WEBVTT

NOTE The Road to Liberty

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.340
I'm a little bit unsettled today. This morning, excuse me, I got a real shock. I came to Pete

2
00:00:11.340 --> 00:00:18.560
Becky's 9 a.m. talk, and I'm sitting out there listening, and I'm chuckling to myself, saying,

3
00:00:18.560 --> 00:00:25.400
you know, all the ideas I've had, I've stolen from this guy, and he doesn't even know it.

4
00:00:25.400 --> 00:00:47.880
With that out of the way, I'd like to thank Jan Lester and Paul Birch for their helpful

5
00:00:47.880 --> 00:00:54.280
comments on an earlier draft of this talk, and Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe

6
00:00:54.280 --> 00:01:02.520
I'll pave the way for the road I will recommend today by describing one way of categorizing

7
00:01:02.520 --> 00:01:04.640
human interactions.

8
00:01:04.640 --> 00:01:11.720
They can be located on an axis running between two polar ideas, persuasion and aggression.

9
00:01:11.720 --> 00:01:17.120
Now I am not contending that this is the only way we can evaluate human action, merely that

10
00:01:17.120 --> 00:01:19.960
it is a useful way.

11
00:01:19.960 --> 00:01:22.380
What do I mean by persuasion?

12
00:01:22.380 --> 00:01:33.380
When engaging in persuasion, I intend to convince you that your situation will be better in your own eyes if we do interact and if we do not.

13
00:01:33.380 --> 00:01:43.380
Now, just to clearly differentiate what I am talking about from fraud, I will note that I am using the word persuasion here to mean honest persuasion.

14
00:01:43.380 --> 00:01:52.380
For example, suppose that you and I each live on our own isolated island, with the other person's island the only land in sight.

15
00:01:52.380 --> 00:01:59.380
Further, we'll imagine that we can't travel between our islands due to the shark-infested waters between us.

16
00:01:59.380 --> 00:02:09.380
Now, it's quite possible that each of us might go about our business on these islands unaware of and not interacting at all with the other person.

17
00:02:09.380 --> 00:02:17.180
However, one day while we're at the shore, we happen to meet, and across the waves, we chat to each other,

18
00:02:17.180 --> 00:02:25.880
and I mentioned that there are many coconut trees on my island, but I'm getting a little bit tired of eating coconuts.

19
00:02:25.880 --> 00:02:32.480
You mentioned that there are quite a few mango trees on your island, and that you're very tired of eating mangoes.

20
00:02:32.480 --> 00:02:46.480
So after a bit further chatting, we decide, well, why don't we meet here each day and I'll throw you a few coconuts across the water, you throw me a few mangoes.

21
00:02:46.480 --> 00:02:58.720
Now, it seems obvious to me that each of us prefers that interaction to its absence because it's trivially easy for either of us to avoid it.

22
00:02:58.720 --> 00:03:06.160
And each of us is willing to leave the other alone if the other person declines.

23
00:03:06.160 --> 00:03:13.880
By contrast, if I'm engaged in aggression, I will attempt to force interaction on you without your consent.

24
00:03:13.880 --> 00:03:18.560
Often I will try to convince you that I have the power and will to make your life worse

25
00:03:18.560 --> 00:03:23.320
if you refuse to interact with me on the terms I propose.

26
00:03:23.320 --> 00:03:28.840
Imagine our island meeting again, but now when I discover you have mangoes on your island,

27
00:03:28.840 --> 00:03:35.640
I demand that you bring me several a day. And I tell you that if you don't, the next time I see you

28
00:03:36.200 --> 00:03:43.000
on the near shore, I'll kill you. You know, perhaps I'll throw a spear across the water

29
00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:51.320
in between and run you through. There certainly is an element of persuasion in such a threat.

30
00:03:51.320 --> 00:03:56.800
I must persuade you that I really do intend to kill you if you don't acquiesce and that

31
00:03:56.800 --> 00:04:02.440
I have the ability to act on that intention. Yet the difference between the two examples

32
00:04:02.440 --> 00:04:07.720
is immense. In the case of the mango-coconut exchange, I am quite willing to leave you

33
00:04:07.720 --> 00:04:14.760
alone to go about your business as if we had never met. In the mangoes-or-death case, I

34
00:04:14.760 --> 00:04:20.680
am demanding that we interact. If you will not do so on the terms I offer, then I will

35
00:04:20.680 --> 00:04:31.920
More relevant to the world in which most of us actually live, we are not isolated on our

36
00:04:31.920 --> 00:04:36.380
own island, consider two approaches on my take when trying to get my neighbor to come

37
00:04:36.380 --> 00:04:38.920
hear my next talk.

38
00:04:38.920 --> 00:04:42.400
On the one hand, I may attempt to persuade her that she would like it.

39
00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:46.580
I can try to convince her that I have her interests at heart, that the talk will be

40
00:04:46.580 --> 00:04:48.580
The Theory of Money and Credit

41
00:05:16.580 --> 00:05:34.740
What could be clearer than the enormous difference between these two ways of relating to others?

42
00:05:34.740 --> 00:05:40.100
Persuasion and aggression imply fundamentally different conceptions of other people.

43
00:05:40.100 --> 00:05:44.900
When I engage in persuasion, I regard the other person as a free, intelligent actor,

44
00:05:44.900 --> 00:05:51.700
When employing aggression, I regard the other as merely a means I might manipulate to achieve

45
00:05:51.700 --> 00:05:57.340
my ends, as much as I would regard a stick or a rock.

46
00:05:57.340 --> 00:06:00.580
I conceive of three basic forms of aggression.

47
00:06:00.580 --> 00:06:05.480
Although I admit, as aggressive as I am, I may not have thought of them all.

48
00:06:05.480 --> 00:06:09.100
Aggression by stealth, aggression by fraud, and aggression by committing or threatening

49
00:06:09.100 --> 00:06:10.540
violence.

50
00:06:10.540 --> 00:06:14.500
I could aggress against you using stealth, for example, by sneaking into your house while

51
00:06:44.500 --> 00:06:50.500
Fragile aggression is why I qualified my use of persuasion as meaning honest persuasion.

52
00:06:50.500 --> 00:06:58.500
Fraud certainly does involve persuasion, but rather than persuading you that A will be to your benefit, then delivering though,

53
00:06:58.500 --> 00:07:04.500
I persuade you that you'd like A while secretly planning to deliver B.

