Why did the modern world enter into a “great forgetting” about the more-than-human world so many ... more Why did the modern world enter into a “great forgetting” about the more-than-human world so many indigenous peoples took for granted? Second, how can this previous knowledge be reacquired without rejecting the very real accomplishments of the modern mentality? Many deep ecological writers have done extraordinary work on this second question. I will focus on the first, and use its analysis to add some insights regarding the second.
Central to the argument I will make is how language both empowers us and to some degree separates us from direct experience of the other-than-human world. Western languages are particularly prone to reinforcing this separation. Equally central will be a discussion of how media of communication rooted in language further distances us from direct encounter. Also important will be work in contemporary biology and ecology exploring how deeply interconnected all life forms are. The traditional Western idea of individuals, be they plants and animals or human beings, are ultimately irreducibly distinct from their environment has been shown to be mistaken. Individuals have been shown to be made up of simpler individuals who, in relationship with one another, enable emergent qualities to arise at ever greater levels of complexity. Further, while genuinely individual, they cannot be understood without reference to relationships outside what are normally considered individual boundaries.
By seeking the foundations of morality and other values in theology, reason, or will, many moderns are blinded to the fact values supporting morality and beauty exist immanently within the natural world. There is no need to import them from elsewhere. By way of conclusion, I reverse direction and describe one method available to the reader how a ‘remembering’ can come about experientially. This remembering will reconnect with an indigenous and sometimes shamanic perception of the world as alive and connected.
(PEGS) The Political Economy of the Good Society, 2006
The word “philanthropy” elicits images of the wealthy using their bounty establishing scholarship... more The word “philanthropy” elicits images of the wealthy using their bounty establishing scholarships or contributing to institutions helping the poor to assist the less fortunate. Or perhaps employing their riches to endow art museums, libraries, museums and public art, enabling others to enjoy values otherwise undersupplied. These philanthropic examples are certainly appropriate, but by themselves they are misleading.
I will offer a different analysis of philanthropy, one that by no means rejects the great merit of actions such as these, but pointing towards a larger, more liberal vision of philanthropy and its place in our world today. In the process I hope to demonstrate philanthropy’s under appreciated potential in promoting liberty, equality, environmental sustainability, and even democracy.
Abstract: States are organizations whereas democracies are spontaneous orders. Because successful... more Abstract: States are organizations whereas democracies are spontaneous orders. Because successful organizations within spontaneous orders are vulnerable to displacement through competition, one attractive option for protecting themselves is using their resources to change the rules in their favor. This is true for political parties vulnerable electorally and businesses threatened by market competition. They frequently ally to subordinate spontaneous order processes within their respective systems to the most powerful organizations within them. The result is that a democratic spontaneous order can gradually be transformed into a state. This transformation is of more than scholarly interest because, among other things, it increases the likelihood of war.
F. A. Hayek and Michael Polanyi’s distinction between spon-
taneous and constructed orders is on... more F. A. Hayek and Michael Polanyi’s distinction between spon-
taneous and constructed orders is one of the most important
insights in social science. Many of us have spent years ex-
ploring, expanding, and deepening this distinction, mostly
with regard to spontaneous orders. Constructed orders have
been far less explored from this perspective though they are
often analyzed from others. Within Hayekian circles they
are usually treated simply as human tools or machines, rely-
ing on human knowledge and intent to do what they were
constructed to do. When that knowledge is lacking they fail.
Without in any sense denigrating the important work done
on spontaneous orders and cosmos, this neglect is unfortu-
nate.
Hayek generally included taxis with simple phenomena
that can be understood linearly and reductively, contrasted
to complex phenomena which cannot, and about which
only what he called “pattern predictions” could be made. To
be sure, instrumental organizations start off as simple phe-
nomena, but key elements are people, who are not simple. If
organizations persist for long important emergent character-
istics of their own arise. Individuals are not independent of
their organizational environment nor are organizations sim-
ply tools serving human purposes.
In this sense organizations are not simply constructions as
organizations can develop emergent qualities independently
of their creators’ intentions. They possess a degree of inde-
pendence from their creators and members. Far from being
simply tools for achieving human purposes, it often seems as
if organizations are acting at least somewhat independently
of human intentions.
Modern biology offers additional insights on how such
collective entities are human creations that can reverse their
relation to human action, making human beings their tools
and resources. Organizations can actively shape their envi-
ronment to some degree independently of their creators’ in-
tentions.
I develop this argument beginning with the puzzle that
members of organizations frequently act differently and have
different values than before they joined. Analyzing this clari-
fies organizations’ emergent capacity to become somewhat
independent actors in the human world, adapting on their
own terms to the spontaneous order in which they exist.
We live in a world shaped at every level by organizations.
Nearly all of us spend our working lives within them. They
shape our politics, our religions, and many of our social ac-
tivities. In many cases they are the intermediaries between
human actions and the spontaneous orders and larger cos-
mos these actions generate. Far from being simply tools for
achieving human purposes, organizations can act at least
somewhat independently of human intentions. And not al-
ways to our benefit.
F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argued central
planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resu... more F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argued central planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resulted in a new ‘serfdom.” A similar dynamic arises within the cap- italist variant of a market economy, where all values are subordinated to profit and price signals have become price commands, creating a “systemic collectivism.” Organiza- tions adapting to this environment seek to buffer them- selves from uncertainty by changing rules and increasing control over resources, including human beings. As a con- sequence, a new serfdom is arising. The cause arises from the central tension within all free societies/ The organiza- tions people create, Hayek’s taxis, have interests at odds with the spontaneous orders, cosmos, that arise within such societies. If they possess the power, organizations will seek to control them.
