It's been a while since my last post, but I've had an idea that has dramatically expanded my understanding of political philosophy. It is as though I can now see the totality of political philosophy: where every idea comes from, how it makes sense, and where it goes wrong. It's really quite amazing. This article is an attempt to articulate part of that enlightenment to my libertarian friends.
Basically, the origin of my idea is in a fairly simple question: what if we win? Suppose we could somehow tear down the current statist system and reinstitute a natural order (to use Hoppe's phrase)--how do libertarians fit in to this new system? For one thing, we would go from being radical revolutionaries to being defenders of the status quo, and the status quo involves something interesting.
Since today we live under the rule of states, libertarians can bring to bear all of our arguments about aggression being illegitimate to combat just about everything the state does. However, we do not object if a business sets up office rules, if a homeowners association builds and maintains streets, if a fraternal organization collects dues, if a fairgrounds charges vendors for selling there, if a church forbids is members to smoke marijuana, or if a parent grounds their child, at least not qua libertarians. Notice, that these things are exactly what we object to the state doing--regulation, building projects, taxation, trade barriers, issuing moral injunctions, or denying freedom of speech/association/etc.--but have a crucial difference. The difference is that these organizations and agents have a voluntary and property-based justification. And it is these organizations and agencies that we want to provide all of these services. Libertarianism today is fundamentally little more than anti-statism.
But if the state were abolished, what would we have to say? Of course, we would object to things like slavery contracts, fractional-reserve banking, and other particular issues, but we would by and large be out of a job. Nonetheless, we can see a place where libertarians might fit in. All of the organizations would have a contractual basis, each would have its own constitution, and we libertarians would be strict constitutionalists, raging against every violation of the contract and demanding that any changes be incorporated into the contract according to the predefined procedures. We would also insist on the parties to these contracts upholding their end of the agreement, obeying the strictures passed according to the constitutional procedures. We would be law-and-order conservatives par excellence.
However, as Plato observed long ago, the law is rigid and cruel, not taking into consideration all important factors in human life. We would join with Plato in saying that having no laws would be ideal, but since we don't live in an ideal world, the rule of law is second-best. Furthermore, we should not read the Laws with trembling and loathing, but rather with respect for the wisdom contained therein.
The rigidity of the law can become problematic, causing situations that are not what the parties subject to the law intend or desire. For example, a starving child who steals food to survive at the very least deserves our pity, and punishing them as a vicious thief may be downright cruel. Thus, exceptions to the law must be permitted. The libertarian response to this fact is twofold: (1) since what the law forbids is probably something we don't want, the law itself should not be changed except without careful and lengthy deliberation, and (2) exceptions to the law should never become the norm--if children are starving, then people should help feed them, not just let them off whenever they steal food.
If the libertarian program were to be reformulated for a stateless society, it would look very similar to what is generally thought of (among thinking people, anyway) as conservatism. Libertarian organizations should maintain order, enforce contracts, protect property, and not be changed willy-nilly. We would be in favor of restricted "immigration," legislating morality, and regulating business practices. We would even support things that would look eerily like socialism, but that have a voluntary basis, if they were genuinely advantageous--for example, a homeowner's association or group of such associations owning and operating roads. The important fact is that all such associations must be voluntary and based on private property.
For now, however, we are still mere anti-statists. I think there is room for more in a libertarian worldview--for example, the definition of a household has to be prior to and independent of any state--and I may go into some of these in later posts if I can find the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment