In postulating such a radically different conception of social order -- one that in challenges some of the most fundamental arguments of all other political philosophy and those that are most fiercely ingrained in most people's basic conception of how we ought to organize ourselves as a society, I must request that readers of this material be willing to engage in a sort of thought experiment. In fact, this entire work can be thought of largely as just that -- a thought experiment.
Within the realm of political philosophy, the common thought experiment involves a return to what Thomas Hobbes referred to as the "state of nature." This is a hypothetical or mythical conception of a sort of pre-governmental world, and the exercise involves examining the nature of this world and then postulating the necessary theoretical constructs for rendering it orderly, moral, economical, etc.
Nearly everyone that has engaged in this thought experiment, either as a reader or a writer, makes what I would consider a critical error -- they return to this state of nature with an already-assumed conclusion about what that hypothetical world would look like, and quickly proceed to conclusions about it without a proper examination of all of the possibilities for such a world. However, this error flies in the face of proper scientific or philosophical process, and represents, I would argue, a significant failure of historical thinking within the domain of Political Philosophy.
What I would propose is that a much greater study of this state of nature is necessary -- a full examination of all of the possible directions, paths, and outcomes from this hypothetical starting point must be completed in order to inform our conclusions properly. Have we really explored properly whether The State is truly a necessary institution? It seems that this is the first question of all Political Philosophy, and that the answer to the question would provide something of a boolean operator -- if the answer is that government is a necessary institution, then one whole wing of thought ensues and is pursued, but that if the conclusion is that government is not necessary, then a whole other path of thought follows from there.
The consequence of this consideration cannot be understated -- it means that fully half of all Political Philosophy might lie in the partition to the "false" side of this question, and yet it has been utterly neglected throughout history. What disservice has been done to all of mankind through this neglect can only be speculated, but regardless of which side of the partition individuals and society at large ultimately come down on, it must be recognized as a radical failure that perhaps half of all possible theory in this domain remains unexplored, undiscussed, and for the most part unmentionable.
I believe that the reason this hasn't been undertaken with more seriousness throughout the entire history of political thought, somewhat paradoxically, is that most thought-experimenters in this regard have lacked a concept of how social order might be possible in the utter absence of The State. While the scientific purist would like to believe that his observations and conclusions from those observations ought to occur independent to any theory, the reality is that all scientists are in fact incapable of setting aside their personal hypotheses and theoretical background in a quest for true objectivity. Rather, the scientist finds what he is looking for, and the best theories are selected as a function of those that best correlate observable fact to the tenets of the theory. A concept of how social order could work in the absence of the state has never been well-articulated or formulated, and without it the science proceeds as you would expect -- immediately assuming that all facts and observations of man in the "state of nature" point to the conclusion that The State is in fact necessary, and then hurriedly proceeding from there.
While there is in fact a reasonable robust history of anarchical thought, I believe that it has had significant shortcomings in the lack of a positive account of how it could work. For the most part, anarchical thought to date has been a negative philosophy, that is, it is anti-State or anti-Government, and assumes its stance as a mere rejection of any and all other Statist theory. However, since the founding of Austrian Economics in the late 19th Century, a new strain of thinking has been developing that is very different from all prior anarchical thought, and has just recently taken a new turn. I would argue that Hans-Hermann Hoppe's conception of a "Private Law Society" represents the first theoretically-consistent positive account of the "other wing" of possible Political Philosophy. It provides a clear model for how things could theoretically work in the absence of The State.
With that theory, the possibility has been opened for returning to the hypothetical "state of nature" and reexamining the original question of Political Philosophy -- is the state necessary? Furthermore, it opens up the nearly untapped wing of Political Philosophy -- the partition to the "false" side of the question -- to new discussions, explanations, and considerations.
So what I ask of readers of this work is that they must subject themselves to a fairly radical thought experiment, and one that has hardly any precedent in the world of ideas. Readers must be willing to set aside that nearly all-consuming conclusion that The State is necessary and consider for a moment the possibility that it is not. If ultimately my illustrations of a Private Law Society are not compelling, let the be so under there own merits, and not from a dogmatically held belief that The State is necessary.
Within the realm of political philosophy, the common thought experiment involves a return to what Thomas Hobbes referred to as the "state of nature." This is a hypothetical or mythical conception of a sort of pre-governmental world, and the exercise involves examining the nature of this world and then postulating the necessary theoretical constructs for rendering it orderly, moral, economical, etc.
Nearly everyone that has engaged in this thought experiment, either as a reader or a writer, makes what I would consider a critical error -- they return to this state of nature with an already-assumed conclusion about what that hypothetical world would look like, and quickly proceed to conclusions about it without a proper examination of all of the possibilities for such a world. However, this error flies in the face of proper scientific or philosophical process, and represents, I would argue, a significant failure of historical thinking within the domain of Political Philosophy.
What I would propose is that a much greater study of this state of nature is necessary -- a full examination of all of the possible directions, paths, and outcomes from this hypothetical starting point must be completed in order to inform our conclusions properly. Have we really explored properly whether The State is truly a necessary institution? It seems that this is the first question of all Political Philosophy, and that the answer to the question would provide something of a boolean operator -- if the answer is that government is a necessary institution, then one whole wing of thought ensues and is pursued, but that if the conclusion is that government is not necessary, then a whole other path of thought follows from there.
The consequence of this consideration cannot be understated -- it means that fully half of all Political Philosophy might lie in the partition to the "false" side of this question, and yet it has been utterly neglected throughout history. What disservice has been done to all of mankind through this neglect can only be speculated, but regardless of which side of the partition individuals and society at large ultimately come down on, it must be recognized as a radical failure that perhaps half of all possible theory in this domain remains unexplored, undiscussed, and for the most part unmentionable.
I believe that the reason this hasn't been undertaken with more seriousness throughout the entire history of political thought, somewhat paradoxically, is that most thought-experimenters in this regard have lacked a concept of how social order might be possible in the utter absence of The State. While the scientific purist would like to believe that his observations and conclusions from those observations ought to occur independent to any theory, the reality is that all scientists are in fact incapable of setting aside their personal hypotheses and theoretical background in a quest for true objectivity. Rather, the scientist finds what he is looking for, and the best theories are selected as a function of those that best correlate observable fact to the tenets of the theory. A concept of how social order could work in the absence of the state has never been well-articulated or formulated, and without it the science proceeds as you would expect -- immediately assuming that all facts and observations of man in the "state of nature" point to the conclusion that The State is in fact necessary, and then hurriedly proceeding from there.
While there is in fact a reasonable robust history of anarchical thought, I believe that it has had significant shortcomings in the lack of a positive account of how it could work. For the most part, anarchical thought to date has been a negative philosophy, that is, it is anti-State or anti-Government, and assumes its stance as a mere rejection of any and all other Statist theory. However, since the founding of Austrian Economics in the late 19th Century, a new strain of thinking has been developing that is very different from all prior anarchical thought, and has just recently taken a new turn. I would argue that Hans-Hermann Hoppe's conception of a "Private Law Society" represents the first theoretically-consistent positive account of the "other wing" of possible Political Philosophy. It provides a clear model for how things could theoretically work in the absence of The State.
With that theory, the possibility has been opened for returning to the hypothetical "state of nature" and reexamining the original question of Political Philosophy -- is the state necessary? Furthermore, it opens up the nearly untapped wing of Political Philosophy -- the partition to the "false" side of the question -- to new discussions, explanations, and considerations.
So what I ask of readers of this work is that they must subject themselves to a fairly radical thought experiment, and one that has hardly any precedent in the world of ideas. Readers must be willing to set aside that nearly all-consuming conclusion that The State is necessary and consider for a moment the possibility that it is not. If ultimately my illustrations of a Private Law Society are not compelling, let the be so under there own merits, and not from a dogmatically held belief that The State is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment