Neil Lock
My disquiet at obligation to others without liberty
By Neil Lock
This essay is a response to D.J. (David) Webb’s “My disquiet at liberty without obligation to others.” That piece can be found at http://thelibertarianalliance.com/2015/01/19/my-disquiet-at-liberty-without-obligation-to-others/.
Obligation and liberty
David is bothered by a view of liberty that some profess, which he describes as “tossing aside all obligations to one another.” I share his disquiet. And so, I suspect, would almost anyone who identifies as liberal or libertarian. Indeed, it is amply clear to me that every human being has certain obligations or duties to others. And that to meet those is the sine qua non of civilized behaviour.
What I don’t find so easy, however, is to grasp what David thinks those specific obligations should be. He seems to suggest that they include subscribing to the Christian religion; and, even, to the Anglican church. Furthermore, he promotes a traditionalist – some might say blimpish – view on its moral teachings. I certainly can’t agree with his positions here.
Indeed, at another level I find David’s view rather disturbing. If a society or culture doesn’t offer the freedom to reject Christianity in general or the Anglican church in particular, there can be no religious freedom there. So, how liberal is it likely to be in other areas? Not very, I think.
What David seems to be prescribing for us, as his antidote to liberty without obligation to others, is obligation to others without liberty. And that is something I cannot accept. Indeed, I regard “obligation to others without liberty” as a decent definition of the word “slavery.”
Civil society and culture
David’s essay is about the conditions for a civil society. That is, for a society whose purpose is to enable people to live together in tranquillity and justice, while maximizing freedom and prosperity.
He says, at the very start, that he views “a common culture as vital to any sort of functioning society.” I can agree with this, almost – but not quite. For me, what is vital to a functional civilization is a common cultural core, or set of ethical obligations which apply to all. But I take the view that this common core must be the minimum needed to achieve the purpose of civil society. That is what makes me identify myself as a minarchist.
Furthermore, I see the great majority of these core obligations as being negative ones. That is, they impose a duty to refrain from certain conduct. Only a very few of them can impose any positive mandate for action.
If England were a civil society – it isn’t, but if it were – then I’d see no reason at all for something as restrictive as Anglicanism to be part of its core ethic. No more reason, indeed, than for it to be impossible for anyone to be English who doesn’t drink warm beer! In contrast, a good candidate to be part of the core morality is the libertarian non-aggression obligation. I’ll paraphrase this, as it often seems to be put forward, as: “Thou shalt not commit physical aggressions against others.”
Personally, I don’t think the non-aggression obligation (or principle) cuts enough ice to make a viable core morality. And particularly not on its own, as our “thin” libertarian friends seem to think it can. For what it’s worth, I’ve made my own stab at constructing such a core. I’ve put it on line at http://www.honestcommonsense.co.uk/2015/01/ten-ethical-laws.html. (It’s about 2,800 words.)
My vision of civil society
My vision for a civil society is of a common moral core, surrounded by different sets of customs for different groups. Those who want to follow a particular religion, for example, may worship in whatever way they wish, as long as they don’t violate the core morality. But they don’t have any right to force their religion on others. I call this Neil’s First Precept of Religion: “If you let me have my religion (or lack of it), I’ll let you have yours.”
A similar principle will apply in other aspects of life, too. For example, socialists have a right to live in socialist communes if they wish. Free marketeers have a right to live in free market ones. Libertarians have a right to live in libertarian communes, and libertines in libertine ones. But no-one has the right to impose their particular tastes on others. In this way each and every one of us, through meeting our core obligations to others, acquires the freedom and right to live in all other respects in our own way.
The state
I do, however, have another fundamental difficulty with David’s essay. He seems to think of a state as a natural and necessary part of any civil society. He only questions how far the state needs to intervene. I disagree. I regard the political state – which I’m, tentatively, moving towards defining as “the apparatus which enforces the hegemony of a ruling élite” – as an unmitigable evil, totally incompatible with civil society.
Let’s not forget that the Westphalian nation state is a hold-over from pre-Enlightenment times. Back then, the divine right of kings to rule over others was considered the norm, and John Locke was yet a boy. But now, think of the progress which we humans have made over these 350+ years in science, technology, the world economy and much else. That our political institutions have failed to move forward in sync with our general progress is, I think, a major cause of what ails humanity today. The state is way past its last use by date; and we’re all suffering the smell.
Individualism and collectivism
But there is more yet for me to disagree with in David’s essay. He makes some very negative comments about individualism. As an individualist myself – and I think of myself as more an individualist than a libertarian! – I do feel I must respond to these.
First, David seems not to understand what individualism is. The best definition of the word I can find comes from Webster’s: “(2) the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals.” Individualism is not, as David suggests, a particular moral code. That’s a very loose use of the word. And even if it were so construed, such a code would be further from “every man for himself” – which, I think, is likely the moral view David is actually criticizing – than is chalk from milk.
The essence of individualism is a focus on the individual. It is a way of thinking, which puts the human individual at centre stage. It views ethical codes and political structures in terms of how they affect each individual, and of how they benefit and what they cost each individual. It views freedom and obligation to others, not as antagonistic, but as two sides of the same coin. Thus, individualism and (minarchist) libertarianism are entirely compatible.
And when David says that individualism is “only relevant to a hermit,” I think he’s again wrong. The individualist does, very much, recognize that people can gain mutual benefit by associating with each other. Individualism even allows for an ideal of the public good in a society. As John Locke expressed it so well: “the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for.”
Individualism, indeed, is the arch enemy of collectivism. It opposes the evil way of thinking that sees society, the group or the state as everything, and the individual as nothing. Because of this, it is easy to see why leftists and other statists like to (deliberately) misconstrue what individualism is. Indeed, they often describe it in much the same terms that David has used here. I’m well inured to leftists spouting such rhetoric; it’s part of what they do. But a conservative, I think, really should know better.
The individual and the family
In my view, David makes another error when he says: “The unit of society is therefore, not individuals, but families.” This ignores the fact that families consist of individuals. And that in the wider world, for example in the economy, in most cases it is individuals (and societies such as companies) who interact with each other, rather than families.
Furthermore, when I list social units in order of increasing size, I find that the individual and the family are not even next to each other. There is a level in between the individual and the family; the partnership. Partnerships may be, but are not necessarily, created to found or to bring up a family, or both. A good modern example of a non-family partnership is so called gay marriage.
In conclusion
Though I’ve found a lot to disagree with in David’s essay, I do recognize that libertarians and conservatives, radicals and traditionalists, are ultimately all in the same boat. Along, if I’m not hugely mistaken, with all other well meaning, honest and naturally productive people.
We all suffer the predations of a common enemy; the violent, dishonest, immoral, lying, thieving, meddling, out of date political state. And I think that to find and to know the areas in which we can agree, and to illuminate and make clear the areas where we disagree and the reasons why, are good things to be doing in the current phase of the struggle for human liberty.
I will close with a quote, put into the mouth of Gandalf by J.R.R.Tolkien: “We are all friends here. Or should be; for the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward, if we quarrel.”
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
A message to Wes Streeting MP and others on mask-wearing for ’flu
Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) Review – Surveillance and the Modern Police State
Or Utopia (2024): The End of the World, Without the State
Power Without Justice: The American Government and the Corruption of Moral Reason
China’s Rise Without War: Why America Is Misreading a New Model of Power
Meyerbeer’s Le Prophete: Effects without Causes
Intelligence Without Grace: A Review of Hunt (헌트, 2022)
An Examination in the Philosophy of Liberty
Examination in the Philosophy of Liberty: The Headmaster’s Report
Free Trade, Protection, and an Occupation Government: Whitmore v. Mercadente on the Foundations of Liberty
Anti Interventionism and the Liberty Tradition
The Quiet Strangling of English Liberty
Powered by YARPP.
First of all, I think an essay by way of reply is much better than a 10-paragraph “comment” below the article, so I welcome this reply. I’m not sure it is possible to squeeze the toothpaste back in the jar and reinstate Christianity as the core of our culture. It would have been much better not to jettison it in the first place. Of course, most people’s rejection of Christianity is just a rote regurgitation of what they hear on the media. The opinion formers have formed their views – much of Neil’s article could have been lifted from the BBC.
I won’t comment at length to avoid adding 10 paragraphs here. But I don’t believe Neil Lock correctly states his view when he says a common culture is vital. If the common culture is a minimum and there should be different customs for different groups, actually that is the state’s version of multiculturalism. Nothing in this essay explains why family values (labelled “Anglicanism” in Neil’s essay) are not necessary for a free society. The individuation of society leaves people without others to depend on, and fearful of their neighbours and so with an exaggerated fear of crime – and it is just such individuation that provides the basis for a direct relationship between the state and the individual.
David,
I can assure you that nothing in my article came from the BBC! The BBC is the propaganda wing of the brutish state; and I have no more respect for it or for its messages than you do.
You’re right that I didn’t discuss family values or parental responsibilities in this essay. But I did write about them in the “Ten Ethical Laws,” which I linked from the essay. No. 9 I call the Law of Parenthood: “If you have children, bring them up and educate them to be civil human beings.” I’m not sure that we’re as far apart on this issue as you seem to think.
You also mention “individuation of society.” I’m glad you brought this up, as I’ve noticed it too. Quite a few people today do, indeed, seem to be becoming more individuated – more independent in their attitude, and perhaps even (I like to think) more individualistic. One symptom of this is that many people have ceased to identify with the old, out of date political parties. Unlike you, I think this individuation is a move in the right direction, and try to do what I can to help it along. But of course, it’s a slow process.
As to multiculturalism, I too will refrain from writing a 10 paragraph comment here. I’ll merely say that I’ve put “Multiculturalism and Monoculturalism” on my list of topics to address in the reasonably near future.
I’m afraid much of your post reflects BBC propaganda on various issues – given that the state now vigorously promotes family breakdown, most libertarians seem to be doing little more than transmitting state propaganda on the issue, while thinking they’re being “anti-state”.
You understand very little. The individuation of society is not that people are becoming “more independent in their attitude”. In fact, I wonder if you are looking at the same society as me. I don’t know when I last met someone who was independent in his attitude. Such people are vanishingly rare. Failing to identify with the collective identities of the old parties is a social trend, but it means there is no civil society left – which means that the state performs the functions of civil society.
There are moral obligations and their are legal ones.
Libertarianism is based on the non aggression principle – i.e. respect for private property rights.
If, for example, I say about Jon Huntsman (senior) “you have got a lot more land and other stuff than me – so I am going to take some of your land and other stuff” and then try and act on my threat, I (by acting on my threat) am committing a crime – according to the libertarian view.
However, there are also MORAL obligations.
For example if I see someone being mugged and I walk on by I am NOT committing a crime – according to the libertarian view. But I am breaking the basic MORAL obligations – and if everyone acts like that (if everyone just turns their back and walks away) society will collapse.
What of such things as the family.
Either mothers and fathers are responsible for most children – or the STATE is.
No other alternatives are actually real on a large scale – as the failure of communal living experiments in Israel and elsewhere, showed. Sorry but communally bringing up children does not work very well.
If most people just copulate randomly and take no responsibility for their children – then, again, society will collapse.
This does not mean that most people have to be Christians – after all, for example, Orthodox Jews are not exactly famous for under valuing family life.
However, Christianity is the historical context of most of the West – including the United Kingdom. It is “the way we do things” – as Sean Gabb would say. That does not mean that Jew or a Randian Objectivist (or whatever) can not be British or can not be American (or whatever) I do NOT think that Mr Webb was saying that (although there is always the problem here of what exactly the word “English” means – but that is an old problem, Mr Webb is not to blame for it).
By the way – as an Anglican I have heard many attacks on the poor old Church of England over the years (it has been mocked for centuries – in spite of most Anglicans being believing Christians), but I have never heard it being called “restrictive” before – I will treasure that.
Paul,
You raise a couple of good points here.
As to moral obligations beyond the core, I definitely do not admit any unconditional obligation or duty to help someone who is being mugged. Certainly, to help should be recommended; but I don’t think it can reasonably be mandated. There are many reasons why it might be wrong to step in. For example: (1) What if you have mis-identified the aggressor? (2) What if you don’t have sufficient power to positively affect the outcome? (3) What if stepping in would put you, or the victim, or third parties, in more danger than not doing so? (4) What if the victim (muggee) doesn’t deserve to be helped – for example, if it is a politician, or a tax bureaucrat, or an ISIS affiliated terrorist?
In an honest civil society with proper rule of law, if you witness a mugging you – like most people of good will – would take your mobile phone out of your pocket and call your protection agency (in my terms, justice provider). Then people trained for such situations will deal with my issues (2) and (3), and the magistrate (or, if necessary, jury) will deal with (1) and (4).
Of course, today’s societies aren’t honest, and we don’t have the proper rule of law. Both these problems are down to the ruling élite and their state. The difficulty with police today isn’t, as some libertarians will tell you, that they shouldn’t exist at all; it’s that they are an arm of the state, and so they are politicized. Thus, unsurprisingly, many people who don’t want to get involved with the state will walk on by the mugging. Hence the problem you raised.
I have attempted to address such issues, with No. 4 in the Ten Ethical Laws I linked to above: “Uphold the principles of common sense justice, human rights and freedom.” That. I think, does impose a duty to do what you can to defend the rights of, someone who is being mugged. Though I admit that I did rather skate around this particular question you raised!
On family values and parental responsibilities, please see my response to David above.
And I’m glad you enjoyed my turn of phrase when I described Anglicanism as “restrictive.” Always happy to oblige…
The thing about Christianity that sadly a lot of people don’t understand is that Jesus reminded us about the ten commandments not because he wanted impose his will on the rest of us but because he reminded us about what responsibilities we had in a world where at that time, it was in chaos thanks to the Roman Empire and their dictatorial and amoral ways.
Christianity is not about doing things and rituals to become a Christian (unlike other religions), it is about choosing to embrace Jesus as the one true saviour and have the holy spirit change you from the inside whereby we develop a clear conscience and develop a responsibility to make things better, not just for ourselves but to help people in time of need.
I truly believe that Libertarianism came from God when he gave us free will to live our lives in whatever way we wanted. The Conservatism however came from embracing Jesus as our saviour and loving God as our father knowing that the Holy Spirit would change us and make us more responsible and clear visioned in better way to live a life of true freedom because we chose it without having it forced down our throats.
As a fusionist, I am all for people living their lives in free will without interference from the state but I also accept that you can’t have freedom without responsibility because without it, people could get hurt and there would be anarchy all over the place.
I see that the spirit of Frank Meyer lives on – not just in the next world, but in this one.
Good.
Fusionism was meant to be just to an American term created by Frank Meyer but I don’t think anybody realises that it is starting to catch on especially here and I think UKIP are the closest to Fusionism as we are going to get.
Odd that Mr Lock should find free speech, or criticism of liberalism, disturbing, but, on the face of it, Mr Webb is no liberal but rather a one nation Tory, as the leader of the opposition [the Labour Party] almost declares himself to be. However, he is welcome to call himself a liberal rather than a Tory. I would rather that he goes on doing so, but we need to be honest. So I risk a bit of what I want by free speech.
Mr Webb seems to want to keep his ideas secret for he says almost nothing about thinks is needed. He also makes false claims about Christianity, society and other things.
Ethical mores and memes apply to one and all; whether the judged respect them or not. We do not think that dishonesty is fine just because the liar does not value honesty or that it is fine to steal if you object to private property.
Mr Webb factually errs on common culture. But he does not say much about what he means, anyway.
It is not clear to me why Mr Lock wants to deny that England is mainly a civil society, by which I understand the mass urban society. Civic seems to just mean city. There is the great irony that I was going to go into in my first reply, that villages tend to police themselves but the cities, though called civilisation or civic society, have a far bigger crime problem, as there are more strangers; ditto towns to a lesser extent. Pluralism in morals is utterly confused. As Kant rightly said, morals are universal; ipso facto.
Mr Lock looks rather silly on his pluralist ideas. Like science, liberalism does not mean to be anti-religious but in fact it is; or it [usually unwittingly] tends to be. Most religions aim at political domination, if not totalitarianism, but science rules religion out of science and treats it with contempt whenever they clash; though not religious people, of course. Liberalism is way softer towards religion, but to have religion only as a mere personal affair is to put it into limbo for the quest to dominate is vital to nearly every religion. Yet that is what liberalism tends to ask any religion to be. Liberalism is anti-politics but most religions need to use politics to dominate.
Again, socialism tends to want to rule the roost too.
A free market will be free, of course. You do not need to buy anything if you do not want to do so.
I agree that the state is anti-social and crowds out liberty, but clearly not city life.
Nor is it the lack of modernisation a problem. The state needs to go not get up to date.
Liberalism is a particular individualist moral paradigm and it is a large part of basic morals going back over 2500 years.
“Struggle” is a good Romantic jargon, but Romance tends to lead to the jackboot. Hitler attempted to tell us about his struggle but he made even Hegel look clear.
No, the teenagers do not reject religion owing to the media, Mr Webb. It is rather owing to taking the stupid creed seriously, to giving it some serious consideration which you seem yet to do. You over rate the media and, most likely, under rate most people too. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the Christian creed is both false and also immoral. The crass meme of hypocrite is a case in point, as I said the other day. If anything, the media has way too much respect for the Christian creed.
