What is Libertarianism? - a critic's view
People who venture into electronic discussion areas will invariable encounter an ideology called Libertarianism. In fact, it is said
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
So what is this belief-set, and why is it so popular in certain subcultures? The following is an outsiders view of Libertarianism.
From proponents, you might be told
The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping
cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble
nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.
Videre:
In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.
To start off, Libertarianism is highly axiomatic. Note how the above quote touts its logically consistent approach. There's a set of rules to be applied to evaluate what is proper, and the outcome given is the answer which is correct in terms of the moral principle of the theory. Are the religious thinking connections starting to become evident? This doesn't mean there can't be religious-type schisms in applying the axioms (for example, there's one regarding abortion). But in practice, the rules are simple and tight enough to produce surprisingly uniform positions compared to common political philosophies.
Det som er med libertarianisme i sin helhet, er at man har en fastsatt
ideologi, noe personen her mangler. Det er ikke noen bestemt innhold i
det han selv fremmer. Han fremmer sannsynligvis en politikk som er
basert på impulsivitet, følelser og synsing. Altså ikke noe fastsatt,
med prinsipper, og idealer man burde prøve å oppnå, eller
langtidstenkning. Hvert år har politiske partier noe nytt de vil
innføre. Maskinen går, og vi får stadig nye regler, lover, forordninger,
og det hele baller på seg, og blir mer og mer komplisert, tungrodd, og
dårligere og ineffektivt. Man forsøker å løse dette ved å mykne opp, for
så å gjøre det vanskelig igjen. Dette er en politikk helt uten noen som
helst rammer for tenkningen. Prinsippløst. For det å skulle ha
prinsipper å arbeide ut i fra, og idealer, vil for denne forfatteren
regnes for religiøst, og religion må man jo for all del forsøke å unngå.
Men det er jo i seg selv et prinsipp? Dogme?
Videre:
Libertarian proselytizers will preach some warm-and-fuzzy story such as
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Vi tror at respekt for individuelle rettigheter, er helt grunnleggende
for en fri og velstående verden, og at bruk av makt, og svindel, må
forsvinne fra alle menneskelige relasjoner, og at bare gjennom frihet,
kan frihet og velstand bli realitet.
Ingen ting er galt med det, og heller ikke han synes tilsynelatende at det er noe galt i det.] Han fortsetter:
Now, how many ideologies have you ever heard state anything like
We believe that disrespect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud are good things in human relationships, and that only through slavery can peace and prosperity be realized.
Videre:
While you might be told Libertarianism is about individual rights and freedom, fundamentally, it's about business.
1=2: A Proof using Beginning Algebra The Fallacious Proof: * Step 1: Let a=b. * Step 2: Then a^2 = ab, * Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab, * Step 4: 2 a^2 = a^2 + ab, * Step 5: 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 + ab - 2 ab, * Step 6: and 2 a^2 - 2 ab = a^2 - ab. * Step 7: This can be written as 2 (a^2 - a b) = 1 (a^2 - a b), * Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2.
Now, the proselytizer might say, isn't every one of those steps a perfectly justified statement backed up by hundreds of years of mathematical thought? Here is a stack of great algebra books, read through the pile before criticizing the conclusion.
Then, if someone points out the fallacy (and I won't do so, to underline the difficulty of even this skeleton of an example) they can come at you again and say "Well, that had a problem, but here's a proof by a completely different method" (isn't it just amazing how these come out the same?)
1=2: A Proof using Complex Numbers The Fallacious Proof: * Step 1: -1/1 = 1/-1 * Step 2: Taking the square root of both sides: sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1) * Step 3: Simplifying: sqrt(-1) / sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) / sqrt(-1) * Step 4: In other words, i/1 = 1/i. * Step 5: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i), * Step 6: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i), * Step 7: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ), * Step 8: (i^2)/2 + (3i)/2i = i/(2i) + (3i)/(2i), * Step 9: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2, * Step 10: and this shows that 1=2.
Even more advanced! Complex numbers have been used for centuries, who can doubt the soundness of their principles?
This is why, as a pure matter of tactics, it's dangerous to get into preaching contests with Libertarians. Sometimes it's better to say "1=2 is utter nonsense, and if you believe that from the Libertarian Mathematics, you've had your mind rotted". Now, this does leave an opening for a reply "Nyah, nyah, you didn't go over every line of that proof and find the error, you have to do that, or you're close-minded". But someone could do more good at times by pointing out that there are people walking around spouting the political equivalent of "1=2" than getting into an involved discussion about part x of step y. This is where Libertarianism Makes You Stupid, the grip of subtly flawed logic can overwhelm everything else.
