Libertarianism Discussion: Introduction

To stem the flood of emails pointing out (rightly) that what I have written here, and previously, concerning ‘libertarianism’ bears no resemblance to what they understand as ‘libertarianism’, let me say that I am discussing a particular brand of American individualist-capitalist thought that some people there call ‘libertarian’ or even more mind-bogglingly ‘anarcho-capitalism’…

My post yesterday on Thirteen Things That Are Wrong With Libertarianism has been answered at length by one Rich Paul, a gentleman who calls himself a (the?) Radical Centrist. Responding to all of his post at once would become unwieldy, so I will be responding bit by bit.

I stated in my introduction to the article that:

Yes, right libertarianism (or more correctly, propertarianism) is becoming more popular with those in I.T. and the “new economy” types, but I, for one, am not impressed.

To which Mr. Paul responds:

There is nothing “Right Wing” about Libertarianism. Your confusion is probably brought about by a one dimensional political world view.

I have a couple of problems with that response. The first being that Mr. Paul knows exactly what I am saying when I say ‘right libertarianism’. He does the same thing in his article The Corporation when he writes “The Corporation, by Joel Bakan, is a left liberal rant with some interesting substance beneath it.” In taking pains to say “left liberal”, he is asserting that there is a liberal tradition other than that of Joel Bakan, and that it is not identified with the same characteristics that make Bakan’s “left”.

In my taking pains to say ‘right libertarianism’, I do the same, but since my doing so was raised as an objection to my article, I suppose I should explain it in a bit more detail. In 1857, seventeen years after Proudhon declared himself (in De l’être-humain mâle et femelle – Lettre à P.J. Proudhon par Joseph Déjacque) an anarchist, Joseph Déjacque coined the term libertarian to describe himself and his anarchist/communitarian ideals.

Given that anarchists are generally comfortable describing themselves as “the left wing of all socialisms”, and are explicitly anti-capitalist, I think that it is fair t, if there are two competing viewpoints both under the ‘flag’ of libertarianism, to call them the ‘left libertarians’ and for the sake of symmetry to call the other group ‘right libertarians’. Further basis for anarchists/libertarian socialists to be given the moniker ‘left libertarian’ is their critique of Marxism. They claim to be “left” of both the State and capitalism, so using the logic of the coiners of the term, any proponent of capitalism must be to the “right” of their position. The very recent, and geographically limited, use of the term ‘libertarian’ to connote a set of political/economic beliefs that embrace capitalism seems only to be confusing the issue.

My second point concerning Mr. Paul’s response is his assertion that I am somehow “confused” by my “one dimensional political worldview”. As I have shown above, there are sound reasons for the phrasing I employed, but I wish to address the”one dimensional” aspect of his response.

Libertarians, particularly those who are involved in the Libertarian Party, are fond of a quiz called the Nolan Test or the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. This quiz is incredibly simplistic, attempting to map all possible politics onto two axes. It is exceedingly obvious to anyone who has ever seen the quiz that it is an evangelistic tool, nothing more. It is an ideological litmus test; answer “yes to every question on it, and you become a macho “self governor” and are allowed to sneer disdainfully at anyone who would answer differently.

To have a link on your website to the most simplistic, two-dimensional political quiz going and then accuse someone else of being confused by their overly simplistic political world-view seems almost more comical than hypocritical.

As to the point Mr. Paul makes that:

Generally, propertarianism is used as a slur by socialists, though some Libertarians have, in the Yankee Doodle tradition, adopted the slur to negate it.

I think, within the context of anarchist thought that coined the term libertarianism, and given Mr. Paul’s own objection to my using the phrase ‘right libertarian’, that propertarian would be a imminently appropriate term to use to further distinguish property-based schools of thought calling themselves libertarians and social-justice based schools of thought calling themselves libertarian. I personally am much in favor of this line of demarcation; dispensing with left/right concepts entirely in favor of more descriptive, hence nuanced, terms. In broadest terms, we are, in this exchange between Mr. Paul and myself, discussing the differences between anarchist and propertarian schools of thought.

As to the Galbraith paraphrase, I wrote:

As J.K. Galbraith said, “…[the libertarian] is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”.

