Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel
inmytree
Posts: 4,741
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... _story.htm
Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 9
In politics, we often skip past the simple questions. This is why inquiries about the fundamentals can sometimes catch everyone short.
Michael Lind, the independent-minded scholar, posed one such question last week about libertarianism that I hope will shake up the political world. It’s important because many in the new generation of conservative politicians declare libertarianism as their core political philosophy.
It’s true that since nearly all Americans favor limits on government, most of us have found libertarians to be helpful allies at one point or another. Libertarians have the virtue, in principle at least, of a very clear creed: They believe in the smallest government possible, longing for what the late philosopher Robert Nozick, in his classic book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” called “the night-watchman state.” Anything government does beyond protecting people from violence or theft and enforcing contracts is seen as illegitimate.
If you start there, taking a stand on the issues of the day is easy. All efforts to cut back on government functions — public schools, Medicare, environmental regulation, food stamps — should be supported. Anything that increases government activity (Obamacare, for example) should be opposed.
In his bracing 1970s libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty,” the economist Murray Rothbard promised a nation that would be characterized by “individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government and a free-market economy.”
Rothbard’s book concludes with boldness: “Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind.”
This is where Lind’s question comes in. Note that Rothbard freely acknowledges that “liberty has never been fully tried,” at least by the libertarians’ exacting definition. In an essay in Salon, Lind asks:
“If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?”
In other words, “Why are there no libertarian countries?”
The ideas of the center-left — based on welfare states conjoined with market economies — have been deployed all over the democratic world, most extensively in the social democratic Scandinavian countries. We also have had deadly experiments with communism, a.k.a Marxism-Leninism.
From this, Lind asks another question: “If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world?”
The answer lies in a kind of circular logic: Libertarians can keep holding up their dream of perfection because, as a practical matter, it will never be tried in full. Even many who say they are libertarians reject the idea when it gets too close to home.
The strongest political support for a broad anti-statist libertarianism now comes from the tea party. Yet tea party members, as the polls show, are older than the country as a whole. They say they want to shrink government in a big way but are uneasy about embracing this concept when reducing Social Security and Medicare comes up. Thus do the proposals to cut these programs being pushed by Republicans in Congress exempt the current generation of recipients. There’s no way Republicans are going to attack their own base.
But this inconsistency (or hypocrisy) contains a truth: We had something close to a small-government libertarian utopia in the late 19th century and we decided it didn’t work. We realized that many Americans would never be able to save enough for retirement and, later, that most of them would be unable to afford health insurance when they were old. Smaller government meant that too many people were poor and that monopolies were formed too easily.
And when the Great Depression engulfed us, government was helpless, largely handcuffed by this anti-government ideology until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along.
In fact, as Lind points out, most countries that we typically see as “free” and prosperous have governments that consume around 40 percent of their gross domestic product. They are better off for it. “Libertarians,” he writes, “seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality . . . .”
This matters to our current politics because too many politicians are making decisions on the basis of a grand, utopian theory that they never can — or will — put into practice. They then use this theory to avoid a candid conversation about the messy choices governance requires. And this is why we have gridlock.
Libertarianism’s Achilles’ heel
By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: June 9
In politics, we often skip past the simple questions. This is why inquiries about the fundamentals can sometimes catch everyone short.
Michael Lind, the independent-minded scholar, posed one such question last week about libertarianism that I hope will shake up the political world. It’s important because many in the new generation of conservative politicians declare libertarianism as their core political philosophy.
It’s true that since nearly all Americans favor limits on government, most of us have found libertarians to be helpful allies at one point or another. Libertarians have the virtue, in principle at least, of a very clear creed: They believe in the smallest government possible, longing for what the late philosopher Robert Nozick, in his classic book “Anarchy, State, and Utopia,” called “the night-watchman state.” Anything government does beyond protecting people from violence or theft and enforcing contracts is seen as illegitimate.
If you start there, taking a stand on the issues of the day is easy. All efforts to cut back on government functions — public schools, Medicare, environmental regulation, food stamps — should be supported. Anything that increases government activity (Obamacare, for example) should be opposed.
In his bracing 1970s libertarian manifesto “For a New Liberty,” the economist Murray Rothbard promised a nation that would be characterized by “individual liberty, a peaceful foreign policy, minimal government and a free-market economy.”