In part why Libertarian is a disease of techno-geeks is that you have to be fairly intelligent to find that sort of long axiomatic proof at all convincing. Of course, the task is easier when they are "proving" that you don't have to pay taxes, but it gets harder when they try to prove anti-discriminations laws are bad, as we'll see below.
Note this is not an attack on Mathematics, Algebra, Logical Reasoning, and all that, which would be another rhetorical tactic they could use as an accusation. This is the basic reasoning problem of Libertarianism. There's a lot of platitudes (against big government), but every once in a while they slip in some kickers (virtually absolute contract). Whenever anyone points out the kickers, they can revert to the platitudes, saying that's *really* what the philosophy's about. And try to smuggle in the kickers via some other route.
Consider, how long would to take you to find - and explain - the fallacies in the "proofs" above? Now think about doing this in a political philosophy, much vaguer, with a bunch of cultists proselytizing over it.
Libertarianism and civil-rights laws - a case study
One of the seamiest and ugliest aspects of Libertarianism is its support of turning back the civil-rights clock to pre-1964 legal situation for businesses. "I am not making this up". They're very explicit about it:
Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade -- for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.
That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "No Jews or dogs" hotels, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Irish need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All this is a "right of association" in Libertarian theology.
Stemmer det. Det er alt retten til assosiasjon. De har også svært mye
bedre argumenter for dette, enn det denne personen noen sinne kan komme
opp med.
Ikke missforstå: Ingen ønsker den formen for diskriminering som kommer
frem her, som da artikkelforfatter beskriver. Men lovene mot det er ikke
det som forhindrer folk i å være rasistiske etc... De argumenterer bra
for at disse lovene vil gjøre rasismen verre, mer usynlig, og lukket, og
da er den vanskeligere å gjøre noe med, osv... Men denne typen ting
blir nok litt for vanskelige for artiklelforfatter å fatte. Men selvsagt
kan du tvinge en rasistisk frisør til å ta i mot somaliere.
Saken er jo den at det er da sannsynlig at verken frisøren eller
somaliere vil føle seg komfortable. Somalierne vet ikke at frisøren er
rasist, før han setter seg i setet. Først da får han vel vite hva
frisøren tenker. Eller kanskje etter han er blitt klippet? Kanskje det
ville vært bedre at det faktisk stod "Whites Only" hos denne frisøren
sånn at vi alle kunne unngå å klippe oss hos denne rasisten? Dette blir
kanskje litt for sofistikert for artikkelforfatter, og de som måtte mene
den er et så brilliant angrep på libertarianismen, men det er likevel
slik at det er mulig å vise til andre alternativer til deres syn på
saken. Faktisk kan åpenhet om kring dette, og det å la
eiendomsbesitterne (frisøern i mitt eksempel) bestemme over sin egen
eiendom, fungere bedre enn disse lovene, for å få mindre rasisme og
diskriminering.
Hvorfor han mener det er forferdelig og diskriminerende at det står
"No dogs" på et skilt utenfor en resturant eller noe sånt, er for meg
forunderlig.
Er det privat eiendom, så blir det eid av noen. Skal man forby folk å
bestemme hvem som skal slippe inn i ens egen bolig også? Skal staten
tvinge rasister til å motta flyktninger i sine hjem? Hvis en person ikke
slipper inn x-en sin, men kun kona si, er dette diskriminerende ovenfor
xen? Ja, absolutt, men burde staten gå inn å regulere dette? Og hvor
stopper eller begynner det? Kun fornuften til politikerne? Hjelper disse
lovene på rasismen?
Det som er med markedet og kapitalismen er at den diskriminerer ikke.
Den oppmuntrer til ærlighet, den oppmuntrer til et fargerikt felleskap
osv. Den belønner gode gjerninger og straffer onde. I all hovedak gjør
den det. En frisør som ikke tar inn somaliere, vil tape penger på dette,
for eksempel... And so on and so forth. Det er jo også underlig å se
hvor liten tro artikkelforfatter har på sine medmennesker som lever
sammen med ham... Hvis han ikke får viljen sin så kommer
marerittsamfunnet han har fantasert om i hodet sitt, til å bli
virkelighet.
Videre:
Such a weird position is not just the purview of some position-writers in a corner, but a surprisingly common trait of Libertarians. It's one of the surest way of identifying one, if they justify such a reactionary position from abstract considerations.
It must be stressed that a) Libertarians ARE NOT racists, sexists, etc. and b) The above is not meant to comment either way on the much more controversial affirmative-action debate. Libertarians can go to town whenever they're called racist, sexist, and so on for the above (gee, how could anyone ever get that idea?), proclaiming their great personal but private commitment to equality. Of course, they never have to do anything much in this regard since events have passed them by. But they want make sure you know they fully support the ideals, even if they think the all the past decades legal effort should be repealed as immoral and unprincipled. They also love to switch the debate the affirmative action, because that's far more contentious than anti-discrimination. But the position's very plain. Drinking from the wrong water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing relation of force to eject the malefactor.
Some of the most amazingly idiotic things will be said by Libertarians in defense of the above ideas of "rights" and the evils of anti-discrimination law. A few of my favorites, from debates on this topic:
The "Why is a raven different from a writing desk?" question
What is it about the "lunch counter" that is different from a date? ... is it violence to be overtly racist in selecting a romantic interest? If so, how should we prevent it? If not, why not. Is it because the relationship is not primarily economical, in the narrow sense?
The "Business is a personal matter" approach
Most non-libertarians are not in favor of the American Nazi Party marching in Skokie, nor in favor of misguided marriages, or poor business investments, but very few think that this should be illegal.
The "no distinction between anything" sneer
I guess that if a fat, ugly, smelly female entered your immediate space (slobbered on top of you) and requested sexual favors, and if by some wild chance you refused, that it would be proper to take you away to a state mental health clinic and have your discriminatory ideas expunged. Is this correct?
What sort of brain-damage does it take to argue this with a straight face? Do they really, really, think someone will say "My god, a lunch counter is JUST LIKE a romantic interest. There's no way to someone could tell them apartment. If a business doesn't want to serve any blacks, that's just like not having sex with someone". But apparently, this is all part of the "right of association" in Libertarianism.
Det finnes helt klart dårlige argumenter også i forsvar for libertarianismen. Men det hjelper uansett ikke hvor gode de måtte være heller, dersom meningsmotstanderen ikke forstår dem, og her sliter nok artikkelforfatteren. :) Libertarianere liker å sette ting på spissen, og komme med humoristiske instikk til det som er sagt, med et lite poeng. Dette forstår aldri kritikerne. Poenget her var bare at vi alle diskriminerer. Du velger ut i fra dine preferanser. Poenget var å illustrere hvordan du ville tatt det dersom staten gikk inn å bestemte hvem du skulle ligge med og ikke:... Du skal jo bli tvunget til å ikke diskriminere, og gjør du det, så skal du arresteres.. Den siste var veldig morsom illustrasjon på hvordan det ville blitt dersom man håndhevet en slik anti-diskrimineringslov med tanke på hvem du velger å ligge med og så videre... Noe artikkelforfatteren var for dum til å forstå.
Libertarianism Makes You Stupid: the house of cards
The fanatical opposition of Libertarians to anti-discrimination laws also illuminates a crucial aspects of the stupid-making effects of the philosophy. They can never admit even one instance of government intervention doing good overall for society as opposed to the effects of the market. This isn't a matter of preference, it's absolutely crucial to the function of the ideology. If they ever do that, then it's an admission that social engineering can work, the market can fail, and it's just a matter of figuring out what is the proper mixture to have the best society.
The Libertarian Playbook: fantasy and free rides
What Libertarians have the luxury of doing is sitting back and saying "All the problems will be solved if we just let Jesus, err, property into our hearts, err, politics". What they do tactically is to focus on incidents area where the political process is at its worst, and peddle their snake-oil theory, contrasting the gritty reality with their pristine fantasy. Of course the fantasy looks better then!
The reason they get away with this is partly that there is no Libertopia, so we don't have a constant series of rile-'em-up stories to point out where Libertopia is an atrocity. Sometimes I think of writing a fictitious "Dispatches from Libertopia" for this sort of stuff. Such as:
"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."
"The separate individual child contracts were also ruled to be valid. Although the children were told if they did not sign, Mommy and Daddy would lose their jobs and the whole family might starve, this was regarded as simply the employer's right to hire and fire as he or she sees fit. No force, coercion, or fraud within the meaning of Libertopia Law was applied." Junior Warbucks, a MegaCorp spokesman, said "Do you make your children do chores? What's the difference?"
Videre:
But of course this can be attacked in various ways, because Libertopia is pure fantasy, and the real-world rarely stacks up well to a fantasy, especially a political one.
A Libertarian can blithely argue that all problems would be solved by private charity, by people of goodwill, or if government would just get out of the way. It's a common tactic:
If there's a problem, our first question is not, "How can government solve this problem," but "What government program must be eliminated to improve this situation?"
Since there's no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error and to what will happen under their proposed regime. That's a great debating advantage.
My quoting here is mainly to ground my critique in real documents, to establish "I am not making this up". For example, making business segregation legal again is such a kooky position nowadays that Libertarian-naive readers would likely strongly suspect that was a smear. But no, it's very explicitly advocated, completely justified in terms of the internal (il)logic, laid out quite blatantly. The average person hears all about the Republican's problem with abortion issues, or the Democrat's issues with entitlement programs. Libertarianism should not be exempted from criticisms of similar type.
"Any political philosophy has its nuts. Libertarianism no worse than any other in this regard"
I disagree. I think it is. Any sort of ordered approach to thinking forms a kind of philosophical framework, and hence may be termed an "-ism" of some sort. But I don't see them all as equivalent, and I doubt many people do either. Is Feminism as bad for rational thought as Fascism? Every ideology has weaknesses and blind spots, but the specific manifestation of Libertarianism is to make its followers completely unable to deal with any sort of analysis of power other than the most basic sort of government action. Thus, not only do they develop a mental block against the actual functioning of huge portions of our society, but this block then often turns into raving denial when anyone else says something outside their blinders.
It is often said "anything taken to excess is harmful", but this is unnecessarily crude. In medical substance information, there's the concept of lethal dose, average dose, and most importantly ratio of lethal amount to useful amount. For this last, I think a workable analog is a kind of "stupidity/utility" ratio, and informally, Libertarianism is just off the chart in terms of what is commonly seen among educated people.
Videre:
"Libertarians don't worship business. For example they criticize subsidies or tariffs all the time"
This very frequent objection shows that reader usually hasn't understood the point at all.
And finally: "You're a Communist"
Not at all. I think business and markets are just great in a lot of areas. But I don't think that is the sum total of civil society. Being against business-worship is hardly the same thing as government-worship. It in the inability to understand this idea which is the ultimate proof that Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.
[I dette innlegget kommer det frem at personen har svært mye i mot libertarianismen, men at han argumenterer dårlig i mot det, eller ikke i det hele tatt. Eneste han har gjort er å omtale libertarianere og libertarianismen i negative ordlag, og tilskrevet den en masse personlige tolkninger. Kommet med mattematiske formler og det ene med det andre. Det eneste tilsynelatende gode argumentet mot libertarianismen er dette med å fjerne anti-diskrimineringslovene. Ja, det er en forståelig innvending, men det blir ikke argumentert noe særlig godt i mot dette. Verken for eller i mot for å si det slik. Det blir den samme typen argumentasjon som at dersom du gjør noe lovlig, så vil _alle_ gjøre det dagen etter type ting. Eller at man automatisk vet hva som kommer til å skje dersom man løser opp i ditt og datt. Artikkelforfatteren "vet" jo hva som skjer dersom antidiskrimineringslovene forsvinner. Poenget er likevel at de ulike gruppene har to vidt forskjellige forestillinger om hva som vil skje. Ingen av dem vet sikkert, da det ikke har skjedd og er tilfellet. Men artikkelforfatteren går ut i fra at alle ser for seg det samme som han når det gjelder årsak og virkning på området, og dermed fordummer han publikumet sitt bare ved dette.
Han avslutter med det useriøse vissvasset om at libertarianisme er
business-worship, som da ikke er objektiv fakta, men hans egen tolkning
og forståelse, og mener at han burde bli tatt seriøst når han mener
libertarianisme er fordummende. Det er jo åpenlyst hva som er
fordummende her med tanke på at han utelukker så mye, og er ekstremt
ensporet og negativ og ikke klarer å se nyanser... På slutten prøver
han også å styrke sin egen troverdighet: Han er den nedlatende og
kritiske, og nedlatende og kritiske har jo alltid rett, ikke sant? For
om man er nedlatende og kritisk, så har man automatisk rett, da man
viser autoritet. :) Sånn. Da har jeg fått brukt litt tid i dag på å
vise hvor dårlig denne kritikken var... Og jeg har fått bevist at jeg
har lest vissvasset de kom med, og som de kritiserte meg for å ikke ha
lest...
Ha en god dag videre folkens!