I would go further and state that just as easily as the point that being successful on the market probably denotes a certain positive property of the said individual the exact reverse point that it is likely an indicator of a serious deficiency of character can also be made. So let me make it:
To succeed on the market one has to satisfy demand. Now unless in an unlikely scenario where one happens to work for a living doing what he would do anyway this means - being dictated by the market! Which could be said is an indicator of a weak willed individual who places great amount of importance to material wealth and hasn’t the resolve to instead do things his own way.
For the sake of the argument lets say that we know that Rothbard could have made it as a writer of pulp in the mold of Tom Clancy and earned a ton of cash. Would doing so, instead of writing Man, Economy and State meant he was more of an elite, or less so? What is a mark of great character? Spending time writing what one actually wants to write confident in the belief that what one has to say is easily worth forgoing considerable wealth, or writing airhead best-sellers in order to buy a pool for the backyard?
Those who have accumulated wealth through merit would pass it on to their children, or appoint them to positions in an organization neither of which they may have been able to earn based solely on their individual merits. Thsese people are placed at a competitive advantage, regardless of their intrinsic abilities. Hence, it is my belief than an aristocracy would just devolve into an oligarchy, or a plutocracy with little to no considerations of merit, not including the occasional nouveau-riche.
It’s more meritocratic, not completely meritocratic, I’m not sure who would say such a thing aside from idealists.
Nature is not all sunshine & rainbows, & neither is reality. A complete meritocracy would probably only exist in a world where chance doesn’t exist.
And yet, just because the term “natural elite” may have originated with Hoppe (or whoever else he might’ve derived inspiration from for the term), does not restrict it’s use to a Hoppean perspective.
I’m not making a claim that “cultural conservatism” (I don’t remember what you designate as such) is required for membership in the “natural elites”, nor that it’s necessary to be successful.
I’m saying natural elites is sort of a misnomer for describing people that would be most successful in a stateless society & probably not even know it aside from being acknowledged by his/her peers from praises & people following his example, based on his record of merit.
I don’t see why it’s necessary to drag in baggage with Hoppe to dispute the possibility of some individuals being more successful than others, or some individuals being more naturally inclined to some things versus other things. Not everyone is capable of being a rocket scientist, but a rocket scientist might not have been a very good carpenter, either.
I’m not defending the “elite”, I’m the defending the spontaneous order of various successful peoples in the market that would possibly create a “natural elite”. Not everyone one of these “natural elites” would seek to create an imposed aristocracy or elite ruling class, & some of them wouldn’t even be aware that they are an “elite” in the first place.
Hoppe was an idiot for using this term since it brings up so much anti-hierarchical paranoia in anyone that already disagrees with him from the outset.
He could’ve merely suggested his own preferences (instead of extending a crystal ball that more people may become “culturally conservative”), admit the term is a misnomer to describe people that are successful (whether it’s due to biological, social, or mere probability advantages) in a stateless society, & move on.
As for appeal to natural selection, can we now include “appeal to anti-authoritarianism” as a possibility, as well? How much can one deny either natural selection or anti-authoritarianism w/out sounding silly?
Then again, I don’t agree with egalitarianism, so this might end up being be a moot discussion with you.
I never said that the “market” does anything like that, nor did i treat it as some sort of entity or deity.
Natural merit might however make wealth & social status easier to acquire, however, just as being born without genetic mutations might make one live slightly longer or have lactose intolerance, than others who don’t live as long and/or who can drink milk.
The natural merit I have for rhythm makes me more adept at drums, but might also make less adept at pitch. There are trade-offs with natural merit, even within the individual, so even the so called “natural elite” are not even equal among themselves, let alone within themselves. Sometimes natural merit isn’t enough, & the social & probability aspects come into play.
A stateless society would reduce obfuscations to natural selection, distortions on merit, & the means to peruse one’s own abilities in the market, but it would not instantly make everyone equal (although probably far more equal than in the state-society*). If we’re we all equal, why aren’t there more people with Down Syndrome, versus non-Down Syndrome roaming the earth? Why do people not actively mate with people with Down Syndrome more often?
Sure, there is an element of chance regarding the rate of mutation that would affect the percentages of people born with down syndrome, but why does it not proliferate as much as other mutations? How is it selected against?
I guess I’m just making yet another crazy appeal to natural selection, though.
*This is of course assuming that the stateless-society survives long enough to become a viable & eventually more efficient solution as an organization model for society compared to under the state. I don’t want to assume it does survive, as I would probably be making an appeal to the stateless society.
In the context of this message board and anarcho-capitalist theory, that is generally how it’s used.
Because I haven’t disputed that in the first place. In fact, my very first post in the thread aknowledges it.
I don’t think it’s necessarily “anti-heirarchical paranoia” to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism.
My invokation of anti-authoritarianism isn’t socio-economic apologetics, it’s an ethical view against subordination.
Okay, but even an anarcho-collectivist like Bakunin doesn’t disagree with this sense of specialization and merit. I don’t see what this has to do with the broader claim of “natural elites”. Hoppe isn’t simply talking about specialization, he’s invoking cultural norms and refering to a distinct class that is supposed to have social power purely based on natural merit (relative to certain cultural norms). If we don’t share those cultural norms and if we don’t view social power as necessarily being a reflection of merit, that particular notion of “the natural elite” collapses.
I don’t know, ask someone that actually believes in “making everyone (perfectly) equal” in terms of ability, let alone outcome, which no philosophical egalitarian to my knowledge actually claims.
More capital, maybe longer time preference, or a larger “margin of error”, due to more resources to squander making incorrect decisions, or engaging in higher risk/reward investments.
In short nothing decisive to justify your prediction of hereditary oligarchy within a generation. Yes a person born into a rich family has better chances to win an Olympic gold seeing he has better conditions for training, but at the end of the day that can’t be decisive.
That’s why I added the Nouveau-Riche there at the end of my post a few posts back. Of course there will still be the Bill Gates’, but there will also still be the Vanderbuilts, too.
I don’t think it’s necessarily “anti-heirarchical paranoia” to be opposed to pro-heirarchical crankism.
That is my problem with the whole thing. Any biologist will tell you, evolution doesn’t “pick the best”, it is quite nhilistic. It seems the terms “natural elite” / “natural aristocracy” are doing nothing more than creating artificial hierarchies and manipulating language (poorly) under the pretext of “science” to do nothing more than try to confirm their own aesthetic. I just don’t understand how this is good sociology, or if there is a point to using such definitions.
My point was natural selection occurs, not that it had a preference, but since the state gives certain incentives that would normally be counter-productive, state-society inevitably distorts or skews natural selection in a given population, in addition to the market.
I mean it quite evidently relies upon a hefty amount of people trying to achieve The American Dream, unaware they are helping to stimulate the state & it’s processes, by buying into a social reality perpetuated to continue state-society (some call these people sheeple, lowest common denominator, etc.), but it also manages to get it’s fare share from people more aware, but between a rock & a hard place in terms of learning to survive state-society, all the while opposing it.
The environment changes, so does the organisms reaction to said environment, & different genes are eventually utilized more often than others, & so forth. Our ancestors probably had to rely on foot travel more often then not, so it’s not out of the question that they might’ve had faster running speeds compared to more modern descendants who are able to use technology to more around more efficiently.
Maybe I should’ve said that, but I was not implying “pick the best”, but obviously, those who survive state-society “best” might succeed. However, the basic principles behind state-society are not exactly something to envy, & it’s no wonder that ‘best’ politicians seem to resemble sociopaths rather than the usual citizen (“The worst get to the top.”).
I do agree that natural selection is pretty nihilistic. State society, like any environment, however, has an effect on it. IMO, the state-society is a good example of dysgenics, in action by proxy, on a massive scale (the end exaggerated result being that of Idiocracy). However, from a statist point of view, the state society helps bring about subtle eugenic changes over time, to eventually make more & more compliant populations, which are easier to rely upon perpetrating the state in consent, idea, & execution.
That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct, nor very keen. People on this forum should think for themselves a bit more, then.
Will go back & re-read, then.
I would like to see an example of your choosing of Hoppe’s words that fit this. I’m not sure crankism is actual word, however.
Are you against morally subordinating people to your own views? I say this to point out the possible subjective nature of what subordination constitutes… physically, emotionally, socially?
It has to do with a different interpretation of what “natural elites” could be, which can be nothing more than individuals that consistently rising above competition, until better competition comes along to take their “places”.
If a 100 people who did not know each other, consistently were high-profile successes, didn’t even live near one another, & did not achieve said sucess via involuntary & coercive means, how do they constitute a “natural elite”, a possible dangerous elite ruling class, etc.?
I thought egalitarianism was a cornerstone concept of the libertarian-left. Has it been revised?
“I thought egalitarianism was a cornerstone concept of the libertarian-left. Has it been revised?”
There’s many kinds of egalitarianism(income,wealth,authority,legal,of rights etc) and a spectrum of degrees ranging from favouring some to complete equality in all ways.And it’s not a necessary belief in left libertarianism.