Pay no attention to that gun to your head
August 1, 2014 § 22 Comments
Contracts are always definitely consensual. Contracts are never completely consensual. One who has not grasped this essential political fact will remain one of liberalism’s useful idiots, waking up each morning still trapped in a dystopian liberal Groundhog Day. And it is impossible for a positivist, who confuses definiteness with completeness, to grasp this essential fact.
Libertarians and libertarian-sympathetic reactionaries are ultimately just enablers of liberalism, because they have not fully grasped that making freedom a political priority necessarily leads right back around to liberalism. In order to escape the mind trap of liberalism it is not enough to unequivocally reject equality as a political priority. You must also unequivocally reject freedom as a political priority.
If a lot of people happen to be free, it means that a lot of people are actually able to choose what they wish to be able to choose. That is a consequence of either:
- their wills being conformed to what is good in a good society; or
- their wills being conformed to wickedness in a wicked society.
Treating freedom or equality as political priorities at all involves a basic misapprehension: it involves deliberately taking our eyes off of what is good and adopting a pose of neutrality. And because political neutrality is actually impossible, this in effect makes wickedness the goal.
So treating freedom and/or equality as a political priority is just political support of wickedness, simpliciter.
No matter how many times it is dealt with, the objection that libertarianism does insist that people face the consequences of their own free choices pops up like a game of whack-a-mole. Libertarianism represents a genuinely consensual politics because, while it is true that contracts are considered binding once freely entered, only consensual contracts are permitted.
But this is just the same old question-begging blindness to metaphysical baggage all over again. Contracts and other choices take place in a context, and the context is not itself a consensually entered contract[1]. As a simple example, who ‘owns’ what, and what ‘ownership’ does and does not entail in specific situations, is the tip of the iceberg of the non-consensual context in which every contract is entered, and in the shadow of which it is bargained.
If you happen to find a given nonconsensual context pleasing for ideological or personal reasons it is more likely to be invisible to you. But even then it isn’t something you created by giving consent.
So libertarianism or even residual libertarian sympathies in reaction just end up back in the same old circular trap. We can have whatever politics we want as long as everyone else gets to have whatever politics they want. You can have any political system you want — as long as it is liberalism.
—
[1] If folks understood how political philosophy has developed it would be obvious why such manifestly question-begging errant nonsense as social contract theory and government by consent of the governed was considered necessary. In order to justify authoritative discrimination in favor of liberal governance on its own terms liberalism has to pretend that authority is ‘consensual contract’ turtles all the way down.
This one ought to bring them out of the woodwork….
I’d like to here where libertarians disagree with Rawls, It seems like they should share the same principles with Rawls simply “turtling” a little further down.
Rawls is a libertarian who has been mugged by metaphysics.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
“We can have whatever politics we want as long as everyone else gets to have whatever politics they want”
Ah, but why would anyone be committed to this ideal? It is not even an ideal that liberalism embraces, merely one it pays lip service to. I don’t think we need to cite examples of liberal democratic western states criminalizing the political activities of opponents or potential opponents, but for quick reference we need only look at the imprisonment of National Socialist politicians in Greece.
The message seems to be: freedom for me but not for thee!
It would be folly for the sane reactionary to embrace any kind of political freedom away from a central ideology that is the backbone of a future state. There is no victory here. Ideological homogeneity is the ideal.
[…] distinction is illusory for the same basic reason that the libertarian ideal of completely consensual contracts is illusory. It presumes a whole […]
No kidding. We just bought a new house on ten acres and “own” this land (or will own it when we close at the end of August). Except Detroit Edison can just decide to create a sixty-six foot wide easement across “our” land. We have to sign this “agreement” and don’t have the right to refuse. It sort of makes me wonder in what sense we actually own the land we are buying. If DTE were to decide they needed more of “our” land, we’d have to give them more – I don’t think they will, but theoretically they could. We really only have the freedom to call this land ours so long as the government doesn’t decide otherwise. Ownership of land is sort of an illusion, I think.
Oh, as I was typing my comment, you’ve have written a new post that seems to be on the same topic. I had better go read it more thoroughly, I think.
[…] theories which pretend to “leave people alone” do not actually leave people alone: they force their presupposed background assumptions on everyone independent of who does and does not […]
[…] of freedom or a tremendous lack of freedom; and as always, who is and is not “free” is relative to what they happen to wish that they could choose in that society. The same can be said for a monolithic […]
[…] The never-ending collection of “something must be done about its” become concentrated in a single monolithic bureaucratic liberal government that manages everything for everyone, to make sure that everyone is free and that anyone who gets in the way of individual freedom is dealt with severely. […]
[…] fact constrain the equal freedom of wives. That the wife may have entered the marriage voluntarily doesn’t fix the problem, when freedom is a prior commitment. Once you start to see how freedom concentrates government […]
[…] all political action is in principle controvertible. Actually choosing one possibility over others is never a neutral decision, even in those rare cases where everyone involved happens to share the same view; so the […]
[…] centuries earlier by usurers — by the so-called ‘free market’ sort who insist that consensual contracts are presumptively […]
[…] the sovereign’s role in the functioning of industries, markets, and property in general doesn’t exist. And sovereign currency is mere fiat not a security against actual valuable property[2], even […]
[…] form taken by this entitlement attitude depends on the person and what he takes for granted. Modern sluts feel entitled to free contraception; baby mommas feel entitled to promiscuous sex […]
[…] less than human, because all men are political equals, the just powers of government derived from consent. If the Low Man were fully human he would be ‘with the program’ rather than impeding […]
[…] expectations and desires are well aligned, liberalism’s underlying incoherence remains hidden. The sides of the coins that everyone sees are the pretty sides, and nobody notices the underlying […]
[…] means that government should be aggressively and comprehensively involved in selectively enforcing mostly involuntary contract terms on debt slaves. Economic freedom means turning people into property. A scientific approach to […]
[…] But in the Internet age folks seem to like diagrams as a basis for discussion: I remember seeing question-begging text based libertarian diamond diagrams on Usenet way back in the late eighties or early nineties, […]
[…] The positive law – governance – in its essence tells those subject to the law – subjects who did not choose their own state in life – what they must consent to, or else. If J always […]
[…] these people sure do have no idea what they’re talking about. From a logical perspective, these people have no idea what they are talking about; it’s true, many women aren’t being actively pimped. But it wouldn’t matter, […]