This one is over-the-top funny. It strikes me as one more piece of evidence
that the good guys are making headway.
I came across it thanks to a blog
post by Mr. Rockwell. It is a
Bloomberg piece: “Libertarians
Are the New Communists.” If this is
the best they can do, any home-schooled third grader could take them down. Unfortunately, you will have to settle for me….
Most people would consider radical
libertarianism and communism polar opposites: The first glorifies personal
freedom. The second would obliterate it. Yet the ideologies are simply mirror
images.
I am cautious about the word “glorifies.” It sounds too religious in a mocking sort of
way. Perhaps that is the point. In any case, if libertarians glorify
anything, it would seem to me that it is the non-aggression principle. You know, kind of like Jesus did….with no
mocking at all intended, but complete humility.
Let’s start with some definitions.
By radical libertarianism, we mean the ideology that holds that individual
liberty trumps all other values.
I am not sure about trumping all other values….Really?
He goes on to list some of today’s “radical” libertarians:
Ayn Rand fans, the Koch brothers, Senator Ted Cruz, and the anti-tax activist
Grover Norquist. He throws in both Rand
and Ron Paul as well.
I will mention it once now so I don’t have to do so every
time it comes up in this post: Only Ron can be described as libertarian
philosophically, and none can be considered radical – certainly Ron Paul in his
public positions was a completely consistent Constitutionalist, although he
always pointed to the libertarian possibilities. This was plenty good enough for me. I will use shorthand whenever I have to make
this point: the “Ron exception.”
Yes, liberty is a core American
value, and an overweening state can be unhealthy. And there are plenty of
self-described libertarians who have adopted the label mainly because they
support same-sex marriage or decry government surveillance. These social
libertarians aren’t the problem. It is the nihilist anti-state libertarians of
the Koch-Cruz-Norquist-Paul (Ron and Rand alike) school who should worry us.
Interesting – they have no problem with libertine
libertarians, only the ones who are opposed to the state…. Then they go on to list several who are not
opposed to the state practically or philosophically…. (Ron exception)
Radical libertarianism assumes that
humans are wired only to be selfish, when in fact cooperation is the height of
human evolution.
Nonsense. Libertarians
understand cooperation better than most – voluntary cooperation. They understand voluntary cooperation is the
best means to ensure a civil society.
It assumes that societies are
efficient mechanisms requiring no rules or enforcers, when, in fact, they are
fragile ecosystems prone to collapse and easily overwhelmed by free-riders.
More nonsense.
Radical libertarians understand there needs to be enforcers; they expect
the market is the best enforcer, as market actors have it in their best
interest to enforce.
And it is fanatically rigid in its
insistence on a single solution to every problem: Roll back the state!
Even more nonsense. Rolling
back the state isn’t the single solution to every problem. It is only a necessary pre-condition to the parallel
development of a voluntary society. Individuals
will cooperatively develop solutions to problems, as they do always and
everywhere that the state doesn’t butt in.
What might radical libertarians do
if they actually had power? A President Paul would rule by tantrum, shutting
down the government in order to repeal laws already passed by Congress.
Why are the authors making stuff up? Don’t they have Google? They can look up what Ron Paul said he would do
if elected – as well as the challenges he would face from Congress. Close a few departments, stop the empire,
introduce competition in money and banking.
You want to see “rule by tantrum”? Write an article about what a President
McCain would do. He has more in common
with communists than any libertarian does.
Some libertarians will claim we are
arguing against a straw man and that no serious adherent to their philosophy
advocates the extreme positions we describe. The public record of extreme
statements by the likes of Cruz, Norquist and the Pauls speaks for itself.
Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most
effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government
should even exist.
But the authors are arguing against a straw man – and that they
even pose the possibility in order to disagree only further suggests
ignorance. Well, if you are talking
about actual libertarians, and not these non-libertarians (Ron exception)…
libertarians do discuss how best to regulate and how to govern: voluntarily…like
adults. Not childishly, like the “spanker-in
Chief.” (I took that from a post at LRC –
if I could remember the link, I would include it. Sorry.)
True citizenship enables a society
to thrive for precisely the reasons that communism and radical libertarianism
cannot. It is based on a realistic conception of human nature that recognizes
we must cooperate to be able compete at higher levels.
Libertarians have a “realistic” concept “of human nature.” They realize that if you monopolize and make
legal coercive power, sociopaths and psychopaths will be the ones who want to
exercise it. The authors might spend a
few days to prove this wrong.
Libertarians do recognize the “we must cooperate.” But isn’t coerced cooperation an oxymoron?
Finally, the authors demonstrate their complete ignorance on
the subject: nowhere in the piece do they mention the most radical
libertarian. Where is Murray Rothbard?
At least today they write about us. However, when they choose to attack Austrian
economics, they refer
to Hayek, virtually never to Mises; the day is soon coming when they will
have to confront Rothbard on radical libertarian thought.
Thanks to the work of individuals like Ron Paul and Lew
Rockwell, they are sooner to confronting that day. Read the comments to the article if you don’t
believe me.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
ReplyDeleteThird stage, then. Loving it.
BB: "Reasonable people debate how best to regulate or how government can most effectively do its work -- not whether to regulate at all or whether government should even exist."
ReplyDeletegpond: Ah, one of my favorite arguments (to denigrate) is the "reasonable man" argument that goes something like this:
The best way to judge a position is to ask: what would a reasonable man think about this. And I just so happen to be a reasonable man…
gpond
DeleteSince finding TDB some of my relatives strictly limit the subject matter when speaking with me. A couple of them consider themselves libertarian. Neither of them has spoken to me since January 3rd. I don't think any of those consider me reasonable. taxes
taxes, I have decided to do the same with several people: self-censor the discussion topics. When I would say something even slightly off-narrative, I would get a response that was only slightly less antagonistic than if I was stealing their first-born.
DeleteSo, I only talk about the weather, sports scores, etc. And I smile, I always smile.
Thank-you taxes.
DeleteI agree with you that it is no longer reasonable to speak of reasonable things with unreasonable people.
Almost everyone I know is unreasonable in our meaning of the term.
I haven't spoken reasonably to most people that I know in a very long time. Long before TDB made the scene. I speak reasonably in micro-movements only. Those micro-movements move toward, but do not entirely disclose, the direction in which my thinking is moving. To do otherwise, in our environment, is not advisable, it seems. Should I happen to encounter any brainwashed zombies along the way, god forbid, it would not seem to be the advisable option.