So, I have to read this for class and it is making my skin crawl. I just wanted to share it with you people.
It is the second part of a three part section in my class on modern political economic developments. This is the “regulation” part. We read part of “What Social Classes Owe Each Other” and “Harding’s Rugged Individualism Speech” for the laissez faire section. The next part is “redistribution…” This appears to be a book from 1906.
APPLIED SOCIOLOGY A TREATISE ON THE CONSCIOUS IMPROVEMENT OF SOCIETY BY SOCIETY
BY
LESTER F. WARD
How do we step back and argue against this if they treat natural law as a mythical thing? He goes on to say that they, LF people, cannot even prove their points because they are so esoteric along with conflating “social action” with “state action.” Even saying that they are the same “in modern times.”
This one is great too.
“Let us try again!! We know what we’re doing this time!!”
Market ideology, not as an ideology, but as a kind of theology.
@OP: Any social theory is flawed that treats the State as exogenous to the social order (both neoclassical economics makes this mistake but so does “natural law” anarchism insofar as it treats the State as “artificial”). The State has clearly arisen within the context of Nature. The anarchist theory of the State is that it exists solely on the malformed ideas in people’s heads which are locked into a sort of vicious circle fueled as they are by the State’s own propaganda. But this view of the pernicious and “artificial” nature of the State’s existence fails to take into account that the human being’s susceptibility to such pernicious propaganda must then be counted as a property of human nature.
But this only goes to reinforce Rothbard’s thesis that the central problem with the State is not merely utilitarian - it is really, at root, a moral problem. The moral problem goes to the individual’s toleration of double-standards - as Hoppe says many times in his lectures, there is no mystery in anyone wanting to be a State, the mystery is that anyone tolerates subjugation to a State. This moral problem - being pervasive - is not unnatural. But neither is rape unnatural.
In fact, I believe we can trace the root of this problem back to humanity’s rapidly changing (in biological terms) environment since the Agricultural Revolution. Humanity has been “thrust from Paradise” and I believe this is the root cause of the mismatch between human nature and its suitability for the environment in which it finds itself. In short, our moral sense is simply not adapted to our present environment.
But the view that all hope is, therefore, lost is mistaken - after all, human moral sense regarding rape and other forms of violence is maladapted, as well. But we have seen a steady decline in such behaviors that cannot possibly be explained by genetic changes alone because there simply haven’t been enough generations. Instead, these changes are the result of the same process that thrust us from Paradise to begin with: language, culture, social norms, law, in short, human society. And this is where Bastiat’s view (the classical Laissez-Faire view) comes into its own:
@Autolykos: But aren’t they? A superficial view may show that they are inharmonious - I can, of course, gain at your loss by stealing from what you have produced. But the fact that theft is suppressed by the social order is evidence that human society is - like Bastiat’s gas - seeking its own equilibrium, that is, constantly altering the nature of society such that the incentives facing the individual are more and more aligned with those of his neighbors.
The deadbolt is a beautiful illustration of this. Sure, I can steal your stuff… if I can defeat your deadbolt. But in the process of defeating the deadbolt, I must expend effort and time and this forces me to incur greater risks in the process of seeking to pilfer from you. The deadbolt is a product of human devising, that is, of the social order and is an example of how the social order is constantly altering the incentives facing the individual in such a way as to make his interests harmonious with those of all others.
This process occurs without central planning and direction. The government did not invent deadbolts, Lowjack, etc. And this is the central insight of the Laissez-Faire view - the process driving social order does not require “intervention”, it moves forward relentlessly. This should not be confused with the Progressive narrative that “everything is always getting better and better” - regression certainly occurs. The point is not whether progress is monotonic but whether it is the result of centrally-planned, collective action (telos) or the result of uncoordinated action. And we can identify the reason why it is the result of uncoordinated action: because, as Bastiat points out, all the conditions for reaching equilibrium (harmonious social order) reside within each of us. We are each capable of language, adapting to social norms and law, engaging in division-of-labor and exchange, and so on.
I understand what you mean, Clayton, but I don’t think that’s the same as saying that men’s interests all are or become harmonious. Social cooperation, which leads to the division of labor and so forth, obviously relies upon harmony of interests. But there’s no guarantee for social cooperation.
I’m not trying to argue in favor of “intervention” or “interventionism”. All I’m trying to say is that not everyone’s interests are always harmonious with everyone else’s. The question then is how to handle cases of non-harmonious interests, or conflicts.
I think I see your criticism. Would I be correct in stating that your criticism was purely about whether or not all men’s interests are harmonious?