54
00:07:04.500 --> 00:07:13.500
For example, in the island scenario we were looking at, again imagine that I persuaded you to exchange mangoes for coconuts.

55
00:07:13.500 --> 00:07:21.500
But now, what I do is I eat the meat and drink the milk out of coconuts, then bind the shell back together.

56
00:07:21.500 --> 00:07:26.500
And when you throw me mangoes, I throw you empty shells across the water.

57
00:07:26.500 --> 00:07:36.500
So while I persuaded you to exchange coconuts for mangoes, what we actually did was exchange coconut shells for mangoes.

58
00:07:36.500 --> 00:07:42.500
Here again, I don't allow you to use your intelligence freely in deciding whether to interact,

59
00:07:42.500 --> 00:08:07.420
I believe that the view of persuasion and aggression adopted here can be helpful in

60
00:08:07.420 --> 00:08:18.420
Socialist anarchists who like libertarians claim to be against aggression often contend

61
00:08:18.420 --> 00:08:22.520
that the ownership of capital goods and the payment of a wage for labor are inherently

62
00:08:22.520 --> 00:08:24.560
aggressive.

63
00:08:24.560 --> 00:08:30.000
But let's go back again to the situation of you and I as castaways.

64
00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:34.340
Imagine now that you've built a boat that you use to go fishing.

65
00:08:34.340 --> 00:08:38.940
You employed your own labor and whatever materials you found upon your island to build that

66
00:08:38.940 --> 00:08:43.720
boat, something I also could have done on mine.

67
00:08:43.720 --> 00:08:48.780
Upon discovering that you have a boat, I now demand that you bring me some of your catch

68
00:08:48.780 --> 00:08:51.140
of fish every day.

69
00:08:51.140 --> 00:08:55.700
You refuse, instead suggesting that if I bring you coconuts, you will be happy to trade fish

70
00:08:55.700 --> 00:08:59.860
for them or let me use the boat for a while.

71
00:08:59.860 --> 00:09:04.300
In response, I protest that you are aggressing against me, using the power you have as an

72
00:09:04.300 --> 00:09:16.940
In order to exploit the labor I have expended in picking coconuts, you are perfectly willing

73
00:09:16.940 --> 00:09:21.420
to leave me alone and allow me to continue my life as though we had never met.

74
00:09:21.420 --> 00:09:24.520
After all, if not for your existence, there would be no boat.

75
00:09:24.520 --> 00:09:30.220
You don't demand that I use your boat or attempt to force me to labor to supply you with coconuts.

76
00:09:30.220 --> 00:09:36.700
only require that if we interact, it be on terms we both agree to. Furthermore, if you

77
00:09:36.700 --> 00:09:41.580
do agree to my terms for exchanging coconuts for fish, then it is clear that you must think

78
00:09:41.580 --> 00:09:47.260
you're better off exchanging than you would be not exchanging. After all, you had the

79
00:09:47.260 --> 00:09:56.340
opportunity to not exchange, so you must believe the exchange is improving your situation.

80
00:09:56.340 --> 00:10:01.740
When this argument was posted to a bulletin board, one commentator said that I was ignoring

81
00:10:01.740 --> 00:10:09.660
the complexities of real-world societies in this sort of analysis.

82
00:10:09.660 --> 00:10:14.020
My answer to that is that if we want to get to the essence of social arrangements, we

83
00:10:14.020 --> 00:10:19.060
have no choice but to reduce them to their simplest forms, for that's when their essential

84
00:10:19.060 --> 00:10:21.400
character can be seen.

85
00:10:21.400 --> 00:10:29.400
In every actual social situation we find a myriad of complex historical circumstances.

86
00:10:29.400 --> 00:10:33.680
Without having first derived various principles concerning social interaction by mentally

87
00:10:33.680 --> 00:10:39.480
isolating pure instances of ideal types, we will find ourselves adrift in the vast sea

88
00:10:39.480 --> 00:10:42.280
of history without compass or rudder.

89
00:10:42.280 --> 00:10:46.840
I believe that if we ever wish to come to shore we must heed Carl Menger's advice from

90
00:10:46.840 --> 00:10:49.520
and Principles of Economics, where he says,

91
00:10:49.520 --> 00:10:54.320
In what follows I have endeavored to reduce the complex phenomena of human economic activity

92
00:10:54.320 --> 00:10:59.400
to the simplest elements that can still be subjected to accurate observation, and to

93
00:10:59.400 --> 00:11:04.160
investigate the manner in which the more complex phenomena evolve from their elements according

94
00:11:04.160 --> 00:11:07.520
to definite principles.

95
00:11:07.520 --> 00:11:12.480
Of course, we can think of cases where the ownership of capital goods and wage labor

96
00:11:12.480 --> 00:11:15.640
are entangled with aggression.

97
00:11:15.640 --> 00:11:20.300
We might find that the traditional hunting grounds of an Indian tribe was taken from

98
00:11:20.300 --> 00:11:26.440
them by force and handed over to some industrialist who begins mining it.

99
00:11:26.440 --> 00:11:33.600
Now the Indians have lost their land and their traditional livelihood and find themselves

100
00:11:33.600 --> 00:11:38.800
in their mines having no choice but to go to work in the mines.

101
00:11:38.800 --> 00:11:43.160
You know, clearly there is aggression involved in a scenario like that.

102
00:11:43.160 --> 00:11:49.000
And it's no doubt true that there are current property claims tainted by past acts of aggression

103
00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:51.420
of that sort.

104
00:11:51.420 --> 00:11:56.860
To the extent that the guilt on the part of the current owner can be proven clearly, most

105
00:11:56.860 --> 00:12:00.760
libertarians would approve of rectifying such situations.

106
00:12:00.760 --> 00:12:05.520
However, the example of the Boehm demonstrates that there is no inherent aggression in the

107
00:12:05.520 --> 00:12:08.980
ownership of capital goods or the employment of wage labor.

108
00:12:08.980 --> 00:12:12.960
If someone should want to claim that some particular instance of some capitalist employing

109
00:12:12.960 --> 00:12:18.040
some laborers as an act of aggression, then it's incumbent upon that person to show what

110
00:12:18.040 --> 00:12:22.000
aggression actually occurred.

