Lascivious Prudes v. Licentious Puritans

Let's get the standard disclaimer out of the way right off the bat, even though it's not the point of this post: Issuing marriage licenses, determining who may, or may not marry, or distributing benefits or levying penalties based on such licenses, is not a proper function of a minimal state.  The only moral state is one that is not a "state" at all, i.e., one that is entirely a voluntary organization, which cannot claim any authority to grant or deny licenses over the activities of any non-consenting person.  The remainder of this post reacts to what an inherently immoral outfit - the state - has done, in reaction to those - the statists - who legitimize its exercise of authority, so don't expect to encounter any Platonic forms there.  There will remain an itch that has not quite been scratched, after you are finished reading.

While obviously not based on libertarian principles at its root, the Obergefell opinion is worthy of acknowledging positively (if not celebrating) by libertarians for at least two general reasons: (1) a majority of the Court cited liberty as a protectable interest that justifies extending access to state-granted licenses to traditionally excluded people, and (2) abundant schadenfreude, irony and instruction are provided by the explosion of passionate dissents from the conservative justices, hypocrites who have proven they are quite willing to do what they condemn, ergo, to rule from the bench, when it suits them.  That's not to say the opinion couldn't lead to much less libertarian rulings down the road -- but such outcomes are the natural tendency of the statists anyway.  Philosophy aside, a big practical plus of the ruling is that all of us can now now have our 1-on-1 marriages recognized, if we wish, whatever our sexual preferences.  I have friend and relatives who are relieved about that, which makes me glad.

Some libertarians, however, may view the increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage as cultural decadence, with some dread.  The forsaking of old traditions may feel that way, but there are often clear distinctions between tradition and morality.  Same-sex marriage, with or without state license, is one such case.   Marriage as a state of intimacy and legal commitment between two or more people, entered into and subsisting voluntarily, is either entirely neutral when it come to decadence, or tends to oppose it.  War, greed, selfishness, injustice, coercion, domination, sloth, fraud, oppression, hatred of one's own species: all of these things (and other vices) increase decadence.  But the very demons of hell could all marry each other, and it would not increase the decadence of hell one iota.  Indeed, the Evil One might find it an alarming development.

To use a more prosaic example, when LGBT people or others settle down and marry, we can confidently assume there will be some decrease in promiscuity among them.  If one supposes that sexual activity is immoral unless done for some limited purpose -- such as, for example, reproduction or family-building -- then more LGBT marriages will necessarily cause a decrease in decadence.  Some portion of these marriages will involve the raising of children, and thus some portion of the sex will be sanctified, however imperfectly, by the accompanying obligations of family and parenthood.  Even if one believes that certain sexual practices can never be sanctified at all, no matter its underlying purpose (which position creates another set of logical problems), the simple decline in promiscuity suffices: same-sex marriage must decrease decadent sex, and thus, cannot be opposed for moral reasons.   On the other hand, if sex between consenting adults is never immoral for any reason, then there is no basis for regarding homosexual activity as any more decadent than sex between a man and a woman, in the first place.  Under either view, it would be illogical to regard homosexual marriage as increasing decadence, in and of itself.

If extending marriage as a social institution cannot logically be blamed for increasing cultural decadence, what explains the discomfort of some libertarians at the increasing acceptance of homosexuality as a normal aspect of the human condition?   Although in some traditions homosexuality was (or in some cases is) firmly regarded a crime worthy of death, the passing of such beliefs from the mainstream of Western culture is no more to be mourned or regarded as decadent than the passing of chattel slavery, or the cessation of sacrificing virgins to gods. One cannot hold to the non-aggression principle, while advocating for the criminalization of any sexual activity between willing adults not motivated by coercion or fraud.  No libertarian indulges in such advocacy, and none mourn the passing of these ancient theocratic attitudes.

A libertarian might reasonably believe, however, that some forms of non-criminal conduct or conditions constitute social vices or spiritual sins, for example: sloth, gluttony, greed, envy, and other sins, without amounting to tortious conduct or crime.  To such a list, a libertarian might add certain sexual or economic behaviors, including adultery, lasciviousness, masturbation, fetishes of various kinds, sodomy, distribution or consumption of pornography, prostitution, and many other behaviors with an erotic tinge, with or without good reason.  There is no point in debating moral preferences of this sort here; we shall assume that decadence (like beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.  That is, decadence can only be measured against some cultural standard held by some person or group of persons, which cultural norms we know from hard experience to be about as uniform and predictable as the ischial callosities of a baboon.  Nonetheless, if one believes (for example) that gluttony is sinful, then it is rational for the anti-glutton to make a connection between growing social protections or esteem for the obese, and cultural decadence.  By the same logic, a socially conservative libertarian can reasonably make a similar connection concerning the growing social acceptance of same-gender sexual behavior, of which the Obergefell opinion is merely a notable signpost.  So can a theocratic social conservative, for that matter.

