The title of this post is the essence of the famous Hobbesian myth.
Thomas Hobbes was someone I would call a founder of modern statism. Before Hobbes no such thing as the state existed. Indeed Hobbes was inspired by crazy theories of people like Plato and Machiavelli - but their utopias (thank God Almighty!) never came to exist before Hobbes got his hands on them. Hobbes argued that in the state of nature the lives of men are
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Men could not, he said, function at all without the threat of a master's whip. What differentiated Hobbes from the likes of Plato was that unlike Plato's famous Republic (which was also a utilitarian society of masters and slaves like the modern state is), the Hobbesian society was based on the consent of the governed. The people supposedly came together and, from the bottom up, placed themselves into the shackles of the state. It was not a top-down tyranny, but a self-imposed one. It was also, the main crux of Hobbes's theory, entirely necessary for these shackled to exist. The Hobbesian myth is, of course, absurd. We all know people can cooperate without force and coercion. In fact had Hobbes been correct how would people have come together to agree to create the state? They wouldn't have! After all people can't cooperate or agree without the state looking over their shoulder, can they? I noticed today in my philosophy class that many people were completely incensed at the idea of Plato's "noble lie". Plato argued that the simple people need to be told that the republic is for their own good and was founded together for their benefit. But he did admit this was a lie. And yet when I mentioned that the same is going on now (noble lie = Hobbesian myth) there were a few laughs around the classroom. I can only assume this would have also taken place in Plato's Republic. People would laugh at others who pointed out the noble lie...
Hobbes's lie was of course picked up by later philosophers. John Locke incorporated this monstrosity into the liberal worldview. From then on no political philosophy was spared this falsehood. It is up to us to change that!
Thomas Paine was one of those flawed liberals who subscribed to the theories of Hobbesian myth and to some extent to fallacious democratic principles. And yet even he - not knowing he was contradicting his own political philosophy! - wrote that
"Human nature is not of itself vicious". Indeed it is not. And that really is something when you realize it's coming from a former pirate!
You most likely disagree, but I think Spencer took to much liberty in expanding on Charles Darwin's definition. I don't equate social Darwinism with biological Darwinism at all. I don't equate social Darwinism with actual Darwinism, and feel that the latter falls into the category of naturalistic fallacy and the premise for the evolution of an anarcho-capitalist society is based on this. Social Darwinism, to me, makes the assumption that what is natural is close to equivalent to what is morally correct. In other words, it falls into the belief that just because something takes place in nature, it must be a moral paradigm for humans to follow. Biologically, you do not always lose it when you don't use it either(tonsils, appendix, coccyx, gall bladders, adenoids, some wisdom teeth, etc).
ReplyDeleteAlso, those people who laughed at you were probably jerks in that case.
Spencer did not expand Darwin's theory. He simply used logical reasoning to predict the only course of action which would naturally take place if humanity was left to itself. In fact he did anticipate and think democracy ("the confused contradictory system" he called it) to be part of that evolution. It was the point where man was still animalistic, but already used reason. I am in this a supporter of reason, not of nature. Man should rid himself as much as possible of primitive instincts which are not related to living in society and replace them with habits which are useful for human interaction. But these habits will appear automatically - that is the essence of Spencerian Social Darwinism.
ReplyDeleteJay Gould once said that "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half" in response to his workers breaking their contracts, quitting their jobs and deciding to work for another railroad company. Man's nature is not inherently evil or vicious, but like Gould implied, it can be so Hobbes-ian that man loses the very face that differentiates himself from dogs.
ReplyDelete"Man should rid himself as much as possible of primitive instincts which are not related to living in society."
I have to say, he probably won't. A man who wants to join a self perpetuating fraternity will do whatever pledge he likes whenever necessary to gain approval of the others members in society. And he will do these acts on a purely voluntary basis. He will, even at times hedonistically, indulge in whatever he can afford to like.
"and replace them with habits which are useful for human interaction. But these habits will appear automatically-"
Like drinking beer instead of water in that little fraternity society. There is absolutely no way these habits (lets say hard work) will appear automatic even in a purely capitalistic society when man has the opportunity to avoid the habit. Man is not naturally prone to working any harder when he always has the option to avoid a habit like hard work. He would sooner voluntarily give up on working for a higher quality of life than stop sleeping and playing around and drinking all day.
First of all don't equate lack of work with hedonism (hedonism takes into account consequences of one's actions). Secondly, you simply don't understand evolution. This is very clear to me. Evolution means that faculties being used become stronger and ones not being used disappear. In society reason and interaction are used more and aggression is used less - unless you stick people in an aggressive system like the state. The coercive states retards man's adaptation to society. This can have untold consequences in the future! It has to stop before it's too late! But if unbelievers like you don't trust that it would be okay I think if you at least left all the other people alone don't you think? Do you really have to force people into your state system against their will and never let them secede?