111
00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:31.960
Now I hope I'm not going to get myself banned from any further Mises Institute events by

112
00:12:31.960 --> 00:12:40.920
saying this next thing, but I do think that it is possible to be a socialist of a certain

113
00:12:40.920 --> 00:12:50.920
Now, some people might even say that the people, the sort of person I'm talking about is not really a socialist, but I will give you an example.

114
00:12:50.920 --> 00:12:57.920
There's a fellow named Keith Preston whose I've read at times, and he describes his views as follows.

115
00:12:57.920 --> 00:13:04.080
As many readers are no doubt aware, I am an anarcho-socialist myself. I generally favor

116
00:13:04.080 --> 00:13:09.680
an economic order of small businesses and self-employed persons, cooperatives, worker-owner,

117
00:13:09.680 --> 00:13:15.280
managed industries, Proudhonian banks and other similar institutions operating within

118
00:13:15.280 --> 00:13:22.840
the context of a laissez-faire, stateless free market. The Prestonian version of socialism,

119
00:13:22.840 --> 00:13:31.800
Preston hopes to persuade others that they would prefer to live in the sorts of social

120
00:13:31.800 --> 00:13:37.800
arrangements he favors rather than in more traditionally capitalist structures.

121
00:13:37.800 --> 00:13:42.520
Preston is perfectly willing to allow those not persuaded by his arguments to start traditional

122
00:13:42.520 --> 00:13:47.600
hierarchical companies, to work for wages, to rent apartments, and so on.

123
00:13:47.600 --> 00:13:59.600
I'd like to detour for a moment also and point out that Preston's vision of what he calls socialism avoids the Misesian calculation problem.

124
00:13:59.600 --> 00:14:13.600
And that's because his small cooperatively owned businesses and so forth deal with each other in an overarching market economy in which genuine prices can arise.

125
00:14:13.600 --> 00:14:19.600
People still will be able to engage in economic calculation in Preston's ideal world.

126
00:14:19.600 --> 00:14:24.600
His local organizations occupy the place of the firm in standard economic theory,

127
00:14:24.600 --> 00:14:32.600
although they are firms with unusual and to Preston preferable internal structures.

128
00:14:32.600 --> 00:14:37.600
Now I bring up Preston's example because it leads into my next point.

129
00:14:37.600 --> 00:14:46.600
There are different versions of what liberty should be and what a libertarian society ought to look like.

130
00:14:46.600 --> 00:14:54.600
So is it possible for there to be an overarching framework for liberty that allows the liberty desired by free-market libertarians,

131
00:14:54.600 --> 00:15:02.600
that sought by anarcho-socialists such as Preston, and perhaps other visions of liberty as well?

132
00:15:02.600 --> 00:15:15.840
To avoid the Hobbesian war of all against all, humans form civil associations.

133
00:15:15.840 --> 00:15:21.580
A civil association is a group of people united in recognizing the authority of a body of

134
00:15:21.580 --> 00:15:26.200
law over all the individuals who comprise the group.

135
00:15:26.200 --> 00:15:31.360
And recognizing the authority of a body of law implies the free use of one's intelligence

136
00:15:31.360 --> 00:15:41.360
In other words, one must be persuaded, not coerced, into recognizing the authority of that law over oneself.

137
00:15:41.360 --> 00:15:46.360
I believe that for civilized society to exist, the rule of law is essential.

138
00:15:46.360 --> 00:15:59.360
But I would like to suggest as a step down the road to liberty, a single modification to the prevailing view of civil associations, one that I feel is implied by their nature.

139
00:15:59.360 --> 00:16:14.360
Now today the main form we have of civil associations is states, but what I'm going to suggest modifies this in a way that perhaps people would not even call what remains a state.

140
00:16:14.360 --> 00:16:31.360
I believe that the change I recommend is to recognize the right of every person to freely form, join and leave civil associations on their own choice.

141
00:16:31.360 --> 00:16:38.360
I believe that the recognition of such a right would provide a framework for achieving the maximum liberty compatible with human civilization.

142
00:16:38.360 --> 00:16:43.360
Therefore, let me explain what I mean by this right.

143
00:16:43.360 --> 00:16:51.360
First of all, a person's right to join a civil association would extend only to those associations that would welcome the person.

144
00:16:51.360 --> 00:16:56.360
You could not legitimately force your way into a group by violence, fraud or stealth.

145
00:16:56.360 --> 00:17:04.360
On the other hand, no third party, such as a group with which you were previously associated, could prevent you from joining a new group.

146
00:17:04.360 --> 00:17:11.360
Only the people already in a civil association and the person seeking to join it can decide the issue.

147
00:17:11.360 --> 00:17:16.100
Next, I will point out that if we recognize the right to withdraw from civil associations

148
00:17:16.100 --> 00:17:20.400
at will, we have acknowledged the right to secession.

149
00:17:20.400 --> 00:17:26.200
The word secession can be a bit frightening, probably not to this audience, but to some

150
00:17:26.200 --> 00:17:27.200
audiences anyway.

151
00:17:27.200 --> 00:17:35.920
As it conjures up the image of hundreds of thousands of casualties in the U.S. Civil

152
00:17:35.920 --> 00:17:40.040
War and Chechen rebels blowing up buildings.

153
00:17:40.040 --> 00:17:48.760
My own belief is that violent secession is rarely a step forward on the way to liberty.

154
00:17:48.760 --> 00:17:55.400
What I'm suggesting is not that people currently begin making plans to violently overthrow their

155
00:17:55.400 --> 00:18:01.240
current government, but that people come to demand from their governments the right to

156
00:18:01.240 --> 00:18:07.320
exit, just in the same fashion that generally speaking people today demand the right to

157
00:18:07.320 --> 00:18:08.320
and Free Speech.

158
00:18:08.320 --> 00:18:15.000
I'll also note that seceding to escape punishment for a crime already committed is not what

159
00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:17.400
I mean by a right of secession.

160
00:18:17.400 --> 00:18:22.480
In other words, I can't kill someone and then announce, oh, and by the way, I secede, so

161
00:18:22.480 --> 00:18:25.640
don't bother trying to prosecute me.

162
00:18:25.640 --> 00:18:30.600
You know, presumably the entry agreements into civil associations would prevent that

163
00:18:30.600 --> 00:18:34.360
sort of thing.

