Essences, Orcs and Civilization:

The Case for a Cheerful Libertarianism

A Keynote for the 2002 Libertarian Party National Convention

an article by David Brin, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2002, by David Brin.
All rights reserved. No duplication or resale without permission.

Let's try on another highly-nonstandard view of our progress toward freedom. Once again, you've never heard it before because it requires cheerfully accepting the possibility that things aren't going straight to hell. That they may actually be getting better.

Cynics have occasionally made fun of the Libertarian Proposition by comparing it to the beliefs of the French philosopher Jean Rousseau. Rousseau contended that society itself was responsible for all of the evils of mankind. If only the wickedness of law and religion, of technology and intricate custom, were removed, he said, men would return to the condition for which they were meant -- that of "noble savages."

This was certainly as fine an example of Look-Back nostalgic romanticism, as ever there could be! And yet it was also highly influential and revolutionary in a day when the opposing worldview was the Divine Right of Kings.

Of perhaps more Look-Forward relevance was the later proposal, by the inventor of modern democratic theory, John Locke, that societies are built upon "social contracts" between rulers and those governed. At the time he meant something quite simple; the "contract" was nothing explicitly written down and signed by all parties. Rather, it was implicit in the relationship between king and subject. The lord ruled benevolently or else, in the long run, the people would have his head.

Locke's basic idea still appears sound, as a rough metaphor. An implicit contract does make sense as a model of what we observe in primitive societies. Consider the dark millennia which lasted until a few centuries ago. During most of those years, the lives of peasants and poor craftsmen were brutal and short. Bandits were always conspiring to steal what little people had, or worse, to become aristocrats themselves, and make slaves of everyone else.

But once a line of aristocracy was established, a curious thing happened. Quite often the grandchildren of bandit lords, well-fed from birth and benefitting from what passed for education in such times, turned out to be rather well suited to rule. It wasn't that they were in any way more deserving, but that nourished brains and literacy could only be provided to a few individuals from the meager surplus available at the time. A young man who was already part of a dynasty, and not rapaciously obsessed with creating a new one, might actually, on occasion, rule wisely.

A careful look at history shows that, for all of their petty wars and brutality, this pattern seemed to work about as well as could be hoped. And when it failed, peasants often did rebel. In a sense, Locke's implicit social contract is simply a description of the obvious.

Contrast this age-old pattern with one of the dream icons held dear by Libertarians -- the explicit social contact.

This is an agreement between the individual and his or her society, worked out anew with each adult, who knowledgeably signs away a carefully chosen, narrow range of action-rights in exchange for certain benefits of cooperative society. For example, some contend that under true federalism each state in the Union should experiment with its own social structure, under the very broad umbrella of national defense and the Bill of Rights. Any man or woman, at age eighteen, would have the opportunity to sign a covenant, explicitly agreeing to the codes and customs and laws of his or her home state. Or, upon disagreeing, the youth could move to another commonwealth with institutions more to his or her liking.

A competitive market for explicit social rules? People preferring paternalism might live in a cradle-to-grave welfare state (and pay for it!) in, say, New York. Others, traveling to Nevada or Alaska, might find few laws other than "Respect Life and Property" and "Don't Pollute," along with the unwritten but implied caveat emptor.

(Some might contend that the worldwide eagerness of people to immigrate to the United States represents a version of this very thing.)

Robert A. Heinlein -- whose centennial we will soon celebrate, and one of the most unambiguously freedom-loving authors -- portrayed such a future society in his novel Revolt in 2100. After successfully overthrowing a fanatical religious dictatorship, rebels not only restore the U.S. Constitution, but add a companion document called the "Covenant," which every adult, upon reaching legal maturity, is expected to sign of his or her own free will, even negotiating special arrangements with their neighbors, towns and states.

All right, it may just be a metaphor, but it helps show our place in the forward flow of history -- where we have been and where we might go. At one end lies Locke's vision of implicit charters between ignorant peasants and semi-literate bandit kings. At the other end, we find this libertarian ideal of an explicit social contract, one negotiated afresh with and among highly educated citizens. All of whom are sufficiently formidable and knowledgable to make truly rational choices.

