Straw Men Libertarians

Format for printing
Submitted by FreedomDemocrats on Sun, 2009-08-09 10:42.

This is just a complete and total joke. Holding up Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve's lack of regulation over the latest speculation bubble as an example of libertarianism?

At least he has this disclaimer:

I am talking about libertarians as they are more typically understood, the Ayn Rands (of whom Greenspan was a drooling acolyte), the Ron Pauls, and so on. No doubt, if you care about libertarianism (I don't), that is the tip of the iceberg.

To throw in both Greenspan and Ron Paul, the guy leading the charge to audit the Federal Reserve, is quite an intellectual stretch.

But this is interesting:

Nevertheless, to the extent that libertarians hold up the individual as primary and fail to recognize that individuals simply cannot physically exist without a social/cultural/environmental context, libertarianism is worthless. To the extent that libertarianism does recognize the complex dialectic between the individual and her/his social and physical environment, libertarianism is indistinguishable from liberalism.

As a moral philosophy, by failing to recognize an indisputable physical and ethical reality - namely, that the conflict between the one and the many is primary - libertarianism is all but useless. As a political philosophy, especially when it comes to issues affecting the "rights of businesses", libertarianism is often deeply immoral, providing flimsy rationales for destructive acquisition, thievery, fraud, and greed - typically, and ironically, in the service of the largest corporations, not individuals. When political libertarianism does pursue goals worthwhile to the individual and to society - eg, in calling for the end of sodomy laws - they add no arguments to the debate that liberals and progressives haven't already expressed.

The author admits they don't care about libertarianism. They see libertarianism as either intellectually worthless, or "me too"-ing the contributions of liberals and progressives. But they seem to care enough about the modern American left and its liberals and progressives to split them apart and see them as contributing to arguments.

FreedomDemocrats's blog »

Q.E.D

#7326 On Sun, 2009 08 09 13:55 ka1igu1a said,

A perfect example of what I recently wrote...

Personally, I wish libertarianism could have a more substantive,legitimate debate with progressivism for the soul of liberalism, but it's a tough debate to have because most progressives are usually clueless about the historical roots of libertarianism and the label/term itself has become so diffuse that it's almost meaningless in a sense(e.g., the likes of Eric Dondero and Noam Chomsky both lay claim to the term here in the US).

however, that post is chock full of logical fallacies, regardless...it seems to be a common trait among these self-proclaimed cognitively advanced critics, the evolved ability not to encumbered/bothered by the constraints of logic..

login or register to post comments

Guard that straw...

#7331 On Tue, 2009 08 11 07:59 Nathan said,

It took me a long time before I realised that most of what is thought of as being a product of a liberal/progressive movement was integrated from 19th century socialist anarchists. Takes a lot to dislodge an opinion based on lack of information, but if people just want to convince themselves they've rationally dismissed something they'll keep their straw men in a very cold freezer.

login or register to post comments

slogan of the closed minded

#7342 On Thu, 2009 08 13 06:52 adam ricketson said,

When political libertarianism does pursue goals worthwhile to the individual and to society - eg, in calling for the end of sodomy laws - they add no arguments to the debate that liberals and progressives haven't already expressed.

To paraphrase: If I agree(d) with them, then I already knew it. If I disagree(d) with them, then they are wrong. Either way, I learn nothing.

I think this says more about his own mentality than it does about libertarianism. This author's closed-mindedness is also revealed by the fact that he views Cowen's attempt to start a conversation as "cynical misrepresenatation" of progressivism. Based on what I've read at MR, I don't think that Cowen is so enamored with ideological labels that he would bother to try to misrepresent "progressivism".

login or register to post comments

conflict between the one and the many

#7343 On Thu, 2009 08 13 07:12 adam ricketson said,

Kling and Cowen both failed to address the communitarian aspects of progressive ideology, which I (and digby, apparently) think is pretty important...and we've discussed it here before. Progressivism is about more than just economic management.

Anyway, to simplify, progressives have a unified view of society while libertarians have a fragmented view. By this I mean that progressives view different aspects of society (economics, politics, culture) as being inseparable. Therefore, political equality is inseparable from economic equality -- "equality" applies to all aspects of life. They also view "society" as an coherent entity, meaning that members either belong or they don't (they may also include nested societies). Libertarians treat different aspects of society as being basically independent of each other. Libertarians also have a network view of society, meaning that society emerges from relationships among individuals. Consequently, I could have relationships with two other individuals who do not have direct relationships with each other (though they will still impact each other due to how they influence me). One profound consequence is that even though each individual must exist in some society, an individual does not have to exist in this society.

Of course, sophisticated progressives realize that some social relationships are more important than others while sophisticated libertarians recognize the interactions between culture, economics, and politics. Similarly, sophisticated progressives recognize the "fuzzy" boundaries of group identity, while sophisticated libertarians realize that network interactions can create meaningful groups at various levels of organization (ranging from the family/household to the nation/language-group).

login or register to post comments