One of the things that invariably happens when you discuss Libertarian philosophy with the average Dem/Repub. (statists) is that they’re all in favor of their own rights, but they have no problem taking away the rights of others. You can just ask two or three questions to see the commitment people have to liberty. Usually the legalization of drugs will do it. Some will say allowing MJ should be okay, but as soon as you press them on the harder drugs, they waver. And the reason is always the same: to protect society or, the default, to protect the children. It’s even made more sanitary because the state will do it for them, and since it was done with majority rule, how could it be wrong? It’s the zero guilt way to take away your neighbor’s freedoms.
One of the criticisms leveled by statists against Libertarians is that they don’t have a strong set of morals. Whenever I tell someone that Libertarians are by far the most moral because only they care about your liberties as much as their own, and the statist is the immoral one because he/she happily denies other people their freedom through force. That’s always a jarring statement, but a definite conversation starter.
I wish Libertarians would go on the offensive with moral arguments like this when statists attempt to smear them. I usually see the Libertarian back peddling, defending his position against attack, often without too much success because his position is subtile and nuanced, and isn’t a pithy sound-byte assertion. I would love to see Libertarians insert that their opponent’s position (statist) is immoral and put them on the defensive for a change.
The first thing you should do is stop calling them “statists”. It’s an insulting and derrogatory term.
To add my own personal experience to the topic it hard to convince someone in being libertarian when it comes to issues like continued existence of racism/discrimination in this country or programs to help people who are mentally ill to the point where they can barely function. Also completely engaging in non-interventionism when we’ve become so entagled diplmatically especially in regards to oil is difficult.
But the thing is, most people will ask, “why should the bad be given freedom with the good?”. I’ve even seen it once, when a guy stated “when I hear libertarians saying that they want to give freedom to everyone I always hear them saying ‘we should give freedom to all the inclinations of man’. Why would we want to give free reign to all of our desires?”
I honestly don’t think that people, on the margin, care about freedom per se in the “land of the free”. That is, they want freedom for themselves (that’s what they mean by freedom -freedom to be good), but they emphatically protest about giving freedom to enemies.
The difficulty of changing someone else’s political belief system is the list of arguments used to defend it can be very long. Viception addressed many, if not most, of the arguments defending pro-government ideologies in the seemingly most polite way possible. Instead of engaging in a long debate, I prefer to tell people to read that book.
Perhaps that is the point. Trying to change someone implies that there is something wrong with him. It’s politics. If nobody is insulted/mad/etc., you aren’t doing anything.
Statist is a derogatory term? I thought only Libertarians thought so. I don’t know of anyone on the normal political spectrum that would take offense to that term or even bat an eye if they were referred to as one. Most don’t even recognize the term, imo.
If i’m trying to change someones political opinion the last thing i’m going to do is call them a name like that since noone will listen if you piss them off.I don’t ever use it in a non serious way but people who aren’t libertarians that i’ve talked think it’s a stupid term use to address someone believes in more intervention.
@razerfish: Rothbard brilliantly explained exactly what you’re realizing in his essay Egalitarianism As a Revolt Against Nature… the Right (by this he means the Old Right, not the necon idiots) ceded the whole argument the moment they gave up the moral high ground. Libertarians (I prefer “liberals” or “anti-statists”) need to take two steps to regain a seat at the discussion table. First, we need to acknowledge that the argument is primarily about right and wrong, not merely utility or outcomes. Second, we need to identify the root immorality of the State and that is its imposition of dual-law/morality. The State can be defined, in ethical terms, as the agent which creates, maintains and enforces a dual morality. There is one set of moral rules for State agents and another set of moral rules for non-State agents. The most basic human ethic is that of the Golden Rule or ethical universalizability: what is right for one is right for all, what is wrong for one is wrong for all. The State is the upending of this most basic moral sense.
I’ll give it a read. Rothbard’s my hero. I’m getting into the Libertarian stuff more slowly than the economics stuff, but I’m starting to dig it. I do sometimes feel Rothbard ranges toward hyperbole in his critiques against the state. At least I did before, when I wasn’t so much interested in the Libertarian philosophy.
Here’s what I’ve noticed when people debate Libertarians. They think, at first, they’ll run circles around Libertarians because the ideas seem so drastic and outlandish at first blush. But then they’re supported logically and the idea that sounded so odd a few minutes ago makes perfect sense now. And every argument goes like that, so much so that it ends up being a drubbing. Libertarians do very well in debates on Youtube and such. Once the statist realizes he’s been beaten by reason and his own philosophy poked full of holes, he either dismisses Libertarians as wacky, off their rockers, or as immoral. And that’s the smear, which is never allowed a rebuttal, but a quick smear, end of discussion. That’s why I like to start off claiming the moral and put the statist on the defensive from the get go.
A.J. Nock addressed the problem very brilliantly: “When you give the State power to do something for you, you also give the State power to do something against you”. He has never been proven wrong.
@Clayton & all: I think the identification of Dual-morality is the sweet spot. I’ve found the average person much more open to discussing this than the pro’s and con’s of the state doing X.