Mr. Stolyarov was recently asked to attempt a formulation of ten crucial principles of classical liberalism, the worldview which animated the American Revolution, the European Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the libertarian revival of free-market thought in the mid-to-late twentieth century. Classical liberalism - even when it is not explicitly espoused - still has considerable residual influence on the political and economic institutions of the Western world and is having an increasing impact outside the West as well.
What is meant by the term “human nature?” In one sense, it is supremely uninformative. The “nature” of any existent can be defined simply as “that which that existent is.” References to “human nature” do not actually explain human behavior, nor do they imply that humans are universally evil or vicious.
Beyond being destructive, the Eden myth is simply false. There never was a “better” state from which human beings have “descended.” Mr. Stolyarov explores in this video why the Fall is an illusion that ought to be abandoned.
The essay on which the video is based can be found here . ___________
Some criticize libertarianism being “too clean and clear” to accommodate a “messy reality,” I beg to differ. I think most thoughtful libertarians recognize the messiness of reality. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek were particularly good about this. If you have not done so already, I recommend that you read Human Action by Mises (available for free here) and The Fatal Conceit by Hayek.
But there is a difference between recognizing a messy reality and allowing that recognition to make a mess in one’s theory. The theory can justifiably be clean and elegant, for that renders it graspable by human beings. It is in the application of the theory that the messiness is important and needs to be considered. Many libertarians have not gotten to this point yet, and all too many prefer spending virtually all of their time thinking about how an ideal libertarian society would work rather than considering how such a society can be attained or approximated when we must start with an imperfect and, indeed, quite messy, world. The messiness really comes in when we consider the sequence of desired transitions. I happen to believe that the minimum wage should be abolished before the welfare system is abolished, or else the consequences would be disastrous. Likewise, getting out of the Social Security and Medicare tangles will need to be an extremely delicate procedure, with care taken to ensure that no innocent dependents of these systems are harmed. But to think about these issues cogently does not require the abandonment of libertarianism; it simply requires taking libertarianism to the next, more sophisticated level.
How can one succeed in life? How can one become extraordinarily accomplished, prosperous, safe, and happy? Contrary to what most people might think, it is not by following the conventional understandings and definitions of what one ought to do.
The orthodox paths in life have already been tried millions of times. If you want to make something of your life, pursue an unorthodox path. This is not sufficient for success, but it is necessary – so you are doing something right if your approach is unorthodox. I attribute virtually all of my success to date to my numerous departures from orthodoxy.
Not all departures from orthodoxy are created equal, however; some will destroy the individual pursuing them. Any departure from conventional ways must be done for a reason, with a thoroughly considered understanding of why it is superior to what most other people do.
I was once asked whether some experiences were so worthwhile as to justify a willingness to sacrifice one’s life in order to have such experiences. The question was phrased as follows: “Is it possible that a finite life with experience A is preferred to an [indefinite] life without experience A?” I do not think so and, moreover, I think the dilemma is a bit artificial. A life of indefinite duration will always give one the possibility of pursuing experience A at some point in the future. If one missed having A now, one can always catch up on it thousands or millions of years in the future. No A is worth so much to me that I would be willing to cut off my future ability to exist or to experience anything for it.
A curious dilemma accompanies proposals to keep people alive forever by “uploading” their memories and consciousness onto a computer or outfitting them with new bodies sometime after their deaths – bodies which are identical to the originals in physical structure and the makeup of memories.
Even if, hypothetically, after your death, it were possible to replicate the exact same physical structure and memories of the exact same life history as you have at present, I doubt that this individual would have the same state of awareness that you presently have of your existence and surroundings. Permit me to posit a hypothetical. If a physically identical copy of you were created right now, with the same memories as yourself, you would not perceive the world from the vantage point of this person – although he, too, would consider himself to be you. Now separate this person in time from yourself at present, and you will see that it is unlikely that this person’s awareness would be a continuation of your own. He will be as apart from you, consciousness-wise, as any other person who is not you. Looking back from his vantage point, he will believe himself to have been you and to have experienced your life. However, looking forward, you cannot expect to be aware of what he experiences once his body has been constituted. I strongly suspect that only some underlying continuity of the physical processes within the same body can bring about a continuity of consciousness.
Some people have argued to me that life without freedom is not worth living, in part because one’s consciousness can thrive under liberty in a qualitatively different (and better) way than it can under unfreedom. I agree that the individual’s consciousness thrives better under liberty than under non-liberty, but there is also no natural law guaranteeing that one’s consciousness must thrive or that one must have anything desirable at all – including liberty or life itself. I will take everything desirable that I can get, and I do not expect that the cosmos must give me some particular kind of life or standard of living. Rather, I will use any existing state I am in (including a state of unfreedom) to get to a better state – with more liberty, prosperity, and happiness. To give up on any efforts at improvement simply because one finds the initial state of affairs undesirable is to me akin to the attitude of a person who starves himself to death because he cannot access the gourmet foods to which he has been accustomed. Gourmet foods are great, but I will eat gruel if it is my only option for the time being.
I often hear the claim that life without liberty is not worth living. Whenever I hear this, I need to ask, of course, what is the purpose of liberty. The purpose of liberty is for the individual to have the ability to take all those actions which contribute to preserving and improving his life. Liberty exists to make life (or at least better life) possible – not the other way around.
Note that a dead person has neither life nor liberty; he has nothing. So there are three options as far as slavery is concerned:
1) Both life and liberty;
2) Life but no liberty;
3) No life and no liberty.
While option 1) is clearly preferable to all the others, option 2) is preferable to option 3), because something is preferable to nothing. Besides, a man who has temporarily lost his liberty can live to fight another day and bring back that liberty when the opportunity is right. A man who has lost his life has also lost his liberty forever; he will never have it back.
If we are to overcome the extremely genuine and massive threats to our existence coming from virtually all directions, it is essential not to take comfort in the demotivating illusions of a cosmic balance. The longing for a fictitious past bliss leads many to stifle the ambitions of some humans to create a better future. The advocates of the Eden myth seek to thwart the advocates of technological and societal progress – seeing them as taking humankind even further away from its original bliss. But only progress can help us avoid the gruesome destruction and oblivion that are currently in store for every single living individual, unless human ingenuity can enable us to pursue a better path – one which we must follow to push back the hostile aspects of nature and humankind alike and create a safer, happier, more prosperous existence.
