|
A little while back I commented that "The question of how far I should be expected to go to look after your rights and privileges will be the topic of a future article". This is that article – or at least it may become so. I find that I have a good deal to ramble on about before I get there, and may in fact never arrive. I note in the article below that I am not a libertarian. Now, the label "libertarian" covers a multitude of sins. Everyone from anarcho-capitalists to constitutional democrats seems to like to latch on to this label. It’s what being an "activist" was in the 60s – except that libertarians bathe more often. The First (and, I think, Only) Commandment to libertarians is: Thou Shalt Not Initiate Force. The definition of "initiating force" gets a little weird out on the anarcho-capitalist fringe – is defrauding me an "initiation of force", particularly if I have not explicitly paid for reliable information? – but it’s possible to construct a set of circumstances that all self-styled libertarians agree is at least an improper subset of "initiating force", and which is recognizable as such to non-libertarians as well. It should be noted at this point that confusion exists in the public mind between "libertarianism" and "anarchism". Larry Niven says that his short story "Cloak of Anarchy" is his statement as to why he’s not a libertarian. As much as I dislike (publicly) disagreeing with Mr. Niven, it is not – it is his statement of why he is not an anarchist. Not all libertarians are anarchists, and not all anarchists are libertarians. Where libertarians run into problems is with the State (insert ominous music here). All agree that an organization to which one voluntarily adheres has a (limited) right to coerce certain behavior from one. The difficulty is with an organization that one does not voluntarily adhere to – the State, by any other name, is just as oppressive, they feel – and which coerces behavior from one – specifically, the paying of taxes. We get various unrealistic "solutions" to this problem; from the "minarchist" declaration that the State is a necessary evil (tantamount to saying, "We have no idea how to resolve this dilemma") to anarcho-capitalists denying that the State is necessary, although it is certainly evil ("How many divisions do you need to defend Taiwan from the PRC?" "None; the market will take care of that"). This, incidentally, provides one range of answers to the question, "To what extent must I defend your rights?" Anarcho-capitalists declare that the anarcho-capitalist society will spontaneously evolve institutions capable of doing so. I would point out that this has happened so seldom in human history as to be discounted entirely. Anarchists like to point to pre-English Ireland and the Icelandic Commonwealth as two examples of such societies. In the first instance, though, that society proved utterly incapable of defending itself from the machinations of a few Anglo-Norman knights (not England itself; Henry II intervened when it became likely that the Irish Normans who do to him what he was trying to do to Capetian France). In the second instance, Icelandic society tore itself apart in feuds between wealthy clans, so that they eventually submitted voluntarily to the Norwegian king as an alternative. It should be mentioned here that concentration of wealth is a problem that libertarians prefer not to deal with --- many denying that it is a problem – although the examples constructed by non-libertarians are often no more realistic than the libertarian Utopia itself. Where then do we find the answer? I suggest that one place to look is in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, particularly the Discourses (it has truly been said that who has only read The Prince has not read Machiavelli). Machiavelli was an ardent republican, although he admitted that there were circumstances in which it was necessary for a "prince" (a man who steps outside of conventional forms, especially political ones) to refound or reform the State. His vision of republicanism was very different from ours, of course. Among others things, he thought the State could only survive where the citizenry (not, in his view, synonymous with the entire population of the State) was possessed of virtù. Virtù was one of Machiavelli’s favorite words; he used it in a variety of ways, not always compatible with each other. In respect to the qualities necessary to the citizens of a free, republican state, however, it can be translated as "civic spiritedness": the determination by the citizens that the State should remain free and republican, that no citizen should unjustly be deprived of his political, civic, or property rights, that the State should present a united face to outsiders, no matter how much the citizens squabbled among themselves when they had leisure to do so. Again, let me note here that Machiavelli was a devotee of the political theory, promulgated by Aristotle, that good and bad forms of "pure" government would alternate in cyclical fashion in a state. Monarchy would be succeeded by tyranny; it would be overthrown by aristocracy, which would degenerate into oligarchy; the people would rise up and replace it with a democracy, which then would be torn asunder by competing demagogues; the most powerful demagogue would make himself king; and the cycle would repeat. The difference is that Aristotle seems to have believed that "mixed" government, a republic (of course the word was introduced into political philosophy after his time), would be internally stable. Machiavelli considered that, although it would be more stable than a "pure" form of government, the citizens would eventually and inevitably lose virtù, give way to ozio (sloth), and the State would then be open to the machinations of would-be tyrants. It is to a considerable extent that Machiavelli (implicitly) justifies his republicanism by the virtù of the citizens; it is safe to include aristocrats (ottomati) and even monarchic power (regia potestà) in the State because the citizens, filled with virtù, have one eye on them (and one hand on their daggers). Then, in this long-winded way, we come to an answer to the question, "To what extent should I care about another’s rights?" Machiavelli’s answer would be, "You must care about another citizen’s rights absolutely, even to the extent that you give your life for them; but not everyone born in the same State as you is your fellow citizen". John "Akatsukami" Braue Friday, May 03, 2002 |
|