Read all of Part 1 here.
The development of the idea that the individual has natural rights coincided with the rise of the natural law philosophy. As the scientific method was being employed to discover all sorts of new principles that ordered nature, the idea spread that there is a fundamental nature to all things. Moreover, it was argued that the laws of nature were implanted by God and cannot be altered by human action. Based on this idea, writers looked for the fundamental nature of mankind, government, and economics. It was within this viewpoint that the concept of a social contract was advanced. The contract is not something that is written and signed onto. Rather, political philosophers argued that it is something that all people should recognize if they are to live in a peaceful community with one another. Put simply, it would be the recognition that one should not employ violence to achieve his personal ends. It is a view that God has so structured creation that all people ought to respect the lives of all other people, should not trespass on their property, leave them free to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and should keep their word and honor all their voluntary contracts. The growth in this philosophy in the 18th century set the stage for the American revolution and the rise of private property and free enterprise.
Despite the aims of the British government to maintain and extend control, appeals for freedom began to spread throughout the empire during this century. The Americans, especially, were captured by these thoughts. By necessity they had developed an independent spirit that was fundamental to their survival and advancement. In addition, a religious revival known as the Great Awakening took place in the early part of that century. It was led by men such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. It was a Protestant movement that stressed that God was supreme over all the affairs of mankind and no one was above Him. When this religious conviction was coupled with the concept of the natural rights of the individual person, Americans made a decisive change in how they viewed the world. It was a widely accepted doctrine that people have by nature certain rights as a gift of God. Most commonly these are stated as the right to life, liberty, and property. John Adams described the position this way:
This is not to say that all the American Founders cut themselves entirely loose from the older Mercantilist mindset. Alexander Hamilton, for one, remained a bit of a Mercantilist. In addition, there remained the problem of chattel slavery. In fact, as Frederic Bastiat would recognize in his classic book, The Law, the problems of slavery and protectionism always threatened the public peace in the United States. Moreover, anyone looking at American history during the 19th century will certainly find failures to apply the rule of private property law consistently. Nevertheless, it is to say that nowhere in human history had a nation been founded more securely in protecting the individual rights of life, liberty, and property. It was this commitment that set the stage for the rapid economic expansion of the nation. People had been largely set free to produce property and accumulate wealth in a fashion that had never before been possible. This is a message that desperately needs to be articulated in the nation today as so many people express a willingness to give up freedom for material security. Of course, if the nation does this, it will lose both freedom and security.
[i] George A. Peek, Jr., ed., The Political Writings of John Adams (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1954), p. 96.
Paul A. Cleveland is a Professor of Economics and Finance at Birmingham-Southern College.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Dec 9 2019 at 6:15pm
It seems like there are a lot of nits to be picked here, but I like the narrative. I’ll just concentrate on one thread: this so-called anti-violence principle.
If property and other rights are to be protected by the law, that will necessarily involve the use of “violence” in law enforcement. I can’t see how either the philosophy itself nor the history of the United States demonstrates any less violence than any other state philosophy.
Jon Murphy
Dec 10 2019 at 8:49am
Be sure to clearly distinguish between the initiation of violence and the response to violence.
Phil H
Dec 11 2019 at 8:27pm
Hi, Jon.
No, that’s kinda my point. That distinction *doesn’t* work. If I occupy your land, or steal something from you, it’s wrong, but it’s not violent. Libertarians would still sanction an (ultimately) violent response to protect your legitimate rights.
Similarly, if the state denies that land can belong to individuals, that may well be wrong, but it’s not violent; the state’s demand for taxes is not in itself violent.
Jon Murphy
Dec 11 2019 at 9:36pm
Precisely define “violent.”
Phil H
Dec 12 2019 at 1:31am
No, I’m not going to get sucked into that kind of an argument. I’m just using violent in the normal way.
A fairly standard thing to say about violence is that the state claims a monopoly on violence within a certain geographic area. I basically agree with that and think it’s a good thing. It’s good because it reduces the overall level of violence, and provides very solid grounds for rejecting most violence as illegitimate. Now, to the extent that liberty-loving people need state services, which I think is non-zero, they will also make use of its capacity for violence.
Jon Murphy
Dec 12 2019 at 9:15am
Which is why you don’t understand the argument I am making. Definitions are important. Refusal to define terms leads to lots of misconceptions and inappropriate objections. By way of example, I was watching an atheist supposedly prove that God is contradictory and thus cannot exist by pointing out that sin does not make sense in a temporal sense. The problem is he was using an incorrect definition of sin, which in turn lead to his incorrect conclusions.
It’s a similar thing going on here. You have an imprecise definition of violence (“the normal [according to whom? You? Lawyers? Jurisprudence?] way”), which is leading to an incorrect conclusion (“That distinction [between the initiation of violence and the protection from violence] *doesn’t* work”).
Violence is an action that causes harm to another, a “real and positive injury.” Thus, trespassing does indeed constitute a violent activity: it is a violation of the right of an individual; it is violence against him.
It is indeed correct that the State has a monopoly on violence. That is why the State can punish violation (notice that word “violation.” It is derived from “violence”) of rights: the State has the exclusive power for violence. If the State did not, it could not punish violations.
For more on this, I recommend Adam Smith’s Lectures on Jurisprudence (in particular, LJ(B)) and his discussions on justice in Theory of Moral Sentiments. For a more modern treatment, Bruno Leoni’s Freedom and the Law works as does Cooter and Ulen’s discussion in Law & Economics and A.V. Dicey’s Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. There are other sources, but I do not have them at my hands right now.
Now, you may argue that these folks are wrong to define violence in such a way. Fine but irrelevant: notice that this usage is well within “the normal way” if we want to exclude the legal usage (see definition 4).
