Topic: Political Literature
Answering a few questions : Libertarians, what are they? I'm getting a tiny bit tired of all the declarations of opinion that pass for truth around here...by Logical Premise
(Statist)
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
It's an excellent piece, really, and I've hesitated to link to it from here. There are a few points that need reinforcement, espeically with the tone of many of the "most popular" and the most recent articles on Nolan Chart currently.
Two things struck me as critical in this FAQ:
Libertarianism is predicated upon set of arguments that depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field.
It is impossible to have an objective view of something like libertarianism, and it would be a mistake to presume that you can "define" libertarianism. It varies between person to person widely, and what is a rebuttal to one person's view of it is not even valid to another's view.
I'm honestly interested in what people think. However, I strongly caution you not to poke around that site too much -- it's likely to utterly and completely shatter a lot of blaise assumptions about libertarian beliefs. I personally don't like the site too much, it goes way beyond debunking some of the more outre libertarian claims into realms of statism and libertarian bashing that would make the Statist feel ashamed. But hey -- the questions are good, the counter points are good, and political discussion is always good, right?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Logical Premise only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Logical Premise is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
As a Libertarian, I could care less what someone else thinks about Libertarians. I and only I will have my own self interest defined, and there is no other individual or group that has the right to do that for me.
Being concerned first and foremost about one's self interest is nothing to be ashamed of. It is key and it is called responsibility.
Libertarianism is individualism at it's best. No small wonder definitions differ between Libertarians. By definition it must. If they were to ever all agree, you know they are no longer talking about Libertarianism.
Libertarians are always under attack because they do not buy the idea that we must sacrifice(under threat of force) for the good of others. We do not believe that we must serve(under the threat of force) the greater good.
As Ayn Rand said in The Fountainhead, " Where theres sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served".
Ask yourself what service or sacrifice those that do not understand Libertarianism want from you. It will not take ou too long to figure it out.
Sure as hell beats "Anything I don't agree with I am going to get a law passed and change it to my way", don't you think?
I do not owe you any explanations nor do you owe me any. What, I wonder, is so terribly wrong with that?
And if you do not reply, well, I am not even concerned with that.
Libertarians do not need others to justify themselves. That is something we have already built into the equation. Once I have to explain why I do not agree with you, then you have a bit of control over me, don't you?
I don't give the slightest bit of care what you think on a personal level, or if it matters. I don't have or want or need any control over you, and it could matter less to me if you believe that you're only free if you can eat blue cheese on February 29th and the Gregorian Calender is the man keeping you down.
People like you are so self-absorbed you seem to forget anything else exists at all. As a result, there's nothing to discuss with you. There is no interchange of ideas. Believe what you want , by all means!
Ah, God, you don't even see the hilarity though, do you?
Self Absorbed? Does that translate into being unwilling to sacrifice for the masses?
It's not that I have forgotten that anything else exists. Quite the contrary. It's that I refused to be guilted into sacrificing for the greater good. It's that I am willing to accept the idea that you can believe whatever you want.
Look at this election. 95% of America is supporting a candidate that is going to give them something. What can they do for me? What promises have they made? Only Paul wants to just give back to you what is rightfully yours. There is such a difference. Yet it does not play. Why?
Because it is the rest of America that is self absorbed, worried about what others might have they do not. Wanting their share of the American Dream. Even if they have not earned it. Even if it must be taken at gunpoint from another citizen to be reallocated to another.
Who, I wonder is more self absorbed? My neighbor, looking at what I have and wondering which politician will help them get it, or me minding my own business and producing goods and services that earn me a profit?
I know which of those two I prefer to be and always will be. Looking out for my own interests will never be something that I am ashamed of. The key is I will not take from you by force to achieve my self interests.
There can be an interchange of ideas. That happens all the time. But that does not mean that I must compromise my principles. Nor should you. But one must define their principles in order to proceed. One must define their priciples to be consistent.
Must an atheist and a Christian sit down and exchange ideas? Is the only solution that they both become agnostic? Does the Christian need the understanding of the atheist to be a happy Christian? Is the atheist any less of an atheist because he fails to explain his view to the Christian? I do not think so.
People like me- I represent no people. I am just an individual. I am a minority of 1. I know I can live with that. It's the majority that seems to be unwilling to do so.
Posted By: Dee Ann Patterson
Date: 2008-02-05 22:27:42
So, What's your point? I could easily write the same sort of thing about Statists. You would likely not agree with it, just as I don't agree with the guy who wrote your FAQ. I could refute everything he says, but then why waste the time? Yawn...
You got a thumbs up for presenting two sites for a start at balancing the study. I found this short piece interesting. The following made me smile;
"Two things struck me as critical in this FAQ:
Libertarianism is predicated upon set of arguments that depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field.
It is impossible to have an objective view of something like libertarianism, and it would be a mistake to presume that you can "define" libertarianism. It varies between person to person widely, and what is a rebuttal to one person's view of it is not even valid to another's view."