Society has not been more individualised in some way, nor can it be, but maybe Mr Webb means something like Thatcherism; that dumped a lot of statist jargon and spoke a bit more about individual responsibility. Maybe he thinks less state [in avowed aim, if not in achievement] is individualisation, as he moans about no one to depend on. But he also goes on about multiculturalism and by that he seems not to be on about culture at all, but about race. The multi-racial society is why more people in the UK fear crime than they did in the 1950s, but I do not think this fear is exaggerated. I have been attacked six times in the street myself. Only the BBC and the Guardian would say it is exaggerated, surely? They no longer feel at home but the only cultural thing in that is the nation.
Anyway, Mr Webb continues to keep his ideas to himself, it seems.
Now I get to Paul.
Yes, we have moral and legal obligations and the latter are all too often immoral, Paul. The state itself is immoral as well as wasteful. Politics is negative sum. It is wasteful economically and is immoral in its attempt to govern.
Liberalism is not non-aggression, Paul, and that expression is very inept, as liberals retain the right to self-defence. Liberalism is near-pacifist rather than being fully pacifist and it is also against theft, which is usually not usually aggressive at all, but usually done secretly or unnoticed. Better to say that liberalism as minimising impositions against other persons. It may be reactively, or defensively, aggressive. It is not respect for private property rights but rather for persons. Private property is a mere means to respecting others. It is the person that matters not mere property. Private property is a boon as it aids us to solve problems of the rights of persons freely. It is not the aim of liberalism but rather a means of liberty in the mass urban society.
Society is not truly dependent on morals, Paul, nor could it ever be. That is simply getting morals out of perspective. Many similarly over rate law, Mr Webb over rates common culture, and all that sort of thing is just inept or unrealistic thinking. Society is based mainly on the division of labour, which is not confined to cash nexus but to be found also in the family, as the male brings different inputs to the family to the female. More generally, almost any co-operation will involve the division of labour and it might be that most of that co-operation is cashless; and it arises in play as well as in work.
The state bringing up children is not so good, Paul. And the welfare state is the chief enemy of the family; mainly by encouraging personal irresponsibility and providing an alternative means of support. True liberty means responsibility, and that this is the basis of morality itself. Basic morals have been liberal for over 2500 years, and maybe morals are intrinsically so.
Society might collapse if the family collapsed. The next generation needs aid in infancy to survive.
Pristine or early Christianity was anti-family, as I earlier said. The memes still are.
Christianity’s impact on society is massively exaggerated on the mass media and by ignorant historians, as is also the contribution of the state. There is a lot of unrealistic thinking on both church and state, Paul. It is not the way we do things. It never was and it never will be. It is ideology more than reality. Religion is people saying false things. They should have more self-respect, but if religion keeps out of politics, then it is harmless enough.
However, all religion tends to see politics as vital, with the exception of pristine or early Christianity; but that was for only the end days and it was not concerned with this world, let alone with morals. Basic morals never were, or ever could be, Christian. Christianity is falsely credited with many things.
The Church of England looks restricted to the Political Correct as far as I can see,. Paul. Do they still let you in?
David (McDonagh),
Thank you for your most constructive comment.
I didn’t say that I find free speech disturbing, for David Webb or for anyone else. I merely said that I found disturbing (that is, not conducive to my mental tranquillity) the particular view that he had expressed.
As to England not being a civil society, I explicitly stated what I meant by “civil society” in my essay: “a society whose purpose is to enable people to live together in tranquillity and justice, while maximizing freedom and prosperity.” As Paul Marks rightly pointed out above, it’s hard to say exactly who is “English” or is a member of “England.” But beyond this, I don’t think any group of people who could reasonably be characterized as the people of England would meet this definition.
I think you have misunderstood me on pluralism; maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. In fact, I do agree with Kant that there is a universal moral (ethical?) code of what is right and what is wrong. That is why I talk in my essay of a core morality, surrounded by different sets of customs. The core is the universal, minimal moral code; but any particular customary (aka moral) code is likely to include other elements too. Not eating pork, for example, is part of the Jewish moral code; but it isn’t part of the core.
Lastly, I too worried about the word “struggle.” I changed it from “fight” because I don’t much like military metaphors. I didn’t mean to give a sense of Romantic kampf. The meaning I intended was: “(2): to proceed with difficulty or with great effort.”