Well I won’t direct you to a certain two threads by Clayton because I know you’re very familiar with them . I don’t think that it is necessary for all men to have harmonious interests, just as long as enough of the population seeks harmonious interests. I believe most people are happy to live by the silver rule (do not do unto others as you would have them not do unto you). If enough of society won’t tolerate those who seek to gain by harm, then I think those people will be in a very small minority.
I think this is where the moral problem and propaganda enter. I really do believe most people are happy with the silver rule, but I also believe most people don’t understand it’s implications.
I think the issue is whether or not the general character of men’s interests is harmonious or inharmonious. Is human social order - sans intervention - really characterized by the Hobbesian “war of all against all”? Of course there are individual instances of inharmonious behavior - clashes, fights, arguments - but the fact is that people generally get along and must have generally got along long before there were States as we know them (prior to the Agricultural Revolution), else we would not be here.
The ingredients for social cooperation are already present inside each individual’s head. The implications of this are that the root causes of war do not lie in an inherent tendency within human beings to form unorganized mobs of marauders. This is in direct contradiction to modern theories of the origins of war - the root causes are nationalism, racism, xenophobia, religious fanaticism, etc. etc. In no case do modern theories of the origins of war blame the obvious and only culprit: States! Wherever the argument for these mob theories of war are weak, they engage in hand-waving and dismiss the whole problem as “very complex” and “mysterious”.
As Rothbard, Hoppe et. al. have explored, this phenomenon is not an accident. This is court history promulgated and paid for by the State itself. Human nature is to blame because if we didn’t blame human nature then we might start looking for individual humans to blame. Nobody theorizes that gang wars are the result of an overflow of tribal energy within gangs. It is well understood that gangs act primarily at the direction of their leaders who send their thugs into battle with other gangs in a calculated and purposive manner. Gang wars are primarily the result of calculation on the part of gang leaders.
But the same conclusion apparently does not generalize to the general populace. National wars are not primarily the result of the calculation on the part of national leaders. It’s like a stampede at a soccer stadium… people just start grabbing guns and running over the borders to shoot each other.
Yes, you would be correct. My focus is on the use of the word “all”. I treat it as being equivalent to the universal quantifier.
While I agree with what I think is the general theme of the above, I think some clarification is in order. For example, I’m not quite sure what you, Clayton, or anyone else really means by “harmonious interests”. From one point of view, I think we could say that there’s a lot of disharmony in men’s interests, due to scarcity. If I have an interest in buying a Ferrari, for example, and someone else owns a Ferrari but isn’t interested in selling it, would you say that my interest is nevertheless harmonious with the other person’s interest? Or would you say they’re in conflict (because I want something that he has, but he doesn’t want to give it to me)?
So I think it depends on the definitions being used for “harmony” and “conflict”. On the one hand, “conflicting interests” could simply mean opposing interests, in which case I’d say it’s hardly the case that anywhere near the vast majority of interests are ever in harmony. Otherwise, “conflicting interests” could mean interests in which there is currently violent struggle, and then I’d most certainly agree with you that the vast majority of interests are in harmony at any given time.
Regarding the silver rule: given Mises’ treatment of action, not doing something is also an action, so in this context the silver rule is just a different way of expressing the golden rule. I think many/most people today don’t understand the implications of the golden/silver rule because their critical (i.e. logical) thinking capacities have been eviscerated.
“The moral problem goes to the individual’s toleration of double-standards - as Hoppe says many times in his lectures, there is no mystery in anyone wanting to be a State, the mystery is that anyone tolerates subjugation to a State.”
I really shouldn’t indulge myself in these sorts of threads, tempting as they are.
This is a gem though: “In fact, I believe we can trace the root of this problem back to humanity’s rapidly changing (in biological terms) environment since the Agricultural Revolution. Humanity has been “thrust from Paradise” and I believe this is the root cause of the mismatch between human nature and its suitability for the environment in which it finds itself. In short, our moral sense is simply not adapted to our present environment.”
I think “peaceful interests” might be a better phrase, then. I think most people do desire to live in a peaceful society, even if some don’t. Does this make more sense?
I do think there is a distinction between the two rules. That the golden rule is positive and the silver rule negative is important. The way I see it, the golden rule has more to do with morality (e.g. I will tell you the truth so that you tell me the truth, I will be nice so that you will be nice), and the silver rule has more to do with lawfulness (e.g. I will not steal from you so that you will not steal from me, I will not hit you so that you will not hit me). Obviously, the silver rule does have something to do with morality, but I think it is more focused than the golden rule. The silver rule is very similar to the NAP, though there are slight differences.
