This is naive. This sort of stuff was understandable (barely) from von Humbolt but to repeat von H as if there has not been almost 200 years of critique of its naive consent theory is embarrassing.
Just to start with: why think that justice is the a value that trumps all? There are other competing values, such as the utility espoused by the libertarian Mill, or the kinds of freedom and self-realization espoused by Hegel and Marx, or maybe there is no master value and justice goes into the calculation as one consideration among others?
Why proceeds from "first principles" at all? Hegel and Marx from their direction and the pragmatists from theirs all reject the very idea of first principles. We start where we are, we invoke principles to make sense of our ideas, we try to make our specific considered judgments consistent with each other and with principles that explain them, we go back and forth and revise the principles and the considered judgments. (This is the way Rawls puts the pragmatic idea of reflective equilibrium -- I call it _thinking_.)
How does one deal with the paradoxes of consent theory itself? People way consent, in fact they do, to regimes that manifestly unjust and oppressive --they will fight to the death to maintain those orders against their word be liberators, and without bayonets at their backs. They will do so willingly. Do you say their consent is not "genuine"? Does it have to be "informed and free" (Habermas). Who gets to say what that means? Who are you to say that people's actual judgments don't count unless they are what you think is informed and free? What makes you better than the statists you despise if you dismiss what people actually agree to?
Or: maybe no one consents and it's absurd to expect it? (This is a point of Hume's.) There is no social contract. You're born in a place, establish connections, you may or may not vote in an election, but you never are asked, Do You Consent To This Social Order? And if you were asked, what would that mean? Would bind you forever? Supposed you reconsidered and wanted to take it back? Which underlines the point that it is not clear what counts as consent or how you would consent. And if you don't consent and others do, are you subject to unjust authority? What about democracy, where you don't need a unanimous decision?
Moreover, lots of authority over clearly unconsenting people is wholly in order. Children must be subject to some sort of authority. People who are insane or incompetent or senile likewise. What about criminals or other wrongdoers who must be or should be restrained either because just retribution requires it or for the public safety or pour les encourager d'autres? What about authority over people whose activities threaten to do others harm. Polluters. Reckless individuals. Exploiters. What about when the cumulative result in "free and voluntary" activities leads to results that people do not want -- the classic public goods problems due to free riders. (Never mind the effects capitalistic acts between consenting adults.)
And then there's the question of what's "authority." Is it authority only if I can back up my suggestions with a gun? Suppose (J.S. Mill's and Tocqueville's point) it's backed up with ostracism and shunning, as atheism is in America -- it's legal but just you try it. Is it authority if I have nothing on my side by a silver tongue? What's just about rule of the silver tongues? What about the power to hire and fire -- is it (potentially unjust) authority if I say, if you don't like it here, go work elsewhere?
My point: don't try to answer this blizzard of objections piecemeal. Go out and become acquainted with them. Think about them. Your proposal is far more problematic and vague than you think in almost every way.
Oh, btw, many Marxists, including Marx, disapprove of state authority and want to see a stateless society. See, e.g., The Critique of the Gotha Program. Lenin too, in theory -- read The State and Revolution. The Marxists just don't think you can get there by fiat. I agree.
Actually I don't think you can get there at all, and don't think it would be good if you could. Me, I'm a constitutional liberal democrat (small l, small d); I think a state is a good and necessary thing; I think any state is better than none (here I agree with Hobbes and disagree with the anarchists and Marx), but I favor a separation of powers, universal suffrage, free competitive elections, extensive civil and political rights. Before anyone expects us to give those up, they've have to show us something better than an abstract first principle, in my book.
Long and short, von Humbolt is an interesting historical figure, but he's not the gold standard in political thought. I prefer Hegel, Marx, Madison, J.S. Mill.
--- Peter Ward <peterhartward at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is not a rely to one post in particular, and
> has wide bearing. I
> am simply trying to clarify where I stand on
> principle --
>
> When I describe myself as libertarian (or anarchist
> or otherwise use
> the terms) I mean: I think that authority of humans
> over others is
> fundamentally unjust unless the relationship is
> genuinely voluntary.*
> In this respect I think large sectors of the left
> are in advocation of
> an unjust social arrangement: a platonic set-up,
> ruled by wise
> philosophers; and would say that Bakunin (along with
> John Dewey,
> Bertrand Russell, inter alia) was right as far as
> his critique of
> marxian socialism went irrespective of his moral or
> ethical character
> (I don't think much of Lenin, but agree with him
> when he says, "One
> can never be radical enough; that is, one must
> always try to be as
> radical as reality itself."). (I think that slavery
> is criminal on
> principal also.) If this is a dogmatic or
> quasi-religious stance then
> I plead guilty...and would urge others to sin in the
> same way.
>
> A note on politics: I believe that all formal
> intuitions (governments,
> corporations, etc.) exists primarily to serve power.
> This was true of
> the Church, e.g. The Gnostic gospels where
> libertarian in that they
> reject human authority on religious matters. The
> nascent Church did
> everything in its power to destroy these texts
> (unsuccessfully it
> turns out).
>
> If anyone disagree with me on principle I would be
> interested to here
> why. I am not interested in whether or not Mikail
> Bakunin or Bertrand
> Russell, or anyone else was a saint or not (that was
> never a claim I
> made to begin with).
>
> NB: Most of my principles have been well defined by
> Wilhelm von
> Humboldt in "Limits of State Action".
>
> *Even parent-child relationships off exceed the
> bounds of what is
> legitmate in, my opinion.
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php