- On Debate
Weber’s three types of legitimate rule can be extended as illustrated below:
|Type of ruler||Charismatic Leader||Dominant Personality||Functional Superiors or Bureaucratic Officials||“Hired” For Ability To Perform|
|Position Determined by||Having a dynamic personality||Established
Tradition or Routine
|Legally established authority||Demonstrated skill in forecast and management|
|Rules Using||Extraordinary qualities and exceptional powers||Acquired or inherited qualities||Virtue of rationally established norms, decrees, and other rules and regulations||Contracts, agreements, credit, money, order and promise of prosperity|
|Legitimized||Victories and successes to the community||Established tradition or routine||General belief in the formal correctness of the rules and those who enact them are considered a legitimized authority.||Impartiality in producing shared economic benefits for the good of all.|
|Loyalty||interpersonal/ personal allegiance and devotion||Based on traditional allegiances||To authority / rules||To morality of common benefit.|
|Cohesion||Emotionally unstable and volatile||Feeling of common purpose||Abiding by rules (see merton’s theory of deviance)||Debt Participation and property ownership|
|Leadership||Rulers and followers (disciples)||Established forms of social conduct||Rules not rulers||Agreements not laws|
IS LEGITIMACY NECESSARY?
I don’t agree that legitimacy is necessary for a government. People will justify anything as long as it is not intolerable. And whether something is intolerable or not, has to do only with the difference in perceived costs of change. So, power can be held by numerous means. And legitimacy will evolve from that social order as long as no one can profit from altering it.
North Korea and any number of the Islamic states have managed to hold power. The only thing that toppled the arab tyrants was the increase in food prices that made inaction on the part of the population impossible. It was not moral conviction. It never is.
To say that legitimacy is not necessary is different from saying that we do not desire a legitimate government. All of us do. But what is legitimacy?
I personally do not find the US government legitimate. But it has power. And it is not intolerable enough that people will replace it.
Legitimacy is the use of the state for ends with which you agree, and not for ends with which you disagree.
This means, in practical terms, that outside of small, homogenous, monarchic states, legitimacy is questionable without the presence of an external threat. It is impossible across an empire.
The USA federal government is not a state. It is an world wide empire that counts the fifty US states as provinces. Sure, that might sound extreme. But hyperbole is useful when you’re trying to make someone look at the world through a different lens.
THE TRAGEDY OF DEMOCRACY
What we have learned, and what Hoppe has explained to us, is that Democratic institutions create a tragedy of the commons: they shorten everyone’s time preference. They exacerbate consumption. They send everyone running for the trough, and the impressive achievements and monuments that we use to iconify our virtues and by which we remember previous civilizations are abandoned in favor of grabbing what we can before someone else does.
RULE BY CREDIT AND CONSUMPTION
In this diagram I’ve tried to suggest that rule by credit is just as legitimate a method of rulership as are the others.
DEBT PARTICIPATION as a means of social cohesion is a vehicle for greater prosperity, better and more distributed calculation, and greater consumption – and epistemically, it does not require a shared belief in anything other than the institutions that made that debt participation possible. Nor does it require observant law enforcement. Social cohesion is created as a byproduct of the incentives credit gives each of us. Cohesion is created by market incentives, and ostracization is by market punishment.
Credit is not only meritocratic, but one can choose one’s level of reward. There is simply no one to go to for “favors,” even if that favor is simply instruction, and once you’re behind the curve of personal development, it gets increasingly difficult to change your position. There is no codified means of increasing your position or status. In fact, that’s the hallmark of the system: not only is success not codified or political, it’s almost a lottery. So the system favors people without political alliances almost as much as other systems favor people with alliances – the impact of this difference in alliances being that it is less easy to determine social mores and standards, and adherence to those standards is not as indicative of success as it might have been in the past. Social cohesion is demonstrated by the individual not so much by adoption of habits that demonstrate fealty as it is by undermining habits and seeking advantage in them.
The only real problem we have is preventing the state from farming the land and thereby grouping human beings by productivity and age group. This is what certainly appears to be happening today, at least on the US west coast.
Seattle, WA, United States
I am an independent theorist of Political Economy in the Conservative Libertarian tradition. And as a methodological Propertarian I attempt to complete the work of Rothbard and Hoppe by suggesting post-democratic political solutions for heterogeneous polities.
"De Philosophia Aristocratia"
Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment, combined with our ancient tribal instincts for group persistence and land-holding. It currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an articulated rational philosophy. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.
This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.
Libertarianism by contrast, is a rational philosophy of an articulate but permanent minority. It is based upon a solid, rational and critical methodology, even if it is flawed in its initial assumption: the principle of non-violence.
Unfortunately the Rothbardian Anarchist movement has appropriated the term "Libertarian", and left Classical Liberals and Conservatives alienated from the only system of thought with which they need to articulate their political sentiments in rational and empirical rather than moralistic and sentimental form.
By repairing the flaws in Libertarian philosophy we can use its methodology to provide a rhetorical solution for conservatives - a language which in turn may become an articulated philosophical body of argument and advocacy for the frustrated conservative majority.
Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.
67 days ago
Liberty Isn't Inherent. It's unnatural. We create it with Organized Violence.
71 days ago
Propertarian Definition: REVOLUTION
71 days ago
Giving Rorty Another Try
71 days ago
An Skeleton Argument In Defense Of Rorty From Hoppe
71 days ago
A Propertarian Definition of Ruthless
71 days ago
The Self Deception Of The Enlightenment View Of Man
71 days ago
On Rent Seeking
71 days ago
- Kinsella’s Criticism of Locke, and My Explanation of Locke’s Reasonable Mistake, and What To Do About It.