| | Steve, allow me to work through this without "tiger stripes" if possible.
In the first place, an-archy is like a-theism, in that the opposite claim is granted. And by analogy to a-theism, Carl Sagan was an atheist, but he searched for extraterrestrial intelligent life. You must know the Arthur C. Clarke story "Sentinel." But even if superior beings took an interest in Earth, that does not make Mohammed the Prophet of God. As destructive as religion is, nonetheless within the institution of religion, there are some nice people, Quakers, Buddhists, Sufis. Objectivists nod to the scholastic tradition within Catholicism, even though Objectivists are necessarily atheists. So, too, with this problem.
We project ourselves on the past too easily. I believe that when the first cities were forming, language was primitive, writing did not exist (counting past three did not exist), people no longer had the continuity of kin, affine and tribe, where you grew up with the people around you. In the cities, conflicts came because people did not agree on the rules. So Hammurabi -- Gilgamesh; someone -- laid them down. (The Code of Hammurabi was only uncovered about 1890, in fact.) In Athens, when the assembly voted, the new law was painted on a board and if no objections ensued, eventually, what was painted on a board became cut in stone. We still use that phrase to mean a permanent agreement.
The historical developments of governments and laws also have rationalist explanations. Just as carpenters and masons knew the empirical rules of geometry before Euclid developed rationalist geometry, so, too, is there a difference between the actual historical development of law and the rationalist theories of government proposed by Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke.
To argue that every society has had government, therefore, we must have geographic monopolies of coercive force to enable law, is to argue that every culture has religion, therefore we must have temples operated by holy interlocutors who interpret the will of the gods (God) and take our pleas to God (the gods). One consequence of the Protestant Reformation was the now widespread acceptance of the idea that each of us can speak to God directly; and ultimately, it led to atheism. Read Francis Bacon's essays: atheism was alive and well in the 16th century.
You can have morality without religion. You can have law without government.
Government has been a traditional institution for the enforcment of law, just as religion as been the traditional institution for the enforcement of morality. The relationship between Church and State is another issue entirely -- and if you think we separated them, CSPAN can show you the morning prayers in the House and Senate.
- If we do not all follow the same catechism, how will you know what morality to expect from the next person you meet?
- If we do not have one geographic monopoly for the enforcement of law, how will you know what contracts are valid?
The answer is that morality has nothing to do with eating fish on Friday or not eating cows or not eating pigs or not mixing meat and diary. Law has nothing to do with geography.
Now, it is true, that if you eat pork you can get trichinosis and if you eat certain shellfish, you can die, and if you eat your cows today, you will not have milk tomorrow and if you marry someone who is not a virgin, you can get a sexually transmitted disease. It is also true that -- as you fear -- if anyone and everyone does whatever they want, causelessly on a whim, including coercion, then contract, property, and all the rest are impossible.
It is true that living a good life by Catholic doctrine will make you much happier than wantonly engaging in all Seven Deadly Sins. Gluttony and sloth are not Objectivist virtues, even if greed is. So, too, is life in America much better than most people in most times and places could have dreamed of and our limited constitutional government is an important part of that. America was founded explicitly and publicly on a declaration of natural rights, which governments are created to protect. By the same token, a couple of years ago, I heard the Dalai Lama teach. It was all right. Someone asked, "I am farther down the spiritual path than my spouse and communication is difficult." And the Dalai Lama said, "Divorce is always an option.... [laughter from audience] ... but perhaps understanding is better." How can you argue with that?
I have no argument with geographic-based rights-protecting legal systems... except that as I am not a Buddhist, neither am I a Geographist. In other words, Buddhism comes with cultural baggage that makes science, technology, trade and commerce, and general material improvement difficult or even impossible. So, too, does the idea of a geographic monopoly on retaliatory force in support of law prevent material betterment through trade, commerce, technology and science.
In the current "John Stossel" topic started by TSI, I mentioned his being on The View. On that segment, he said that if bankers do not like America's law, they can -- and will -- do business in Singapore. They can take their money elsewhere and we on RoR have touted John Fredriksen. The reality is that businesses -- people, really; people who care about their well-being -- here and now in our world, shop for geographies. That is just one kind of competition for law as a product or service.
There are many others. We have several commonly-employed modes for creating agreements according to what you call "an-archy." Rather than giving even more examples, let me ask you:
- What is there about law that requires geography?
- Cannot two people distant from each other agree on a common set of rules and also agree upon an enforcement mechanism?
- As with the example of you and me taking bets on the Super Bowl, can two people in the same place have an extra-legal contract, enforceable by custom?
|
|
