My micro-rant against Libertarianism

[AlBell]

http://www.peggynoonan.com/

What is the Democratic brand? It is the party of the little guy, the outsider. The party of “We Shall Overcome,” of great movements—civil rights, feminism, the environment. The party of “Listen, isn’t this country rich enough to afford a little for the old, the infirm, people who need a boost?” You can argue the facts and legitimacy of this all day, but it lingers as a powerful part of the Democratic Party brand.

And there’s still a certain lingering mystique to the Democratic Party. It retains a vestigial reputation for a kind of glamour, sophistication and broadness. Isn’t that Averell Harriman over there with Chip Bohlen? There’s Babe and Bill, Jack and Jackie. There was an ethos of easily worn wealth joined to a spirit of declared egalitarianism. The guy standing with Averell, the rough-featured labor leader with hands like shovels: It’s Dave Dubinsky of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union. The Democratic Party in its best days was hard hat and top hat, a party of the little guy run by the most interesting and glamorous big guys.

Is all this in any way relevant to today? No. Now it’s is brute, grubby and lacking in grace. But it’s part of the vestigial brand.

As usual Peggy nails it; but dream on.

 

[Mr. Scott]

This is a straw man, as I've never pretended to support the Libertarian possitiono, just the O'ist one.

ETA:Yes. It'd be chaos.Which is why no O'ist advocate advocates such things, and most speak out against htem quite forcefully. I believe it was "Philosophy: Who Needs It" where Rand outlined the O'ist theory of politics (government in a ratoinal society).

I wasn't specifically attacking you, Dinwar, so I don't acknowledge using a straw man tactic. What's the primary difference between objectivism and libertarianism, in your opinion? Are there examples of societies that operate largely under objectivist principles that are shining examples?

 

[Tony]

http://www.peggynoonan.com/


As usual Peggy nails it; but dream on.

This isn't meant as a defense of the Democratic party, but that article is so full of crap it makes a port-o-potty look clean.

 

[Dinwar]

Are there examples of societies that operate largely under objectivist principles that are shining examples?

The USA in the 1800s was close, but I must emphasize that before you start listing flaws in the system, you really need to dig through the O'ist literature to see what they actually think of that society--O'ists tend to agree on what flaws occurred, but disagree on the cause.

What's the primary difference between objectivism and libertarianism, in your opinion?

Anyone who feels qualified to discuss the O'ist political theory should know these, as it's something of a hot-button issue among Objectivists. Simply put, Libertarians hold that anything goes so long as you don't violate anyone's rights. Objectivists hold that you cannot use force (including government force, such as the police or laws) against someone who doesn't violate someone's rights, but there are issues which cannot be tollerated by society and which require social reprisal (note that to an Objectivist there's a fundamental difference between outlawing something and the calculated economic destruction of people who practice something). Objectivists also tend to disagree with the de facto Libertarian stance that principles don't matter (Objectivism is based on principles). Again, see Dr. Hsieh's work on the subject for a more in-depth understanding, or Rand's work on the subject (she actually wrote an essay on why she's not a Libertarian, so anyone who equates O'ism and Libertarianism pretty clearly demonstrates a lack of familiarity with O'ist thought on the issue).

 

[Craig24]

Objectivism online has a forum to ask these questions

.. and if you want to see some fine commentary by rank and file Objectivists on the distinction between Libertarianism and Objectivism, begin with this thread: "Libertarian" as a concept

My favorite paragraph in thread is found in reply #9:

Libertarianism no matter how it is defined ignores differences in what people mean by liberty and why they advocate it. It only makes sense from the intrinsicist perspective on morality and authority, which sees all libertarians as subjectivist rebel scum, sometimes by people who want nothing more ambitious than to embrace being rebel scum. Effectively defending freedom with rights requires more than incessant argumentation to be persuasive, it requires teaching the methods of thought. There is a crucial difference between defending freedom objectively and advocating freedom because of uninspiring moral relativism. People who can't see the difference will never make a difference.

Don't accept being relegated into a ghetto with the subjectivists by the intrinsicists.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm a bit more generous--I believe that at least some Libertarians are defending freedom for the right reasons, and they all, in so far as they accept that one cannot initiate the use of force against others, meet the minimum standards necessary to engage in honest debate (you cannot honestly debate something when someone believes they have the right to attack, harm, or kill you to get you to agree with them). That said, many Libertarians believe something along the lines of "The government shouldn't do this--but society certainy should!" Any group that invites an Objectivist philosopher and a Marxist economist to give talks at the same conference, and holds both up as great people advocating ideas that should be followed, has some serious problems.

ETA: And I should stress that that last statement holds true for BOTH sides of the issue--the Marxists should object every bit as much as the Objectivists to being in the same conference, and for fundamentally the same reasons (ie, they clash in their fundamental values, and advocate opposing and incompatable worldviews, politics, and ethics).

 

[citizenzen]

The USA in the 1800s was close ...

All one needs is over 9 million square kilometers of "untamed" land and a relatively sparse native population unable to repel the invading human tide.

It would seem to me that citing "the USA in the 1800s" as a "shining example of objectivist principles" is problematic on many fronts. How does objectivism work when the untamed land is fully explored and parceled out ... when one can't simply homestead a plot of land and make their way?

What would an objectivist society look like today with millions of people who are incapable or unwilling to conform to the rules that our society requires to be a success: going to work, paying rent, etc. How would your objectivist society deal with people who don't live up to their potential and refuse to take care of themselves and their children?

 

[Craig24]

All one needs is over 9 million square kilometers of "untamed" land and a relatively sparse native population unable to repel the invading human tide.

It would seem to me that citing "the USA in the 1800s" as a "shining example of objectivist principles" is problematic on many fronts. How does objectivism work when the untamed land is fully explored and parceled out ... when one can't simply homestead a plot of land and make their way?

What would an objectivist society look like today with millions of people who are incapable or unwilling to conform to the rules that our society requires to be a success: going to work, paying rent, etc. How would your objectivist society deal with people who don't live up to their potential and refuse to take care of themselves and their children?

See, this is where you ignored the advice he gave you. I quote him:

but I must emphasize that before you start listing flaws in the system, you really need to dig through the O'ist literature to see what they actually think of that society--O'ists tend to agree on what flaws occurred, but disagree on the cause.

 

[citizenzen]

See, this is where you ignored the advice he gave you. I quote him:

I didn't ignore his advice. I sought his insight.

If you're going to cite the 1800s as the shining example of objectivist society, then you have to look at the state of the nation at that time: a resource-rich land, largely uninhabited by whites, open for exploration and exploitation.

Contrast that to the state of our nation today. In the 1800s the large majority of Americans were farmers, making a living off the land, while today only a few percent do. The 1800's was in historical perspective a brief and unique era. How can any objectivist look at it as a "shining example" and then apply its principles to today's vastly different conditions?

That's what I was hoping to find out.

 

[Robrob]

Can you imagine if the police in this country were accountable to people paying for private armies or who worked under government contracts but were accountable to their bosses, not to the public that the private police had the right to arrest or even shoot?

The inevitable conclusions of a libertarian philosophy are abominations such as for profit police departments, private armies and such. Listening to someone try and defend the virtues of a for profit EMS and fire service is mind boggling. Every libertarian paradise ends up sounding like "The Gangs of New York."

The USA in the 1800s was close, but I must emphasize that before you start listing flaws in the system, you really need to dig through the O'ist literature to see what they actually think of that society--O'ists tend to agree on what flaws occurred, but disagree on the cause..

1) Really bad choice. The USA in the 1800's was great, if you were a robber baron or someone who didn't mind arsenic in their patent medicines. From the point of view of efficiency in public safety, not so much.

2) The weasel wording of supposed significant differences between the laughable libertarian philosophy and the completely not laughable (insert name) philosophy is typical. Remember, the "The People's Liberation Front of Judea" is something very different from the "Judean People's Liberation Front"!

I wasn't specifically attacking you, Dinwar, so I don't acknowledge using a straw man tactic. What's the primary difference between objectivism and libertarianism, in your opinion? Are there examples of societies that operate largely under objectivist principles that are shining examples?

What's the difference between communism and libertarianism? Communism actually worked somewhere, at least for 70 years.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The USA in the 1800s was close [to a shining example of objectivist success

That's the best you've got?

As pointed out, in a time when it was legal to steal from Native Americans? Do you mean, before or after slavery was abolished? I'd think, if objectivism was the best system, there'd be some Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" and objectivist societies would be spreading and out-do less successful models.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have no problem with libertarianism. What two girls get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The inevitable conclusions of a libertarian philosophy are abominations such as for profit police departments, private armies and such. Listening to someone try and defend the virtues of a for profit EMS and fire service is mind boggling. Every libertarian paradise ends up sounding like "The Gangs of New York."

Although anarcho-capitalists don't like to acknowledge it, anarcho-capitalism /= libertarianism.

Like, say, progressivism, libertarianism includes a range of views, from minarchism to classic liberalism to left libertarianism. Anarchists are like fellow-travelers, similar to how communists are fellow-travelers for Democrats: most Democrats aren't fond of communism, but the buggers keep voting Democrat, so what are you going to do?

That said, anarchists and disaffected Republicans have gained a lot of influence in the LP, I joined in 1998 and I definitely think the center of the LP has moved to my right since then. I was hoping the Constitution Party would draw off the 'basically still Republicans and the John Birchers' or that disaffected Democrats would balance out the trend, but so far, no good. The ex-Democrats tend to go with the GP.

Another problem with the LP is the influence of Aperger-like economic purists who acknowledge civil liberties issues while pretty much only caring about taxes.

Anyway, libertarians disagree on the right amount of government, from minarchists who think it should be as small as possible (but not nonexistent) to guys like me who would be pretty happy with something like the Canadian spending controls in place.

For what it's worth, the top ten most libertarian countries in 2006, using measures I would agree with (that is, emphasizing civil liberty as much as economic liberty):

1 Estonia 85.25
2 Ireland 83.34
3 Canada 82.34
4 Switzerland 82.33
5 Iceland 82.27
6 Bahamas 82.12
7 United Kingdom 81.96
8 United States 81.96
9 Cyprus 81.65
10 New Zealand 81.24

http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/

I bring the above up, because I'm not looking for 'libertopia', but 'more like Canada' (in its current balance between civil and economic liberty) is something I'd shoot for. I fear its economic performance will shift it too far conservative, and I'd rather a more recent snapshot (Ireland has probably dropped a bit), but they're awfully close to what I think the US should be.

 

[Dinwar]

That's the best you've got?

Do you read posts on Objectivism before criticising them, or just fire away without even understanding what was said? It's a serious question--I already addressed those issues (by referencing the O'ist literature on the subject), yet you latched on to one single line in my post and ranted against it. You applied similar logic to O'ist literature--you find one flaw, and ignore the entire rest of the novel.

If you're not going to bother to read what's written, why should O'ists bother to discuss anything with you?

2) The weasel wording of supposed significant differences between the laughable libertarian philosophy and the completely not laughable (insert name) philosophy is typical.

No. There are specific philosophical differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism. If you can't be bothered to learn them, you can't have an informed opinion on the subject. These aren't minor issues, either--these are differneces in the foundational assumptions and values of the movements. The fact that you consider a mention of these differences "weasle wording" suggests you're not interested in hearing from those who disagree with you. As such, I will bow out of this conversation.

 

[Robrob]

I'd think, if objectivism was the best system, there'd be some Darwinistic "survival of the fittest" and objectivist societies would be spreading and out-do less successful models.

Perfectly said.

Do you read posts on Objectivism before criticising them, or just fire away without even understanding what was said? It's a serious question--I already addressed those issues (by referencing the O'ist literature on the subject), yet you latched on to one single line in my post and ranted against it. You applied similar logic to O'ist literature--you find one flaw, and ignore the entire rest of the novel.

If you're not going to bother to read what's written, why should O'ists bother to discuss anything with you?
No. There are specific philosophical differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism. If you can't be bothered to learn them, you can't have an informed opinion on the subject. These aren't minor issues, either--these are differneces in the foundational assumptions and values of the movements. The fact that you consider a mention of these differences "weasle wording" suggests you're not interested in hearing from those who disagree with you. As such, I will bow out of this conversation.

"The People's Liberation Front of Judea" is something very different from the "Judean People's Liberation Front"!

One thing I've noticed about a certain class of zealotry, they like to insist you:

1) Don't understand their POV.

2) Need to research their POV.

3) Aren't going to get an explanation from them what their POV is in the first place.

 

[Dinwar]

Congradulations--you've found a way to dismiss my entire argument (and all of Objectivism) withotu addressing the argument, and while supporting the possition that straw men versions of a philosophy are more valid than the philosophy itself.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[citizenzen]

Thanks for proving my point.

Dinwar, you made a point that the 1800's were close to being the shining example of a society that "operate[d] largely under objectivist principles". A number of people, including myself have raised questions regarding this point, but you haven't addressed one of them.

Will you please take a moment and discuss this?

 

[Soapy Sam]

*Snip...And if you believe that "the community" is a nothing more than a number of individuals, and that those individuals are the important thing, not the "community", you're likely an Objectivist...Snip*

Most likely a progressive lefty-lib nutcase democrat....

ps. No, I'm not a libertarian either, just a conservative Republican.

This confuses me.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987

Now the Iron Lady was many things, but not "a progressive lefty-lib nutcase democrat."

Here in the UK very few people ever read Ayn Rand and the term "Libertarian" is never applied to politicians, though "libertine" occasionally is.

 

[pipelineaudio]

If you believe the false dichotomy that freedom means you have to screw the community, you are likely a Libertarian.

If you believe that dichotomy describes libertarianism, then...man I dont even know what to say

the person you describe more accurately fits a union boss

 

[Robrob]

Congradulations--you've found a way to dismiss my entire argument (and all of Objectivism) withotu addressing the argument, and while supporting the possition that straw men versions of a philosophy are more valid than the philosophy itself.

Thanks for proving my point.

How is asking you to explain your POV "a way to dismiss my entire argument (and all of Objectivism) withotu addressing the argument?"

Really, was it too much to ask?