<<<Part X Part XII>>>

Author’s note: The main themes of this series are further expounded upon in my book Anarcho-Monarchism, which you can buy here.

Introduction

To the conservative-minded, the most objectionable part of libertarianism is the seeming inability to reconcile virtue and decent behavior with a libertarian social order. To resolve this issue, there is a need to consider two alternatives to a more commonplace libertarian social order and propose a coherent critique of a regime with unlimited free imposition of costs with regard to immaterial externalities. What are libertarians able to do against bad neighbors, and what can libertarians do to prevent a libertarian society from becoming an ethically justifiable drug den?

Libertarianism and Violence

The libertarian ethic revolves around only using force to meet aggressive violence or fraud; initiatory force must always be unjustifiable. It could be practical to use force to prevent undesirable results, but this sort of pragmatism is not philosophically coherent and will always lead to perverse conclusions. However, this can be immensely impractical whenever force is not allowable in non-violent occasions and whenever ends cannot be met by using force. Although more ethically consistent, these are impractical outcomes for certain individuals.

This might seem to be a completely reasonable stance; there is no quantifiable disparity in rights between individuals, so anything that gives some groups a hegemony on the use of violence should be contrary to nature. Even though some groups would benefit from the use of violence, libertarians do not favor any particular groups because all people have the same inherent rights. Ultimately, non-violent means are always preferable to violent means unless it is a matter of preventing violence. But this quickly runs into a philosophical trap.

The Social Groups

Society is always divided into multiple subgroups who are more or less productive and who contribute varying amounts to the societies in which they live. As there is a massive distinction between how different groups behave, there is also a distinction between how different groups ought to be treated. However, if the same standard of non-violence were to apply to every group, it would subsidize those groups who can be parasitic without violence. These are the people who are unpleasant, subversive, and repulsive to others without being aggressive. This gives degenerates, maladjusts, and other undesirables an inherent attraction towards libertarianism, as mainstream libertarians are willing to subsidize their behavior in the name of non-violence.

This requires an implementation of a system of statecraft and social organization that goes above and beyond the libertarian ethic. There needs to be a way in which we can prevent the above types of parasitism. A libertarian social order is not immunized from all social threats due to it following libertarian philosophical principles. There are still problems that could occur within a libertarian society with no answers in the foundational philosophy. If we achieve a libertarian society which only becomes a form of subsidy-seeking by undesirables, we will eventually be deprived of liberty. When a society actively encourages low-performing individuals to expect social subsidy, it will actively import those whose interest is to seize the means of production.

Furthermore, immaterial externalities are value-destructive in a material way. If we are to accept subjectivism in value theory, we must also accept that subjective valuations are important regardless of whether we are evaluating material or immaterial benefits and costs. Since all immaterial costs are on par with material costs, they may not be objectively quantifiable in the same manner, but subjectively we experience those costs as similar trade-offs. By utilizing Austrian economics, we find a very important tool in ordinal value scales. People rank some uses of resources over others and would trade items of less ordinal value for items of more ordinal value. Additionally, every immaterial cost can be compared to material costs on this value scale. Since there is no institutional answer to immaterial costs because aggression is forbidden, we are stuck in a trap that we seemingly cannot escape. We need to change our political theory significantly to accommodate for immaterial costs.

The Aristocratic Solution

The first part of the solution and the part that is compatible with traditional libertarian theory is the notion of the social aristocracy maintaining the society through what amounts to market forces. This does not need to be integrated into statecraft to be a functional system, but doing so creates a more perfect theory of statecraft. This notion has already been touched upon in this series, but it deserves further reiteration and focus.

First, we need to accept the premise that markets are a sufficient solution to the problem of externalities and to the problem of preventing communistic organization in the economic realm. If markets can avert the possibility of incurring unwanted costs, then markets can do so when it comes to society. This means that we need to figure out how we can privatize the market of society and provide a sufficient demonstration that immaterial externalities are a pressing matter. The questions of how and why are the only possible objections from a libertarian standpoint, as libertarians cannot argue against the functionality of the market order.