ReplyDeleteMatt, there is not a single evolutionary biologist who would agree with what you just said.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of evolution
"Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Over time variants with particular heritable traits become more, or less, common."
"Evolution means that faculties being used become stronger and ones not being used disappear." -you
They do not disappear. You would not have a tailbone from 4 million years ago. You would not have a fifth toe because it does not affect balance or anything else. You would not have irrationality. You would not have simple stupidity.
"In society reason and interaction are used more and aggression is used less"
Just because the ENRON CEOS wore benign suits does not mean they did not plot to secretly spy on their enemy corporations or attempt to kill off snitches and accountants of their corporation who would reveal their lies and secret immoral dealings to their stockholders and "crush all internal dissent so the buyers never know."
And again I quote Von Mises, who I seem to agree with more politically than you do:
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints."
I would let you secede and wouldn't stop you. But the unintended consequence would probably mean you would die off quickly and everyone else would go on their daily lives. Your intended motive would have an unintended effect that you would not foresee because you only acknowledge the positive aspects of secession. And if nobody wanted to employ you from the surrounding land because private businesses didn't want to hire you and discriminated against secessionists and open anarchists, then you wouldn't have a job or unemployment insurance and would begin to starve unless your family and friends bailed (donated) you out. And just because two people from different houses secede does not mean they would equally respect each others property rights or they share mutual values of non-aggression.
"Man should rid himself as much as possible of primitive instincts which are not related to living in society."
That is the most utilitarian statement I have heard from you.
First - my definition of evolution is correct. And it does take a long time indeed, which is why I am very pessimistic about any prospects for people changing for the positive in the next thousands of years. However there are currently people who are past primitivism and supressing them is not the answer to our problems. Second - secession has no negative consequence which you claim can exist (not in terms of regular private property rights). Also you using von Mises to your advantage is quite silly. The man was a pure 100% supporter of secession and quasi-anarchist measures of private property rights. When he wrote about anarchism and social darwinism he meant totally different things than what I mean by them (which I have noted on this blog before). When he talks about social darwinism he means the theory of "might means right" and when he says "anarchism" he means the leftist no-property anarchism. Quoting Mises is like comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteComparing Spencer to Darwin's ideas in any respect of evolution is like comparing apples and oranges and there is not a single current evolutionary biologist who would agree with Spencer's stance and would believe it is an over extension of logical reasoning predicated on an unsound belief to predict a course of mankind assuming it was without a state.
ReplyDelete"The man was a pure 100% supporter of secession and quasi-anarchist measures of private property rights"
-You are right. That does not contradict with the quote. Neither does it contradict that Spencer and Von Mises were both classical liberals.
"Mortal men are liable to error, and legislators and judges are mortal men. It may happen again and again that the valid laws or their interpretation by the courts prevent the executive organs from resorting to some measures which could be beneficial. No great harm, however, can result. If the legislators recognize the deficiency of the valid laws, they can alter them. It is certainly a bad thing that a criminal may sometimes evade punishment because there is a loophole left in the law, or because the prosecutor has neglected some formalities. But it is the minor evil when compared with the consequences of unlimited discretionary power on the part of the 'benevolent' despot."- Von Mises
"Freedom and liberty always mean freedom from police interference. In nature there are no such things as liberty and freedom. There is only the adamant rigidity of the laws of nature to which man must unconditionally submit if he wants to attain any ends at all. Neither was there liberty in the imaginary paradisaical conditions which, according to the fantastic prattle of many writers, preceded the establishment of societal bonds. Where there is no government, everybody is at the mercy of his stronger neighbor. Liberty can be realized only within an established state ready to prevent a gangster from killing and robbing his weaker fellows. But it is the rule of law alone which hinders the rulers from turning themselves into the worst gangsters."- Von Mises
"State and government are the social apparatus of violent coercion and repression. Such an apparatus, the police power, is indispensable in order to prevent anti-social individuals and bands from destroying social co-operation. Violent prevention and suppression of anti-social activities benefit the whole of society and each of its members. But violence and oppression are none the less evils and corrupt those in charge of their application. It is necessary to restrict the power of those in office lest they become absolute despots. Society cannot exist without an apparatus of violent coercion. But neither can it exist if the office holders are irresponsible tyrants free to inflict harm upon those they dislike."
-Von Mises
You can make up your own mind and go with Rothbard or Hoppe. Personally I agree with Von Mises politically. He also goes onto to talk about how any derivation of anarchy no matter how voluntary and non-coercive is entirely unwise and simply naive and how he supports any form of classical liberalism to any form of anarchism. I could post those too if you want.
Wow, again I see a lot of things to dispute. Let's settle this once and for all: are you for complete right of secession? If not, you do not agree with Mises - period. Second, you are wrong about Spencer because you assume he is a "Darwinist" as in Charles Darwin. I have previously written clearly on this blog that Spencer was more of a Lamarckian than a Darwinist. And he is fully right 100%; you would have to somehow disprove his theory with logic which you have not done at any point. The gist of what you're saying is always "that's not true because nobody agrees with you". That's an "argument from authority" and if you knew anything about logic you would know it's invalid. And last of all it is important to understand that many classical liberals were anarchists who did not believe that anarchy was pragmatically possible (by now the likes of Hoppe or Walter Block have proven it is possible). I would put Mises in this category. A lot of other classical liberals were actually anarcho-capitalists. Among these I would name, for example, Spencer and Molinari. You must also realize that whenever a classical liberal speaks about "the rule of law" he does not mean positive government law (i.e. legislative law). This term (rule of law) is always used in reference to natural law. It is very important to have these definitions clear because I see sometimes our misunderstandings basically deal with semantics/language use differences which is just a silly thing to argue about.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes, it is absolutely illogical to put trust in authority, like expecting your parents to always be there for you. I tend to trust those who actually study the field of evolutionary biology more so than those who've just taken a class of it in High School on it and I tend to distrust those who espouse a new radical political, economic, or social orders (not the person or the validity of the premise, just the soundness of it). Again, a completely illogical belief, but there you have it.
ReplyDelete"Are you for complete right of secession?"- Yes, and I would have disagreed with both Lincoln and Von Mises on this premise. I still agree more with Von Mises on almost every other subject pertaining to law and order than with Hoppe or Spencer or even Ayn Rand about the actual pragmatism of anarcho-capitalism.
And yes, Walter Block, the man who asserts voluntary slavery as legitimate, to the protest of even Rothbard as paradoxical... Something even Shakespeare found offensive.
Hoppe: democracy and/or similar forms of governance is to blame for everything. It fosters low time preference in people (that is, a hand-to-mouth mentality), moral bankruptcy, intellectual stultification, general malaise, the decline of "family values" and traditional hierarchy, and the general the degeneration of "civilization."
I disagree with this because I agree with the current morality, something you find disagreeable.
Hoppe:
"Insurance companies could take over this role, since it is in their interest to protect their clients."
This is an interesting idea. I doubt Hoppe or Rothbard or Walter Block have ever stepped outside the world of academia where all theoreticians reign free.
Well I guess you are bound to have that internal human flaw - being afraid of the new. Back in the day people refused to believe the earth was round or that it orbited around the sun despite clear logic proving just that. But disputing the logic of Spencer by just "choosing not to accept it" without offering any counter-argument seems rather silly to me (like a little kid stamping his foot and refusing to take his medicine). But I do not dispute your right to be wrong. What I dispute and always will dispute is your right to force people to behave the way you want them to (which all statists are guilty of - no exceptions even for the greats whoi inspired my thinking like Locke, Rand, and Jefferson!). Also when you call something "theoretical"... well I guess the airplane used to be theoretical before they built it, right? And what exactly do you mean by "current morality"? If you mean by that all the things Hoppe lists well then I do indeed disagree with them. Another contradiction - how can you disagree with both Lincoln and Mises? Either you allow secession (Mises) or don't allow it (Lincoln). There is no in-between that I can see. There is no philosopher who would accept your argument because since the times of Aristotle we have known that anything which is contradictory is not even analytically true, so it cannot apply even in the mind (let alone the real world!). All things have to be settled through reasonable discourse because humans are reasonable creatures. So please use logical proofs, not predictions or arguments from authority!
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of the greatest philosophers offered varying logical proofs proving the existence of a very specific type of Judeo-Christian God, and how hundreds of years later those proofs were found to be invalid. And even the most stead-fast Christian believer cannot conclusively prove there is a God (single, multiple deities or what have you). Back in the day of the Spanish inquisition that Christian believer may have said that others don't want to believe it despite the fact that there are clear logical proofs proving the existence of a very specific type of Judeo-Christian God. So don't equate mathematics proofs of astrophysics with non-mathematical proofs as being of equal validity and soundness.
ReplyDeleteAh, but you are again confusing apples with oranges. Proofs for the existence of God have always been analytic - they have not been rejected because of their lack of logic but because methodology has changed. The proofs I am offering are all based on synthetic a priori reasoning which has since the times of Kant been accepted by everyone. An argument can be sound and valid and yet say nothing about the real world simply because it speak purely in analytic categories (such as pure mathematics), but economic or praxeological arguments are synthetic and thus speak about the real world. You cannot reject a synthetic a priori argument which is both valid and sound. That would be like saying that you can reject statements like, for example: "I exist", "Everything gets older with time", or "A straight line is the shortest distance between two point". These can never be disproved - they are true! So whenever I say something is logically proven I am speaking within synthetic a priori categories.
ReplyDelete"The proofs I am offering are all based on synthetic a priori reasoning which has since the times of Kant been accepted by everyone"
ReplyDeleteNo these proofs have been rejected by everyone except some Austrians and a few others especially when applied to the field of economics.
"You cannot reject a synthetic a priori argument which is both valid and sound. That would be like saying that you can reject statements like, for example: "I exist", "Everything gets older with time", or "A straight line is the shortest distance between two point". These can never be disproved - they are true! So whenever I say something is logically proven I am speaking within synthetic a priori categories. "
Your a priori reasoning often relies on assumed synthetic propositions that in some cases, not all, are false. When an unreal or false synthetic hypothesis is used in an a priori argument, the resulting inferences that can be derived do not necessarily describe the world in which we actually live, which is why most economists disregard them. I advocate, as many others do, a more empirical methodology for reason as it is currently being applied now especially by current economists, which I relish in the fact that you reject.
“If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then the Federal Reserve prints money.
If the Federal Reserve prints money, then inflation is created.
Therefore: If the US Congress enacts bail-outs, then inflation is created.”- you
Your a priori reasoning has an assumed synthetic hypothesis that is false. I doubt you would be able to figure out what that false synthetic hypothesis is, however. That is why most economists do not agree with the above statement when it applies to the real world.
The matter is long and complicated and I will explain more at a later date. I'm too sleepy right now.
I would really like for you to point out even a single (one!) flaw in any of my arguments when it comes to what you are calling "synthetic hypotheses". I cannot see any place where I have made a hypothesis, I only state things which are true in their very nature (i.e. they are a prioristic). Can you explain to me how something we know a priori can be emprically tested? How can I conduct a test to prove that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line? Or how can I offer experiments which prove I exist? How can I test whether things get older or younger with the passage of time? One of these days you will really have to explain this reasoning of yours to me and I look forward to it! I am even prepared to sit quietly and listen to your lecture without debating you before raising any possible objections! Maybe during the weekend we'll have some time; you know I'm always up for it. And also - why would you doubt whether I can, as you say, "figure out what that false synthetic hypothesis is"? Am I too stupid to understand when I have made an error? Trust me I have made plenty of stupid mistakes before when it comes to reasoning. Either way, good luck preparing an argument that will convince me!
ReplyDelete"Am I too stupid to understand when I have made an error?"
ReplyDeleteNo of course not.
In the most simple terms, you had once said to Eduard while I was in the room, using what you had said in the room on that day as "synthetic a priori reasoning", that you knew "All triangles have or add up to 180 degrees." Eduard completely rejected that claim and spent the next ten minutes trying to show you that no scientist or mathematician knew all triangles had 180 degrees or could prove that, and the only way a triangle has 180 degrees only exists if you draw it on a two dimensional piece of paper but not on a different plane such as a sphere.
For instance, on paper, yes if you draw it triangles will always have 180 degrees. No one disputes that and it goes back to Euclid. However a triangle drawn on a sphere will have angles summing to more than 180. Consider a triangle drawn on the Earth. It could have a 90 degree angle at the North Pole. Two of its sides run south to the equator. The third side runs along the equator. The other two angles must also be 90 degrees. 90 + 90 + 90 = 270! So the better statement you should have made is "Some triangles have 180 degrees."
The same problem applies to your synthetic a priori reasoning from before and how economists would it apply it to the real world.
No, the proper statement would be (and this is what most axiomatic schools such as the Austrian School use) "The angles of a Euclidian triangle add up to 180 degrees". That day I did not say Euclidian but that was what I meant. Definitions can vary, but apodictic truths cannot. I meant by the word "triangle" what you meant by "Euclidian triangle". That does not change the fact that we imagined the same thing and that thing always has 180 degrees! For example I can use Polish instead of English to describe it, but it would still be true. What matters are concepts. I don't think you can deny that a Euclidian triangle has 180 degrees can you? That is what synthetic a priori is. If you reject it, then you are rejecting all knowledge up to now amassed by mankind! You would not even be able to say with certainty that you exist or that matter exists or anything at all! Or maybe you think you can disprove the theorem of Pythagoras? If so, you are welcome to show me how it's done and then I will believe you!
ReplyDelete