They essentially argue that humans are hardwired against freedom. This is an extremely important topic for libertarians and for society at large.
I hold a more optimistic view of the prospect for freedom.
Dr. Block and I will debate the subject at a San Francisco Bay Area venue on Saturday evening September 28, 2019.
The proposition with Dr. Block taking the affirmative is
RESOLVED Humans Are Hardwired Against FreedomMark your calendars now, more details on the location to follow. This is going to be an important one.
-RW
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSherlock, the tenants that Christ taught his followers were against human nature, yet he said to do as he did. Love your enemies and bless those that curse you, is against human nature, but we are commanded to strive to this. “Give us a king so we might be like other nations” may be human nature, but God said it was a rejection of Him. Going against human nature seems to me what we are supposed to do. Even if there never is an Anarchist society, sure doesn’t mean we don’t push for that goal.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSherlock, I'm confused. In prior posts, you have noted that, according to your interpretation of the Bible, the state is ordained by God, and whatever the state does is according to His plan. That by definition rules out your ever returning to anarcho-capitalism (even though you have said that you'd be interested in returning to that fold).
DeleteYet here you say that (a) it is your view of humanity that is the reason why you're not an ancap, as opposed to your religious views, and (b) a "homogeneous Christian society may be able to live without a secular state (as we both desire)," which seems to be inconsistent with believing that the state is ordained by God.
What am I missing? This is an important topic, as there are other Christians out there who also support the state as part of their theology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGot it, thanks.
DeleteBut I want to take issue with one new statement that you made: "The NAP on its face is moral, until it is in action. Its consequences (particularly the moral permitting of mass migration) is harmful to people of all nations."
I think that you're pointing at the wrong target for your harm concept; the problem is the state, not the NAP. In an ancap society, there would be only nominal unwanted mass migration, as all property would be privately owned and controlled (unless there were unowned property, which would be open for homesteading). In today's society, where the state controls "public property" and acts as sole immigration gatekeeper, different sub-groups within a nation-state see mass migration as beneficial or harmful, and the state makes resolving this conflict impossible; the different sub-groups simply try to win the battle to seize control of the state's coercive powers. Now, instead, if different nations (in the Misesian sense) within a nation-state were able to secede, there would be less such conflict, but guess which institution has historically used force to prevent secession of its parts?
Sherlock, I agree wholeheartedly that a Believer is spiritually a new creature. But even Paul, who I would say was a true believer, admits to the continued struggle. Look at Romans 7 for example.
DeleteSo even as a new creature, we struggle against human nature. And this certainly isn’t a humanitarian disaster.
The other thing, I am advocating for the individual to be what is right. For society. If Christians live as Christ taught them to, let’s say, the US would have many less people volunteering to go to war for it. We were told not so much what not to do in the Gospels, but, “go and do likewise”.
That’s what I mean when I say we should strive, for lack of a better term, for an anarchic community. By being that community. And by anarchist community I simply mean, with no state. I don’t see a contradiction in scriptures, to living that way.
No Kings, No Priests.
Freedom only works for people who are self sustaining. Which describes a tiny fraction of the American public. I'd venture to say that the majority would be happier under a benevolent slavery. Unfortunately what we have now is a malevolent slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, most people are content not to think too deeply. Unfortunately I agree.
DeleteI've came to that conclusion myself. Humans do want to be free. Freedom requires too much effort. Too much time learning as well. People want nice cages and seem perfectly fine with being managed and socially engineered. To have others 'protect' them.
ReplyDeleteAt first I thought it was simply 20th century government school conditioning and then I began to see the same cons of the state working over and over again over thousands of years and separated cultures. Either there is a basic exploit code that has been used for thousands of years or people in general really don't want to be free. Either way it is wired in and only a tiny percentage over come it.
I think Libertarians are hardwired against ever properly explaining to average practical people how AnCap would actually operate.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic.
ReplyDeleteI think that a MINORITY of humans---the politicians---are hardwired to amass power, stir-up competitive tribalism (nationalism) and to control others. But most people are hardwired to improve their own lives, engage in trade with others, and otherwise to COOPERATE and act peacefully with others.
Think about it, we’re mortal and we know it, we’re going to die and we know it, and yet we want to live. We spend the first few years of our lives helpless and dependent on others, and we feel that and eventually are aware of it. To boot we are fallible which we learn can be fatal.
ReplyDeleteSo we grow up knowing all this deeply. Yet I observe babies and young children and see most of them express the desire to do things for themselves, despite their naturally helpless state. “No” is one of the first words they learn.
I think we are born with the capacity to take care of ourselves but must learn to do this and all the while overcome our feelings of helplessness and fear o death. Parents, other important adults and the culture facilitate and impede in infinite ways this innate desire to be free.
Finally we must decide for ourselves whether freedom is worth the effort and pain.
If you believe that humans have the capacity to reason and have free will, then I can't see how you can believe that they could never be reasoned into, and affirmatively choose, freedom (as libertarians would define it). The fact that something hasn't happened yet isn't proof that it could not, and the fact that there are libertarians today is proof that it is possible. History is full of examples of major shifts: paganism to monotheism, slavery to abolitionism, the advent of democracy, etc.
ReplyDeleteReasoning people into freedom isn't difficult if the conversation isolates it from effort, government provided services, wealth transfers, and much more. People like freedom until it involves work on their part. It's much like a feminist wanting true equality, it won't happen because of the loss of benefits and effort required.
DeleteI think more likely the impediments for people in achieving liberty are fear, insecurity, and a dearth of imagination, not aversion to work and effort; People growing-up today have been acclimated to a Nanny-state, which hollows-out their natural self-reliance and independence, with the final result being drones and worker bees, lacking in responsibility, and fearful of the supposed instability and insecurity that liberty---i.e. life without a paternal government---would foist upon them.
Delete