See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why Culture Matters
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11 ... o/proper-culture-libertarians/
Published: Nov 19, 2015
Author: Bionic Mosquito
Post Date: 2015-11-19 15:52:51 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 146
Comments: 16
In the little corner of the world occupied by libertarians of all stripes, discussion often ranges far and wide on matters that can be broadly labeled “culture.” Posts and commentary can be found on issues ranging from those commonly labeled as “left-libertarian” (gay marriage, open borders, be nice to everyone, break down all hierarchical structures) to issues commonly labeled as “right-libertarian” (traditional lifestyle choices, managed borders, governance via family, church and community). Why? Why do libertarians find it necessary or valuable to comment on such matters? Of course, a simple answer is that individuals who identify as libertarian have many other interests. But it is clear that there is something more – the two spheres, “culture” and “libertarian,” seem to overlap inherently. If it was random, we might expect to read just as many commentaries by (and passionate arguments amongst) libertarians on sports or cooking, for example. What is it about culture that draws libertarian writers into its circle? I will offer my thoughts on those traditionally labelled “right-libertarians.” For the left – I have offered my thoughts plenty of times. What Do I Mean by “Culture”? Culture – in this context – is all of the behaviors in our lives that are not answerable by or even addressed by the non-aggression principle. The non- aggression principle addresses when it is proper to use aggression; it is a political principle. The NAP says nothing about many things: haircuts, clothes, religious affiliation (or not), car color, etc. It speaks to the proper use of force, nothing more. What is Libertarianism? Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle built on a foundation of private property. It is not appropriate to initiate aggression against the life or property of another; aggression is appropriate only in defense of life or property. The definition is itself quite thin – I imagine in the abstract most people in the world would agree with this principle (one or both of the golden rule and silver rule, while not perfect matches, has/have a home in all of the various major religions of the world). The application of the principle sometimes becomes an issue. For the majority this difficulty begins with the intellectual or emotional inability to apply the NAP to state actors: for too many, initiating aggression is acceptable if the aggressor wears a badge (or uniform or any other state-sanctioned license). For those of us in this more radical corner (both left and right), we apply the NAP to all individuals – state actors or not; in fact, by applying it to all individuals, most of us find the concept of “state actors” inherently to be in contradiction to the NAP. How to Achieve and Maintain a Libertarian Order? What do I mean by “libertarian order”? A society that respects private property and the non-aggression principle. As there is much more to life, the rest will be filled-in by individuals, communities, churches, etc. Libertarian theory has nothing to say about any of this. While there are many different variants, it seems to me that the most reasonable path to achieve a libertarian order is through education. It strikes me as self- evident that the biggest growth in the movement came via Ron Paul and supported by the foundation built by Lew Rockwell at the Mises Institute and LRC. But I won’t argue if you work through different means toward the same ends – the more, the merrier. How is a libertarian order to be maintained? There is the rub, there is where culture comes in – and it is here where I believe the commonly labeled “left” and “right” part ways, and where I maintain that the “right” has it…right. Despite the fairy-tales floated by certain left-libertarians, in a world populated by humans there will always be prejudices, biases, and preferences. Further, it is an inherent characteristic of private property that it is exclusionary, and the owner has the right to “exclude” on any basis he chooses – call this “discrimination” if you like. For a private property order to mean anything, the property owner’s right to discriminate must be respected. In other words, in order to maintain a libertarian order, it must be recognized that humans are…human. To act on the basis that humans will ever be anything else is to ensure future conflict – the surest path to maintaining support for state solutions. Despite the fairy-tales floated by certain left-libertarians, in a world populated by humans there will always be hierarchy and there will always be governance – governance, notgovernment (as that term is understood today). There will never arise a human-populated world of a flat organizational structure – people will join organizations voluntarily, and those same people will voluntarily submit to the authority in these organizations. Who – or what – provides the governance is the only question: will it be a monopoly provider, or will it be a decentralized and varied combination of countless voluntarily-joined, hierarchical entities? In a libertarian order, there is only one acceptable answer. The most ubiquitous governance-providing institution is the market. The market provides governance – there is discipline necessary to effectively deliver service to customers, with