An interesting dialogue. One that
raises uncomfortable questions. The dialogue has been ongoing at this
blog for quite some time; in many ways, the dialogue can be summarized here, beginning with the comment by Nick
Badalamenti March 22, 2017, at 6:38 AM.
For close to two years I have been examining the
relationship of the non-aggression principle and culture. The dialogue
has been ongoing at this site throughout this time. This journey began
with an examination of left-libertarianism; such an examination inevitably
moved into the culture. With culture comes the topic of immigration.
The Questions
- What if the NAP requires a certain
cultural soil on which to thrive?
- What if that cultural soil is to
be found in what is traditionally understood as European and Anglo?
- Do all invasions require armed,
uniformed battalions – supported by airpower?
- What if elites are purposely
taking action to destroy that cultural soil, specifically for the purpose
to destroy the one philosophical threat to their worldly power and
control?
- Do parents have an obligation to
protect this cultural soil for their children?
- What if that obligation requires
methods that cannot be considered consistent with the NAP?
- It is acceptable for a voluntary
community to set standards for new members to meet before they are allowed
admittance?
- Is it acceptable for a voluntary
community to set standards that members are required to meet, else they
face expulsion?
The Non-Aggression Principle Applied
Libertarianism, in theory, is
decentralization in practice. Being human, we will never achieve the NAP
utopia – there will never be a heaven on earth. Consider how much those
libertarians who believe this sound like believers in communism; in both cases,
they require humans to be something other than human. The chance of
achieving perfection in applying either system is zero.
The best we can hope for is continued
decentralization. This implies increasing choice in increasing aspects of
our lives.
The increased choice can be found in both
market and government realms. As libertarians, we tend to focus only on
the “government” aspect, but it is incorrect to ignore the freedom that has
been offered by the market – cars, iPhones, the internet.
This is not to minimize the “government”
aspect. For this reason, it is consistent with the NAP to root for every
opportunity of political decentralization: the break-up of the Soviet Union,
Brexit, Scottish Independence, Catalonia. Political decentralization
brings increased political choice for individuals.
Find something that comes closest to what
you want; you will never find exactly what you want. It will always be
true in the market; it will always be true in the political.
A Historical Framework
The closest and longest lasting example in
history that I find that is consistent with the non-aggression principle is
that period understood as the Germanic Middle Ages. Political
decentralization defines this period.
Was it pure libertarianism?
Hardly. But there is no chance of heaven on earth.
What characterized this period? Local
governance; law based on the old and good, not legislation; all men truly under
the law; the law binding by individual oath; the oath a three-party oath – two
human parties and God; the king can only enforce the law, not legislate; every
noble with the ability to veto the king’s decision; serfs protected by the same
system of oaths; wars were between the nobles and kings, the serfs were not
obligated.
What else characterized this period?
Lots of wars. What didn’t characterize these wars? All serfs
conscripted at the wish of the noble; involvement of the entire continent, let
alone world; the ability to sustain the war for an unlimited period. The
wars were limited in both size and duration. Call them family feuds,
because that about describes it.
What else characterized this period?
The Christians of the Germanic Middle Ages fought desperately to protect their
culture. They felt that without this culture, they would have no future
for their children; without this culture, they would leave no legacy worth
celebrating. By losing this culture, they would be remembered as pariahs.
I believe it is fair to suggest that the
obligation most felt by the nobles of this time was the obligation they felt to
both their ancestors and descendants – to preserve the culture of which they
enjoyed the greatest decentralization. Their view? Any society that
failed to preserve its culture didn’t deserve to survive.
Conclusion
Face the questions. Think through
your answers. The context is this world, not in theoretical utopia.
