Consent of the Governed?
By Robert Higgs • Tuesday June 1, 2010 2:19 PM PDT • 112 Comments
What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.
One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.
I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.
Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.
I, the party of the first part (“the ruler”), promise:
(1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death.
(2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character, yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made my me and my confederates.
(3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist’s cock-and-bull story to the effect that you “demand” all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision.
(4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all.
In exchange for the foregoing government “benefits,” you, the party of the second part (“the subject”), promise:
(5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say “jump,” ask only “how high?”
Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it?
Yet the foregoing description of the true social contract into which individuals are said to have entered is much too abstract to capture the raw realities of being governed. In enumerating the actual details, no one has ever surpassed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote:
To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson. London: Freedom Press, 1923, p. 294)
Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon’s admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as “our own bodies.”
So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.
Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation.
For the record, I can state in complete candor that I do not approve of the manner in which I am being treated by the liars, thieves, and murderers who style themselves the Government of the United States of America or by those who constitute the tyrannical pyramid of state, local, and hybrid governments with which this country is massively infested. My sincere wish is that all of these individuals would, for once in their despicable lives, do the honorable thing. In this regard, I suggest that they give serious consideration to seppuku. Whether they employ a sharp sword or a dull one, I care not, so long as they carry the act to a successful completion.
Addendum on “love it or leave it”: Whenever I write along the foregoing lines, I always receive messages from Neanderthals who, imagining that I “hate America,” demand that I get the hell out of this country and go back to wherever I came from. Such reactions evince not only bad manners, but a fundamental misunderstanding of my grievance.
I most emphatically do not hate America. I was not born in some foreign despotism, but in a domestic one known as Oklahoma, which I understand to be the very heart and soul of this country so far as culture and refinement are concerned. Moreover, for what it is worth, some of my ancestors had been living in North America for centuries before a handful of ragged, starving white men washed ashore on this continent, planted their flag, and claimed all the land they could see and a great deal they could not see on behalf of some sorry-ass European monarch. What chutzpah! I yield to no one in my affection for the Statue of Liberty, the Rocky Mountains, and the amber waves of grain, not to mention the celebrated jumping frog of Calaveras County. So when I am invited to get out of the country, I feel like someone living in a town taken over by the James Gang who has been told that if he doesn’t like being robbed and bullied by uninvited thugs, he should move to another town. To me, it seems much more fitting that the criminals get out.
Tags: Civil Society, Liberty, Morality, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Power, Surveillance, Taxation, The State 
Bravo, Mr. Higgs!
Skyler Collins | Jun 1, 2010 | Reply
Bob, reading your posts here are always a highlight of my day!
dmitchell | Jun 1, 2010 | Reply
A fabulous rant. More importantly, one that is spot on. Five stars!
Steve Hogan | Jun 1, 2010 | Reply
The addendum was priceless. Those statements like “like or leave it” are a typical reflex among the centralists. Nice column Mr. Higgs.
Efrem | Jun 1, 2010 | Reply
The rockies and the waves of grain I agree with, but the statue of liberty is an anachronism.
Great post. Hope you don’t mind but I intend to cut and paste your “contract” liberally. I will attribute.
Along the lines of your post, I have lately been considering the idea of agnosticism in regards to government. That is, I accept that it is possible that true “government” exists, but I see no evidence that it exists. I’m thinking that the existence of politicians is no more a proof that government exists than the existence of the religious is a proof that god exists.
Randy | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Inspirational!!
Damien | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Excellent, as always Mr. Higgs. :)
I’ll be posting a link to this article in my next edition.
Some day more people will understand the difference between “government” and individual sovereignty in a voluntary association society.
MamaLiberty | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Excellent as always, Mr. Higgs!
JdL | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Outstanding!!!
Speedmaster | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Damn Bob!
I sure hope I get the cell next to you.
Write ON!
Jerry | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Actually, these are my thoughts, but I have no way to prove it. Only the gods, maybe all 2500, could do so.
richard | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
If it weren’t a bit childish in the approach, I think it points to real issues. The government is voted into place. If you voted you implicitly agreed to even the idea of having a government.
The way I see it there are two issues—the ignorance of voters and a government making choices as to what they want to do with your money (a classic Davy Crockett case).
Rick | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
By way of constructive criticism, I will say that suggesting ritual suicide is a little over the top. Bob, your temperance is one of your best qualities, and the suggestion that the mostly well-meaning but misguided people in government ought to kill themselves is alarmingly out of character. Maybe your sincere wish should be that they find enlightenment, repent, and do what they can to make amends.
dmitchell | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Can we tar and feather them first and then give them the swords?
Great work! It’s a real pleasure reading your articles and books.
Tu Ne Cede Malis.
Michael Robers | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Bravo. It sounds very much like Lysander Spooner, which bares repeating over and over again.
Norm I | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
You live in a big city, and from time to time your car or your apartment is broken into and things are stolen. You finally catch a guy in the act, and he is arrested, and the case goes to trial. The attorney for the defendant admits that his client was attempting to steal things, but mounts a surprising defense: You consented to having the things taken!
“Objection!” cries your lawyer, without even considering whether this statement can be objected to, so shocked is he (and you) at the statement. “Overruled,” says the judge. “Please explain, counselor.”
“Well, your honor, the police record shows that the plaintiff has had his car and apartment broken into and things stolen several times in the past. He has had many opportunities since to move out to the country where it is well known that the crime rate is lower. And yet he has remained in the city! He has shown by his actions that he consents to these occasional thefts!”
The point of this story (which I just made up) is that just because you tolerate aggression doesn’t mean you consent to it, or that it isn’t an injustice. You may prefer so much else about living in the city that you are willing to stay, despite the higher crime rate.
Excellent article, Dr. Higgs! It’s going straight to my Facebook page!
Larry Ruane | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Bravo, honorable and honored fellow Sooner! The veneer of ‘consent’ has indeed grown cracked, weathered and just plain flaky. Collapse seems inevitable, and urgent.
D. Frank Robinson | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for this.
Tracy
Jack Conway | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Hear, hear!
JTG | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
I raise my glass to Mr. Higgs, a modern day Lysander Spooner. Unfortunately, until we rid ourselves of any and all government involvement in education, (including vouchers), teaching people about the true nature of government will continue to be like Cassandra’s curse or Sisyphus.
Bryan Morton | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Lysander Spooner from “Letter to Cleveland”:
“It is especially noticeable that those persons, who are so impatient to protect other men in their rights that they cannot wait until they are requested to do so, have a somewhat inveterate habit of killing all who do not voluntarily accept their protection; or do not consent to give up to them all their rights in exchange for it.
“If A were to go to B, a merchant, and say to him, ‘Sir, I am a night-watchman, and I insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars; and to enable me to do so more effectually, I insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet, so that you cannot interfere with me; and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store, your safe, and to all your valuables; and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will, pleasure, and discretion in the matter; and I demand still further, that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything I may do, or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection; and unless you comply with this proposal, I will now kill you on the spot,’ — if A were to say all this to B, B would naturally conclude that A himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he (B) had to fear; and that if he (B) wished to secure his property against burglars, his best way would be to kill A in the first place, and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards.
“Our government constantly acts the part that is here supposed to be acted by A. And it is just as impudent a scoundrel as A is here supposed to be. It insists that every man shall give up all his rights unreservedly into its custody, and then hold it wholly irresponsible for any disposal it may make of them. And it gives him no alternative but death.
“If by putting a bayonet to a man’s breast, and giving him his choice, to die, or be ‘protected in his rights,’ it secures his consent to the latter alternative, it then proclaims itself a free government, — a government resting on consent!”
