Libertarianism: The marxism of the right

[Jon_Irenicus]

When he decides to actually attack libertarianism, and not something of his own imagination, or when he decides to make arguments I actually consider valid and care for, maybe I’ll begin to take him seriously and not view him as a reactionary hack. Until then, that is all he is to me. He and his conservatism could go the way of the dodo for all I care.

-Jon

[banned]

@mmorelli

"Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.

Depends how you define altruism and selfishness. Still, even though there may be a collective aspect to society (since we are talking about a society), it doesn’t follow that that society ought to resort to violence to ensure one way of existence. Spontaneous order is infinitely more just than coerced order.

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"

Marxism offers intellectual security? Boy that’s a laugh.

Also, yay for assumed consequential justice.

@mmorelli

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

It does not follow that non-forceful actions merit forceful ones to prevent them/their effects. If you don’t want to live in a society which permits pornography, dont.

@mmorelli

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.

Libertarianism doesn’t answer questions, people do. Libertarianism, freedom rather, is the vehicle by which they do it. If people cannot solve things freely, it’s silly to expect the solution to be coerced from them.

@mmorelli

Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it.

Like slavery, eating a hamburger would have to allow one to sell oneself to it.

@mmorelli

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.

Irrelevant.

@mmorelli

And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices?

Society? I assume this is asking “Is it really wrong for me to force you to protect someone else from the “negative” (negative in my eyes of course) consequences he/she doesn’t really mind without their consent?”

Such a question doesn’t merit a response.

@mmorelli

libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it.

If this guy can’t figure out how to handle his own sh*t he shouldn’t go muck around in other peoples.

[mmorelli]

I did read TEOL. I promise I just read it over the last week. Please, tell me where to find something refuting this comment and I’ll look it up. That isn’t an angry challenge - I really want to find it.

Thanks,

Mike

P.S. - You all need to at least consider the part of the article which says that libertarianism may be logically true without being right. I think the line between what’s merely ‘true’ and what’s logically ‘right’ isn’t so difficult a concept. Thus, that deep “truth” feeling you get when you read a book like Rothbard’s TEOL may not actually be practicable or right…but its damn hard to pin down “why” since the whole thing is so obviously true…its like a blurring effect - And that effect appears to apply in the case of anyone who blindly adheres to a cause without thoroughly considering the comments of its dissentors.

[hayekianxyz]

@mmorelli

I did read TEOL. I promise I just read it over the last week. Please, tell me where to find something refuting this comment and I’ll look it up. That isn’t an angry challenge - I really want to find it.

Thanks,

Mike

@Rothbard

Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.

Or, as Williamson Evers points out, the philosophical defenses of human rights

are founded upon the natural fact that each human is the proprietor of his own will. To take rights like those of property and contractual freedom that are based on a foundation of the absolute self-ownership of the will and then to use those derived rights to destroy their own foundation is philosophically invalid.2

Hence, the unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts. Suppose that Smith makes the following agreement with the Jones Corporation: Smith, for the rest of his life, will obey all orders, under whatever conditions, that the Jones Corporation wishes to lay down. Now, in libertarian theory there is nothing to prevent Smith from making this agreement, and from serving the Jones Corporation and from obeying the latter’s orders indefinitely. The problem comes when, at some later date, Smith changes his mind and decides to leave. Shall he be held to his former voluntary promise? Our contention—and one that is fortunately upheld under present law—is that Smith’s promise was not a valid (i.e., not an enforceable) contract. There is no transfer of title in Smith’s agreement, because Smith’s control over his own body and will are inalienable. Since that control cannot be alienated, the agreement was not a valid contract, and therefore should not be enforceable. Smith’s agreement was a mere promise, which it might be held he is morally obligated to keep, but which should not be legally obligatory.

[mmorelli]

See – scroll up and read what Jon Irenicus said…Jon is blindly defending this word called “libertarianism” instead of focusing on whether the article is basically right! Just…set aside that you are a libertarian for a minute - let your mind be free from the chains of engrained ideology (I mean isn’t “engrained ideology” the stuff of bigotry and prejudice?).

[hayekianxyz]

@mmorelli

See – scroll up and read what Jon Irenicus said…Jon is blindly defending this word called “libertarianism” instead of focusing on whether the article is basically right! Just…set aside that you are a libertarian for a minute - let your mind be free from the chains of engrained ideology (I mean isn’t “engrained ideology” the stuff of bigotry and prejudice?).

Nobody is blindly defending anything, in fact, the author of the article in blindly attacking what he misconceives to be libertarianism.

[John_Ess]

I’ve written the cliff notes version:

Free, ambitious… attractive individuals [believe they] should rule. [they want] clear conscience to make money, have sex, or [do] drugs. It promises consistency. It is seductive.

There are many successful varieties—I decline to allow libertarians to defend their doctrine when challenged.

It is delusion. Society in fact requires [conflict and contradiction] to function. Libertarianism offers intellectualism. It aspires, overtly or covertly to make its followers feel unbound by [bigotry].

The problem is: freedom is not the only good thing. One can be rich but unfree. A family is not free and it’s without choice. [This is] happiness for real people [not fake people like libertarians].

Libertarians think choice is good and deny nature. Foods are good for us [even if we choose not] to eat them [somehow!]. There are inherently good things [like being Washington or a Churchill].

Libertarians presuppose that choice is individual. But some are inefficient! Do you really want to sue someone [it’s trouble]?

Libertarians rightly concede freedom [like hurting others], but they radically underestimate pornography.

Libertarians flout laws but [don’t feel bad about hurting the state]. They [refuse to believe in crazy made up concepts like] “intrinsic temptation.”

They need hard questions. Is slavery needed in order to remain free? What if it needs limits to foreigners? What if children need to be “educated” what to think about freedom? What if it needed to deprive property as a precondition for highways? What if it needed to deprive imports in order to keep out foreigners? [Don’t worry about who “it” is… or what]

Less freedom is the price of more. Freedom would just be a problem. Even if libertarianism is true, this does not prove [it] is right.

Limiting freedom [should] prolong limited freedom in perpetuity. limited freedom is the right choice, libertarianism’s simply wrong. All we want is Burkean conservatism. There is no need to embrace libertarianism just because we want freedom.

Libertarianism would allow adult self-[slavery]. But abolish [child slavery like] compulsory education.

Permissiveness would shred society because drug [ab]users would lose their jobs or homes. There is no actual proof that [reasonable behavior exists]. Furthermore, this means freedom is illegitimate.

There can’t be negative consequences [except prison]. While it is obviously fair enjoy benefits and suffer, we must limit outcomes. People should be taxed and allowed to go broke, but are not then forced to starve.

People don’t want freedom, which is why the government isn’t libertarian. People don’t choose absolute freedom, [but there should be punishment if they did anyway].

A libertarian would impose [absence of coercion] on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on truth. It entails a certain kind of society, with pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving. [Totally different than now].

Some support [non-fiat] money. But this has already been tried [and things happened some place for some cause I won’t go into here].

There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note that the second-richest nation has one of the most regulated economies, while Russia is isn’t an economic paradise [silly Russian-loving libertarians that don’t envy being second richest!].

Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse freedom with freedom. Without a strong state, individual falls prey to Third-World tyranny.

Libertarians wish sadomasochism, drug use and work. People [might not] gravitate towards bourgeois lives [!!!] without [animal behaviorism exercises my parents “pounded into me” to enjoy things in the proper way]. They forget that for [me], freedom results in drunkenness, drugs, no job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon self-restraint. [But not so much] internal restraints but police and prison – resulting in less freedom, not more.

This contempt for [police and prisons] is a problem. Freedom is dangerous and useless. Yet libertarianism cannot abandon freedom. Conservatives did.

[liberty_student]

Mike, that’s what Jon does when he considers an argument so fallacious and poorly constructed, he won’t engage it.

You’re falling prey to the authors use of emotional appeals, collectivism and strawmen. As long as you allow yourself to be susceptible to these arguments, you will never be able to adopt a principle, only to hold shifting opinions based upon the prose of the last ideologue you read or listened to.

The author, this Robert Locke, has written a load of crap, and a great many people write loads of crap about libertarianism, and most here aren’t inclined to do line by line systematic rebuttals of every moron with a soapbox to pontificate from.

If you have specific concerns about libertarianism as presented by Locke, bring them up and I am sure some like Giles will be terribly gentle and provide you with another perspective.

[Jon_Irenicus]

See – scroll up and read what Jon Irenicus said…Jon is blindly defending this word called “libertarianism”

No, I am accusing the author of not having the slightest idea of what he’s talking about.

instead of focusing on whether the article is basically right!

Which it isn’t.

Just…set aside that you are a libertarian for a minute - let your mind be free from the chains of engrained ideology (I mean isn’t “engrained ideology” the stuff of bigotry and prejudice?).

It’s still bullshit, written to mislead in all likelihood.

-Jon

[Paul]

@Morty

I couldn’t bring myself to read the whole thing. Is there a single sentence which is not a logical fallacy, an unfounded assertion, or simply an untrue statement?

I think “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” may have been the only one [:)]

[DW89]

I know someone has already replied to your post, but I thought I’d offer some of my own thoughts. I apologize for any repetitive comments. The reason so many posters decided to “write off” the article is that Locke does not accurately represent libertarianism. There is no need to waste time reading a ‘critique of libertarianims’ if the piece in question is in fact analyzing a totally different political philosophy.

@mmorelli

1. 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"

As mentioned earlier, there are no voluntary actions that are truly unselfish. If you did not stand to benefit from an action (even if it’s only in a psychic sense) you would not partake in that action. Is this not necessarily true? He seems to misunderstand the notion of rational self-interest. I also do not understand his criticism of a priori political theory when philosophy is by its very nature a conceptual discipline. Additionally, his argument that libertarians reduce social life to economics is unfounded. Economics can only tell you what the optimal choice of an individiual would be given a set of subjective values and the existence of scarcity. But economics leaves the determination of these values to other branches of philosophy, religion, psychology, etc.

@mmorelli

Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.

This is simply word play. All goods affect individuals, even if it is a large group of them. Society itself is a ‘collective good’ but it is individuals that comprise it. Libertarians simply say that there is no such separate entity as the collective; everything can be traced back to individuals.

@mmorelli

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

Leaving aside the realistic possibility that he could, Locke does not prove that this should concern a libertarian. There are numerous social ills and vices that many of us would like to escape from, but what gives us the right to use coercion in order to immunize ourselves from them?

@mmorelli

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.

I think some libertarians would agree with this statement, but these individuals are not what you’d call ‘radicals’. To the libertarian purist, if liberty is not the right choice for any given policy, then libertarianism is invalid. However, being as it is that Locke provides no compelling evidence of political issues where liberty is not the answer, I don’t see how he’s struck any sort of blow to libertarianism. Also, even if liberty is not the proper pragmatic policy, it still may well be the only moral and just policy, and therefore it is still the right one.

@mmorelli

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.

Isn’t it impossible for a government (regardless of how committed to liberty it is) to bring about ABSOLUTE freedom other than by disbanding itself? Unless I’m completely mistaken, when people go to the polls they are not given the option of ABSOLUTE freedom. Additionally, there are numerous reasons why people wouldn’t want absolute freedom, among them that they would like to use government to further their own interests. Even if people do not yet want true freedom, this does not validate tyranny. It is our job as libertarians to convince others that liberty is the only just condition of society.

@mmorelli

And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices?

No, not necessarily. However, it is wrong for government to protect others from the negative consequences of their free choices because this necessarily involves coercion.

[Brainpolice]

boinks the corporate bolsheviks

[rroopstr]

@mmorelli

I’m not sure how you can read Mr. Locke’s article and write it off as everyone on this thread has.

Michael

Michael: Please do not count me as part of everyone. Rubén hasn’t written it off. In fact, I agree with it.

I entered this forum less than a month ago and I feel overwhelmed that somehow I am labelled as “uninformed”, but hopefully I will be able to re-read it with more time and patience and propose my own supporting arguments to the forum, as I do not even know where to look for quotes to base the ideas supporting what I wish to argue for.

There are two crucial aspects of Austrian Economics that I agree with: the abolition of fiat money and the abolition of the power of central banks to manipulate interest rates, and the consequential uselessness of bailouts.

There are lots of other arguments presented in this forum, many of them represented in refusals to Locke’s essay, that do not necessarily represent the views of Austrian Economics. It amazes me that some views are not demonstrated but instead seem given as dogmas of faith.

[Jon_Irenicus]

It amazes me that some views are not demonstrated but instead seem given as dogmas of faith.

We (and I do not include you in this, if you’re not one) are libertarians. Rather than being blinded by dogmatic “faith” we reject almost every premise Locke adheres to and reject his analysis of libertarianism as false. It is an act of conscious rejection. So why, pray tell, should I feign agreement where there is next to none?

-Jon

[rroopstr]

Jon:

I do not have time now because I have to work early tomorrow, but perhaps over the weekend I would like to go deeper into this with all of you. Maybe not with this text, maybe you may suggest something similar or a similar critique as I do not know enough bibliography. But somehow I feel some of the issues presented by Locke could be better addressed and some better common ground could be found. I find myself very much in agreement with most of you in many issues and I cannot believe there can be such a major disagreement in such a major topic just like that. We’ll see.

Thank you for making this forum so interesting.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I’m not a conservative and yet I find far more to agree with the more (culturally) conservative Hoppe than I will ever find to agree with in this guy, precisely because Hoppe and I are in agreement with regards to the means for achieving given ends.

-Jon

[rroopstr]

Where is a similar article by Hoppe so that I can compare?

[Jon_Irenicus]

I doubt you’ll find one online, as his thesis is mostly outlined in the last chapters of his book, Democracy - the God that Failed. He has a lot of separate articles up on his site, like this one. I’d recommend exploring it for conservative-oriented arguments for libertarianism.

-Jon

[banned]

You could start here: http://www.hanshoppe.com/

[rroopstr]

I found it. It has 13 chapters. Which chapters do you recommend for a quick reading?