With the publication of The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida in 2002, the ‘creativ... more With the publication of The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida in 2002, the ‘creative city’ became the new hot topic among urban policymakers, planners and economists. Florida has developed one of three path-breaking theories about the relationship between creative individuals and urban environments. The economist A¥ke E. Andersson and the psychologist Dean Simonton are the other members of this ‘creative troika’. In the Handbook of Creative Cities, Florida, Andersson and Simonton appear in the same volume for the first time. The expert contributors in this timely Handbook extend their insights with a varied set of theoretical and empirical tools. The diversity of the contributions reflect the multidisciplinary nature of creative city theorizing, which encompasses urban economics, economic geography, social psychology, urban sociology, and urban planning. The stated policy implications are equally diverse, ranging from libertarian to social democratic visions of our shared creative and urban future.
No one born in the 20th century can have missed the challenge to spiritual worldviews raised by t... more No one born in the 20th century can have missed the challenge to spiritual worldviews raised by the carnage of its wars and massacres, as well as the suffering caused by disease, natural disasters and general hard knocks of everyday life. So much pain! So much unhappiness! Neopagan religion celebrates and honors all basic dimensions of existence, but in light of so much suffering, some critics ask whether in doing so we demonstrate a naive or even willful blindness to evil and the omnipresent nature of human affliction.
On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed f... more On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed forests for very long periods. This is so even when they also engage in the market economy. This is because their institutions are responsive to deeper and more complex ...
Itishere that our argument commences. I will be arguing that while Prof. Waltz's conditions are r... more Itishere that our argument commences. I will be arguing that while Prof. Waltz's conditions are reasonable, they do not apply todemocratic states. Specifically, the democratic international order is not aHobbesian anarchy, and this fact grows out of democracies' systemic characteristics. These characteristics make them far removed from being able to be considered as rational actors most ofthe time. Nor are they irrational actors. Most ofthe time they are not actors at all. Prof. Waltz distinguished between anarchic and hierarchical systems, but democracies are neither anarchic nor hierarchical, either as individual political systems or as international systems ofdemocracies.
Historically, libertarians and other advocates of unregulated markets have argued that freedom of... more Historically, libertarians and other advocates of unregulated markets have argued that freedom of contract and secure property rights generate prosperity that lifts all boats toward greater wealth and well-being. This outcome seems to come from the logic of a contract: each party has something desired by the other and, upon making the exchange, each ends up with something that is more valuable to them than what they gave up. Everyone gains. At this abstract level the logic is impeccable.
Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of ... more Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of draft reports and papers, preliminary analysis, and papers with a limited audience. The objective is to assist authors in refining their ideas by circulating results and to stimulate discussion about public policy. Working Papers are reproduced unedited directly from the author's page. Liberalism, Democracy, and the State: Reclaiming the Unity of Liberal Politics Gus diZerega This is a work in progress. It is intended to serve both as the foundation for some articles and as the core of a book project. I welcome any critical comments on the argument presented. My email is gusdz@sonic.net In the broad philosophic sense liberalism is the most complete statement of the basic principles we now associate with modernity. More than anything else, the modern world is the institutional result of these principles' triumph, first in the West and increasingly worldwide. Yet, by an extraordinary irony, at the time of its greatest success to date, liberalism is deeply divided against itself and, in this division, unable to comprehend the world that is in so many ways its product. This division within liberalism grows from tensions between two liberal institutions, democracy and the market, and the near universal failure of liberals in either camp to grasp the systemic character of democratic government. Liberalism has strengthened the intellectual, legal, economic and political status of individuals within society. It has done so with primary attention to equality of status for all people. The result, among other things, has been the rise of three institutions which flourish best within liberal societies. Science, the market, and democracy all depend upon similar underlying liberal values of formal equality among participants, equal status for all, and the absolutely central role played by peaceful persuasion rather than force, or its threat. Even in representative democracy, political force enters in only after a prolonged process of persuasion has first determined the details of public policy. But democracy, science, and the market are more the spontaneous institutional outcome of applying liberal principles than their intended result. Consequently these institutions have presented later liberals with an enormous challenge, to which they have responded in many ways: how to evaluate institutions which arose within liberal dominated societies, and in many ways reflect liberal principles, but of which liberalism's seminal thinkers were largely unaware? Within the American context these evaluations can be divided into two broad perspectives: classical, or traditional, liberalism and modern liberalism. Each applies core liberal principles in different ways in evaluating democracy, the market, and science. Each has grasped a part of the puzzle these institutions present to liberal ideology and policy. What they share in common is an error: both regard 2 democracies simply as another variant of state. Political analyses in both camps turns on this identification, although in different ways and with different conclusions. But democracies are not states. They are selforganizing systems and, as systems, have more in common with science and the market than with undemocratic governments. Since liberals of all stripes regard democracies as states, they fail adequately to grasp the character of democratic politics. Classical liberals make a seemingly unending series of false predictions while modern liberals' cures for democratic failings reflect, and so are undermined by, their misunderstanding. Neither is able to grasp the character of a democratic public sphere. There are historical reasons for this error. All of liberalism's defining institutions, the market, science, and democracy, were at most embryonic when liberalism first developed. This was particularly the case with democracy. As they arose to prominence, science, the market, and democracy fundamentally changed the conditions of individual life from what prevailed in earlier times. As a consequence, basic liberal principles developed within one historical context could later be applied in a variety of ways when confronting new circumstances. The relationships between even complementary principles can always be weighted differently. This is why when liberals explored the new world that was arising, their analyses split and fractured, turning liberalism against itself. Liberalism and the Market With respect to the market, the split within liberalism was largely over what to make of the enormous business organizations and mass wage labor that characterized the new industrial civilization. Neither Locke nor Jefferson nor any other seminal thinkers had foreseen these developments. As it now manifested in the market order, private property was far different from the acorn that Locke's man first made his own in a hypothetical state of nature. The bargaining between employer and employees in a large factory was of a far different scale than bargaining between two people in the market place. The complexity of products sold in the market challenged the time-honored principle of caveat emptor. Liberalism's principles had mostly been applied to encounters at a human scale. Increasingly liberal society transcended that scale. Classical liberals insist that, on balance, the rise of giant businesses and mass production is simply an institutional expression of freedom of contract. Dependence upon voluntary purchases by consumers in a competitive context inevitably subordinates even the largest enterprises to individual choice. The