Rudy Dekkers | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/cs072.htm
Well as I quoted in my book The New History of America, the case of Cruden v. Neale, where the court states a principle of natural law so clear that it cannot be twisted by any lawyer, that man is only bound by the laws of nature. Here is what the court stated:
“When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.
Rob S. | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Actually, there is a sense in which “love it or leave it” is an actual solution to the problem, rather than just an idiot’s response. See my article, “What Is to Be Done With the Statists?”
By the way, in a gun forum, I asked the question (in a poll) whether the federal government was legitimate. A modest majority thought it was not. We must bring up this question of legitimacy again and again, as it strikes at the heart of the state. This “consent of the governed” article is a wonderful tool for doing that.
Paul Bonneau | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Bravo, Mr. Higgs!
I am most grateful and appreciative for your emotional strength and perseverance with respect to actually committing your words to paper!
You are a better man than I.
I find it terribly difficult to explain to folks (on paper) facts that are so very obvious that there should be no need to explain them!
A treatise extolling the virtues of inhaling and exhaling need not be written. It seems to me, that personal liberty and freedom from government are just as evident, and natural. Thank goodness for your ability and skill to relentlessly ‘spell it out’.
Cheers, Michael Ciulla
michael ciulla | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Whenever I argue with left-leaning Facebook friends that taxation is theft, they always bring up the “consent of the governed” shibboleth. To this extent they are right: whosoever believeth in the Constitution, including all minarchist libertarians, has given explicit consent to being taxed. They only argue over the quality and quantity of the taxation, not its legitimacy.
Thanks to Bob Higgs, I have another arrow in my quiver.
Glen Litsinger | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Let me add fuel to the fire and state that I wholeheartedly agree with you.
The_Orlonater | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
The social contract you speak of is in reality the implementation of the 14th Amendment. From 1861 on, everyone is considered a “national citizen” as opposed to their birthright status.
You may not have signed the contract personally, but your parents registered you like a pickup when you were born. Then to take any benefit of the de facto government is to condone it’s criminal operation in law.
This is like signing a purchase agreement, upon which the political class fills in the details of the agreement in pencil every 4 years, and changes the terms at will. Your signature is in blood. It’s insanity, and how they stay in power. Keeping people distracted to what is going on has become amazingly simple lately.
Some of us do not participate as “Human Resources” in their shell game. Choice has always been an illusion, created by those with power to entertain those without.
Time to learn the law, Pacinlaw.org or notmygovernment.us.
Rich in Illinois | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
What I’ve said time and again is that there are people who don’t mind being slaves so long as it’s THEIR slave-master who holds the whip.
The “love it or leave it” meme gets tossed into my face by non-thinking droids programmed by the state indoctrination centers, AKA publik skrools, and fed a steady diet of misinformation through the propaganda ministries, AKA The mainstream media. This matrix of lies is a tough nut to crack but at least you have to, if you care at all, give it a try.
Now as far as our “servants” willingly spinning off this mortal coil as an act of penance I wouldn’t hold my breath that such cowards would. Well meaning? Nonsense! They know full well what they’re doing and simply don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves. They dance to their own narcissistic tune but always, mind you, on your dime. The right thing would be to resign and then truly bring some worth into the world rather than perpetuate their wretched excuse for existence.
David | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Ah, what a breath of fresh air ....
Dr. John Switzer | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
@David Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (but don’t rule out malice). Take for example the minimum wage. What is more likely: that Nancy Pelosi wants to put low-skilled workers out of work, or that she is an economically and philosophically ignorant do-gooder who is a pawn of union interests? There is no need to invoke malice; the minimum wage can be explained by simple stupidity.
Now when it comes to foreign policy, you may have a better case. It is easy to see how a well-meaning politician could be duped into supporting a minimum wage; it is less easy to see how he could be duped into supporting something like the murderous sanctions against Iraq. It might be fair to say that Madeleine “It was worth it” Albright was evil.
dmitchell | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
I do not normally leave feedback on articles, but this one spoke so true to me. Very powerful and witty
LiberaSum | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
The accuracy of Higgs’ description is EXACTLY why I developed “How to STOP the IRS” and wrote “Surrender to Freedom”. The “social contract” is NOT of Rousseau’s making; it IS the “application” to be treated as “federal personnel” and provided those “benefits”, rather than remaining at Liberty.
Gene Kernan | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
I agree with you Dr. Higgs 100%.
Javier | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Rick – in some sense, casting a vote does perhaps imply an acceptance of the process... but what if you DON’T cast a vote? What if—even in a country such as mine (Australia) where voting is mandatory—you REFUSE to participate in gang rape (whoever has the largest gang gets to rape the rest... including those who don’t vote).
My solution—for those who are True Believers in a central state—is to let them behave like churchgoers.
Let them have their elections—and anyone who votes can be taxed to fund the electoral program of the party that wins the election (with all that loot on offer, you just KNOW that parties will arise to try and capture control over the loot... rent seeking).
Under my proposed system, if you don’t vote you don’t get access to ‘services’ provided by the State, but you don’t get taxed either... so you will have to put up with superior, more efficient and less costly privately-produced services. (And of course the government won’t be able to ‘extend and pretend’ by dishing out services funded by debt in the hope of fooling people that they are getting out more than they’re putting in: the argument for the stricter inter-temporal budget constraint takes some time to develop, but under a system whereby only voters get taxed, there are massive impediments to running deficits).
So yes—if you vote you’re part of the problem (which is why I don’t). But there are solutions.
And to reprise a joke once told to me by a high school chemistry teacher: if you’re ot part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.
Cheerio
GT | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
@DMitchell...
“...well-meaning but misguided people in government...”
That, my dear DMitchell, is the biggest canard since Daffy. I don’t want to be too ad hominem about it, but I find it hard to believe that anybody who can operate a computer is silly enough to believe it.
Do you think that baby-eating ghouls like Dick (dick) Cheney, Condoleeezzzzaaa “Oil Tanker” Rice and Colon “My Lai” Powell are “well meaning”? Or Janet “Waco Baby-Killer” Reno, Madeleine “Iraqi Baby-Killer” Albright? What about Henry Kissinger? Robert Macnamara? Blair? Mao? Stalin? [And for the ultimate example... well, I won't write the name of the German Chancellor who obtained a greater percentage of the vote in 1933 than Tony Blair did in any of the 3 elections he won, but you know who I mean].
The fact that the parasite classes have convinced the masses that they (the masses) should hand over power to someone, means that there is a big bucket of power up for grabs.
That power will be highly sought after, and will wind up being obtained by the person who is willing to do ANYTHING to get it – the group who ‘wants it the most’ in the non-game-show sense.
And sociopaths really REALLY like power... so no prizes for guessing wh oends up in charge.
And of course along with that power is a massive bucket of pelf, mulcted from the productive segment of the economy (the private sector)... pelf and geld that can be used to enrich cronies.
“Well meaning”? Not since Tom Paine (who never actually sought office – or power – for himself, to the best of my knowledge).
Cheerio
GT
GT | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
@Rudy Dekkers – Spooner is what is missing from the public narrative of our time: could you imagine for a second the impact of someone like him on ‘Face the Nation’ or ‘Meet the Press’?
Spooner, or Mencken, or Rothbard... folks who take up the cudgel without the pretence that they have to behave as if they are in Sunday school.
Of course in our society, folks who are ‘strident’ are marginalised (at best – soon they will be declared mentally ill and incarcerated for their own protection, as was done in the USSR under a syste, which ceased even paying mouth-honour to the idea of human liberty).
