History is the fatherland of philosophy.
EvKL offers that in
every analysis of political phenomena, “we should always remain firmly grounded
on philosophical soil, yet never lose sight of the historical realities – in
the widest sense of the term.”
Citing Don Luigi
Sturzo:
Philosophy and
history will always remain two branches of one knowledge and speculation of
man. If their convergence and reciprocal influence ceases, philosophy becomes
sterile tautology and history an incoherent succession of meaningless facts.
I am reminded of
Murray Rothbard, who offered:
The common
separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But
this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is
inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a
poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.
How are we to
determine if an ethical ideal is “impractical”? How would we determine
what might be considered “practical”? Clearly an understanding of human
nature is necessary, and it seems to me that a good place to start
understanding human nature is to examine man’s history.
In this, as you
know, I have struggled through the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism
and that of one of its offspring, Libertarianism. Both ideas are quite
impractical – if not dangerous – absent an understanding of, appreciation for,
and grounding in the history that brought forth these liberalizing (in the best
sense of the term) philosophies.
So, count me in with
Diodorus, Sturzo, EvKL, and Rothbard on this one.
Liberty and Religion
We are convinced
that religion—or, to be more precise, the character of a culture's religious
basis—is the most important element in determining the affinities between
nations and political forms. The success of specific political forms depends on
the closeness and harmony of such affinities.
This is a very strong
statement by EvKL, and, perhaps, not so different than statements that I have
made in the past. EvKL offers other factors that influence political
forms: a collective historical experience, the geographic environment (as it
affects a people’s psychology), economic realities. Well lower on the
list, EvKL would place “race.” For those that he places higher (and to
include “religion” as the highest), how could these be described other than
with terms such as culture and tradition? Where is culture and tradition
to be found other than via an understanding of a people’s history?
Those who advocate
that libertarianism is for all, universal, perhaps it is worth considering:
religion, historical experience, a people’s psychology as impacted by
geography: these are not universal. So why is it rational to believe that
a political philosophy could be applicable universally?
Christianity and
Equality
Christianity was by
no means egalitarian, but merely established new values and new (physical as
well as metaphysical) hierarchies.
Christian equality
regards the equality of human souls at the beginning of their existence.
Beyond this? To suggest that Judas Iscariot at the end of the noose and
John the Apostle in his last days on Patmos are somehow spiritually equal runs
contrary to any possible human understanding of the words “spiritual” and
“equal.”
If we focus our
attention upon the biological, characteriological, intellectual and physical
status of the individual, the inequalities are even more apparent.
Egalitarianism is,
therefore, a hypocrisy (Rothbard does
invaluable work in devastating this idea of
egalitarianism). Returning to EvKL:
if egalitarianism is accepted and acted upon, its menace is greater:
Then all actual
inequalities appear without exception to be unjust, immoral, intolerable.
Keep in mind, this
book was published in 1952.
The situation is
even worse when brutal efforts are made to establish equality through a
process of artificial levelling ("social engineering") which can only
be done by force, restrictions, or terror, and the outcome is a complete loss
of liberty.
He had the French
Revolution to look back on; he also had the future catastrophe of the West in
his sights.
Democracy and
Liberalism
Democracy, let us
repeat, is concerned with the question of who should be vested with
ruling power; while liberalism deals with the freedom of the individual,
regardless of who carries on the government.
While democracy is
the perfect form of government for the “all men are equal” crowd, it really has
nothing to do with – and, in fact, almost always runs contrary to – the idea of
freedom of the individual. Does the average man even aspire to
liberty? Those on top certainly do not; those on the bottom may or may
not but find no way out of their situation. Those in the middle are left
with resources barely sufficient to struggle through the day, with no energy or
time for high-minded ideas like “liberty.”
It should be
self-evident that the principle of majority rule is a decisive step in the
direction of totalitarianism…. Psychologically, rule stemming from a person
considered superior is less oppressive than coercion exercised by equals—not to
mention that exercised by those felt to be inferior.)
This is so obvious,
an example almost seems a waste of words: merely consider something as simple
as work relationships. It is easy to follow the “rule” of a real leader –
often having nothing to do with a formal organization chart; it is a struggle
to follow the lead of an incompetent, who happens to hold a title higher than
yours.
Direct democracy is
feasible in small units, and it still survives in New England town meetings and
in certain Swiss cantons.
Contrasted with mass
democracy – criticized (then) recently by Pope Pius XII and even
Rousseau. Yet technology has offered ever-increasing possibilities for
mass-democracy.
