![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The idealism of libertarianism
Aaargh. Libertarianism is not about robber barons, people. It's not about selfishness or low taxes. Yes, robber barons may find it useful to espouse libertarian ideals, just as control freaks may find it useful to espouse communist ones. Yes, some people who hate taxes or are selfish bastards may be drawn to libertarianism for narrow reasons. But that's not the core, any more than becoming aparatchniks was what drew lots of people to communism. I've *been* a libertarian, stopping, ironically, only when I started having income worth taxing, I hung out with lots of libertarians in a community on the net for years, and with a few in person, so I claim superior knowledge to anyone who's only had random arguments and not actually been inside, or close to an insider.
Libertarianism, at least at its core and best, and why judge it by less if you don't do that normally? is as much a burning idealism as communism. When you join the Libertarian Party you sign the Non-Coercion Principle, forswearing the initiation of force, or forswearing fraud, and force except in self-defense. A not stellar but classic libertarian science fiction series had an alternate history splitting on a Declaration of Independence which talked about the "unanimous consent of the governed" (the real one lacks 'unanimous'.) Just as it is morally obvious to a communist that people in need should be helped or that goods should be distributed fairly (meaning evenly, to the communist), and obvious to an anarchist that property and capital should be made available to those who can use it, not sequestered in "ownership", it is morally obvious to a libertarian that people should not initiate force against each other (and that this is fair). Not having taxes flows from that (taxes are, ultimately, collected by force) but it's not the point. The point is that people shouldn't be forced, should be left alone if they wish to be, should be free to associate as they choose and to make voluntary contracts. The point is that voluntary association and exchange should be the basis of society, not force.
You can say the idea is impractical; you can argue the ideas are incoherent when looked at critically, but it's no more all about avoiding taxes or social Darwinism than gaming is all about fat smelly cat-piss men or killing imaginary people and taking their imaginary stuff.
Libertarianism, at least at its core and best, and why judge it by less if you don't do that normally? is as much a burning idealism as communism. When you join the Libertarian Party you sign the Non-Coercion Principle, forswearing the initiation of force, or forswearing fraud, and force except in self-defense. A not stellar but classic libertarian science fiction series had an alternate history splitting on a Declaration of Independence which talked about the "unanimous consent of the governed" (the real one lacks 'unanimous'.) Just as it is morally obvious to a communist that people in need should be helped or that goods should be distributed fairly (meaning evenly, to the communist), and obvious to an anarchist that property and capital should be made available to those who can use it, not sequestered in "ownership", it is morally obvious to a libertarian that people should not initiate force against each other (and that this is fair). Not having taxes flows from that (taxes are, ultimately, collected by force) but it's not the point. The point is that people shouldn't be forced, should be left alone if they wish to be, should be free to associate as they choose and to make voluntary contracts. The point is that voluntary association and exchange should be the basis of society, not force.
You can say the idea is impractical; you can argue the ideas are incoherent when looked at critically, but it's no more all about avoiding taxes or social Darwinism than gaming is all about fat smelly cat-piss men or killing imaginary people and taking their imaginary stuff.
no subject
"I would claim that it is all about greed and would-be robber barons"
And I claim, as someone who held all those right-libertarian positions with minimal income or expectation of same, that you are *wrong*. I was *there*. People can have ideals you don't like, or whose consequences you don't like, and still be idealistic. Libertarians themselves often grant that the opposing ideal of altruism is attractive -- not all do, especially Objectivists, but many do -- while valuing autonomy and freedom more absolutely. Why is it so hard for the other side to acknowledge freedom as an attractive ideal of its own?
And I'd say "right-libertarianism" has much deeper roots than the 1970s, though the Libertarian Party started then. Roots going past Ayn Rand in the 1940s, Hayek and von Mises in the 1930s, through 19th century English liberalism, into 18th century liberalism -- Locke, the early draft of the Declaration which declared the rights to "life,liberty, and the pursuit of property", Adam Smith's economics -- and arguably into the Levellers of the 17th century. Some libertarians call themselves "classical liberals" and that's not historically empty propaganda. I remember Milton Friedman in his 1962 Capitalism and Freedom insisting that he was a liberal, refusing to surrender the word to the increasingly socialist-influenced meaning in the US; to this day the international use of 'liberal' has as much if not more to do with US libertarianism than US liberalism, with an emphasis on free trade and stable property rights and small government, much like the Liberal Party of 19th century Britain.
"the resolution of all social problems via private means,"
Or, equivalently, the resolution of all social problems via voluntary means, without recourse to the use of force save in immediate self-defense. "Taxation is theft!" isn't a rhetorical gimmick but an honest heartfelt belief, that taking the fruits of someone's labors from them at gunpoint is *wrong*. Clearly, obviously, wrong, just as someone else finds the prospect of someone dying because they can't afford food or medical care to be wrong. And they could talk about the callous disregard for the freedom of others exhibited by communists of whatever stripe.
I think one reason Ken MacLeod keeps receiving the Prometheus Award is that he gets it: he understands the appeal, even if he doesn't agree, and can portray it sympathetically. As befits someone who was convinced to value freedom of speech by British right-libertarians, and who tries to defends free markets to Iain Banks.
no subject
no subject
I think it's flawed, but then, I think that of the pure idealism of socialism as well. Cf. "mixed economies".
Now, if you want to make fun of individual libertarians for not being able to distinguish between socialism and mixed economies, go ahead. :) I'd also make fun of socialists who can't see the utility of markets[1], which I think you might be able to join me on, given what you've said of your politics.
[1] Especially given that Marx wrote one of the brightest paeans to capitalism!
no subject
For me, this is identical to a passionate and ideologically based defense of pre-anesthesia surgical techniques. The fact is that in modern industrial societies, the sorts of voluntary measures right-libertarians advocate work at best poorly, and often not at all. Examples from the 2nd half of the 19th century, in both Britain and the US are far too numerous to list (one obvious one being the elimination of cholera and the creation of a safe water system). State-controlled or mandated measures for things like public health, safety, law enforcement, and suchlike work, other options simply and provably don't. My problem is that I'm left with deciding that right-libertarians are either greedheads who don't care about the fact that their ideology would cause mass suffering or people too ignorant to realize that the lessons have been learned and that these very lessons are the reason for the current way of doing things in the first world. I guess I'm guilty of attributing to malice what should have been put down to ignorance.
And I'd say "right-libertarianism" has much deeper roots than the 1970s, though the Libertarian Party started then.
While much of what I know of the origins of right-libertarianism comes through the anarchist community, the histories of it that I have seen very much show it to be an offshoot of anarchism, which is why I consider it to still be (a highly variant) anarchist, or at least anarchist-derived ideology, and so I discuss it along with anarchism.
I think one reason Ken MacLeod keeps receiving the Prometheus Award is that he gets it: he understands the appeal, even if he doesn't agree, and can portray it sympathetically. As befits someone who was convinced to value freedom of speech by British right-libertarians, and who tries to defends free markets to Iain Banks.
I will also defend free markets. They seem an excellent way to distribute scarce consumer and luxury goods. However, they are provably a horrific way to distribute absolute necessities. Whether its food for the starving or (more commonly, especially in the US) medicine for the desperately ill, the value someone places on an immediate necessity is vast and so people in immediate need are open to massive abuse. OTOH, no one is going to die w/o a new DVD, a gold ring, or even an ipod, and so for consumer goods free market economics offers a perfectly reasonable way to distribute goods and services, so long as there are sufficient laws against fraud, deceptive sales practices, unsafe products, and similar problems.