Libertarianism is insane

[Nathyn]

All secular ethics are rooted in humanism. If you don't value human life, why even care about what's right and wrong?

Libertarian ethics (especially those with regard to anarchism) are inconsistent because they are thoroughly dehumanized. The evidence is the fact that so many of them put forth what are essentially indefensible arguments -- the kinds of statements that make people say, "WHAT?! You're nuts!!"

I'm sure you've probably heard some remarks, like the cliche, "Taxation is theft!" and so on.

Here's a list of some pretty wacky positions Libertarians and Anarchists have taken, with the person who argued it:

1. Only what I want (meaning, the anarchist) matters.
-Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own

2. It's perfectly OK to abandon, neglect, and even abuse children
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

3. Contracts to sell one's self into slavery are valid.
-Walter Block's Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability

4.It's perfectly OK to torture animals.
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

5. Every social science is invalid, because human beings are too complex and self-conscious to be studied scientifically.
-Ludwig von Mises' Human Action

6. There's nothing unethical about selling weapons to warring factions.
-H.C. Engelbrecht's The Merchants of Death

7. Medieval, aristocratic monarchies were based upon property ownership and We should return to such a system.
-Hans-Herman Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed

8. There is nothing unethical about bribery.
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

Conservatives might also find it funny that in Mises' work Omnipotent Government, he argued for open borders on the basis that more productive ethnic groups simply displace less productive ethnic groups. :lol:

Another thing to mention, too, is that they believe in a limited definition of fraud. I suspect that many of them would not see bait-and-switch or false advertising, for instance, as forms of fraud because Rothbard defines fraud strictly as implicit theft through violation of contract. Bait-and-switch and false advertising both occur before the point of sale and thus, before the actual contract. As such, you'll tend to find them defending snake oil salesmen.

Now, it's important to note that a lot of the positions above are very widely-held by Libertarians and Anarchists, or at least they're sympathetic towards them. After all, the positions are put forth precisely because they're built upon Libertarian doctrine. Walter Block himself says that Libertarianism can only be consistent if slave-contracts are valid.

It's unfortunate, though, that these people don't tell people the totality of their views upfront, but start by making the ambiguous assertion that they strongly support freedom and want little or no government.

 

[UserGoogol]

I'm not a libertarian and I reject almost* all of the libertarian points you have raised, but I see nothing wrong with dehumanized morality. Human nature is simply an accident of biological history, so to derive morality from that is utterly arbitrary. Furthermore, if morality is derived from human nature, then where do you get your bearings when you change human nature?

Just because we want something to be the case doesn't mean it is true. If libertarianism is true, it is true regardless of how unappealing it may be to us.

*I sort of agree with (1), but only in a weak sense of the word "matters." That is, if something doesn't personally effect you you have no ultimately rational reason to care about it, but generally speaking it is a rational long-term strategy to care about it anyway, and it's even more in your interests to do what you can to encourage other people to about other people.

 

[Cain]

The Tom Regan quote seems awkward because all of the others are taken as endorsing what they are saying whereas Regan does not believe it is OK to torture animals. Some libertarians -- to their credit probably a greater portion than the general population, advocate some form of animal rights. The clearest most consistent argument for libertarianism, in my view, comes from Murray Rothbard in THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY (available online, introduction Hans Hermann-Hoppe). But there is no single form of libertarianism. Just logically I think it boils down to Rothbard's vision, which allows for blackmail (free contract), animal abuse (private property), and child abandonment (a combination of contract and property).

I saw an argument earlier in another thread about the prohibition on fraud. That has always seemed questionable, though I never seriously thought about it from a (true, consistent) libertarian standpoint: should the government be in the business of determining what constitutes fraud? Knockoffs could, I suppose, be considered a property-rights violation, but that brings up other complicated issues. If people have the right to free contract, then contracts can say whatever we want, including slavery, what we would say amounts to fraud and so on. Buyer beware. Let the market take care of everything.

Also, do not confuse libertarian with Libertarian.

 

[cafink]

To address only one of your points, why shouldn't slave contracts be valid? If one's body is his own, that entails having the right do as he pleases with it, be it helpful things like a healthy diet and regular exercise, or harmful things like drug ingestion. If my body and my life are my own, why don't I have the right to sell them to someone else?

The only alternative I see is the belief that our bodies and lives are the property of the state, at least partially. I feel that's a very dangerous line of thinking.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Also, do not confuse libertarian with Libertarian.