To those who find something to like in this particular vision, any present-day society may be judged by two simple criteria:

1. By how far it has progressed, evolving from the implicit to the explicit social contract.

2. By its prospects for further evolution in that direction.

By this standard, a lot of things fall into place. An implicit social contract starts becoming explicit with "Magna Carta"-style arrangements among the upper classes... then republic-style charters among the bourgeoisie. As things get more explicit, less and less is left to the whim of leaders. More and more has to be negotiated, deliberated, actually written down. The Civil Service rises to its own era of prim-but-haughty prominence. At the midway point -- well, wouldn't you expect to pass through an awkward phase when the number of words seems almost overwhelming? When explicit rules and regulations seem more of an oppressive curse than a blessed relief from arbitrary authority?

Is it any wonder than many in our society yearn for simpler times, even the capricious personal rule of monarchs? At least capricious -- arbitrary rulership had one advantage -- it was simpler!

It also sucked. Turn away from the past, folks. To hell with kings. Remember the goal.

This is a view of bureaucracy and regulation that you've probably never seen or heard before -- that the excessive rules we face today are like pimples on the face of a gangly adolescent. An awkward phase in the inexorable forward march of a civilization that may actually know what it's doing. One that is making pretty good progress along a very difficult road. Talk about optimistic!

Indeed, modern libertarianism seems already to be groping toward this concept. F.A. Hayek based his belief in the superiority of markets, not on some purported perfection of markets in a lamented past, but upon an increasing ability of diverse players to utilize imperfect but growing knowledge in their own self-interest. This view -- somewhat echoing work in math by Kurt Godel, in physics by Heisenberg and recently in the economic/information theory work of Robin Hanson -- portrays markets as evolving things, growing and adapting to changing circumstances.

It is an optimistic view, perhaps, but not passive! For I am not willing to take anything for granted. Not in an age when many rule-makers are themselves would-be oppressors or corrupt cheaters. Libertarians should not stop fighting the bureaucrats and meddlers and obsessive rule-makers! It's your job to keep the pressure up. To strive always against the stifling excess that pencil-pushers and petty tyrants would force upon us, suffocating initiative if they could.

Unless opposed, they would cover the adolescent with a case of acne that's terminal.

On the other hand, I see very little justification for all the rage! It's unnecessary. It's undignified. Worse, it reduces the effectiveness of Libertarians as society's immune system against red tape.

I see us riding a powerful tide of history, past this awkward phase toward an era of explicit social contracts among free adults. But get this: Whether or not I am right about that cheerful image, we'll all be more effective if we act as if it's true.

Because the voters will listen to cheerful people. They proved, time and again, they won't listen to grouches.

Look on your questionnaire at the "Birds of a Feather" query. With whom do you ally? Who do you listen to? Person A agrees with your long-range dreams and goals, but not your program for getting there, while Person B shares your near-term program, hates the same opponents, but differs over what society we should eventually reach.

Do your political discussions ever even convey a clear image of the future society your efforts aim at achieving? Have you verified that your "allies" have the same destination in mind?

Have you ever noticed the irony that Marxism and Libertarianism each peer far ahead toward an eventual "withering away of the state"? True, these far-goal visions are very seldom mentioned in either ideology. But when they are, the similarities are eerie. Both posit that an ideal society of freedom, dignity and prosperity -- without coercion -- is possible, indeed likely, if only certain impediments are removed.

Marxism foresees that era coming as a natural consequence of capital accumulation and the fore-ordained group behavior of mass classes. Classical Libertarians -- harking to the resentful Look-Back view -- prescribe removing government shackles that currently prevent the natural flowering of markets. Simply toppling the sin of government excess will begin the era of explicit contracts and true individual liberty.

Ah, but then there's Cheerful Libertarianism. (Or perhaps it should be called Maturationalism. Under this Look-Forward zeitgeist, the future era of freedom will come about for one simple reason.