…we have to ask
ourselves whether a good (provided it really is a good) can become an evil if
it exists in an unadulterated form. Moral philosophy and moral theology, unlike
chemistry, admit of no alloys….Valid ethics have to be at least “theoretically
practicable."
Again, as offered by
Rothbard.
Christianity and
Government
From a Christian
point of view, the form of government must be judged based on its ethical
content. Yet, EvKL offers:
…the ranks of the
philosophic defenders of democracy have been strengthened by moral theologians,
not only of the Protestant persuasion, but even of the Catholic Church.
I have offered that
there is no possibility to move toward liberty or a libertarian society absent
Christian leaders taking up their proper role; in the West, this certainly
means denouncing almost everything about the Progressivist agenda (i.e.
denouncing almost every action – military, social, foreign policy, and
otherwise – taken by Western governments; rightly criticizing the social
justice agenda).
We believe that
their concept of man is artificial, that their notions of the common good are
out of focus, that their idea of society is a curious patchwork of opposites
partly atomistic and partly totalitarian…
Their mistakes are
not only of a philosophical but also of a theological nature. There is a very
strong flavour of Rousseau in their arguments.
EvKL offers an
examination of Original Sin; without going into this detail, he suggests that
even atheists can agree with Christians regarding man’s shortcomings without
agreeing on the causes.
Yet it is precisely
this overlooking of original sin with its moral and intellectual results
that seduces the democratic ideologists of the Neo-Thomist persuasion to arrive
at their rigid and dogmatic constructions. They have, by necessity, the most
daring educational schemes which take into account neither innate intellectual
inequalities nor the absolute limitations of our capacities.
It is believed by
leftists of all stripes that man can be purified, given their view that
Original Sin is mythology. Yet, it seems to me that one need not accept
the idea of Original Sin to accept the idea that man is not perfect; we need
not agree on the reasons why this is so in order to agree that it is so.
Any political philosophy that ignores – or attempts to eliminate this reality –
is a political philosophy doomed both to failure and to tyranny.
Borders…or Lack
Thereof
The ethical
dogmatists of democracy run into equally hopeless difficulties when they have
to deal with the problem of territorial allegiances.
What of the right of
secession? Which “majority” then rules? Ireland for independence,
or all of Great Britain against Ireland’s independence; six northern counties
of Ulster to keep their ties with Britain, or the majority of Irishmen against
this notion?
The problem of
boundaries and local allegiance would exist in a world state also. It is rather
naïve to believe that borders are felt merely on account of customs officials
and passport regulations.
We “feel” borders
around our homes; we “feel” borders around our communities; we “feel” borders
around our traditions. In a private property order, we would do much to
defend these borders – this having nothing to do with “customs officials and
passport regulations.”
From Medieval to
Modern
It is evident that
modern government has achieved an autonomy from society (we mean auto-nomy: the
power to make and live by its own laws) which would baffle and frighten the
medieval observer. Nietzsche's “coldest of all monsters" would terrify
pre-Renaissance man.
This quote of
Nietzsche is offered here, more fully and with some
context:
A state, is called
the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth
from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie!
Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them:
thus they served life. Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and
call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.
Where there is still
a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as
sin against laws and customs.
Take some time to
dwell on the implications of that last sentence.
Governance during
much of Medieval Europe was voluntary, oath-based, driven by generally accepted
traditions; governance during this time was most certainly not what we would
call a State. Medieval man would truly be embarrassed by the flabby shell
of a man that has come to replace him.
Conclusion
I cannot make sense
of Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism absent the culture and tradition from
which it came and absent the presence of this culture and tradition through
which it can be maintained.
Religion – and
specifically Christianity – is the enemy of liberty? Given the history
of this liberty, it is impossible to accept this idea as rational; it is quite
reasonable to consider those who put forth this idea as enemies of liberty.
Epilogue
Not all medieval men
were “good” Catholics,” yet the vast majority of medieval men (and certainly
the nobles) accepted and defended Catholic tradition and authority – authority
exercised in the spiritual frame, which guided noble action in the physical
frame.
No, I do not
advocate a theocratic state; no, I do not believe that only Christians (however
you define that term out of the thousand possibilities) can be
“libertarian.” My point is very simple: absent a grounding in and
appreciation for the foundations that brought forth this libertarian idea,
there is no possibility of achieving this libertarian idea.
Libertarians who
stay silent on this point – or worse, mock and ridicule it (actually, I am not
sure which of the two is worse) – are not after liberty. Knowingly
or unknowingly, they are after your enslavement.
