Lots of food for thought there, particularly on why Libertarianism fails so epically in trying to exercise political power.While the heart of progressivism is the seeking of novelty and the heart of conservatism is the avoidance of change, the heart of libertarianism is a dissatisfaction with authority. There are two senses in which this is true, though it must be remembered that every libertarian is a special snowflake who simply cannot be pigeonholed into any one belief system, for all libertarians are independent free-thinkers, each of whom always devise their own a priori principles from which they each build their particular philosophy of freedom. Yes, libertarians are arrogant little fucks.Anyway, to the point at hand, the two main types of libertarians are a) those who hate authority in general and those who b) who authority in specific.
Monday, December 16, 2013
On Libertarians
Simon Grey has an interesting (if somewhat sulfurous) view:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
It's a pity he doesn't allow comments on his blog, or I'd say this there.
I think his analysis is fundamentally flawed. I don't think libertarianism, as a philosophy, lends itself to political parties at all. I think it's a personal philosophy that informs other political views and activities, seeking to restrict the structures and exercise of authority in the interests of individual and societal liberty. That's necessary whether one has progressive or conservative views, IMHO.
I regard myself as libertarian (quite strongly so, actually), but not in the sense of a political leaning. I'm centrist on the left-to-right political continuum. I see libertarianism as a vehicle for and a way to implement my views, structuring them so as to cause the minimum loss of liberty to myself and others. I see it serving more liberal or more conservative views in precisely the same way.
Thoughts?
I was going to rant on this, but Peter says it much better, and no four letter words... I'm an independent, but to me libertarians by their nature of complaint are doomed to fail because they do not like authority, and as a consequence, cannot get a stable party/platform together.
The phrase "herding cats" comes to mind.
Peter, yeah I can't stand the two dimensional "left/right" concept. However, it is extremely useful if there are only two main political parties, to gin up some tribal hate.
The problem with three parties BP is that one of the sides will be split - we had that up here in Canada and the liberals ran amok for over a decade. We ended up with gun laws and hate laws that would make most libertarians puke. The smallest party will basically whore itself out to the bigger ones.
And as far as tribal hate goes...I can think of at least two libertarians on your blogroll that openly hate both tribes and are more than happy to 'gin it up' themselves.
I would really, really like to get along with libertarians as I am a conservative that agrees with 95% of what they think. But they are out to lunch about cults, about drugs and about homosexuals - just to name the big ones.
To put it into similar language as used by the author, the way I see it:
The heart of progressiveism/liberalism is the use of force - force to impose economic control and social .. call it "social spontaneity."
The heart of conservativism is the other side of the same coin - force to impose social control and "economic spontaneity."
Both are systems that propose the use of force upon proponents of the other system, and indeed of any other system. The reasons differ, but the methods remain the same.
The heart of libertarianism is simply that force is immoral and mutual consent moral. Thus it is a libertarian contention that no group may use force to impose its will on the individual who is simply minding his own business or engaged in a mutually consensual interaction with another.
The “left/right” scale shows that I’m a slightly right of center centrist, when nothing could be further from the truth. Therefore, I find the entire “left/right” scale to be fatally flawed.
The reason that I say this is because on economic policy and small government, I’m about as far right as you can get, but on social issues, I’m way left of center. So the average puts me just right of center, but that would lead someone to believe that I’m politically moderate, when I’m not. I’m about as extreme as you can get – I would love to see a return to true constitutional republic, which means that I’d strip the federal government of about 85% of the powers that it has today if I were given the power. However, I’m also very socially liberal – as long as I don’t have to see you doing something gross and it doesn’t negatively affect a 3rd party innocent (or non-consenter) then go to town. That includes every drug known to man – you want to fry yourself, I’m not going to expend my blood and treasure trying to stop you. Just mind your manners and don’t cause harm to anyone else, and we’re good.
On one hand, on the left/right scale, I’m a damn granola eating hippy, and on the other I’m worse than Rockefeller.
Old NFO writes "do not like authority, and as a consequence, cannot get a stable party/platform together."
Authority can mean different things, and for this to be a meaningful statement you probably need to be more precise. Libertarians don't like arbitrary unaccountable authority and don't like using taxing authority to openly buy voting blocs and covertly buy favors; they tend to be OK with authority of stable written law and central decision systems for settling ambiguous and fiddly problems that arise in real-world disputes about how the law applies in a particular case. (Officially determining guilt and innocence, e.g.) The money machine in the capitals of big modern late democratic states runs almost entirely on the kind of authority that libertarians dislike, so if you don't think about history it might look like libertarians dislike authority. But in other times and places other kinds of authority have had a larger proportional importance, and I don't know how anyone with any real acquaintance with libertarians can avoid noticing their tendency to get nostalgic for some of those arrangments.
