Just a quick note to say I like this idea of reprinting obscure publications very much! Sorry I haven't been active at Underthrow recently... work became incredibly busy, and I haven't had as much time as usual for reading. Stay wonderful!
"I have never been entirely comfortable with notions of Natural Rights and Natural Law."
My suggested interpretation of "natural rights" and "natural law" is that they are natural in the same way as a language, market, or money: they are what spontaneously, or anarchically, evolves to be efficient in the absence of any designer.
I like that a lot and can certainly get behind it to a point. One might need to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, I think there is a danger in saying that which emerges undesigned is good, whereupon the critic might argue that dominance hierarchies are emergent phenomena. Take, for example, the rise of Empires after settled agriculture. Some would argue that these arose from basic game theoretic logic, as well as natural domination instincts. If the brigand kills the farmer, he eats for a month. If he takes a little but otherwise "protects" the farmer and this grain from other brigands, we find the farmer "taking an offer he can't refuse." From these proto-states empires grow, but it's not clear they were designed. Yet I can't help but think there is something to your Hayekian approach.
I would not assert that all spontaneous (or anarchic) social orders are inherently good. But I can’t think of any bad ones, off hand. States and empires do not appear to be spontaneous (or anarchic) orders: they arise as the result of coercively imposed plans (albeit with many unintended consequences). Spontaneous social orders are, ipso facto, due to voluntary choices. What arises from game theory and a few basic assumptions might well be a predictable and highly orderly result, but it is not thereby spontaneous (anarchic). https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
I see what you're saying and I agree with the principle of voluntary association, but that doesn't mean that states and empires can't be emergent. In fact, they probably are emergent phenomena, at least at first. Think about it this way: You can't define emergence (spontaneous order) as anarchic, as that would be arguing in a circle. I gave you an example of a brigand that is coercive and the resulting pattern is emergent, at least at first. Kingly plans and designs come later, of course, but these flow from the game theoretical spontaneous order of the protection racket, which is unplanned in its form as a proto-state (See James C. Scott's Against the Grain). In any case, I think the really interesting question we are grappling with here your claim that "Spontaneous social orders are, ipso facto, due to voluntary choices." I mean, just look at the natural world. Do the creatures of the coral reef with all its predators and parasites really care about voluntary association? Yet are these orders not emergent? Voluntary association is a human contrivance and I think it's a damn good one. But I worry we can't make the case you're making. That said, I'm desperate for you to prove me wrong. (Also, really excited to see your Substack and diving in.)
One more quick note: I wonder if many people aren't born with a strong submission instinct because it was evolutionarily advantageous to rally behind a leader of strength and cunning in battle. Such leaders, clan-kings, could direct groups in swift, coordinated action. We see that time and again as the seeds of hierarchies.
Interesting conversation. Chiming in, just to say this…
In observing this general debate among others (and at some point in the past in my own head), it has long seemed to me that we operate from the misconception that in order for rights to be a natural phenomenon, other natural phenomena (like coercion/aggression) cannot exist. I finally came to realize that this does not need to be the case. Rights do not have to repel violations like the Enterprise's shields repel photon torpedos in order to be real and natural.
Coercion and persuasion are both strategies of the natural world. Predation and parasitism vs. cooperation and mutualism. Both are natural. Wolves and butterflies understand property rights. Sharks eat fish, but possums also eat ticks off of deer (benefitting them both).
Rights are natural in the same way that Adrian Bejan's Constructal Law describes a natural aspect of the fabric of reality. All flow systems need to be free in order to get what they need. This is true for biological and nonbiological systems. Freedom is a fundamental requirement of the functioning of the universe!
Rights are natural in the same way that wind seeks equilibrium by moving from areas of high to low pressure. We naturally seek equilibrium in our relations with others. Naturally, intuitively.
Rights are natural in the way that the brain structures that mediate important emotions (compassion, forbearance, remorse) are natural (and that we become psychopaths when these are damaged or under-functioning).
Rights are natural in the way that the process of inductive reasoning is natural—discovering, by living in the natural world, what works better and what works worse. And while coercive strategies may work, they produce nothing, and therefore ultimately do not work as well.
Rights are natural in that they are a requirement for life. 100% rights violations = zero life.
Yes, most trees share helpful chemicals through mycelial networks, while a few (black walnuts, e.g.) send yucky death chemicals. But that just means that both strategies are natural.
And one strategy is better overall, especially for human life.
The universe is woven together with freedom. That does not mean that coercion does not also exist. Both exist. Both are natural. Then we use our reason and intuition to (hopefully) make the right choice.
