There
is unrest in the Forest
There
is trouble with the trees
For the
Maples want more sunlight
And the
Oaks ignore their pleas.
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other
Essays, by Murray Rothbard
This book is a compilation of
sixteen essays by Murray Rothbard. The title of the book is also the
opening essay: Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature. It is
this opening essay that I will examine in this post.
For well over a century, the
Left has generally been conceded to have morality, justice, and “idealism” on
its side; the Conservative opposition to the Left has largely been confined to
the “impracticality” of its ideals.
With this, Rothbard sets the
stage. The Conservatives have ceded the moral ground; by doing so, they
have created an environment where the Left can achieve gradual change – over
the long run “practicality” cannot succeed against “moral” and “ethical.”
Rothbard describes the
“impracticality” argument as one that holds up economic considerations against
the Left’s ideals. I find this a tremendously important point. In
how many arguments in favor of libertarian (or supposedly libertarian) ideals
are the economic justifications raised, while moral and ethical considerations
are deemed secondary – if even considered?
The
trouble with the Maples
(And
they’re quite convinced they’re right)
They
say the Oaks are just too lofty
And
they grab up all the light
Regarding the value judgment on
behalf of “equality,” Rothbard asks:
Is there no requirement that
these value judgments be in some sense valid, meaningful, cogent, true?
How is one to judge what is
“valid, meaningful, cogent, true?” From the Introduction to the
First Edition, Rothbard writes:
Libertarianism is a new and
emerging discipline which touches closely on many other areas of the study of
human action: economics, philosophy, political theory, history, even – and not
least – biology.
“True” is found in the reality
of humanity. Essentially, the student of libertarianism cannot ignore the
reality of the world around him, the reality of humans as they are, the reality
of the successes and failures in history and the causes of these. The
better grounded the student of libertarianism is in this reality, the better
grounded his advocacy in this reality, the more seriously will his ideas be
considered.
But the
Oaks can’t help their feelings
If they
like the way they’re made
And
they wonder why the Maples
Can’t
be happy in their shade?
Rothbard asks: “should equality
be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In
response, he offers:
…we must challenge the very
idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but
“not valid in practice.” If a theory is correct, then it does work
in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory.
From the Introduction to the
Second Edition, by David Gordon:
But Rothbard was no spinner of
idle utopian fantasies: he always had in mind what can be done immediately to
achieve his libertarian goals…. Indeed, Rothbard continually alternated between
elaborations of principle and applications to particular issues.
I have struggled with this
distinction – theory vs. application. I sometimes try to clarify as to
the bucket in which I am swimming when I write; more often, even I am not sure
which bucket I am in. I guess if making this distinction was not very
important to Rothbard (in fact, he advises specifically not to make this
distinction) I should probably get over it myself.
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.
If the goal itself violates the
nature of man, then it is a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal.
There
is trouble in the Forest
And the
creatures all have fled
As the
Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the
Oaks, just shake their heads
Rothbard offers:
…mankind is uniquely
characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short,
inequality…. The age-old record of inequality seems to indicate that this
variability and diversity is rooted in the biological nature of man.
When egalitarian fantasy butts
up against this reality, no one gets to stand on the sideline; no one will
survive unscathed.
So the
Maples formed a Union
And
demanded equal rights
‘The
Oaks are just too greedy
We will
make them give us light’
Rothbard continues by offering
evidence, rooted in science, of the differences in men and women and the
genetic nature of intelligence. But it is not enough that this idea of
equality is a revolt against biological reality; it is much worse:
[It is a deeper revolt} against
the ontological structure of reality itself, against the “very organization of
nature”; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian
left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all
the world is tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any
desired direction by the mere exercise of human will – in short, that reality
can be instantly transformed by the mere wish of whim of human beings.
Conclusion
Now
there’s no more Oak oppression
For
they passed a noble law
And the
trees are all kept equal
By
hatchet,
Axe,
And
saw…
Such egalitarian ideas can only
be made manifest only via the most totalitarian of methods and can only result
in the destruction of humanity.
Egalitarians do not have
ethics on their side unless one can maintain that the destruction of
civilization, and even of the human race itself, may be crowned with the laurel
wreath of a high and laudable morality.