Topic: Libertarianism
Poofertarianism: How It's Crippled the Freedom Movement The single most destructive belief practiced by more libertarians than anything else.by Spencer Jayden
(libertarian)
Saturday, September 19, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, ABC news reporter John Stossel, who some may know for his free market bits on 20/20, posted a blog entry called "What It Feels Like to Be a Libertarian? [1]". The blog entry is pretty much the tropic malaise rehashed by libertarians the world over these days. The mood is ambivalent: happy to be right, but frustrated at the low adoption of our ideals.
Though critics dismiss it as an obscure, 18th-century philosophy, libertarianism has some very powerful friends in high places. But when fellow believers want their advice, the replies are always the same: you've got to approach things strategically, pragmatically.
By then, they've lost the hardline libertarians completely. We're too principled for that. "Politics" are below us!
Now imagine what aggrovates folks like Stossel. The "hardline" crowd brings our collective image down:
"If you live and work in Manhattan like I do, it can be tough to be a libertarian. It means I’m surrounded by people who vehemently disagree with me – especially in the mainstream media. My kids went to school with Senator Al Franken’s. I went on his radio show thinking I could have a decent argument with him about economics, but no. He wouldn’t entertain a fair debate. He just yelled at me and called me a liar."
He then quotes Georgetown University Professor John Hasnas [2]: "Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work."
Alas, in that one sentence, he wraps up the past and present failure of the libertarian movement.
Way back during the election season, fellow columnist Ron Bain [3], (though a Barr backer) dubbed this phenomena the "poof" theory. Something about it just summarized "radical libertarianism", which is a dangerous meme that has hurt this movement by engendering distrust of pragmatism.
Where any sane person would laugh, many libertarians take "poof" theory to heart. The idea: only once society utterly fails can a principled educational outreach prompt people to remake civilization according to Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard.
I know some people point to the DC tea party and rallies agains the Fed as evidence. That's the problem with "poofertarianism", and the greatest reason to be concerned: it SEEMS true*. The Ancient Greeks, in their grand philosophic wisdom, believed there was a cycle of social order [4]. Tyranny gives way to revolution, which gives way to anarchy, then finally, we a balanced order.
But we like to think ourselves much more informed than the Ancient Greeks, don't we? Hell, after 5,000 years, one would think we understand more, at least.
Still, our very nation follows the trends elucidated by Plato. Hatched from revolution, we experimented with a light form of anarchy (the Articles of Confederation) before settling on a compact that has survived 220 years (Constitution Day was Thursday, 9/16).
But there were still other ideas the Greeks endorsed. They openly encouraged class structures such as slavery and gender roles. We like to think we've come a far way from that. So why not revisit this "poof" theory and expose its flaws?
A does not always cause B. The reason this cycle works is because it predicts human reactions very well**. Libertarians are crazy about that. We believe in "rational" choice. It is the only predictable human response. Rational interest, which libertarian theorists invariably copy wholesale from Randian Objectivism***, means everyone acting for their own welfare. It's arguably the simplest concept of human nature defined, as well as the most logical****.
In The Dangers of Libertarian Radicalism, I discussed certain uncomfortable hypocrisies of the movement. It's an inconvenient truth for radicals in the LP, especially. The central idea was that after a radical change, like societal collapse or bloody revolution, people will still fear big government and look to us for solutions, ie the poof theory.This will lead to another brief golden age, the kind America has never experienced for more than 20 years at a time. Then the cycle repeats itself to different degrees. Many believe we're entering one now.
The cycle is NOT inevitable. Liberals have shown us just as much by slowly feeding us more statism instead of rapidly proposing tyranny and collectivism. It's easier to boil the frog if you don't start with hot water. Likewise, we can do the same thing. It does NOT require that we skimp on principles, as radicals claim.
The ultimate goal of all libertarians is that one day, we'll reach a critical mass of people who are critical of government. This is why we gradualists call for meeting people halfway BEFORE preaching to them. Success builds on success. To this end however, poofertarians prefer shoving the cold scenarios down Americans' throats with promises such as to default on the national debt, shred the safety net, and pull funding for all public works.
This is 100% unbridled libertarianism, they say. This is how it should be- and WILL be, once you pick us.
Is that the truth? Lord no! There are several benefits we don't properly sell to people on the beauty of freedom! But this is what they get. And you can be sure, when the economic rapture at last comes, people will remember alright. People will remember to stay away from libertarians.
*Note: Though let's be frank in saying that this is 50% conservative talk radio, 50% Campaign For Liberty.
**Note: For further reading, William Strauss and Neil Howe [5] are the authors of the generational theory and have published several books on the concept of cyclical human reactions.
***Note: It should be made clear that Rand outright disowned libertarians, and for this reason, the idea of adopting Objectivist planks is ironic.
****Note: To paraphrase post-libertarian Carl Milsted, self-interest alone does not pass the is-ought test [6].
The views expressed in this
article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden 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.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-19 06:36:41
Hi Spencer,
I didn't really follow the proofitarian theme of your article. I don't know what it means or why I should care...so I don't.
Also, "better informed" doesn't mean smarter, wiser or better educated. There is infinitely more information available to an individual than 5000 years ago but what I've seen is that most people only seek out that which supports their prejudice.
As long as libertarians cannot tell navel-gazing and philosophy from constructive participation in the political process they will be my favorite example of self-marginalization and herd-comfort futility.
I see no signs that libertarians are interested in anything more than sound of their own choir and the gentle stroking of each other's ego.
That's your problem then. You're free to continue thinking what you already do, if that helps you galvanize yourself for your cause...
On the "better informed" note, you are exactly right. The choice of phrasing isn't a mistake; I don't believe we are inherently any smarter than we were back then, but we definitely have more knowledge at our fingertips, and isn't that the whole point?
People do limit themselves to new information and experiences all the time. They base it on familiarity, which is why libertarian poofers will never succeed in convincing Americans to give them a shot. They will forever remain alien to the mainstream.
And this "herd" mentality you speak of is another issue I've touched on, but not in this article. But THAT is more of a problem with institutions that already exist, a la Cato, the LP, etc. in that there are thinktanks and parties that have failed to make a dent via libertarianism.
I'd infer that principles are the problem. The "poofertarians", as you'd call them, are cut off from all constructive activity and all reasonable positions by their principles.
I will not contend that there are no hard-and-fast rules, but I do know that they are few. Many libertarians of the older generation, on the other hand, will make a principle out of just about anything that sounds nice at the time. Noninitiation of force is one example.
To the principled libertarian, as opposed to the intelligent libertarian, the policies advocated by Epstein, Friedman, and Hayek aren't just "watered down" (that thought itself is another error); they're immoral. All thinking "on the one hand, on the other..." is cut off by principle. All taking what one can get is cut off. What's left is "poof!".
Consider also that many of this type scramble to come up with talk-argument justifications --however bad, just as long as they sound cute--to take a position contra a strong and mature scientific consensus on global warming. They'll even lie, trumped discredited books (e.g. Plimer) or believe in obvious hoaxes (Journal of Geoclimatic Studies, anyone) to justify this. Why? Because their principles admit no solution. Try bringing up the ozone hole thing and the Montreal Protocol to "poofertarians". Does not compute.
I see where you are coming from on this. But I've always contended that purist libertarians that ARE willing to compromise and find intermediate solutions are not the problem, and shouldn't be lumped in with the general population of angry radicals. And yes, there are a small minority of them. I include myself amongst them.
Radicals will equally call us both traitors or statist-revisionists. That is the key difference. The argument that some "principles" are the problem is, in my opinion, something the "moderate" crowd must concede. Otherwise, there's another movement for you.
The goal of any political philosophy is to reach that endgame utopia that functions perfectly by its principles. Libertarianism is no exception to this, and I would also add it's probably the worst offender. It's a nearly 300-year old idea, but communism and dictatorships are milennias older.
The plus side to libertarianism has always been that it can sum up all human events with one umbrella term. The "watering down" is not so much my language as it is radicals, who believe that if this axiom is ever incomplete, as in the cases you suggest, those who try to find remedial ground are sellouts.
Poofertarianism is very much like a religion, in that it breeds intolerance to other views and makes sure none of this "intermediate" action can first take place. This is why they fail.
Like Spence, I too am a radical purist Libertarian who is willing to temporarily compromise, find a happy medium that can be more familiar and palatable to the populace, yet still stride incrementally to the libertarian ideals applied actually.
When I discuss these methods and modii to the more we-demand-it-now crew, they will look at me as if I were a closet Demopublican; yet if they ever queried me on the fundamentals they would see that I am as radical as they are. (This is why I call myself a Maverick Libertarian). A few political conclusions I come to do not match the Party line, yet I derive them directly from libertarian fundamentals, so I would say I am more lib then they.
In the article, it says:
"Libertarians are crazy about that. We believe in "rational" choice. It is the only predictable human response. Rational interest, which libertarian theorists invariably copy wholesale from Randian Objectivism***, means everyone acting for their own welfare. It's arguably the simplest concept of human nature defined, as well as the most logical"
I don't think that defines the libertarian approach to economic or legal policy at all.
Rather, libertarianism makes room for the worst case decisions of the individual, doesn't rely on a rational choice at all. It respects whatever choice the individual wants, 'rational' or not - because one man's rationality, is another's insanity.
If the individual makes the 'better' choice, then society benefits all the more so.
Tell me, where am I wrong about the rational choice aspect? Of course we libertarians know that some people behave stupidly and will continue to abuse themselves. It is expected- THUS a RATIONAL assumption. That is all I was saying.
Predicting that humanity will F*** itself up is rational, and though as broad as it is, adaptive. I fail to see how this does not define the libertarian approach at all. That is exactly what the "worst case decisions of the individual" entails.
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.
