The common phrase “Might does not make right” resonates as a universal principle as it neatly relates the idea that being powerful does not inherently make one’s actions just. Most people intuitively agree with this concept. Indeed, suggesting otherwise would likely provoke suspicion and, if acted upon, condemnation. A person who justifies their actions solely on their power or strength would be seen as a bad actor and avoided by others.
Yet this simple saying can tell us a lot more than just how we should act in our personal affairs and it contains useful truths for how a free or libertarian society can function in reality. After all, the use of the term “right” within the phrase implies the existence of an objective morality—an ethical framework independent of the power dynamics in any given conflict. This concept of objective morality serves as an important foundation for understanding justice, fairness, and what type of culture and institutions are needed to bring about and sustain free societies.
The Role of Might in Achieving Right
First, some clarification is needed. While “might does not make right” is a noble principle, real-world conflicts often reveal that right still requires might to prevail. If one party aggresses against another, the victimized party must still control sufficient resources—whether material, institutional, or communal—to enforce their claim. Moral justification alone does not necessarily compel aggressors to cease their actions or make amends.
Indeed, the benefit of a free society is not that it removes the need for might—libertarians are not utopians—but rather that it makes might more accessible to those who deserve it and less accessible to those that do not. Imagine a society where disputes are resolved purely by might, without any appeal to morality. In such a society, the aggrieved party would always need overwhelming strength to secure justice, something not every aggrieved party may happen to have. Now consider a society that values morality. The victim still needs resources to enforce their claims. The difference lies in the support systems available: a society that upholds moral principles allows the use of institutional mechanisms—such as courts and enforcement agencies—to support the just party, while depriving the aggressor of such advantages.
Thus, while might does not justify actions, it is generally necessary to translate moral right into practical reality.
Institutions for Justice in a Free Society
In our world, purposeful actors make use of scarce resources, including their own bodies and other property they have a claim to. Conflicts arise when individuals or groups dispute claims over these resources. Laws, therefore, exist to provide rules for resolving such disputes in a morally correct manner.
According to the 13th-century theologian and philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, the virtue of justice lies in “rendering to others what is due to them.” For laws to be just, they must align with objective moral standards, presupposing that rightness or goodness is discoverable. Without the existence of objective morality, no resolution could be deemed universally preferable, essentially leaving all dispute resolutions ambiguous and leaving society to an unsatisfactory “might makes right” paradigm.
A truly libertarian or free society must therefore establish widely-respected institutions to discover morally just outcomes in disputes and enforce those outcomes. But how can morally right outcomes be determined objectively in the first place?
Argumentation and the Non-Aggression Principle
Objective morality is most effectively discovered through argumentation—a systematic process of reasoning to support ideas or actions. Argumentation is inherently peaceful and assumes certain moral standards, such as the recognition of property rights. For example, participants must own their bodies and the resources necessary to sustain their participation. Further, by engaging in argumentation individuals implicitly accept the non-aggression principle (NAP), which asserts that unprovoked force against another’s person or property is inherently wrong. Force is only justified when countering aggression or its imminent threat.
This is because arguing for aggression is self-defeating as any rule based on aggression contradicts the peaceful premise of argumentation and cannot be considered just. To argue against the use of argument for resolving disputes while simultaneously engaging in argumentation is a performative and logical contradiction. If someone truly believed in aggression over reason, they would simply act on that belief without resorting to argumentation in the first place.
By undertaking to discover the most just outcome in the event of a dispute via argumentation, the participants are automatically on the right path and just need to take account of all relevant facts and be consistent in their reasoning along the way in order to deliver an objectively moral resolution to the conflict in question.
A Libertarian Framework for Justice
For a libertarian society to function, a sufficient number of its members and institutions must prioritize the discovery of just rulings that are consistent with the non-aggression principle over the unreasoned use of force. When this is the case, those seeking genuine justice will find that they are able to mobilize greater force, or might, in their favor than their wrongdoing adversaries.
In such a society, judges could be chosen based on their reputations and track records associated with delivering just rulings. These judges would then arbitrate disputes and enforcement agencies, also chosen for their capabilities, would act within the bounds of a judge’s ruling to bring about the desired outcome.
When applied consistently, this approach has significant political implications, notably that no institution, including a government, would hold a monopoly on force or justice as this would require an act of aggression on the part of the government to suppress alternate providers of these services. Any governing bodies would, therefore, need to operate solely through mutual consent and adherence to the non-aggression principle, making them more akin to homeowner’s associations, mall operators, or mutual aid societies than the irresistible states we contend with today.
This decentralized outcome ensures that no single entity would wield unchecked power. Judges and enforcement agents would derive legitimacy from their adherence to objective moral standards, not from state mandates. Any attempt by a governing body to act as both judge and enforcer, especially in its own conflicts, would undermine its credibility and risk societal rejection.
The funding for such private judgment and enforcement services could only take place voluntarily. While charitable funding is possible in most instances, it is more likely to be funded by the parties making use of the needed services either directly or via insurance policies or some other form of financing. Given the absence of a state monopoly and the possibility for multiple providers, free market dynamics are likely to ensure the cost and quality of judgment and enforcement services are constantly optimized for the benefit of consumers.
The Cultural Prerequisites for Freedom
Libertarian theory does not prescribe a complete culture or lifestyle framework, but rather enables the peaceful proliferation of endless ways to live. However, no matter what form a free society may take, at its heart, freedom does require a society-wide intellectual and spiritual culture that values justice and reason over brute force in order to survive. For freedom to flourish, enough individuals and institutions must embrace the principle that an objective morality is discoverable, that might does not make right, and act accordingly. Such a culture would ensure that might generally lands on the side of right ensuring a general condition of peace and safety prevails.
Historically, societies influenced by Christianity have provided fertile ground for such cultural preferences. The belief that morality originates from a timeless, righteous, loving God, rather than from human constructs, may explain why Western civilization—despite many interruptions from tyrants, despots, and anti-freedom ideologies—has frequently leaned toward freedom.
Today, winning hearts and minds is essential for advancing freedom. Libertarian advocates must not only focus on policy and economic theory, but also promote a culture of reasoned justice and reject the tendencies towards relativism and nihilism that plague our current intellectual and cultural landscape. If successful, these efforts will ensure that when opportunities to reduce state power arise, they are seized and built upon successfully. A free society and all the benefits that this brings depends not only on its institutions, but also on the collective will of its people to live up to the saying “might does not make right” no matter how attractive the path of yielding to or partaking in aggression may seem.
Full story here Are you the author?You Might Also Like
Russophobia, Historically Considered
2024-10-22
Professor Glenn Diesen of Norway recently had his video channel expunged from YouTube, and two days later it was restored at YouTube, all with no real explanation. One video at his channel is a discussion of Richard Cobden’s 1836 pamphlet, which bore the secondary title:In the video, I interview Professor Diesen about the long history of Anglo hatred toward Russia, a hatred which started up in the 1830s and has persisted ever since. I sought to interview Professor Diesen because he is the author of Russophobia: Propaganda in International Politics (2022). We discuss the history of Russia-hate, down to today.Phobia means fear. Professor Diesen and I discussed whether fear of Russia is really the problem. Today’s escalations have been catastrophic and risk nuclear exchange. Perhaps there has
Tags: Featured,newsletter
