be lost
Clarity ….
.." nor would there be any recognition of authority or any division of power (things are the way they are).." [jrbarch]
Meant to say here that these would be replaced by Respect.
Respect is when you find something good inside of yourself and begin to respect it - then notice it in others and begin to respect it in them too! (Nothing to do with money or social position etc. - people only respect something that is real)!
@ jrbarch
Mind divides, the heart unites. The perfection of knowledge and love, cognition and affect, head and heart is in their convergence in the realization of unity.
This is what I mean by "level of collective consciousness," with a criterion being awareness of universality characteristic of the individuals that make up the group.The result of this is the spontaneity of holistic functioning. then behavior is both free and orderly.
"The result of this is the spontaneity of holistic functioning"
the result of that might be the sort of holistic functioning you see in a Buddhist monastery - well organized, peaceful, etc, but little material progress or change.
"the result of that might be the sort of holistic functioning you see in a Buddhist monastery - well organized, peaceful, etc, but little material progress or change."
There are many expressions of this other than monastic live. First, there is the life of those that have realized the state of transcendental bliss to the degree that they are no longer impelled to act. These are two types. The fist is those whose destiny is to act a preceptor. The second does not act externally since there is no further need to do so.
The external needs of those approaching this state will be less an they will be more inwardly directed by destiny.
Then there are those aspiring to this state of freedom. They are of two types, recluses and householders. A requirement is internal renunciation, which is open to both types. Recluses also adopt external renunciation. Internal renunciation doesn't necessarily involves "renouncing" anything but ignorance where ignorance is mistaking the trivial for the important. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, when people become adults (spiritually mature) they put away child's toys (trivial pursuits).
There are actually a number of people in world with a high level of awareness of universality who are actively pursuing family life and a career while simultaneously performing their inner practices. This is true of people in all religions and also those pursuing personal spirituality or are affiliated with a non-religious wisdom tradition. Many have made notable contributions to culture, science and technology. Some have been prominent military figures and political rulers.
There is no contradiction in pursuing a spiritual path and also living an ordinary life or even an exceptional one. Many people are advanced and don't ever realize it. They are just doing what is natural for them dispositionally. Nor are all of them "good" by the world's standards.
Good stuff Tom and all....
btw I dont think I really understood the key difference between 'authority' and 'power' before it was discussed here...
rsp,
Typo correction: "Maxdaism" should be Mazdaism as in Ahura Mazda. Apologies to Zoroastrians.
…. besides, the universe is materially progressing and at a rate of change and acceleration impossible for the frame rate of our eye to measure. Somewhere in our tiny little solar system, one third out along the trailing arms of a beautifully spiralling galaxy, we are rotating at 1670km/hr every day, and orbiting at 107,219km/hr through space every year; moving faster than a speeding bullet like you would not believe, going somewhere we have no idea; and evolution marching on – none of it makes sense until the SELF is known. Meanwhile our ‘reality’ is our undisciplined imagination; read about it in the newspaper …!!
Mind is like an electronic media, a rich and very noisy and mostly inchoate newspaper: but people do not know how to stop watching it for a little while and go inside. Allow the mind to settle down, and start making some sense about being human, and being alive. Value “the human being above mere money and machine” …. (thanks Tom!). Learn to listen to the heart – there is more power and authority for any human being there, more potential and reward and progress than mind and imagination could ever conjure up, even in our wildest dreams. That would be excellent ….!
And we only have on average 70 laps around the sun to get to know it. The sandglass is inverted, but we are busy busy busy ….
We measure everything – with our little rulers. We are funny like that ….
Tom Hickey wrote: The contention that individual sovereignty, property rights, and the non-aggression principle are sufficient for a complete and comprehensive social, political, economic theory, based on the claim of self-evidence that these are "natural," boggles the mind.
Lying and distorting things again, I see. Who actually believes that the NAP is “a complete and comprehensive social, political, economic theory”? Libertarianism ONLY concerns “the proper role of violence in social life”. The End.
Rothbard wrote:
The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.
Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.
