What Unites Us: KYFHO

Not blandly, but FIERCELY (DN 2.14)

Cover page | Preface | Introduction 1 | Introduction 2 | Introduction 3 |

(Part I) Why: 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.10 | 1.11 | 1.12 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 1.18 | 1.19 |1.20 | 1.21 |1.22

(Part II) What: 2.0 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 I 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14

Chapter 2.14
Lessons from Fiction, 2

---

Part I of this book is called, “Humans, We Have a Problem.”¹

Part II, which we are in now, is titled “A Human Solution.”

We all have a pretty good idea of the problems. Indeed, out here in Internet Land, people rarely seem to talk about anything else.

All those problems can be boiled down to a single sentence: our natural rights are being violated. Finding a solution to that problem first requires knowing what those rights are and why we have them.²

We have made a good start at that. We have stated our principles, and we have begun to draw up protocols based on those principles.

Those principles and protocols are essential for any people who wish to experience true freedom, peace, prosperity, and joy. But are they, on their own, enough to cause us to cohere into a chosen community? Into a nation?

Before we look at what else there might be, let us look at what we have…

Kyfho

A few months ago, in an extended comment conversation,

Melissa Mistretta

said something intriguing: “People are a product of their environment, and an anarchist system which grants liberty to individuals would probably create a community of strong people who wouldn't let anyone walk on them.” (emphasis mine)

Right around that time, I had been reading Enemy of the State—the first in F. Paul Wilson’s LaNague Federation series, and Melissa’s comment immediately took my mind right back to the book.

Enemy of the State is, unselfconsciously, anarchocapitalist sci-fi. (A genre I enjoy, as you might well imagine.) The Prometheus Blog summarizes the plot thusly:

Set in a positive but realistically flawed interstellar future in which human beings have spread among the stars, the LaNague Federation trilogy focuses on an imperialist central State and empire that is toppled by  Peter LaNague, a far-sighted revolutionary who abjures violence in favor of a subtle, long-term plan based on a sophisticated understanding of economics, markets, money and inflation.

There is certainly a lesson in the idea of having a sophisticated, long-term strategy, but we can focus on that later. For now, let us look briefly at a philosophy Wilson expands in the book: Kyfho.

(Mild spoiler alert: I will not be giving away major plot points or endings, but I will be speaking of ideas, and at least one brief incidental vignette, from the book.)

Wilson uses the term several times before revealing that KYFHO is actually an ancient Earth acronym: Keep Your F- - -ing Hands Off. (Wilson uses the actual F-word, but you can easily replace it with filthy, freaking, or any other appropriate term.)

Kyfho is the pithiest possible summation of the foremost protocol of natural law: don’t put your hands on anyone else, or their stuff, without their consent. It is the same concept that we have sought to ensconce in our core protocol:

No person may be subjected to any transaction, initiation of coercive force, or imposition of authority to which he does not provide voluntary, informed, explicit, transparent, and revokable consent.

Wilson refers to a Book of Kyfho, which contains a multiplicity of teachings based on the broader philosophy. Yet the simple core principle—Kyfho itself—rings through in everything Peter LaNague and the Kyfhons do:

There must be no bloodshed, no violence unless it is defensive. No coercion! We must do it our way and our way alone! To do otherwise is to betray centuries of hardship and struggle. Above all else, Kyfho. Forget Kyfho in your pursuit of victory over the enemy, and you will become the enemy...worse than the enemy, because he doesn't know he is capable of anything better.

Kyfhons are strict adherents to the nonaggression principle, holding that force is only justified when it is defensive in purpose. One quickly perceives, however, a possible disconnect, depending on which aspect one chooses as one’s focus: the nonviolence or the defensive force.

Wilson depicts that dichotomy as a split of the Kyfhons into two branches. The first branch, of which Peter LaNague is an adherent, emphasizes non-violence.

The other—the Flinters—are similarly devoted to the nonaggression principle, but they also place a special emphasis on their right to deploy protective force when violence is used against them, their freedom, or their property. And they are VERY good at it—so much so that they are feared throughout known space. In addition to the request to “keep your hands off,” they have another motto, which has more of the character of a warning: Peace…or else.

Both approaches have an appeal, of course. Both are necessary. We want peace. We must endeavor to be peaceful. But we must be according the same respect by others.

I have only read the first of the series, but that was enough derive a clear impression of Kyfhon society. One illustration comes from a scene early on in the story…

LaNague’s mission takes him on a trip to Earth—which, by this point in its history, has become the apotheosis of a sclerotic, bankrupt welfare state. (Exactly as we might expect.)

Caught in one of the periodic food riots that takes place in Earth’s cities, LaNague and his surly companion are forced to flee in the direction of a Kyfhon enclave. The riotous throng is so large and formidable that little can stand in its way, and yet as it approaches the boundary of the enclave, it splits and passes along the edge of that boundary rather than dare crossing it.

The message: everyone on Earth knows not to mess with Kyfhons. The authorities let them govern their own affairs. Criminals know better than to risk it.

For the Kyfhons, the principles of natural law are not a mere abstraction to which they blandly adhere. They are fierce defenders of the freedom and independence that those principles demand.

The result is society with no leader, no government, and a fully free-market economy. What holds them together as a people is the absolute certainty that they are, and of right ought to be, independent and free. And a passionate belief in the principles that give rise to that certainty.

I have asked whether the core principles and protocols of natural law are enough to cohere a dispersed population into an actual nation. They certainly are for the Kyfhons.

Needless to say, the Kyfhons are from work of fiction. Wilson can draw them however he wants. Yet he does paint a plausible picture:

• A philosophy arises based on the principles of natural law.

• At some point, wise people express those principles in written form.

• A society forms based on adherence to those principles.

• Over time, the society grows in coherence, and after centuries of effort, they become an independent and prosperous people.

All because they believed in the core and universal principle of natural law: don’t put your hands on anyone else, or their stuff, without their consent.

So what do you think—would that work here in the real world? Could a nation of free people cohere around these principles?

Could you?

---

If you are able to afford a cup of coffee once a month, please consider sending it my way so I can keep this content free for those who having a rough time financially right now.

1. See what I did there?

2. If you have an issue with the concept of natural rights—that is, if you are not an ‘ethical naturalist’—then I commend to you the following question:

Imagine that a government makes slavery legal. (Indeed, we do not have to imagine it, for it has happened across the world, including in democracies and republics.) If rights are not based upon something natural—something fundamental and real—then how do you say that the government was wrong to do so? You know they are wrong, but upon what are you basing that claim?

It cannot be ‘consensus,’ since the majoritarian consensus in a republic can produce legalized slavery.

If it’s based on observation of beneficial results and induction to principles and rights, well then that is based on something real. As is deduction from brute facts. Natural rights do not have to be magic force fields in order to be real.

If you continue to struggle, then think of it this way: those of us who work to divine rights from specific natural facts and principles are going to come up with the best possible defenses and enumerations of those rights. So you might as well just be practical and join us anyway!