I seek to find and formulate ideas that can liberate mankind. My primary motive in discourse is to find a way whereby the human race can attain a higher degree of success and happiness; not in some abstract philosophical way (though the conversation may meander into abstract and philosophical modes of thought), but in a tangible, measurable way that can be scientifically replicated. I ask myself, and others, constantly, questions such as, “how can human success and happiness be increased, or optimized? What opportunity do people have to increase their happiness? What are the tools and methods of happiness?” I seek logically consistent principles that can improve my experiences in life.
I propose that everyone sympathizes with this inclination fundamentally, proved by the economic principle of self-interest. The confusion, I believe, occurs as people seek out proper methods for achieving happiness; they are often given improper tools and taught poor methods – and are actually taught to avoid the proper tools and correct methods. Logic and reason are (by mystics and statists) cast as essentially subjective and negligible in the face of a ‘greater force’ or a ‘greater good;’ always determined by either the individual making the claim, or the authority to which they submit themselves. The users of logic and reason are mocked as navel-gazers and uptight absolutists; naïve, idealistic, or just thick. I contend that logic and reason can render greater happiness and self-knowledge, when applied to both trials and ambitions in life, than any other tools at our disposal. The scientific method is the most powerful tool in discovering and propagating human success and happiness; indeed, it is one of the greatest discoveries in all of history, and it is a travesty that, so often, it goes ignored or neglected. There is no better tool for self-improvement than the scientific method, and it’s about time we learned to use it on an individual basis throughout society.
Though all may share this desire for happiness (or improvement, or benefit, or however you describe the ends of action), there is a great disparity in methodology; that is, man may be sure of what he desires, but the methods of achieving what he desires are necessarily more numerable than the desires themselves. Therefore, the science of discovering methods that most consistently produce happiness is exponentially complex, due to the subjective nature of human experience. However; just as complex mathematical formulas may exist in a realm of abstraction, yet can be reduced to universal and undeniable principles, the systems of satisfaction, or the realms of happiness, can likewise be reduced to undeniable, universal principles of human action. In order to make a true claim as to what action will lead to wisdom, virtue, or happiness, one must provide logical proof; that is, they must provide universal principles, and a coherent line of reasoning that connects the principle with the action (‘action,’ in this context, refers to the praxeological definition, and is not limited to physical action. For instance, if one chooses to follow a line of reasoning, they have acted, even though no physical evidence of the action may be available). Furthermore, in order to definitively establish truth, empirical evidence must support the universal principles, and the logical conclusions that are reached.
It requires great intellectual rigor to meet all of these qualifications, but is it not preferable that we maintain high standards for what may be considered true? Many lives have been destroyed, and much misery has come about from the promotion of false truths, so it is vitally important that we adopt a higher standard of truth than is currently held by the bulk of humanity. If we desire to live in a peaceful society, it is crucial that we reject truth claims that are not built on these standards of universal principles, logical proof, and empirical evidence. Foremost among these fallacious truth claims are those disseminated by government, religion, and family.
Not only do religious truth claims fail to meet these fundamental requirements; they are a travesty because they undermine one’s personal power to improve their circumstances, leaving fate in the hands of a higher power. If one believes there is a ‘higher power,’ their own power must therefore not be the highest available. If there is doubt about the tangible control one has over their circumstances and faculties, they will be ever deceived about how to control them. In other words, religion preaches that the standards of proof cannot be achieved by the individual, and so must be left in the hands of gods, or his representatives. If one believes they are subject to the approval of a god, they will seek god’s approval before they seek the approval of their own conscience. Also, claiming human evil is a consequence of afflictions of the devil, or the product of original sin, is either an attempt to excuse one’s own hypocritical actions and logical inconsistencies, or to excuse those of others. So many times I have heard, instead of an honest attempt at finding the source of human suffering, or a solution for curing it, statements such as, “I guess you just chalk it up to human nature,” or “It must have been God’s will.” “The Lord works in mysterious ways…” As a consequence, people without fundamental logical consistency, when they are aggressed against, consistently cower before the admonition that man must turn the other cheek, and smile at his enemies — instead of seeking to reconcile a disparity in fundamental principles of morality through logical consistency; as Socrates proposed, reason leads to virtue, which leads to happiness. I know, empirically, that I am the highest power available to myself, because I have tested it with the scientific method. I contend that it is unlikely that religious people will achieve their highest potential in experiencing and creating happiness in themselves, and in the world, for the lack of universality in their principles; for the lack of logic in their “proofs.” I encourage people to recognize their own power as the highest available, and work to strengthen that power through self-knowledge and application of the scientific method.
