![]() |
Is libertarianism a moral theory and way of life, or a scientific
theory
of the means to best fulfill individual preferences? My view is that
libertarianism
is a moral theory and a way of life both suggested by and supported by
emerging “new paradigm” scientific theory and fact.
To support my view I will first describe the different metaethics
(methods
of discovering ethical truths) discussed by “moralist” Chris Brockman
and
“scientist” Bart Kosko in the Summer 1984 issue of NOMOS. I will then
show
how Kosko’s old paradigm science does little to advance libertarianism
while new paradigm science is fairly bursting with it.
Chris Brockman and his Church of Nature subscribe to a “naturalistic
ethic,
meaning that what is good can be derived from what is, from the nature
of things.” (A view also called cognitivism in metaethics.) He asserts
that “natural law favors voluntary association.”
However, in the tradition of most “positivist” scientists who argue
that
“what in” does not prescribe “what should be,” Bart Kosko says that
libertarian
ends “are value judgments...mere statements of preference (taste,
sentiment,
feeling, etc.). (Or, noncognitivism in metaethics.)
Like some philosophers, I hold that both views are partially correct. I
believe a proper understanding of nature does favor libertarianism, but
the final, bottom-line proof of its truth Is gut-level emotion.
However,
as my discussion of the new paradigm will suggest, the more people
feeling
this emotion, the truer it becomes!
What is the difference between old paradigm and new paradigm science?
What
is their significance for libertarianism?
Old paradigm science carries on the “mechanistic” tradition of Newton.
Its adherents still seek a perfectly objective view of a materialistic
world ruled by deterministic, unchanging laws. In their view, humans
have
evolved slowly through chance mutations and survival of the fittest and
are a race ruled by genes and instincts. The most outspoken and
controversial
proponents of this view are the socio-biologists who argue that humans
are naturally violent and dominated by the strongest males and that
strict
social hierarchies regulated by authority and violence are necessary
for
human survival.
Kosko, too, believes that human behavior is “determined by genetic
endowment
and environmental conditioning,” that the scientific libertarian should
look for “the explanation of ‘free’ behavior in terms of genes and
nerves,
and that “the major task of (applied) scientific libertarianism is to
use
scientific method to further libertarian goals.” (While Kosko is
correct
that Rand, Rothbard, and Nozick have used science to support their
views,
Rand and Rothbard use old paradigm, materialist, determinist science to
defend natural law, natural rights, and human free will; Nozick is
rumored
to be open to new paradigm science.) I believe Kosko’s message --
manipulate
them into liberty” (in effect) -- is bound to be less inspiring to
libertarians
than the sociobiologists’ “manipulate them into slavery” message has
proven
to be to some statists. More importantly, the old paradigm of both is
headed
for oblivion.
The emerging new paradigm is an effort to create new models of the
universe,
life, and humanity that will explain such findings as: Einstein’s, that
time-space-energy-matter exist along a continuum; Heisenberg’s, that
scientific
objectivity is theoretically impossible; Bohr’s, that energy and matter
are complementary aspects of the same reality; Ilya Prigogine’s, that
there
is a drive to order even in lifeless chemical solutions; various
paleontologists’,
that radical evolutionary change can happen rapidly; biologist Rupert
Sheldrake’s,
that communicating “morphogenetic fields” seem to connect all similar
forms,
living and “non-living”; and Abraham Maslow’s and other human potential
psychologists’, that humans strive for self-actualization and even
higher
consciousness.
The new paradigm is a “systems view” describing a dynamic but
interconnected
“self-organizing universe” that is “pulling itself up by the
bootstraps,”
creating and experimenting with new and better processes and forms or
“organizing
principles.” Some new paradigm scientists and..theorists liken these
trial
and error processes to free will and consciousness evolving itself to
ever
higher levels of organization.
Significantly, in philosophy the view that free will is inherent in all
reality is called libertarianism. Robert Anton Wilson in Cosmic Trigger
refers to the search for new models as marking (in scientist Alfred
Korzybski’s
words) “the transition from Aristotelian civilization (dogmatic,
monistic,
authoritarian) to non-Aristotelian civilization (relativistic,
pluralistic,
libertarian).”
Wilson captures the essential freedom of the universe in an interview
he
conducted with Rupert Sheldrake in the February 1984 issue of New Age
Journal:
“What seems really radical in your theory is the idea that the laws of
nature are not eternal and changeless. Every other system I’ve
encountered,
scientific or philosophical, always posits am unchanging some
thing-or-other
as its fundamental reality, yet you have an evolving something.”
Sheldrake
replies: “Yes, exactly. What we call the ‘laws of nature’ may be only
habits.”
Just this overview may make it clear how new paradigm science both
suggests
and supports libertarian ethics. I could list many further evidences
from
the physical and social sciences that freedom is inherent and necessary
and that violence and coercion are destructive. However, it is the very
freedom in the universe that makes it impossible to “objectively” say
--
either scientifically or ethically -- that any one position is 100%
true.
Rupert Sheldrake suggests that as more and more individuals adopt a
form
of behavior it becomes a more prevalent “habit” and therefore more
“true.”
It would be a shame if libertarians remained uninformed of the
libertarian
ethical implications of the new paradigm, especially when other
activists
are being drawn along in a libertarian direction by it (sometimes,
perhaps,
despite themselves). Activists calling themselves New Agers, Greens,
and
bioregionalists, despite their downplaying of the “dynamic” aspects of
the new paradigm and their emphasis on the “inter-connected” aspects,
find
that “self-determination,” “non-violence,” “pluralism,”
“decentralization,”
and “non-governmental alternatives” seem most compatible with their
“ecological”
systems viewpoint. Will these folks lead us to liberty while
libertarians
busily debate how many natural rights can dance on the head of a pin?
That’s
my counter-challenge to readers of NOMOS Challenge #1!