I was just going to say something similar myself. There's a difference between having a libertarian streak and joining the Libertarian party. There are a lot of disenfranchized Republicans myself disappointed that the takeover by the Religious Right has marginalized those more libertarian on social issues like me.

No one I know would describe me as an anarchist though.

 

[Nathyn]

I'm not a libertarian and I reject almost* all of the libertarian points you have raised, but I see nothing wrong with dehumanized morality. Human nature is simply an accident of biological history, so to derive morality from that is utterly arbitrary. Furthermore, if morality is derived from human nature, then where do you get your bearings when you change human nature?

Just because we want something to be the case doesn't mean it is true. If libertarianism is true, it is true regardless of how unappealing it may be to us.

*I sort of agree with (1), but only in a weak sense of the word "matters." That is, if something doesn't personally effect you you have no ultimately rational reason to care about it, but generally speaking it is a rational long-term strategy to care about it anyway, and it's even more in your interests to do what you can to encourage other people to about other people.

When I say dehumanized, I mean "lack of a regard for human beings," not that we're becoming less like apes.

If you were to simply follow the golden rule, none of the ethics above would stand.

The Tom Regan quote seems awkward because all of the others are taken as endorsing what they are saying whereas Regan does not believe it is OK to torture animals. Some libertarians -- to their credit probably a greater portion than the general population, advocate some form of animal rights. The clearest most consistent argument for libertarianism, in my view, comes from Murray Rothbard in THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY (available online, introduction Hans Hermann-Hoppe). But there is no single form of libertarianism. Just logically I think it boils down to Rothbard's vision, which allows for blackmail (free contract), animal abuse (private property), and child abandonment (a combination of contract and property).

I saw an argument earlier in another thread about the prohibition on fraud. That has always seemed questionable, though I never seriously thought about it from a (true, consistent) libertarian standpoint: should the government be in the business of determining what constitutes fraud? Knockoffs could, I suppose, be considered a property-rights violation, but that brings up other complicated issues. If people have the right to free contract, then contracts can say whatever we want, including slavery, what we would say amounts to fraud and so on. Buyer beware. Let the market take care of everything.

Also, do not confuse libertarian with Libertarian.

I've dealt with this position before and it doesn't make sense. You can't be both for animal rights and against it.

A while back, I called the Libertarian radio show, Free Talk Live, to ask about Michael Vick. The host said he thought what Michael Vick did was deplorable "but he didn't think government should get involved."

All laws are established on the basis that they are just. It is the government's role to establish justice. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that the government doesn't need to be ethical or establish ethics.

But this isn't true: Government doesn't regulate personal morality, like homosexuality and obesity, and so on, precisely because it would be unethical for government to do so -- not because people have some natural right to be unethical. If that were the case, then I ought to be able to murder and steal.

The government regulates interrelational ethics, the kinds of actions that affect of other people (or at least, they ought to anyway).

To address only one of your points, why shouldn't slave contracts be valid? If one's body is his own, that entails having the right do as he pleases with it, be it helpful things like a healthy diet and regular exercise, or harmful things like drug ingestion. If my body and my life are my own, why don't I have the right to sell them to someone else?

The only alternative I see is the belief that our bodies and lives are the property of the state, at least partially. I feel that's a very dangerous line of thinking.

You can, sure. But you won't agree to a slave-contract unless you're either emotionally disturbed (rendering the contract) or if you have no other choice.

And if you live in a world where you're forced to accept a contract (a slave contract is the extreme), then contracts themselves are invalid and should be ignored.

If you're so poor that you have literally nothing, so that you have to sell yourself into slavery, there's nothing wrong with stealing to survive, especially from slavers.

I was just going to say something similar myself. There's a difference between having a libertarian streak and joining the Libertarian party. There are a lot of disenfranchized Republicans myself disappointed that the takeover by the Religious Right has marginalized those more libertarian on social issues like me.

No one I know would describe me as an anarchist though.

The Libertarian party holds the positions they do because they are the most influential. Groups like CATO, Lew Rockwell, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Mises Institute are just as radical.

There are some people like Robert Nozick who are moderates, but they're not taken seriously.

 

[UserGoogol]

It should be pointed out, I suppose, that the OP's list only really describes deontological libertarianism. Well, most of them. (5) is a methodological claim about the Austrian School of Economics which is really only libertarian by association, and (7) if I remember the context correctly is rooted around the consequentialist argument that monarchy is better than democracy because monarchs have motivation to assure the long-term health of the government so they can have something nice to leave to their heirs, while democratic rulers only have to worry about keeping the government good long enough for voters to keep them in power.

