Thursday, February 14, 2013

Germanic Medieval Law and Designed Rights

Bionic Mosquito emails:
It strikes me that the idea of "designed rights" is quite similar to Germanic, medieval law.  Rights were as they were negotiated and agreed to between king and vassals.  These were, of course, based on custom, but the specific rights were based on contract.

There is a good book on this matter: "Kingship and Law" by Fritz Kern, written in 1914 (originally in German).

http://www.amazon.com/Kingship-Law-Middle-Ages-Constitution/dp/158477570X 


I have written several short commentaries about this here:

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/search/label/Fritz%20Kern 
Note: My idea of how libertarian societies could form without natural rights is somewhat different than this Medieval system. However, one important factor in the Medieval system does seem to support my view that the intelligent aware individual would want to seek out a society where there are only a few general laws (i.e. designed rights), since he would know that such laws (rights) could in the future apply to his changing situation, and we know his situation will change in currently unknowable ways. (See Mises, Human Action). This fear of blowback from potentially onerous laws would be similar to the way the above mentioned Germanic Medieval kings feared onerous laws that could blowback on them.

Thus, outside of laws against theft and bodily harm (more technically the application of the non-aggression principle), the intelligent aware person will prefer a society in which he is free to do what he pleases, since he will not know for sure what he may completely want to do freely in the future.

The idea behind Doug Casey's project in Argentina and other projects, e.g. offshore societies, are really about the formation of such designed rights societies. It is likely the rules at Casey's project (to the degree he is able to ignore the Argentine government) and an offshore project, for example, won't be exactly the same, since there are no "natural" rights, but they will be close, since the intelligent aware individual will want great freedom.

Indeed, almost on a daily basis, aware individuals around the globe are saying and thinking, "The country I am living in is becoming more authoritarian, are there any locations where freedom reigns, that I might want to move to?"

This type thinking pretty much suggests that there are no "natural" rights that exist in any sense that they are provided to man and he automatically lives under them, rather the aware man thinks about and seeks societies where freedom is a designed right.

24 comments:

  1. Mr. Wenzel, could you some up "designed right" into a short simple definition, please?

    ReplyDelete
  2. An inquiring and resourceful mind asks, what constitutes good governance. And what government is best able to provide it? And what society should one live in?

    I had an epiphany, when Morpheus, the God of Dreams, that is Jesus Christ, presented me with The Morpheus Proposal, and then I became a God Aware Person. Yes, I considered the Morpheus Proposal and took the Red Pill, as in the movie The Matrix, where Morpheus relates “You take the blue pill. The story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe … whatever you want to believe. “You take the red pill. You stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. “Remember. All I’m offering is the truth. Nothing more.”

    Red Pill people are the only aware people, and know a number of mysteries, that is truths, as revealed in the Bible, that is in Holy Scripture, which includes a number of sound biblical doctrines.
    1) .... Fate, that is Destiny, Revelation 1:1, is replacing the Banker Regime of Liberalism with the Beast Regime of Authoritarianism, and that Crony Capitalism, in America, European Socialism, in France, and Greek Socialism, in Greece, is being replace by Regional Governance, Totalitarian Collectivism, and Debt Servitude, in Euroland, according to Bible Prophecy of Revelation 13:1-4, and Daniel 2:25-45, as Jesus Christ has unleashed the First Horseman of the Apocalypse, to transfer the baton of sovereignty from nation states to regional leaders, regional bodies, and soon regional public private partnerships, Revelation 6:1-2.
    2) ... When one is born again, he is transferred into God’s society, that is the Household of God, Ephesians 2:19-22.
    3) .... Those who have life in Christ, are ever maturing in the only right there is, and finding genuine freedom therein, as put forth in John 1:12, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.” The more I manifest in Jesus Christ, the more freedom I have, and the more splendid child of God I become.
    4) .... Inasmuch as Jesus Christ is operating at the helm of the economy of God, Ephesians 1:10, and is pivoting the world from the Liberalism’s age of investors’ choice in the use of credit and prosperity, to Authoritarianism’s age of nannycrats’ mandates of debt servitude and austerity, I simply go by the motto “Whatever the Lord provides for me is fine”. Through difficulty, through oppression, through loss, through every trial and temptation, I say “His Grace is sufficient for me”.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob,

    My only complaint against your line of thinking is the assumption of the "intelligent aware individual". Yes, he would seek out a society where he is free, but that doens't necessitate that he would seek out a society where all are free. For the common man, who has little leverage in society, he must offer the equilibrium of freedom for all, so that his fellow citizens will go along with him. A powerful man, doesn't need to bargain like that. Freedom for all requires a certain kind of grace amongst the citizenry towards their fellow man. So designed rights, yes, but not from intelligence, from love.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true Brian. A free and just society cannot exist unless principally if not entirely composed of individuals who recognize a moral (not a legal) duty to love every human being (which duty in theory might be extended to other rational sentient species were any to appear). Since this duty can only imperfectly be fulfilled, it must be accompanied by the corollary moral duty to "forgive those who wrong you, so that your wrongs may also be forgiven." Mere rationality and self-interest lead to the world we have today, in which privileged persons seek to secure their advantages by undermining the ability of others to prosper.