Cheerio
GT
GT | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
I’m thinking pretty much anytime a law is created that you’re going to be in the situation where said law is forced upon some who don’t agree with it. Unless you can actually get everyone to sign on (and what if they don’t?), I’m not sure there’s any way around this problem.
For example, a lot of people might decide that taking what others have (otherwise known as stealing) should be illegal and punishable by going to prison. It’s entirely possible, however, that there are people out there who would not want this law forced upon them. Yes, they run the risk that others will take what they have, but perhaps they are prepared to deal with that problem themselves (using locks, guns, and whatever). Perhaps it’s more important to these people to be able to take what others currently possess without the risk that the police will throw them in jail.
Even the concept of a jail would be difficult to envision if everyone has to sign on for one to be built. You might be a hardened criminal and would not want others to force you to live in a prison. You do not, as such, consent to being forced to live there because you took what belonged to another person.
Any concept of law seems to indicate the existence of a group of people who theoretically enforce said law whether everyone likes it or not.
Personally, I prefer the idea of smaller governments (as opposed to a huge one like the U.S. government) that citizens “sign up” with (like service providers). These governments would compete with each other for citizens. If you don’t agree with some important change your government implements, you could reasonably move to a neighboring area where you view your situation as having improved. Some of these governments might be more free market or socialistic focused in nature—and you could choose what works best for you.
Mike | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
@GT I understand your post as basically denying that US foreign policy can be considered well-meaning. You must have overlooked my follow-up post to David in which I suggested pretty much the same thing. In fact I even used Albright and her remarks about Iraqi children as an example. Still, I think it is defensible to say that much of what the government does domestically is horribly misguided but done with good intentions. Of course there are exceptions, and of course good intentions are not a justification. But I think genuine evil and malice is pretty rare, even in DC.
dmitchell | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
From the descendant of another Pre-American Revolution Family I say BRAVO! I don’t begrudge anyone their views/position, however it would be a serious mistake to assume my lack of objection to another’s decision as submission to any position besides my own.
James Groome | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
Really, the exact opposite for me. Not because I think Mr. Higgs is wrong or what he is saying is stupid. I find it depressing becuase I think he is right and insightful...at describing the tyranny under which we live.
Granted it is generally a “soft” tyranny, but tyranny none-the-less. And if you get too uppitty and the agents of the state will come down on you with astonishing might and power and possibly destroying your life. After all, they can’t afford to have one of the sheeple giving the rest ideas about not needing their shepherd.
Which I would respond with, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Almost all great men are bad men.”
The idea of them repenting and seeing the error of their ways is like expecting all crack addicts to see the errors of their ways and go clean. Its a nice thought, but realistically speaking only a few will, and most will die really unpleasant deaths.
Steve Verdon | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
@Mike, in principle the problem you describe also exists with today’s multiple countries — it’s not a unique problem to anarchy. Suppose someone from some tiny country, Robberland, comes to this country and steals from you. This is perfectly legal in Robberland. But obviously you can get your government to redress this grievance, or you can do so yourself, because you never consented to the laws of Robberland. Did he consent to our laws over here (against robbery)? I think so, because he had to be in this country in order to steal from you, and therefore is subject to its laws.
Of course, this guy might say, well, according to the Robberland laws, this is NOT your property, it is MY property! I think the only solution to that is that the majority of people do have to agree on some common-sense idea of property rights (and also what constitutes aggression, which is a violation of property rights). This doesn’t mean the idea has to be enforced by a central authority, just that most people agree (there will always be a few robbers among us).
I think such objective property rights have been derived by many deep thinkers. You used the phrase “anytime a law is created”, but properly understood, laws are not created, they are discovered. Your government may have additional policies (like relief to natural disaster victims, or bailouts for big banks), but these are not really laws (despite what they are called). Real laws are just the implications of our objective property rights (and all rights are really based on property rights; for example, slavery is aggression because we own our own physical bodies; each of us has a property right to our body).
If we had voluntary governance (as I favor), these governments would have a strong incentive to agree on the basic framework of property rights, just as cell phone companies agree on enough to let someone with a Verizon phone talk to someone with a Sprint phone, and just as banks make ATM cards that work at other banks.
Larry Ruane | Jun 4, 2010 | Reply
INSIGHTFUL thoughts and ideas from a sagacious man, Dr. Robert Higgs...
Hello Robert...
Just a few comments and observations...
Reading some of the excellent and not so excellent comments, several commenters mentioned government—and the people, whether elected ... or entrenched bureaurats who operate under the premise of offering “Good intentions!” Oy. Good intentions ultimately from the barrel of a thugatarian’s gun. Make money and tell the IRS to screw off, no legalized plunder! Then let’s all sit back and watch the government pamper you! Crowbar hotel ... up to and including death if necessary! All legal, under protecting the “social contract.” What poppycock! As the Mighty Mogambo would say, “What crapola!”
Probably before most commenters at this blog were born, in 1946 I had the pleasure to read and meet the author Isabel Paterson, who wrote, “The God of the Machine.” Intrigued by the author’s ideas and understanding of individual freedom and liberty at the time, the turbine wheels started turning and burning. Here are two passages that I committed to memory from her book:
“Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.” ~ Isabel Paterson
And...
“Certainly the slaughter committed from time to time by barbarians invading settled regions, or the capricious cruelties of avowed tyrants, would not add up to one-tenth the horrors perpetrated by rulers with good intentions.” ~ Isabel Paterson
GOOD INTENTIONS? When anyone sets out with “good intentions” I’d say it’s IMPOSSIBLE to grasp the ramifications of unintended consequences. Do some think otherwise? Think again. And this is after nearly 6-decades of observation that I make this assessment. Why is it that the masses historically exercise a continuous degree of self-inflicted terminal stupidity? (The VOTE) They believe in government, pernicious, prevaricating politicians and bureaurats ... the peoples’ god, held up to glorious standards to “protect and bequeath!” What nonsense! The game was rigged from the beginning. America has over 225+years with political grifters and charlatans at the helm to prove it! To be fair, yes, there were some very astute Statesmen that saw the unfolding tragedy in America. There are no second place winners... It is a lamentable experiment gone very wrong and getting worse by the day.
THERE ARE THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND ... AND THOSE WHO NEVER WILL. Individual freedom, liberty, privacy (both personal and financial) do not exist in the United States of America! If you want REAL freedom and liberty, it isn’t going to happen in America ... for reasons already explicated by numerous talented individuals, including one Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Driving to work back in 1960s I fell in behind a car with a bumper sticker: “There’s NO government ... like NO government! I never truly understood that statement till long ago, after I left the United States to live elsewhere in the world. I understand it now. Boy, do I... Tax slaves. The yoke and lash, an unmitigated burden, from birth to death as the howling hyenas redistribute your life’s blood. Capisce?
The American political system and its system of jurisprudence—corrupted! Think not? Think again! Why anyone would spend the only life they will ever have believing that TIME spent trying to “change” a corrupt system via “good intentions,” rather than spending TIME looking for a system you don’t have to change—is stupefying! So I leave you with this thought:
America is a place ... to be from. The clock of life is wound but once... If memories of regret replace memories of a joyous life lived, then you have no one to blame but yourself. “They said, “Love it, or leave it!” I left it. (The U.S.A.) It was the single most rewarding event in my life. To live, love and toil with a will ... for tomorrow the clock’s hands may then be still. Get out, while you still can. To the fettered minds of youth, stop living in Denial. Leave.
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +2:00 CET
“Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” ~ L. Neil Smith
Capt. A. | Jun 5, 2010 | Reply
@Larry – I doubt anyone could ever derive “objective” property laws. Property is a human invention and we also have invented laws to protect the concept. You and I likely just differ in our beliefs here.
