One more time….
A common culture – and a culture beyond
merely the NAP – is necessary if we are ever to move closer to a libertarian
society.
On Power: The Natural History of its Growth, Bertrand de Jouvenel.
Let’s see what de Jouvenel says about this.
Each man with a given position in a given
society strays only in the most exceptional cases from a typical
behavior. This regularity is produced by a code of beliefs and moralities
which is deeply embedded in the nature of man in society.
A libertarian theorist – without the burden
of taking account the human nature of humans – might describe living in
a society that valued such “beliefs and moralities” as aggression; a
libertarian theorist who considers the human nature of humans recognizes
the value of such “beliefs and moralities” in providing governance absent
the state.
Call it thick if you like. I do not;
I recognize that libertarian theory does not provide every answer to every question
faced in society. Thereafter – when considering the application in the
real world – we are left with choosing between relatively more voluntarily
derived or relatively less voluntarily derived “rules.”
What is aggression? What is proper
punishment? How is it determined when the age of minority ends and
majority begins? What is property? The answers to these questions
and more can vary widely and yet remain compatible with the non-aggression
principle.
The ancients showed, by the importance
which they attached to folkways, that they were well aware of this; if folkways
were good, government was hardly necessary, and if they were bad, it was almost
impossible.
Do you continue to wonder why the state
works so hard to destroy “folkways”? Why does the state support massive
immigration, unwed parenting, co-opting of the church, co-opting of every
social function, abortion, and all varieties of “lifestyle choices”? Why
does the state work so hard to destroy the family?
In the same way, folkways and beliefs must
be brought low, that Power may substitute for their influence its own authority
and build its church on their ruins.
This is why the state works to destroy
“folkways.” What is unfortunate is that too many so-called libertarians
cheer on this destruction. Such libertarians do nothing but ensure more
government.
So long as persons of every degree behave
according to fixed rules which everybody knows, their actions under all
circumstances can be predicted by their associates, and confidence reigns in
human relationships.
“How un-libertarian” I hear the
screams. I recall a discussion on punishment. Is increased violence
likely to result from punishment deemed just by the local population or
punishment deemed unjust? As libertarian theory does not (and cannot)
give an objective answer to NAP-consistent and appropriate punishment for each
and every violation, I will suggest that the answer to this question that will
result in a community remaining peaceful is the punishment that is deemed just
by that same community.
Conversely, a nonconformist behavior upsets
all calculations, makes every precaution necessary, stirs up acts of reprisal
for its own wrongful acts of aggression…
Must this be explained or defended.
Look all around you; the examples are too numerous to list.
…and, if the evil grows, unleashes in the
end hatred, distrust and violence.
And who will be called to do something
about this hatred, distrust, and violence? Again, we live in such a world
and the answer is obvious.
The ancients had, therefore, good reason to
keep the foreigner at a distance. His folkways were different, and it
could not be known how he would act.
Mmmm…yeah. (Oh Angela, the
real world example you have provided of calls for “more” from the state in the
face of massive immigration.)
Under these conditions little government
was needed, for education had done what was necessary to regulate action.
As long as the non-aggression principle is
not violated, a wide variety of answers to social questions are possible.
A society “educated” on which of these NAP-consistent answers is OK “around
here” will be a society that can function well with little risk of calls for a
monopolist of violence.
Such custom, if held strongly by the
people, would serve to keep even the ruler in check:
…a monarch who was imprudent enough to
order something which did not conform to custom would, in doing so, break his
own authority and risk his life.
To which I say “HOORAY!” This is
wholly consistent with the law as it was found during the Germanic Middle
Ages. The law was old and the law was good; the law was custom.
Most importantly, this law was held strongly by all members of society, and
this kept the king in check.
It was not only in medieval Europe.
De Jouvenel offers examples of the Rejangs of Sumatra, the Malagasy of
Madagascar, and the King of Ashanti. As was the case in Europe, I suspect
none of these societies can be described as “libertarian,” yet the amount of
“government” (in the worst sense of the term) was kept in check by accepted
custom.
The value of the old and good law was that
it kept “law” out of the hands of the king or, in our day, the
legislature. It kept the law in the hands of the people and their memory
of custom. It was not always libertarian law (perfect isn’t an option
when it comes to human interaction), but it was free from absolutist dictates.
This old and good law – whether from God,
the gods, or some other source – was not a sphere available for man to take a
part. The punishment was also not in man’s hands. Both the law and
punishment came from custom. Only the administration was in the hand of
the king.
We have destroyed this guillotine over the
monarch’s neck by accepting this fallacy that “we the people” are in
charge. To whom do we complain; over whom do we hold the blade?
As evidence of his views, de Jouvenel
offers the European experience beginning with the “rationalists” of the modern
age.
Can we fail to note the coincidence of the
breakdown of beliefs from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries with the
elevation of absolute monarchies during the same period? Is it not clear
that they owed their elevation to this breakdown? Is not the conclusion
this: that the great period of rationalism was also that of enlightened and
free-thinking despots…?
Conclusion
…once man is declared “the measure of all
things,” there is no longer a true, or a good, or a just, but only opinions of
equal validity whose clash can be settled only by political or military force….
The law and punishment for violation must
be rooted in something other than “man,” (with man defined as “we can decide
whatever we think is the best law and punishment for today”). Man only
has authority over the administration.
For the rest, we would do well do consider
custom.
