Welcome to the Machine Part II
The Bios of Libertarianism
In Part I of this series, I delineated the upper-class relationship with Progressivism and disclosed a history riddled with examples of the use of technology, psychology, propaganda, and indoctrination techniques designed to subvert individual authenticity in service to the needs of empire. Despite voluminous examples within the historical record, and no doubt a result of the now century-long misinformation campaign posing Progressivism as a movement for the people, a dominant mythology persists among many that free-markets are somehow to blame for the above-mentioned alienation and an overall disassociation between civilization and the natural world. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Over the last two years, Progressive advocates promoting state-imposed control measures claiming scientific justification for lockdowns and medical mandates have repeatedly admonished those libertarians concerned about infringements to individual liberties as selfish. They often build spurious straw men such as “white supremacy” or “domestic terrorism” to impugn those who believe in the necessity of creating healthy boundaries between state power and individual autonomy.
These same advocates for scientism and scientific socialism, promoting a hierarchical system where government bureaucrats control the healthcare decisions of all, then turn around and accuse the libertarian of advocating for patriarchy and the controlling systems of empire. This new Jacobin Socialism, a blend of French Revolutionary rhetoric and the National Socialism prominent in Nazi Germany, utilizes double speak to project their authoritarian tendencies on those who seek to return to a state of nature, harmonize with natural principles, and engage in self-organizing systems of economy dedicated to long term, sustainable methodologies.
This essay will show how the foundations of libertarianism are characterized by the organic principle of bios, standing in contrast to the techne of Progressivism that despite rhetoric to contrary, inevitably leads to the forced enslavement of the individual through the technological forces of social engineering and technocracy. Libertarianism is built on the principles of natural law, natural rights, and an economy based on the self-organizing systems employed within the state of nature. How can such a philosophy result in the machine-world Metaverse currently under construction?
Natural Law
Perhaps most famously advocated for in the Two Treatises of Government by 17th century British Empiricist John Locke, the idea of natural law goes back to antiquity. Its basic premise can be described through an understanding that government law’s cannot supersede the existence of certain naturally occurring laws that ultimately dictate a moral code defining often ambiguous concepts such as morality and justice. In other words, natural law posits that governments can still engage in immoral actions, despite claims made of a moral high ground, due to the fact that morality and justice exist naturally. These concepts are not dependent on government interventions. Locke’s arguments were specifically designed to derail the concept of a “divine right of kings” when such arguments were made to justify the tyranny of feudal lords. I posit the same arguments are made today to justify the “divine right of science”.
While there are many thinkers who add nuance to the conversation, for the purposes of this essay suffice to say that the notion of natural law principally concludes that natural forces are more powerful than those of people or institutions claiming authority over others. Human interpretations concerning notions, whether of virtue or power, simply cannot transcend the natural systems we are all born into. Though sophistry is often employed to create a good argument for justifiable uses of power, if those uses conflict with natural law they are by definition unjust and immoral.
Natural law emanates from what Locke describes as the “state of nature”. If we imagine a world without government control, what does that look like? How do human beings operate without such a control mechanism in place? Even without such laws and power structures, there continues to exist an inherent understanding of right action. Morality and natural law are not dependent on the government to explain or define these parameters. They exist outside of the dictates of such systems and so transcend their influence by natural design.
If you haven’t already, check out my essay on Dialectics and Dialogue for an understanding of the proper application of reason and logical argumentation. Complex rational arguments are often used to sway many into authoritarian action. According to the theory of natural law, human beings are born independent and sovereign. We are given by Creator the ability to make choices as autonomous beings. These natural abilities require violence to overcome, and ideas of virtue and morality must incorporate the axiomatic characteristic of human freedom in order to remain viable. There exists no argument that transcends these self-evident truths. No matter the quality of the rhetoric, if it includes a justification for the control of another human being, that argument defies natural law.
Natural Rights
Concomitant to the concept of natural law comes ideas about natural rights. It should be noted that much like natural law, natural rights are inherent in living creatures as a birthright. They are not granted to people by the state, or any other institution, but occur as an inalienable characteristic of life itself. The only way to infringe on a natural right is through the use of aggression. This essay provides a good history of the concept of natural rights in Western history, though the concept is widely understood in cultures throughout the world.
For me, the concept of natural rights can be reduced down to two principles. First, all living creatures have the ability to defend themselves against aggression. All autonomous individuals chose when to set boundaries. Setting boundaries is a natural right.
Second, natural rights are a simple manifestation of individual abilities, so long as these abilities do not injure or damage another. The ability to communicate becomes a right to free speech, the ability to worship can be articulated as the right to freedom of religion. The truth is there is no “list” of natural rights, only an understanding that they exist under natural law as a result of the complex interplay between one person’s use of labor to create, and another’s use of self-defense when that labor infringes on personal boundaries.
While certainly many political philosophers have added their own twist to these concepts going back centuries, I find these truths to be axiomatic to the concept of libertarianism. They are simply self-evident. It is a fact of existence that humans are free until forced through violence to comply with another’s will. It is the act of violence that comprises the breach of natural law and becomes an infringement on a natural right.
Here is a good interview with Vin Armani, author of Self Ownership, where we discuss the ideas of natural law and natural rights in detail.
Self-Organizing Systems
We can discuss the ideas of natural law and the inherent and inalienable rights that follow but real life is complicated. How can these ideas apply to complex systems such as economies or legal institutions that require broad application across multiple large populations? Surely there must be some system in place to provide answers to the questions of legality and morality? Without such systems, wouldn’t civilization devolve into anarchy and chaos?