Mike | Jun 7, 2010 | Reply
Mike, Your view that private property or individual rights to property is subjective is no more meaningful than is the view that morality, epistemology, or ethics overall are subjective. (Incidentally, every human inference, such as those you make in your comment, is necessarily a claim to objective truth, regardless whether the claim is correct or not.) Property, law, liberty, justice and much more can and have been objectively defined, even if their implementation may not be consistent nor perfect—this is one reason why natural law became so influential in the development of human civilization and the evolution of law.
David Theroux | Jun 7, 2010 | Reply
@David – What does it even mean to have objective morality, for example? You and I are different people with different value systems. If all people could agree on a common, objective value system (which is not going to happen), then we could have a meaningful discussion about the best objective way to interact with other people in all cases (objective morality). Even if all people agreed that being happy was the end all, be all goal for every human being, how we go about pursuing this goal of happiness will be tempered by our differing value system.
I (and many other people) believe that concepts such as property, morality, and ethics are inventions (but not arbitrary ones – they are useful). Yes, one can provide an objective definition for each of these words (most dictionaries do a fine job), but that does not mean these concepts exist in the universe apart from human thought. We invented them and we can make them mean whatever we want them to mean. Since we each have differing value systems, how, for example, property rights should be implemented will always be subjective.
Either way, this matter is far from settled as philosophers exists in both camps that provide good food for thought. I’ve certainly read material from those who agree with your point of view, I just find it unconvincing (but that doesn’t, of course, mean that I don’t respect your point of view).
Mike | Jun 8, 2010 | Reply
Mike, Thanks for your further note. The modernist (and post-modernist) view that epistemology is subjective is self-refuting because it is a claim of objective truth. Think of this way: Do numbers, the multiplication tables and ideas moreover exist objectively or are they simply subjective impulses governed by physical laws? If someone claims that 2 + 2 = 4 and another claims that 2 + 2 = 5, based on subjective epistemology, both are “correct” because “all is subjective.” But in making such an assessment, the subjectivist is making a claim of objectivity and is sneaking back in such concepts as “correct” and “truth.” In other words, the subjectivist necessarily assumes objectivity in epistemology in making any inference.
i would suggest that a lot of this confusion arises from a fundamental problem (defeater) with metaphysical naturalism that assumes that all human consciousness is simply the product of material forces. But this would of course then mean that the naturalist’s own views about consciousness or anything are also determined physically and can themselves have no legitimacy or claims of “truth.” Such a view reduces all human inference (including free will, reason, the enterprise of science and moral agency) to incoherence and is self-refuting. And yet the very fact that we are considering such matters says otherwise and hence an immaterial reality of ideas necessarily does exist and naturalism is false. In fact and as Alvin Plantinga has discussed, all human agency is grounded in the tautological assumption (belief) that we each have a mind and free will, that others have minds, that the world is orderly, and we can make inferences on reality.
Incidentally, a superb, short critique of subjectivism is aesthetics, epistemology and moral ethics is C.S. Lewis’s book, The Abolition of Man (also available free online here), which is also an excellent defense of natural law.
Here also are some references you might consider:
“The Argument from Reason,” by Victor Reppert
“Naturalism and Libertarian Agency,” by Stewart Goetz
Naturalism, by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliferro (Eerdmans)
C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, by Victor Reppert (IVP Academic)
Naturalism: A Critical Analysis, edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (Routledge)
David Theroux | Jun 8, 2010 | Reply
‘Rich in Illinois’ has it right: you didn’t sign the Social Contract per se, your ancestors did, you inherited the Social Contract. Prior to the parliamentary system we have had for a few centuries in the West there were monarchies – good news: you don’t have to worrying about voting, bad new: if the ruler is a tyrant you have to wait for him to die and hope the successor won’t let power get to his head (which is hard considering he’s a ruler for life).
The big turning point in U.S. was in the founding of the system. Ben Franklin like to say it was created as a republic – if you can keep it. Therein lies a problem: the Revolutionaries who fought to overthrow the rule of a government just set a new government in its place. They could have created a system of self-rule: let private individuals own their land, farms and businesses outright and let all services be privately provided. Let private enterprises worry about the roads, the mail, policing, arbitrating, etc. However the Founding Fathers didn’t and took their chances on government again and in a sense created the Social Contract from which the modern U.S. is derived.
Just as those who no longer wished to live under a monarchy had to take matters into their hand because the royal families had no intention of walking away so too should people who see current government as past its used by date. The people in government aren’t going to walk away from the gravy train especially the public sector workers who get twice as much pay as the private sector.
Gil | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
@David – Thanks for taking the time to provide your comments.
Math is a great example of human invention, but not an arbitrary one (this is a subtle, but highly important distinction to grasp). To be fair, there exists two camps on the issue: 1) Math is a discovery. Mathematical objects really exist in a Platonic, non-physical realm. These objects are as real as the physical stuff of matter (mass/energy). 2) Math is an invention, but not an arbitrary one. The Laws of Physics, as well, are human descriptions of natural symmetry principles (i.e. rotational, directional, temporal symmetries, etc.) that emerge from the introduction of particles into an otherwise empty void. 2 + 2 != 5 because that would violate the “law” of the conservation of mass/energy. This “law” doesn’t really say anything with the exception that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. If 2 + 2 = 5, then this “law” is violated (both sides of the equation here have to contain 4, let’s say, fundamental particles).
To be honest, I was part of camp 1 (without ever really knowing it) until I was introduced years ago to the physicist Victor J. Stenger (both via his books and over e-mail). The man is truly brilliant (and I don’t use the word “brilliant” often). I’ve read about a half dozen of his books on physics, but the most relevant ones related to this conversation are the following:
The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come from?
Timeless Reality (This book does, in part, relate to what we’re talking about here (Math as an invention), but most of it is focused on better understanding of quantum mechanics by taking into account the concept of time symmetry.)
Here’s a short bio for Professor Stenger to see where he’s coming from:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/VWeb/Bio.html
To be clear, though, Math and Physics are not arbitrary inventions – that (incorrect) opinion is certainly a modernist and post-modernist belief that Stenger is not making at all (in fact, he will highly refute such beliefs). His book, The Comprehensible Cosmos, for example, explains the concept of point-of-view invariance and how this relates to an objective world “out there.”
You and I were also discussing objective morality. In this situation, all I’m saying is that for there to be a code of conduct (so to speak) that exists “out there” in some platonic realm is highly unlikely. Humans make moral choices based on their value systems. If all humans had the same value system, then we would all agree on every moral issue in existence (and we might call that “objective”). As it turns out, people value different things in life and this leads them to make different (subjective, I’m calling it) moral decisions. For one person, stealing bread to feed his starving family might be considered moral whereas to another it would be immoral. The reason is that these people value things in life differently and, as such, define their moralities differently. There is no objective ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as to whether or not this was a ‘bad’ action. If you think it is bad, then this person’s value system differs from yours in that respect and you might not want to be friends or interact with him (depending upon how important you value that aspect of your value system). That’s all I was trying to get at there. It is different from our Math and Physics discussion in that there really is no “measure” out there to eliminate the arbitrary “nature” of morality. Property rights, in my opinion, are a similar matter. As for whether or not “free will” exists, I would like to believe it does, but I would never try to defend it from a scientific point of view. Let’s just say I’m an a-free-will-ist :) (without a belief in the existence of free will, but not holding a belief that free will does not exist).
Thanks!
Mike | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
(David, I hope you reply to Mike, especially about the morality aspect; I just want to address one very narrow point.)