      Libertarianism or classical liberalism do not depend on changing the selfish reality of human nature, but by constraining it in ways that create the greatest possible benefit for the greatest number of people. This is done by imposing a legal duty of non-aggression on all, based on self ownership and related property rights. Love and forgiveness cannot be imposed as legal duties, because what they entail is impossible to agree on (among other things). Hence the age-old distinction between the human city and the divine.

      Delete
  4. Really, a libertarian reference to an agreement with a King?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vassals each had individual veto rights against the king. There is something to be learned from this, I believe - it is a rather libertarian concept, regardless of the structure of society.

      Delete
  5. Thus, outside of laws against theft and bodily harm (more technically the application of the non-aggression principle), the intelligent aware person will prefer a society in which he is free to do what he pleases, since he will not know for sure what he may completely want to do freely in the future.

    Then he'll go to a governing body that allows him to steal without really stealing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Germanic Medieval Law? Really? How about going over to a nearby community association for an example, originally in English. Whats up with the non-aggression principle? I understand why natural rights advocates live their lives by it.

    "the intelligent aware person will prefer a society in which he is free to do what he pleases, since he will not know for sure what he may completely want to do freely in the future." Historically inaccurate and philosophically a more detail response to John Rawls would be in order

    My favorite: This type thinking pretty much suggests that there are no "natural" rights that exist in any sense that they are provided to man and he automatically lives under them, rather the aware man thinks about and seeks societies where freedom is a designed right.

    Who claims man automatically lives under a government who respect natural rights? The more Wenzel writes, the more out of his depth he appears. BTW for fun one can compare and contrast Lysander Spooner's (natural rightsist) and Benjamin Tucker's (not) writings, both great 19th Century anarchists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josiah, there are possibilities to learn about more decentralized systems in many places. Most of these are hidden by the gatekeeping establishment of media and education.


      Medieval law is one such description of a more decentralized society. And an example of the gatekeepers' attempts to keep this reality hidden.

      Delete
  7. Bob,

    In your view, does a man who lives in an area lacking a formal state, governance, have rights then?

    Or

    Do human rights predate governments?

    The lines drawn on a map depicting territorial governance are mostly fictional. Huge tracts are in physical fact not subject to any government, and often claimed by multiple governments. The residents thereof OFTEN have very little in the way of formal governance.

    Lacking such governance, is it permissible to kill them? Rob them?

    If lacking rights, would they have no place to object to such robbery or murder?

    If the existence of humanity precedes the existence of governance or government of any kind, then how can rights be designed... unless, lacking a government, humans have no rights?

    Lacking a government are there no prerogatives or values i.e. "Rights", that are intrinsically desirable to all humans?

    It seems to me that to presume designed rights is to presume that a human in an ungoverned area would not intrinsically desire or enjoy certain freedoms that the rest of us OBVIOUSLY desire for ourselves (but often not for others).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Although I intuitively agree with your conception of designed rights, I'm having trouble taking in some of your arguments.

    The existence of natural rights aren't rejected by the fact these rights can be infringed against. Do you really think Rothbard, while reasoning through the idea of natural rights, completely ignored the blatant fact that governments across the world, as well as other individuals, infringe on these rights very often?

    The reason I think designed rights makes sense is because I never felt as if Rothbard's deduction of natural rights was as fullproof as Mises's deduction of praxeology and economics. Not because natural rights are just plain nonsensical, as you seem to be implying with your arguments. In other words, I felt as if Rothbard in reality "designed" his ideal society and explained his reasoning, good reasoning, but nothing as impenetrable as what Mises did. I thought it wasn't much different from what other philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, etc., did in laying out what they thought was the ideal society. The only change was that Rothbard thought society should have much more freedom than other philosophers did.

    Nevertheless, I look forward to your book. Knowing you so well, I expect there will be a free version online and it will not be copyrighted ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You write:
      "The existence of natural rights aren't rejected by the fact these rights can be infringed against. Do you really think Rothbard, while reasoning through the idea of natural rights, completely ignored the blatant fact that governments across the world, as well as other individuals, infringe on these rights very often?"