pressure to improve coming from all sides. Merely look around you every day – the order in a grocery store, the effectiveness of a bank transaction; consider the governance required to deliver such service. The most important foundation for governance is the family – the government knows this, which is why they work constantly to destroy it. There is no theoretical possibility of a world of 7 billion separately governing entities, but perhaps 1.5 billion (or however many households there are in this world). Family as an organized governance structure is as old as recorded human history, and until it can be demonstrated that something even more decentralized can function reasonably well, this is as far down the decentralization path that I believe is feasible – in theory and in practice. Beyond this is the community, the church, various volunteer groups, insurance companies, etc. Each providing governance in different ways, in different spheres. So what does this have to do with culture? Culture is another institution that provides governance. I will begin with a simple example: any of you Yankees been to London? What do you see in big letters written on the ground of every crosswalk? LOOK RIGHT Why is that? The answer to this question starts one down the road of understanding the importance of culture in a voluntary-governance society. The better that the “rules of the road” (only a slight pun intended) are broadly understood and accepted, the lower the likelihood for conflict. Culture helps to answer questions about acceptable behavior in the spaces where the NAP is not a suitable guide; there are numerous questions that inherently the NAP cannot answer. How much labor is to be mixed with land or other unowned resources in order to transform these from unowned to owned? The NAP does not answer this question; local custom and culture will. How much punishment fits the crime? The NAP does not answer this question; local custom and culture will (save the extreme, bound by the NAP). What are acceptable family relationships? Absent clear violations of the NAP, the NAP does not answer this question. What is an acceptable greeting between two businessmen? No answer in the NAP. Proper attire? Greeting a person of the opposite sex? Hand holding in the park? All cultural questions. Which way do I first look before I cross the street, left or right? The words painted in the intersection remind visitors to London of the local culture, and by following the norms of the local culture the chance for conflict (your head aggressing against my bumper) is greatly reduced. In many of these cases, a wide range of answers will be valid within the thin definition of the NAP. But a common understanding and acceptance of the specific answer to each question “around here” will greatly reduce the possibilities for conflict. So what does culture have to do with maintaining a libertarian order? This, to me, is quite simple: the less conflict, the less chance that some self-proclaimed and self-pitying disadvantaged group will look to a savior to deliver them from their perceived suffering. The less conflict the less chance that people will look for someone to do something about it. The “someone” will ultimately be the monopoly provider of fixing all things for all people. And there goes the libertarian order – or even the possibility of moving closer to one. Culture Ain’t Got no Feelings, it’s Made of Rubber As in Dumbo’s case, wrong. Culture doesn’t like revolutionary change. Culture evolves slowly and gradually – this has been true throughout history and such change is a very natural human condition. It is the unnatural human condition that brings this topic to the fore; the unnatural human condition brings revolutionary change, not evolutionary change. What do I mean by the “natural human condition” in this context? Culture evolving via market forces, via introduction of the new via voluntary interactions and voluntary acceptance. Day-to-day these are imperceptible changes, noticeable only when looking back over a period of years or even decades. This is how a culture evolves naturally. What do I mean by the “unnatural human condition”? Much of the world today. War, for example, is tremendously culture-destroying. Of course, the Great War marked a significant turning point in Western culture. War – certainly on such a scale – is only possible via the presence of the state and state control over much of societal activity. But what of today? I will expand on only one example, one issue very much in the news and in the debate between libertarians left and right: immigration and open borders. The mass migration of refugees into Europe today is quite unnatural – they are moving by the millions solely due to the condition of a multi-decade war. There is no doubt that the numbers of migrants would be merely a trickle if they were not fleeing their impossible condition. Further, this is not a mass migration from and to people and places with common cultures – and absent a common culture, there is increased chance for conflict despite anyone’s wishes that humans behave differently than they have throughout recorded history. Other examples are in the recent news – the state forcing the issues of gay marriage upon private property owners; (supposedly) bringing liberal democracy via war. In any case, with increased conflict, there will be increased call for the state to take action. And with increased call for the state to take action, the state will take action. And this provides the clue, the hint. The chaos, brought