The why is easy to solve; if there is a problem in a society and if the costs imposed are actual, then removing that problem leads to a general social benefit and brings a profit. For example, we can consider the example of homosexuality in a reactionary society and the social problems therein. The most massive one is, of course, the public promotion of homosexuality as if it is virtuous behavior. This is hopefully easily resolved with social attitudes and private property in the absence of a specific system to counter it. However, if we are to have communities, there arises the issue of individual disagreements with the lifestyle choices of homosexuals.

The easy solution would be to simply exclude any and all homosexuals from a libertarian reactionary social order by physical removal. However, this falls into the problem of judgments based on groupings and can be counter-productive if homosexuals bring more material profit than the loss from immaterial externality. Unless homosexuality is abhorrent to all within a community, there needs to be some way of removing the unproductive homosexuals while keeping the well-behaved ones. This allows us to maximize profit in our social orders, and is a great drive towards a better society when it is already libertarian.

Men Among Men

If society is a market, then we need to acknowledge that there are people who invest more and people who invest less into that society. If we are going to privatize society, we cannot default to democratic representation, as that paves the way for new subsidy. Instead, those who contribute the greatest amount to a society ought to be those who have the most say over that society. These people can be viewed as those who hold the most shares in a joint-stock business. The group of people who hold majority interest in a society comprise this aristocracy. When a community, as a subsection of society, is run by the aristocracy, they hold the power to take social decisions and impose social sanctions. This aristocracy is then the most accurate form of deciding who should be removed from the social order.

We could here promote a spontaneous method of social disassociation or a more interpersonal order of democratic disassociation, but these make as much sense as creating a market socialistic order in the management of property. By using the aristocracy, we can practically implement a privatized society. The large burden of inclusion and exclusion is handled by the aristocrats and adds to the complete view of libertarian statecraft.

The Monarchic Solution

The solution that necessitates statecraft plays into the idea of a libertarian monarchy formed from actual contract promoting actual freedom and co-operation. This is the idea of a centrally imposed system of virtue into the law of a society. We can prevent immaterial externalities if we bind material possessions with the law in such a manner that those who cause immaterial, yet negative, externalities can be rightfully charged and tried. This is impossible without statecraft, as there are no proper standards by which we judge these people who make themselves into invaders and who abuse material property by assaulting immaterial property. Immaterial property cannot be defended without commonly accepted law and shared norms that can remove socialism from immaterial values. This means that immaterial values can only be property under libertarian statecraft.

Furthermore, we must also acknowledge the role of deterrence in punishment. Rothbard laid out a good framework for why material crime ought to be punished to twice the extent of that crime, and this applies even more within a social framework. There is no inherent material aspect of subverting a society, and if the worst that can happen is exclusion, small communities are completely defenseless against any subversive element. If a foreign entity is only met with exile after already subverting the society, he has no cost and can do away with any profits he managed to achieve from his subversion.

The only way to prevent this is to apprehend these people as invaders according to the local law set by property owners. In effect, by entering into the property of those under a system of agreed-upon law and remaining there, the subversive acknowledges and consents to the laws in that society. For example, if the owners of the property have a zero-tolerance policy for any sexual abuse and are willing to impose the death penalty on anyone who commits it, then the invader can be executed as he himself agreed to the laws of the society.

This is a dangerous concept with which to flirt and its implementation will be difficult; any practical implementation must restrict itself to very basic rules. A society could not function with giant codes of law, as remaining ignorant of the law would provide a reasonable excuse for violating it. This effectively eliminates the ethical standard of proportional response, as the laws are consented to by all property owners in society. Furthermore, this allows us to charge subversives with subversion and impose the penalty to which they consented. This serves to improve the degree of deterrence for actions that a society seeks to avoid.

Conclusion

This rationally leads us to the conclusion that a libertarian government would synthesize two vital and underappreciated forms of organization if it wanted to govern optimally. First, it would acknowledge the market in society and charge the aristocracy with ensuring that the tasks of inclusion and exclusion are properly maintained. Second, the libertarian government would have a barrier of deterrence in the form of disproportionate response, as all people voluntarily joined their property to create that government. If the market in governance is allowed to flourish, the problem of immaterial externalities finds a solution that bars any potential costs imposed by anti-social behavior.

<<<Part X Part XII>>>

Support The Zeroth Position on Patreon!

Like this: Like Loading...