The unitary nation-state is showing increasing signs of declining importance, and the most desira... more The unitary nation-state is showing increasing signs of declining importance, and the most desirable alternative is not likely to be world government but rather an increasing devolution of power within increasingly federalized states. Federalism today seems almost quaint-a charming and sometimes irritating holdover from the political past, when Americans saw themselves more as residents of particular states than of the US as a whole. Its reputation was not enhanced when its rhetoric was used by state leaders seeking to defend the most distasteful and exploitative practices against their own citizens, as was long the case in the American South. But this centralist prejudice is just that-a prejudice. There is more to federalism than a justification for cracker politics. Southern-style racist politics cannot be justified by a theory of democratic federalism. A theory of federalism necessary for understanding a coherent model of democracy may also provide a practical alternative for dealing with contemporary political problems. The widespread failure of political scientists to appreciate the implications of federalist politics is due largely to the modern history of the discipline, overconcerned with the study of the sovereign state. Hobbes is more influential than Locke, and his positivist concept of law and sovereignty strengthens this bias. Political science has generally sought to make states more "rational" in their operation, and to apply models of instrumental organization in analyzing how their functioning can be improved. All these biases encourage a misunderstanding of the nature of federalism. The modern nation-state has its roots in undemocratic polities where, regardless of the rhetoric, regimes ruled primarily for the benefit of a small portion of society. Modern undemocratic polities share the same
A Critique of Ken Wilber's Account of Deep Ecology & Nature Religions Gus DiZerega Trumpeter "The... more A Critique of Ken Wilber's Account of Deep Ecology & Nature Religions Gus DiZerega Trumpeter "The intuition can be genuine, but the interpretation can get fouled up."1-Ken Wilber Part I: In Defense of the Deep Ecology Movement Modern environmentalists and spiritual traditions in sympathy with them constitute a great and dangerous error, according to Ken Wilber in his new books Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, and. Brief History of Everything. Wilber argues this in spite of agreeing that we face a serious ecological crisis, and that he is "in complete sympathy" with the attempt by many contemporary people to recapture the ecological wisdom of earlier tribal peoples.2 Emerson's "Critique" of "Nature Worship" Wilber views Deep Ecology and nature religions such as Neopagan spirituality, as psychologically and spiritually regressive, beckoning their practitioners back to a premodern level of intellectual and spiritual development. To lend weight to his assertion, Wilber cites a provocative quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson who, he tells us, is criticizing "nature religion". To the senses and the unrenewed understanding, belongs a sort of instinctive belief in the absolute existence of nature. In their view man and nature are indissolubly joined. Things are ultimates, and they never look beyond their sphere [Piaget's egocentric "realism"] His mind is imbruted, and he is a selfish savage. The presence of intuition mars his faith [in nature]. The first effort of thought tends to relax this despotism of the senses which binds us to nature as if we were a part of it. Until this higher agency intervened [intuition], the animal eye sees, with wonderful accuracy, sharp outlines and colored surfaces. When the eye of intuition opens, to outline and surface are at once added grace and expression. These proceed from imagination and affection, and abate somewhat of the angular distinction of objects. If the intuition be stimulated to more earnest vision, outlines of surfaces become transparent, and are no longer seen.. .. The best moments of life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawal of nature GUS DIZEREGA is a Traditional Wiccan Elder who in addition studied seven years with shamanic teachers. He also holds a Ph.D. in Political Theory and has published extensively on environmental theory and policy and on political theory. In addition, his artwork has frequently appeared in The Trumpeter.
Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive your FREE copy of the 25th Anniversary Edition of... more Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive your FREE copy of the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. The Independent Review is the acclaimed, interdisciplinary journal by the Independent Institute, devoted to the study of political economy and the critical analysis of government policy. Provocative, lucid, and engaging, The Independent Review's thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed articles cover timely issues in economics, law, history, political science, philosophy, sociology and related fields. Undaunted and uncompromising, The Independent Review is the journal that is pioneering future debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! SEE mORE at: INdEpENdENt.ORG/tIROFFER SUBSCRIBE to The Independent Review NOW and Receive a FREE copy of Crisis and Leviathan OR choose one of the following books: q q YES! Please enroll me with a subscription to The Independent Review for: q Individual Subscription: $28.95 / 1-year (4 issues) q Institutional Subscription: $84.95 / 1-year (4 issues) q Check (via U.S. bank) enclosed, payable to The Independent Institute q VISA q American Express q MasterCard q Discover q The Challenge of Liberty Classical Liberalism Today
Abstract The market is sometimes thought to be a largely neutral means for coordinating cooperati... more Abstract The market is sometimes thought to be a largely neutral means for coordinating cooperation among strangers under complex conditions because it is, as Hayek noted, a spontaneous order. But in fact the market actively shapes the kinds of values it rewards, ...
F. A. Hayek developed a number of core insights into the nature of social and political reality. ... more F. A. Hayek developed a number of core insights into the nature of social and political reality. None are more central to his thought than his study of "spontaneous order:" patterns of coordination arising within systems of action which are not deliberate constructions of either those outside the system or those acting within it. This concept is analogous to terms increasingly encountered today in other fields, such as emergent
Liberal thought has individualist or evolutionary roots. Individualist liberalism views rights as... more Liberal thought has individualist or evolutionary roots. Individualist liberalism views rights as prior to society, supports methodological individualism, and models freedom in terms of abstract choice and market exchange. Arising from the Scottish Enlightenment, the Humboldt brothers, and Darwinian theory, evolutionary liberalism emphasizes individuals and society coevolve in social ecosystems. Individual rights and freedom have social origins, with choice always occurring in contexts, some more conducive to flourishing and freedom than others. Flourishing is the ethical foundation for rights, and civil society, not markets, provide the optimal context for manifesting liberal values. Hayek developed this view, now increasingly supported by modern biology. Evolutionary traditions establish liberalism on a scientific rather than a contested philosophical foundation. In practice evolutionary liberalism has also proven a better foundation for freedom.
Why did the modern world enter into a “great forgetting” about the more-than-human world so many ... more Why did the modern world enter into a “great forgetting” about the more-than-human world so many indigenous peoples took for granted? Second, how can this previous knowledge be reacquired without rejecting the very real accomplishments of the modern mentality? Many deep ecological writers have done extraordinary work on this second question. I will focus on the first, and use its analysis to add some insights regarding the second.
Central to the argument I will make is how language both empowers us and to some degree separates us from direct experience of the other-than-human world. Western languages are particularly prone to reinforcing this separation. Equally central will be a discussion of how media of communication rooted in language further distances us from direct encounter. Also important will be work in contemporary biology and ecology exploring how deeply interconnected all life forms are. The traditional Western idea of individuals, be they plants and animals or human beings, are ultimately irreducibly distinct from their environment has been shown to be mistaken. Individuals have been shown to be made up of simpler individuals who, in relationship with one another, enable emergent qualities to arise at ever greater levels of complexity. Further, while genuinely individual, they cannot be understood without reference to relationships outside what are normally considered individual boundaries.
By seeking the foundations of morality and other values in theology, reason, or will, many moderns are blinded to the fact values supporting morality and beauty exist immanently within the natural world. There is no need to import them from elsewhere. By way of conclusion, I reverse direction and describe one method available to the reader how a ‘remembering’ can come about experientially. This remembering will reconnect with an indigenous and sometimes shamanic perception of the world as alive and connected.
(PEGS) The Political Economy of the Good Society, 2006
The word “philanthropy” elicits images of the wealthy using their bounty establishing scholarship... more The word “philanthropy” elicits images of the wealthy using their bounty establishing scholarships or contributing to institutions helping the poor to assist the less fortunate. Or perhaps employing their riches to endow art museums, libraries, museums and public art, enabling others to enjoy values otherwise undersupplied. These philanthropic examples are certainly appropriate, but by themselves they are misleading.
I will offer a different analysis of philanthropy, one that by no means rejects the great merit of actions such as these, but pointing towards a larger, more liberal vision of philanthropy and its place in our world today. In the process I hope to demonstrate philanthropy’s under appreciated potential in promoting liberty, equality, environmental sustainability, and even democracy.
Abstract: States are organizations whereas democracies are spontaneous orders. Because successful... more Abstract: States are organizations whereas democracies are spontaneous orders. Because successful organizations within spontaneous orders are vulnerable to displacement through competition, one attractive option for protecting themselves is using their resources to change the rules in their favor. This is true for political parties vulnerable electorally and businesses threatened by market competition. They frequently ally to subordinate spontaneous order processes within their respective systems to the most powerful organizations within them. The result is that a democratic spontaneous order can gradually be transformed into a state. This transformation is of more than scholarly interest because, among other things, it increases the likelihood of war.
F. A. Hayek and Michael Polanyi’s distinction between spon-
taneous and constructed orders is on... more F. A. Hayek and Michael Polanyi’s distinction between spon-
taneous and constructed orders is one of the most important
insights in social science. Many of us have spent years ex-
ploring, expanding, and deepening this distinction, mostly
with regard to spontaneous orders. Constructed orders have
been far less explored from this perspective though they are
often analyzed from others. Within Hayekian circles they
are usually treated simply as human tools or machines, rely-
ing on human knowledge and intent to do what they were
constructed to do. When that knowledge is lacking they fail.
Without in any sense denigrating the important work done
on spontaneous orders and cosmos, this neglect is unfortu-
nate.
Hayek generally included taxis with simple phenomena
that can be understood linearly and reductively, contrasted
to complex phenomena which cannot, and about which
only what he called “pattern predictions” could be made. To
be sure, instrumental organizations start off as simple phe-
nomena, but key elements are people, who are not simple. If
organizations persist for long important emergent character-
istics of their own arise. Individuals are not independent of
their organizational environment nor are organizations sim-
ply tools serving human purposes.
In this sense organizations are not simply constructions as
organizations can develop emergent qualities independently
of their creators’ intentions. They possess a degree of inde-
pendence from their creators and members. Far from being
simply tools for achieving human purposes, it often seems as
if organizations are acting at least somewhat independently
of human intentions.
Modern biology offers additional insights on how such
collective entities are human creations that can reverse their
relation to human action, making human beings their tools
and resources. Organizations can actively shape their envi-
ronment to some degree independently of their creators’ in-
tentions.
I develop this argument beginning with the puzzle that
members of organizations frequently act differently and have
different values than before they joined. Analyzing this clari-
fies organizations’ emergent capacity to become somewhat
independent actors in the human world, adapting on their
own terms to the spontaneous order in which they exist.
We live in a world shaped at every level by organizations.
Nearly all of us spend our working lives within them. They
shape our politics, our religions, and many of our social ac-
tivities. In many cases they are the intermediaries between
human actions and the spontaneous orders and larger cos-
mos these actions generate. Far from being simply tools for
achieving human purposes, organizations can act at least
somewhat independently of human intentions. And not al-
ways to our benefit.
F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argued central
planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resu... more F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom argued central planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resulted in a new ‘serfdom.” A similar dynamic arises within the cap- italist variant of a market economy, where all values are subordinated to profit and price signals have become price commands, creating a “systemic collectivism.” Organiza- tions adapting to this environment seek to buffer them- selves from uncertainty by changing rules and increasing control over resources, including human beings. As a con- sequence, a new serfdom is arising. The cause arises from the central tension within all free societies/ The organiza- tions people create, Hayek’s taxis, have interests at odds with the spontaneous orders, cosmos, that arise within such societies. If they possess the power, organizations will seek to control them.
With the publication of The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida in 2002, the ‘creativ... more With the publication of The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida in 2002, the ‘creative city’ became the new hot topic among urban policymakers, planners and economists. Florida has developed one of three path-breaking theories about the relationship between creative individuals and urban environments. The economist A¥ke E. Andersson and the psychologist Dean Simonton are the other members of this ‘creative troika’. In the Handbook of Creative Cities, Florida, Andersson and Simonton appear in the same volume for the first time. The expert contributors in this timely Handbook extend their insights with a varied set of theoretical and empirical tools. The diversity of the contributions reflect the multidisciplinary nature of creative city theorizing, which encompasses urban economics, economic geography, social psychology, urban sociology, and urban planning. The stated policy implications are equally diverse, ranging from libertarian to social democratic visions of our shared creative and urban future.
No one born in the 20th century can have missed the challenge to spiritual worldviews raised by t... more No one born in the 20th century can have missed the challenge to spiritual worldviews raised by the carnage of its wars and massacres, as well as the suffering caused by disease, natural disasters and general hard knocks of everyday life. So much pain! So much unhappiness! Neopagan religion celebrates and honors all basic dimensions of existence, but in light of so much suffering, some critics ask whether in doing so we demonstrate a naive or even willful blindness to evil and the omnipresent nature of human affliction.
On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed f... more On the other hand, tribes such as Wisconsin s Menimonee in governing their commons have managed forests for very long periods. This is so even when they also engage in the market economy. This is because their institutions are responsive to deeper and more complex ...
Itishere that our argument commences. I will be arguing that while Prof. Waltz's conditions are r... more Itishere that our argument commences. I will be arguing that while Prof. Waltz's conditions are reasonable, they do not apply todemocratic states. Specifically, the democratic international order is not aHobbesian anarchy, and this fact grows out of democracies' systemic characteristics. These characteristics make them far removed from being able to be considered as rational actors most ofthe time. Nor are they irrational actors. Most ofthe time they are not actors at all. Prof. Waltz distinguished between anarchic and hierarchical systems, but democracies are neither anarchic nor hierarchical, either as individual political systems or as international systems ofdemocracies.
Historically, libertarians and other advocates of unregulated markets have argued that freedom of... more Historically, libertarians and other advocates of unregulated markets have argued that freedom of contract and secure property rights generate prosperity that lifts all boats toward greater wealth and well-being. This outcome seems to come from the logic of a contract: each party has something desired by the other and, upon making the exchange, each ends up with something that is more valuable to them than what they gave up. Everyone gains. At this abstract level the logic is impeccable.
Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of ... more Working Papers published by the Institute of Governmental Studies provide quick dissemination of draft reports and papers, preliminary analysis, and papers with a limited audience. The objective is to assist authors in refining their ideas by circulating results and to stimulate discussion about public policy. Working Papers are reproduced unedited directly from the author's page. Liberalism, Democracy, and the State: Reclaiming the Unity of Liberal Politics Gus diZerega This is a work in progress. It is intended to serve both as the foundation for some articles and as the core of a book project. I welcome any critical comments on the argument presented. My email is gusdz@sonic.net In the broad philosophic sense liberalism is the most complete statement of the basic principles we now associate with modernity. More than anything else, the modern world is the institutional result of these principles' triumph, first in the West and increasingly worldwide. Yet, by an extraordinary irony, at the time of its greatest success to date, liberalism is deeply divided against itself and, in this division, unable to comprehend the world that is in so many ways its product. This division within liberalism grows from tensions between two liberal institutions, democracy and the market, and the near universal failure of liberals in either camp to grasp the systemic character of democratic government. Liberalism has strengthened the intellectual, legal, economic and political status of individuals within society. It has done so with primary attention to equality of status for all people. The result, among other things, has been the rise of three institutions which flourish best within liberal societies. Science, the market, and democracy all depend upon similar underlying liberal values of formal equality among participants, equal status for all, and the absolutely central role played by peaceful persuasion rather than force, or its threat. Even in representative democracy, political force enters in only after a prolonged process of persuasion has first determined the details of public policy. But democracy, science, and the market are more the spontaneous institutional outcome of applying liberal principles than their intended result. Consequently these institutions have presented later liberals with an enormous challenge, to which they have responded in many ways: how to evaluate institutions which arose within liberal dominated societies, and in many ways reflect liberal principles, but of which liberalism's seminal thinkers were largely unaware? Within the American context these evaluations can be divided into two broad perspectives: classical, or traditional, liberalism and modern liberalism. Each applies core liberal principles in different ways in evaluating democracy, the market, and science. Each has grasped a part of the puzzle these institutions present to liberal ideology and policy. What they share in common is an error: both regard 2 democracies simply as another variant of state. Political analyses in both camps turns on this identification, although in different ways and with different conclusions. But democracies are not states. They are selforganizing systems and, as systems, have more in common with science and the market than with undemocratic governments. Since liberals of all stripes regard democracies as states, they fail adequately to grasp the character of democratic politics. Classical liberals make a seemingly unending series of false predictions while modern liberals' cures for democratic failings reflect, and so are undermined by, their misunderstanding. Neither is able to grasp the character of a democratic public sphere. There are historical reasons for this error. All of liberalism's defining institutions, the market, science, and democracy, were at most embryonic when liberalism first developed. This was particularly the case with democracy. As they arose to prominence, science, the market, and democracy fundamentally changed the conditions of individual life from what prevailed in earlier times. As a consequence, basic liberal principles developed within one historical context could later be applied in a variety of ways when confronting new circumstances. The relationships between even complementary principles can always be weighted differently. This is why when liberals explored the new world that was arising, their analyses split and fractured, turning liberalism against itself. Liberalism and the Market With respect to the market, the split within liberalism was largely over what to make of the enormous business organizations and mass wage labor that characterized the new industrial civilization. Neither Locke nor Jefferson nor any other seminal thinkers had foreseen these developments. As it now manifested in the market order, private property was far different from the acorn that Locke's man first made his own in a hypothetical state of nature. The bargaining between employer and employees in a large factory was of a far different scale than bargaining between two people in the market place. The complexity of products sold in the market challenged the time-honored principle of caveat emptor. Liberalism's principles had mostly been applied to encounters at a human scale. Increasingly liberal society transcended that scale. Classical liberals insist that, on balance, the rise of giant businesses and mass production is simply an institutional expression of freedom of contract. Dependence upon voluntary purchases by consumers in a competitive context inevitably subordinates even the largest enterprises to individual choice. The
The unitary nation-state is showing increasing signs of declining importance, and the most desira... more The unitary nation-state is showing increasing signs of declining importance, and the most desirable alternative is not likely to be world government but rather an increasing devolution of power within increasingly federalized states. Federalism today seems almost quaint-a charming and sometimes irritating holdover from the political past, when Americans saw themselves more as residents of particular states than of the US as a whole. Its reputation was not enhanced when its rhetoric was used by state leaders seeking to defend the most distasteful and exploitative practices against their own citizens, as was long the case in the American South. But this centralist prejudice is just that-a prejudice. There is more to federalism than a justification for cracker politics. Southern-style racist politics cannot be justified by a theory of democratic federalism. A theory of federalism necessary for understanding a coherent model of democracy may also provide a practical alternative for dealing with contemporary political problems. The widespread failure of political scientists to appreciate the implications of federalist politics is due largely to the modern history of the discipline, overconcerned with the study of the sovereign state. Hobbes is more influential than Locke, and his positivist concept of law and sovereignty strengthens this bias. Political science has generally sought to make states more "rational" in their operation, and to apply models of instrumental organization in analyzing how their functioning can be improved. All these biases encourage a misunderstanding of the nature of federalism. The modern nation-state has its roots in undemocratic polities where, regardless of the rhetoric, regimes ruled primarily for the benefit of a small portion of society. Modern undemocratic polities share the same
A Critique of Ken Wilber's Account of Deep Ecology & Nature Religions Gus DiZerega Trumpeter "The... more A Critique of Ken Wilber's Account of Deep Ecology & Nature Religions Gus DiZerega Trumpeter "The intuition can be genuine, but the interpretation can get fouled up."1-Ken Wilber Part I: In Defense of the Deep Ecology Movement Modern environmentalists and spiritual traditions in sympathy with them constitute a great and dangerous error, according to Ken Wilber in his new books Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, and. Brief History of Everything. Wilber argues this in spite of agreeing that we face a serious ecological crisis, and that he is "in complete sympathy" with the attempt by many contemporary people to recapture the ecological wisdom of earlier tribal peoples.2 Emerson's "Critique" of "Nature Worship" Wilber views Deep Ecology and nature religions such as Neopagan spirituality, as psychologically and spiritually regressive, beckoning their practitioners back to a premodern level of intellectual and spiritual development. To lend weight to his assertion, Wilber cites a provocative quotation from Ralph Waldo Emerson who, he tells us, is criticizing "nature religion". To the senses and the unrenewed understanding, belongs a sort of instinctive belief in the absolute existence of nature. In their view man and nature are indissolubly joined. Things are ultimates, and they never look beyond their sphere [Piaget's egocentric "realism"] His mind is imbruted, and he is a selfish savage. The presence of intuition mars his faith [in nature]. The first effort of thought tends to relax this despotism of the senses which binds us to nature as if we were a part of it. Until this higher agency intervened [intuition], the animal eye sees, with wonderful accuracy, sharp outlines and colored surfaces. When the eye of intuition opens, to outline and surface are at once added grace and expression. These proceed from imagination and affection, and abate somewhat of the angular distinction of objects. If the intuition be stimulated to more earnest vision, outlines of surfaces become transparent, and are no longer seen.. .. The best moments of life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawal of nature GUS DIZEREGA is a Traditional Wiccan Elder who in addition studied seven years with shamanic teachers. He also holds a Ph.D. in Political Theory and has published extensively on environmental theory and policy and on political theory. In addition, his artwork has frequently appeared in The Trumpeter.
Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive your FREE copy of the 25th Anniversary Edition of... more Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive your FREE copy of the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. The Independent Review is the acclaimed, interdisciplinary journal by the Independent Institute, devoted to the study of political economy and the critical analysis of government policy. Provocative, lucid, and engaging, The Independent Review's thoroughly researched and peer-reviewed articles cover timely issues in economics, law, history, political science, philosophy, sociology and related fields. Undaunted and uncompromising, The Independent Review is the journal that is pioneering future debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! SEE mORE at: INdEpENdENt.ORG/tIROFFER SUBSCRIBE to The Independent Review NOW and Receive a FREE copy of Crisis and Leviathan OR choose one of the following books: q q YES! Please enroll me with a subscription to The Independent Review for: q Individual Subscription: $28.95 / 1-year (4 issues) q Institutional Subscription: $84.95 / 1-year (4 issues) q Check (via U.S. bank) enclosed, payable to The Independent Institute q VISA q American Express q MasterCard q Discover q The Challenge of Liberty Classical Liberalism Today
Abstract The market is sometimes thought to be a largely neutral means for coordinating cooperati... more Abstract The market is sometimes thought to be a largely neutral means for coordinating cooperation among strangers under complex conditions because it is, as Hayek noted, a spontaneous order. But in fact the market actively shapes the kinds of values it rewards, ...