on by the state, will result in further demands for solutions to be enacted and enforced by the state. Which raises an interesting – and terribly important – issue: take the case of refugees and open borders. There are many libertarians who offer that the borders should be left open. There are others who feel the opposite. Both sides believe they have libertarian theory on their side. Yet only one of these positions greatly increases the possibility, to the point of certainty, of greater state intervention. After all, the state already “manages” the border. To continue managing the border does not increase state intervention. To stop managing the border – as Germany has so far done – will not result in less intervention, but in significant increases in state intervention and power; this due to the significant risk imposed to the existing culture. The issue is not one of “different” or “the other.” The issue is the pace of change and the forces behind the pace; the issue is one of conflict certain to follow forced and rapid change; the issue is one of the state stepping in to provide a “solution” to the manufactured conflict. If culture doesn’t govern, the state most certainly will. And there goes any movement toward, let alone the possibility of maintaining, a libertarian order. Conclusion Libertarian theory is thin. How to achieve and maintain a libertarian order? Culture matters. And I believe this is why libertarians associated with the right defend ideas of culture. It isn’t an issue of right vs. left. It is an issue of moving toward vs. away from a libertarian order; it is an issue of reducing the influence of the state. Is it an appropriate objective to reduce the role of the state in society? On the importance of culture, the so-called (and inappropriately labeled, for the reasons outlined above) right libertarians are right. Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Until the reason for it is realized.
Title: Why Culture Matters No mention of the Constitution in either of those Libertarian speeches. It's almost like Libertarians are in denial that America isn't reducible to a laissez faire/anarcho-marketplace for them. The Constitution is America's rightful government and culture. America is the private property of Constitutionalists, not a collage of those who have no sense of that. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Libertarians distrust the Constitution. They would prefer returning to the Articles.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. Many many in our field oppose the Constitution on intelligent grounds and always have.
The Constitution was mistrusted from the beginning and was only ratified on the promise of a Bill of Rights. We do need a new Constitution but the problem is that whatever would come out of a new Constitutional convention would surely be worse than what we have now. Sort of academic now as the government does as it pleases because there is no enforcing mechanism in the Constitution.
NN at #4: Doesn't sound like a bad idea. Many many in our field oppose the Constitution on intelligent grounds and always have. Libertarians distrust the Constitution and would prefer returning to the Articles (a provisional war-construct enacted during those conditions of emergency) that made paupers a restricted class and centralized all Federal power in one group -- Congress, which acted as the Executive and Judiciary too. Examples of the supposed intelligent grounds for Libertarians to oppose the Constitution are: Weird how Libertarians evidently don't want to confine themselves and their anarcho-market globulization to only the area of the few original States of the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. They are surely free to renounce their citizenships in the Consitutional Republic of America. They are not really free to traitorously overthrow it for themselves or to endanger it so with their "open borders" putsches for floods of foreign invaders to assist them in their pursuits to dismantle our nation for their profiteers. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Of course there is an enforcing mechanism in the Constitution and it's mentioned several times -- the Militias of the States, not unarmed and unorganized vigilantes as William S. Lind pitched at 4um Title: Logic of a Modern Militia. He at least did mention the word "Militia" but not in the context of the Constitution at all or as anything more than sacrificial lone wolves fighting crime and terror, without any duty to defend themselves enough by their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms so that they could adequately defend others from being attacked. I'm of the opinion that there's plenty to read around here without such reckless advisements. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Oh, well, if you're going to bring in the Bible the real Constitution should be the Ten Commandments. Imperfect but fantastic racialist working out of God's law for modern man: To Heal The Nation, Dr. J. Franklin Snook Another alternative would be to resort to English common law directly and yes selectively. England gets along fine without a contitution, or would if its rulers were law-abiding. But our Constitution is indeed highly flawed and Jued. Fedjudges appointed? For LIFE? It's totally Godless too and there is no excuse for that. The welfare clause has been their open door to wreck everything, and I think the wording is suspect from the word go. Even if all we did was make the Bill of Rights the Constitution we'd be better off.
