A case of irreconcilable differences. by Van Bryant, II
(libertarian)
Saturday, January 28, 2012
It amazes me to find that, of all Nolan Chart contributors I have thus far defended my views against, the "libertarian" has espoused the most dissonant beliefs from my own. [1]
As an avowed anti-statist, I admit that a number of positions I hold are considered quite radical when compared to my peers on this site and within the libertarian movement. That said, I do not make my assertions to simply be controversial. I consider my views rational, acquired after first grasping the fundamental axioms.
I don't believe the same can be said for Jahfre.
The State:
The beginning of Jahfre's article presents a hypothetical situation comparing Newton's reaction to the discovery of gravity to Rothbard's reaction to the discovery of the State, ending with the following statement:
"If Rothbard had been as wise as Newton, he would have recognized, as L.v. Mises had decades before, that the State is a force that exists in our reality as a consequence of the law of human action. It is a permanent, pervasive force that can be understood and dealt with through constructive human action to either amplify it's effects or to dampen those effects."
Jahfre is claiming that the State, like gravity and physics, is a non-human creation. To him, the State represents a metaphysical entity, created as a "force" outside of of humanity.
This is not in-line with the thinking of most libertarians. In fact, It is disingenuous to assert that Mises would agree with the notion of a metaphysical state:
"...If one assumes that there exists above and beyond the individual's actions an imperishable entity aiming at its own ends, different from those of mortal men, one has already constructed the concept of a superhuman being. Then one cannot evade the question whose ends take precedence whenever an antagonism arises, those of the state or society or those of the individual. The answer to this question is already implied in the very concept of state or society as conceived by collectivism and universalism. If one postulates the existence of an entity which ex definitione is higher, nobler, and better than the individuals, then there cannot be any doubt that the aims of this eminent being must tower above those of the wretched individuals... If society or state is an entity endowed with volition and intention and all the other qualities attributed to it by the collectivist doctrine, then it is simply nonsensical to set the shabby individual's trivial aims against its lofty designs." [2]
Law:
"As long as 2 or more individuals are vying for control of the same limited resources there will be government."
For those who have read my previous articles, I apologize for having to repeat this: "What came first: arbitration and the law, or the government?"
"Law" emerged from the need for an alternative to violence, peace. This wasn't initially facilitated by a metaphysical "state," as Jahfre attempts to insinuate. Judges emerged as objective arbitrators that communities looked to for decisions in such matters. Judges were sought out by their reputation as good mediators: bad judges were weeded out of the market in similar fashion. From these rulings emerged legal precedents accepted by a society at large, Common Law.
Here is an example of how law would work in such an environment: an ideologically-motivated judge rules that abortion is legal, despite the fact the majority of the community abhors such practices. The pro-choice judge would find himself with fewer customers (perhaps even run out of town), and competitors who overrule his findings would find themselves with more business.
Law in this manner was self-regulating, market-driven, and from the bottom-up, as opposed to the monoplized statutory law imposed by government.
Politics:
"Mr. Rothbard was dead wrong and blind to it (the fact there will always be government). Sadly, horrifyingly, his err has cost the defense of liberty dearly as an entire generation or more of potentially constructive political defenders of liberty have wasted their potential on shouting down a boogeyman. Many have devoted their resources and time to this futility politically by abandoning GOP into the hands of those whose driving motivation is to INCREASE the force of the state in an ever-accelerating manner. Abandoning the most powerful tool for limiting the growth of the state is an ridiculous strategy for the defense of liberty. Murray Rothbard was wrong about that, too.
The State is no more the enemy than is gravity."
"The State" that Rothbard and his "sycophants" despise is an action by a minority of humans: the projection of law, ethics, and morality upon the majority. When a king, a religious leader, a congress, or anyone proclaims a "law" over the land, that is what I and many others consider a "State." Think of "State" as a verb, and those who support it, the "statists," as the noun.
It's simple fact that majoritarianism and associations of humans are always going to exist. However, the centralized bureacracy of a law-making (as opposed to law-taking) entity, existing as a parasite upon the people it deigns to own, always has and will continue to prove itself as a self-destructive, regressive force against humanity.
It is delusional to conceive it possible to "limit" the action of projecting law, ethics, and morality. Such powers are by their very nature maximal. Statism is not a matter of degrees or subjectivity. Lowering taxes does not remove the fact that the government claims to own part of my earnings in the first place. Overruling previous statutes does not remove the fact that I may or may not have supported the statute, and that my opinion had submarginal impact on the decision in the first place. At best, any "limiting" State action amounts to a superficial measure to "get the citizenry off the government's back." Think: "bread and circuses."
Conclusion:
Jahfre attempts to convince us through blatant obfuscation that "his" vision of State can be a force for "good," and that disagreeing is to "waste potential" in the "defense of liberty." This is an egregious distortion of a fundamental concept.
"Liberty" is defined as the condition in which human beings can govern themselves. The State, in projecting law and other values upon the individual, tramples any such notion of self-governance. Only the most Orwellian mind could conceive the State as promoting liberty. The Individual and the State is a case of irreconcilable differences.
Sources:
[1]: Nolan Chart: "Murray Rothbard Was Wrong" Jahfre Fire Eater [2]: Ludwig von Mises: "Human Action" (Chapter VIII: Human Society; Part 2: "A Critique of the Holistic and Metaphysical View of Society")
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Van Bryant, II only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Van Bryant, II is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