People who merely think "small government/self-ownership/etc is good because it generally gets nice results" generally will not follow their logic to such weird extremes.

To address only one of your points, why shouldn't slave contracts be valid? If one's body is his own, that entails having the right do as he pleases with it, be it helpful things like a healthy diet and regular exercise, or harmful things like drug ingestion. If my body and my life are my own, why don't I have the right to sell them to someone else?

The only alternative I see is the belief that our bodies and lives are the property of the state, at least partially. I feel that's a very dangerous line of thinking.

The truth is sometimes dangerous. Nevertheless, there are alternatives. First of all, there are silly possibilities like everyone owning the person to their left or whatever, but more generally, there is no reason why ownership has to exist at all. If a person owns a thing, that means that it is okay for them to use that thing and it is okay for them to prohibit others from using it. It is entirely possible that nobody has the ability to prohibit anyone from using anything or, for that matter, that the concept of "okay" is simply a constructed concept which is not necessarily meaningful for describing all useful ethical systems.

[utilitarian]The only thing that matters is happiness. Something effects a person only if it effects their mental states, thus as long as a person's happiness increases or decreases nothing else matters. The problem is that people's happiness can come into conflict. It would make me happy to be able to use my own body how I would like, but it might also make someone else happy to use my body. In an ideal world for me, everyone would be my slave, and in an ideal world from someone else, everyone would be their slave. Clearly, a compromise must be had.

The libertarian compromise which says "only I can decide who uses my body because that's where my brain is" is both somewhat arbitrary (Why draw the line at the body? The body is just a slab of meat, there's plenty of stuff beyond the epidermis that effects the quality of my life far more than the stuff inside. I can live a relatively happy life without control of my hand, but not without access to food.) and unfair, because it says that no matter how much happiness would be gained by someone else forcing themselves on my body and no matter how little happiness would be gained by me using my body, it is simply not allowed. Since happiness is the only thing that matters, it should be happiness that breaks the difference, not abstract principles of ownership.[/utilitarian]

(Yeah, going on a rant about utilitarianism (that I've made a couple times on the forums) is probably not the best "form," but I feel the best way to argue against (deontological) libertarianism is to be somewhat rigorous and try to fall back to first principles and use their precious logic against them. :3 )

Of course in practice, the institutions of self-ownership and stuff-ownership (I don't think the two necessarily follow from each other because of the complexities involved in "homesteading" property) is a good idea for a number of kind of complicated reasons. But just because self-ownership is a good idea in general does not mean it is always a good idea, and to suppose that self-ownership must either be considered as an absolute or it is doomed seems like a rather blatant slippery slope fallacy. Having municipal fire departments is not going to doom us to living in Stalinist gulags.

When I say dehumanized, I mean "lack of a regard for human beings," not that we're becoming less like apes.

Well I dunno, I think libertarianism definitely has a regard for human beings, they just have rather peculiar notions about what is good for human beings.

 

[cafink]

Well I dunno, I think libertarianism definitely has a regard for human beings, they just have rather peculiar notions about what is good for human beings.

What libertarianism says is good for human beings is the right to decide for themselves what is good for them. This does not strike me as peculiar.

 

[TuftedPuffin]

There are some people like Robert Nozick who are moderates, but they're not taken seriously.

I know at least in my experience, limited as it may be, Nozick is the most important libertarian philosopher I'm aware of. Real libertarians may not take him seriously, but whirlwind philosophy courses tend to list him as a primary example, and kinda as a founder of the ideology.

 

[TuftedPuffin]

All secular ethics are rooted in humanism. If you don't value human life, why even care about what's right and wrong?

Um, because it's right and wrong? And thus inherently the stuff you're supposed to care about?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

What libertarianism says is good for human beings is the right to decide for themselves what is good for them. This does not strike me as peculiar.

Except that they seem to think that right to decide for themselves absolves them of any consequences of those decisions on society as a whole.

 

[UserGoogol]

What libertarianism says is good for human beings is the right to decide for themselves what is good for them. This does not strike me as peculiar.

That's not libertarianism at all! Libertarianism places many restrictions on a person's "right to decide for themselves what is good for them." If I decide that beating you up and stealing your stuff is good for me, then I am not allowed to do it. It is entirely off limits. Libertarianism says that people are allowed to do whatever they want within their "zone of property," (which generally consists of the self and the fruits of the labor thereof) and are absolutely prohibited from doing stuff within other people's zone of property unless approved by the owner.