Because if we make a future world in which all children grow up healthy and well educated and free-minded, they will naturally, and of their own free will, choose a society free of coercion. Because that is what any person in his or her own right mind would want!

Mature, knowledgeable and satiable people will tend to approach the near-ideal society of our fairy tale from nearly any starting point, since almost any unafraid adult will deem it the only decent way to live. Absence of fear is key, persuading individuals to forsake ruthless predation in favor of fair competition.

In other words, the precondition necessary for creating paradise is... near-paradise. And, viewed in the context of human history, that is exactly what we've got right now.

These three outlooks demonstrate that sharing a common goal is not enough. Because they differ fundamentally over who is to "blame" for our present condition, as well as how to reach that utopia of freedom and dignity all claim to desire. Each world view depends upon unproved assumptions.

Marxism is the most easily disposed of, for while its critical analyses of nineteenth century capital-formation were incisive, none of its major predictions of events to follow ever came to fruition as prescribed. In science, that is primary disproof. Period. Today the very idea that there could be some "final stage" of industrial capitalization seems charmingly naïve as we see factory tooling becoming obsolete at accelerating rates, proving the continuing need for entrepreneurs for all foreseeable futures. In retrospect, the image of humanity as a locomotive, constrained to a sequential series of psycho-historical "stages" -- like railroad ties on the way to some foretold workers' nirvana -- seems pathetically silly.

Much of this essay has offered a critique of standard Libertarian assumptions -- such as the unsupported notion that free market societies existed in the past, or that immature, neurotic and frightened people, freed suddenly of social restraints, will refrain from fighting, as they always have, to create aristocracies and to make their neighbors' children slaves of their own.

The third utopian view -- that a coercion-free world of wealth and freedom may come about from hard work and pragmatic problem-solving among diverse people of goodwill -- is also unproved. But there can be no doubt, even now, that it deserves its name. Because it sees the fundamental precondition as maturity.

May we live to see which one is right.

Will you bear with me for an aside into the world of escapist fantasy? It truly is relevant to our concerns about building a better real world.

Let's turn our attention to the recent popular film, Lord of the Ring: Fellowship of the Ring. First let me start by saying that I consider Tolkien's trilogy

And yet, almost from its birth, the enlightenment movement was confronted by an ironic counter-revolution, rejecting the very notion of progress. The Romantic Movement (of which fellow Oxfordites C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien were proud members) burst forth as a rebellion against the rebellion! Calling the scientific worldview "soulless," they joined Keats and Shelley and most European-trained philosophers -- plus a multitude of poets -- in spurning the modern emphasis on pragmatic experimentation, production, universal literacy, cooperative enterprise and flattened social orders.

In contrast to these "sterile" pursuits, Romantics extolled the traditional, the personal, the particular, the subjective and metaphorical.

Consider how this fits with the very plot of Lord of the Rings, in which the good guys strive to win re-establishment of an older, graceful and "natural" hierarchy against the disturbing, quasi-industrial and vaguely technological ambience of Mordor, with its smokestack imagery and manufactured power-rings that can be used by anybody, not just an elite few. Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to wear them, usurping the rightful powers of their betters. (The high elves.)

The anti-modern imperative has strong resonance, all right. Indeed, some of its criticisms have validity! Without romance, we'd be sorry creatures, indeed.

Still, scientific/progressive society has at least been known to listen to its critics, now and then. Name one feudal society whose leaders did that. Were any orcs or "dark men" offered coalition cabinet positions in King Aragorn's postwar cabinet, at the end of the Ring War? Did Mordor get a Marshall Plan? I think not.

Which brings us to another of the really cool things about fantasy -- you can identify with a side that's 100% pure, distilled good and revel as they utterly annihilate foes who deserve to be exterminated because they are 100% evil! This may not be politically correct. But then, political correctness is really a bastard offspring of egalitarian scientific enlightenment.

Romanticism never made any pretense at equality. It is hyper-discriminatory, by nature. The urge to crush some demonized enemy resonates deeply within us, dating from ages far earlier than feudalism.

Next... down, dogma, down!

1      2       3       4       5