The libertarian social conservative, however, faces a tension that the theocrat does not.  The libertarian must acknowledge that sinners of all types must enjoy equal protection under the non-aggression principle.  Moral or religious beliefs cannot excuse the initiation of aggression, without negating the non-aggression principle.  The theocrat, in contrast, is commanded to initiate aggression to the point of death, for any reason written in the Qur'an, Torah, or other hallowed book or teaching.  One cannot hold the literal meaning of Leviticus or the Qur'an regarding penalties for homosexuals, for example, while also holding to the non-aggression principle.  Something's got to give.  No one can serve two masters.  One either observes the non-aggression principle, or one does not. 

It follows that one cannot be a libertarian, while at the same time adopting the penalties proscribed in holy writings such as Leviticus or the Qur'an for homosexuality.  What these writings teach on that subject is plainly contrary to the non-aggression principle.  These traditional authorities must either be rejected as literal standards for present-day social conduct, or must be followed in every respect, in aggressive theocratic fashion.

Let us postpone the moral debate between theocracy and liberty until the Last Judgement, or at least until a later post.  Until then, there are debates aplenty to be settled between the puritanical, prudish libertarians and the licentious, lascivious libertarians.  And perhaps even between the lascivious prudes and the licentious puritans.  There are enough varieties of decadence afoot to keep us all busy decrying for a long while.  But whatever moral preferences you defend, or decadence you decry, do not fail to notice that -- just like that other libertarian you are sniping at -- your preferences are subservient to your forbearance from initiating aggression for political or social purposes.  That unifying principle is worth celebrating, and no oligarchic ruling of five robed justices declaring a license of the state to be a fundamental liberty can hold a candle to it. 

The Case For A $100 Minimum Wage, Right Here, Right Now In The City of Angels

The City Council of Los Angeles, in a stirring show of solidarity for their comrades in the City of Seattle, voted yesterday to set a city-wide minimum wage of $15 by 2020.  The figure of $15 was chosen for enhanced effect of the aforesaid show, and the year 2020 was the perfect choice for a number of reasons: 5-year plan, 20/20 vision, and perhaps for one of the numerological meanings identified with the number "20."   "To seize and hold," perhaps?  Loud cheers, the tolling of bells, and cries of purest joy were heard throughout the City of Angels, at least within the sound-proof interiors of the luxury cars listening to public radio while driving between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills.  The residents of Fifth and Sixth Streets between S. Los Angeles and S. San Pedro prepared for longer lines and more competition for sidewalk space.   What justice!  What sagacity!  Soon the nation will follow!

At this point, the script calls for classical liberals, libertarians, and paleo-conservatives to gasp in horror and complain "Not again!  Raising the minimum wage just cuts down viable businesses and jobs, and opportunities for low-skilled workers!"  To which the retort of the central-planning comrades is "Not so, you heartless tax-subsidized crony-capitalists!  Studies show that the minimum wage has no discernible effect on employment!"  As a libertarian with leftist leanings, I say: throw away that script.  No mas!  It has not been working very well since at least about 1940. 

After all, the progressives DO have a point about tax subsidies for crony capitalists.  A close working relationship between big business and big government has been the rule since the Great Depression.  Who would work for less than it costs to live in Los Angeles, were it not for the enormous subsidies given to the working poor in the form of SNAP, health insurance subsidies, earned-income credits, Section 8 housing subsidies, and such like?  Who would take a demeaning, subsistence-level job at a corporate fast-food chain or big-box retailer, if the alternatives were not pretty much limited to a risking an even more dehumanizing stay in a heavily tax-subsidized prison by engaging in some sort of illegal trade, going deeply into debt to finance an education that is grossly overvalued because of government subsidies, living on the street at the mercy of strangers, or if you're lucky, staying in your mother's basement?  And who profits from these subsidies, if not the profit-driven crony capitalists and exploiters of the poor, large and small?  It's high time to throw in the towel, and admit that there's no saving the centrally-planned economy by holding down the minimum wage.  Advocating for a stagnant minimum wage just makes one seem mean, to the multitudes who do not understand the One Lesson of economics.

There is a better way.  Instead of playing the dependable foil for progressives wishing to seem compassionate, it high time we make THEM oppose higher wages for the lowest-paid workers.  Or at least, to call their bluff.  If raising the minimum wage to $15 is a good idea, why stop there?  How about an even rounder number, like $100 per hour, equivalent to about $200,000 per year?  Make the central planners defend a poverty-level minimum wage of $30,000 per year.  We should be arguing for $200,000 as the new minimum, which will still barely qualify for a condominium loan in these parts, depending on the level of one's student loans.  If the minimum wage has no effect on employment as the central planners' own studies show, then it should be set at a rate that guarantees at least a middle-class existence.  I'm not just joking around.