Mike, I really don’t think the reason 2+2=4 (and not 5) is because anything else would violate conservation of mass/energy. You can find many instances in the physical world where 2+2 does not equal 4 ... you put 2 drops of water on a table and another 2 drops of water, and they merge into one big drop .. that doesn’t prove 2+2=1. Or you put 2 rabbits in a box and 2 more rabbits in a box and you come back later and find there are 18 rabbits .. that doesn’t prove 2+2=18. How do we *know* those experiments don’t disprove 2+2=4? Because we have an *understanding* of the non-physical concepts of “two”, “four” and “addition”; and — very importantly — this is a *shared* understanding. It is an *objective* understanding.
You might counter that this is why you mentioned “fundamental particles” (which of course raindrops and rabbits are decidedly not). But suppose in the future we discover that these particles can combine into a single particle. (This has, of course, happened in the past: atoms were once considered fundamental particles; fusion merges multiple atoms into a single atom.) Would you then say, well, we were wrong; science has proven that 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4 after all? Of course not! You would still hold onto these concepts of two, four and addition. You would still believe in these non-material concepts. I submit there’s nothing you could observe in the physical world that would make you conclude that 2+2 is not 4.
Larry Ruane | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
@Larry – I know you and I have discussed this in the past. :)
Yes, I am certainly going to pull out of the my hat the point that rain drops are not made up of fundamental particles and that fundamental particles are what, in fact, matter when considering this point.
Fundamental particles converging into a single fundamental particle doesn’t really make any sense now, does it? If they formed this “fundamental” particle, then this particle wouldn’t be fundamental anymore (it would be a composite particle, like chemical atoms are). :)
The main point to take away here is that everything has to add up because if it didn’t we would have lost some matter, which is not possible. This is why both sides of an equation need to be equal when we stick an equals operator in between them.
Hey, though, I just watched a really nice video by Sam Harris regarding objective morality. I think you and David would really enjoy it. The way Sam phrases the concept is similar to how I view it. If we can all agree on a goal (like the overall health of humankind (but be more specific, I suppose), then it follows that there are objectively comparable right and wrong ways to go about accomplishing said goal). The goal itself is subjective (although probably desirable for most people), but if we chose it as our goal, there are objective ways of going about obtaining it that are better than other ways.
Mike | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
@Larry and David -
It would have totally helped if I actually provided the link to that Sam Harris video! :)
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Mike | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
@Larry and David -
To be more clear, as well, there is technically no law of conservation of particles...so the number of particles in existence can change, but the overall mass and energy of the universe cannot. I was abstracting the concept of mass/energy to particles when I used the term particles here.
Mike | Jun 9, 2010 | Reply
Dr. Robert Higgs is an (inter)national treasure.
Jim | Jun 10, 2010 | Reply
Mike, It is unfortunate that some libertarians have hitched their support for liberty to the work of naturalists who deny the existence of free will and rational agency. I believe that this does not reflect better arguments or the evidence, but instead a religious devotion to an atheology that at best supports moral and epistemological relativism, ultimately denying any meaning or importance to liberty, justice, or truth. (Indeed, your own, chosen and self-refuting statement that you are agnostic on the matter of free will is exhibit A. In short, if there is no free will, how can you make any claim whatsoever?) Moreover, if free will does not exist, then reason, science, and morality cannot exist because all is determined. Hence, your claim regarding the science behind Stenger’s views is of no meaning, given Stenger’s naturalist view.
I have already provided references that refute naturalism but for the record, Stenger’s naturalist reductionism has been further decisively refuted by Alvin Plantinga:
Warrant and Proper Function
Warranted Christian Belief
God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God
Here are two additional articles by Plantinga:
“An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,” by Alvin Plantinga
“Darwin, Mind and Meaning,” by Alvin Plantinga
David Theroux | Jun 10, 2010 | Reply
@David and Larry -
What I am saying is that I don’t hold a belief that free will exists – I simply assume it does for the purposes of debate (otherwise, yes, what you say about discussing such matters as liberty, etc. would indeed be a complete waste of time).
Free will is a complicated subject, of course, and what it really means is hard to nail down. If the “choices” you make are based on analyses from your brain, then those decisions are not really “free” as your brain is a physical device governed by its biology and – at a lower level, of course – physics. In this case, I can’t see how it’s possible for free will to ever exist (but I hold out hope that I’m missing something there). Even if one believes in another realm where – in a way completely unknown to us – free will is somehow made possible, this belief is currently (as far as the data are concerned) an unwarranted leap of faith. There simply is no way we know of at present to prove that free will exists and – unfortunately – many reasons to suspect it does not. Either way, for the purposes of debate, I without these reservations.
Also, I really don’t see how this statement follows:
“Moreover, if free will does not exist, then reason, science, and morality cannot exist because all is determined. Hence, your claim regarding the science behind Stenger’s views is of no meaning, given Stenger’s naturalist view.”
Even if free will does not exist, the science that Stenger enlightens us about is still a useful tool (note I used the word “tool”) for us to gain knowledge about the world in which we find ourselves (i.e. it provides us with pointers to what is probably true about this world, which I find of interest to gain a better picture of how it is I am here). Also, reason still makes sense in that it is humans creating consistency statements about the world to better understand it. No problem there either. Morality is the problem, yes. If there is no free will, then morality is a moot issue.
By the way, all is not technically determined because – as far as most quantum physicists understand it today – the quantum world is filled with events of differing probabilities (the Newtonian world-machine (entirely deterministic) view went out in the early 20th century along with the emergence of quantum physics). This does not mean that free will exists, but does mean that the future is not “written in stone” (even if we knew the exact trajectory of all particles today, we still could not determine (except with statistical likelihood) the exact state of the system tomorrow).
Anyways, science and reason are still interesting if no free will exists because (even if we’re just along for the ride) you and I can appreciate knowledge that is trustworthy (verified against the real world in experiments). Almost no one would deny that we humans can generate a sense of pleasure from this world even if we don’t have free will. Knowledge (science and reason, in this case) are still worthwhile enterprises (even if we technically don’t have any “choice” but to pursue them).
Either way, though, free will is an attractive concept, so I do hold out hope that it exists somehow (I just wouldn’t say I hold a believe (take a positive stance) that it exists).
Anyways, I really appreciated the conversation. Good discussion. :)
Mike | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
Just wanted to address this point, as well:
“Indeed, your own, chosen and self-refuting statement that you are agnostic on the matter of free will is exhibit A. In short, if there is no free will, how can you make any claim whatsoever?”
If there is no free will, then presumably a collection of particles that are interacting in a reliable way to produce “me” are enabling analyses to be performed in my brain to have me think and say what I said about free will. I don’t see how it takes free will for a collection of particles to say there may not be free will. :)
In the end, the only true knowledge we can technically depend upon is how we feel and what we’re thinking about in our own minds. You know if you feel happy, warm, excited, etc. Other than that, you don’t really “know” anything (from a completely philosophical point of view). In practice, we have to lay down certain assumptions before we can say we know anything else. I’m sure everyone will have different opinions on what are reasonable and lower-risk assumptions. In my case, I make the assumption that the world I seem to interact with is objective and we can learn about it through observation and experiment. Logic is also a useful tool, in my opinion, but we must take especial care in using it (more so than with observation and experiment). For example, quantum mechanics has taken us into a realm completely incompatible with human logic. The only way we can hope to understand it is via observation and experimentation. The reason this is the case is because humans did not evolve in the quantum, but rather the macro world and our logic is based on interactions that occur at the macro level of reality. It’s kind of like what Spock said in Star Trek 6: “Even logic must give way to physics.” :)
Have a good day guys!
Mike | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
Mike,
I would again recommend Alvin Plantinga’s work to you. The error you are making concerns your assumption that matter precedes mind, and this view of yours and all naturalists is simply a blind belief you have rooted in metaphysical naturalism. But your thought in this or any regard came first. In other words, before you make any inference, you assume you have a mind, you have free will, that there are other minds, that the world is orderly, etc., and all of this is what is called “properly basic knowledge.” All human inference depends upon this pre-conditional knowledge of mind. You then may assert that matter exists, but again your having a mind necessarily preceded any such inference. Moreover, matter itself cannot exist without the prior conditions of the non-material laws of physics that make matter possible. In other words, “mind precedes matter.” To assume otherwise is to assume a self-contradictory view in which all inferences cannot exist or have any meaning because all is determined physically, but then again even this concept would be impossible because minds that can independently assert anything would not exist, only matter. As the biologist biologist J. B. S. Haldane stated:
And this problem is fundamental and inescapable for naturalism. C. S. Lewis noted that the analysis of any world requires the existence of scientists whose views are not mechanically determined by the world they are examining. In his book Miracles, that includes his critique of naturalism, Lewis correctly describes naturalism as the following:
Lewis then notes the naturalist’s determinist dilemma regarding the existence of individual free will, including the naturalist’s own ability to argue for naturalism or any proposition:
Hence, naturalism necessarily is the denial of liberty and I fail to see why any libertarian would see the merit in trying to defend such a view. Should we be surprised that virtually all naturalists are collectivists and statists and those that aren’t can only try to duck the dilemma?
David Theroux | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
@David -
Hi again :)
I have actually read good summaries of Plantinga’s work. Here is one I recently reviewed:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/tyler_wunder/warranted.html#question
I’m not sure he has a good idea of how evolution via natural selection really works. Here is one description a reviewer wrote to describe Platinga’s view (and the reviewer didn’t seem to notice the problem he had inadvertently pointed out):
“How can we have knowledge when all our cognitive equipment is the result of a mindless
process of natural law and pure chance? Plantinga argued that the odds are very much
against it, despite what the naturalistic, evolutionary establishment might say.”
Of course I’m sure you’re aware that evolution via natural selection is not built only from “natural law and pure chance.” This is a common creationist misconception. In fact, the “natural selection” part of evolution by natural selection should give it away: random mutation (yes), but combined with environmental pressure over millions and millions of years before even the most basic self-replicating organism came into being. It then took billions and billions of years of continued random mutation with environmental pressure before the human mind was formed. If we are to believe this evolution was entirely due to random chance, then – of course – we should not buy into the concept of evolution (but it clearly is not presented that way when properly taught).
I don’t know if it’s much of an assumption to accept that matter precedes mind (I certainly don’t see that as self contradictory). Scientists have presented a coherent and completely natural origin and evolution for our universe. Feel free to get a good overview here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html
Of course I invite you to read the entire article, but if you are just interested in the subject matter regarding the origin and evolution of the universe, search for “A Natural History of the Universe” and that will get you to the proper location on the page.
As you can see, multi-celled organisms only showed up on the Earth around 700 million years ago (about 3 billion years after life began on our planet). Only in the past 150,000 years or so did modern humans come onto the scene (we’ve been around less than .1% of the Earth’s history). Assuming by “minds” we’re only talking about human minds (and that should be arguable), human minds certainly came after matter. In fact, as far as we know today (and have known for a long time), matter (mass/energy) has always existed (it can’t be created or destroyed, but can only change from one form to another). Yes, I am tying the concepts of brain and mind together, but that is how most neuroscientists see it today, so I feel comfortable following their lead in this area.
I disagree with you that one has to accept free will before one’s brain thinks about the possibility that no such free will exists. Even if this were true, one’s mind could then realize that it is not “free” after examining the necessary evidence. Before you are confident making such assertions, I suggest you read this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Conscious-Will-Bradford-Books/dp/0262232227
The realization that I have a mind did come before I was exposed to any philosophical points of view, but that is certainly unimportant.
“Moreover, matter itself cannot exist without the prior conditions of the non-material laws of physics that make matter possible.”
That is a completely false statement, as well. I’ll refer you to Victor Stenger’s The Comprehensible Cosmos again (appropriately subtitled ‘Where do the laws of physics come from?’). It explains how these “laws” are not restrictions upon the behavior of matter that are either handed down from above or existent in some Platonic, timeless realm, but rather restrictions upon how physicists may describe said behavior. It deals with symmetry principles that exist when matter is introduced into the otherwise empty void. As Stenger notes, the big “laws” (think conservation laws and Einstein’s relativity principles) are what we should expect in the absence of a creator (we get them by default when you take into account these symmetries) and other types of laws were generated in the early universe (“early” as in not long after the Big Bang) by spontaneously broken symmetries (and are therefore random).
“C. S. Lewis noted that the analysis of any world requires the existence of scientists whose views are not mechanically determined by the world they are examining.”
Untrue, again. There is no principle that would imply this that we know of. All we are talking about are particles configured as humans (and their minds) that are capable of processing information. We are not perfect processors, of course, but capable of taking in data, analysing it, and coming to tentative conclusions. Heck, even ants and other “simple” creatures do this. They are just much less powerful mentally than we are. We have developed the ability to think about thinking – a major evolutionary change.
Also, some secular scientists have theories of free will that delve into quantum mechanics. I will admit, however, that I have – to date – not found them convincing arguments.
Mike | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
@David -
I probably covered this implicitly in my previous post (by commenting on a similar statement), but the following is false:
“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
The only way creatures survive evolution is by find a niche. In our case, the niche is the powerful processing capabilities of our brains. They are highly reliable in that we still exist. It takes a lot of energy to power these brains and if they were taking in data and coming up with bad results all the time, we’d be extinct by now. I think reality testifies very much against that biologist’s comments. The fact that we have survived using our mental niche means that it is quite reliable. Free will or not, our brains are adept at taking in inputs from the outside world, analyzing them, and coming up with useful results (including applying them to our position within the overall scheme of things).
I’ve actually never heard of anyone taking that argument seriously.
Mike | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
Mike, I have given you ample scholarly references that refute naturalism and it is now up to you to examine them. Stenger’s hand-waving fails miserably, as Plantinga shows. As for probability figures for cosmology and evolutionary processes, there are numerous excellent books on the subject that show that given the age of the universe or the existence of the conditions necessary to support life on Earth, there are not enough Planck time events for any random material process to produce anything remotely close to what you are claiming (i.e., the existence and complexity of reality including life itself). And if you are claiming that there exist additional laws of physics that explain these developments, there is no evidence for such laws. Again, since for many naturalists, their views appear immune to the evidence and logic, one can only conclude that their worldview instead reflects a fundamentalist belief system in the secular religion of metaphysical naturalism.
As for Einstein, he was neither a materialist nor an atheist. Instead, he believed in a non-material mind that created the very precise laws of physics and physical constants that make the universe and life possible. Moreover, virtually every scientist in history who created the various fields of science was a theist, including Heisenberg, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Maxwell, Boyle, Newton, Mendel, etc. It was only with the advent of modernist metaphysics (a la Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Marx, Rousseau, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc.), did the worldview change for some into a mechanistic, determinist, reductionist, de-humanism. Scientific materialism (scientism) became a secular religion for the modern.
The relevance of all of this for liberty, justice, truth, and goodness is as C.S. Lewis noted in his brilliant book, The Abolition of Man:
David Theroux | Jun 11, 2010 | Reply
“The reason why our sentient, percipient, and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture, can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture. It is identical with the whole and therefore cannot be contained in it as part of it.”
