I don’t think it is. But you are apparently saying that any attempt at an objective ethic beyond the NAP is paternalist, and I was wondering why the NAP is exempt.
Same about the going to bed thing [:)]
This is a highly generous libertarian interpretation of Aristotle’s political theory. Rothbard didn’t buy it, and neither do I. His Politics is chock full of state laws. It’s called Politics because it’s about the polis: the city state. If it were about mankind it would have been called “anthrôpos”. If it were about communities it would have been called “koinônia”.
Jesus it’s like you have a pedigree…
No offense but it kinda comes off a bit pretentious.
The quote I speak of is in this book on ethics, not politics, though it might be in there too. And I freely admit that Aristotle was a polis loving feind. However, being an Aristotelian does not instantly mean I accept all or nothing like an Objectivist.
World domaination usually starts with a smile and a pretentious statement.
In the sense that people who adhere to it do it voluntarily, no.
In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & force the NAP unto others (physically) & thus contradicting the NAP: yes. This is less clear if the NAP being “forced” is a reaction against a violated contract by another person to adhere to the NAP, though.
In the sense that other busyboddys out there might seek out people to convert & “force” the NAP unto other’s socially: maybe, because social coercion does not always translate into physical coercion.
I say this because what is social is far more subjective than what is physical: a person being beaten to death by another is clearly aggression.
There is the social context, of course, which NAP, to my knowledge, steps-in to ensure that while coercion is not being monopolized, it is not being memetically spread throughout society, per the limiting of agression to self-defense. Of course, then there’s the social aspect of defining what is proper self-defense, property, etc.
To be quite technical, one could label the argumentation on a forum between two individuals to be “coercion” if they are paternalistic enough, despite the almost* complete lack of physical ability between forum members here to harm one another.
*Yes there is an odd small chance of some forum member, offline, tracking another forum members down, but this is a similar statistic such as the possible occurrence of your car getting stolen if you park it, lightning striking, etc.
However, the state enables individuals the use of politics to allow social coercion to physically manifest itself much more easily & much more potently than in a stateless society.
I think it becomes completely absurd to argue that social coercion would remain the same in a stateless society versus state society, & that somehow it would reach a critical mass of allowing the state to be re-instated.
For one, there might require a serious fundamental cultural change in the majority of the individuals in society, wherein the state is seen as coercion & wrong, and that the voluntary society is the actual ideal.
For another, utilizing politics to erase perceived social coercion (such as paternalism, bossism, etc) might lead to witch-hunts & and eventual antagonizing leading to a physical manifestation of conflict (i.e. aggression).
Do you mean this one?
It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merelyfor one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states.
Due to the context of the rest of his Politics and Ethics, I interpret this as speaking of politics as a science for optimal state policy, not for discovering the natural law under which societies flourish. This is especially clear when you consider this later passage, in which he clearly characterizes the individual as merely an organ in the organism of the state:
Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that.
Well you are expecting too much from a somewhat ambiguous statement. What is the good for man? Socialists propose socialism, conservatives conservatism, and libertarians libertarianism. That is politics.
And this is where Aristotle flauters. I have already admitted he is thinking in terms of the polis. We need not dismiss the rest of his writings because of it though.
The individual could be considered an organ in society qua society, but the state is not a requirement for society itself.
Aristotle Sez:
In a stateless society, I think the better metaphor would be a neuron: interconnected, but differentiated; individual but somehow uniform.
Obviously, not all Americans are racists. My point was that Americans are among the most racist people I have met and yet blacks are not being lynched with any regularity (or that I can remember in my lifetime).
Indeed. Here is a post I wrote that is apropos to your point:
Aristotle argued that the state is the form of society with the highest purpose:
“Every state is an association of some kind, and every association is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all associations aim at some good, the state or political association, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” 1
But what would make the state the highest association: that it “embraces all the rest”? It does not. If two traders, one from Aristotle’s adopted city of Athens, and one from Athens’ mortal enemy Persia, contrive to evade political restrictions and trade with each other, then they are associating with each other. They have an association: one which transcends the bonds imposed by the brutish quarrels between their two states. Of course even broader associations than that existed, even in the ancient world. Let us say the Persian trader exchanged some gold for spices from an Indian trader. Then the Persian trades those spices for some pottery with the Greek trader. This is the kind of trade that happened countless times over in antiquity. And therein we have a super-national association that transcends a city-state, a kingdom, and an empire: and one which stretches from the Aegean Sea to the Indus Valley. It is the society that manifests out of peaceful world trade, and not the state, which “embraces all the rest”.
Furthermore, I would argue that a state is not even an association at all. Would you call the relation between a bandit and his victim an “association”? If not, then neither should you so term the relation between a ruling caste and its subject population.
Oh I certainly wouldn’t want to (otherwise I wouldn’t study him as much as I do). Although his ultimate conclusions are often faulty, he offers a wealth of insights on his way toward them. Plus his philosophy rescued us from Plato’s, for which I am eternally grateful.
Ha ha! Agreement strikes at Mises.org! Buck up me hardiees!
wombatron, I must also take issue with the “unique potential” bit of your Aristoteleanism. I believe it repeats an error that Aristotle himself made. Aristotle, as he often did, unjustifiably inserted value into his descriptive system when he termed the rational part of the soul as “superior” to the sensate and nutritive parts, primarily because it was unique to man. That a property is unique to something does not in-and-of-itself make that property superior in some cosmic (or any other) sense. A Platypus’ bill-like structure is quite unique to it. That does not mean it should favor it more than its heart, just because the latter is common to many beasts.
I claim the NAP as a personal ethic, not a universal one. It takes big stones to claim to know what the universal ethic is and to think it is some crusade to educate people on how you know better than them how they should be living their own lives. Every time someone tries to come up with a universal ethic, they blow it. There is no way to hold that view without expecting all other outcomes are inferior, even if they are derived voluntarily.
I will say this. I have learned a lot more about your position in the last few hours. Before, I thought you guys were naive, confused… Now I understand that the reason why you guys don’t “get” the market is that you don’t actually believe in market outcomes. Your outcomes don’t require a market, they only require solidarity. In fact, a market is a detriment to the way you would like to see the world, because someone can break rank and exercise a social preference that YOU don’t feel satisfies eudaimonia.
Mind blowing.
I never went to sleep. This sucks.
Might’ve been worth it, the above has pretty considerable implications.
I know what your point was, but it came across to me as though racism was some sort of a common trait amongst Americans (it may very well be, I don’t really know because I only know a relatively small percentage of them). It just sounded kinda like a collective generalization is all.
Great post. I think you and lilburne are right on the money.
No doubt.
Not to belabour this minor point, but American society is incredibly racist. It’s not white on black exclusively by any means. It takes a deep rooted hate to commit the sort of genocide perpetuated by the American government and military against Arabs and South Asians.
Anyway, we’re on to more interesting things in this discussion now.