Despite appearances, $15 is not really very generous, and will more or less only maintain the status quo.  Per the poster above, the Federal minimum wage was $1.45 in 1970.  That might not seem like much, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $1.45 had the same purchasing power as $8.84 does in 2015.  By the same token, if inflation continues at the same rate for the next five years,  $15 in 2020 will have the same purchasing power as $13.82 does today.  So we are really talking about raising the minimum wage by just about five bucks, in real terms -- only $0.82 in 1970 dollars.  This might be too much for Topeka, but in Los Angeles, the illegal day laborers hanging out in parking lots of hardware stores are already demanding $10 cash, tax free, per hour - plus lunch and transportation to and from the job site.  Figuring a combined corporate tax rate of about 44%, the tax benefits of of the additional expense deduction make up for extra cost.  Or something.  The point is, $13.82 pre-tax is actually less than $10 cash after tax, once the 44% tax rate is considered.  So the central planners want to limit minimum wages to that of a illegal day laborer! Outrageous and just plain mean!

We should stand for the little guy, and demand at least a $100 minimum wage, NOW!  Think of the benefits: everything that is not worth at least $100 an hour will either disappear from the local economy, will be available only on the free (so-called "black") market, or from a self-employed owner-operator or general partnership.  Only the highest-value service jobs will remain, and everything else will have to be supplied by owner-operators with no employees.  Demeaning, low wage jobs will disappear entirely.  Employers will have to offer decently-paid jobs, or none at all.  Thus, a huge sector of the economy will have to be deserted by crony capitalists with their tax-subsidized ways, and left for the free market to handle without creating low-value jobs.  Every thing at the low end will have to be provided by independent contractors, free agents, or general partnerships without any low-value employees.

That would be epic.  Disruptive and painful at first, to be sure, as all epic things are.  The future would look more like Uber, and less like the taxi companies.  More like the street vendor or Eastern bazaar, and less like the big-box stores.  Only owner-operators or true partnerships would be able to operate in the low-value space.  Every fast-food joint and retail store, every janitorial service, every gardening service, nearly every restaurant would go out of business -- but wait!  Either demand will push the value of undervalued services up, or these services would only be available from owner operators or general partnerships whose income depends solely on profits.  The low-wage boss would disappear.  There would be an explosion of micro-entrepreneurs in the low value space, each keenly aware of the need to turn a profit and minimize taxes.  A substantial fraction of this low-value work would thus find its way to the free market, teaching sound economic principles and the benefits of voluntary exchange as only a community of equal market participants can. 

On top of all that, does anyone whose labor is worth less than $100 per hour really deserve to live in the glorious City of Angels anyway, unless as a pure charity case or entrepreneur?  Are these people really doing anything that more valuable people can't do for themselves, or program a robot to do?  $100 is less than a good BMW mechanic makes already.  Why should people with economic value have to tolerate people who lack the self-motivation to start a business or learn a more valuable skill cluttering up their streets, demanding public services, and emitting all that CO2 that is warming the Earth?  Why should people with valuable skills waste their time supervising people with no skills?  If the job is not worth even $100 an hour, anybody should be able to figure it out on their own, without some boss lording over them. Tongue planted in cheek, here.

Yes, $100 should be the new minimum, if there is to be any minimum.  That's what I say.  If the central planners want to argue for a lower minimum, I'll let them.  But as far as I am concerned, no hourly rate is too high for a crony capitalist to pay.  Free the entrepreneurs!

* * *

Photo Credit: "Minimum Wage, 1967"

by Dr. Monster  

https://www.flickr.com/photos/zom-bot/

Photo and essay are subject to Creative Commons License

Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Leviathan The Great Caterpillar

The state will wither away from the Earth, or so it has been intuited.  The departure has been predicted for centuries.  Not just by the Marxists and Anarchists.  At least as early as the Jewish prophet Daniel, writing of the fate of empire from the perspective of ancient Babylon.  Recall his dream of the great idol of golden head, silver torso, iron legs, and clay feet, crushed to smithereens by a meteorite.  The beast will be slain.   All the empires of the Earth will fall, whether by natural, supernatural, or human hands, eventually.  That is a mathematical certainly.

Whether humanity will survive the death of the state and empire as a reoccurring phenomenon is an open question.  Some of us choose to believe that it will.  Some of us choose to believe that one day, a more enlightened humanity will lay the idea of state on its deathbed and allow it to slip into an eternal slumber, never to rise again among humans.  What a happy day that will be!

Death as a final destiny is not the only allegory that might be applied to the future of the state.  When a caterpillar undergoes metamorphosis does it die?  In a sense, yes: the caterpillar and all of its behaviors are no more.  The emergent moth is an almost unrecognizably different creature, both in physical form and behavior.  In a sense, no: the identity of the moth as an individual is traceable through its metamorphosis from its prior identity as a caterpillar.  If we hope for a post-apocalyptic society in which humanity will thrive, metamorphosis is a more useful analogy than death.

Some ancient seers foresaw the caterpillar or "worm" Jacob climbing the ladder to heaven, and being reborn as a divinely led body.  Whatever your beliefs regarding prophetic utterances, you can probably recognize that widely held beliefs about the future have real consequences.  We undoubtedly influence our futures by first imagining them.  We can chose to imagine that great worm Leviathan, comprised of all the nation-states, undergoing metamorphosis and emerging transformed and liberated.  We can imagine a new world in which the machinery of war, rule by force, deceitful politics, privilege and taxation are in the distant past, and widely abhorred.  We can imagine that if any such transformation is to occur, it must come from within.  If the transformation is imposed by force or fraud, it has not occurred.  Liberty by imposition is an impossibility.  If believed, it can only be delusion.

If you believe metamorphosis to a stateless society to be possible, whether you ascribe it to a divine plan or to a multitude of complex and coordinated conscious choices by billions of individuals makes no real difference.  One is as miraculous as the other, and both can be simultaneously true.  Either way, we as individuals make up the DNA of the Great Worm.  We as individuals possess the only cellular machinery capable of transforming the Worm into a stateless society that frees all people to thrive in greater harmony and peace.  We all have equally important jobs to do.

All of these imaginings are based in hope, and contradict much of the evidence at hand.  Today, the power of the state seems to be growing ever more pervasive, invasive, and far reaching.  Enumerating all these unfortunate realities is not my present purpose, nor do I mean to count all the counter trends providing a rational basis for hope, however slim. We are free to hope that the state will eventually be reduced to dust, displaced by a more rational and just scheme for organizing society, however long that takes.  We are always free to hope.

What survives the death of the state?  Bare subsistence as hunter-gatherers?  A pre-industrial agrarian society?  An advanced post-industrial society that supports dense and fulfilling urban living, sophisticated division of labor, and technological advancement?  Why only one?  All three of these and more might co-exist in ways both surprising and conventional.  We cannot know what the endpoint will be, nor is it necessary to know it.  We can know only that the future stateless society will lack the characteristics of state, by definition, by whatever name such characteristics are called.

When it is recognized that transformation to stateless society must come from within, the idea of the state as enemy must be discarded.  State is not enemy.  It is precursor.  We would be foolish to wish for its destruction, because its fabric is us.  State would not exist were it not for the fears and lusts of humanity, and cannot be destroyed without the destruction of humanity.   If we are wise, we will wish only for its transformation.

All that may seem like a lot of mumbo-jumbo, but there is a practical point. We who have taken the red pill and absorbed some stark lessons about the nature of power may naturally resent the continuing slumber of our fellows.  There is an impulse to excoriate those who still cling to that great fiction by which (as Bastiat wrote) everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.  Excoriation has its place, but has not proven terribly effective in bringing about a new stateless society, or even in restraining the worst excesses of the state.  People cling to the current order, not because of ideology, but out of practical self-interest.  They do not see enough viable alternatives. But where they do see less regulated environments that provide some benefit, they flock to them.

This dynamic runs the world.  There is a voluntary sector, where all production occurs and most innovation emerges.  And there is a compulsory sector, that extracts a substantial portion of the wealth produced by the voluntary sector, and redistributes that wealth to its favored constituents.  The success of the modern state rests on that at which it truly excels: deception and coercion.  It has proven itself able to stealthily extract a tremendous fraction of the total wealth of the voluntary sector, by using tools such as central banking and compulsory fiat money systems, credit expansions, complex taxation systems, and vast regulatory bureaucracies that invade almost every crevice of human activity.  So subtle are the mechanisms of wealth extraction by the state, that most people are unable to comprehend how they have been robbed.  On the contrary, a great many people credit the state with being primarily responsible for their prosperity and security! Somehow, the state has managed to convince most of us that we are its beneficiaries, and therefore it deserves our protection.  The state is not adept at producing goods and services that people will voluntarily buy, but is the master of coercion and deceit.

It follows that mere participation in the voluntary sector will do nothing to transform the leviathan. Silent acquiescence just plays into the current servitude, and emboldens constituents of the state to take a greater share.  Deliberate activism is required.  That activism can take many forms, but in evaluating its likely efficacy, we might ask this question:  Does the activism increase the fraction of real economic and beneficial life activity that takes place voluntarily, and diminish the fraction that passes through the coercive or deceptive mechanisms of state?  More simply, does the activism promote processes for justly meeting human needs that reduces the entanglement of coercive government in meeting those needs?  If so, the activism is transformative, and worth doing.  If not, it is likely not worth doing, and is counterproductive to liberty.  With, and only with, enough transformative activity by we its constituents, Leviathan will certainly be transformed, and the Worm will die.

* * *

Photo Credit: "Metamorphosis: Free as a Butterfly and Ready to Fly"

by chekabuja   

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chekabuje/

Photo and essay are subject to Creative Commons License

Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic

The Elephant Out In The Dark, Dank, Dung

Thank you Mr. Barnes for engaging in the dialog in a profound way.  You stimulated my thinking; actually opened up a whole new area or way to think about things.

Thinking and writing (and OMG talking!) about voluntary (a.k.a.personal) law as if it were a topic relevant to libertarians is a bit like four blind people feeling up an elephant on a moonless night out far from the  lights of human cities, somewhere on the wide savanna.  Not only is it pitch dark, there are piles of dank elephant dung strewn about, the poor sods are blindfolded and each has stumbled across a different part of the leviathan.  One, feeling the truck yells "Watch our for the constrictor!"  A second, brushing against the ear, reassures "It's just a banana leaf."  A third encounters the side and reports, "Hey guys I think I found a cave."  A fourth blinded wanderer is impaled by the tusk, and does not say anything that will be repeated here.  This retelling of the old Indian parable about the four blind man reporting on the different natures of the elephant was brought to you by the Element of Farce, with support from a Dash of Allusion.  And by, A Need To Make A Point, hopefully with art by inserting the only difference of logical significance: our wanderers did not expect to run into an elephant, and hadn't even figured out that they had run into the same animal before the parable ended.  The Indian blind men, at least as I remember hearing the tale, knew they were supposed to be inspecting an elephant.

Be patient, there is a point in here somewhere.  Voluntary and personal law can be thought of as a branch of social philosophy in the broader category of voluntaryism or social theories based on non-aggression, that intersects with the philosophy of law.  Voluntaryism is itself a minor school in the broader university of social philosophies dominated by schools that are much more popular these days, that make use of aggression as an organizing principle.  The point is, by discussing concepts like voluntary law we are pretty far out on the dark savanna of ideas, talking about concepts that are not widely discussed or well-defined.  The principles we are getting at are as old or timeless as creation, but the conceptual framework is unfamiliar.  It is to be expected that experiences will vary from different perspectives, and we may not even realize that we are just experiencing different aspects of the same leviathan.  And we are guided as much by intuition as by sight.

The point I have been tirelessly pushing is that the essence of every moral legal system is personal.  Law is at its highest essence is personal.  It is the laws that you uphold that are the ones you should be judged by.  And that it is possible to build communities and networks of communities based on this principle.

Voluntary law can and should be used by communities.  The critical point is how particular rules become enforceable laws within communities. There is absolutely no external difference between a community of persons who hold to the same law because they all unanimously agree that that the law is acceptable, and a community upon which the same law is imposed by some subset of the group, be it a majority, an elite, or whatever.  The differences are internal.  In the first, everybody agrees that the law is acceptable, there is a lack of tension, and much greater confidence that one's neighbors will follow the law.  In the second, there are bound to be some people who disagree with the law, so there will be greater tension, and less confidence.  The philosophy of non-aggression is about getting communities closer to the first state of harmony without using aggression.  Those who hold to non-aggression believe that aggression doesn't work, is morally wrong, or both, for building communities of harmonized laws.

And another thing.  One can be a member of communities that hold to different laws, and therefore any person can hold to distinct sets of law.  A person may adopt one set of laws for resolving disputes with members of a first community, and another set of laws for resolving disputes with members of a different community.  Tying this to the idea of contractual republics, voluntary law is not only personal, it is also a  form of covenant between members of the same community.  Where two or more people are transacting subject to same voluntarily accepted law, there is a sort of contractual republic formed, which may be transient in nature and be limited to the boundaries where the law of the two is in agreement.  One could even belong to different communities that hold to conflicting laws.  The only question in that situation is what law to apply when dealing with a third person.  Voluntary law suggests it would be a really good idea for everybody who rejects aggression to have a more general law defined that works with any other voluntaryist who accepts the same set of principles for resolving differences between voluntary laws.  For resolving such differences, voluntary law suggests using The Rule Of The Weakest Tool - TROTWET.

Identifying general principles and not just a set of specific rules is also fundamental to voluntary law.  Like natural property rights, moral laws arise from the person.  A neat thing about voluntary law is its worst limitation: it only works with other voluntaryists.  One cannot respect personal laws without rejecting aggression as a way of harmonizing laws.  Conversely, one cannot hold to non-aggression without recognizing that, if aggression cannot be used for harmonizing law, then every person must have the right to define their own law.  In a manner similar to how all reasonable people are libertarians, they just don't know it yet, all libertarians recognize the sanctity of personally defined law.  Some just don't know it yet.

Last point: It is the hierarchical logical structure of a well designed voluntary law system that enables its use with different communities.  At lower levels, there are more specific rules.  There are more general rules above those.  There is no lower limit to the number of levels, so long as each level is personally adopted by all on whom it is enforced, and its adoption is without coercion or fraud.  Each person's personal legal code can be simultaneously as simple as their most general principle, and as potentially complex as their DNA.  At the apex of this wonderful potential complexity is the most general principle, which is for voluntary law is essentially the Golden Rule or the non-aggression principle.  This general principle at the apex is what separates voluntary legal systems from all others.

So the first step in implementing voluntary law for people to just adopt a principle consistent with non-aggression as their most general principle of law, publish that fact and live as though it is an enforceable principle by which their own actions will be judged. To facilitate order in complex large societies of strangers, more detailed rules will be useful.  When large numbers of people recognize their personal right and responsibility to publish their own personal rules, so that others who also hold to non-aggression can make use of them, new orders will spontaneously emerge, without any bloody revolution or turmoil.  We have the power to build an orderly society, just by honoring the personal laws of those who reject aggression as a tool for organizing society.