164
00:18:34.360 --> 00:18:39.080
The sharpest contrast to our current world in what I suggest is that people should be

165
00:18:39.080 --> 00:18:44.840
able to leave a civil association without leaving a geographical location.

166
00:18:44.840 --> 00:18:50.220
Unless they have explicitly agreed to remain part of some civil association in their purchase

167
00:18:50.220 --> 00:18:55.160
or rental agreement for their residence, as, for instance, people often do when purchasing

168
00:18:55.160 --> 00:19:00.420
a condo or a home in a planned community, they should have the right to withdraw both

169
00:19:00.420 --> 00:19:05.460
Both themselves end their land from the authority of their current civil association.

170
00:19:05.460 --> 00:19:10.820
Having done so, a person might attempt to join another existing civil association, might

171
00:19:10.820 --> 00:19:16.260
try to persuade others to form a new one, or might remain outside of any civil association

172
00:19:16.260 --> 00:19:18.720
whatsoever.

173
00:19:18.720 --> 00:19:24.260
To deny people the right to secession employs aggression rather than persuasion in attempting

174
00:19:24.260 --> 00:19:27.460
to constitute a civil association.

175
00:19:27.460 --> 00:19:32.620
It violates the essential nature of civil association, which requires the voluntary

176
00:19:32.620 --> 00:19:37.060
recognition of the authority of a body of law.

177
00:19:37.060 --> 00:19:42.000
Now it's true that today most people have at least some possibility of leaving the state

178
00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:43.540
in which they live.

179
00:19:43.540 --> 00:19:47.780
But to do so they must leave their friends, their families, their jobs, their house, perhaps

180
00:19:47.780 --> 00:19:50.260
even their language behind them.

181
00:19:50.260 --> 00:19:54.820
They are further hampered by numerous immigration restrictions in other states.

182
00:19:54.820 --> 00:20:00.580
Of course, the civil associations I envision are likely to have membership restrictions,

183
00:20:00.580 --> 00:20:05.900
but with a vastly greater number of such associations, it is likely that at least a few would accept

184
00:20:05.900 --> 00:20:08.500
any particular would-be member.

185
00:20:08.500 --> 00:20:13.880
Moreover, the possibility of choosing a truly different form of civil association is slowly

186
00:20:13.880 --> 00:20:19.040
being eliminated by the dawning worldwide state system, where the United States and

187
00:20:19.040 --> 00:20:23.960
its allies are imposing, by economic pressure, the lure of foreign aid and loans, military

188
00:20:23.960 --> 00:20:29.280
Force and so forth, the social democratic model of state corporatism combined with extensive

189
00:20:29.280 --> 00:20:34.320
social benefits and high tax rates upon the entire world.

190
00:20:34.320 --> 00:20:40.040
Many neo-conservative and neo-liberal pundits are quite explicit in declaring social democracy

191
00:20:40.040 --> 00:20:47.640
the end of history and saying that it should be imposed by force across the world.

192
00:20:47.640 --> 00:20:52.640
The United States and its G8 allies may object to countries such as Iraq that allow too little

193
00:20:52.640 --> 00:20:58.680
Freedom, but they also strongly discourage countries from allowing too much freedom.

194
00:20:58.680 --> 00:21:04.100
Countries with tax rates too low are labeled as suspicious tax havens. Those with too much

195
00:21:04.100 --> 00:21:10.120
banking privacy are marked as possible supporters of terrorism. The U.S. government is currently

196
00:21:10.120 --> 00:21:15.540
telling Canada not to relax its marijuana laws. The IMF forbids member nations from

197
00:21:15.540 --> 00:21:21.080
adopting the gold standard as a monetary regime. Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. ambassador to

198
00:21:21.080 --> 00:21:25.960
to Guatemala, actually used to position the campaign against the university there, because

199
00:21:25.960 --> 00:21:31.680
it was promoting the radical libertarian ideas of Mises and Hayek. She had never heard of

200
00:21:31.680 --> 00:21:36.880
Rothbard, I guess, and was questioning the need for an income tax, welfare and public

201
00:21:36.880 --> 00:21:37.880
schooling.

202
00:21:37.880 --> 00:21:45.160
Now, we don't need to posit any sort of global Masonic conspiracy to explain such facts.

203
00:21:45.160 --> 00:21:50.640
For those of you who do posit one, that doesn't mean that there isn't, but we don't need

204
00:21:50.640 --> 00:22:03.960
Government officials are clever enough to realize that states offering people more freedom

205
00:22:03.960 --> 00:22:08.800
than their own are a threat to them, since more libertarian states will tend to draw

206
00:22:08.800 --> 00:22:12.920
bright, ambitious and wealthy people from more restrictive states.

207
00:22:12.920 --> 00:22:17.200
Pure self-interest will lead a state to attempt to prevent other states from being significantly

208
00:22:17.200 --> 00:22:19.760
less intrusive than it is.

209
00:22:19.760 --> 00:22:24.280
In the world's spanning social democracy, we will see Hayek's insight that the worst

210
00:22:24.280 --> 00:22:27.360
rise to the top played out on a global scale.

211
00:22:27.360 --> 00:22:32.320
The unprecedented concentration of power that would exist would place an enormous prize

212
00:22:32.320 --> 00:22:34.680
before the most vicious power addicts.

213
00:22:34.680 --> 00:22:40.360
Therefore, the idea of a right to choose one's own form of government at any geographic scale

214
00:22:40.360 --> 00:22:45.980
is perhaps more important than ever as a counterweight to the New World Order.

215
00:22:45.980 --> 00:22:50.340
The right-arm proposing even leaves those who chafe at any constraints on their behavior

216
00:22:50.340 --> 00:22:53.260
other than their own vision of justice with a way out.

217
00:22:53.260 --> 00:22:57.540
They may withdraw completely from civil life and become an outlaw.

218
00:22:57.540 --> 00:23:01.120
Such people would probably withdraw to remote wilderness areas.

219
00:23:01.120 --> 00:23:04.740
They would be living without the protection of any body of law.

220
00:23:04.740 --> 00:23:09.780
But so long as they left the members of existing civil associations alone, there is no reason

221
00:23:09.780 --> 00:23:14.620
to suppose that they would be pursued or bothered, except perhaps by their outlaws.

222
00:23:14.620 --> 00:23:19.380
But the ability to make one's own law in dealing with others by whom one feels wrong is probably

223
00:23:19.380 --> 00:23:30.620
the most important motivation such a person has for leaving civil association behind.

224
00:23:30.620 --> 00:23:35.100
Since members of different civil associations will still interact with each other in the

225
00:23:35.100 --> 00:23:41.340
world I'm envisioning, the question arises as to how conflicts between them can be settled

226
00:23:41.340 --> 00:23:42.940
peacefully.

227
00:23:42.940 --> 00:23:46.940
In many cases, I believe, civil associations will negotiate agreements with each other

228
00:23:46.940 --> 00:23:50.060
for arbitrating disputes between their members.

229
00:23:50.060 --> 00:23:54.460
Furthermore, the ability of individuals to agree to a system of law without a central

230
00:23:54.460 --> 00:23:59.700
authority to impose one recently has been shown to be much greater than political theory

231
00:23:59.700 --> 00:24:02.740
had traditionally imagined it to be.

232
00:24:02.740 --> 00:24:07.620
Ed Stringham of San Jose State University has demonstrated that the trading of derivatives

233
00:24:07.620 --> 00:24:12.620
on the 17th century Amsterdam stock market proceeded peacefully and without a great deal

234
00:24:12.620 --> 00:24:19.120
of Fraud, despite the fact that the Dutch government refused to enforce derivative contracts.

235
00:24:19.120 --> 00:24:24.280
They basically said that if you are defrauded by someone, and they were very suspicious

236
00:24:24.280 --> 00:24:29.580
of short selling and options and so forth, and they said, oh, if you're defrauded in

237
00:24:29.580 --> 00:24:31.220
such a thing, don't come to us.

238
00:24:31.220 --> 00:24:37.220
And yet, nevertheless, that has shown that an orderly market in derivatives did exist.

239
00:24:37.220 --> 00:24:42.280
Similarly, Peter Leeson of George Mason has cited the law merchant code of the high middle

240
00:24:42.280 --> 00:24:48.560
Civil Ages and Renaissance is another example of voluntary law operating successfully.

241
00:24:48.560 --> 00:24:53.460
The widespread recognition of a right to secession certainly does not make war between civil

242
00:24:53.460 --> 00:24:58.460
associations impossible, but I believe it renders it significantly less likely since

243
00:24:58.460 --> 00:25:03.920
any civil association promoting a war that is even mildly unpopular will be immediately

244
00:25:03.920 --> 00:25:07.220
faced with a wave of secession.

245
00:25:07.220 --> 00:25:13.140
Under such a system, states like those we find today, I think, are less likely to exist.

246
00:25:13.140 --> 00:25:17.220
Many civil associations will have features of current states to which libertarians might

247
00:25:17.220 --> 00:25:22.580
object, such as welfare programs, drug laws, draft laws, and so on.

248
00:25:22.580 --> 00:25:28.340
But if the members of those civil associations have the opportunity to exit, and they have

249
00:25:28.340 --> 00:25:34.420
not done so, then it's clear that they're persuaded that they wish to live under such

250
00:25:34.420 --> 00:25:36.260
a system of law.

251
00:25:36.260 --> 00:25:43.700
If they are in a civil association voluntarily, then I don't perceive aggression being committed

252
00:25:43.700 --> 00:25:49.720
against them by, for instance, laws on the part of their civil association banning drug

253
00:25:49.720 --> 00:25:53.500
usage or something of the sort.

254
00:25:53.500 --> 00:25:58.780
Of course, my idea does not guarantee that no oppressive state could emerge, but I don't

255
00:25:58.780 --> 00:26:02.220
believe it is reasonable to expect guarantees in life.

256
00:26:02.220 --> 00:26:06.860
The widespread acceptance of the belief that human slavery is immoral has not prevented

257
00:26:06.860 --> 00:26:11.180
some people from occasionally capturing other people and enslaving them.

258
00:26:11.180 --> 00:26:16.260
But one must admit that the practice is somewhat less prevalent today than it was in 1750.

259
00:26:16.260 --> 00:26:22.020
Similarly, if a right to secession gains widespread moral approval, then it seems likely that

260
00:26:22.020 --> 00:26:32.060
it will be much more difficult to organize an oppressive state.

261
00:26:32.060 --> 00:26:36.380
My friend Paul Birch expressed a possible problem with my idea.

262
00:26:36.380 --> 00:26:41.600
He doubted the practicality of geographically intermingled civil associations.

263
00:26:41.600 --> 00:26:46.620
As he put it, unless civil associations of which persons are voluntary members are territorially

264
00:26:46.620 --> 00:26:51.120
distinct and not too small, people cannot avoid being subject to laws to which they

265
00:26:51.120 --> 00:26:56.220
have not acceded, because disputes will commonly arise between members of different associations

266
00:26:56.220 --> 00:26:59.060
who have different laws.

267
00:26:59.060 --> 00:27:12.780
I believe that deriving authoritative law for interactions between members of different civil associations through negotiation between the groups goes some way toward handling his objection, as do the cases of voluntary law I've mentioned.

268
00:27:12.780 --> 00:27:21.500
As one piece of evidence, I'm going to mention a novel, Neil Stephenson's excellent novel, The Diamond Age.

269
00:27:21.500 --> 00:27:26.820
Stephenson describes a world that is basically without states as we know them.

270
00:27:26.820 --> 00:27:32.660
People have formed geographically intermingled groups based on the code of ethics to which they subscribe.

271
00:27:32.660 --> 00:27:38.540
There is, for instance, a group called the Vickies who subscribe to Victorian ethics.

272
00:27:38.540 --> 00:27:44.780
People join or leave these groups by their own choice, and the groups commercially interact with each other every day.

273
00:27:44.780 --> 00:27:53.780
Now, I admit that a fictional world like that is not as convincing a bit of evidence as an actually operating society with that feature.

274
00:27:53.780 --> 00:28:06.780
But the fact that Stevenson is able to construct a coherent and plausible world, I think, lends credence to the idea that this is not inherently ridiculous in any sense.

275
00:28:06.780 --> 00:28:21.780
An important feature of the road to liberty I'm suggesting is that the possibility of the real world coming to resemble the vision depends almost exclusively on the widespread acceptance of the idea that membership in the civil association should be voluntary.

276
00:28:21.780 --> 00:28:28.780
Such an idea is already held, albeit incoherently and inconsistently by many people today.