~ Physicist Erwin Schrodinger
Larry Ruane | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
@David -
I’m having trouble posting, so I’m going to try to do so in smaller chunks. Here’s part 1:
You act as if your references are the end-all-be-all on the matter – as if no refutations for them exist.
Here are some references for you to examine:
Why Plantinga’s argument against Evolutionary Naturalism fails:
http://fitelson.org/plant.pdf
Why the bible is a complete joke regarding history and science. Also, this site notes hundreds upon hundreds of internal contradictions in the bible (not to mention tons of prophetic failures, absurdities, etc.). The bible is a huge mess. If you’ve read it, too, I would hope you disagree with “God’s” morality.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Why a historical Jesus almost certainly didn’t exist:
Jesus: Neither God Nor Man by Earl Doherty
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty
The Jesus Myth by G.A. Wells
Did Jesus exist? by G.A. Wells
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
Mike | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
@David -
Part 2:
Why the “laws” of physics are not rules “handed down from above” or somehow existent in a Platonic realm:
Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes
The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where do the laws of physics come from?
Why all physical evidence collected today strongly suggests we live in an entirely naturalistic world:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html (search for “A Natural History of the Universe”)
Remember, it theoretically could have turned out quite differently. In their investigations, scientists might have learned that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. If they had, evolutionary theory would be dead. If the universe was only 10,000 years old, evolutionary theory would again be dead. If a human fossil had been discovered in rock 3 billion years old, the theory of evolution by natural selection would be dead. It goes on and on. There are tons of incidents that could have falsified our origin theories, but – so far, at least – have not (these incidents have only strengthened our theories). I don’t consider myself a fundamentalist by respecting physical evidence. Calling me a fundamentalist is just an insult you threw my way because you don’t like my point of view.
Also, what is your source on there not being enough Plank time available to create the diversity we observe today? I would like to run this past Professor Stenger (among others). I have, of course, heard that argument made in the past – and heard it refuted just as many times – but I would like to know specifically which source you heard this from.
Mike | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
@David -
Part 3:
Why Christianity is a rip off of earlier, pagan religions:
The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S
Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S
Mike | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
@David -
By the way, the Argument from Authority went out with the Inquisition. It doesn’t matter what scientists personally believe (all humans are subject to emotional crutches)...all that matters is the evidence.
If you do want to play this game, though, please note that only 7 percent of the scientists that make up the National Academy of Science believe in a personal god. This doesn’t even mean they believe in the Christian variant...just that they believe in a personal god of some sort.
These are not your “run-of-the-mill” scientists either. These are the most prestigious scientists in the United States (an otherwise highly religious nation).
http://www.paulspoerry.com/2008/06/13/intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-god/
Mike | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
@David -
In reference to your C.S. Lewis quote:
Simply because it may not be ideal (according to many humans) for humans to “only” be a part of nature (and not be above and beyond it) is no reason to believe that we are, in fact, apart from nature.
We are what we are. I am only examining the evidence and going where it takes me. Sure, I would love to believe we are special in this universe and that there is a god out there who cares for us. Unfortunately the evidence says otherwise. Could there be a god out there? Sure. It is likely? No. It is likely this god would be the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish God? Absolutely not. Even if there is a god out there, it surely doesn’t care for us – just take a look at the ravaged world today and see for yourself. Even if you blame much of it on human free will, god surely wasn’t smart enough then to know what it was getting into by creating humans. Plus, we sure have to deal with a lot of natural calamity. It just doesn’t seem like there’s a being out there who gives any thought to us (The Argument from Evil).
In any event, this is usually how these conversations go (and no one changes his or her mind).
Personally, I plan to continue studying science, logic, history, and even religion until the day I die.
Mike | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
Mike, Thank you for your further comments, but again you reveal that you are unfamiliar with the arguments and evidence I have presented. Simply hurtling blanket links from theological materialists in the desperate belief that they have somehow adequately addressed these matters is not sufficient. And raising other issues like the historicity of the Bible is irrelevant since I have not even referred to any such texts. Again, I would recommend that you examine first hand what I have provided and make up your own mind. If you wish to pursue a naturalist religion, this is your choice, but in no way does this mean that such a view can withstand scholarly scrutiny and we have now accorded you ample time and space to respond.
It is also noteworthy here that for some libertarians, desperately huffing and puffing against theism (even if it means siding with socialists and fascists) is unfortunately far more important than lifting a finger to end warfare/welfare statism, protect the innocent, and uplift the lives of the oppressed and destitute.
David Theroux | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
Dr. Higgs, are you the modern-day Lysander Spooner?
To all reading, I must urge you to make your way to reading Spooner’s pamphlet, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.
Gabriel Syme | Jun 16, 2010 | Reply
This is right on. Dr. Higgs is superb, and I have met him a few times at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, AL.
The Institute I believe is actually “ground zero” in our movement as this is where one can educate oneself *thoroughly* on what the movement is all about. One can become versed in economics, history, philosophy and libertarian politics, also establishment views as one must know this also in order to fight the establishment.
Even the L.P. and C4L are peripheral to the Mises Institute.
See mises.org.
For a review of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty series, in which he discusses what happened from the time of the first British invasion all the way to the Revolutionary War, see my blog at my website.
Alice Lillie | Jun 20, 2010 | Reply
Alice,
Thank you for your comment. As you may recall, Dr. Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy here at the Independent Institute and Editor of our quarterly journal, The Independent Review. I might add that the late Professor Murray Rothbard was a dear old friend and a founding Member of our Board of Advisors.
David Theroux | Jun 20, 2010 | Reply
You’ve hit every nail in this well hammered subject right on the head! I can’t believe the gall of these people. Thank God for patriots like you who will stand up for what you believe.
We are all equal, and have God given rights that they can’t take from us no matter how hard they try. So let them BRING IT ON! I think there are enough of us helping to educate the rest and we’ll be a force to reckon with!
Thanks for getting my dutch temper up.
I’m ready to take on the whole lot of em. He he.
Rebecca Beasley | Sep 7, 2010 | Reply
OK you whiners,
Just how do you expect government to operate?
Like it or not there are many people on this globe who do not agree with you in your ideas of your rights. They believe only in THEIR rights, which they uphold with pen, gun and blackjack. Just how do you think you individually will fend them off?
Bob Trent | Mar 8, 2011 | Reply
I want to express my affection for your kindness for women who really need assistance with that niche. Your personal dedication to passing the solution all-around turned out to be remarkably invaluable and have all the time empowered somebody like me to reach their pursuits. The useful useful information implies so much a person like me and even more to my office workers. Thanks a ton; from all of us.
Theresia Rancatti | Apr 9, 2011 | Reply
Well said Mike! You’re probably an adult, but in this context you are the lone voice of the little boy saying: “Emperor Higgs is wearing no clothes.”
The premise of the American form of representative government is this: not all men are angels. Men WILL be ruled, whether by tribes or thugs or elected representatives. Higgs is as wrong as Robespierre...and the notions expressed in the article (i.e., seppuku) are reminiscent of the French Razor. No thanks.
Wayne | Jul 8, 2011 | Reply
The term “Social Contract” means “No Contract,” just as Social Security means no security and social justice means no justice. Its too bad that the exception to this rule only applies to STD’s.
apstemp | Jul 10, 2011 | Reply
I never knew you were from Oklahoma. Or, as we call it here in the Republic, “New Texas”.
Texas Chris | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
I think that there is at least a grain of truth in William Penn’s comment that “men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.” For those atheists and agnostics out there, maybe we could amend the quote and say that “men must be governed by libertarians or they will be ruled by tyrants.” But since I believe in God and that he is a libertarian, they mean the same to me.
