Posted on 03/07/2005 1:08:36 PM PST by quidnunc
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties — I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism — enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
-snip-
whoops. I mean 'governed tyrannically'.
Yes, freedom can be a radical idea.
Pure Marxism is similar to Libertarianism in that there is no government per se. The difference is that a Marxist state first needs a totalitarian system to "reeducate" the people.
---
Have you read 'the black book of communism'? I'd say in theroy Marxism is all government because no one owns anything, everything belongs to the state.
libertarianism is different then anarchy in that a vast majority of libertarians believe in the need for some government, or at least an elected force to enforce the basic laws. Libertarians generally believe in at least a partial governmental role at the county or township level, with only loose oversight at the federal level.
In fact, our country was founded on Libertarian principles and remained libertarian until the great depression (or perhaps a bit before WWI).
This isnt taught in public schools.
So do serious philosophers.
This clown's package deal amounts to a variant of argumentum ad hominem: Since I really, really, CAN find some REALLY DESPICABLE people who are attracted to certain variations of this philosophy, therefore I can go about sloppily smearing all decent people who are attracted to other variations of this philosophy.
If libertarianism is ever to get a foothold in politics, concerned libertarians are going to have to create a new Libertarian party to chase the old one away. This means volunteering for party work with the 'pubbies or Dems to learn about the nuts and bolts of political organization, building a membership base and running candidates - successfully! - for state and local offices. Only after building up an infrastructure like the other parties have will the LP be able to take on the big boys.
Libertarianism is the same Benthamite nonsense Kirk spoke against in the 50s. The fact that Libertarians have yet to address the question of ordered liberty or the importance of ends shows, I think, how unserious it is as a political "philosophy."
Explain "Ordered Liberty" to me. I'm curious as to what you mean.
Mr. Robert Locke mixes some half truths with a lot of verbage about that which he does not comprehend. For example, he is quite right in pointing out that "free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism. But not because it offers them a "clear conscience" as he proclaims, but rather because it offers them freedom. Libertarianism offers no approval to any honest, nonviolent, human action, be it beneficial or not beneficial. If a "clear conscience" is what is sought, libertarians (including atheists), would tell such a seeker to go see a minister, and not the local LP organizer.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most)...
It is true there are many varieties, but his above example demonstrates a complete ignorance of who and what they are. First off, his "from... to..." range is completely wrong. Had he understood what he was writing about he would have said '...from natural-law libertarianism to utilitarian libertarianism...' As far a "crazy" goes, he has got that completely wrong. It is "natural-law libertarianism" that is fanatical, uncompromising, and often way out in the extremes of left and right field. Where as utiltiarianism, is for the most part grounded in the theory and practice, as to what will work and not work, regardless of Libertarian principle. Many Libertarians, myself included, view both as having advantages as well as disadvantages.
In as far as Anarcho-capitalism goes, it is not at the opposite end from natural-law libertarianism as he pontificates. It in reality is found under the natural law umbrella, as it is pretty much monopolized by the natural-law libertarians, and thereby may be seen as more crazy than some other varieties. There are however utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, who present very good utilitarian arguments (ie International Society for Individual Liberty, formerly known as the Society for Individual Liberty).
At any rate, his entire article is full of specific errors that point to a broad ignorance of the topic on which he has written.
Because without this debate, and others like it, you won't have the capability to even sweep something as small as our highly regressive income tax into the dustbins of history. Imagine a boxer saying to his sparring partner, why don't we wait to spar until after I win the match in a couple of months.
The LP has money coming out of its ears. Last thing it needs is more money. It has no need to learn how to win more elections, as Americans are not libertarian, and will never vote for them until Libertarians are willing to have their party fight the hard fight to gain popularity for their principles and not for the party and candidate with out principles. Libertarians have done very poorly in presenting their principles for the past twenty years. Running for office with the purpose of winning elections is a pure day dream that is so far out of touch with reality, that they might as well be dreaming about setting up Libertarian space colonies, for all the good it does. And this says nothing about the harm such campaigns do to both the nation as well as the LP itself.
As far as your 600 offices held, almost all of them are nothing more than town and city, mayor appointed memberships, on non-partisan advisory board, having to do with town beautification, city clean up, county irrigation and drainage, etc. And most them Libertarians never mentioned they were libertarian prior to getting appointed.
Libertarians need to stop fooling themselves. Most people see right through them and laugh, because most Libertarians haven't got a clue as to what most people are seeing.
And then the Libertarians will nervously start laughing, too.
I'd like to see libertarians learn from the left how to do effective protest.
I thought that is kind of what the author said, they are at complete opposite ends. Maxism is the delusion beleif in total collectivism, while Libertarinism is the delusion beleif in total individualism.
Editorializing thread titles is against FR guidelines.
Libertarians don't believe in total individualism. That's what an anarchist believes in. I do have a question; when should we stop being individuals and become part of the collective?
The LP went to CPAC was to learn what you just said, to learn how to organize and win more elections.
I'd like to see libertarians learn from the left how to do effective protest.
I'd like to see Libertarians teach "Conservative" Republicans the constitution and what small government is.
Not me. The real conservatives can teach us about the Constitution and how government could have stayed small.
Libertarians can push the proper boundaries of freedom into new areas with a new vision, independent of the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.