277
00:28:28.780 --> 00:28:32.220
We can hear it expressed in calls for self-governance and democracy.

278
00:28:32.220 --> 00:28:37.220
Rather than attempt to convince a majority of people to adopt an entirely new ethical

279
00:28:37.220 --> 00:28:41.660
or political system, we only need to draw their attention to the fact that there is

280
00:28:41.660 --> 00:28:44.420
a conflict within their current one.

281
00:28:44.420 --> 00:28:48.540
While most people believe in the right to self-government, their failure to recognize

282
00:28:48.540 --> 00:28:55.260
as a universal right to secede significantly vitiates that right.

283
00:28:55.260 --> 00:29:00.060
Even today, the idea of secession can win popular support if presented properly.

284
00:29:00.060 --> 00:29:05.020
For example, last year a Michigan family successfully seceded from the town in which they had been

285
00:29:05.020 --> 00:29:06.020
living.

286
00:29:06.020 --> 00:29:13.960
As Adam Young described it, on Tuesday, December 17, 2002, Aranac Township in Omer City, Michigan

287
00:29:13.960 --> 00:29:18.760
How the joint referendum brought about by the actions of one woman, Cheryl Perry.

288
00:29:18.760 --> 00:29:23.240
The Perrys simply no longer wished to be looted by the Omer municipal government for sewer

289
00:29:23.240 --> 00:29:29.300
services they were not receiving, even if it was only for $41 a year.

290
00:29:29.300 --> 00:29:32.040
After the polls closed, Cheryl Perry got the outcome she wanted.

291
00:29:32.040 --> 00:29:39.680
Out of a total vote tally of 140, with 82 votes yes and 58 miserable voters voting no,

292
00:29:39.680 --> 00:29:45.120
The Perry's had successfully seceded from Omer and Omer's taxman.

293
00:29:45.120 --> 00:29:49.960
Although there were a fair number of no votes, a significant majority of voters recognized

294
00:29:49.960 --> 00:29:55.080
the Perry's right to live under the government of their own choice.

295
00:29:55.080 --> 00:29:59.460
And in a sense, this shouldn't be too surprising, since the national government that those people

296
00:29:59.460 --> 00:30:06.640
live under also came about through an act of secession.

297
00:30:06.640 --> 00:30:12.320
The idea of a right to secession is, I believe, a concrete proposal that can alleviate the

298
00:30:12.320 --> 00:30:17.920
discouragement that many would-be libertarians feel at the prospects for a free society.

299
00:30:17.920 --> 00:30:22.860
There are many people today who do value liberty but find the idea impractical.

300
00:30:22.860 --> 00:30:26.740
They might even think a libertarian world would work but believe we have no hope of

301
00:30:26.740 --> 00:30:28.000
getting there.

302
00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:30.660
Not on the menu, they say.

303
00:30:30.660 --> 00:30:33.360
Statist attitudes are everywhere amongst the public.

304
00:30:33.360 --> 00:30:37.400
The man in the street doesn't have libertarian views.

305
00:30:37.400 --> 00:30:39.680
We couldn't achieve this for centuries.

306
00:30:39.680 --> 00:30:45.600
Fortunately for us, there were pioneers who provided an example of how to eliminate a

307
00:30:45.600 --> 00:30:49.120
pervasive but unjust institution in only a few generations.

308
00:30:49.120 --> 00:30:53.800
They were the abolitionists and the institution was slavery.

309
00:30:53.800 --> 00:30:58.500
As Stephen Carson wrote, several hundred years ago, the notion that the slave trade could

310
00:30:58.500 --> 00:31:15.020
The abolitionists were faced with a choice.

311
00:31:15.020 --> 00:31:18.740
They could have tried to convince the majority of people of the correctness of a particular

312
00:31:18.740 --> 00:31:22.740
religious view, part of which was that slavery is wrong.

313
00:31:22.740 --> 00:31:28.260
But to make the whole world congregationalist, Methodist or Baptist might have taken thousands

314
00:31:28.260 --> 00:31:38.260
In the meantime, if they cooperated with others who shared their opinion of slavery, they could achieve great good in the near future, the end of human bondage.

315
00:31:38.260 --> 00:31:44.260
Achieving their short-term goal did not mean compromising fundamental beliefs.

316
00:31:44.260 --> 00:31:50.260
Someone could still argue that Methodism was the true path while cooperating with the Quaker to abolish slavery.

317
00:31:50.260 --> 00:31:54.260
We often adopt that approach in our day-to-day lives.

318
00:31:54.260 --> 00:31:55.260
Day Lies.

319
00:31:55.260 --> 00:31:58.020
For example, Bob Murphy is a good friend of mine.

320
00:31:58.020 --> 00:32:01.860
Nevertheless, we sometimes have fierce disputes over theoretical issues.

321
00:32:01.860 --> 00:32:03.860
Well, so what?

322
00:32:03.860 --> 00:32:08.200
We're still friends and we're still able to collaborate in areas where we agree.

323
00:32:08.200 --> 00:32:12.220
If we were, for instance, basketball players, I would say that while at times we have a

324
00:32:12.220 --> 00:32:16.540
different idea of what play to run, we're still on the same team.

325
00:32:16.540 --> 00:32:22.260
And differences of opinion like that shouldn't distract us from the basic goal of beating

326
00:32:22.260 --> 00:32:31.840
Now, some people, my embrace of diverse forms of libertarianism here might lead some people

327
00:32:31.840 --> 00:32:35.260
to accuse me of some form of relativism.

328
00:32:35.260 --> 00:32:38.220
The idea is slanderous.

329
00:32:38.220 --> 00:32:42.860
I don't for a minute contend that all philosophies are created equal or that there is no best

330
00:32:42.860 --> 00:32:43.860
worldview.

331
00:32:43.860 --> 00:32:44.860
There is.

332
00:32:44.860 --> 00:32:45.860
It's mine.

333
00:32:45.860 --> 00:32:53.260
But I realize that not all of you immediately are prepared to agree with me on everything.

334
00:32:53.260 --> 00:32:56.100
You'll come around, but it could take time.

335
00:32:56.100 --> 00:33:03.100
So in the meantime, you know, what I suggest is to, looking for allies, to find the basis

336
00:33:03.100 --> 00:33:10.780
where we can agree and move forward on those bases.

