I've long held that libertarianism is the apotheosis of solipsism. It is the political philosophy of middle school boys. Your essay confirms me in those beliefs.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]
The US Constitution came into operation due to two voluntary acts. First the Convention had to agree that a stronger union was in everyone’s ultimate interest, and they had to agree enough on its terms that even when some disliked some provisions, on balance all decided the whole was better than any attainable alternative. No threats of force were involved.
Then it had to be adopted by a majority in every state that would join the union. One could say the franchise was not universal, but by the standards of the times it was. Thinking in terms of abstract Lockean theory- at the time of the vote a ‘state of nature’ was established and people could choose a new national and state government or stick with the old one.
Consequently the new governments- state and national – were established by voluntary agreement by at least White male property holders and those who voted ‘no’ could easily leave for new lands. No one argued for anarchy. Except for slavery the Constitution, like the marker, was a purely procedural document for determining values- not for individuals, but for the community. Significantly, expanding the franchise required no modification of Constitutional provisions beyond eliminating restrictions such as race and sex. The Constitution had no limitations on citizenship or voting based on property.
-------------
A simple thought experiment on an imaginary libertarian island leads to a remarkably similar outcome.
Libertarians settle an island, each claiming his or her piece of land. In time the population has grown enough that there is a need for roads and such. A co-op is established to build them. Those choosing not to join pay tolls when they use them.
The island prospers and as population increases more and more ‘externalities,’ such as air pollution, need to be addressed. The co-op is a logical institution to set new needed rules. (This was one of Rothbard’s many blind spots- what constituted trespass depended on contexts that could change.) Over time as linkages between residents become more and more tightly bound – noise, pollution, speed limits, etc., some institution is needed to address the issues.
To address them the possibility of modifying property rights arises. Cabins miles away from one another have no issues with one another’s noise, but when right next door that 3am party can lead to trouble. Trespass needs to be redefined. Or not. Some body needs to make those decisions.
Given its control of the roads and openness to anyone joining, the co-op gets the job- subject to popular approval. It does not take much imagination to see how this develops into a co-op providing many public services to the community as a whole with a decreasing number of nonmembers paying a premium for them because they do not pay dues.
One can also always leave- as is the case today. Were I younger I would immigrate to Canada and I can still immigrate to Portugal if I choose. Ditto got cities. Ayn Rand chose to live in highly taxed NYC because for her it was preferable to lightly taxed and regulated Bord City, KS, population 450 where she would be ‘freer.’
Like you I was once a libertarian- I organized bringing Mises to speak at Kansas University and knew Rothbard personally back in the day. Like you, I got better.
Another interesting point about Libertarian principles is that they are heavily indebted to Kant. (Ironic considering how passionately Rand and other Libertarians say they hate Kant) Kant claimed that all immoral behavior was incapable of being made a universal law because it was self-contradictory. If people are allowed to steal property, there is no such thing as property. If people are allowed to break contracts and other promises, there are no such things as promises. Unfortunately, for Kant, these are the only two examples that really work effectively. The Libertarians dealt with that problem by saying that they were the sum total of ethics, and throwing out everything else.
“His comfort rested on the belief that a genuinely libertarian world would make the outcome highly improbable.”
So the problem isn’t that the idea is wrong, I t’s that the world is so twisted from the Purity of Libertarian that this makes the “unlikely” plausible.
So would say the COMMUNIST.
Under pure Marxism there is no need for the State. It is the poison of Capitalism, Colonialism and Religion that forces the need for “re-education” so that people can see the virtues of Socialism. Even Mussolini’s Fascism, on paper, has its merits.
The quickest defense of Liberalism is that you shouldn’t judge a system by its ideological Purity but, instead, by how it responds to being WRONG. In Liberalism, you have another election, the other side gets to give it a go.
That is a better alternative any day to the Gulag, the Concentration Camp or (as Curtis Yarvin suggests) converting people into BIODIESEL.
Another good, if overlong, essay.
I've long held that libertarianism is the apotheosis of solipsism. It is the political philosophy of middle school boys. Your essay confirms me in those beliefs.
This quote is my favorite on the subject:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
[Kung Fu Monkey -- Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009]
It works in reverse as well.
The US Constitution came into operation due to two voluntary acts. First the Convention had to agree that a stronger union was in everyone’s ultimate interest, and they had to agree enough on its terms that even when some disliked some provisions, on balance all decided the whole was better than any attainable alternative. No threats of force were involved.
Then it had to be adopted by a majority in every state that would join the union. One could say the franchise was not universal, but by the standards of the times it was. Thinking in terms of abstract Lockean theory- at the time of the vote a ‘state of nature’ was established and people could choose a new national and state government or stick with the old one.
Consequently the new governments- state and national – were established by voluntary agreement by at least White male property holders and those who voted ‘no’ could easily leave for new lands. No one argued for anarchy. Except for slavery the Constitution, like the marker, was a purely procedural document for determining values- not for individuals, but for the community. Significantly, expanding the franchise required no modification of Constitutional provisions beyond eliminating restrictions such as race and sex. The Constitution had no limitations on citizenship or voting based on property.
-------------
A simple thought experiment on an imaginary libertarian island leads to a remarkably similar outcome.
Libertarians settle an island, each claiming his or her piece of land. In time the population has grown enough that there is a need for roads and such. A co-op is established to build them. Those choosing not to join pay tolls when they use them.
The island prospers and as population increases more and more ‘externalities,’ such as air pollution, need to be addressed. The co-op is a logical institution to set new needed rules. (This was one of Rothbard’s many blind spots- what constituted trespass depended on contexts that could change.) Over time as linkages between residents become more and more tightly bound – noise, pollution, speed limits, etc., some institution is needed to address the issues.
To address them the possibility of modifying property rights arises. Cabins miles away from one another have no issues with one another’s noise, but when right next door that 3am party can lead to trouble. Trespass needs to be redefined. Or not. Some body needs to make those decisions.
Given its control of the roads and openness to anyone joining, the co-op gets the job- subject to popular approval. It does not take much imagination to see how this develops into a co-op providing many public services to the community as a whole with a decreasing number of nonmembers paying a premium for them because they do not pay dues.
One can also always leave- as is the case today. Were I younger I would immigrate to Canada and I can still immigrate to Portugal if I choose. Ditto got cities. Ayn Rand chose to live in highly taxed NYC because for her it was preferable to lightly taxed and regulated Bord City, KS, population 450 where she would be ‘freer.’
Like you I was once a libertarian- I organized bringing Mises to speak at Kansas University and knew Rothbard personally back in the day. Like you, I got better.
It's nice to find someone else who knows enough about Libertarianism to hate it intelligently.
Here's a lecture I gave on this topic a few years ago you might find interesting
https://www.academia.edu/5393180/A_Critique_of_Libertarianism
Another interesting point about Libertarian principles is that they are heavily indebted to Kant. (Ironic considering how passionately Rand and other Libertarians say they hate Kant) Kant claimed that all immoral behavior was incapable of being made a universal law because it was self-contradictory. If people are allowed to steal property, there is no such thing as property. If people are allowed to break contracts and other promises, there are no such things as promises. Unfortunately, for Kant, these are the only two examples that really work effectively. The Libertarians dealt with that problem by saying that they were the sum total of ethics, and throwing out everything else.
“His comfort rested on the belief that a genuinely libertarian world would make the outcome highly improbable.”
So the problem isn’t that the idea is wrong, I t’s that the world is so twisted from the Purity of Libertarian that this makes the “unlikely” plausible.
So would say the COMMUNIST.
Under pure Marxism there is no need for the State. It is the poison of Capitalism, Colonialism and Religion that forces the need for “re-education” so that people can see the virtues of Socialism. Even Mussolini’s Fascism, on paper, has its merits.
The quickest defense of Liberalism is that you shouldn’t judge a system by its ideological Purity but, instead, by how it responds to being WRONG. In Liberalism, you have another election, the other side gets to give it a go.
That is a better alternative any day to the Gulag, the Concentration Camp or (as Curtis Yarvin suggests) converting people into BIODIESEL.
I understand that people have rights.
I don't understand how inanimate objects can have rights too.