Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Yesterday I asked a couple of questions. They were inspired by a comment to this post:
It occurred to me that (given human nature) it is by no means certain that a government whose every decision was vetted for consistancy with Libertarian morality would result in a society where everyone in it had the personal economic ability to live according to that morality.
So I'm wondering which is more important: that the government act in Libertarian fashion, that I act in Libertarian fashion or that everyone acts in Libertarian fashion.
Posted by P6 at November 24, 2003 12:10 PM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2364Libertarian philosophy, like all utopian fantasies, requires everyone to act in a Libertarian fashion, or it completely breaks down. Everyone has to operate at the peak of Libertarian responsibly, or the result is despotism and roving warlords thirty milliseconds after the first person figures out he can beat the crap out of a whining libertarian and take off with the money with his gang of goons.
WTF does this idea that libertarianism = pacifism come from? Libertarians are usually armed -- very armed. We don't discount the second amendment. Every man has a duty to serve as a militiaman in a libertarian society.
Damnit. I got sidetracked. In regards to Libertarians Morality (which I think is another way of saying Objectivist Morality, since I don't recall ever hearing the Libertarian Morality term being used before). Economic ability has little to do with it. The morality is associated with not doing things to other people. Don't violate the rights of others. If you can't get something without violating someone else's rights, do without.
In regards to the wonder: If the government acts in a libertarian fashion, then force is removed from a large number of equasions. Utopia it isn't (and never will be) but it is better than all the other systems that we have tried. For most people, you can't act in a libertarian fashion when no one else does. You can adhere to libertarian principle, but a good number of things are our of your hands.
For example, I think that everyone who has the ability to take a government handout should and to the greatest extent. I think that everyone should do everything they legally can to get out of taxes. If there is a loophole, take it. The reason is that from a libertarian viewpoint, the people have condoned the robbery that enables handouts. It is by taking the handouts situation to a crisis that it gets reformed. Everyone has a duty to constrain the government as much as possible, and the best way to do that is to cut off the money supply.
my take on libertarianism is perhaps somewhat specific in that most of my exposure to that particular political movement has been either young, highly educated tech entrepreneurs, or people with a military background particularly in the front range of the rockies but also in the pacific northwest. the majority of them have been white males, although definitely not all of them. people are strongly polarized in those two regions as i'm sure you're aware, whatever their particular bent happens to be.
all i know is, the libertarians i got to know were the only ones i disagreed with that i could actually have a conversation with in which to disagree. they could even, in extreme cases, be violently opposed to my personal ideology, but never stooped to the ad hominem or insulted or threatened me in any way. they thrived on argument and reason, even moreso than some people i know who share an ideology identical with mine. so picture me, about as far-left-nutcase as you can get, i mean we're talking serious pink diaper baby here, having lively and even enjoyable conversations with people who were pretty far to the "guns, guts and glory" right from me but could still shake my hand, share a cup of coffee, and debate the issues. these individuals seemed to be primarily about "to-each-his-own/MYOB/the less government the better" etc. which i could at least comprehend.
by contrast, it was impossible to talk to even the most mainstream of republicans i ran into frequently in that area. i mean, you can't even have an intellectual argument with these guys. they would basically call you a commie-duped idiot to your face and have nothing else to say to you. they would make their point by yelling louder and louder. i particularly remember this one guy yelling "george bush is the best friend the working man ever had!" and when i asked him to specify exactly how that could be, he got all red-faced and walked away. i quickly stopped talking to those sort of people at all. it just wasn't entertaining enough to be worth the trouble.
i think that there is an important national conversation to be had between libertarian and liberal/leftist thinkers. they represent two political strains that have influenced american politics since the beginning, which can be at times oppositional without needing to be adversarial. i can think of a lot of things libertarian philosophy has given us [arguably the american revolution was a libertarian one, and i enjoy not living under a monarchy--problem is the revolution ain't finished, albeit we had a good start] and a lot of things leftism has given us [the fact that my employer is required by law to give me special compensation if i work more than 8 hours in a day, and has to take care of me if i get hurt on the job, etc.]. i have trouble thinking what the current republican brand of "conservatism" has given us except a more divided country, a legacy of debt, national insecurity, less freedom, etc. one thing i am definitely in agreement with libertarians on is that there is no freedom enjoyed by anyone that was granted or bestowed by government; all freedoms in existence have, one way or another, been taken and defended by force, even if that force is [from my own perspective] nonviolent agitation.
Nit-pick:
and has to take care of me if i get hurt on the job, etc.
That is in accordance with libertarian philosophy. When you work for him, he is renting you to get your labor. When you rent something and break it, you have to pay to get it fixed. I'm all for strengthening the tort system.
r@d@r:
My disagreements with libertarians tend to be about process more than principle.