 

[Cain]

I've dealt with this position before and it doesn't make sense. You can't be both for animal rights and against it.

The libertarians I am talking about regard animals as being self-owned, where rights are reduced to property relations.

I agree with your argument against the talk radio show host, but his position is not (unfortunately) uniquely libertarian. The fact he adheres to a rigid ideology gives him a convenient frame to pontificate on that which he is ignorant. I mean, libertarians on the Internet are already blowhards, combine that with talk radio -- internet talk radio -- and the result is toxic.


You can, sure. But you won't agree to a slave-contract unless you're either emotionally disturbed (rendering the contract) or if you have no other choice.

And if you live in a world where you're forced to accept a contract (a slave contract is the extreme), then contracts themselves are invalid and should be ignored.

The Libertarian party holds the positions they do because they are the most influential. Groups like CATO, Lew Rockwell, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Mises Institute are just as radical.

There are some people like Robert Nozick who are moderates, but they're not taken seriously.

"Moderate" is relative. Nozick infamously took positions that put him at odds with more doctrinaire libertarians, but A, S, & U is still out there.

UserGoogol:

It should be pointed out, I suppose, that the OP's list only really describes deontological libertarianism.

And these guys are the jackasses. They have an answer for everything and you can bet it has to do with property ownership. I must recount an old experience on this board: A member named Victor asked the resident libertarians if they self-identified as deontologists or consequentialists. Shanek, easily the most strident evangelist for any political doctrine in this forum's history, claimed he was "both." The original poster kindly pointed out that both could make compelling cases, and both could lead him in the direction of libertarianism, but logically it comes down to one or the other. Shanek insisted they were not mutually exclusive. I remember saying, "there it is. This guy does not even have the slightest clue what is at the foundation of his entire belief system." His posts should have contained a link to the offending thread, warning new members.

 

[Graham Ross]

I think taking any political position to the extreme is wrong. You should judge politics on individual policies, not just take one stance and apply it to any situation.

 

[NeoRicen]

The way I look at is that, sure, people generally speaking have their individual rights and should not act in the zone of other people's property or have others have in their zone of property.

HOWEVER, I think, that the best way for people to live together (which with 6 billion people and 1 planet is unavoidable) and to live the best lives possible, is for all of us to enter a sort of social contract. Sort of like "I'll scratch you back if you scratch mine". Not to the extremes we see in socialism, but if we just give a little bit of what we gain into the system to provide services (public health, infrastructure) and opportunity (public education) and of course to the administration of these things (government and its officials), then I think we'll all be a lot better off. We won't lose all/most of what we gain, as in socialism, and we won't have everything handed to us but we'll have enough given to us for us to succeed and stay healthy so that we can live comfortable lives and continue to provide for a better future for the country.

This is why I think people who violate this social contract (the particulars of which are established through democracy) such as tax cheats/protestors shouldn't have their individual rights violated by imprisoning them. They should just be deported to the country of their choice (probably not at all practical I'd admit, it's more of a moral solution to the problem). This isn't because the state 'owns' the land or your person but because many other people live in that land, and for you to be there you unavoidably live with them and they have established certain rules if you want to live with them, they shouldn't be the ones to have to change for you. However, this is why democracy is so important, the political system should provide a way for this person to gain support and become elected to change the things they disagree with, provided they live by the current rules.

On social issues I could be describe as a mild libertarian. Any law governing behavior that in no way (or in a very very small way) affects the people they live amongst is immoral, such as anti-sodomy laws, anti-homosexuality laws and to an extent anti-privacy laws (though the people you live amongst do deserve to know a little about you as you are gaining from and contributing to the society they're building with you).

On the slavery issue, people should be prevented from relinquishing certain rights, as the conditions under which they do so could be unjustly imposed by others (violating their zone of property rights you Libertarians love so much) or could be a mental, and thus medical, problem and exploiting such a problem, by entering a slavery contract with such a person could easily be seen as violating those same rights.

 

[cafink]

That's not libertarianism at all! Libertarianism places many restrictions on a person's "right to decide for themselves what is good for them." If I decide that beating you up and stealing your stuff is good for me, then I am not allowed to do it. It is entirely off limits. Libertarianism says that people are allowed to do whatever they want within their "zone of property," (which generally consists of the self and the fruits of the labor thereof) and are absolutely prohibited from doing stuff within other people's zone of property unless approved by the owner.

Yes, I'd agree with that description. Forgive me for overlooking the very important "...as long as they afford others the same rights" part of the definition.