337
00:33:10.780 --> 00:33:18.260
Resolving the merits of various ethical systems, bases for liberty and so forth, is not pointless.

338
00:33:18.260 --> 00:33:21.220
That's not my contention in the least.

339
00:33:21.220 --> 00:33:26.740
But I don't think that resolving that debate is how we'll advance on our road.

340
00:33:26.740 --> 00:33:31.540
In order to progress toward liberty, we must convince the average Joe that liberty is important

341
00:33:31.540 --> 00:33:32.540
to him.

342
00:33:32.540 --> 00:33:38.780
Now, I've met the average Joe, and believe me, he has little interest in whether human

343
00:33:38.780 --> 00:33:43.940
Human rights are grounded on natural law, utilitarian calculus, cultural traditions,

344
00:33:43.940 --> 00:33:46.700
or something else altogether.

345
00:33:46.700 --> 00:33:51.780
What will influence the average person, in my belief, is straightforward examples that

346
00:33:51.780 --> 00:33:55.860
illuminate the real nature of various state activities.

347
00:33:55.860 --> 00:34:01.260
We're not trying to get him to overthrow his entire worldview and adopt ours.

348
00:34:01.260 --> 00:34:06.860
What I think we should try to do is alert him to the fact that within his existing worldview

349
00:34:06.860 --> 00:34:16.540
One way to do this is to look at language.

350
00:34:16.540 --> 00:34:21.380
Here I think Ido Holtzman has done us a great service by pointing out the state-generated

351
00:34:21.380 --> 00:34:24.260
fog swirling through our language.

352
00:34:24.260 --> 00:34:26.300
Theft is called asset forfeiture.

353
00:34:26.300 --> 00:34:30.020
The murder of Randy Weaver's wife is called law enforcement.

354
00:34:30.020 --> 00:34:32.960
Budget increases are called cuts in spending.

355
00:34:32.960 --> 00:34:37.100
The mist is necessary to prevent everyone, including those generating the mist, from

356
00:34:37.100 --> 00:34:39.400
seeing what is really occurring.

357
00:34:39.400 --> 00:34:42.160
Our job, as I see it, is to burn off that fog.

358
00:34:42.160 --> 00:34:47.660
Holtzman shows that this fog obscures the immoral nature of the domineering state.

359
00:34:47.660 --> 00:34:54.400
It creates the illusion that the state stands apart from ordinary human values and judgments.

360
00:34:54.400 --> 00:34:59.520
The state somehow represents the mystical will of the people, or our voluntary collective

361
00:34:59.520 --> 00:35:00.520
choices.

362
00:35:00.520 --> 00:35:09.720
If we can make it clear that we should not tolerate behavior from our government that we would not tolerate from our friend, we'll have made a great step forward.

363
00:35:09.720 --> 00:35:14.200
For example, I was talking with a friend of mine some time ago.

364
00:35:14.200 --> 00:35:19.200
He was very interested in politics, but less so in political theory.

365
00:35:19.200 --> 00:35:22.280
And he was querying me about libertarianism.

366
00:35:22.280 --> 00:35:30.280
And as he's an avid camper, I said, well, imagine this, you, Dick, Mark, and I go camping.

367
00:35:30.280 --> 00:35:45.280
And we're going up, we're going to camp up at the top of the mountain, and on the way up, you, Dick and I, decide that, well, it would be nice to build a little lean-to in case the weather is bad on the way back down, we'll have a little shelter.

368
00:35:45.280 --> 00:35:56.280
And we tell Mark, and he says, oh, well, you know, no thanks, I'm really in the mood to keep walking, I'm going to head on up the mountain, and you guys go ahead and I'll meet you up there.

369
00:35:56.280 --> 00:36:05.800
Sorry, Mark. You can't do that. What do you mean, I can't do that? Well, if you do that,

370
00:36:05.800 --> 00:36:13.280
we'll have to kill you. Mark, it's not that we want to kill you or anything. I mean, at

371
00:36:13.280 --> 00:36:19.320
first, if you resist, we'll just rough you up a little bit. But if you keep resisting,

372
00:36:19.320 --> 00:36:25.340
we voted. We're the majority, and you're resisting the will of the people. So you better get

373
00:36:25.340 --> 00:36:33.560
Well, I finished my tale and said, now, how is that different than the social democratic

374
00:36:33.560 --> 00:36:35.840
welfare state?

375
00:36:35.840 --> 00:36:41.380
And he thought for a moment, he said, you know, it really isn't different, is it?

376
00:36:41.380 --> 00:36:46.440
And he told me later that at that moment he became convinced of the essential soundness

377
00:36:46.440 --> 00:36:49.680
of libertarian theory.

378
00:36:49.680 --> 00:36:54.720
My point is that most people would already judge the action of the three campers to be

379
00:36:54.720 --> 00:37:07.280
The people who do recognize it is wrong already, though, we don't need to change their entire

380
00:37:07.280 --> 00:37:09.480
worldview.

381
00:37:09.480 --> 00:37:15.040
We just have to show them that it's this fog that keeps them from recognizing that when

382
00:37:15.040 --> 00:37:22.360
the state acts like this, it's not any different than when the three campers acted like that.

383
00:37:22.360 --> 00:37:28.680
One reason I think a right to secession is that I'm recommending that as our road toward

384
00:37:28.680 --> 00:37:35.640
liberty is that it doesn't require widespread agreement on what specific laws any particular

385
00:37:35.640 --> 00:37:38.280
civil association ought to have.

386
00:37:38.280 --> 00:37:42.600
On the contrary, the recognition of a right to secession peacefully accommodates the widest

387
00:37:42.600 --> 00:37:48.260
possible divergence of opinion about what laws are just by enabling a multitude of legal

388
00:37:48.260 --> 00:37:53.140
systems to coexist without intrinsic conflict between them.

389
00:37:53.140 --> 00:37:58.060
For one thing, this helps alleviate the conflict that has divided libertarianism for quite

390
00:37:58.060 --> 00:38:03.380
some time between anarcho-capitalists who believe that no state can be just and minarchists

391
00:38:03.380 --> 00:38:08.800
who hold that society needs a minimal state to enforce basic laws and provide defense.

