Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Arthur Silber at The Light of Reason
But the question I have been wrestling with is this: why exactly are certain libertarians and liberals focused on certain issues -- while many other libertarians and most conservatives are seemingly oblivious to them? What is the mechanism involved? What is the process or method that explains it?
…These issues are very complex, so I will state the main point very briefly to begin with: there are two basic methods of thinking that we can often see in the way people approach any given issue. One is what we might call a contextual approach: people who use this method look at any particular issue in the overall context in which it arises, or the system in which it is embedded. Liberals are often associated with this approach. They will analyze racism or the "power differential" between women and men in terms of the entire system in which those issues arise. And in a similar manner, their proposed solutions will often be systemic solutions, aimed at eradicating what they consider to be the ultimate causes of the particular problem that concerns them.
The other fundamental approach is to focus on the basic principles involved, but with scant (or no) attention paid to the overall context in which the principles are being analyzed. In this manner, this approach treats principles like Plato's Forms, as will become clearer shortly. I will use an example from a discussion here to illustrate the point, a discussion about certain cultural aspects related to homosexuality. I should note that, as a libertarian, I do not advocate any "special" rights for gays and lesbians; I want only those rights which everyone should have -- and foremost among those is the right to be left alone by the government. For that reason, I am opposed across the board to any laws which criminalize consenting behavior between adults.
But, in addition to that issue, I also have spent a considerable amount of time discussing the cultural aspects of common views about gays.
…these comments reveal as clearly as anything I have seen a complete disregard, even a disdain, for the importance of culture. For this writer, it appears that all of us grow up in a vacuum, or that at least it is our responsibility to act as if we could. And if we fail, it's our own damned fault. End of story.
Nothing that I have written can possibly be reasonably construed as a denial of individual responsibility. But it is not a denial of that responsibility to acknowledge the simple, uncontestable reality that culture matters. It matters a lot. But for many libertarians, none of this is to be discussed.
And libertarians wonder why they aren't more successful. With the opportunity for this fuller explanation, I will say something I have only mentioned to a few friends until now. If my choice were only between a fully free society -- but a society populated solely by "atomist libertarians" with sensibilities of the kind exhibited in the comments above about Marilyn Monroe -- and the world we live in today, I'll take this world any day. It's not even close. On the most fundamental level imaginable, these "atomist libertarians" are not my kind of people at all. Fortunately, that is not the choice. I can live in this world, and continue to fight for the kind of world I would like to see.
To return to the more general point: many libertarians espouse this "atomist" view of society. For them, it is as if the society in which one lives is completely irrelevant to an analysis of any problem at all. For them, all one must understand are the fundamental political principles involved. For them, that is the entirety of the discussion.
Arthur's a good read because he examines things at an epistemological level not just the superficial political philosophy.
Isn't he atomizing by dividing libertarians into two groups without regard to the political society we live in?
(Okay, here is the real comment.) I think that I see an atomist view as the ideal, and a goal to be striven for, but I am too pragmatic to think that we can make one step and get there. I prefer the atomist view because atomist solutions are the only ones that can be self-reinforcing. When you have to apply outside systemic influence to civil assocation to achieve a desired result, you can only sustain that result by applying continuing influence (and expense of some sort.)
Since a lot of libertarians (like me) take that "posteriety" clause seriously, stopgap measures are frowned on. I rarely see anything that isn't a stopgap from the systemic solution viewpoint.
I think that I see an atomist view as the ideal, and a goal to be striven for, but I am too pragmatic to think that we can make one step and get there.
combined with
Since a lot of libertarians (like me) take that "posteriety" clause seriously, stopgap measures are frowned on.
initiates severe congnitive dissonance in this one. As does reading this
When you have to apply outside systemic influence to civil assocation to achieve a desired result, you can only sustain that result by applying continuing influence (and expense of some sort.)
while understanding that to get from here to there would require the application of an outside systemic influence.
First of all, this libertarian is against corporate statism. As to why it could be "ignored" by other libertarians, it's most likely because these see taxation as the root problem.
Once you are taxed, control of how the money is spent is transferred from you to the state. To sum up all the ways the state is spending the money in ways you don't approve of seems futile.
For instance, some of my taxmoney, via a state subsidy for "investigative journalism" ended up being used by a spokesdude for the terorist Animal liberation Front to run a counter-subversion operation, i.e. he used the money to check out if members were undercover police.
And how is taxation at the root of corporate statism?
The problem with Libertarian thought is the insistance on boiling everything down to a single root cause.
Well, it' s more or less equivalent to the "inequality is the root cause of all problems" meme propagated by the left.
Well, that's wrong too, though closer to true than blaming it all on taxes. I say that because a society has social functions as as long as we have a capitalist system those functions must be funded. We either have an official taxation system to pay for it or we all chip in what we can afford to—which also sounds suspiciously like a progressive taxation system.
The difference between taxation and chipping in (charity) is force. Taxes are collected at gunpoint.
The totally negative attitude of libertarians to taxes is something that baffles me. Sure, we'd all like to pay less in taxes, but it's the price we pay for having public services. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Phelps:
You have said being in society is voluntary. The price of being in society is taxes, to pay for those collective necessities like enforcing voluntary contracts.
Al-M:
It's a Western society delusion that one can have all ups and no downs.
The totally negative attitude of libertarians to taxes is something that baffles me. Sure, we'd all like to pay less in taxes, but it's the price we pay for having public services. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
"Screw public services." That is the root of the issue. At best, a lot of taxes are wasted on things that the person paying them doesn't care about, and at its worst, they are used to fund things that the person is vehemently against.
Some people are vehemently against stem cell research. I think that they are reactionary superstisious nuts, but I don't think they should be forced to support something that they think is immoral. I think that the vast majority of wildlife/environmental government grants are stupendous wastes of money, and in fact do much more harm than good, but I am still forced -- at gunpoint -- to pay my part of these programs.
And no, society is not a choice. I am not allowed to leave society with my property. Taxes -- back to this again -- are still levied on my land, whether I am accepting any public services or not. I can't opt-out.