Libertarianism Declared Dead

[drkitten]

Then what do you call the posts I listed, since they are certainly not arguments based on evidence and logic.

Most of them are called "observations."

Observations by definition are not arguments, since arguments have premises and conclusions, and observations are merely propositional. But since this forum is not just about "arguments" but about education, a proposition may be the simplest way to address an issue of fact raised by a discussant.

The fact that an observation may be unflattering to a group (such as Libertarians) is not a problem. The fact that you self-identify as a member of a group does not make it a problem.

And most importantly -- when you post something stupid and untrue, it is not an ad-hominem argument to point out that it's stupid and untrue. It may be an unsupported observation (in which case you're at liberty to request support or not, as you see fit), but it's directly relevant to the discussion to observe that it's stupid and untrue.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Argument by incorrect definition. Not an auspicious start.

OED offers several definitions for "alienate," but the most relevant here is the last one : To alter, change, or make a thing other than it is

Interesting choice. I used the definition for inalienable instead of the definition of alienate.

.... which makes no sense in the context of its most famous use -- "certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you seriously suggesting that there was a market in "life," "liberty," and/or "the pursuit of happiness"?

Not me. It's other people who were concerned that people would contract to have themselves murdered if given the opportunity. I hope I wouldn't suggest something so blatantly silly.

The complaints in the DoI weren't about people "selling" their right to liberty, but of them being deprived of it unjustly and unilaterally.

DoI?

My post was explicitly in reponse to Francesca's courteous request for clarification on the issue of inalienable rights versus responsibility. Are you maintaining that in order for a right to be inalienable, freedom from responsibility in the exercise of that right is required? Because my post was arguing the opposite.

 

[Mister Agenda]

From the Compact OED:

inalienable

• adjective, unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

 

[Francesca R]

My post was explicitly in reponse to Francesca's courteous request for clarification on the issue of inalienable rights versus responsibility. Are you maintaining that in order for a right to be inalienable, freedom from responsibility in the exercise of that right is required?

That is what I understand in respect of "inalienable" rights, yes. I am not arguing for inalienable rights (or "natural" rights as--I believe--they may be interchangeably known?) Because I don't believe they really exist.

If, as you say, these inalienable rights are tied to respnsibility, then what happens if one reneges on the responsibility? The inalienable right cannot be withdrawn by anyone, because it would then be "alienable" by law (It would be a common-or-garden "protected interest" that is forfeitable in the absence of a duty being upheld). So how can any responsibility be attached to an inalienable right at all?

This is the essence of the problem I have with inalienable rights.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I am no economist and don't pretend to understand the issues. What I do understand is that any -ism when pursued to their logical conclusion will typically end in disaster. The reason being that most of the various "-isms" are based on models of reality that are something less than 100% accurate. People then learn to exploit the weakness in such systems and the models become a joke.

All the -isms to date have failed when implemented (Communism) or would fail if implemented (Libertarianism), because they all involve humans.

 

[drkitten]

Interesting choice. I used the definition for inalienable instead of the definition of alienate.

Not very effectively, since the definition for "inalienable" reads "unable to be alienated."

Are you maintaining that in order for a right to be inalienable, freedom from responsibility in the exercise of that right is required?

Yes.

Because otherwise people who are concerned about your irresponsible use of that right can take it away from you, by force majeure if necessary. Your "inalienable" right to liberty, for example, would -- if it were truly inalienable -- prevent you from being imprisoned.

 

[drkitten]

• adjective, unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

See? No "buy or sell" anywhere in the definition and no notion of "transfer."

When I lock you up, I'm taking your right to travel freely away -- but I'm certainly not transferring it to anyone else.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well I captured some of the charactertistics of an inaleinable right and my post was not to question what that was, but what libertarians take on it is. Your take appears to be to change the definition, which is consistent with most of your posts which do not tend to reflect libertarianism to me.

From context I am getting you mean that I changed the definition of 'libertarian', not that I changed the definition of 'inalienable', correct?

In particular this comment is apparently at odds with libertarianism. My understanding is that freedom (represented by the inalienable rights) comes (in Libertaria) with zero responsibility, nor does any government or individual have any business attempting to attach any responsibility to it, ever.

It would seem that you don't agree with that.