To which Mr. Paul responded:

Actually, what Galbraith said is “the modern conservative…” not “the libertarian…”. A conservative, like a (modern) liberal, is 90 degrees from libertarianism on the political compass. You might want to find an authority who actually criticized libertarianism for your next article.

I stand by my appropriation of Galbraith’s quote based on the main thrust of Galbraith’s work, which was that as societies become relatively more affluent, private business tends to eclipse the public sector, and due to a need of private business to create or manufacture consumer wants to sustain themselves, the public sector becomes neglected. His argument that in a system of free markets alone, private goods will be over provided and and public goods will be under provided, makes the application of his quote to anyone who argues for the primacy of free markets appropriate.

However, since he challenged me to “find an authority who actually criticized libertarianism”, here are three quotes for you:

Far from advocating a “minimal state”, we find it unquestionable that in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided or cannot be provided adequately by the market.
– Hayek, “Law, Legislation, and Liberty” 1982

There isn’t much point arguing about the word “libertarian.” It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word “democracy” — recall that they called what they’d constructed “peoples’ democracies.” The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called “libertarian” here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that “libertarian,” fine; after all, Stalin called his system “democratic.” But why bother arguing about it?
– Noam Chomsky

An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty… a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
– Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST. No. 1

I ended my introduction to the article with:

Regardless of the morality of the thing, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Libertarianism. Here are thirteen:

To which Mr. Paul’s response was:

Disregarding morality is normally unwise.

Then I will address it directly, though many of my arguments previously can be seen through an ethical lens as well. The morality of libertarianism is, in the words of Murray Rothbard, applying a universal human ethic to government. That sounds fantastic doesn’t it? Of course, treating a governmental system as if it were a human being is odd, sort of like the legal fiction of a corporation being a legal entity. Anthropomorphizing government doesn’t constitute a moral stance.

This position ignores a fundamental aspect of government; that it is us. Government is the expression of the collective ethos of a society, perhaps excepting totalitarian systems imposed against a resisting populace. As Robert Nozick pointed out in The Examined Life, “the libertarian view looked solely at the purpose of government, not at its meaning; hence, it took an unduly narrow view of purpose, too” (italics his).

A government is a way for a people to jointly and severally express and affirming their values. To remove every internal moral consideration from government and look only at, or restrict the functioning of it to, strictly utilitarian projects does keep the dissenter from being made an accomplice in some morally questionable activity, but denies the majority the option of affirming their position on the subject. This creates not a tyranny of the majority, as the libertarian canard goes, but a tyranny of the individual.

In a society with a minarchist government, particularly in the utopian versions of a privately run minarchy, there is no room for expressing ties of solidarity and mutual concern through any channel but privately owned ones, and who, owning such a channel, is going to allow it to be used in expressing views or positions contra his/her own?

Like the market, the state is an activity, not an entity. It is not somehow independent of the way of life that it forms a part of. That way of life, that society, revolves around work with all of its attendant structures of control and hierarchy.

John Hospers, elder statesman of the Libertarian Party in the US, sought to justify wage-labor, factory discipline and hierarchic management by noting that they’re imposed in Leninist regimes as well as under capitalism. He sees nothing demeaning in taking orders from bosses, for

“how else could a large scale factory be organized?”

Frederick Engels agrees:

“wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself.”

Some people giving orders and others obeying them: this is the essence of servitude. Of course, as Hospers smugly observes, “one can at least change jobs,” but you can’t avoid having a job — just as under statism one can at least change nationalities but you can’t avoid subjection to one nation-state or another. But freedom means more than the right to change masters.


Table of contents for Thirteen Things That Are Wrong With Libertarianism

  1. Thirteen Things That Are Wrong With Libertarianism
  2. Libertarianism Discussion: Introduction
  3. Libertarianism Discussion: Axiomatics
  4. Libertarianism Discussion: Initiation of Force

<< Previous in series Next in series >>

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Libertarianism Discussion: Introduction,” an entry on JONTILLMAN.COM

Published:
4.27.07 / 8am
Category:
Pondering
Tags:
, , ,