I did not assert that “states and empires can't be emergent”. In fact, I am unclear about what you intend to be asserting. Emergence is a separate concept from spontaneous order. Emergence is the idea that something can have properties that its parts don’t have. Spontaneous order is the idea that patterns can arise without any overall plan being imposed. And game theory is a completely separate concept too. In the case of spontaneous social orders, these unplanned patterns are the result of the voluntary interactions of people. So, I can’t see the relevance of coral reefs.
I'm referring to both emergence and spontaneous order. Hayek's use which, though less frequent, was part of his understanding of spontaneous order and the closely related "extended order." Admittedly, I used to work for Emergent Order, the company that made the Hayek-Keynes videos, so I'm used to that phrase. We can talk about cosmos, too, as opposed to taxis. While it is true that emergence is a separate concept in certain contexts, i.e. of higher-level properties, and that spontaneous order refers to patterns that arise without a plan/design, there is often tremendous overlap in the concepts -- particularly in complexity theory and evolution. After all, markets have properties (prices) that individual transactions do not. And of course, no one sets or plans or imposes an emergent market price.
Now, on the relevance of coral reefs, with their predators and parasites, these are examples of both emergence and spontaneous order. In the first case, the coral reef has properties that a single starfish or anemone doesn't have. In the second case, the coral reef is a product of both emergence and evolution without the imposition of (say God's) design. Yet sometimes sharks impose upon guppies, and copepod impose upon eels -- though not due to a plan, per se. Due, of course to patterns of evolution and emergence. See how these are connected?
Now, once you consider that people can be both predatory and parasitic, their victims can sometimes tolerate this behavior out of fear or a lack of recourse, which creates a dynamic that has both emergent properties -- i.e. the brigand has more "customers" that he visits periodically to collect with the implicit threat of violence. This is not a plan, per se, but what emerges is a spontaneous order, a proto-state. In time, when kingdoms go to war, there are also emergent and state cultural orders that supervene as serfs expect the kings and knights to protect them from other brigands and kingdoms, such that obedience to king and country seems completely rational to most of them. It's still a protection racket, but it has evolved, and the king has started to use largesse and planning to spread outward, which is both offensive and defensive. That doesn't mean that the role of king was planned or the culture of sacralizing royalty. You could say it was a "spontaneous" phenomenon, arising from unfortunate game theoretical dynamics (such as Prisoner's Dilemmas, which are also not planned or designed). Hence the reference to game theory.
Yes, there are overlaps. But I seemed to be seeing conceptual conflation instead of a clear argument against my own argument.
What I was failing to see, and still am, is the relevance of coral reefs to spontaneous _social_ orders.
I think I see the main confusion. When I say “social” I mean to refer to voluntary association among people. To kill or rob someone (or force him to do whatever you say) is not to _socially_ interact with them but to treat them as prey or property. Therefore, any consequence of such treatment cannot count as spontaneous _social_ orders.
I love the simplicity of Natural Law, a fundamental truth that can be 'proved' by the observation of cause and effect, and 'enacted' by knowing the difference between 'right and wrong' whereby 'doing the right thing' equates to 'living honestly, hurting no one and giving others their due'.
This can be referred to as a 'science of morality' (as documented by Mark Passio in 'The Science of Natural Law') substantiated by the fact that we each have our own inner 'moral compass' that we can choose to follow or ignore depending on how tuned in we are to our higher consciousness.
It follows that the more we take responsibility to do the right thing as individuals, the more we can live together in peace and freedom as a collective, and the more we choose to ignore our moral compass and make up our own rules, the more we relinquish our power and become dependent on the system that would enslave us.
The only thing missing here is the right we have to defend ourselves when harm is being done to us, and the obligation we have to 'keep the peace' whereby we have every right to intercede if it is clear that another or others are being harmed. For this to work in practice depends on: a) everyone being educated to understand the principles of Natural Law and how this applies to the individual, and b) how we build a new system based on the principle of 'self governance' whereby Natural Law is incorporated for the benefit of the collective.
Love Spooner! Fewer statements have been more clear.
Natural-law arguments seem intuitively right, and from a consequentialist standpoint will certainly produce better results if employed in human life. However, I agree that there is something that feels missing in the statements of Locke, Spooner, and other natural lawyers—some sort of philosophical "proof" or further arguments that these things are actually natural.
I have been working on this subject in recent years and I will be releasing what I consider to be evidence (for lack of a better term) that rights really are a natural phenomenon. (Spooner touched on one aspect of that case with his comments about children, and more recent data have reinforced his intuitive sense.)
But I have also attempted some deductive proofs on the subject. The chart below contains a partial distillation of that work. If the premises are actually true and the conclusions follow, then it goes some distance in bolstering the natural-law case:
Just a quick note to say I like this idea of reprinting obscure publications very much! Sorry I haven't been active at Underthrow recently... work became incredibly busy, and I haven't had as much time as usual for reading. Stay wonderful!
"I have never been entirely comfortable with notions of Natural Rights and Natural Law."
My suggested interpretation of "natural rights" and "natural law" is that they are natural in the same way as a language, market, or money: they are what spontaneously, or anarchically, evolves to be efficient in the absence of any designer.
I like that a lot and can certainly get behind it to a point. One might need to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. In other words, I think there is a danger in saying that which emerges undesigned is good, whereupon the critic might argue that dominance hierarchies are emergent phenomena. Take, for example, the rise of Empires after settled agriculture. Some would argue that these arose from basic game theoretic logic, as well as natural domination instincts. If the brigand kills the farmer, he eats for a month. If he takes a little but otherwise "protects" the farmer and this grain from other brigands, we find the farmer "taking an offer he can't refuse." From these proto-states empires grow, but it's not clear they were designed. Yet I can't help but think there is something to your Hayekian approach.
I would not assert that all spontaneous (or anarchic) social orders are inherently good. But I can’t think of any bad ones, off hand. States and empires do not appear to be spontaneous (or anarchic) orders: they arise as the result of coercively imposed plans (albeit with many unintended consequences). Spontaneous social orders are, ipso facto, due to voluntary choices. What arises from game theory and a few basic assumptions might well be a predictable and highly orderly result, but it is not thereby spontaneous (anarchic). https://jclester.substack.com/p/anarchy-and-libertarianism
I see what you're saying and I agree with the principle of voluntary association, but that doesn't mean that states and empires can't be emergent. In fact, they probably are emergent phenomena, at least at first. Think about it this way: You can't define emergence (spontaneous order) as anarchic, as that would be arguing in a circle. I gave you an example of a brigand that is coercive and the resulting pattern is emergent, at least at first. Kingly plans and designs come later, of course, but these flow from the game theoretical spontaneous order of the protection racket, which is unplanned in its form as a proto-state (See James C. Scott's Against the Grain). In any case, I think the really interesting question we are grappling with here your claim that "Spontaneous social orders are, ipso facto, due to voluntary choices." I mean, just look at the natural world. Do the creatures of the coral reef with all its predators and parasites really care about voluntary association? Yet are these orders not emergent? Voluntary association is a human contrivance and I think it's a damn good one. But I worry we can't make the case you're making. That said, I'm desperate for you to prove me wrong. (Also, really excited to see your Substack and diving in.)
One more quick note: I wonder if many people aren't born with a strong submission instinct because it was evolutionarily advantageous to rally behind a leader of strength and cunning in battle. Such leaders, clan-kings, could direct groups in swift, coordinated action. We see that time and again as the seeds of hierarchies.
A cooperative instinct seems more likely to me.
Interesting conversation. Chiming in, just to say this…
In observing this general debate among others (and at some point in the past in my own head), it has long seemed to me that we operate from the misconception that in order for rights to be a natural phenomenon, other natural phenomena (like coercion/aggression) cannot exist. I finally came to realize that this does not need to be the case. Rights do not have to repel violations like the Enterprise's shields repel photon torpedos in order to be real and natural.
Coercion and persuasion are both strategies of the natural world. Predation and parasitism vs. cooperation and mutualism. Both are natural. Wolves and butterflies understand property rights. Sharks eat fish, but possums also eat ticks off of deer (benefitting them both).
Rights are natural in the same way that Adrian Bejan's Constructal Law describes a natural aspect of the fabric of reality. All flow systems need to be free in order to get what they need. This is true for biological and nonbiological systems. Freedom is a fundamental requirement of the functioning of the universe!
Rights are natural in the same way that wind seeks equilibrium by moving from areas of high to low pressure. We naturally seek equilibrium in our relations with others. Naturally, intuitively.
Rights are natural in the way that the brain structures that mediate important emotions (compassion, forbearance, remorse) are natural (and that we become psychopaths when these are damaged or under-functioning).
Rights are natural in the way that the process of inductive reasoning is natural—discovering, by living in the natural world, what works better and what works worse. And while coercive strategies may work, they produce nothing, and therefore ultimately do not work as well.
Rights are natural in that they are a requirement for life. 100% rights violations = zero life.
Yes, most trees share helpful chemicals through mycelial networks, while a few (black walnuts, e.g.) send yucky death chemicals. But that just means that both strategies are natural.
And one strategy is better overall, especially for human life.
The universe is woven together with freedom. That does not mean that coercion does not also exist. Both exist. Both are natural. Then we use our reason and intuition to (hopefully) make the right choice.
I did not assert that “states and empires can't be emergent”. In fact, I am unclear about what you intend to be asserting. Emergence is a separate concept from spontaneous order. Emergence is the idea that something can have properties that its parts don’t have. Spontaneous order is the idea that patterns can arise without any overall plan being imposed. And game theory is a completely separate concept too. In the case of spontaneous social orders, these unplanned patterns are the result of the voluntary interactions of people. So, I can’t see the relevance of coral reefs.