You are correct, I don't. Francesca, are you willing to consider the possibility that your interpretation of libertarianism may be too narrow? I previously offered a variety of sources for a definition of libertarian, most of them do not much resemble your version.

I don't know your political affiliation, but if you imagine me looking up things on the internet trying to find something I can hold against your party, and then insisting you are not a Republican or Democrat or whatever you say you are if you won't agree with how I've pigeon-holed your party, maybe you might understand my position better.

There are multiple schools of libertarian thought, just like the Republicans have paleocons, neocons, and so forth, there are different flavors of libertarians. According to Wikipedia I'm a libertarian progressive. What you're describing sounds more like voluntarism. Like other parties, there is a range of thought within the party. We're consistent in the broad strokes of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism (in the current sense of conservatism, in Jefferson's day it would have been socially and fiscally liberal) but often at odds on the details. Frankly, having very little political power has given many of us too much free time to spend on imagining Libertopia, in my opinion.

If you aren't able to accept this, I am comfortable with, very respectfully, agreeing to disagree on it, as I can't imagine what more I could do to persuade you. And of course maybe I'm the one who is wrong, using too inclusive a definition of libertarian when I should actually call myself an Independent or something. It's certainly more respectable in these parts.

 

[Francesca R]

No I meant the definition of "inalienable".

I don't have any issue with what political platform you wish to identify with. My latest question in post 361 and the follow up is concerned with the strain of libertariansim that claims inalienable rights and freedom without responsibility. If you don't actually do that, I'm querying the wrong person in this case. There are many many threads on the forum going back years where libertarians do try to argue inalienable rights, and most of us who have been here any time (probably including you) have seen those, so it's not exactly new material.

 

[Mister Agenda]

That is what I understand in respect of "inalienable" rights, yes. I am not arguing for inalienable rights (or "natural" rights as--I believe--they may be interchangeably known?) Because I don't believe they really exist.

If, as you say, these inalienable rights are tied to respnsibility, then what happens if one reneges on the responsibility? The inalienable right cannot be withdrawn by anyone, because it would then be "alienable" by law (It would be a common-or-garden "protected interest" that is forfeitable in the absence of a duty being upheld). So how can any responsibility be attached to an inalienable right at all?

This is the essence of the problem I have with inalienable rights.

Do you think Jefferson was thinking rights without responsibilities when he wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

Highlighting mine.

I think he meant something else by 'inalienable' than 'free of consequence or responsibility'. My rights end where yours begin. If I violate your rights then I am in danger of forfeiting my own. I believe Jefferson must have been using inalienable in the sense of rights that can't be given up merely by signing them away or having them taken arbitrarily. What do you and Dr. Kitten think Jefferson meant by 'inalienable'?

 

[Mister Agenda]

All the -isms to date have failed when implemented (Communism) or would fail if implemented (Libertarianism), because they all involve humans.

Excellent point. Does this include liberalism?

 

[Mister Agenda]

See? No "buy or sell" anywhere in the definition and no notion of "transfer."

When I lock you up, I'm taking your right to travel freely away -- but I'm certainly not transferring it to anyone else.

Sometimes words have more than one meaning.

Definitions of inalienable on the Web:

Something that may not be sold, transferred or assigned to another.
www.ncbuy.com/credit/glossary.html

( In*al"ien*a*ble ) a. [Pref. in- not + alienable: cf. F. inaliénable.] Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another ...
www.bibliomania.com/2/3/257/1200/23007/6.html

incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
unforfeitable: not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright; In some languages such as Navajo, and Ojibwe, many nouns, in particular familial relationships and body parts, fall into an inalienable noun class and always require a possessive ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

 

[Mister Agenda]

No I meant the definition of "inalienable".

I don't have any issue with what political platform you wish to identify with. My latest question in post 361 and the follow up is concerned with the strain of libertariansim that claims inalienable rights and freedom without responsibility. If you don't actually do that, I'm querying the wrong person in this case. There are many many threads on the forum going back years where libertarians do try to argue inalienable rights, and most of us who have been here any time (probably including you) have seen those, so it's not exactly new material.

My mistake. I hope I have addressed that adequately in previous posts.

You may be right about me being the wrong person to take this up, then. I didn't see anyone else stepping up and decided to take a stab at it. I am convinced that the Jeffersonian use of 'inalienable' is the one that correctly applies to rights, and I would not be able to agree with someone who believes no responsibility adheres such a freedom.

