I
would like to examine a couple of things in this post, different but
related. The first, represented in the title, is this sentiment – perhaps
the premier sentiment if one wants to capture, in one phrase, the thinking of
the Enlightenment. The second is a commonly offered sentiment about the
NAP, which – it seems to me – is dependent on the first.
Keep
in mind, this is my first attempt at stumbling through these concepts in a
concise manner; be kind in your feedback.
All
Men Are Created Equal
I
will walk through the various interpretations of this statement – not
chronologically, but from the most inane to the most rational…at least to me,
and at least to this point of my thinking (and I will stay out of the “made in
God’s image” discussion).
Some
background: there was a time in my life when I thought this the most excellent
statement upon which one might build a political philosophy; the opening of the
Declaration of Independence would rarely leave me with dry eyes. I would
say that I have been cured of this sickness – both by the way that the phrase
has been used to suppress excellence and by the result of eliminating natural
governance institutions.
So,
the most inane: all men are created equal…in ability. For most
thinking people, this can be dispensed with quickly. The easiest place to
see this falsity of this view is in athletics; for some reason, it seems the
only (or at least the most) politically correct reason to point to regarding
this view. Mention it in other contexts and count the moments before the
lynching.
How
about all men are afforded equal opportunity? Well, we know that
there are countless laws on the books to bring this in order to attempt to
bring this into fruition…as much as force, fines, and prison can make an unreality
real. But we know this also is not true. The politically correct
example? Those born into wealth have much greater opportunities than
those born into poverty. This issue points to the reasons why it is easy
for law to focus on equal opportunity. Just remember, it doesn’t apply to
the children of wealthy athletes!
Now,
for the version that I was settled on for quite some time, the one that seemed
most libertarian and grounded in reality as opposed to the previously noted
interpretations / applications. All men are equal under the law.
Yes, I know that it doesn’t apply to politicians, many wealthy and / or
connected individuals, etc. But as an ideal, I thought it couldn’t get
much better than this.
I
have been giving this some thought on and off for some time; it isn’t so easy
to break from something upon which I felt so grounded for much of my
life. Then, recently, the light bulb went on…from darkness to light –
well, a light bulb with a dimmer switch. Or is it a train….
If
I was to form the most libertarian statement on this matter, I would say that
all men are equally free to live under a law regime of their choosing.
Of course, this runs into practical limitations, most certainly: what if no one
else chooses to recognize or live within your law regime?
Ideally,
I would be able to create a law regime of my liking, but we live in a world
with other humans. Just like the market for any product, we don’t have
unlimited and perfect choices, we just get to choose from available
choices. This is why I see decentralization as the practical application
of the NAP.
I
think about the law that I would live under in a libertarian society: the bare
minimum law would be the NAP…but would this bare minimum be my choice?
What if I want something more? It seems to me that everything above bare
minimum of the NAP would be agreed to individually, not universally: call it by
contract, call it oath, call it HOA rules, call it moral leadership, or call it
acceptance of culture and tradition, whatever.
I
want to live in a neighborhood where sex orgies on the front lawn aren’t
allowed, where grill-outs and fire pits are common. You may want a
neighborhood that excludes children. I might be willing to pay some sort
of association fees for upkeep and maintenance of the common property.
What
about conditions of employment? Who to hire, who to fire, benefits,
etc. Different people have different desires / requirements.
So,
it seems that “all men equal under the law” requires 100% of law to be made by
a third party (however much “law” that is); a “universal” law. “All men
free to live under a law regime of their choosing” would mean 10% of your
law is universal (the NAP) and 90% of your law is chosen – which, in
practical application means 100% of your law is unique (not universal), as it
will not look like the NAP to an outsider.
My
point is…in a society of libertarian law, most of the law we would live under
will be self-selected (within the limitations of finding others who feel the
same as you do). In other words, we aren’t all created equal under the
law; we are equal in our ability to choose our law.
That,
it seems to me, is about as libertarian as it gets…and, by the way, it is quite
consistent with the philosophy underlying medieval law.
Which
brings me to part two of this examination.
Libertarianism
is For Everyone
Look,
doesn’t everyone want to be secure in their person and property, not be
murdered or robbed, have the freedom to exchange, not be artificially limited
by others in our choices in life, etc.?
How
could anyone answer “no” to this? But I really don’t care about how
someone answers it, what matters is what is meant by these words to different
people. As if in order to demonstrate that even at the extremes of a
continuum, libertarians cannot settle on defining “aggression” or applying
“punishment,” consider the following example: abortion is not considered murder
by many libertarians.
Imagine,
a “non-aggression principle” that allows the most heinous aggression against
the most vulnerable and innocent among us. Some libertarians certainly feel otherwise.
Murdering an unborn child for the supposed crime of trespass? This is
even worse than shooting a child for stealing an apple – again demonstrating
well that even at the extremes of the continuum, libertarians cannot settle on
such definitions / applications.
Open
borders, yes or no? Intellectual property, yes or no? The list goes
on. My law might have open borders, yours might not; my law might allow
for abortion, yours might not; my law might allow for recognition of
intellectual property, yours might not; my law might consider “proportional”
what your law considers excessive when it comes to punishment.
Even
before we get to the unique conditions people find themselves in around the
world, we cannot even come to a “universal law” among western libertarians.
Who
am I to tell someone – who lives in a culture, climate, tradition, etc., very
different from anything I understand – that my interpretation is his interpretation;
that “I have just the law for you”? Well, beyond saying that libertarian
law is law of your own choosing – in reality, via decentralization allowing for
the maximum number of choices.
What
matters is maximizing choice and having an environment that supports the
possibility of individuals making their choice.
Conclusion
If all men are created equal to choose their own law,
then to insist that libertarianism is universal is invalid – unless by
libertarianism we mean each individual is free to choose his law. If it
is libertarian for each of us to choose our own law, then there is no such
thing as a single universal law for all; if libertarianism (as you interpret
its application) is universal, then I am not free to choose my own law (and for
this, a strongman will be required).
And in this, we find the difference in the
decentralization vs. universalist camps. If it is ever to be found,
liberty will only be found in decentralized society and decentralized law.