Libertarian Brutalism and the Fuzzy Venn Diagram

Maybe the libertarian brutalism brouhaha blew over ages ago.  Or perhaps it festers still.  Either way, it might be used as an excuse to draw a fuzzy Venn diagram.  So I did.

Whatever Jeffrey Tucker originally intended or actually said in comparing a subset of libertarians to the movement in architecture known as brutalism, I perceived him as saying that a certain strand of libertarians are like architectural brutalists in wanting to emphasize just the essentials, and that such brutalism is less preferable than non-brutalist, humanist or "thick" libertarianism. Hopefully my perception is reasonably accurate.

Whatever Mr. Tucker actually wrote, within the small but growing community of people who identify as libertarians and comment on issues of the day, an ongoing storm of controversy intensified following Mr. Tucker's essay.  The controversy can be boiled down to a debate over the definition of "libertarian."  Over what it means to be a true Scotsman, so to speak, with opponents divided into two basic camps.  Forgive me for greatly oversimplifying things, but one camp argued that being a libertarian necessarily required that one renounce all bigotry, except perhaps for bigotry against bigots.  The other camp, the so-called brutalists, argued that, whatever the merits of bigotry, one's status as a bigot or non-bigot is irrelevant to whether or not one is a libertarian.  I reside in the second camp, not because I condone bigotry, but because I favor a more restricted definition of "libertarian."  Like all preferences concerning the meaning of symbols, it is by nature arbitrary and personal.  I can't control what meanings and arbitrary preferences other people adopt, but I can explain why I adopt my own, and why you should, too.

To service such explanation, I created the fuzzy Venn diagram depicted above.  It's fuzzy because boundaries of classification systems almost always have some degree of fuzziness around the edges.  But that's not the point.  The point is simply that the set of all moral principles (shown in pinkish-white) is larger than and entirely contains the subset of social moral principles, i.e., the moral principles that relate to social behavior (shown in yellow).  Further, that the subset of social moral principles is larger than and entirely contains the sub-subset of non-aggression principles (shown in green).  One might even go further and distinguish political non-aggression principles from more broadly social non-aggression principles.

To avoid going too far afield I'll neglect issues touching on what is, and is not, a properly stated non-aggression principle and underlying issues such as the definitions of "person," "property" or "aggression."  These issues are more fundamental and will inevitably cause divisions within the libertarian community.  For example disagreements over the rights of a fetus cannot be resolved by the non-aggression principle itself, because such disagreements rest on assumptions underlying it.  But such divisions are not the topic at hand.

Assuming that the Venn diagram above is valid, the brutalism controversy might be summarized as a debate over whether or not the term "libertarian" should be applied to everybody who adheres to moral principles in the green, non-aggression area, or only to some subset of such people who also adhere to other principles.  When summarized in this way, there are few who advocate for redefining the term "libertarian" based on acceptance of the N.A.P. plus some other principle. In fact, unaided by a search engine I can't think of anyone clearly arguing for such redefinition.  I can't say such people don't exist.  It is confusion over that point that is at the heart of the brutalism controversy.

Instead, those who eschew brutalism excoriate those who reject or fail to defend other moral principles, besides the N.A.P., whatever those other principles may be.   The "thickists" may point out that the failure to teach other moral principles hurts the cause of liberty, or is immoral.  Such arguments are healthy and unobjectionable. They might go as far as stating "I refuse to associate with brutalists." Fine.  If they exclaim "brutalists are not even libertarians!" then I object.  Or if they argue that one can (or should) be a libertarian while elevating some other moral principle above the N.A.P., this is also objectionable.  More than that, it's illogical.

Suppose, for example, that one values an ethic of multiculturalism.  If Jennifer values multiculturalism as superior to non-aggression, then she believes that it may sometimes be morally acceptable to use coercion to enforce multicultural values, however regrettable that aggression might be.  Conversely, if John values non-aggression over multiculturalism, then he believes that however regrettable bigotry and prejudice may be, it is never acceptable to oppose them with coercive force to any extent greater than justified by necessary defense.  Since Jennifer values multiculturalism over non-aggression, she cannot possibly be considered a "libertarian" because she rejects the non-aggression principle, which by definition forbids aggression for any purpose but necessary defense against the aggression of others.  Conversely, whether or not John is a bigot, he cannot be considered as anything other than a "libertarian" so long as he adheres to the non-aggression principle.  If you don't like bigotry, and John is a bigot, you may call him out as such.  But if you deny the possibility that bigoted libertarians can exist, or should be recognized as libertarians, you are depriving the word "libertarian" of its established meaning.  There is no other word in use to precisely identify people who hold to the non-aggression principle.  If "libertarian" is defined as somebody who takes exception to non-aggression in favor of some other set of moral principle even if only in limited circumstances, then some other word will have to be found to describe people who adhere to the non-aggression principle, which forbids such exceptions.

Why is it so hard to accept that "libertarian" can be used to describe people who hold to other beliefs that are abhorred?  The word is merely a general term, relevant to a narrow set of moral principles.  It must exclude other moral principles to be a useful term, and therefore it is inevitable that some libertarians will find other libertarians holding abhorrent beliefs, saying and doing abhorrent things.   Some atheists likewise may find other atheists abhorrent, yet we do not find any movement to redefine "atheism" as anything other than a belief that God does not exist.  Instead, people classify the genus of "atheists" into various species.  And it is considered perfectly normal to accept some species of atheism while abhorring others.

Whatever explains the desire to define "libertarianism" as something more than the a belief in the morality of the non-aggression principle, as if "libertarian" were a synonym for "good person," the desire is damnable.   "Libertarian" should not be thought of as a synonym for "good person."  There are good libertarians, who eschew all evil.  And there are bad libertarians, who do not eschew all evil, but who at least eschew the evil of non-defensive aggression.  What makes libertarianism such a powerful political ideology is its ban on using disagreements over principles in other areas of the moral Venn diagram as justification for aggression.  Take that away, and libertarianism becomes just another ideology justifying coercive rule by political elites, based on whatever principles or whims infuse their egos.

So is "brutalism" just a species of libertarianism?  It depends on how far one extends the concept of being a non-brutalist or humanist libertarian.  If the humanism is subservient to the non-aggression principle, such that aggression serving the cause of humanism is forbidden, then libertarians may be divided into separate non-humanist and humanist species.  However, if the humanism is not subservient to the non-aggression principle, the ideology is in no sense libertarian, as it justifies aggression for other than necessary defense.  A humanist who justifies aggression in the cause of humanism is not a libertarian, nor is one being "brutalist" by pointing that out.  But the confusing terminology of "brutalist libertarian" might lead some believe that one can be a libertarian of a non-brutalist sort, while rejecting the non-aggression principle.  Such confusion would be bad, if it became widespread.  Very bad.  It would divide those who hold to non-aggression, destroy all the utility of the word "libertarian" that has been building for the past 45 years or so, and require that a new word be adopted to replace it.  Some libertarians are also bigots or other scurrilous things, and there will always exist disagreements over moral principles. So let's just call out bad people for the evil they do, whether or not they are also libertarians.

My Vision For Libertarian Success

The Libertarian Party of LA County is going through the exercise of developing a strategic plan.  Part of that exercise includes adopting a vision statement.  Inspired by an earlier draft, I've put together my own vision.  It could be shorter, but is serviceable.

LPLAC Succeeds When:

The sum total of public discussion in LA County includes divergent views and dynamic cross-fertilization of ideas, but a clear majority of both the electorate and general population insists that all of these divergent views fit within a political framework that minimizes compulsory forms of government in favor of maximizing voluntary solutions, personal autonomy, and economic freedom. Los Angeles County and its environs develops a reputation as one of the leading libertarian-influenced and politically innovative regions in the world. Liberty and peace-loving people from all over the world desire to visit and reside here, including notable public opinion leaders who advocate for freedom-oriented policies and the end of government-sanctioned aggression locally and around the world.

Along the way, Libertarian Party candidates and are included on virtually every ballot in the county, are routinely included in debates, sought out for interviews, and covered in stories by both alternative and mainstream media. Candidates of other parties become substantially libertarian-leaning in key aspects. Libertarian Party candidates win offices and appointments while expressing views consistent with the non-aggression principle. Many Libertarians holding public office are supported by teams of activists and advisers, and are widely recognized as principled and effective leaders. Aided by their teams and motivated by the passion for liberty, these leaders grow in political influence and exploit every good opportunity to implement and expand liberty and non-aggression in public policy and legislation locally, regionally, in Sacramento and in Washington D.C. LPLAC and its members are seen as valuable members of the community, actively engaged in resolving issues of the day and effectively advocating for innovative solutions that expand personal liberty, prosperity, and justice.

We seek no dogmatic, static ideological endpoint and seek only to apply the non-aggression principle in the political sphere to the maximum extent possible given the constraints of the day. It is impossible to predict every social benefit that will be realized by the freed people of LA County, once they have learned to abhor the initiation of force for achieving political or social goals, and prefer to implement voluntary solutions to social problems. We nonetheless expect that fruits of our activism will include, in the long term, the widespread condemnation of wars of aggression, and strong public preferences for peace and voluntary exchange with people locally and around the world. Our residents will enjoy increased prosperity, privacy, security and justice. Equal opportunities to benefit from the fruits of their own labor will expand, while government-sanctioned monopolies, free riding on the labor of others, and economic stagnation will diminish. No person will be punished for conduct that does not harm or threaten an actual victim, and victimless crimes will become relics of the past. The rule of just laws will prevail, and justice will be administered by officers and service providers who are not above the laws they enforce. As general prosperity increases, the need for tax-funded welfare will diminish and care for the indigent and poor will gradually be transferred to volunteers and voluntary organizations. Corporate welfare and undue influence will diminish. Our environment will become cleaner and our food and water healthier by operation of just laws, vibrant free markets and public forums where truth is vigorously debated and authority questioned. Taxes will become more like fees for services rendered or reputation-enhancing donations, and less like compulsory payments made under threat of force. Authority will become more decentralized, wealth more evenly distributed, and collective social projects more voluntary in nature.