I'm still puzzled by your previous comment, though. Are you saying that the libertarian idea of prohibiting actions which infringe on the rights of others is "peculiar"?

 

[cafink]

On the slavery issue, people should be prevented from relinquishing certain rights, as the conditions under which they do so could be unjustly imposed by others (violating their zone of property rights you Libertarians love so much) or could be a mental, and thus medical, problem and exploiting such a problem, by entering a slavery contract with such a person could easily be seen as violating those same rights.

If a person is forced to sign a contract through a violation of his rights, that contract would be invalid whether it was for his services as a slave or for something more trivial like a downtown parking space. Force is the very antithesis of libertarianism. What's special about the "slave" case that it needs to be specifically prohibited more so than any other right?

 

[UserGoogol]

Yes, I'd agree with that description. Forgive me for overlooking the very important "...as long as they afford others the same rights" part of the definition.

I'm still puzzled by your previous comment, though. Are you saying that the libertarian idea of prohibiting actions which infringe on the rights of others is "peculiar"?

Just to clarify, I think (as I said in the Utilitarian thing) that a very important distinction is not merely the "as long as they afford others the same rights" but that the exact amount of rights that are being afforded. A libertarian's right to swing their fist ends at my nose, but what's so special about by nose? Why couldn't a libertarian's right to swing their fist end as soon as I can see it, or when the swing injures my nose? The concept of self-ownership inevitably runs into the problem that the boundaries of "self" are not entirely cut and dry. Thus, prohibiting actions which infringe on the rights of others is not an inherently libertarian idea, but it only becomes libertarian when you include the particular libertarian bundle of rights.

That said, I was probably too glib when I called it peculiar. It was sort of a way of replying to Nathyn by saying "well okay, they're stupid, just not that kind of stupid." What I mean is that when you look at the sort of radical libertarian positions listed in the OP, most people would look at that and consider it to not be particularly "good for human beings." I do think that many people would support libertarian ideals in the abstract, though. (Of course, I think a lot of people would support socialist ideals in the abstract too.)

 

[geni]

All secular ethics are rooted in humanism. If you don't value human life, why even care about what's right and wrong?

Because you value your own life and enlightened self interest kicks in.

Libertarian ethics (especially those with regard to anarchism) are inconsistent because they are thoroughly dehumanized. The evidence is the fact that so many of them put forth what are essentially indefensible arguments -- the kinds of statements that make people say, "WHAT?! You're nuts!!"

Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

I'm sure you've probably heard some remarks, like the cliche, "Taxation is theft!" and so on.

Theft supposes the existiance of individual property beyond what you have the capacity to defend.

Here's a list of some pretty wacky positions Libertarians and Anarchists have taken, with the person who argued it:

There are significant differences between Libertarians and Anarchists. Libertarians have this strange idea that you can rightfuly own something.

1. Only what I want (meaning, the anarchist) matters.
-Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own

Actualy true for most people. Just that some people want other people to be happy.

2. It's perfectly OK to abandon, neglect, and even abuse children
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

As long as a is person prepared to accept what the rest of the civilisation they reside in decideing to neutralise them then yes this is correct. However it would normaly conflict with people's self interest.

3. Contracts to sell one's self into slavery are valid.
-Walter Block's Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability

This hardly uncommon see the villains under feudalism. Of course the Libertarians would then take the stance that your children would somehow be born free.

4.It's perfectly OK to torture animals.
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

This one is trivially justifiable by taking a human supremacist position. Of course again the rest of the civilisation you live in may try to neutralise you.

6. There's nothing unethical about selling weapons to warring factions.
-H.C. Engelbrecht's The Merchants of Death

Are you suggesting that there is? They are weapons they are designed to kill people if you are not going to sell them to people who plan to use them for that purpose who are you going to sell them to?

7. Medieval, aristocratic monarchies were based upon property ownership and We should return to such a system.
-Hans-Herman Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed

Where do you think the importance of contract in common law comes from?

Walter Block himself says that Libertarianism can only be consistent if slave-contracts are valid.

There are a couple of ways to make near slave contracts valid under common law. Are you suggesting moveing your legal system away from common law?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Libertarian party holds the positions they do because they are the most influential. Groups like CATO, Lew Rockwell, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Mises Institute are just as radical.

There are some people like Robert Nozick who are moderates, but they're not taken seriously.

I suspect Robert Nozick isn't taken seriously by the loonies in the Libertarian Party. But that's ok - the loonies in the Libertarian Party aren't taken seriously by the rest of us.