Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

[clb09]

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php


However, I regard the Libertarianism as a kind of business-worshiping cultish religion, which churns out annoying flamers who resemble nothing so much as street-preachers on the Information Sidewalk.

In order to understand how one gets from the "moral principles" above to the sort of fanatical proselytizing seen everyday on discussion lists, it's important to grasp how the ideology actually works out, from theory to practice.

I wonder how this guy feels 12 years later. :D

[eOs]

no one ideology is the end all be all

[silverhawks]

I wonder how this guy feels 12 years later. :D

I'm sure he'll be happily living off the welfare state.

[CCTelander]

Small "L" libertarianism isn't an ideology anyway. Effectively it could be called the absence of ideology. Small "L" libertarians don't want to force any particular ideology on anyone. They just want to be left the hell alone.

[Terces]

Small "L" libertarianism isn't an ideology anyway. Effectively it could be called the absence of ideology. Small "L" libertarians don't want to force any particular ideology on anyone. They just want to be left the hell alone.

Hear, hear!

[Brassmouth]

no one ideology is the end all be all

Incorrect.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's at about 6th grade level of analysis. The author can and should be dismissed as incredibly intellectually lazy. If he had done a serious inquiry into libertarian thought, he would have come to the opposite conclusion

[heavenlyboy34]

Small "L" libertarianism isn't an ideology anyway. Effectively it could be called the absence of ideology. Small "L" libertarians don't want to force any particular ideology on anyone. They just want to be left the hell alone.

I don't think that Rothbard would agree. :(

[CCTelander]

I don't think that Rothbard would agree. :(

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. In what way do you think Rothbard might disagree?

In any event, while Murray Rothbard certainly did make huge contributions to libertarian thought and philosophy, I don't consider his views to be the end all, be all of libertarianism. He's certainly one of the greats, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

[Original_Intent]

I'm sure he'll be happily living off the welfare state.

I think you missed that this article was written 12 years ago.

[asimplegirl]

I think you missed that this article was written 12 years ago.

I am sure you missed this part of the OP:


I wonder how this guy feels 12 years later.

He was answering.

[Imperial]

no one ideology is the end all be all

Incorrect.

For human purposes, no perfect ideology will ever be discovered and will never take root.

Also, I think that taken to extremes libertarianism and objectivism can make one refuse to listen to other arguments and forget the value of discourse.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. In what way do you think Rothbard might disagree?

In any event, while Murray Rothbard certainly did make huge contributions to libertarian thought and philosophy, I don't consider his views to be the end all, be all of libertarianism. He's certainly one of the greats, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

Rothbard ("Mr. Libertarian") would probably have argued that libertarianism is indeed a coherent, complete philosophy/worldview. (that's what I get from reading his stuff, at least. I'm not an expert...yet)

[CCTelander]

Rothbard ("Mr. Libertarian") would probably have argued that libertarianism is indeed a coherent, complete philosophy/worldview. (that's what I get from reading his stuff, at least. I'm not an expert...yet)

Ah. I get you now.

My initial comment was probably less clear than it should have been. I probably should have qualified it as "the absence of political ideology," although the distinction really isn't necessary since the word "ideology" usually does carry with it heavy political connotations.

ALL political ideologies seek to somehow rationalize or justify the use of coercive force to achieve a particular aim. Invariably their ultimate aim winds up being to plunder the many for the benefit of an elite few.

So, while libertarianism can be viewed as a philosophy, it certainly isn't a political ideology.

Personally, I think the sum total of what it means to be a libertarian has been best expressed by L. Neil Smith with the following statement:


"Zero Aggression Principle":

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
— L. Neil Smith


Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP"

Hope that makes my meaning a bit clearer.

[bricardo]

Perfection is unattainable in all pursuits of life, not just the ideological. Perfection is one case in an infinite amount of possibilities and therefore highly unlikely to the point of not existing at all.