Libertarian Party Spends Equivalent to Annual Budget on Study Concerning Use of The Word "Asshole" on Facebook Group Page

*

In other news, the Libertarian Party of  Waffangeles County reported today that it has spent the equivalent of its annual income on a study of the use of the word "asshole" on its Facebook Group page, based on the Federal minimum wage and a count of words used by the study's investigators, assuming 2.35 seconds is required per word, on average, all factors considered.  The study found 100% of the uses of "asshole" by both posters and commentators within the Waffangeles County group to be appropriate.  A search of the forum turned up only one use of the offending word, which was not directed at any identifiable person or used to appeal to prurient interests.  The statistical breakdown is shown in Table 1:

Table 1

The County's group page compared to favorably the Facebook page for the County's state parent organization, the Libertarian Party of Kalitaxya, which registered a 25% inappropriate use rate, 63% appropriate use rate, and 13% incidence of posts using an apparent close equivalent of "asshole" (labeled "Uncertain" in Table 2).

Table 2

The inappropriate uses in the LP Kalitaxya group consisted of references to identifiable persons participating in a discussion.  There were no uses found to appeal to prurient interest, and no suggestions that any person perform any act involving any real or imaginary "asshole" organ, human or otherwise.

Perhaps the most interesting finding of the study involved a post returned by Facebook's search engine that lacked any use of "asshole" or its known synonyms, in any known language.  This post consisted of a reference to this 2012 story contrasting Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson's position on legalization of marijuana and other drugs with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich's proposal to make possession of two or more ounces of the "devil weed" punishable by death or life in prison. A faction of the investigators concluded that the article was most likely identified because Facebook's heuristic, artificially intelligent search engine was obviously evolving towards a sentient state, and had acquired enough reason and moral sense to recognize that, in the context of politics, a proposal to kill or imprison for life any person found with two or more ounces of an herb recognized for centuries as having medicinal, nutritional and industrial value represents unadulterated assholery.  This faction reasoned that, since the statement was identified as made by Newt Gingrich, the artificial intelligence was drawing an equivalence between Gingrich and "asshole" that met the study parameters for inappropriate speech.  A competing faction reasoned that, regardless of the reason for the search engine's flagging the post, any fool could understand the equivalence of "Gingrich" and "asshole" in the aforementioned context.  However, the faction reasoned that Newt Gingrich is a public figure who was not actually participating in any discussion taking place within the state party's Facebook group.  Therefore the competing faction concluded that the use met the study parameters for appropriate speech.  After long and tedious debate, during which both sides reminded each other of past grievances over petty slights and basked in the obvious rightness of their respective positions, no agreement could be reached.  The factions therefore "agreed to disagree" and settled on categorizing the incident as "uncertain."

The Waffangeles County Party Central Committee met to consider the study results and released the following statement:

"We note with some surprise the meager number of words that can be afforded at a rate of 2.35 seconds per word and Federal minimum wage until exceeding the equivalent of our annual budget, and the relative lack of imagination of our members and guests in their use, both appropriate and inappropriate, of the word "asshole" in public forums associated with the Libertarian Party statewide.  We are pleased, although not surprised, that our membership has attained absolute perfection in the appropriateness of "asshole" as expressed in our forum.  We hold up this up as a reflection and example of the moral perfection emanating from the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), of which our possession allows us to literally nap while we wait for our fellow Kalitaxya-ians to be drawn to the light.  The study should dispel once and for all the dispersions cast by our enemies, who label the Libertarians as a debate society dedicated to issues involving their own navels, by scientifically proving our capability to use at least one potentially offensive word in an entirely appropriate manner in our public outreach.   We are dismayed, but not surprised, that our state party has failed to attain the perfection we have achieved locally in policing of asshole incidents, and blame the leadership for this failure."

The Central Committee then announced a follow-on study concerning use of the phrase "horse's ass."

***

If you will now permit the author of the foregoing report to editorialize a little: as member of the Waffangeles Party Central Committee, I blush a little at the smug self-satisfaction and absorption sometimes expressed in our public statements, and the endless debates over trifles.  Nonetheless, I remain a loyal member.  It is preferable to the unsavory alternatives of, on the one hand, identifying with a party whose most prominent members have recently called for the death sentence for those caught with less than a salad's worth of a useful herb.  Or on the other hand, identifying with its principal opponent party, which despite possessing a majority in the legislature and control of the administration, studiously avoided any consideration of removing cannabis from Schedule 1 status, preferring instead to spend its political capital on further restricting Americans' relatively limited medical freedoms and cartelizing the health insurance industry.  Call me what you will, but I know when I'm being shat upon.  Bickering is just a natural if not inevitable result of renouncing the right to rule others by power of aggression, and forming a political party around a moral principle.

***

The foregoing post is entirely fictional, and any resemblance to any actual person or organization within is purely coincidental.