Says the democrat.
Story time!
We had to write our first essay recently, on a topic of our choice (although it had to be approved by the prof). I decided to give a brief overview of libertarianism in order to dispell some of his misconceptions on libertarianism. I traced its heritage back to the classicals like Cantillon, Bastiat, Smith, etc. I then branched out by explaining the Austrian school in some detail, briefly mentioning Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and David Friendman, along with Bryan Caplan and the neoclassicals. I wrote a short section on libertarian social philosophy as well, explaining the NAP, et al. I ended up writing about twelve pages.
Well, I got the essay back today. I received an A-, along with some hefty criticism (mostly technical things like false divisions in my outline, incorrect works cited format, etc). That stuff I’m not worried about.
However he sat every student down to have a brief conversaton about their essay. The first thing he said to me was, “You must have scared the shit out of your high school teachers.” I said no, because I don’t feel as though I did. I never really discussed politics except in my English and History classes, and since I’ve only been interested in political philosophy and economics since about Sophomore, my previous work was nothing too impressive (although my Senior World Lit. teacher loved my work).
He continued with: “This is a very scholarly essay, but it’s clear that you are a ‘true believer.’” He has alluded to this in the past. Whenever he speaks about demogoguery or dogmatism, he would practically stare at me as if he was personally addressing me. I’m not sure what his deal is. I’ve never once stated that the libertarian philosophy was the ultimate truth in the world, as that would be rather arrogant (and erroneous) of me.
I basically sat there for a few minutes listening to him lecture me about being too “dogmatic” and such. He warned against having a “totally libertarian library,” as if I planned on only reading what the Mises Institute sells. It is true that pretty much all of my non-fiction books are Austrian/Libertarian books, but it is annoying to be told that I’m dogmatic when that is clearly not the case.
Moving on, at one point in the essay I stated (as I was instructed to…I told him I want to do an overview of libertarianism [not just Rothbardian or Austrian], but he said I needed to make an assertion, so I did), “So ultimately, the goal is to have free, voluntary markets because freedom and voluntarism lead to peace and prosperity.” I backed that point up by mentioning Hayek’s and Mises’ work in showing that intervention causes all sorts of problems. Yet he still wrote in the margin, “That’s a debatable point.” Which it surely is, but it is clear he would attack non-market policies or entities and call them market policies and entities.
His written criticism on my essay was not the problem. It was his verbal criticism, which I spoke of previously (“you’re dogmatic, a ‘true believer,’” etc). However the most irritating part was that he attached an article called Why Libertarianism is not my favourite political system by Eric Hoffer (I think that was the author). I am really interested in your opinions on it, so here is the link: http://www.arcoddath.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/thinks.htm
I only gave it a cursory glance, but I noticed a few points the author made which made my shake my head. I’m thinking of making my next essay a response to it.
I’m really getting quite annoyed with this professor. He constantly yells at the students telling us, “NONE OF YOU READ! THAT IS WHY DEMOCRACY IS ON ITS WAY OUT AND WHY CORPORATIONS ARE CONTROLLING US” or some other nonsense. He says he hates demogoguery yet he uses the class as Personal Demogoguery 101. He practically attacked some kid today because he held an opposite view on the war on terror. It may be true that the kid was blatantly wrong, but the screaming and “tough guy” attitude was so unnecessary.
Summerization of why libertarianism is bad:
-
People can be racist and/or disassociate with one another.
-
Apparently, the free market cannot build parks.
-
Light companies can turn your lights off for stealing their services (ala typical absurd public goods argument)
-
Finding out who owns government property were it to be abolished is hard.
The “subtle” argument essentally conflates “rights” with “government granted privilages”, assumes that, in absence of government arbitration, as if by magic no arbitration will exist at all, and that people will be enslaved/exploited (even though slavery violates property rights and the whole exploitation of laborers in industrial revolution has already been exploded). Additionally, because “force” is ambigious (when in fact it is really not and the point he is drawing up is a pretty terrible strawman), everyone will defraud one another, and the social contract is actually the same as a real contract.
Forgive me for not being impressed.
You know, we never had creative writing in Indian schools.
The nice thing about Indian schools (and yes, the Indian state-controlled syllabi) is that focuses on non-fiction literature and on practical technical writing like suggestion reports and memos and resumes.
Even in French classes, our main tasks were, again, writing resumes and presenting a jotted outline of a situation in the form of a news report.
We were thus spared from passionate Bohemian teachers, and had serious, sane, sober teachers with a serious, technical approach.
It was only once that we had an impassioned “you learn language to become a better human beings” eccentric teacher, but he was fired for making dirty jokes in the staff room about female teachers, and thank goodness, because he was a bad influence.
@Willink: I’ve only glanced at it and it didn’t seem impressive either.
At one point in that article (he highlighted some things so I glanced at them) the author states something about healthcare: “As to your chances if your requirement is unusual – a rare medical condition, say – they’re slim if you’re poor. Libertarianism inherently favors the rich, as any market-based system inherently favours those who are best placed to exploit that market, be they providers or consumers.”
My professor wrote a note next to that statement: “I would have died due to Libertarianism.” He has like two forms of cancer if I recall correctly, so that is probably why he wrote it. Not very good reasoning, though.
I would have trolled him for presenting a false dichomity and then pointed out that statism has killed millions of people.
Blueline976
I think your doing a great job! This has been an interesting read, going through all your comments. I too am going to school for business economics but its online and I have not encountered any “progressivism” in what I am being taught. I feel thankful about my situation though it still has a bit of statism in the teachings. I incorporate Austrian thought as my main points in economics and libertarianism for all of my work.
Stay strong and keep up the fight!
@Dave: Thanks for the encouragement.
I just find it so useless to even talk about these things in his class. In any other class I can do so without being subjected to veiled insults. This guy is 68 years old, and while he can say he’s open-minded all he wants, he’s very close-minded. And he warns me about being close-minded!
He practically yelled at me because I’m quiet in the class. Whenever he goes off on his emotional tirades I just stare at him and wonder why he’s whining to a bunch of 18-year-olds. He said sometimes along the lines of engaging me in class over various topics. Gonna be awesome [/sarcasm].
He sees his classroom as an assembly line of activists.
He and his son are both morons. The income level in U.S. is so much so higher than Netherlands that it wouldn’t compensate if they paid him that much.
Socialists spend so much time talking about how the poor are going to get more than they can produce, and so little time talking about who’s going to get less than they can produce.
Socialists spend too much time talking and not enough time thinking 
If they completed the analysis, it would lead them to the conclusion that socialism is bad for something like at least 30% of people.
Much in the same way free trade is bad for america (in the short term).
I refuse to distinguish peoples by their slavemasters.
WELL SAID
I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying you don’t want to say that in the short-term, free trade has been bad for the people within the arbitrary borders of the US?
In the ‘short term’ is having a surgeon stick a scalpel in them bad for a patient ? You can’t have the surgical cure without the surgical cut. You can’t have the market process and all its benefits without profit and loss
That’s why I pointed out “in the short-term.”
Fine so long as you have it in perspective…
I’m saying that I don’t give a damn if a policy makes “Americans” poorer, so long as its best for humanity.