Libertarian anarchy as an example of “blind” reason

I wrote about "blind" reason (or sterile mental gymnastics) here. 

While reading Ferris's book (which I'm reading very slowly, since it contains so much fascinating material that virtually each line is worth reading twice and thinking about), I came across the following:

Liberalism's acceptance of unpredictable change distinguishes it from conservatism, which concentrates on the lessons of the past, and from progressivism, which plans for the future about which it knows rather less than it sometimes claims.

(This sentence is best read in the context of the overall thesis of the book about the scientific method being the basis of classical liberalism).

It struck me that what distinguishes classical liberalism from libertarian anarchy is that classical liberalism is EXPERIMENTAL and rooted in the scientific method – therefore adaptable, malleable, flexible, humble about the limitations of its knowledge. It always seeks to test its ideas against REALITY – by verifying whether these ideas actually work, and revising them based on evidence. It is even ambitious enough to refine existing institutions AFTER having understood their incentives.

Classical liberalism is therefore far more inductive than deductive (despite Mises's claims to the contrary) – a combination of fundamental ideas about liberty, and empirical testing about what actually happens in human societies – and thereafter the relevant deductions. It is based on critical thinking, not "rationality" (in the sense of blind reason).

Arguments for libertarian anarchy are, in comparison, entirely theoretical and hence sterile. They are "castles in the air", not descriptions of reality. These theories bear no relationship to reality and rarely, if ever, step into the step of HOW these ideas can be implemented in a real society – GIVEN what we have today (and there is total refusal to understand why we have what we have today) – but not before understanding these existing institutions thoroughly.

Libertarian anarchy is neither testable nor (hence) tested and exists purely in the minds of its votaries – like a religious conception about a particular type of God – divorced entirely from empirical proof. Each anarchist therefore advocates a different version of libertarian anarchy. Delusional thinking, this stuff. Mental gymnastics – entertaining, but of no consequence to real life. (See this blog post: The absurd dreams of libertarian anarchists).

Hobbes was the first true scientist of man, i.e. the scientist of human nature. From his observations, he made deductions. Many of his deductions were incorrect (we don't want a Leviathan) but he was pretty close to what we need to resolve the PRACTICAL tensions of human society (a strong state). Locke improved Hobbes's work considerably. People like Hayek showed us even better ways to understand the human society. But note that each of these is a SCIENTIFIC and empirical body of work, not purely theoretical. It is firmly rooted in reality, not based on imagination (like Plato's, or Hegel's or Marx's work).

Classical liberalism is about a PROCESS, that does not pre-judge the outcome. Democratic processes, constrained by minimum constitutional protections of liberty, lead societies incrementally to DISCOVER the best way to live together peacefully. That is the basic thesis of the classical liberal approach. It is at its heart the SAME as the scientific method.

It is this scientific approach that is missing ENTIRELY from sterile abstract libertarian arguments which don't recommend a process, but an OUTCOME. That is a serious problem.