[Oroboros]

In this most excellent article, posted by JTR in another thread, the author mentions the need for acceptance of a "natural 'elite'" in the posited post-democratic, stateless, free-market future; as evidenced in this excerpt:

Quote

"On the other hand, psychologically more difficult to accept, it involves the recognition of a fundamental sociological insight (which incidentally also helps identify precisely where the historic opposition to monarchy went wrong): that the maintenance and preservation of a private-property based exchange economy requires as its sociological presupposition the existence of a voluntarily acknowledged "natural" elite — a nobilitas naturalis."

My question is, how do we determine whether we already have one? One that was indeed contemporary to the monarchial age, and has simply transitioned into our own.

It was not in our time that it was famously said: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes the laws," but in the very midst of the pre-democratic, a Deo rex era; as it is defined in the article.

Is it to be believed that the age of stateless oligarchs who profited from both (or all) sides of conflict, loaned money to principalities, had edicts enacted by threat of strangulation-by-pursestring, and generally remained a law unto themselves began as a consequence of modern developments?

Were these not self-made men, natural elites birthed as commoners but ascendent to positions of immense power by their own industriousness? Surely they used the state to aid their endeavors – once they had that ability – but they did not rely upon it for their existence.

Is there not an argument to be made that there was (or is) a time that the mechanism of the state was merely an intermediary between these men and the people who provided the fiscal grease for their enterprises?

If that is indeed the case, then it would follow that the ably described shortcomings of democracy are no mere accident of human development, but are instead the deliberate workings of an establishment seeking to enshrine its own survival for the interminable future.

The article goes to great lengths to describe how democracy as we know it obscures the divide between ruler and ruled, thereby reducing both the chances and effectiveness of a successful overturn of the established governmental structure.

How would we ensure that the proposed nobilitas naturalis would remain benevolently generous; giving their aid and mediation out of a sense of philanthropic duty? The author assumes that their very nobility (i.e., learned or innate moral fiber) would promote this outcome; but I personally fail to see that in occur in practice.

The über-rich of today are not by any means solely of the nouveaux variety, and many families whose lines and wealth predate the end of the First World War are still extant, and not insignificantly so. Exemplary of this is the foundations established by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Harriman – all of whose wealth was established well before the death of the monarchial era as defined by the article.

Their brand of philanthropy extended (extends) to all manner of anti-libertarian objectives, including the hearty pursuit of eugenics that did not end with the death of Hitler.

Quote

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims. - San Francisco Gate

Further, the House of Rothschild is not relegated to the pages of history, and certainly pre-dates the modern era significantly. Their family, as well as family extensions by marriage, make a very long list of influential individuals who might certainly be labeled nobilitas naturalis. One heir in particular is heavily involved with implementing, promoting, and profiting from the regulation of carbon emissions by a global authority.

None of the above makes any individual responsible for the actions of their forefathers, nor would I want to imply such. What is worrisome to me, is that the Truly Rich – both of classically noble birth and the so-called natural elite – are perceived as being less influential than they actually are. NGOs with the funding and passion of multigenerational nobilitas naturalis behind them are responsible – both in concert with, separate from, or in opposition to various governments make up not a small portion of attacks and blockades against individual freedom.

I am not, in principle, opposed to people becoming nobilitas naturalis in an anarchist society; it is clearly inevitable if that society is indeed free. Some people are just better at things than others, full stop. What I don't favor; however, is the idea that their existence is essential to the operation of stateless societies; something which the article seemed to imply. Natural elite must be taken on a piecemeal basis, the same as any other form of elite, governance, or mediator.

I feel we should not underestimate the role of the state as agent rather than master. Indeed, those roles are never so clearly defined; and the interplay between subject, ruler, influencer, intermediary, benefactor, etc. is a mercurial one. But, it would be rather shortsighted and foolhardy to believe that the State, as we see it, is somehow always the genesis of anti-liberty action, and not just as often merely a convenient means.

Because of this, I will repeat something I've begun repeating quite often – the only path to liberty is individual self-sufficiency. A critical mass of people who do not have to rely on the beneficence of nobilitas naturalis, nor on violent redistribution as carried out by states, will eventually lead to something better than our current situation – if indeed anything can.

[Oroboros]

I know, it's tl;dr, but come on, give it a chance...

[PosterBoy]

Oroboros, on 08 February 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

Because of this, I will repeat something I've begun repeating quite often – the only path to liberty is individual self-sufficiency. A critical mass of people who do not have to rely on the beneficence of nobilitas naturalis, nor on violent redistribution as carried out by states, will eventually lead to something better than our current situation – if indeed anything can.

Thank you for this.

I thought hard about men's abuse of his power. It's not only government that loves to tyrannize, but policies of corporations as well. In my opinion, a person couldn't be too picky in who he does business with. Give me the means to be my own keeper, and I'll show you a happy man.

[zen]

PosterBoy, on 08 February 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

Give me the means to be my own keeper, and I'll show you a happy man.

CREATE the means to be your own keeper. That's what I'm doing.

I'm aiming to achieve obscene "fuck you money" along with almost total invisibility. The only way to be "free" is to either be incredibly wealthy or dirt poor and self sufficient. I'm opting for the former. (fingers crossed)

[Oroboros]

PosterBoy, on 08 February 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

Thank you for this.

I thought hard about men's abuse of his power. It's not only government that loves to tyrannize, but policies of corporations as well. In my opinion, a person couldn't be too picky in who he does business with. Give me the means to be my own keeper, and I'll show you a happy man.

You're welcome. It's really the only logical conclusion I've been able to come to.

I'm not a rugged individualist or isolationist; in fact I think most people aren't. I certainly respect those who can live completely and totally alone, but to expect a critical number to do so is simply not going to happen, nor do I think it the best outcome. People are tribal creatures, meaning that they've always worked best in small troupes, packs, clans, patriarchies/matriarchies, villages, etc. The idea of any significantly urbanized humans at all is at least only as old as the written record, and certainly not remotely close to the majority it is now.

The most populous cities in ancient history topped out at about a million inhabitants, and even those were exceptions – often the cultural or political centers of empires that by today's standards were often large, but sparsely populated. Of course, the world's total population has greatly increased, but there is still significant stretching space remaining. Most populations have become urbanized by "choice".

Further, even urbanized populations don't require reliance upon an over-arching National Government; city-states exist to this day. Also, as pointed out in the article at the beginning of my tl;dr, large nations themselves are a pretty recent development. Even under empire, the direct reach of "Rome" was much more limited by both technology and policy. The various conquered people were in many ways autonomous; or at least governed by someone chosen due to his understanding of the ways of that particular region and its people.

The idea that 300,000,000 people have enough in common to be ruled by a single set of laws and lawmakers is preposterous. Even our often misguided and/or nefarious founders knew that. The idea that each state knew best what to do for its people, with limited Central interference, was at least nominally codified into the founding system.

Now we have people who are genuinely calling for, and doing them damnedest to implement, a system designed to lord it over six-billion people. That just boggles the mind. Not that there are power-hungry who clearly want more power, but the "Common Folk" actually think global government is a good idea. They fail to see that success on a grand stage also means failure on a grand stage. Compartmentalization of power structures to the finest particulate possible ensures that one leak doesn't take down the whole ship. Where to flee when the whole world is one?

That's a long way around to say: I believe in cooperation between individuals and groups. I do not believe that independence means making everything you use by hand, and by your hand only. I believe in trade, exchange of labor, communal gatherings, and voluntary cooperation. None of that has to be a defined State, none of that requires a ruler.

[Torontosteve]

Oroboros: Far from being TL:Dr, I'm impressed. At the heart of what I understand HHH was getting at is the idea that the nobilitas naturalis would rise on justly owned property. For example, one could view the Mises institute as such a nobilitas naturalis. Determined to uphold truth, and support, as a noble duty, the desire to promote ethical conduct, and further intellectual inspiration. With that almost shameless plug aside, one could wonder in a circumstance of economic collapse upon which ancap could flourish, the modern day government assisted nobilitas apparatus, may not have the economic clout it currently has. I'm not convinced of this however. Yet, I can see the importance of the effect the nobilitas naturalis would have on reducing the odds that economic devastation would lead to re-emerging states.

This post has been edited by Torontosteve: 09 February 2010 - 01:47 AM

[Bezukhov]

I took from that article futher proof of the supremacy of private property and the urge to take care of it over the concept of "the commons" in which ones decisions have no impact over their long range wellbeing. I'm in no way implying that I would enjoy living under an absolute monarch.
As to the idea of a nobilitas naturalis under an anarchist system is not so far fetched as it sounds. There is an historical precedent. Take the ancient Germanic tribes. They had their leaders who the people would turn to in times of crisis, but those nobilitas naturalis had no way to compel anything out of their fellows without their consent.

[Oroboros]

If indeed the article was referring to tribal leaders (who were patriarchal and/or meritocratic), then I would have no argument. I think "modern tribes" is the way of the future, and is certainly a better alternative to what we have now.

I have no doubt that amongst a group of dozens, hundreds, or thousands a small number would arise as the natural leadership. In fact, I believe that to have been amply demonstrated in studies (which I cannot find a link to at the moment). I do not believe that this concept translates into hundreds-of-thousands, or to millions. At that level, the interaction between persons is spread too thinly, and the resulting guidance or law becomes too general.

Even the greatest kings and emperors of the past did not have more than a few million subjects; and he would not have been directly responsible for most of their day-to-day laws; which were meted out regionally by local rulers, as I mentioned. All but the most megalomaniacal and unbalanced of emperors knew that his subjects were fickle, diverse, and potentially angry; and responded with at least the illusion that they were still independent peoples, often retaining their tribal leaders as puppet rulers.

Clearly, that's not so different from today; though the terminology and methodology has changed. The article describes perfectly the added pitfalls of another purposeful illusion: the idea that the people rule themselves democratically. To summarize, there's no head to chop off that's not seen as connected in some way to your own. It's a brilliant ploy.

The thrust of my tl;dr was to explore the impact of NGOs – both before and after that acronym was invented. Many of these organizations are older that the governments (and certainly the individual members of those governments) they claim to be a Non of. Their founders were often self-made men who discovered that they could also make other men – perhaps in their images, perhaps into their pawns. So, full circle: how does the rightful natural leader of one tribe not become the forceful, unnatural leader of many tribes?

I suppose we must accept it as a cycle, but I feel it is high time that cycle restarted.