The title of this post is apt for a book, not a blog entry.
Nevertheless, I might as well start getting some of this stuff off of my chest, to clarify the sense in which I am and am not a libertarian.
I count as a libertarian, broadly speaking, because I am a fan of the free market, and of traditional, meat and potatoes, Enlightenment-era civil liberties such as the right to free speech, the freedom of religion, and all that sort of thing. It is also fair to call me a classical liberal or neoliberal.
What's wrong, then, with libertarianism? Libertarianism is primarily a political theory about the nature of liberty and the proper role of government, but many libertarians also as a matter of fact have ethical beliefs that I find suspect. Robin Hanson, though he may be a sex-obsessed misogynist (hey! I said may be), is right about this: an axiom about the value of liberty (as conceived of by most libertarians) should not be taken as the basis for libertarian political theory. The reasons for this are many, but one of them is that the theory risks becoming question-begging. Why is it wrong for the government to restrict a person's liberty? The libertarian axiomatist's reply: because it's always wrong to restrict liberty! It would seem that the putative libertarian axiom is in fact the conclusion which is need of prior justification. Moreover, there is liberty and then there is liberty. Even if the normative value of liberty were quite fundamental to our political theory, we need an argument for why we should adopt the libertarians' conception of liberty, and some alternative conception (such as the Marxist).
3 comments:
Thinking of examples of when an individual's beliefs coincide perfectly with the full spectrum beliefs of an organization...... dictator, cult leader, brainwashed minion..... hmmm seems like a scary idea.
Yes, one should always worry when one adopts a party line.
On the other hand, there is considerable disagreement and debate among libertarians, both on the level of the normative foundations of the principle of liberty, and on the level of the application of said principle to matters of law, policy, and civil society. Even the Libertarian Party is a motley crue of cantankerous politicos, moreso than many other fringe parties.
Rand molded her cult of Objectivists into a pretty tight-knit group, but they're the exception rather than the rule among lovers of liberty. And it's a good thing, too.
Yes, I was just taking a stab at humor, as I seem to often walk fences.
I often think that some of libertarian stands are on the assumption that the majority of the people, or even all people, are capable of self management. Clearly this is not true. Debate could be indefinite on when and to what extent a government should create policies to interecede or protect. Such policies are then forced on the population at large; and then become dangerously at risk for abuse in both directions.
However, I also can not stand that so many laws and censorships lean to the assumption that the majority are not capable of self management; and worse, cripple via mollycoddling those too lazy to self manage.
Clearly this all could be dissected more- like defining self management and what a model example is. I simply think it is precarious and near impossible to find a balance point that can be open enough to adapt to many situations (particularly civil laws); and also prevent abuses by those implementing or receiving on account of how ambiguous things are defined.
I agree with leaning towards less restriction of liberty in every sense and less interference of government. lol like treating adult citizens as adults and not like the children of the government.
Post a Comment