Dunno if state militias can enforce the Constitution. However, the original enforcers were the state legislatures. I guess that was before they were usurped by John Marshal.
Lysander Spooner famously stated this of the U.S. Constitution: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." I asked a Sunday School class once, "What is the most profound thing that the U.S. Constitution did or does?" Answers ran along these lines: "It strictly limits and enumerates the powers of the federal government", "It guarantees our God-given rights", and "Division of Powers! Checks and balances!" NO! The most profound thing about the U.S. Constitution is that it established the government that we now suffer under. Patrick Henry -- the anti-federalist who "smelt a rat in Philadelphia" -- argued against ratification of the Constitution, saying, "Your president, sir, will be a king." In 1861 Southerners found out just how powerful that government was that had been established by the Constitution, and how powerless the Constitution was to protect their rights. And today anyone who has ingested less than 40 kilos of fluoride can see that Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists were right.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." "such a government as we have had" meaning what exactly? I don't know why his speech is so famous. Which people in the rest of the world did he think could form a valid government for themselves? Seemingly none -- other than kings by "Divine Right", maybe. Patrick Henry -- I don't know why he's so famous for his speechifying either, since he mostly stayed out of the war he promoted for others to fight and give him Liberty. When the British seized some gunpowder, he sent a negotiator to arrange a monetary payment from them for what they took, rather than have a battle about it, and that was the extent of his war effort. Nor was he as big an opponent of the Constitution and as Anti-Federalist as he's often said to have been. He's credited with helping to get the Bill of Rights passed, supported Federalist President John Adams (who signed the infamous Sedition Act) and also opposed the Resolutions by Jefferson (nullification - KY Res.) and Madison (interposition - VA Res.) to counter wrongful governance. NO! The most profound thing about the U.S. Constitution is that it established the government that we now suffer under. ... In 1861 Southerners found out just how powerful that government was that had been established by the Constitution, The Unconstitutionality of rogues has caused much harm and suffering -- not the Constitution, imo. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
What it's boiling down to before our eyes is that if you have a moral people and govt, it won't even what laws there are. Conversely, you can have the best laws in the world but they're chopped liver if they're not obeyed -- might as well not exist. In a healthy society, people will live right, instinctively rise up to stop or adjudicate wrongdoing, and maintain a healthy, active contempt for power- seekers such that political power barely exists. Of course this is an impossible dream, but the point (my para above) stands, I think. In the real world, we're stuck with rotten politicians and sheeple to whom "eternal vigilance" is some crazy, incomprehensible furren syllables. I would say that that requires a Constitution but again the Brits have gotten along without one for a millennium or more, and English common law is what every country's living by now, often via it's very smudged carbon triplicate copy, the US Constitution. Less is more so much of the time -- but more is bad good for business in the view of politicians. In Panama I was fascinated that people drive around with very few traffic lights and very few collisions; Rick Steves marvels that it's the same in Iran in that documentary (linked in like Thursday's 4um posts). Both are homogeneous societies compared to the amerikan dumping ground -- the key to it all in a sense.
What is it that Libertarians are complaining about anyway? Where aren't Anarchists against the Constitution obstructing it from functioning properly as America's rightful form of government? -- exactly what Spooner-Libertarians claim to want. It's not the Constitution's fault if those Anarchists against it haven't been conforming enough to the supposed "Non- Aggression Principle" of Libertarianism.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
You make some good points, Grey. I am not a fan of Spooner; and I don't know exactly what gov policy or action he was referring to when he said "such a government as we have had". I cited that one quote of his because I agree with its fundamental proposition: that it was the Constitution that formed the government that we're suffering under. Whether Spooner Spooner thought that there were other people in the world who could have done better I do not know. There certainly were a great number of people in America who thought that the Americans could have done better. I am aware that Henry became more of a statist later in life. In his biography of Henry, commenting on Henry's support of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Wirt said that "what was left of Henry went over to what was left of Washington". During the war, Henry wanted a military command, and he had one for a short time. But he had many detractors, and they denounced him as a mere speechifier. "The Unconstitutionality of rogues has caused much harm and suffering -- not the Constitution, imo." My point is that those rogues would be less capable of controlling and ruining our lives if they did not have all the power that the government as currently structured gives them. The fact that there will always be rogues in government is the fundamental reason why the size and power of government should be limited.