I'm referring to both emergence and spontaneous order. Hayek's use which, though less frequent, was part of his understanding of spontaneous order and the closely related "extended order." Admittedly, I used to work for Emergent Order, the company that made the Hayek-Keynes videos, so I'm used to that phrase. We can talk about cosmos, too, as opposed to taxis. While it is true that emergence is a separate concept in certain contexts, i.e. of higher-level properties, and that spontaneous order refers to patterns that arise without a plan/design, there is often tremendous overlap in the concepts -- particularly in complexity theory and evolution. After all, markets have properties (prices) that individual transactions do not. And of course, no one sets or plans or imposes an emergent market price.
Now, on the relevance of coral reefs, with their predators and parasites, these are examples of both emergence and spontaneous order. In the first case, the coral reef has properties that a single starfish or anemone doesn't have. In the second case, the coral reef is a product of both emergence and evolution without the imposition of (say God's) design. Yet sometimes sharks impose upon guppies, and copepod impose upon eels -- though not due to a plan, per se. Due, of course to patterns of evolution and emergence. See how these are connected?
Now, once you consider that people can be both predatory and parasitic, their victims can sometimes tolerate this behavior out of fear or a lack of recourse, which creates a dynamic that has both emergent properties -- i.e. the brigand has more "customers" that he visits periodically to collect with the implicit threat of violence. This is not a plan, per se, but what emerges is a spontaneous order, a proto-state. In time, when kingdoms go to war, there are also emergent and state cultural orders that supervene as serfs expect the kings and knights to protect them from other brigands and kingdoms, such that obedience to king and country seems completely rational to most of them. It's still a protection racket, but it has evolved, and the king has started to use largesse and planning to spread outward, which is both offensive and defensive. That doesn't mean that the role of king was planned or the culture of sacralizing royalty. You could say it was a "spontaneous" phenomenon, arising from unfortunate game theoretical dynamics (such as Prisoner's Dilemmas, which are also not planned or designed). Hence the reference to game theory.
Yes, there are overlaps. But I seemed to be seeing conceptual conflation instead of a clear argument against my own argument.
What I was failing to see, and still am, is the relevance of coral reefs to spontaneous _social_ orders.
I think I see the main confusion. When I say “social” I mean to refer to voluntary association among people. To kill or rob someone (or force him to do whatever you say) is not to _socially_ interact with them but to treat them as prey or property. Therefore, any consequence of such treatment cannot count as spontaneous _social_ orders.
I didn't see where "narrative" figures in to this Spooner text.
I love the simplicity of Natural Law, a fundamental truth that can be 'proved' by the observation of cause and effect, and 'enacted' by knowing the difference between 'right and wrong' whereby 'doing the right thing' equates to 'living honestly, hurting no one and giving others their due'.
This can be referred to as a 'science of morality' (as documented by Mark Passio in 'The Science of Natural Law') substantiated by the fact that we each have our own inner 'moral compass' that we can choose to follow or ignore depending on how tuned in we are to our higher consciousness.
It follows that the more we take responsibility to do the right thing as individuals, the more we can live together in peace and freedom as a collective, and the more we choose to ignore our moral compass and make up our own rules, the more we relinquish our power and become dependent on the system that would enslave us.
The only thing missing here is the right we have to defend ourselves when harm is being done to us, and the obligation we have to 'keep the peace' whereby we have every right to intercede if it is clear that another or others are being harmed. For this to work in practice depends on: a) everyone being educated to understand the principles of Natural Law and how this applies to the individual, and b) how we build a new system based on the principle of 'self governance' whereby Natural Law is incorporated for the benefit of the collective.
Love Spooner! Fewer statements have been more clear.
Natural-law arguments seem intuitively right, and from a consequentialist standpoint will certainly produce better results if employed in human life. However, I agree that there is something that feels missing in the statements of Locke, Spooner, and other natural lawyers—some sort of philosophical "proof" or further arguments that these things are actually natural.
I have been working on this subject in recent years and I will be releasing what I consider to be evidence (for lack of a better term) that rights really are a natural phenomenon. (Spooner touched on one aspect of that case with his comments about children, and more recent data have reinforced his intuitive sense.)
But I have also attempted some deductive proofs on the subject. The chart below contains a partial distillation of that work. If the premises are actually true and the conclusions follow, then it goes some distance in bolstering the natural-law case:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F33f94366-056f-4078-9ace-4c0b451c0eef_1200x1898.jpeg
We are due for a discussion, Christopher.
I like discussions.
If you get a minute, check out the conversation with J.C. Lester. Really smart guy and probably aligns with your views.
Which conversation is that?
Above in comments
Fix this what?