Rothbard’s book concludes with boldness: “Liberty has never been fully tried in the modern world; libertarians now propose to fulfill the American dream and the world dream of liberty and prosperity for all mankind.”
This is where Lind’s question comes in. Note that Rothbard freely acknowledges that “liberty has never been fully tried,” at least by the libertarians’ exacting definition. In an essay in Salon, Lind asks:
“If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?”
In other words, “Why are there no libertarian countries?”
The ideas of the center-left — based on welfare states conjoined with market economies — have been deployed all over the democratic world, most extensively in the social democratic Scandinavian countries. We also have had deadly experiments with communism, a.k.a Marxism-Leninism.
From this, Lind asks another question: “If socialism is discredited by the failure of communist regimes in the real world, why isn’t libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the real world?”
The answer lies in a kind of circular logic: Libertarians can keep holding up their dream of perfection because, as a practical matter, it will never be tried in full. Even many who say they are libertarians reject the idea when it gets too close to home.
The strongest political support for a broad anti-statist libertarianism now comes from the tea party. Yet tea party members, as the polls show, are older than the country as a whole. They say they want to shrink government in a big way but are uneasy about embracing this concept when reducing Social Security and Medicare comes up. Thus do the proposals to cut these programs being pushed by Republicans in Congress exempt the current generation of recipients. There’s no way Republicans are going to attack their own base.
But this inconsistency (or hypocrisy) contains a truth: We had something close to a small-government libertarian utopia in the late 19th century and we decided it didn’t work. We realized that many Americans would never be able to save enough for retirement and, later, that most of them would be unable to afford health insurance when they were old. Smaller government meant that too many people were poor and that monopolies were formed too easily.
And when the Great Depression engulfed us, government was helpless, largely handcuffed by this anti-government ideology until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along.
In fact, as Lind points out, most countries that we typically see as “free” and prosperous have governments that consume around 40 percent of their gross domestic product. They are better off for it. “Libertarians,” he writes, “seem to have persuaded themselves that there is no significant trade-off between less government and more national insecurity, more crime, more illiteracy and more infant and maternal mortality . . . .”
This matters to our current politics because too many politicians are making decisions on the basis of a grand, utopian theory that they never can — or will — put into practice. They then use this theory to avoid a candid conversation about the messy choices governance requires. And this is why we have gridlock.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
First off, the co-opted Tea party you see in the mass media is not even fucking close to libertarian. The fact that the author wrote that makes me think he has no true understanding of libertarians. They may say the words but that doesn't mean they are...most in the tea party right now would say they think that it should be illegal to get married if you are gay...no true libertarian would believe that...Tea partiers in their current state don't even understand libertarianism...they just say things like leave me alone, but don't you touch my medicare...I do like how in the end he blames libertarianism, something he says doesn't exist, for gov't gridlock...priceless...this just in REPUBLICANS ARE NOT LIBERTARIAN. It would be like saying all democrats are communists because they are on the same side of the center line in america.
The easy answer, and I see people say it all the time on many different topics...there are a bunch of stupid people in the world
But it is a very interesting question. I think our initial federal gov't was about as libertarian as it could get, but like socialism, communism, etc, there is no perfect implementation of it. Contrary to the authors position, I think some would argue that by the late 1800's it had already been co-opted, we were nothing close to libertarian at that time, closer than we are now for certain, but you wouldn't read the laws of the day and say that is a prime example of libertarianism...but he is certainly is right about it being an ideal rather than an actual structure...
I would throw out the question, is there a perfectly democratic, socialist, or communist country either? I would also ask, what is wrong with striving to get the world to a place where individual believe they can let others live the way they want, even if that is against what they believe, and take care of each other when it is needed?
There is no perfectly libertarian state but too many people who are opposed to it liken it to Anarchy, which it is not...Just like communism in a perfect state could never happen, Libertarianism will never be able to be perfectly implemented. As gov't exists it will always grow...if gov't isn't growing it dies. Gov'ts never get smaller. They just grow differently depending on who is in charge...All societies have organized with a ruling class through the history of the world...there is always someone "in charge."
To claim that no libertarian state exists therefore it is discredited is stupid, short-sided, and makes many logic leaps that seem to be looking for the answer the critic wants. There were no democracies/republics in the what we know as the west before America and France tried it, would this same argument have applied then? Since there wasn't one, that means that there shouldn't be one that tried it?
IMO, a true libertarian state cannot exist because of multiple reasons:
1. Business owners who complain about too much gov't intrusion turn around and use the gov't to do what they want to stifle competition...
2. We want the gov't as a Scape goat, safety net, and excuse maker. We don't want to have to take care of the poor as a voluntary society, so we put that on some faceless entity and then talk about what a terrible job they are doing...the anonymous nature of bureaucracy allows folks the freedom of laziness. Everyone bitches about gov't, but few get involved in trying to change anything.
3. Almost everyone has a cause and they believe their morality should be forced upon others...A libertarian would not want to legislate morality, but for most it is very hard to see others doing something they don't like...like drugs or prostitution...but there are libertarian aspects in many gov'ts throughout the world, there just isn't a perfect one.
And I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to be more libertarian, just as there are those that believe countries should be more socialist, communist, or democratic...
I for one do not understand the disdain for libertarianism...in it truest sense it is a lot like communism, we should be able to live our lives, take care of our communities and we should not need a giant bureaucracy to do so...
In the end, there is no perfect way to live, just a bunch of people with ideas that might make things better. But like any change there would simply be a different bad that came with the good...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-questi ... nt-answer/
For some reason, the finger-waggers at Salon think they’ve got us stumped with this one: “If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country in the world ever tried it?”
So this is the unanswerable question? What’s supposed to be so hard about it? Ninety percent of what libertarians write about answers it at least implicitly.
Let’s reword the question slightly, in order to draw out the answer. You’ll note that when stated correctly, the question contains an implicit non sequitur.
(1) “If your approach is so great, why doesn’t local law enforcement want to give up the money, supplies, and authority that come from the drug war?”
(2) “If your approach is so great, why don’t big financial firms prefer to stand or fall on their merits, and prefer bailouts instead?”
(3) “If your approach is so great, why do people prefer to earn a living by means of special privilege instead of by honest production?”
(4) “If your approach is so great, why does the military-industrial complex prefer its revolving-door arrangement and its present strategy of fleecing the taxpayers via its dual strategy of front-loading and political engineering?”
(5) “If your approach is so great, why do businessmen often prefer subsidies and special privileges?”
(6) “If your approach is so great, why do some people prefer to achieve their ends through war instead?”
(7) “If your approach is so great, why does the political class prefer to live off the labor of others, and exercise vast power over everyone else?”
(8) “Special interests win special benefits for themselves because those benefits are concentrated and significant. The costs, dispersed among the general public, are so insignificant to any particular person, that the general public has no vested interest in organizing against it. An extra 25 cents per gallon of orange juice is hardly worth devoting one’s life to opposing, but an extra $100 million per year in profits for the companies involved sure is worth the time to lobby for.
“If your approach is so great, why does this happen?”
(9) “If your approach is so great, why don’t people want to try it out, after having been propagandized against it nonstop for 17 years?” (K-12, then four years of college.)
It's an honest question... who is in charge?
Hail, Hail!!!
I had this exact conversation with a libertarian.
Things like, "if i turned me house into manure plant and you were my neighbour it would be ok?"
answer "of courese not, there would be laws...."
"who makes them?'"
libertarians love their unseen, unlived, unknown utopia. Probably wouldn't want to live there though
Libertarianism is generally a form of representative republics. It would just be harder to pass laws that infringe on the rights enumerated in the constitution. Yes there would be a constitution.
I would suggest reading some Locke or Paine or Jefferson if you truly are interested. Stop signs and traffic laws would certainly look different but they would still exist. Again anarchy is not the goal of libertarianism. Govt is necessary and can serve a purpose, it just doesn't have to be what it is now. Can people read what Tom woods wrote above and not at least think there may be a better way than the current system in the US. Limited govt does not mean no govt. it does not mean you can screw over people, deliberately deceive them when entering into contracts or trade agreements.
There are places to read about these questions and answers. If you are directly affecting another persons quality of life there would be resolution through the courts generally. Zoning laws would generally still apply. Again people would not be free to infringe on the lives of others but rather would be hopefully free from infringement on their own life. I sometimes feel like the answers to these questions get ignored because a discussion about it isnt really wanted people just want to show how they stumped a libertarian. Penn said something very interesting. Societal problems should be examined by this question first, is there anyway to solve it with more freedom rather than less? Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes it is yes.
You certainly showed him for believing in a different form of representative democracies
I have a feeling that you never were going to listen to the answer when this dumb ass moron libertarian [/s] gave it anyway. The nerve of that guy...thinking differently and striving towards a utopian ideal. Bastard.
Do people honestly believe that the world has it figured out and the only way to live together is the way we are currently doing it?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
wow. you got a lot out of that.
you sure showed me too
Care to better describe the point you were trying to make if my interpretation is wrong. I apologize if I misinterpreted the point of your story. Again please explain it so I know where you are coming from...
Are you generally interested in the answer? Your last statement led me to the opinion you weren't
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The whole resolve things in court concept just seems like taking giant steps backwards, and even creates more governement, in a way. Wouldn't courts be completely jammed with people bringing in identical disputes? Running more court rooms that this would require seems like expansion of size of government and expense when compared to having laws passed and then having an enforcement agent enforce the law. Wouldn't it be limited to people who can afford representation? The concept of taking things through the court seems like an afterthought to me.
Thanks foir that, Mike.
But, even if you rebooted the system... wouldn't we eventually end up back where we are today? I mean, there only reason a lot of laws exist today is because people did that crazy shit. Same things with regulations on business... the only reason why there are laws preventing business from dumping cleaning solvents into our waterways is because businesses were dumping cleaning solvents into out waterways. That is how those regulations came into play... it wasn't government working unilaterally... it was government reacting to business practices.
Hail, Hail!!!
how is that different than today?
not sure why there would be more court rooms needed. case law and precedent still apply.
zoning laws still apply, which sends me back to the idea that libertarianism =/= anarchy. The only difference is, if what I do affects no others there will be no law about it. At least that is my interpretation. Gay marriage, good example, drug war, good example...hopefully in that world the term victimless crime would cease to exist. If something is inherently victimless it would not be illegal.
so it would not be no gov't, just less of it. It is definitely a different way of thinking, and I don't expect most folks to be on board even if it sounds intriguing to them simply because as you play it out it will invariably get to something they are uncomfortable with...and that usually is Drugs, Prostitution, gun ownership etc.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
things that affect(effect? I don't know I am dumb today) individuals and the collective might look similar in some ways, but an entire dept or two of the federal law enforcement arm would cease to exist. That would be VERY different from today. Our prison system and judicial system as a whole would look different. Businesses still would be held liable for polluting waterways, except this time they wouldn't pay a fine to the gov't, they would pay a fine and restitution to those affected, and criminal prosecutions of those responsible would also come into play because of the damage they are doing to individual's property and body. Theoretically Libertarianism could possibly have stricter environmental policies if you flushed it all the way out. But it is all in what you want to believe.
For example...company X pollutes the water manufacturing a product because it allows them to make more profits. This is shown to be doing harm to local residents in some way, the punishment then is not only restitution for the folks/community affected but also for environmental clean up. They then raise the price of their widget to account for this extra, hopefully exorbitant, cost and less people buy their product because another group without that exorbitant cost steps in to fill the void through competition. Less manufacturing in the future and less sales would more than likely be reason enough to clean up their practices. They need to be held accountable to not only the gov't but also the public...right now polluting businesses are protected by the federal gov't as much as and probably more so in some ways than individuals. it is an argument I have heard more than once, so I am simply trying to give the best example I can think of on a brain freeze day I may be missing something...
...
Some folks think public options are better for environmental protection. I have a feeling if Green Peace was allowed to own Yellowstone national park things might be vastly different there. Some for the better, some for the worse but the environment there would be first on the list of importance and the visitors would be required to adjust to that rather than the park adjusting to the visitors...
Good & bad with everything, but I think a libertarian society protects the individual(s) better that is all. If I believed that the United States federal gov't gave a shit about the individual I might support them more than I do. I believe they are acting on behalf of special interests large enough to get the ear of those very important folks who make careers out of representing themselves and their friends in congress...in order to stop that we need to remove the ability to affect so many things in the favor of those special interests. My solution is make it harder and less possible to write and enact laws and regulations that benefit some businesses, stifle some competition, and possible harm individuals in the process. The current Monsanto immunity legislation comes to mind quickly but I don't have all the details on it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan