Astro-liberalism and mysticality

[gotlucky]

@Clayton

I still sense challenges in selling the idea to the kind of libertarians who might frequent mises.org, who tend to have a distinctly rationalistic bent. After you and others raised objections in the Church of Mises thread, I sat down and re-thought it and I think my point still stands that the mystical is, indeed, the “root foundation” of any epistemology. I think Heidegger held this view, though I’m pretty nervous about agreeing with him. I can’t say exactly why.

I know you didn’t really like the word intuition for what you mean, but for me, it’s the closest I can get to supporting an idea of mysticism, at least so far as I’m understanding you. Consider how many religions and moral philosophers have taught the golden rule. I can see how this could be a foundation for a “mystical” approach to liberalism. People get that concept. And what’s more, the healthier societies in the world are the ones that respect the golden rule more than not. And the reverse is true for the societies that don’t respect it. And again, that’s the only version of karma that I can get behind.

But I cannot for the life of me understand the benefit of looking to the stars. I can see how it may be a starting point in some way, but I think that astrology (in terms of stars and planets) does not really have a place in the modern world. I can understand why Rothbard was attracted to natural law (and Ayn Rand too), but I think they are grossly mistaken, mainly because of the is-ought problem. But there is a huge problem with religion in general, even if there are some people that use it for good, there are many that have just corrupted any good that can be had from religion. And for people who do not believe in the supernatural, where do we get our morality? This brings me back to Rothbard and Rand, and they felt they had to reason their way to the golden rule (NAP, and Rand did state a version of it even if she rejected libertarianism).

This is where I think some general philosophy (if you prefer to call it religion that is fine) of libertarianism/liberalism is helpful. Not only is natural law bunk, but not everyone wants to sit down and reason out all the implications of the golden rule/NAP. If you can connect astrology/mysticism to the golden rule, I would be very impressed.

Vive made a good point in another thread:

@vive la insurrection

seriously though I think I tend to look Stirner the same way I look at libertarianism, Mises or good economics: dethreading obfuscating nonsense that has come through the backdoors and is trying to infiltrate where it can’t.

I can see astro-liberalism being useful in that sense - it’s not like every libertarian who values Austrian Economics has to have an expert understanding of the subject. Just being familiar with some of the basic ideas goes a long way, and look at how people like Bastiat and Hazlitt can explain concepts so simply. But they explain social cooperation and it’s consequences in an economic sphere. Explaining social cooperation in terms of morality is necessary, and it is lacking in the libertarian world. Rothbard did a great job with For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, but it is just not the right track for most people. I know that you do not like some of Block’s work regarding Defending the Undefendable, and while he may have gone about it the wrong way (which is debatable), I think he’s on the right track (I enjoy his work on the subject). Many people and activities that are considered socially ill behavior do have their place in society. Many people prefer to break the golden rule regarding prostitution/drugs/rich not giving enough to charity. But what these people miss is that their response of aggression to these behaviors is also socially ill behavior.

To bring it back to what vive said, what is needed for the classical liberal/libertarian cause is for there to be an easy way to cut through the socially ill bullshit. It does not have to be some sort of in depth rationalist philosophy, and it really should not be. We already have plenty of rationalist libertarian work. But I don’t know if mysticism is the way to do it.

@Clayton

“Astrology” per se might be a sub-optimal association due in part to its lackluster reputation nowadays and in part to the fact that it is not a be-all-end-all as far as mystical grounding goes. I will touch on this and explain that what I have in mind is religious originalism or any kind of “return to mystical roots” and why I think it is so important to have some kind of mystical foundation/starting-point.

Basically, almost all religion is corrupted by its incestuous relationship with the State, yet religion-qua-religion* is an indispensable aspect of the social order. A society without religion is no less dysfunctional than a society without division-of-labor. So-called rationalists who refuse to participate in religion are as handicapped by that as the “self-reliant” hermit who refuses to participate in the division-of-labor. I think there is a middle ground on the issue of religious participation that is not unlike that which libertarians propose for participating in the division-of-labor (the economy).

I think that you are going to find the words “religion” and “astrology” and “mysticism” to probably have too much baggage associated with them. I think you will find that words such as “creed” and “philosophy” and “intuition” will be much easier. Perhaps they are not what you are trying to explain, but I think they fit the goal quite well. And it is honorable that you are trying to wrest astrology from the hacks out there, but you are facing a similar problem that Rothbard faced when he wrote about calling himself anti-statist instead of anarchist. In the end he was able to take back the word and call himself an anarchist, but he didn’t have libertarians fighting him on it. Your task is far more difficult as most libertarians will probably cringe at the words religion, astrology, and mysticism, regardless of what you mean.