 

[Darat]

Excellent point. Does this include liberalism?

Well he did say "all" which would seem to indicate the answer would be yes.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well he did say "all" which would seem to indicate the answer would be yes.

If he thought through some alternate 'isms' before posting, certainly. With the understanding of 'ism' being limited to ideologies and not condiditons. Liberalism is not a very specific ideology, maybe more like an attitude.

 

[Mister Agenda]

From The Free Dictionary:

al·ien·ate (ly-nt, l--)
tr.v. al·ien·at·ed, al·ien·at·ing, al·ien·ates
1. To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange: alienate a friend; alienate potential supporters by taking extreme positions. See Synonyms at estrange.
2. To cause to become withdrawn or unresponsive; isolate or dissociate emotionally: The numbing labor tended to alienate workers.
3. To cause to be transferred; turn away: "He succeeded . . . in alienating the affections of my only ward" Oscar Wilde.
4. Law To transfer (property or a right) to the ownership of another, especially by an act of the owner rather than by inheritance.
Highlighting mine.

 

[SaulOhio]

Excellent point. Does this include liberalism?

Or for that matter, conservatism, middle-of-the-road-ism, or what TCS seems to be arguing for, pragmatism. How about skepticism?

There is no getting away from having an ideology. We all believe certain abstract ideas, and they shape the way we think about things. The only choice we have is wether we develop it through reason from empirical observation of reality, or simply absorb it from the people around us, accepting ideas without fully understanding them. And they accept a hash of different, sometimes contradictory ideas which they do not examine critically, because they reject the very idea that they have them.

Some of them simply accept the idea that an unregulated free market will have the standard boom-bust business cycle, and that regulation is needed to control it. Without a guiding ideology--a set of basic theoretical principles of how an economy works, how can you know ahead of time how to regulate it? Should the Fed raise rates, or lower them? Do you raise them to slow inflation, or do you lower them to stimulate a slow economy?

The very idea that lowering interest rates will stimulate the economy is a principle that is part of an ideology. Its called "Keynesianism". Even if you don't believe in the whole of Keynesianism, but still accept this one principle, and tell yourself you don't believe it absolutely, it is still part of a set of ideas you believe concerning the economy, your economic ideology.

Having an ideology is not a problem. As human beings, we all have them. The only question is wether it is based on the evidence of reality or not, and wether we are willing to alter it in the face of new evidence.

 

[drkitten]

I think he meant something else by 'inalienable' than 'free of consequence or responsibility'. My rights end where yours begin. If I violate your rights then I am in danger of forfeiting my own. I believe Jefferson must have been using inalienable in the sense of rights that can't be given up merely by signing them away or having them taken arbitrarily. What do you and Dr. Kitten think Jefferson meant by 'inalienable'?

Well, I can't speak for Francesca, but I believe that Jefferson knew that he was writing agitprop and therefore permitted himself a bit of rhetorical flourish.

As you point out, "if I violate your rights, then I am in danger of forfeiting my own." But rights that are truly inalienable cannot be forfeited. He spoke, for example, of complaints that the King had removed the "right" of trial by jury, but didn't complain about the existence of trials themselves, or of the possibility that the King, through his agent, might deprive a person of his liberty (or indeed of his life).

That's one of the reasons that the oft-made claim that the Declaration of Independence (among other documents) is a "libertarian" document is ridiculous -- it addresses abuses of government power while simultaneously it acknowledges the necessity for such power. No libertarian would have signed off on statements like "He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good" and "He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them," because in the libertarian mind, all such laws are abuses (since a simple law against fraud and violence, which already existed, would have been sufficient to the needs of any government or society).

 

[drkitten]

From The Free Dictionary:

4. Law To transfer (property or a right) to the ownership of another, especially by an act of the owner rather than by inheritance.
Highlighting mine.

Goodness me. You're digging yourself further into a hole with every post. The dictionary expressly acknowledges that this is a jargon use and inapplicable outside of legal documents, and you're choosing it over the three more common and more general uses cited?

 

[Darth Rotor]

You do realise that your post was nothing but an extended ad-hom that can be summed up as "If you don't agree with my conclusions it is either that you have psychological problems or are stupid"?

That forumla is a standard JREF forum canned post, used by all sorts of posters. (Even the king of Corndogs did not deserve that kind of condescension.)

DR