It's not
Meant to be all strife
It's not
Meant to be a battle uphill
--Bjork
Libertarianism has been bothering me lately. It's come up again in the wake of the RCMP deaths, and now counts Colby Cosh as one of its adherents (apparently).
By coincidence the Shotgun posts a 'takedown' of an article critiquing the ideology here.
The Shotgun writer, Steven Martinovich, is attempting to buttress the weak walls of the Libertine fortress against an onslaught brought on by an article, "Marxism of the Right". With an article name like that, you are going to raise hackles, I guess.
Martinovich does a poor job in his defense, however:
More troublesome, however, is his argument that a lack of self-restraint forms the core of libertarianism. Give the people the right to smoke marijuana, have sex with whoever they want or demand a laissez faire economy and society will fall apart!
That's a completely dishonest characterization of the article, and anyone writing for the Shotgun should know it. That's not the idea, of the article and neither is it material whether or not the author thinks that Libertarians are marginal or not.
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife.
-------------------------------
Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.
------------------------------
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?
You could hardly call myself a defender of 'government', but you would more accurately describe me as a socially liberal type: I'm pro gay marriage, pro legalization, pro just about everything that two adults want to conset to.
But, when you get down to it, as much as I dislike centralized planning (I'm really into provincial autonomy on a lot of subjects), there is a place for the state. Seriously, the dream of withering of the state hasn't been a dream of mine since I was a 16 yr old Anarcho-Marxist. If I'm really motivated, I'll have a real argument posted on Renegades! sometime soon.
Having said that, I've read all the Ayn Rand stuff, the Prodhoun and a bunch of other libertarian/anarcho writers, and I can appreciate *some* aspects of Libertarianism. It's a valid ideology to hold; I just don't subscribe to it myself and I think it's flawed->more on that later, though.
12 comments:
Patrick,
Libertarianism is grossly misrepresented in Robert Locke's article and while I don't agree with everything Martinovich says, I do think you have made a 'dishonest characterization' of Martinovich's argument. The essential point is that Locke has written a false characterization of Libertarianism, with the corresponding agenda of justifying his own version of the nanny state.
This comment by Martinovich for example, among others, is perfectly correct and not at all a marginal criticism to Locke's argument:
"More troublesome, however, is his argument that a lack of self-restraint forms the core of libertarianism. Give the people the right to smoke marijuana, have sex with whoever they want or demand a laissez faire economy and society will fall apart!"
But let us expand and hear more of what Locke says. Even more troublesome and indeed ludicrous is Locke's argument that:
"Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill. "
Libertarians are not moral relativists, nor are they utilitarians and nor are they barbaric anarchists. Freedom does not mean anything goes. Freedom is more than just a 'good' - it is a right and it means that each individual has a basic and natural right to do what they will, provided they do not interfere with the rights of others to do the same. Libertarians do not deny that there are good and bad choices but though people do not always choose what is 'good' for them, it does not thereby follow that they should be prevented from making their own choices. The values people attach to certain goods might be neither 'lawful' nor inherently valuable, but unless our choices interfere with the free choice of others, people are entitled to act as they do. Yes, some foods are more nourishing than other foods, and so it is likely that the majority of people will choose nourishing foods, because that is the best way to survive and remain healthy. Given that unnourishing food is unnourishing by nature, which a libertarian would not deny, more people will likely choose nourishing food, or they will suffer the consequences of their poor choices. They have a right to choose all the same even though particular choices might be better than others given certain goals. People necessarily suffer the consequences of their actions and behaviour. If I eat potato chips everyday and nothing else, I am going to find out in a hurry that this is not the best choice of diet. As long as I am not harming another and living at their expense, than I should be free to engage in the activities that please me the most, and even if these choices might not be the best ones for my overall well being it is still up to me to decide. It is in this sense that value is relative. If I play guitar, then I have less time to blog. If I spend most of my time smoking opium, then time that I could be using to engage in other activities is thereby decreased.
Things have inherent objective properties, and the value that people attach to these objective properties is properly and necessarily determined by action and expressed through the choices and subsequent conseqences which are reflected in the free market. Other determinants of value are arbitary, and forced - the fact the wine or cheese exhibit certain nourishing properties does not entail that the said properties are equally nourishing or beneficial to all people.
Necessarily, a person suffers the consequences of their behaviour, but noone apart from the individual has a right to determine how I spend the short time allocated to me. If I make my own way in the world, then how come playing tiddlywinks is less 'valuable' than becoming a politician? Interestingly Locke uses politicians as an example of greatness as contrasted to 'tiddlywink' players, but not suprising, as he supports a forced version of freedom at the same time as he attempts to debunk liberatarian philosophy on the ground that it violates freedom. Who's imposing values here and on what basis and by what right?
Libertarians says the only legitimate gage of value is what people choose, on the basis of their own free will, which is reflected in the market, and subject to the laws of supply and demand. Libertarianism does not maintain that 'value' or 'good' in the sense that Locke characterizes it is determined by people in a way that could be used to justify the violation of others rights to freedom from non-aggression. Freedom is never acheived through force of any kind, because force necessarily implies a violation of our fundamental right to property and the corresponding right to protect that property from violations. Force is never justified except in the act of self defense, which is why Locke's characterization here of libertarian philosophy is completely wrong and would not be permitted according to the basic tenets of libertarianism:
"What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?"
Socialistic wealth redistribution is inherently wrong based on Liberatarian principles because it amounts to theft.
And as for people running amock and making poor choices, well there are plenty of instances of that kind of behaviour as it stands right now in our statist society and this will never change, government or no government. For the most part, people get by peaceably with each other, and it is not because of the presence of the state and its laws. It is in the interest of most people to have a peaceful society because free exchange and respect for the property rights of others is not only in our best interest but the means to secure the resources they need to get by in a world where resources are scarce. Force and theft empirically and logically do not result in a just or prosperous society. Indeed, I maintain that instances of stupid and corrupt behaviour increase in proportion to the strength and scope of the government in a given jurisdiction, along with the corresponding presence of unjust nanny laws like mandatory bicycle helmets for all adults and the law against marijuana, for the incentive to work and reap the rewards or penalties attached to certain actions is reduced as the notion of individual responsibility disintegrates. Measures such as taxation make it possible and attractive for many people to take the free ride and live off the labour of others, at the same time as the notion of individual responsibility is confused with collective responsibility. Consequently, as more and more of our income is taken from us and distributed to those that did not earn it, the incentive to work is reduced, and people spend more time engaged in nonproductive activities. As well, many people who would otherwise be hardworking and self sufficient in turn adopt the now more 'profitable' role of an unproducer, to use Hans-Hermann Hoppe's terminology here.
What is at issue is whether or not people have a right to choose and determine how they lead their life, through free and non-aggressive exchange with others. Is the type of nannying liberalism that Locke preaches more 'just' than Libertarianism? The only legitimate way to determine value is to see what people choose on an individual basis.
You say "I'm pro gay marriage, pro legalization, pro just about everything that two adults want to consent to" and then in the next paragraph you go on to say that you support the state.
Okay - but what is the proper role of the state? If the implicit assumption in arguments against Libertarism is that people are unfit to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to choose just governors? Governments uphold their laws, which are often unjust, through force and that is what Libertarians take issue with. We have the right to make stupid choices, as long as we harm noone but ourselves. By what right and on what basis are politicians equipped to determine value? Are they gods that see the true nature of things over and above individuals, although they themselves are individuals?
The state is the whole problem in the first place, because you are leaving the question of morality, values and freedom up to so called democratically elected elites, which amounts to allowing someone other than myself to determine how I will live my life and what I am allowed to do with my property, which includes my most fundamental piece of property, my body. By what right can the state take away my right to choose? How is the state in a better position to define 'freedom'? Is not Locke's conception of freedom much more arbitrary than the Libertarian's.
No offence to you Patrick, but if I had the time, I would critique the whole sticking, misleading argument that Locke makes. In closing, I will only highlight the following.
Says Locke: "They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate."
And we have a choice here in Canada when it comes to health care do we? Not to mention there is nowhere for those doped up libertarians to go to enjoy their habit without harrassment. Yeah, let's talk freedom.
Like he does here:
"Total freedom today would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question."
Huh? Huh? Huh? How does the free market erode 'accumulated social capital'? What the hell is that but stolen money. Furthermore, if 'ultimate sense' is to mean moral and just, then what the fuck does 'policy choice' have to do with anything? Who is sounding like a moral relativist now? The end justifies the means does it - determined by??? Libertarians are not commited to such absurd arguments.
Locke unfortunately continues:
"And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians."
So tyranny is a-okay with Locke. Please let him define 'decent' while he is at it. Let us hope that his notion of 'freedom' isn't trumped by someone who thinks they understand freedom better than him. Libertarianism defines the good as that which is freely choosen by the individual, but this does not mean anything goes. Freedom is not bought at the price of force, except in the minds of muddled thinkers. Furthermore, Locke seems to suggest that people are selfish barbarians that would never volunteer their time or money to help the less fortunate. Perhaps if the government got out of the business of poorly mismanaging our money, we would have more to contibute to the well being of others. Charity does exist and not all people are unthinking, uncaring brutes.
Taxation is theft because you are forcing another person to pay for the choices and habits of other people. In such a system, you also set people up for failure, because they know they can get away with it. Freedom doesn't allow comprimises in Locke's sense, because limits on freedom are necessary arbitrary when defined by the state and the special interests groups that control it.
This is also false:
"The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving."
Excuse me but these words apply to the modern day state rather than liberatarian socities, where one would be free to leave if they wish. There is no 'imposition of values' on the 'rest of us' because individuals are not forced to adopt particular values - it is up to them to choose, so long as they don't violate the rights of others to do that same. Libertarianism is hardly authoritatarian, unless you think that suffering the consequences of your own behaviour is authoritarian.
"There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme. "
Russia as Libertarian? Okay!! Russia's economy is in shambles because they had some of the most authoritarian regimes in history. I highly recommend "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
"They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more. "
The presence of external consequences are a far more effective way to encourage people to act in more constructive ways. What Locke is in essence advocating is the nanny state, which results in more incidences of drunkeness, drugs and unemployment, the very behaviour the state would seek to prevent. State education shelters people from reality with its teddy bear, feel good philosophy.
Patrick, I apologize for the length of my response, but you have inspired me to write a post for my blog.
Lisa:
There's too much to respond to at this point. I'll be posting a response on my long post blog, Renegades! in the near future.
Thanks for the comments.
"Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?"
Ah, the old "we had to destroy the village to save it" argument. Very compelling.
If a government forces you to serve in the army, forces you to pay for and attend their schools, prevents you from buying fuel from whoever you want, steals your land from you in order to build a highway which you can't travel on because you can't afford the domestically produced gasohol which they forced your local gas station to sell, then how is it that they are saving your "free society"? Are we to be free to do only those things which you and your friends in government have not yet thought of taking from us? In the name of preserving our free society of course.
I look forward to your upcoming post Patrick. Be sure to let me know when it is up.
Anonymous:
I'm hardly a 'friend' of the government, which any c student fourth grader would realize having at least looked this blog up and down.
Also, a one line quote of an anonymous US soldier about a raid on village in Vietnam hardly serves as a rebuttal to a this complex question. Yeah, yeah, tax is theft, blah, blah: I know the rhetoric. Save that BS for the Coles Notes version of Atlas Shrugged, mmmkay?
Anonymous:
I'm hardly a 'friend' of the government, which any c student fourth grader would realize having at least looked this blog up and down.
Also, a one line quote of an anonymous US soldier about a raid on village in Vietnam hardly serves as a rebuttal to a this complex question. Yeah, yeah, tax is theft, blah, blah: I know the rhetoric. Save that BS for the Coles Notes version of Atlas Shrugged, mmmkay?
I will rather freely admit that my response to Locke was less then it could have been. That's the problem with writing a quick and dirty response I suppose.
At any rate, Lisa is right. Locke essentially called for more government of a different stripe and I merely responded that perhaps wasn't the answer. Had I the time that day, I certainly would have written something is insightful as Lisa's comment here.
-- Steve Martinovich
Steve:
Fair enough. Why don't you watch for my own critique on my sister site (Renegades) and we'll take this debate to another level.
I disagree with you on Locke: I don't think he was pointing towards more government; I think he just doesn't want the total dismantling of it.
Post a Comment