Regarding the bolded statement: Sadly, I think very few people in society will ever reach the concept of anarchy through deduction. I think it is more likely people will have to experience an injustice done to them by the state before they begin to see how it is contrary to the golden/silver rules. Even then, most people would probably want to reform or replace it.
I certainly don’t think human nature is Hobbesian. Although I’m now wondering whether Hobbes’ whole formulation succeeded due to equivocating over the meaning of “conflict” (see my reply to GotLucky). Could Hobbes have been implicitly referring to simply the opposition of individuals’ interests?
On the other hand, people have generally gotten along even with states as we now know them. I think this actually makes perfect sense if one looks at states in terms of extended families writ large and abstract.
From what I understand, the original form of war was the blood feud or vendetta - two or more familial groups in violent conflict with one another. Each side feels somehow wronged by the other side and takes matters into its own hands. But of course, even among familial groups, people can manipulate circumstances to suit their own ends. This is especially possible with the recognized leader(s) of a familial group, which leads more or less straightforwardly into national leaders calculating whether to go to war.
I think the “mob theory” of warfare is actually true, in a way - where the mobs are states with certain leaders. But that also means human nature is to blame, again in a way. Since the state leaders are humans, their behavior is human behavior, which makes it a based on human nature.
Yes, I think it does. Furthermore, I think that the vast majority of people desire to live in a peaceful society - at least the vast majority of the time - because violence is expensive. It’s not only expensive in terms of the consequences one can face if he loses; it’s also expensive simply in terms of the effort required to employ it. We can see this throughout history, in fact. The problem of how to finance and otherwise supply war efforts comes up time and time again.
Hmm, I don’t think I explained myself well enough before. Let me try again.
If we both accept (at least arguendo) the praxeological view of “action”, then it’s literally impossible for a human being to not act at all, because every “inaction” is just another, perhaps opposing, “action” from the praxeological point of view. So in other words, if one isn’t doing one thing (i.e. acting in one way), he’s necessarily doing something else (i.e. acting in another way). With this in mind, then, “do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you” is functionally equivalent to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
To use your examples, both being nice and not stealing involve conscious decisions, so they both count as “actions” in praxeology.
Maybe I have greater faith in other people than you do. But still, our way of looking at things is basically like taking the “mainstream” point of view and turning it inside-out. Depending on how entrenched the “mainstream” viewpoint is in a given individual, it might be very difficult and/or time-consuming for him to do that.
One common thread I’ve encountered with people of all stripes is the desire for accountability for authority. So one way to reach people IMO is to challenge both their views on authority itself and also their views on how authority can be held accountable.
I think I see what you are saying. If I am passing a dying man on the road, I might say to myself, “I should help because I would want to be helped” (golden rule), or I might say, “I should not leave this man to die, because I would not want to be left to die” (silver rule). Is this what you are saying?
Perhaps the difference between the golden and silver rules is that the silver rule is clearer (at least to me). Consider:
Golden Rule: I will participate in voluntary exchange with others because I want others to participate in voluntary exchange with me.
Silver Rule: I will not steal from others because I do not want others to steal from me.
I think you are right after all. They share the same meaning. I think the negative form is clearer in terms of what one should or should not do.
Basically, yes. To do anything in particular means to not do anything else. (Some actions are “stackable” though. For example, I can sit in a chair and read a book at the same time.)
In terms of rhetorical effect, negatives typically carry greater “weight” than positives. People respond more strongly to negatives than to positives, just as we avoid pain more strongly than we seek out pleasure. I think that’s why moral commands are typically expressed as “don’t X”, where X is a verb or verb phrase that’s intended to connote immorality.
Thanks! I’ve had at least some success with it, myself. It depends on who I’m talking to, of course, and I don’t expect him/her to become a voluntaryist based only on that. But I’m not an elitist, and that’s because of my experiences in talking with others. I’ve found that many concepts that are seen as “hard” turn out to be much easier for “average” people to grasp when expressed without any mystifying jargon and so forth. So I’ve concluded that innate differences in intelligence among people are over-inflated (to say the least). A lot of that is just different backgrounds, experiences, and vocabulary and word usage (i.e. semantics).
Intelligence is a funny thing. Unfortunately, most people think of intelligence as book smart, but there are so many different ways people can be smart or dumb. It’s amazing that someone like Einstein can make so many breakthroughs in his field but become a complete idiot in other fields. Also unfortunately, the only person that I’ve had any real effect on is my girlfriend. Actually, I suppose that’s pretty fortunate after all!
But still, our way of looking at things is basically like taking the “mainstream” point of view and turning it inside-out. Depending on how entrenched the “mainstream” viewpoint is in a given individual, it might be very difficult and/or time-consuming for him to do that.