(to table of contents of archives)  (to start of essay)

Outline
-introduction
Non-Moral Legitimacy
Moral Legitimacy
The Power of Negative Thinking
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

(to outline)   (to top of page)

Legitimacy comes in several flavors, and people have different preferences for these flavors depending on their philosophies and circumstances. What makes something legitimate to one person might not make it legitimate to another person, and what makes something legitimate to a person in one context might not make it legitimate to him in another context.

Everyone pays lip service to logical consistency as a necessary part of legitimacy, but beyond that people divide up based on whether they believe in morality or not, and those who believe in morality divide up further according to the kind of morality they endorse.
 

(to outline)   (to top of page)

Non-Moral Legitimacy

Those who do not believe in morality do not have to be concerned with moral justifications for the institutions of a free nation or of the state. They allow their opponents to take the moral high ground and try to defend their own position by (1) appealing to economic self-interest or (2) by arguing that whatever exists has proven its legitimacy by surviving the natural selection process, which, given the fact that states have taken over the world, is an argument that is better suited to defend the state than a free nation.

Economic efficiency comes so close to being a value-free value that economists often think they are being objective scientists when they advocate efficient ways of doing things. Economists don’t make moral judgments about what goods and services should be produced or how they should be distributed. They let "society" decide those issues. But they often argue that the decision-makers in society should listen to economists so that the goods and services will be produced and distributed efficiently. To economists, an institution is economically legitimate if it makes efficient use of resources (capitalism but not socialism).

Biologists generally accept the theory of evolution as an established fact that they can use to prove the biological legitimacy of any species that has survived the natural selection process (cockroaches, but not dinosaurs).

Sociologists can use the theory of evolution to prove the social legitimacy of various institutions. Social institutions that have survived are legitimate (the state, but not free nations).
 

(to outline)   (to top of page)

Moral Legitimacy

Moral legitimacy is established by arguments that appeal to commonly held moral standards. Unfortunately, different people hold different moral standards. So what is legitimate to libertarians is not always legitimate to others and vice versa.

To libertarians, an institution is morally legitimate if it does not initiate force or fraud (capitalism and voluntary socialism, but not state socialism). To anarcho-socialists, an institution is morally legitimate only if it meets two mutually exclusive requirements: (1) it does not initiate force or fraud and (2) it allows everyone an equal voice in the allocation of goods and services (voluntary socialism but not private property, not capitalism, and not state socialism). To statists, an institution is morally legitimate if it is authorized by the state (state prisons but not vigilantism).

All the institutions of a free nation are morally legitimate to libertarians. Some of these institutions such as the family, language, and money, are also morally legitimate to most statists because they are permitted by most states. But some institutions, in particular the unhampered market, are not approved by any statists because they are not authorized by any states.

Libertarians cannot persuade others that all the institutions of a free nation are morally legitimate unless those others (1) accept the non-aggression principle, (2) are willing to judge the actions of the state by the same moral principles as they judge the actions of private individuals, and (3) are willing and able to be consistent and rigorous in their application of the principle. Libertarians lose potential converts at each of these thresholds. Many people are willing to agree with the non-aggression principle when applied to private citizens, fewer are willing to apply it to the state, and only a minute percentage are willing and able to apply it rigorously. The Henry Georgists, classical liberals, and minarchists are with us up to the second threshold. The anarcho-socialists drop out at the third threshold.

It was knowledge of the short-term futility of trying to convert the majority to libertarianism that led the founders of the Free Nation Foundation to concentrate on persuading people who are already libertarian to form our own nation. But the Free Nation Foundation still has to face the dilemma that the very things that make the institutions of a free nation legitimate to us make some of those institutions illegitimate to everybody else. If everybody else would leave us alone, we could ignore this dilemma and say it is everybody else’s problem. But we know they won’t allow us to live in peace. They will insist that we conform to their views about the necessity and legitimacy of the state.

We might be able to fool some of them into believing that our free nation conforms to their requirements by setting up a sham government with many of the trappings of a state. I proposed such a scheme in "A Paper Tiger for a Free Nation" (Formulations Vol. V No. 1). But I am skeptical about my own scheme and am not willing to be among the first guinea pigs to test it.

I see no way out of our dilemma short of a science-fiction scenario in which a libertarian scientist invents a technology that would provide an impenetrable, yet moral, defense for a free nation so it could thrive unmolested by statists.
 

(to outline)   (to top of page)

The Power of Negative Thinking

Positive thinking has a lot going for it. After all, if you don’t try, you are not likely to succeed, and if you don’t have a positive attitude, you are less likely to try. In addition to being a prerequisite for achieving progress, faith also helps people to recover from injuries and diseases. On average, people with deeply held religious beliefs (it doesn’t matter which religion) live longer, healthier lives than other people.

Winners generally are confident people who believe in themselves or believe destiny or the gods are on their side. History is generally written from the victor’s point of view. This may be why positive thinking gets much better press than negative thinking.

But negative thinking has advantages of its own that ought to be more appreciated. Consider business ventures. The business ventures that succeed often get histories written about them and their founders sometimes become folk heroes whose positive attitude inspires imitators. But historically, most business ventures fail. So a negative attitude is more likely to keep you from taking financial risks and going bankrupt than a positive attitude is likely to enable you to become a millionaire.

Negative thinking also has explanatory powers, which are perhaps more important than the practical advantages of caution and prudence. In particular, I believe a skeptical attitude about the ability of the typical man to think rationally offers the best explanation for the survival of the state in spite of all the logical arguments offered by libertarians. The wars, genocides, slavery, ignorance, gullibility, and stupidity that characterize the known history of mankind tell me that the average man is not rational or intelligent enough to become a libertarian. This negative attitude offers no way out of our dilemma, but, at least, it offers an explanation for our failure while allowing that our principles are legitimate. Our views are not wrong, they are just not likely to be popular with the stupid masses or with their more intelligent but evil rulers. D
 
 

Roy Halliday now has his own home page at <royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/ROYHOME.HTM> It features his book-length essay Enforceable Rights: A Libertarian Theory of Justice. It also includes short pieces from his radical libertarian period (1966-1972), links to his Formulations articles, and a few surprises.

(to table of contents of archives)  (to outline)   (to top of page)