      How are these rights "natural" if they are "infringed" upon so regularly? What is "natural" about them? Merely stating something is "natural" is not the same thing as proving that it is natural. Your question is loaded when you right "infringe on these rights." You are assuming "natural" rights in your question.

      What does "natural" rights mean, when there seems to be no such thing in existence? Natural curly hair exists, natural blonds exist. Where on the planet are these "natural" rights in operation? We all want to move there. There are no "natural" rights. There are designed rights, some designed rights make more sense than others.

      Delete
    2. Robert Wenzel said:

      "There are designed rights, some designed rights make more sense than others."

      They can only make more, or less, sense, if you have a standard, outside of designed rights, by which you judge them.

      What standard do you use to determine whether or not this or that designed right makes more, or less, sense, than others?

      Delete
    3. @guest

      Well I was writing a comment in a post not a full treatise, but to be clearer I should have said "There are designed rights, some designed rights make more sense than others, depending on a persons goals."

      This puts designed rights in the subjective world, which is where I think they belong, i.e. dependent on subjective goals. However, and I am not going to develop my entire thinking in a comment to a post (wait for my book), but I believe that for most people this would mean that rights designed along the non-aggression principle make the most sense.

      Delete
    4. Robert Wenzel,

      While I have some more thoughts (as do you), I'll go ahead and thank you for your time and work. You've been great for all of us in the Comments section.

      I'm looking forward to the Kinsella interview. Please have more such interviews after your book comes out? It's an important topic.

      Delete
    5. I still have a problem with your problem with natural rights. Maybe it is just semantics. One argument for a natural right existing is the right to self defense. Most animals have evolved (or God gave them depending on your view) ways to defend themselves. Our species would not be alive if we didn't have this ability. Fight or flight is a "natural" right as I see it. This is the right to self-preservation. It is something that exists despite government, laws, etc. and cannot be infringed upon. Even if you have an army coming at you, you can fight. Even if you are in a straight jacket, you can fight. You may not win, but I don't see how this could be taken away.

      Delete
  9. Oh yeah, I also like how some people keep saying that David "the Assassin" Gordon is going to annihilate Wenzel's book when it comes out. This misses the fact that Gordon and Wenzel are friends. It would not surprise me if Gordon already knows about Wenzel's ideas and has perhaps already even given it a philosophical check.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gordon and Nozick were friends and that didn't stop Gordon from criticizing.

      Delete
    2. Just to be crystal clear, I'm not making a strong claim. I am pointing out something to others that are making a strong claim.

      The reason I point out they are friends is only to -hypothesize- that Gordon may have already given it a check. I am not saying "they are friends; therefore, there will be no criticism."

      Delete
    3. hi bharat. i read the "about" section on your webpage.

      if you believe that "state" should be completely abolished, can you please first try your belief on a small city or a plot of land before you impose it on all Americans.

      my fear is that when ideologies are imposed on a massive scale (like communism in Soviet Union), it puts millions of families at risk.

      Delete
    4. "can you please first try your belief on a small city or a plot of land before you impose it on all Americans. "

      I understand your concern, but I am not even considering imposing anything on anyone. I don't vote, I'm not planning on ever running for office, and I don't fancy starting a revolution. The only way the ideas I believe in would ever be tried on a massive scale would be if the majority of people changed their moral beliefs about the State. I don't see it coming about in any other way.

      Delete
    5. "...would ever be tried on a massive scale would be if the majority of people changed their moral..."

      so you want to impose tyranny of majority? unleash dystopian anarchy on minorities?

      Delete
    6. Yes, I want to unleash dystopian anarchy on minorities.

      /sarcasm

      Delete
    7. Serious answer (the second part of your question is so loaded it's silly):

      "so you want to impose tyranny of majority?"

      I would rather not impose anything on anyone. I would prefer if 100% of the people agreed with me. Nevertheless, if a majority (which has enough power, of course), has a shift in opinion, changes generally will occur.

      I'll admit though, I do want to impose certain beliefs of mine on other people. It's not just me that wants to do this, it's everyone. Every individual who thinks murder is wrong wants to impose their belief that murder is wrong on other people. They may, for example, want them locked up in a cage because of it. If you think theft is wrong, you may want to impose force on another person to get your items back, or at least allow others to get their items back. If you think someone attacking you is wrong, you want to impose your belief by being able to defend yourself, using force against the other person to stop them.

      (Since you were looking at my blog, I made a post last October where I have the opposite opinion about what I am saying now. My views have changed on the subject since.)

      You too, want to impose whatever your view is on other people, if you have any beliefs similar to the examples I have given above.

      Delete