Jon Murphy
Dec 12 2019 at 9:56am
Now, to my larger point, there are two ways to consider the “anti-violence principle” (by which I assume you mean the “Non-Aggression Principle,” or NAP? I cannot find usage of “anti-violence principle” here other than you and a Google search gives me NAP).
First: One should not initiate the use of violence for any reason but if violence is initiated against one’s self, he should defend. This is a response to violence that many NAP-ers tend to believe.
Second: One should never use violence ever. This second one is not really practiced, so I will largely ignore it.
Now, the State can comply with the NAP through its role as a protective entity. That is, the State can use violence to prevent the violation of the rights (broadly defined here in the classically liberal manner) of those within its borders. This is a response to violence, not an initiation of violence.
The State can also violate the NAP through its role as a productive entity. That is, a State may violate the rights of those within its borders to provide some good or service (eg., eminent domain to build a highway). This is an initiation of violence. NAP-ers tend to oppose this behavior.
(For more on the distinction between the productive and protective state, see Limits of Liberty by James Buchanan, especially pgs. 88-90 and 121-125).
Interestingly, there is a great representation and surprisingly thoughtful discussion of the two considerations of NAP in the old Star Wars: Clone Wars TV show that was on Cartoon Network in the mid-2000’s. The first is represented by Dutchess Satine and the Mandalorians while the latter is represented by Lurmen. See episodes 13-14 of Season 1 (Lurmen) and episodes 12-14 of Season 2 (Mandalorians).
Now, one may reject the NAP, as many classical liberals do, and argue there may be times when the government could, and perhaps should, violate the rules of justice and initiate violence. That is fine. But the distinction still matters, especially for matters of justice and liberty. Justice is “not messing with other people’s stuff.” The flipside of that, security, is “other people not messing with your stuff.” Liberty is defined as “the State not messing with your stuff.” This “messing with” is the initiation of violence. Property rights, as Paul Cleveland discusses here, is what defines “your stuff.”
So yes, the distinction matters a lot. As do our definitions. Without the distinction, the concept of liberty, justice, security, and the role of the state become very muddy.
Phil H
Dec 12 2019 at 10:19am
Jon, I’m afraid some of what you’ve said there is nonsense, and is exactly the reason why I declined to get involved in “definitioning”.
“Violence is an action that causes harm to another” – utter bosh. If I cheat on my wife, I may well harm her, but I do no violence to her. If I neglect my child, I may well harm him, but I have done no violence to him. If I use predatory pricing to drive a competitor out of the market, I may harm her, but I have done no violence to her. Defining things is really hard, and the fact that you’ve written something wrong doesn’t actually undermine your argument – whatever that is – but it makes the conversation much more difficult.
“the State has a monopoly on violence” – actually, the state *claims* a monopoly on violence. Violence is also done by others, but then the state steps in with reactive violence. But if we put your two claims next to each other, see how nonsensical it becomes:
“Violence is an action that causes harm to another” “the State has a monopoly on violence”. You’ve just effectively proven that no harm can be done by any but the state. This is untrue: ordinary people (and other non-state actors) harm each other all the time.
I don’t mind a bit of theorising, or a bit of old-fashioned language, if you want to use it. But you’ll have to be much more careful than this.
In your second post… your argument just doesn’t get to grips with my point. I was simply saying that a regime that protects rights is ultimately reliant on (reactive) violence. Just like all other regimes.
Jon Murphy
Dec 12 2019 at 12:47pm
Which is why you are confused. The examples you give (neglect of the child, cheat of the wife) are indeed acts of violence in all but the most Rothbardian sense. They do real and positive harm. They are not violations of justice (depending on how one understands marriage), but they are violent acts.
Unless and until you define your terms, your thinking will remain muddled. That is why defining is so important; clear thinking cannot happen with unclear terms.
Phil H
Dec 12 2019 at 8:44pm
Indeed! Confusion of concepts – violence with non-violence – is a danger in all arguments.
Fortunately, I’m not confused. Nor do I mind that you want to use words in a different way.
As I said, the reason I didn’t want to get into a definitions argument in the first place is because they all end like this. You seem to disagree with the normal English definitions of words, and insist that no one can even think until they accept your definitions. What a dull and silly way to debate.
If you want to use the word “violence” to denote any action that causes harm, that’s fine. You’ll have to accept that I use it in the normal sense, something like force applied against a person who does not consent, or the immediate threat thereof. We can do that. We can live with each others’ different uses of language.
The key is to get past these pointless digressions, and address the question at stake:
Libertarians sometimes claim that their ideology is inherently less violent (in my sense) than others. I’m saying, it’s not. Like all philosophies for enabling people to live together, libertarianism involves some enforcement mechanisms for the rights that it regards as important: personal and property rights. These mechanisms are backed by the ultimate threat of violence, either by a state or by some other institutional mechanism. I’m suggesting that that makes libertarianism the same as other ideologies in terms of its ultimate reliance on violence (my sense).
If you want to address that substantive point, I’d welcome it.
robc
Dec 16 2019 at 12:23pm
A libertarian society would be inherently less violent. While it would use violence in a reactive sense, like other societies, it would never use it proactively, so would use less violence than a non-libertarian one.
I am using my definition of violence, but since you don’t want to define terms, I won’t.
Roger McKinney
Dec 9 2019 at 6:17pm
Nice history! But the rights to life, liberty and property came from Christianity as Larry Seidentop shows in his book “Inventing the Individual.” It took the Church 1500 years to instantiate the political philosophy hidden in the Gospel. In the 16th century theologians associated with the University of Salamanca, Spain distilled it to the formula that people have a God-given right to life, liberty and property based on natural law and the Bible, but mostly the Bible. John Locke plagiarized the Salamancan scholars.
Comments are closed.