F. A. Hayek developed a number of core insights into the nature of social and political reality. ... more F. A. Hayek developed a number of core insights into the nature of social and political reality. None are more central to his thought than his study of "spontaneous order:" patterns of coordination arising within systems of action which are not deliberate constructions of either those outside the system or those acting within it. This concept is analogous to terms increasingly encountered today in other fields, such as emergent
Liberal thought has individualist or evolutionary roots. Individualist liberalism views rights as... more Liberal thought has individualist or evolutionary roots. Individualist liberalism views rights as prior to society, supports methodological individualism, and models freedom in terms of abstract choice and market exchange. Arising from the Scottish Enlightenment, the Humboldt brothers, and Darwinian theory, evolutionary liberalism emphasizes individuals and society coevolve in social ecosystems. Individual rights and freedom have social origins, with choice always occurring in contexts, some more conducive to flourishing and freedom than others. Flourishing is the ethical foundation for rights, and civil society, not markets, provide the optimal context for manifesting liberal values. Hayek developed this view, now increasingly supported by modern biology. Evolutionary traditions establish liberalism on a scientific rather than a contested philosophical foundation. In practice evolutionary liberalism has also proven a better foundation for freedom.
Methodological individualism provides important insights into spontaneous orders, but is inadequa... more Methodological individualism provides important insights into spontaneous orders, but is inadequate to probe their reciprocal impact upon the individuals whose actions generate the system, or their mutual relationships. When spontaneous orders such as science and the market interact, the interacting emergent properties arising from different spontaneous orders, combined with systemically generated values detached from the values of those whose actions produce them lead to phenomena inaccessible to analysis by methodological individualist approaches. better studied within an ecological framework. This paper integrates Paul Lewis's exploration of emergent qualities in complex orders with Gus diZerega's exploration of interactions between multiple such orders, and argues such an approach enriches the number of issues open for examination as well as providing a foundation for a theory of civil society. __________ A scientific methodology is only as useful as the light it sheds on phenomena that interest us. Methodologies are tools for studying reality, and like any tool, incorporate an ontology, assumptions about the reality they are supposed to investigate. Based on these assumptions, scientific methodologies select what matters most in understanding something from the enormous number of phenomena in the world. In doing so, each methodology necessarily
Robin Wall Kimmerer has written an extraordinarily insightful book built around Native American c... more Robin Wall Kimmerer has written an extraordinarily insightful book built around Native American cultural themes and modern science.
At first glance, Suzanne Simard's Finding the Mother Tree is an odd book to be reviewed in Cosmos... more At first glance, Suzanne Simard's Finding the Mother Tree is an odd book to be reviewed in Cosmos and Taxis. It is largely about trees. Simard is a professor of Forest Ecology at UBC, Vancouver. She is best known for her initial extraordinary finding that many trees are connected together through mycorrhizal fungi, and these connections enable trees even of different species to support one another rather than simply existing as isolated individuals. Her Ph.D. dissertation detailing her research led to front page billing in Nature, one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals. It was there the term "wood wide web" was coined to describe her discovery. It caught on. Simard and others' subsequent discoveries demonstrate trees are far more interlinked with one another, and with other organisms, than scientists had ever imagined. In her research, Simard demonstrated trees, living side by side for hundreds of years, recognized neighbors,
Uploads
Papers by Gus DiZerega
Central to the argument I will make is how language both empowers us and to some degree separates us from direct experience of the other-than-human world. Western languages are particularly prone to reinforcing this separation. Equally central will be a discussion of how media of communication rooted in language further distances us from direct encounter. Also important will be work in contemporary biology and ecology exploring how deeply interconnected all life forms are. The traditional Western idea of individuals, be they plants and animals or human beings, are ultimately irreducibly distinct from their environment has been shown to be mistaken. Individuals have been shown to be made up of simpler individuals who, in relationship with one another, enable emergent qualities to arise at ever greater levels of complexity. Further, while genuinely individual, they cannot be understood without reference to relationships outside what are normally considered individual boundaries.
By seeking the foundations of morality and other values in theology, reason, or will, many moderns are blinded to the fact values supporting morality and beauty exist immanently within the natural world. There is no need to import them from elsewhere. By way of conclusion, I reverse direction and describe one method available to the reader how a ‘remembering’ can come about experientially. This remembering will reconnect with an indigenous and sometimes shamanic perception of the world as alive and connected.
I will offer a different analysis of philanthropy, one that by no means rejects the great merit of actions such as these, but pointing towards a larger, more liberal vision of philanthropy and its place in our world today. In the process I hope to demonstrate philanthropy’s under appreciated potential in promoting liberty, equality, environmental sustainability, and even democracy.
threatened by market competition. They frequently ally to subordinate spontaneous order processes within their respective systems to the most powerful organizations within them. The result is that a democratic spontaneous order can gradually be transformed into a state. This transformation is of more than scholarly interest because, among other things, it increases the likelihood of war.
taneous and constructed orders is one of the most important
insights in social science. Many of us have spent years ex-
ploring, expanding, and deepening this distinction, mostly
with regard to spontaneous orders. Constructed orders have
been far less explored from this perspective though they are
often analyzed from others. Within Hayekian circles they
are usually treated simply as human tools or machines, rely-
ing on human knowledge and intent to do what they were
constructed to do. When that knowledge is lacking they fail.
Without in any sense denigrating the important work done
on spontaneous orders and cosmos, this neglect is unfortu-
nate.
Hayek generally included taxis with simple phenomena
that can be understood linearly and reductively, contrasted
to complex phenomena which cannot, and about which
only what he called “pattern predictions” could be made. To
be sure, instrumental organizations start off as simple phe-
nomena, but key elements are people, who are not simple. If
organizations persist for long important emergent character-
istics of their own arise. Individuals are not independent of
their organizational environment nor are organizations sim-
ply tools serving human purposes.
In this sense organizations are not simply constructions as
organizations can develop emergent qualities independently
of their creators’ intentions. They possess a degree of inde-
pendence from their creators and members. Far from being
simply tools for achieving human purposes, it often seems as
if organizations are acting at least somewhat independently
of human intentions.
Modern biology offers additional insights on how such
collective entities are human creations that can reverse their
relation to human action, making human beings their tools
and resources. Organizations can actively shape their envi-
ronment to some degree independently of their creators’ in-
tentions.
I develop this argument beginning with the puzzle that
members of organizations frequently act differently and have
different values than before they joined. Analyzing this clari-
fies organizations’ emergent capacity to become somewhat
independent actors in the human world, adapting on their
own terms to the spontaneous order in which they exist.
We live in a world shaped at every level by organizations.
Nearly all of us spend our working lives within them. They
shape our politics, our religions, and many of our social ac-
tivities. In many cases they are the intermediaries between
human actions and the spontaneous orders and larger cos-
mos these actions generate. Far from being simply tools for
achieving human purposes, organizations can act at least
somewhat independently of human intentions. And not al-
ways to our benefit.
planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resulted in
a new ‘serfdom.” A similar dynamic arises within the cap-
italist variant of a market economy, where all values are
subordinated to profit and price signals have become price
commands, creating a “systemic collectivism.” Organiza-
tions adapting to this environment seek to buffer them-
selves from uncertainty by changing rules and increasing
control over resources, including human beings. As a con-
sequence, a new serfdom is arising. The cause arises from
the central tension within all free societies/ The organiza-
tions people create, Hayek’s taxis, have interests at odds
with the spontaneous orders, cosmos, that arise within such
societies. If they possess the power, organizations will seek
to control them.
Central to the argument I will make is how language both empowers us and to some degree separates us from direct experience of the other-than-human world. Western languages are particularly prone to reinforcing this separation. Equally central will be a discussion of how media of communication rooted in language further distances us from direct encounter. Also important will be work in contemporary biology and ecology exploring how deeply interconnected all life forms are. The traditional Western idea of individuals, be they plants and animals or human beings, are ultimately irreducibly distinct from their environment has been shown to be mistaken. Individuals have been shown to be made up of simpler individuals who, in relationship with one another, enable emergent qualities to arise at ever greater levels of complexity. Further, while genuinely individual, they cannot be understood without reference to relationships outside what are normally considered individual boundaries.
By seeking the foundations of morality and other values in theology, reason, or will, many moderns are blinded to the fact values supporting morality and beauty exist immanently within the natural world. There is no need to import them from elsewhere. By way of conclusion, I reverse direction and describe one method available to the reader how a ‘remembering’ can come about experientially. This remembering will reconnect with an indigenous and sometimes shamanic perception of the world as alive and connected.
I will offer a different analysis of philanthropy, one that by no means rejects the great merit of actions such as these, but pointing towards a larger, more liberal vision of philanthropy and its place in our world today. In the process I hope to demonstrate philanthropy’s under appreciated potential in promoting liberty, equality, environmental sustainability, and even democracy.
threatened by market competition. They frequently ally to subordinate spontaneous order processes within their respective systems to the most powerful organizations within them. The result is that a democratic spontaneous order can gradually be transformed into a state. This transformation is of more than scholarly interest because, among other things, it increases the likelihood of war.
taneous and constructed orders is one of the most important
insights in social science. Many of us have spent years ex-
ploring, expanding, and deepening this distinction, mostly
with regard to spontaneous orders. Constructed orders have
been far less explored from this perspective though they are
often analyzed from others. Within Hayekian circles they
are usually treated simply as human tools or machines, rely-
ing on human knowledge and intent to do what they were
constructed to do. When that knowledge is lacking they fail.
Without in any sense denigrating the important work done
on spontaneous orders and cosmos, this neglect is unfortu-
nate.
Hayek generally included taxis with simple phenomena
that can be understood linearly and reductively, contrasted
to complex phenomena which cannot, and about which
only what he called “pattern predictions” could be made. To
be sure, instrumental organizations start off as simple phe-
nomena, but key elements are people, who are not simple. If
organizations persist for long important emergent character-
istics of their own arise. Individuals are not independent of
their organizational environment nor are organizations sim-
ply tools serving human purposes.
In this sense organizations are not simply constructions as
organizations can develop emergent qualities independently
of their creators’ intentions. They possess a degree of inde-
pendence from their creators and members. Far from being
simply tools for achieving human purposes, it often seems as
if organizations are acting at least somewhat independently
of human intentions.
Modern biology offers additional insights on how such
collective entities are human creations that can reverse their
relation to human action, making human beings their tools
and resources. Organizations can actively shape their envi-
ronment to some degree independently of their creators’ in-
tentions.
I develop this argument beginning with the puzzle that
members of organizations frequently act differently and have
different values than before they joined. Analyzing this clari-
fies organizations’ emergent capacity to become somewhat
independent actors in the human world, adapting on their
own terms to the spontaneous order in which they exist.
We live in a world shaped at every level by organizations.
Nearly all of us spend our working lives within them. They
shape our politics, our religions, and many of our social ac-
tivities. In many cases they are the intermediaries between
human actions and the spontaneous orders and larger cos-
mos these actions generate. Far from being simply tools for
achieving human purposes, organizations can act at least
somewhat independently of human intentions. And not al-
ways to our benefit.
planning in lieu of market economies inevitably resulted in
a new ‘serfdom.” A similar dynamic arises within the cap-
italist variant of a market economy, where all values are
subordinated to profit and price signals have become price
commands, creating a “systemic collectivism.” Organiza-
tions adapting to this environment seek to buffer them-
selves from uncertainty by changing rules and increasing
control over resources, including human beings. As a con-
sequence, a new serfdom is arising. The cause arises from
the central tension within all free societies/ The organiza-
tions people create, Hayek’s taxis, have interests at odds
with the spontaneous orders, cosmos, that arise within such
societies. If they possess the power, organizations will seek
to control them.