[silverhawks]

Turns out that this is what Mr Finkelstein has been up to:

Great internet campaigns don't guarantee success in politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/14/politics.internet)

[heavenlyboy34]

If you mean that libertarians generally do not wish to create a vast system of arbitrary central "authority" and call it a political philosophy, you're right. The "ideology" aspect of libertarianism is in the act of intellectually defending individual liberty and opposing the State. I can see why you were confused, as you are trying to apply a Statist, barbaric standard to an anti-State philosophy. Nice talking with ya, mate. :cool:


Ah. I get you now.

My initial comment was probably less clear than it should have been. I probably should have qualified it as "the absence of political ideology," although the distinction really isn't necessary since the word "ideology" usually does carry with it heavy political connotations.

ALL political ideologies seek to somehow rationalize or justify the use of coercive force to achieve a particular aim. Invariably their ultimate aim winds up being to plunder the many for the benefit of an elite few.

So, while libertarianism can be viewed as a philosophy, it certainly isn't a political ideology.

Personally, I think the sum total of what it means to be a libertarian has been best expressed by L. Neil Smith with the following statement:

"Zero Aggression Principle":

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
— L. Neil Smith


Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Hope that makes my meaning a bit clearer.

[Reason]

Small "L" libertarianism isn't an ideology anyway. Effectively it could be called the absence of ideology. Small "L" libertarians don't want to force any particular ideology on anyone. They just want to be left the hell alone.

:)

[idirtify]

no one ideology is the end all be all

Right. But perfection isn’t the point, right?


no one ideology is the end all be all

Right. But libertarianism is just a little better than the next-best, right?

[CCTelander]

If you mean that libertarians generally do not wish to create a vast system of arbitrary central "authority" and call it a political philosophy, you're right. The "ideology" aspect of libertarianism is in the act of intellectually defending individual liberty and opposing the State. I can see why you were confused, as you are trying to apply a Statist, barbaric standard to an anti-State philosophy. Nice talking with ya, mate. :cool:

I'm sorry but you totally lost me. How, in the name of whatever it is you might hold sacred, do you manage to read any kind of statist anything into my comments?

[Thesemindz]

I don't get it heavenlyboy, what part of CC's post was statist? I think he's just trying to point out the difference between true libertarianism, and the new kind of "big government" libertarians who think that you can somehow give the state all the guns and all the money, and then expect them not to interfere in your life.

Either you accept the initiation of force against innocent people in some misguided machiavellian "ends justify the means" approach, or you reject it. There is no middle ground. You can't have a large standing military and state law enforcement without it, regardless of what "big government" libertarians might say. If you accept it, then it is simply a matter of degree, not principle, which seperates a minarchist's position from a fascist's. If you reject it, then no government is acceptable, and all governments are evil.


-Rob

[shenlu54]

Libertarianism is nothing new.2000 years ago,Lao-tzu who is a famous Chinese philosopher has already found this ideology and wrote down this idea in his book:Tao Te Ching .

Lao-tzu said,"The best government is the government by which you don't feel you are governed,which lets the people live with themselves."

Libertarianism doesn't make anyone stupid,instead it makes people smart.

[CCTelander]

I don't get it heavenlyboy, what part of CC's post was statist? I think he's just trying to point out the difference between true libertarianism, and the new kind of "big government" libertarians who think that you can somehow give the state all the guns and all the money, and then expect them not to interfere in your life.

Either you accept the initiation of force against innocent people in some misguided machiavellian "ends justify the means" approach, or you reject it. There is no middle ground. You can't have a large standing military and state law enforcement without it, regardless of what "big government" libertarians might say. If you accept it, then it is simply a matter of degree, not principle, which seperates a minarchist's position from a fascist's. If you reject it, then no government is acceptable, and all governments are evil.


-Rob

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant.

The heart and soul of libertarianism IS the non-aggression principle. If you really are an adherent to the NAP, you can't support the state in even the slightest degree, since the state is ALWAYS predicated on the initiation of force.

As to the comment regarding ideology, libertarianism definitely is NOT just another political ideology. It's not a political anything. It can't be.

Politics, when distilled down to its essence, is nothing more than a parliamentary proceedure used to determine who gets to initiate force against whom. In that light, any attempt to label libertarianism as a mere political ideology is nonsensical, to put it mildly.

[CCTelander]

Libertarianism is nothing new.2000 years ago,Lao-tzu who is a famous Chinese philosopher has already found this ideology and wrote down this idea in his book:Tao Te Ching .

Lao-tzu said,"The best government is the government by which you don't feel you are governed,which lets the people live with themselves."

Libertarianism doesn't make anyone stupid,instead it makes people smart.

+1776!

[ghengis86]

I'm sorry but you totally lost me. How, in the name of whatever it is you might hold sacred, do you manage to read any kind of statist anything into my comments?


I don't get it heavenlyboy, what part of CC's post was statist? I think he's just trying to point out the difference between true libertarianism, and the new kind of "big government" libertarians who think that you can somehow give the state all the guns and all the money, and then expect them not to interfere in your life.

Either you accept the initiation of force against innocent people in some misguided machiavellian "ends justify the means" approach, or you reject it. There is no middle ground. You can't have a large standing military and state law enforcement without it, regardless of what "big government" libertarians might say. If you accept it, then it is simply a matter of degree, not principle, which seperates a minarchist's position from a fascist's. If you reject it, then no government is acceptable, and all governments are evil.


-Rob

he wasn't calling you a statist, merely referring to your standard of a 'political ideology' as a construct only found in a state, and thus it is an inherently (it, not you) statist notion

[CCTelander]

he wasn't calling you a statist, merely referring to your standard of a 'political ideology' as a construct only found in a state, and thus it is an inherently (it, not you) statist notion

Hey, I'm willing to look at and reasonably consider most other points of view, but I still don't see exactly how one could come to that conclusion.

What other standard might such be judged by?

Politics, by it's very nature, is an initiation of force. Seems pretty clear that if this is indeed true, and I've never seen a case where it isn't, then ANY political ideology would be coercive.

How am I in error?

[heavenlyboy34]

he wasn't calling you a statist, merely referring to your standard of a 'political ideology' as a construct only found in a state, and thus it is an inherently (it, not you) statist notion

Correct.:cool:

[CCTelander]

I don't mean to be a PITA about this, but I do still have a bit of a challenge with this whole "statist standard" thing.

All I'm seeing so far is a repeated restatemnt of the assertion that some standard I've employed is, by nature, statist. What I'm not seeing is any specific identification of that standard, nor any explanation as to why you think it's "statist."

Help me out here guys.

[ghengis86]

Hey, I'm willing to look at and reasonably consider most other points of view, but I still don't see exactly how one could come to that conclusion.

What other standard might such be judged by?

Politics, by it's very nature, is an initiation of force. Seems pretty clear that if this is indeed true, and I've never seen a case where it isn't, then ANY political ideology would be coercive.

How am I in error?


I don't mean to be a PITA about this, but I do still have a bit of a challenge with this whole "statist standard" thing.

All I'm seeing so far is a repeated restatemnt of the assertion that some standard I've employed is, by nature, statist. What I'm not seeing is any specific identification of that standard, nor any explanation as to why you think it's "statist."
Help me out here guys.

I believe you answered yourself; I think we're on the same page here, just different paragraphs. i agree that any political ideology is force and statist. maybe not so much your standard, but just the general topic of politics is statist by nature...maybe i've been in the sun too long and am just confusing this more.

oh well; i'm against the state and wish to abolish it. or at the very least, be able to voluntarily withdraw my consent to be governed with no repercussions.

[CCTelander]

I believe you answered yourself; I think we're on the same page here, just different paragraphs. i agree that any political ideology is force and statist. maybe not so much your standard, but just the general topic of politics is statist by nature...maybe i've been in the sun too long and am just confusing this more.

oh well; i'm against the state and wish to abolish it. or at the very least, be able to voluntarily withdraw my consent to be governed with no repercussions.

Looks to me like we're pretty much in agreement on the subject, with maybe a minor quibble or two over minutiae.

Thanks.