META-LIBERTARIANISM AND THE PARADOX OF FREEDOM

Does absolute freedom, like absolute power, corrupt absolutely?

by Michael DuQaine

Before we begin I would like to make it clear that I support minimal government and generally oppose tribalism. This article does not proclaim to posit a fully fleshed-out system, only to open up the discussion to it.

Libertarianism is a philosophy of government which embraces personal responsibility and minimal government. Yet many have reinterpreted it as libertine, which is essentially the absence of personal responsibility alongside the absence of governance.

Utopian ideals appear to be the norm in modern civilization. The communists believe that their system will bring about utopia, and the majority of libertarians hold true to the ideal that a lack of governing of the individual will bring about a state which is as close to perfect as possible for all concerned; in other words most libertarians believe in an achievable utopia.

There is a problem with the idea that maximizing freedom creates optimal outcomes, and this problem is social cohesion, or rather the abolition thereof. Social cohesion is necessary for a peaceful society, as well as for a system which runs smoothly, which itself is necessary for an optimized system. As libertarians we run into a problem of balancing social cohesion with personal liberty.

The basic question seems to be:

How can one initiate and maintain social cohesion without violating the personal liberties of individuals?

But, actually, this is not the correct first question to ask. Within philosophy, the topic of freedom has been addressed many times, and many philosophers have covered the reasoning I am about to cover here.

The instincts of man tend to become primary when man is allowed as much freedom as possible. This necessarily implies that the animal nature of man is raised above the higher, rational portion of man's being.

The question thus arises as to whether the animalistic human is equal with the rational man. A good measure of this is to check if both produce the same quality of product and behavior. As far as behavior is concerned, it is clear that man as run by instinct is a violent and largely unproductive creature.

In terms of quality of product this is varied. A man ruled by his instincts can produce great quality, so long as his work is that which he loves most, but otherwise he is bound to disdain his work and therefore produce with low quality.

This raises yet another question: that of the importance of quality production. Society requires products and services in order to function, and lower quality production necessarily leads to lower quality within the society itself.

A further question is that of the enslavement of one's self to one's own instincts. Can a man truly be free if he is ruled by his own animalistic tendencies?

Every philosopher I have seen address this question has come to the same conclusion: the complacent following of instinct removes the element of choice. This effectively makes one unfree and thusly the instinctual man is not part of the same class as the rational man, even in a civilization which holds no caste system within its confines.

Furthermore, science itself backs up this notion. Instincts are hardwired behavioral patterns which we are compelled to  follow by chemicals endogenously produced by the body. This means in a scientific sense that a man who follows his instincts is nothing more than a drug addict enslaved to his addiction.

This brings us back to the problem of the balance between liberty and social cohesion. If one has too much liberty, one tends towards their primal nature; but if government enforces cohesion, government tends towards authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. How then, do we, as a civilization, enforce cohesion without violating the rights of the individual? 

Within various subcultural societies in the United States there are practices of social shaming. The most readily available of these would be the Amish, who allow dissenters to leave their society if they choose, and actively encourage such. However, for those who choose to remain, social pressure is a constant and persistent aspect of life. Anyone who begins to step outside of the bounds of the Amish culture will face relentless pressure and will be much more inclined to leave the society altogether as opposed to staying and attempting to institute change. No violence is enacted upon these people, and no force is placed in their path, aside from the obstinance of the standard adherents to the culture; at most, dissidents face shunning, which itself is entirely voluntary on the part of those performing the shunning.

What does Amish society have that we have lost?

We will circle back to the Amish shortly. For now, let us analyze civilization and government.

Liberty has been a goal of the individual for many thousands of years, with a few exceptional individuals garnering spiritual titles for their grand efforts. As such, limiting government from interfering with individual rights has been primary to these people. Meanwhile, government has tended towards monarchy, and especially theocratic monarchy for a few reasons. Firstly, that monarchy provides a singular focal point for the whole of civilization to base itself around. Secondly, following the first point, a singular governing point provides a simple goal to strive towards. Thirdly, and most relevant to the modern age, a singular point of governance provides the most rapid method of change in the face of necessity.

Yet smaller, more centralized government tends to trample on the rights of the individual. As such, individualists have throughout time attempted to either limit or eliminate the authority of government, thus moving further away from monarchy. The first and foremost of these attempts was the Magna Carta, as signed by King John. Yes, it was signed under duress, which may invalidate it legally, but it has been upheld for over five hundred years and is unlikely to have its influence overturned any time soon.

Oswald Mosley, the founder of the British Fascist Party, proposed a three-tiered system of socio-governmental organisation, with the crown as a guiding central point, parliament as the legislative body, and the syndicates (comprised of the working class).

His system certainly does not lack balance, only nuance. When the largest governing body, in this case the syndicates, is given equal power to the legislative branch, issues arise. Firstly, because the working class is not the most educated part of society it is unlikely to propose optimal solutions to problems. Secondly, a large body of people without dictatorial governance has a tendency to squabble amongst itself for prolonged periods of time.

The Marxist viewpoint may become useful here, as it provides a perspective of domination versus subjugation, which may aid in establishing a balance between the people, the collectives, and the government. If the bourgeoisie and proletariat are equal in size or in power, then a stalemate is reached, meaning equilibrium has been attained between the government and the people. The American system of government provides us with four branches of government; judicial, legislative, executive, and publus (body of the people). The people offset the executive branch and are balanced by the judicial and legislative branches which offset each other, thusly creating a criss-cross of power balance.

Of course this only works if the publus recognizes itself as a branch of government and takes action as such.

J6: The Publus in action?

Americans seem to have forgotten the fourth and largest branch of government. Yet in returning to the Amish, everyone can recognize the publus that is comprised of Amish society at large. Each individual choosing to participate in society, and each doing their part to hold each other accountable.

Under a meta-libertarian system the government must work to maintain the publus in order to prevent its loss of consciousness. It must also incorporate social cohesion as a goal, and must recognize the publus as the largest and most powerful branch of government.

In short a balance must be established between government and publus, and all the while individual rights must be recognized as the highest. Standards must be maintained, norms and customs. Perhaps this is only truly possible with the establishment of a new ethnos.

I know not what such a system would look like, but I expect this to be a good outline.