Rex | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
We never claimed we could at the present time. In fact we could only really defend ourselves from tyranny once we have persuaded enough people to fight against it which is why the philosophical battle or words that Mr. Higgins is fighting is so important.
Kevin | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Mr. Higgs and many libertarians have a false concept of the nature of man as basically good from which attitude they attack current forms of government as suffocating and evil. Any by suggesting this, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy where government failures support their unwillingness to participate in compromises and coalition building. Government is a necessary evil that fills the void left by other people who will not fulfill their responsibilities and us who also do not live up to our abilities. The nature of man is wicked by his very nature, it is only through the grace of God and the help of others that we can attain progress.
Tom Little | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Why in the world does Mike think scientists would have some special insight into whether or not God exists?!
Gene Callahan | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Yea, yea, yea, we’ve all heard it before, YAWN.
When will the time for much words end and action begin?
mark edward marchiafava | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
“Government is for slaves; free men govern themselves.” — Albert Parsons
“Most men don’t desire liberty; most only wish for a just master.” –Ancient Roman Historian Sallust.
I consent to the way I’m treated by those ruling over me like I’d consent to Guido-the-Extortionist when he collects his weekly “rent.” Self-preservation drives acquiescence, but a crime is still committed even when the victim does not resist.
David C. | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
These people should damn well know better, but are incurably ignorant. Ignorance is no excuse. Sepuku would be apropos, if not mercifull to those, many of whom deserve a lynch mob.
Rob | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
Words cannot describe how much I despise being a slave. So much of the work of free men and the capital they built up is being destroyed. Dr. Higgs is to me, a great example of someone who attempts, with great success, to emulate Christ, that great Prince of Peace Who taught us that only voluntary consent is how to treat one another. What is life worth without freedom? Its worth is largely this: The attempt to keep fighting for its perpetual restoration. God bless Dr. Higgs.
bill | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
@Bob Trent and Tom Little
What I would like to know is how you protect yourself from all those wicked men who “believe only in THEIR rights” and “who will not fulfill their responsibilities” when you have given those same men power over you in the form of government.
Katie Fed | Jul 11, 2011 | Reply
The question is by which standard is Mr. Higgs an honest or good man and an advocate of sound principles?
The Bible does not support hatred of government, prideful disdain for the civil authorities, rebellion against life on life’s terms in favor of “voluntary” business activity. The media is full of corruption in both business and government. What’s the solution? Less government, less consumer advocacy, less awareness of how inherant corrupt, manipulative and greedy people can be?
Every major Christian writer, Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Kierkegaard, Francis Shaeffer, and so forth have called for high standards both in the church community and in the civil sphere. None of them called for judging the system as it exists but for reforming it.
I have seen far too many Christians who become ineffectual by pulling out from having an influence in the world by being in compliance with common sense laws. By encouraging those who would break the law and not file taxes, or do so dishonestly, libertarians empower the cynicism and apathy that weaken rather than strengthen the rule of law and the fight against corruption.
Tom Little | Jul 12, 2011 | Reply
The consent of the governed ends when you take federal dollars from the fed government. In the 1942 Supreme Court decision, Wickerd vs Filbern, they stated that whatever the fed gov finances/subsidizes, they have the right to REGULATE. This case involved a wheat farmer who had taken subsidy monies. He lost. The fed gov also used “interstate commerce” as their reason for being able to stop him from feeding his own wheat to his own cattle. Since that decision, the fed gov has worked overtime to get farmers, state governments, state ag departments, businesses, schools, individuals (can you say welfare/food stamps/etc.?) to take fed dollars. They issue mandates that they know the states can’t afford and then step in to “help” with fed dollars. It’s pure EVIL. When you “consent” to take those dollars, you “consent” to lay down and do what you are told for you no longer have the right to regulate yourself. States Rights are in jeopardy due to this – we MUST stand up and exert those States Rights before we no longer can – this is also why we are seeing our own fed gov suing Arizona over a state law that actually mirrors fed law...because the fed gov understands that Arizona doesn’t HAVE States Rights anymore because they’ve taken lots of fed dollars over the decades just like every other state has done. We have people in our state who have figured this out. They took monies to help build ponds – now they are paying those monies back. That’s the only way you can get out from under this. They print the money on worthless paper, then give it to people/states/schools/etc. and that worthless PAPER is LEGALLY enslaving us to them...the federal reserve has to go if we want to remain a free people...until then, there IS no “consent of the governed”. We’ve already lost that and THEY know it...
Lynne | Jul 12, 2011 | Reply
Mr Higgs: I agree with much of what you say here, but I must disagree with this: that consent of the governed is a useless concept, because it reflects the true dignity of human beings. Let me propose the possibility that 1) consent can be provided, and 2), at the same time, control of taxes by those who pay them is the only way to change government from being (as it now is) the enemy of the people.
The means that I propose to do this I call “cantons”, ideologically-based voluntary organizations whose primary purpose is to wrest control of taxes for its members from governments. Currently taxpayers directly contribute 53% of revenues to the (US) federal government thru income taxes and social security contributions, and the rest indirectly. They lose control of those taxes even before they are aware of it thru the diabolical miracle of “withholding”. Taxes once turned over to the IRS are then under the sole control of politicians, who use them for their own purposes, ultimately at odds with the true needs and desires of taxpayers.
How then could these “cantons” possibly regain control of their members taxes? By opposing any politician who opposes them. No other purpose or cause is more vital to taming out-of-control government than for those who pay for its “services” to also control the payments. Since cantons are ideologically-based and voluntary, they can exercise control of member’s tax revenues on behalf of their members, this being their secondary purpose.
In the end, what I am proposing is not ending government, but transforming it into a free market. This can be done by giving taxpayers the ability to control, thru freely-chosen cantons, the government services they themselves find necessary and useful. This is consent of the governed, exercised thru voluntary associations which control revenues according to the desires of each and every one who pays them.
I have said much more about this at my blog, Government By Contract, to which your site kindly provides a link under my name below.
Dwight Johnson | Jul 15, 2011 | Reply
Those of us who have had as many experiences from corrupt people in “business” as in government, believe in a need for the reform of both.
It was hideous and outrageous for Mr. Higgs to suggest that government employees commit suicide at the end of his article. This alone makes his argument spurious.
Such is the state of education in this country that many students will not have considered the arguments made on the libertarian side or on the pro-government side by the time they get their diplomas or degrees. This leaves them ripe targets for fraud and abuse. Those who are able to educate people on their responsibilities and benefits as citizens do themselves and their neighbors a great service.
Tom Little | Jul 27, 2011 | Reply
Sorry, but you DO hate America. America is not simply a few acres of land, it is a political system as described in the Constitution. You don’t like the way the Constitution is interpreted, but it is interpreted in the manner that the Constitution demanded. So the entity existing so defined, is what America is. And you clearly hate it. Would that you would simply tell the truth about it.
Your addendum is HILARIOUS, complaining about having bad manners, immediately following a paragraph where you prescribe death for ALL employees of any level of gov’t. The teachers, the janitors, the coaches, the social workers, the doctors and nurses, garbage collectors, everyone. In fact, you wish them not just death, but a horrible death.
What a small, small person you are. To think that what thoughts bring you joy are those of endless blood, death, suffering, and screams of all of your victims. It must really keep you warm.
Ken M | Nov 29, 2011 | Reply
Ridiculous story there. What happened after?
Thanks!
Abel | Mar 12, 2013 | Reply
This is exactly why I don’t vote! So now prove that I’ve consented to be governed.
The_Federal_Farmer | Apr 20, 2013 | Reply