Number 1 strikes me less as critical and more as a narrow view so as not to distract the reader from a larger view. I don't consider myself a libertarian as my views are adulterated by some strong conservative ideas as well (even though I did accept the parties request to be their candidate for the House in Vegas in '94). However, in studying and discussing the libertarian philosophy I would hardly declare it to be focused on a narrow field. In reality it is quite encompassing. For the FAQ to claim it to be a theory of a narrow view shows more a lack of depth of understanding OR a desire to misdirect and misrepresent with a sweeping generality. Since it is quite in-depth I suspect the second.
Number 2 is true of libertarianism, I would agree with it being very different from person to person. This is also true of any theory of government. For example, I believe those vying for office on today's Democratic platform are campaigning on a platform that supports socialism over capitalism and plutocratic oligarchy control of the government over the people rather than a people controlling the government. Yet many would look at their platform and consider it a democratically focused theory simply placing a fettered conrol on an out of control free market. People differ on the same concept because critical thinking (or the complete lack of it) leads to different understanding. This applies to political theories as well as religious theories and more. So although it may be a critical point it is not a point only regarding libertarianism, IMHO.
If nothing else you've stirred some brain juices and that's always a good thing!
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-02-06 00:48:04
What is really boils down to is control. Why do people feel the need to control other people? Why can't those people who need to be in control never really gain control over themselves? Isn't control simply an illusion as relates to the grand scheme of things?
Gary, by "critical" I meant an important concept to consider that may or may not be intrinsically valid but is used to validate if you're talking out of your ass or not. When someone bashes Libertarians by calling them "kooks", I know I'm dealing with an idiot, since most of the Founders were basically Libertarians. When someone bashes Libertarians for dependance on one economic model and ignoring all others, they have a valid point (for discussion, not bashing).
Statism, for example, is often concenned with bringing in as many issues as possible, rather than focusing on a subset of issues. This isn't becuase it's superior, but because statists take a "holistic group" view and libertarians take a "individuliastic determinative" view. Small government can be good or bad, so can big government.
I think the main thing that the FAQ was stating is that often Libertarian arguments are focused onto one tiny point and, for them to be effective, can't be opened up and applied to many things.
In turn, of course, Statists arguments work quite well when you consider everything as a whole, but breaking it into specifics and segments reveals weaknesses. Since humans are better at seeing big things than small details, this is why more humans are content with statist values than libertarian ones.
As a staunch classical liberal/libertarian there is little chance that I am going to come across an argument that is going to sway me into adhering to any form of statism; regardless of how effective and logical the person making the argument thinks it is. This being said I think that libertarianism, like anything, can and should be criticized (that is what goes on in a healthy society) for if nothing else it helps libertarians understand better their own ideas.
I looked at the FAQ and several of the other "arguments" on the site and was rather disappointed. Most of the points of contention raised in the FAQ are very good and valid places to question these ideas. The main problems arise with the glaring lack of objectivity on the part of the author, the fact that the author seems to have only a very cursory understanding of the subject matter, and the fact that the arguments presented don't really address the concern raised.
The author seems to fixate on the notion that because libertarianism isn't the status quo or because there has never been a fully libertarian state (there has rarely been a state fully committed to any one pholosophy for any period of time) then somehow that logically implies that libertarian arguments and ideas are false. The fact that neither of these have absolutey no logical connection to the truth or falsity of libertarian ideas seem lost on this author as he gives lipservice to logic. Saying something is logically false simply because there is an idea that is contrary or contradictory to it is fallicious reasoning. Likewise, citing court cases that are based on a philosophy that libertarianism denies is hardly an effective way to make a strong argument against it.
Comparing libertariansim to libertinism (the belief that one should be able to do what they wish withour any limits) shows shallow understanding of the issue at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst. I have never met a a serious libertarian who wants to "want to kill mommy and daddy so that they can stay up later and buy more ice cream than they can now;" to characterize the idea like this is ignorant. Furthermore, the works cited by the author are hardly a representation of contemporary libertarian thought and don't even include many of the older foundational works of libertarian thought. The author further shows a lack on knowledge about both economics and law. One who thinks that 19th century chattal slavery is a product of capitalism is probably not enough of an authority on economics to spend much time worrying about. Also ignored is the long tradition, of which Bastiat is a vein, of law as "common law" in the sense that the law is discovered as it already is among the people.
The arguments here don't really fit the objections and often ignore the ample evidence refuting the author's arguments. For example #25 challenges libertarians to show the benefits of libertarian policies. I can name about 15 websites that are filled with volumes of objective, factual, peer-review evidence that libertarian policies achieve objectively positive results, but the author mentions nothing about them. My favorite example is the supposed fallavy in #26: "There are as many military reasons why the draft is bad as there are moral ones. Witness our success using a volunteer army versus a conscripted one." Funny thing is that that success is a great military example of why the draft is bad! (note i am not here arguing the benefits of libertarian policy but the quality of the piece you reference.) Another example of poor reasoning is in #20. The libertarian argument presented is a very weak one (as the author admist) and the author ignores here and in other places much stronger arguments (like the deadweight loss caused by government wealth distribution as opposed to private).
Basically this is a very weak criticism and does as much damage to the "anti-libertarian" (for lack of a better term) argument as it does to the libertarian one. It is pretty much a feel good piece to re-enforce already existant anti-libertarian or statise ideas whether than something that is actually going to be of use to someone trying to make a informed decision about political philosophies.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Logical Premise, all rights reserved.