Libertarians also tend to like clear authority pushed down to people who will face the consequences. Who has authority over a piece of land today? Zoning board, EPA, fire inspector, etc., with many overlapping ambiguities and uncertainties. Who has the authority to securely own emergency supplies, or to hire and fire, or lend money, or give various kinds of advice? To ignore libertarian fondness for clear stable answers to such questions when blithely saying libertarians don't like authority is to sneak in your ideas about how the only possible valid authority is hierarchical authority emanating from central government. You can argue that if you want, but don't try to sneak it in as an unstated axiom if you want your discussion to have any bearing on what libertarians actually think.
I think the difficulty in making a stable party is an interaction between libertarianism and universal suffrage: not that libertarians couldn't come to a working agreement, but that they can't come to a working agreement that will be competitive in late-stage democracy. In other decision systems --- people voting with their feet, for example --- it would be a lot more tractable to make a competitive libertarian policy package. Trying to advance libertarianism within late-stage wide-franchise democracy is harder. Libertarianism is not a good base for buying low-information votes, blowing off principles starting with the rule of law, and providing patronage to ambitious supporters.
Something similar applies to small-government conservatives, less fiercely but still strongly enough to make it rather hard for them to build a competitive political machine. It doesn't look to me as though the difficulty is in building a platform, it's the difficulty in running a powerful political coalition if you have principles that interfere with directing the maximum number of special favors to your supporters.
Minarchism might have some chance... If we could pry the lips off of the government money pipe. But that ain't likely!
Fair Winds and Merry Christmas to all!
May .22 ammo come down in price. My empty Buckmark mocks me! Dang how I love that beautiful piece of machinery!
Cap'n Jan
“Out to lunch about cults, drugs, and homosxuals”
You make the libertarian point perfectly here.
Liberalism and conservatives both have one thing in common – their core tenant is the use of coercive government force and power to impose their will on other people. You say “we should stop cults!” and you would be willing to back that up with the force of the government (you’d have to be, or else you couldn’t make that statement!). Men, with guns, if necessary, stopping people from being members in a cult (which, I might add, is generally 100% voluntary, with the exception of children born into the cult). See how well that turned out in Waco? Libertarians look at it this way:
“Don’t hurt kids. Don’t hurt other third party innocents. Otherwise, knock yourselves out!” We would ask, and I think rightfully so, what right you have to tell someone whether they may devote their life to their own brand of religion or not, be it a cult or what-have-you. You want to impose force – once a religion has gone beyond what you, and you alone, determine is acceptable, you think you should have the ability to go in and use force and violence, if necessary, to break up that religion. So I ask – what do you think gives you that right? Where would you draw the line between religion and cult?
You say “we should ban drugs because they cause problems with violence and crime!” Libertarians say “violence and crime are already illegal. The act of doing drugs doesn’t harm anyone but the user. If his use causes him to engage in illegal activity, then we’ll arrest and charge him with the crime he committed. Until then, as long as you do your drugs while causing no harm to anyone else knock yourself out!” I still don’t know why you neo-prohibitionists can’t see how flawed the war on drugs is, or how the illegalization of any product that has a demand for it will simply act as a price control for that product on the black market. We’re spending billions a year so we can help the drug cartels keep their prices up. Billions a year so we can line the pockets of criminals in Mexico. How can you possibly be FOR that?
You say “homosexuals shouldn’t have special rights! They shouldn’t be allowed to marry each other!” Libertarians say “no special rights, but beyond that, no special dispensations from the government in the first place.” Libertarians aren’t necessarily PRO gay-marriage so much as we ask one simple question – How in the blue F&#K did it get to the point to where every American has to ask the government permission to get married? How is the government involved in this at all? Why is the gay movement asking for PERMISSION to get married instead of asking why the hell the government is granting marriage licenses in the first place? My beef here isn’t gay marriage – it’s the entire idea behind having to ask PERMISSION to get married, with the implied meaning being that they could DENY permission if they so choose.
I am a libertarian anarchist. Yes, I have been through all the counter-arguments about "needing" a government, but that's not what is relevant here. I know we're likely to have one for as long as I'm alive, so let's move on.
Libertarians I know with whom I mostly agree believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). In brief, it is wrong to initiate the use of force against another person or their property. Taken to its logical conclusion, this principle pretty much precludes being involved in a government. What else, other than the initiation of force, does a government do? Taxes, regulation, etc., is all force.
Unless one is in a small community that can reach unanimous consent on activities (good luck with that - and so much for "the common good"), or the community allows an opt-out provision, government without the use of force is impossible.
So, for me and those of similar opinions, libertarianism is most decidedly NOT a political philosophy. We want as little as possible to do with politics.
Nor do I want to impose my beliefs or opinions on others who are leaving me alone. If it's on their time and their dime, go for it. But let me do the same. If my neighbors want to hold animal sacrifices and/or orgies in their back yard (they wouldn't, they're very nice folks), I'll just close the curtains. But don't ask me to fund their activities.
And I agree with Goober about "crimes" that are malum prohibitum rather than malum per se. I have never used so-called illegal drugs (I'm a real square - had no fun at all in the 1960s), but don't mind if other do so in their own homes. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery, though.
Simon Grey standing outside humanity passing judgement upon all as if he were the god he believes himself to be.
What a pompous fuck he is.
" Libertarians don't like arbitrary unaccountable authority and don't like using taxing authority to openly buy voting blocs and covertly buy favors; they tend to be OK with authority of stable written law and central decision systems for settling ambiguous and fiddly problems that arise in real-world disputes about how the law applies in a particular case. (Officially determining guilt and innocence, e.g.)"
That is a lot how I feel about the "movement."
Most libertarians I know don't mind having a .gov in place. The problem is that there is not only program overlap and having to get permission from each program to do anything, or to have multiple programs able to hammer if you screw up mind you if they screw up there is no accountability. (I'll let it here that I work for a .gov agency and see a lot of these shenanigans first hand, both of people that abuse the system and .gov types that act with impunity.
While there is a lot of discussion in the libertarian community as to exactly how much Federal and State governmental programs should control the general consensus is that there should be an across the board fair tax system. The Government at the lowest levels should be making decisions. The Government that exists should be there for National Defense, punishment of criminal activity, some or moderate infrastructure maintenance, and things of that simple nature... Mileage may vary, not all experiences will be the same. The overall riding principal is that you should not have to ask anyone for permission to live your life and no one should say their views rule your own.
I think that we all well speak of the liberals control here but we don't look at the same of the Republicans side, such as the Agricultural subsidies, the fossil fuel subsidies, the horrible military program equipment pork subsidies, let alone the social issues where they get hammered on.
However I agree that beltway republicans with their subsidies will generally loose to the Democrats and their social subsidies just because of attrition. Libertarians will always fall behind both because by their very nature once a libertarians don't value big time politicians who by their very nature must appeal to every base for survival politically. It is the opposite of what a libertarian would do.
Hell, other than perhaps repealing or supporting limited government, rightfully so in our eyes perhaps but not in America's they would be accused of doing -nothing- for passing laws.
Jester;
any libertarian that you know who DOES mind having a .gov in place is not a libertarian.
Libertarianism is not anarchism. They are not interchangeable terms and libertarianism is not just anarchism "light" either.
They are two different concepts, of which the only thing tha tthey have in common is a distrust of government.
And you make my point Goober. When it comes to basic common decency, that libertarian philosophy forces its adherents to side with indecency. If Chris wants to have orgies he can damned well do it inside. If he wants to turn his home into a crack house or a meth lab, that WILL infringe on my rights sooner or later - it's just a matter of time and the clientele he serves. Ditto if he wants to raise a bunch of white supremists and keep a harem. I have the right NOT to live in a ghetto; and my rights are not violated one iota because some elderly hippie or stupid kid can't smoke pot legally.
We are not going to agree on this, I'm afraid. I have been raised in better times by better people and I know what it's like not to have to lock your doors at night, or worry about your kids if they don't come home on time.
I ain't drinkin' your koolaid - the people that mainstreamed homosexuality are now going to try to let the pedos out of the closet too. I can coexist with libertarians - just keep your hands where I can see them, don't be an asshole...and nobody gets hurt.
"Yes, libertarians are arrogant little fucks."
Just a bit of the pot and the kettle in that statement, methinks.
"My beef here isn’t gay marriage – it’s the entire idea behind having to ask PERMISSION to get married, with the implied meaning being that they could DENY permission if they so choose."
I'm not sure why the hell the gov. got involved in this in the first place. Whatever the reason it seems to have passed its sell by date.
Who the cluck is Simon Grey?
Post a Comment