My point is that those rogues would be less capable of controlling and ruining our lives if they did not have all the power that the government as currently structured gives them. The fact that there will always be rogues in government is the fundamental reason why the size and power of government should be limited. My point is that they are rogues because they're acting outside of America's real government structure, which is limited in size and power by the Constitution. Our Founders provided enforcement and defense options, such as Grand Juries and State Militias. It would have been tyrannical of them to exclude the public citizenry completely from that process, as well as nigh unto impossible at the time for them to mechanize a more self-enforcing government framework. Modern critics of the Constitution who don't want the responsibilities of those duties shouldn't expect Constitutionalists to alter or abolish it to suit them. So, what's the real purpose of complaints about gov-malfeasance as if that has nothing to do with refusals to do those duties? Doubtless Libertarians aren't usually "just venting" abstractly -- more like deliberately destabilizing contrary to their supposed "Non-Aggression Principle". ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
America isn't supposed to be a dumping ground. It's supposed to be societally homogeneous in the sense of Constitution Allegiants. Sort of similar to the gist of your post [annotated excerpts from a commenter at the William S. Lind article referenced above at #7, Logic of a Modern Militia]: Like the militia of yore, these are naturally occurring formations as a result of families, kinsmen and like minded friends forming communities based upon indigenous ancestral identity [i.e. Constitutionalism] and morality. I suggest if the proposed solution were to work, there is a lot of work to be done in rebuilding the necessary conditions. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
there will always be prejudices, biases, and preferences.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
(Edited)
Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles
Author: Bionic Mosquito See also, Title: Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal
Author: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
#3. To: GreyLmist (#2)
No mention of the Constitution in either of those Libertarian speeches
#4. To: Ada (#3)
#5. To: NeoconsNailed (#4)
#6. To: NeoconsNailed, Ada (#4)
Ada at #3: Libertarians distrust the Constitution. They would prefer returning to the Articles.
1. It's idolotrous because it's not Judeo-theological enough, even though usury is a component of that theologism and 2. Lysander Spooner the abolitionist opposed Slavery, even though the Bible speaks of it more "Libertarianly" in terms of property; and his opinion was that non-consent to the Constitution by folks like him should be able to dissolve the consent of Consitutionalists and any property claims to America by them as a Constitutional Republic of their own, not their opponents of it.
#7. To: Ada (#5)
(Edited)
the government does as it pleases because there is no enforcing mechanism in the Constitution.
#8. To: GreyLmist (#6)
#9. To: GreyLmist (#7)
#10. To: Ada, GreyLmist, NeoconsNailed (#9)
#11. To: StraitGate (#10)
(Edited)
Lysander Spooner famously stated this of the U.S. Constitution:
Patrick Henry -- the anti-federalist who "smelt a rat in Philadelphia" -- argued against ratification of the Constitution, saying, "Your president, sir, will be a king." ... And today anyone who has ingested less than 40 kilos of fluoride can see that Patrick Henry and the anti-federalists were right.
I asked a Sunday School class once, "What is the most profound thing that the U.S. Constitution did or does?" Answers ran along these lines: "It strictly limits and enumerates the powers of the federal government", "It guarantees our God-given rights", and "Division of Powers! Checks and balances!"
#12. To: GreyLmist (#11)
#13. To: NeoconsNailed (#12)
(Edited)
#14. To: GreyLmist (#11)
#15. To: StraitGate (#14)
"The Unconstitutionality of rogues has caused much harm and suffering -- not the Constitution, imo."
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#12)
homogeneous societies compared to the amerikan dumping ground -- the key to it all in a sense.
Observing the portrait of militia from 1643, I am reminded the cohesive social bonds required ... Those men had the auspices of common language, culture, ethnic [e.g.. national/regional] identity, customs, and religion, that led to the naturally arising formation of local militia.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest