Skeptic said:
Well, I'm a critic of libertarianism, and I hope to do so without major use of spin, hyperbole, or pejoratives.
Given some of the other crap that's been going on around here, I
do appreciate the attempt. Sadly, you weren't completely successful, at least with regard to spin. Much of your commentary is apparently based on something other than libertarianism, and about all I can do is point that out to you where it occurs ...
Well, here is the problem with libertarianism. It sees itself as opposed to socialism and communism.
"It" does not see itself as opposed to
anything in particular, with the possible exception of authoritarianism. Socialism and communism may be used by some individual libertarians to draw contrasts in their explanations, but libertarianism itself is simply an approach to issues that retains a profound respect for individual sovereignty. A problem with some critics that I neglected to mention before is that they sometimes attribute stuff to libertarianism that does not apply, and then base their criticisms on it.
But what distinguishes it from "mere" conservatism or classical liberalism is its opposition not to what only socialists want, such as (for instance) state ownership of business, but also to the things socialists and everybody else wants, such as soup kitchens.
At most, some libertarians (including yours truly) object to forcing anyone to
contribute to soup kitchens if they do not wish to, through taxes or anything else. The suggestion that this equates to "opposition" to soup kitchens is an example of the spin I was talking about. Whether 10% or 90% of a population wants to support soup kitchens,
no libertarian will object to any of them doing so, and may very well contribute themselves. They will just not be a party to forcing someone else to. It helps to understand the difference.
Consider welfare. It is one thing to claim that welfare payments are too high, or should be reduced, or should be done differently. But to consider all welfare by the government as "theft"--including government run soup kitchens and homeless shelters--is opposing not only what socialists want, but also what most other people want.
The number of people who want something has no bearing on whether the means of getting it qualifies as "theft", as long as there is at least one person whose property is being taken without his consent.
The libertarian arguing for abolishing soup kitchens quickly adds, "of course, this doesn't mean I think homeless people should starve", or words to that effect; but if he denies that they should starve, I don't see what's gained by him denying that they have the right to eat, and that it is one of the functions of government to make sure, if possible, that everybody has enough to eat.
If your claim is that libertarians don't acknowledge that making sure everybody has enough to eat is a function of government, you're probably right, at least for some of us - especially if it means requiring someone else to provide you with food, or to pay for it. That's what charities are for. Nothing is stopping anyone who wants to from sending a check to their favorite charity that feeds the hungry. There is no justification for dragging along those who don't.
Same thing with, for instance, Shanek's argument that the FDA should be abolished and all weapons laws should be declared unconstitutional. It is one thing to say that business should be free, or that people should have the right to own guns (conservatives agree with that, too). It is quite another to say that the government has no right to make sure people are not given dangerous, untested drugs or that it has no right to make sure, for example, that you are not a psychotic maniac before it allows you to get a gun.
I'll let Shane defend himself, but I will at least point out that the views you just attributed to him are not necessarily views held by all (or even most) libertarians.
The libertarian quickly adds, "of course, I don't mean to say poisoners and murderers should go unpunished"--saying that people have the right to sue for damages, for instance, because they have a right not to be poisoned by crooks or shot at for no reason. But if people have the right to be free of poisoners or armed lunatics, I don't see what's gained by saying that this right only exists in the sense of suing after the damage is done, instead of making sure it doesn't happen.
I'll give you points for politeness, but not on knowing your subject. You appear to be taking specific conclusions that some libertarians you've encountered may have reached from their own application of libertarian principles, and inferring that that's what most libertarians believe.
Essentially, the problem with libertarianism is that its argument is one, not against socialism of state-interventionism (conservatives are against that, too) but against the ordinary moral sentiment that people have the right to life and to their daily bread, so that it is a legitimate role of government to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and make sure people are not unduly harmed. All this is clothed in talk about the inefficiency of government, the efficiency of the market, and so on and so forth. But that doesn't change the issue.
There is no libertarian argument against "the ordinary moral sentiment that people have the right to life and to their daily bread", other than to the degree that such a "right" imposes an obligation (under penalty of law) on the property or labor of someone
else, in which case it violates
their rights. And for some of us, this view is "clothed" not in talk about government inefficiency, the market, or anything else along those lines, but rather in principles of self ownership, and the right of individuals to make their own decisions about charity toward their fellow human beings. And imposing such a decision on someone is no more morally acceptable then telling them they must attend church.
Libertarianism is, in this sense, really a cousin of Communism.
You're not the first to put forth this laughable comparison, and you won't be the last. Another hallmark of libertarian critics.
Libertarianism, like Communism, denies human nature.
Libertarianism denies people's desire for some minimal safety and protection from want.
I don't know if you're just making this up as you go along, or if you've just been getting some bad information. I can overlook a mistake, but as a self-identified "libertarian critic", you should know your subject
much better than you appear to. In case I'm not making myself clear enough,
libertarianism most emphatically does not deny people's desire for some minimal safety and protection from want.
Communism, which is so wonderful in theory, has supporters only in naive people who actually live in non-communist states and therefore are free of seeing how it really works out. Same with libertarianism: its only supporters live in non-libertarian states where they are shielded from the real outcome their policy will have.
Actually, many of us live in
semi-libertarian states. And the libertarian stuff works pretty well, thanks. It's the other stuff we tend to object to.
You want to see a real libertarian state, with no government intervention, taxes, or weapons rules? Try Afghanistan, Sudan, Haiti, or Sierra Leone. Needless to say, life there is not exactly a bed of roses.
These are libertarian states? Are they all dominated by people with a strong respect for individual sovereignty, and laws that reflect this respect? Did I miss a meeting?
And I hate to correct you yet again, but with the "no government intervention, taxes, or weapons rules", at best you're 1 out of 3, and that's not even a complete "1" since not all libertarians oppose all taxation.
I suspect that most American libertarians, who spurn "government intervention" and are all for "freedom" to do as one wilt are really romantics. They IMAGINE a sort of brave-man's-utopia under libertarianism, and have no idea, or only a romantic, irrational idea, of what life in a real libertarian world would be like. They are in this sense a bit like the so-called "deep ecologists" romantics, who rant against humanity "destryoing the planet" and not "living in harmony with nature", as opposed to the primitive Amazon tribes, for instance, but who would be dead--literally--if they had to actually live lkike those tribesmen for a week, in the jungle, without electricity, gasoline, medicine, modern housing, etc., etc., etc.
If you want to bother to try to make any logical connection between what you've just described, and something
most libertarians actually believe, I'll consider it. Otherwise, this just seems to be wild speculation that has no basis whatsoever.
In one sentence, Libertarianism, like Communism, is an inhuman, unworkable proposal--all the rhetoric to the contrary notwhitstanding--because it ignores human nature in a radical way. It ignores different parts of human nature than Communism; but that's detail. When you ignore a massive part of human nature in any political theory, you're on the wrong track.
Is there any chance you're ever going to get around to identifying some aspect of human nature that libertarians actually
do ignore? Or are you just going to keep repeating the claim, without ever bothering to get specific?
Yeah, I caught the one thing you
were specific about, "people's desire for some minimal safety and protection from want", but you just seem to have made that up. I've never encountered a libertarian who denied this aspect of human nature, or who disputed people's right to pursue these things. If you're trying to equate
reasonable objections to making someone else provide them for you with
denying the right to pursue them yourself, well, that would be another example of the
spin I was referring to earlier.