It is certainly difficult to grasp an understanding of how moral systems can evolve without an authority defining these complex questions and providing answers applicable to all participating in the body politic. Though few in the modern day would agree that a feudal lord or king can rule by “divine right” many have come to believe that the will of the people, reflected through democratic action, provide the necessary mechanism to answer these complicated questions.
Yet can it be said that the will of the majority is powerful enough to overturn those rights granted to each individual through natural law? This essay does a good job of comparing the works of Rousseau, Tocqueville, and Mill concerning the problem of what is known as the tyranny of the majority. Even within idealized versions of true direct democracy it just isn’t possible to force others to do what they really don’t want to do. Freedom is the natural state of humanity. Neither dictatorship nor democracy can change that fundamental fact. So how can we create systems of ethics, morality, law, and economics when such control mechanisms are inadequate to provide the leadership necessary to construct the viable and predictable infrastructure needed to protect individuals, communities, and even civilizations?
Libertarians turn once again to the state of nature for the answers to these questions. It turns out that natural systems are self-organizing. This means that they don’t need a hierarchical system of government to determine where an anthill is placed, a tree planted, or a river flows. Nature organizes herself based on the confluence of a near-infinite number of variables simply by following natural laws. This blog post provides an excellent introduction to the notion of self-organized complex systems existing throughout nature. I would recommend the whole series to really get an understanding of how wholistic systems interact to produce a web of life creating entire ecosystems which seamlessly integrate into the larger planetary system encompassing Mother Earth. Imagine living in a world where human beings also participated in this sustainable system based on natural law?
Libertarian economists call this phenomenon catallaxy when applied to the operations of free markets unencumbered by the central planning techniques utilized through the application of scientific socialism. This essay details the notion of catallaxy throughout the work of Austrian school theorist F.A. Hayek. It mentions Hayek’s notion of “The Fatal Conceit”, which describes the hubris of those who believe that their logic is powerful enough to dominate and control natural economic forces ultimately too complex and self-organized to be properly understood by any one individual mind. The “fatal conceit” describes Progressive idealism which purports to embody the God-like powers needed to determine the course of economic events. Ultimately, such narcissistic arrogance results in untold human and environmental suffering.
Adam Smith in his classic libertarian treatise The Wealth of Nations actually discusses this concept over two hundred years ago when describing what he called
”the invisible hand”. Smith was not only centuries ahead of the curve with this concept in terms of its self-organizing characteristics elucidating what is now known as complexity theory, but he also reveals a basic understanding of the Law of Supply and Demand and its effect on price action in a free society. Essentially, he observed how a change in supply or demand of a product in one sector of economic activity translates into a price shift effecting the entire supply chain. This exchange of vitally important information happens without the need for those further down the chain to know why or how price action shifted, only that it did.
Hence, a complex system of economy can evolve without the influence of a central planner. If a resource cannot be sustainably harvested, the price goes up, so everyone along the supply chain starts to seek alternatives. If a job becomes superfluous because many people no longer want or need a certain service, price goes down. The laborer will seek another venue for their talents more in accordance with community needs. When central planners, often those profiting off the current market, utilize a protection racket to maintain profits artificially, this system breaks down.
Perhaps most importantly, the system of complexity does not require a majority to agree to promote certain lifestyle choices over another. Only enough people need to desire a certain product or service to make that commodity profitable. This aspect of a free market allows minority perspectives to flourish and encourages diversity, which only increases the health of any complex system.
Conclusion
Despite a dominant mythos that describes free market philosophy as the force behind the now centuries long trend towards worker alienation, colonialism and the drive towards a technocratic future, this series makes clear the roots of the Progressive movement include all aspects of the modern tendency to meld humans with machines. It’s early advocacy of social Darwinism, scientific socialism, and the efficiency movement along with propaganda techniques in journalism and indoctrinating pedagogies reveal an ideology committed to techne rather than the natural and organic concepts represented by the term bios.
Conversely, libertarians fighting this trend toward mechanization have utilized concepts such as natural law and natural rights emanating from the state of nature to argue for the freedom to engage in the development of a complex, self-organizing system based on natural processes. How can such a philosophy be responsible for the alienation of humankind from their authentic selves? How can it be responsible for the disassociation from nature, now characteristic of modernity, resulting in so many social and environmental issues?
Though this dominant mythos assumes a free market evolves of necessity into a centralized market dominated only by the winners of the game, history shows that such a free market has never really been implemented and certainly not sustained. The history of patriarchy is replete with governments acting to centralize markets in the hands of those few who are politically connected. Clearly, the Progressive movement began and has been promoted by the upper classes despite its claims to be a grassroots movement for the people. Perhaps it is time to question the authenticity of this movement and its proclamations in support of the common person. We should wonder if its allure is not a result of propaganda and indoctrination, rather than critical thinking and a deeper understanding of what it means to be organically human.
Though this series has neither the breadth nor scope to include the nuance needed to understand the full impact of these very large concepts, and certainly does not represent a complete argument for libertarianism, I hope even the most ardent Progressive will read these words and wonder where some of their most fundamental assumptions originated. This cursory historical overview clearly displays the overwhelming evidence that Progressivism provides the driving force behind the mechanization of humanity by reducing the individual into a cog in the wheel of a centrally planned economy. This, by default, provides largess for those at the top of the hierarchy.
Perhaps it is time to contemplate that a solution may be found in the bios of libertarianism.
Please consider subscribing if you are interested in learning more about my perspective, and I look forward to engaging in the broader conversation as those of us resistant to the technocratic takeover continue to seek a healthier relationship with life, the planet, and each other as we move forward.
For more information about my work and to find all episodes of my podcasts, go to www.theshiftnow.com. Paid subscribers to The Populist Papers will receive a subscription to “The Shift with Doug McKenty” and have access to all feature-length versions of the show.