It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative lifestyles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of "bourgeois" conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory.
http://mises.org/daily/2616
This is an argument within Libertarian circles, and there is apparently disagreement on whether the NAP is sufficient. See The Case for Liberty, Through Thick and Thin by Richard Ebeling
One of the most important issues before those who care about the advancement of liberty is how the case for freedom can best be made, and what it should include. A controversy has recently arisen among some friends of freedom about whether the case for liberty should be “thick” or “thin.” This may seem esoteric or removed from everyday political issues. But, in fact, it is very important for the long-run success of classical liberalism and a free society.
The advocates of the “thin” version of a defense of liberty argue that the primary and essential issue concerns the principle and logic of “non-aggression.” That is, the classical liberal or libertarian basically should be concerned with one, and only one, issue: the moral and practical case for the abolition of coercion from all interpersonal relationships to the greatest extent possible in human affairs.
The “thin” libertarian should not be concerned, per se, with how and on what basis individuals act and behave in their personal life and in their private and voluntary relations with others.
It does not matter, it is argued, whether that private individual is a racist who thinks some ethic groups are “inferior,” or who views the proper place for women to be in the home “bare foot and pregnant,” or who expresses negative views about any sexual orientation that is not heterosexual and that does not involve the “missionary” position.
All that classical liberals or libertarians should be concerned with and focused on is the abolition of all political and governmental intervention, control, and regulation over the peaceful and voluntary affairs of the citizenry.
On all other issues concerning human actions and associations the classical liberal or libertarian may have his own “subjective” values and preferences about how people should act in their private lives and in their social interactions, but these are outside the domain of the case for freedom and the free society....
The “thick” classical liberal or libertarian also argues that the principle of non-aggression in all human relationships is the core political value for all advocates and defenders of freedom. But they ask whether that principle alone would be able to establish and sustain a society of free people.
How likely is it that equal rights before the law will be respected and maintained in a society in which many take it for granted that some human beings are racially “superior” while others are “inferior”? Will women be sufficiently respected and free from the aggressive actions of predatory men in a world in which women are viewed by a large number of males as mere sexual objects to serve the “stronger” sex?
And can a free society be sufficiently free of intolerance and aggressive behavior when a large number of “straights” take the attitude that “queers” and “homos” are fair game for ridicule and even physical abuse?
In other words, the political principle of non-violence in all human affairs does not and cannot exist in a social vacuum. The case for freedom from political power and control requires it to be situated in a wider philosophical and ideological setting of the nature, sanctity and even sacredness of the individual human being,
Many advances in freeing people from political control and the establishment of a recognition of their possessing individual rights to their life, liberty and honestly acquired property first arose out of changing attitudes about human beings and what was right and just in the conduct of people towards each other.
In other words, the political principle of non-violence in all human affairs does not and cannot exist in a social vacuum. The case for freedom from political power and control requires it to be situated in a wider philosophical and ideological setting of the nature, sanctity and even sacredness of the individual human being.
Many advances in freeing people from political control and the establishment of a recognition of their possessing individual rights to their life, liberty and honestly acquired property first arose out of changing attitudes about human beings and what was right and just in the conduct of people towards each other.
Left libertarians largely agree with that view. Where they differ most sharply from Right Libertarians is not over the NAP, which already enshrined in law as a human right, but over the priority of property rights, which they see as being legal as in title and contract, subsequent to the inalienable natural rights of personhood, which are prior to positive law.
Law is meaningless without proper adjudication and enforcement. Left libertarians also hold that adjudication and enforcement of law arrived at through the exercise of popular sovereignty resides with the community iaw equality before the law, due process, etc. such as are enumerated in the US Bill of Rights. No vigilantism, no dictat, and no double standard of privilege.
Non-aggression at the level of nation states is also established in international law and there is a World Court to adjudicate issues about human rights and crimes against humanity.
What is at issue is the putative natural right to property and its relationship to other rights and responsibilities.
And can a free society be sufficiently free of intolerance and aggressive behavior when a large number of “straights” take the attitude that “queers” and “homos” are fair game for ridicule and even physical abuse?
1. One cannot follow the NAP and physically abuse someone else. That is a very confused article.
2. Further, why wouldn't we want vile Nazis and racists to adopt the NAP? Isn't that about the best that one could hope for from such people?
3. The fact that society cannot initiate violence against vile people who have not initiated force does not mean that there is not a long list of non-violent sanctions that might be applied to them such as a refusal to deal or associate.
Post a Comment