I was reading in the Nov. issue of Reason last night and a question popped into my mind. Is there a correlation between undefined ethics, and the rejection of free markets? Do you think some statists help justify the existence of the state, because subconsciously they believe that since they have no clear system of ethics, then no one else has one either, and then a state is required to impose some form of ethics?
If you guys could point me to some reading material that can help me flesh out this thought, it would be greatly appreciated.
That’s an interesting set of questions; and yes, I believe that has something to do with it. People that I speak with who believe that the state is necessary (including family members) seem to have this belief that no one will do “the right thing”, and given the opportunity to “screw people over to get ahead, they will”.
What I usually counter those arguents with is, but people look out for their own self-interest with government, and that has a more direct impact on you than the decisions a group of like-minded indviduals could have on you without government.
I’ve been trying to get immediate family members to read some of the basic books like Henry Hazlitt’s ‘Economics In One Lesson’. Easy to understand, basic examples that can show that government intervention in the lives’ of individuals creates a skewed view of the actual nature of human activity.
It amazes me that people can believe this without seeing the obvious contradiction. If no one will “do the right thing” without the state, how in the world will they suddenly “do the right thing” with it? They seem to believe that there’s something more to the state, aside from the individuals that compose it, that can cause such a magical change in behavior. But can they actually point it out? Or is it just a matter of faith?
On a side note, after thinking about it some more (instead of working ;), it would also explain why I seem to meet more libertarians with strong religious convictions, rather than secular or atheist. They already have a strong system of ethics defined. Many of the positions the state takes on moral dilemmas, seem to be inhumane and in direct contradiction to what they would consider as virtuous. Hence, the rejection of the state. 'Makes a lot of sense.
I think it’s because people are honestly afraid of true, unadulterated freedom. The idea of being personally and completely responsible for one’s own actions, without any failsafe or safety net is truly terrifying. Something akin to the mind’s inability to actually grasp the physical value of extremely large numbers–there was a study somewhere about how people can not understand the quantity of money involved in the figure $1 trillion or something like that. Likewise, I do not think that people, in general, can understand the values of true freedom; of the risks and rewards that would be involved; and that they government is every bit of a security blanket to their lives, and therefore a necessity.
Yes, because the state involves rule of law; and everyone knows that we all must follow the rules all of the time. [/sarcasm] I believe it is some sort of blind faith.
My brother and father said this at out last family holiday gathering, almost simultaneously: “Without the government, it would be chaos!” I responded with: “Really? Would people go around attacking each other with machetes an driving down the delapidated streets in “technicals”; or, would people organize themselves in such a manner so as each member gains maximum personal benefit through the interactions with others? Agreeing upon common ethical rules and resolving conflicts through negotiation and arbitration?”
I usually get told that I don’t see the evil in people.
I see the evil in people all the time, that’s why I own firearms. But I have just enough confidence in the basic humanity to believe that without government we would all be much better off; and that life is not as “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” as most people would like to think.
Glad I could help. I’m far from being the most knowledgeable person on the forums though. There are a few people here that can give you whole lists of books, articles, etc. I will say that the literature section of the site has access to a lot of resources. Searching through it can be a most enlightening task.
Why did I think that the state was necessary? Well, I didn’t. I never thought that the state was necessary. I might have assented to the words “the state is necessary” at some point in my life. But I never actually believed it. This is the case for everybody. They don’t actually THINK these things. Do you actually think that these people have a clear idea of what a “state” is? Of course not. They just parrot memes - mind viruses. That’s it.
I think it has more to do with people not realizing the inherent contradiction in that position. The reason they don’t realize it is because they’ve been taught to think uncritically by public schooling.
I have to believe that they realize the logical gymnastics needed to justify state action, at least on a subconscious level. I’m an optimist. I also think they consciously choose to ignore it. I was talking to a friend the other day, and I distinctly got the impression that he sympathized with my point of view , but refuted it on the grounds that he didn’t care what the state was doing to the majority, as long as he knew that someone, somewhere was seeing a benefit. He was overlooking the contradiction, just so he could feel good about himself. I think this may just be more common, than not.
" I seem to meet more libertarians with strong religious convictions, rather than secular or atheist."
I am a very secular anarcho-capitalist. I have the same anti-authoritative outlook with some religious doctrines as I do other forms of coercive authority. Keep your religion a personal thing and I’m fine with it though. For me, it’s really simple, I just follow the non-aggression principle/respect other people’s private property and I haven’t had much of an issue in any situation.
I’d have to agree. I’m also very secular, I tend to be uninterested with the whole religion thing.
Your comment brings up an interesting point. Most of the hardcore statist I’ve met, never heard of the NAP. As if an ethical code doesn’t exist with out the state. I think they believe that any form of stateless society is incompatible with any idea that rejects force. How often have you heard the phrase “There’d be anarchy in the streets.” as an argument against abolishing the state. To which you ineffectively reply “Yea, that’s the point!”. Knowing fully that you have a completely different definition of “Anarchy”.
I think there is a significant portion of libertarians who are secular, but there are many religious libertarians as well. It’s a large tent. I’ve noticed plenty of those on the boards here are atheist/agnostic, but most people who run Mises are Catholic of some variety.
Support of the state doesn’t have to do with undefined ethics, it has to do with not thinking through what the State actually represents. It’s lazy thinking for the most part. They say, “oh, well we want education” and their distorted view of what the market does leads them to believe they need coercion to enforce their (highly subjective) view of ideal behavior on people who are less receptive to being put through it. Things like that. They believe that education is good (which it generally is) and go straight to state enforcement because they fail to see what the market can do and why it is probably optimal.
notP you are right. I don’t understand the pessimism behind these people who believe that unless we pillage and plunder the wealth of people who have it the poor will never be fed and unless we have many laws in place people will never do what’s good for society. I spoke to a guy the other day who said we need to have 3% of our income taken out to be given to the poor. I asked him if I could opt-out under this rule and he said “no” because if it’s being done to him I have to do it as well and it’s for the “Greater Good”… That just made my blood boil …
Eric080 I think in large part they go do the State because they couldn’t get enough voluntary support for their beliefs in the first place. For ex. why do you need a law against gay marriage? If you believe it’s wrong under your religion fine but why do you need a law imposed reflecting this belief onto others outside of your religion? Again, that makes my blood boil
brilliant actually, very good quote and the purpose is the same as “god of the gaps” theory. If you don’t know how in free society defense will work - state will solve it easily. If you don’t know how people will have incentive to donate to the poor…again, state will force you to do this. Ignorance is the key to the state, or I should say.. it is the big reason people support state at all. Those, who are ignorant tend to support it more than those, who know how a free society could flourish.
“Stop this bs please. There are no state laws against gay marriage.”
I’m sorry, what bs are you referring to? I never made any claims about state laws. I asked why you would need a law for it, I was making a point that some groups of people that cant voluntarily get what they want from the people will pursue government coercion to impose it.
actually, very good quote and the purpose is the same as “god of the gaps” theory. If you don’t know how in free society defense will work - state will solve it easily. If you don’t know how people will have incentive to donate to the poor…again, state will force you to do this. Ignorance is the key to the state, or I should say.. it is the big reason people support state at all. Those, who are ignorant tend to support it more than those, who know how a free society could flourish.