Government is a travesty because under no circumstances should any society appoint a small group of individuals to enact violence against its own people if they refuse to give them their money. It’s not right when the mafia does it, and it’s not right when government does it. No matter which way you look at human nature, governments are a bad idea. This is provable: If men are angels, we need no government. If men are devils, we should definitely not have a government. Of course, the human race is made up of both, but why should we be so naïve to believe that power will be sought by the angels among us? Or that if they seek it, they will be successful or effective against evil? Rather, it is a universal preference that others should not seek violent power over us, and therefore we cannot seek power over anyone else without violating universally preferable behavior (UPB). Therefore, good people (those who adhere to the non-aggression principle [NAP]) will never be as motivated to seek power as bad people (those who ignore the NAP). Even if good people justify seeking power for the sake of good, there’s no way that an honest person would be as good at attaining power in society as a dishonest person. Dishonest people simply have more options when it comes to strategy. The dishonest people, the amoral people, the nihilists, will always have the advantage in attaining power via politics and religion, because they have no problem doing whatever they need to in order to win. This is the game of religious and political leaders: they set the rules, and laugh when we follow them. When they break their own rules, and we try to hold them accountable, they laugh again, and tell us why they are an exception: the higher power, or the greater good. They think to themselves, “You dumb animal, you gave me all the power! You think you can hold me accountable? That’s why I became a leader; so that I would never be held accountable!” The predators quickly rise to power if you centralize authority over the use of force, and let the people at the top define the use of force as morality. Even if good people manage to fight against the odds and gain power, the power itself is more likely to corrupt their nature than to facilitate greater human happiness, as has been empirically proven to occur (The Stanford Prison Experiment being a prime example). In conclusion, no matter how human nature is described, there is no rational excuse for government.
The term “Libertarianism” is of particular interest to me. From simple and straight-forward origins, it has come to embody many disparate views. I find the available definitions mostly erroneous and often contradictory. For example, Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “libertarian” as: “a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government.” This definition can be dismissed because the crux of libertarian philosophy is not what ought to be allowed by government. I don’t know of any libertarians who have said that people should be allowed to murder, or steal, or rape, without interference by some outside authority; and if that authority happens to be government, then so be it. Libertarians have argued about what the role of government ought to be; ranging from minimal to nonexistent, but they have never said that in a society in which government has a monopoly on the use of force, people should not be ‘interfered with’ in prevention or retaliation of crimes. The Oxford English Dictionary says that libertarianism is, “An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.” This is also not accurate, as many libertarians would argue in favor of no state intervention in the lives of citizens-- but only in the instance there is a complete abolition of government as it exists today. This definition is furthermore discredited by the use of adjectives such as “extreme,” and “minimal,” the implications of which are completely subjective. Both of these definitions are missing a key part of libertarianism: the non-aggression principle. A libertarian is a person who argues that, in almost any given situation, liberty will bring about more optimal solutions than authoritative coercion in determining the outcome of an interaction. That is, voluntary interactions are universally preferable to involuntary interactions. To a certain degree, all sane people are essentially libertarians, because it is not controversial to assert that all individuals see the value in sovereignty when it comes to relationships, diet, career, and other important personal decisions. The prospect of coercion in marriage is, for most, unthinkable. The notion that one must defer to some outside authority when choosing a sexual partner is offensive and absurd. The idea that one’s choice in career can best be asserted and aggressively enforced by an external authority has been rejected in social experiments, and fails the test of rational moral consistency. In that sense, most people are libertarians in regard to marriage and careers. Within the hundreds unregulated actions that every person makes every day, there is a consistent rejection of coercion and an acceptance of the inevitability, and positive nature, of libertarian values. This broad definition, however, does not encompass the many different shades of gray that exist on the pallet of modern political thought.
Returning to the non-aggression principle, or the NAP, libertarianism rests largely upon two principles: 1) it is immoral to initiate violence in the absence of coercion or threat of violence 2) a crime cannot be committed where there is no victim; and where there is a victim, restitution is the prime motive in a just society.
Lastly, it is important to say that I don’t claim that any of the arguments or perspectives that I present are original. I am led by the great libertarian philosophers who have come before me. Most of what I say has been said before, and I have suffered many sleepless nights wondering why I should contribute anything at all to this wealth of knowledge, if my suppositions are at best a repetition of previous libertarian sentiments. I realized, however, that although I may not succeed in providing all of humanity a fresh, new, universally applicable method for attaining human happiness in one generation, it is worthwhile to cry these great libertarian ideas out through the ages. If my actions and words produce no other effect, I am satisfied that they echo the most powerful idea produced by mankind: the idea of freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment