Sheldon Richman has posted
a piece in defense of libertarianism; it is in response to a critique by a
mainstream (meaning totally ignorant) writer on the subject.
He gets many things right in responding to the ignorant (on
the topic) critic: neither Rand Paul nor Ayn Rand are/were libertarian, in fact
both have run from the label; libertarian theory does not require a perfect
world, where everyone plays by the rules; libertarian theory is anything but –
in fact the opposite of – elitist.
There are a couple of nits that I will pick, however, with
Richman. Referring to the author of the
hit piece, Richman writes:
…he asks a good left-libertarian
question: "How, exactly, does one get government 'interference' out of
business when business wants it there most of the time?"
How is this a left-libertarian
question? The thinnest of thin
libertarians (you know, the ones who actually believe the non-aggression
principle; the ones who leave more room in the tent) would ask the same
question and would be concerned about the same issue.
Then there is this:
What [libertarian theorists] sought
was a world without aggression; where free and peaceful social cooperation (including but not limited to voluntary exchange
in the market) was extended to all areas of life… (emphasis added)
Libertarian theory also fully embraces peaceful (if I may
translate peaceful as non-aggressive) social non-cooperation, but then this is where left-libertarians such as
Richman get thrown off the tracks. They write
about basic income guarantees, or people shouldn’t discriminate based on race,
gender, age, or whatever. They cannot even see their own contradictions when
they appear in one article.
For example, let’s rewrite the earlier question – which
Richman wrongly attributes as a left-libertarian concern – as an actual
left-libertarian concern:
"How, exactly, does one get
government 'interference' out of social
causes when left-libertarians
want it there most of the time?"
Because left-libertarians have no answer to the question:
when my property and your social cause butt heads, who wins? For left-libertarian theory to hold any water
requires the initiation of force (aka “government” as it is commonly known
today).
But then this would expose left-libertarian theory as not
holding any water.
Ok. First wish is to live forever. Not being possible, people came up with reincarnation. Being a lie, people then came up with "social justice" themes, like the magical horn of abundance, which nowadays is called universal basic income.
ReplyDeleteNow, I don't think lottery tickets should be banned, nor that people who like to give away money to churches and temples is doing any crime. The crime would be to force some people to give money to finance something they don't want to finance, for whatever reason. But "social justice" is mandatory, and "solidarity" must be enforced by the millitary, at gun point. North Koreans seem to love solidarity, because that allows them to live one more minute.
Solidarity, charity, love, help, support, if it is not given freely and willingly, then it is violence. Forced love, is not love. Mandated support is not support. How many kids would rather have a real father and a real family than some money. It is mutually exclusive.
Those who want to see "social justice", whatever the hell that means, must pay for it and must take good care of overseeing the operation. And they must not involve in any way any other person who does not want to collaborate. Is this really so difficult to understand?
"Civilization is the product of human effort, the achievement of men eager to fight the forces adverse to their well-being. This achievement is dependent on men's using suitable means. If the means chosen are not fit to produce the ends sought, disaster results. Bad policies can disintegrate our civilization as they have destroyed many other civilizations. But neither reason nor experience warrants the assumption that we cannot avoid choosing bad policies and thereby wrecking our civilization." (Mises, Theory and History p.221)
ReplyDeleteThe problem with thickening libertarianism is long-term risk management. The policies chosen today may ameliorate our sense of "social justice", but tomorrow the skeleton of power left behind will be resurrected to raze the accomplishments of voluntary interactions; "social justice" will be the first victim in the decline of any civilization.
I think I was reading Martin Armstrong and a light went off in my head. He said that the invisible hand was the product of complexity, a sort of unseen dimension interacting with space and time. Complexity is both the hammer of progress and the wrecking ball of destruction depending on whether humans act harmoniously with it or in arrogance against it. The point is that human institutions should be simple enough to adapt to natural complexity. As the old commercial goes, "Anything else, would be uncivilized."
Complexity is also the unnamed subject of Hayek's "Fatal Conceit," and is what Leonard Reed discusses (without naming it) in "I, Pencil."
DeleteIf no man or group of men assembled in a room can describe in detail all the knowledge necessary to make a simple #2 lead pencil, how on Earth can intelligent men (and women) suggest that something unimaginably *more* complex, like an entire economy, be guided by any group of "experts," regardless of their brilliance or the means they are chosen?
The world goes by itself. Unfortunately, because most men are slaves (see Sallust from 2000 years ago) we are permanently afflicted with politics, and thus politics is part of the natural order, one input into the complex system that is human history, and whose future is always a product of the imperfect present and past.
Left libertarians (another oxymoron, that) are just like minarchists; they clearly lack the abstract thought processes necessary to follow their views to their inevitable, insoluble paradoxes.
DeleteFull anarchist-libertarians (anarcho-capitalists, natural order-ists, etc.) grasp the paradox of political (i.e., collective) action and adjust their philosophy accordingly. Those of us who have lived and observed long enough also recognize that a Libertarian Utopia (another oxymoron) is not an option given the nature of most humans. We thus are resigned to live in the real world of collectivist folly, riding our little part of history like an ant on a leaf floating on a river. We don't change the course of the river, all we can do is attempt to paddle to the calmer course when one appears available.
This is more attractive to me than trying to mix freedom philosophy with poison politics in a vain attempt to calm the river itself.
Can you please link to an article where Sheldon Richman has come out in favor of a basic guaranteed income? I don't think he ever has, since he is a free market anarchist.
ReplyDeleteAs for his calls against discrimination, I don't think he ever called for government interference to solve any discrimination problems in society. Rather, he is calling for solving such problems through social and economic means, rather than political means. While I can't speak for him, I believe he would readily admit that private property concerns trump social concerns when it comes to legal matters. However, that does not mean libertarians can't promote causes or avenues of action in the social and economic sphere.
“Can you please link to an article where Sheldon Richman has come out in favor of a basic guaranteed income?”
DeleteCan you please link to anything I have written that would make this a logical request?
“However, that does not mean libertarians can't promote causes or avenues of action in the social and economic sphere.”
I write about many things outside of the umbrella of libertarianism. I do not describe these as libertarian. Richman does. He is wrong.
Ed, its not a personal attack or enforcing some code which you must otherwise you are forced to rejoin cato or something. its a could you explain further what you mean cos i can see some problems.
Delete@ Bionic Mosquito:
ReplyDeleteIt's right there in your post:
"Libertarian theory also fully embraces peaceful (if I may translate peaceful as non-aggressive) social non-cooperation, but then this is where left-libertarians such as Richman get thrown off the tracks. They write about basic income guarantees, or people shouldn’t discriminate based on race, gender, age, or whatever."
The clear implication here is that Richman supports a basic guaranteed income. So I asked if you can produce proof that he ever did so. I don't think that's illogical.
As for your other point, you do write about many things from a libertarian principle that do not involve a violation of the NAP. Do you think readers are automatically dissociating such topics from libertarian philosophy? It would seem to me you are making libertarian discourse into an unnaturally small subject area. Why? So you can defend you ideas of what libertarianism is and what it isn't? What if other people disagree? What should be the standard for the meaning of a word? Are word meanings static or do they evolve? Do you have a claim on what words mean to other people? Which perspective is more Austrian and market-based? A centralized static objective decree for the meaning of a word, or a meaning based on the subjective use of the word in the market place of ideas?
"...left-libertarians such as Richman..."
Deletethe key words being "such as." I knew when I wrote it that (at least to my knowledge) Richman had not written of this. Left libertarians do.
"Do you think readers are automatically dissociating such topics from libertarian philosophy?"
Richman states plainly that certain of his non-libertarian views are - or should be - part of libertarian philosophy; your final paragraph confirms that you see this, yet you argue with me about it.
I do not insist regarding my non-libertarian moral and cultural views. Richman is wrong to do so - unless he wants to exclude many from the tent.
To your long list of questions about words and meanings: Those who choose for words to not have meaning will achieve certain ends - one is to ensure meaningful ideas are lost. The list of co-opted words that once supported liberty and freedom (including liberty and freedom) is long. I have decided to do what I can to not allow the word "libertarian" to fall down the same hole.