392
00:38:08.800 --> 00:38:13.540
If each group recognizes the right of the other to attempt to realize the form of social

393
00:38:13.540 --> 00:38:20.540
Civil Associations might employ traditional police and defense forces, hire private defense agencies, as proposed by Rothbard and David Friedman, form mutual defense agencies, as recommended by Paul Virch, establish the sort of insurance system proposed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

394
00:38:43.540 --> 00:38:52.100
Hans Hoppe and Bob Murphy or employ some as yet undreamed of form of defense and law enforcement.

395
00:38:52.100 --> 00:38:55.740
No doubt many people will find some of the laws that other people choose to live under

396
00:38:55.740 --> 00:38:57.740
bizarre or unjust.

397
00:38:57.740 --> 00:39:03.160
However, as long as membership in a civil association is voluntary and no group tries

398
00:39:03.160 --> 00:39:08.220
to impose its vision of just law on any other, I see no reason why such groups should not

399
00:39:08.220 --> 00:39:23.220
I'd like to examine an example that's dear to the heart of many people here and is an area of fierce dispute among libertarians, fractional reserve banking.

400
00:39:23.220 --> 00:39:33.220
Many libertarians view it with extreme distaste. I believe they have a perfect right to form civil associations that do not permit the practice.

401
00:39:33.220 --> 00:39:41.020
However, one person who was against fractional reserve banking wrote to me and seemed to

402
00:39:41.020 --> 00:39:48.140
suggest that it had to be stamped out everywhere by force.

403
00:39:48.140 --> 00:39:51.420
And this was very odd to me.

404
00:39:51.420 --> 00:39:54.460
And I'd like to look at the implication of such a view.

405
00:39:54.460 --> 00:40:00.100
Now let's imagine two civil associations, Rothbardville and Freedman Town, existing in

406
00:40:00.100 --> 00:40:02.500
neighboring villages.

407
00:40:02.500 --> 00:40:07.820
Of course, in the world I'm describing, the groups might even be geographically intermingled,

408
00:40:07.820 --> 00:40:10.900
but that's unimportant for this scenario.

409
00:40:10.900 --> 00:40:15.580
Fractional reserve banking is banned in Rothbardville, but practiced enthusiastically in Freedman

410
00:40:15.580 --> 00:40:16.780
Town.

411
00:40:16.780 --> 00:40:21.580
To be consistent, my correspondent would have to endorse an invasion of Freedman Town by

412
00:40:21.580 --> 00:40:26.380
Rothbardville in order to force the Freedmanites to give up fractional reserve banking.

413
00:40:26.380 --> 00:40:31.460
However, as long as the Freedmanites were not surreptitiously attempting to pass fractional

414
00:40:31.460 --> 00:40:33.860
and Reserve Notes to the Rothbardians.

415
00:40:33.860 --> 00:40:37.980
It clearly would be an act of an aggression, in my mind, on the part of the Rothbardians

416
00:40:37.980 --> 00:40:39.400
to attack them.

417
00:40:39.400 --> 00:40:43.340
Should any individual Friedmanite complain to a Rothbardian that he believes his rights

418
00:40:43.340 --> 00:40:49.260
are being violated because his deposits are not being held entirely in bank vaults, what

419
00:40:49.260 --> 00:40:55.620
I believe the correct response is from a Rothbardian is, you're absolutely right, you've come to

420
00:40:55.620 --> 00:41:01.380
your senses now, secede from Friedman town and join Rothbardville.

421
00:41:01.380 --> 00:41:06.020
I don't see any reason the two groups could not live in peace and trade with each other

422
00:41:06.020 --> 00:41:10.900
as long as the Friedmanites used gold or paper money fully backed by gold for payment to

423
00:41:10.900 --> 00:41:11.900
the Rothbardians.

424
00:41:11.900 --> 00:41:16.260
The Rothbardians might find the Friedmanites' indulgence in fractional reserve banking to

425
00:41:16.260 --> 00:41:24.700
be foolish in the extreme, just as anarcho-socialists might find Rothbardians or Friedmanites who

426
00:41:24.700 --> 00:41:28.620
wanted to work for a wage to be foolish in the extreme.

427
00:41:28.620 --> 00:41:33.900
But liberty surely entails the right to be foolish, so long as one doesn't force one's

428
00:41:33.900 --> 00:41:36.980
foolishness on others.

429
00:41:36.980 --> 00:41:41.980
I believe that the recognition of a right to secession is the single greatest advance

430
00:41:41.980 --> 00:41:45.060
toward liberty that is within our grasp.

431
00:41:45.060 --> 00:41:48.860
Because many people today acknowledge the right to self-governance, persuading them

432
00:41:48.860 --> 00:41:54.000
to acknowledge the right to secession only entails making explicit the logical implication

433
00:41:54.000 --> 00:41:56.340
of values that they already hold.

434
00:41:56.340 --> 00:42:02.740
Furthermore, the abolition movement offers us an historical precedent for this approach,

435
00:42:02.740 --> 00:42:03.740
I suggest.

436
00:42:03.740 --> 00:42:09.060
Rather than engage in endless disputes amongst themselves, the abolitionists united behind

437
00:42:09.060 --> 00:42:13.220
a single simple principle, human slavery is wrong.

438
00:42:13.220 --> 00:42:18.300
Similarly, libertarians of whatever strike today might agree that the bondage of individuals

439
00:42:18.300 --> 00:42:21.800
to a state that they had no say in choosing is wrong.

440
00:42:21.800 --> 00:42:26.840
Under particular laws we advocate, we could unite behind the idea that human freedom is

441
00:42:26.840 --> 00:42:32.740
advanced when each person can choose the body of law under which he wishes to live.

442
00:42:32.740 --> 00:42:37.800
Each of us, within whatever tradition of morality we endorse, can bring into relief those elements

443
00:42:37.800 --> 00:42:41.960
of that tradition that support the freedom of the individual to choose his own form of

444
00:42:41.960 --> 00:42:42.960
governance.

445
00:42:42.960 --> 00:42:48.760
Libertarians can divide themselves in debating incremental versus radical reform, anarchy

446
00:42:48.760 --> 00:42:54.560
Murray vs. Menarche, Rand vs. Mises, Rothbard vs. Friedman, and so on, or we can choose

447
00:42:54.560 --> 00:42:59.680
a common road to travel, one that does not deny or cover up our differences, but still

448
00:42:59.680 --> 00:43:04.080
proceeds directly toward eliminating the great evil from the world.

449
00:43:04.080 --> 00:43:06.520
I suggest we hit the road.