Libertarianism is “the Marxism of the Right”
At least according to a post on a strange conservative website from several years ago.
My attention, since you’re wondering, was drawn to this by a friend of a friend, who I had the pleasure of having a friendly disagreement with at the pub the other week (regarding passports and the ID database - he supports both, combined).
On the article, he said: “Personally I think that there is a lot of junk and assumptions in this article, but it does highlight a few ‘minor’ flaws in your ideological system…”
Personally, I don’t even know where to start with this, viscerally disagreeing as I do with virtually every sentence in the piece; so with “real work” impingeing on my day, I thought I’d throw it out here to create a stir.
Over to you, readers.
Stir.
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
July 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
“libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism.”
Obviously, this person hasn’t studied the school of thought outside of (ugh) Ayn Rand.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It’s bullshit. I’ve had that article waved at me before now, the writer doesn’t understand libertarianism OR marxism. End.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Conservativism: An old fashioned philosophy determined to resist change and implement a lagging morality.
Libertarianism: A clear cut philosophy based on fixed principles of self ownership and liberty.
Gone are the days when Conservatives could have called themselves the party of free markets and freedom. They are embracing the center ground, third way for electoral purposes. At least I can respect Marxists for staying true to their guiding principles, regardless of how much I disagree with them.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Strange. I thought libertarianism was pretty much classic liberalism. This being the reason it is officially “to right wing” & “incompatible with party membership” in the pseudo-lib Dem party.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Neil: Close enough, and the Lib Dems need to give that word back, preferably by packing it in and re-joining Labour where they belong.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Most of the argument hinges on the assumption (passed over briefly early in the article) that libertarianism is both a politicial philosophy AND a moral one. Libertarianism assumes a certain moral base to politicial philosophy (that people should be free to regulate their own affairs) and applies that against the State and others.
However, libertarianism does not require people to act without concern for others in their private affairs. In fact it assumes a constant concern for others, justified on the basis of self-interest.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Max Andronichuk how can you respect Marxist for believing in guiding principles that have only ever given the world totalitarian regime’s.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Marxists believe capitalism is the root of all evil
Libertarians believe government is the root of all evil
I see the collation that both ideologies are extremely dogma & want to impose that dogma on all
I’ve long found it well ironic that for a ideology which professes such support for individual freedom that libertarianism is so dogmatic.
Anyways on there was an interesting article posted on that same blog a few weeks back.
http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/07/03/celebrate-secession/
Its shame you don’t have somebody involved in LV who’s actually on the ball & picks up on stuff as it happens not 3 years after I first remember reading it.
July 30th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Ziggy: Pardon?
July 31st, 2009 at 8:57 am
Marxism and libertarianism could hardly be more different.
Marxism takes as its point of departure (at very least) the very fully-developed writings of a single individual. Although both as a system of analysis and a programme for political activity, it’s moved on a lot over the last century, its roots go back to one set of texts, with a particular relationship to other thinkers, e.g. Hegel. For all the manifest evil it’s encouraged, it at least has a sort of intellectual coherence.
‘Libertarianism’, on the other hand, is infinitely more diverse, both in its intellectual heritage and its applications. Stupid people, as well as the author of that AmCon post, generally treat libertarianism as if it were somehow unitary, cohesive, easy to define. But it isn’t.
What does a Randroid have in common with a Mills-worshipping classical liberal? What does an natural rights-inspired anarcho-capitalist have in common with a rule utilitarian who’s ended up somewhere vaguely liberal? What does a secularising rationalist Liberal with a very short historical memory have in common with the sort of Tory who’s lucid enough to realise that the protestant traditions which he seeks to preserve are often the very same freedom-loving stuff from which e.g. Mills later derived the inspiration for his writings?
Insofar as ‘libertarianism’ exists, it’s as a set of preferences shared, more often than not, between all these various contrasting points of view.
Marxists are, in a sense, right to be ’splitters’, because the logic of their approach implies that there are central, inescapable truths from which departure is unacceptable. Libertarians, on the other hand, should be rather more careful about denouncing potential allies, as much for reasons of intellectual coherence as pragmatic good sense.
For pretty much every contention in that AmCon article, one could easily supply half a dozen footnotes demonstrating that various ‘libertarians’ don’t fit the author’s model as well. Why bother, though, to piece his straw man back together for him? What annoys me much more - because it’s so unnecessary, and also just so intellectually short-sighted - is watching ‘libertarians’ seeking to eject other ‘libertarians’ from libertarianism’s sometimes highly effective broad church.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:57 am
Smedley: Libertarianism is a methodology more so than an ideology. It’s important that fully philosophical libertarians who understand the methodology seek to educate coincidental libertarians (also known as consequentialist/utilitarian) into libertarianism proper. For this reason you’ll find me verbally battering self-declared utilitarians in the round.
Liberalism perished because it failed to coherently define itself, if libertarianism can at least hold on to its (hard fought) methodology then it stands a chance of survival. If not, it’ll dissipate as it meekly accommodates the views of its ever-broadening church of the liberally inclined.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:08 am
‘Liberalism perished’?! Personally, I’d have said that liberalism is now a major force within all our mainstream political parties - although as of course it’s a compromised, ‘imperfect’ liberalism you perhaps don’t consider it real liberalism at all.
Anyway, I’ve said my bit. If you and others here insist on using such a limiting, reductivist definition for ‘libertarianism’, fair enough.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Look out of the window, where the F is the liberalism? Where I live it’s illegal to carry alcohol and/or listen to Buju Banton.
I don’t regard MI as limiting in the slightest, rather liberating. And in no way does it exclude non-ancaps or any other strand of rational thinking; if that were so it would exclude me since I tend to think that libertarianism might ultimately lead to communism.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
I can look out of the window of the building that my private employer rents, out into the street where lots of men, like myself are free to not serve the government in their absurd wars - whereas just a few decades ago, I’d have been forced to comply with the draft. I have the protection of relatively independent courts, and spend my rent and utilities bills with companies that I choose to trade with. All nice signs of liberalism.
Of course, an awful lot of this is still stifled by government, interferring to make this worse for everyone besides vested powerful interests - but the point is not that we have pure levels of liberal nirvana, but rather that there is some liberalism out there, and quite often it gets wider and better. To ignore this and adopt an all-or-nothing approach is, I think, misguided and unnecessarily pessimistic.
And I’m with Bunny re: the broad church.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Julian: Overdue clarification from me…
As long as there is a political system there will be utilitarian thinking, my argument is with those who think that they can START there. As though utilitarianism can lead in a liberal direction; it cannot, that much should be perfectly clear by now. To my mind utilitarianism = politics and both are the enemy; the mission of a libertarian (or a liberal for that matter) ought to be to work to minimise them. But if I wasn’t accepting of those things for the purpose of pragmatism then I’d not be a libertarian, I’d be a revolutionary anarchist. I’ve no time for them either.
If people calling themselves consequentialist/utilitarian are allowed to direct the movement in the UK from this early stage, then in a mere 10 years time there will be no movement. The methodologists, the Austrians etc must be in the driving seat or else we’re going off a cliff.
I’ve noticed many [C/c]onservatives and consequentialists tend to be fans of Hayek
Why am I not a conservative
…he is very clear that a) “liberalism” is no marxist-like ideology, and b) liberals have to reason their way forward, not just look around for examples from the world of orthodox economics. That way be dragons.
I’ve given up on the word liberal, but I’d be grateful if I and other modern liberals were permitted to keep the word libertarian.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:39 am
PS: what you see out the window is NOT liberalism, it is just the space that authoritarianism hasn’t yet totally destroyed.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:58 am
But I deliberately gave examples of areas that used to be occupied by the state (ie. authoritarianism) but are now not - ie. the obligation to kill people because the state tells you to, the ability to withdraw custom from BT (at least to some extent) et cetera.
July 31st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
…and I’m not going to bother to give counter-examples of where things have got worse, suffice to say that when those people weren’t fighting (or even while they were!) they were more free than they are now. Things have changed, but they haven’t become more liberal.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:28 pm
‘I’m with Bunny re: the broad church.’
Julian your a pretty cool but sadly there are libertarians who want libertarianism to be a very fixed ideology (you have one writing for this blog) & if you don’t sign up to their libertarian worldview 100% then they’ll endlessly give you crap for it rather accept that you think different from them.
August 1st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I am not a Conservative, but I think the article has a good critique of libertarianism, and no one seems to be responding to it.
For example, what would you say in response to
“And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one. ”
?
This is just one example of course.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices?”
If you cannot see what is wrong with that statement, Geoffrey, then might I politely suggest that you stop commenting on politics or freedom—ever?
DK
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
DK: *chuckle*
Geoffrey: You think limits are required because you see the top 5%(?) Oligarchs pushing people around, but that didn’t happen by accident, it happens because there is a coercive system of laws/taxes which are skewed heavily in their favour. People think that the government protects them from predatory Dr Evil-type people: it doesn’t, it works for them. And it doesn’t take a government to look after people who have suffered from a little bad luck either, if we won’t voluntary help less fortunate people (as opposed to parasitic people, such as bankers) then obviously we all suck.
August 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@Devils Kitchen
Maybe Geoffrey has a different definition of freedom then libertarians its rather arrogant that libertarians seem to think they have a monopoly on the concept of freedom
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Not really, Ziggy. Freedom does not mean protection, entirely irrespective of any ideology one might have.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom
If we can’t agree on that, then language is pretty pointless as I could interpret any of your words as meaning anything. Maybe, to me, “different” means “same” and “arrogant” means “with the face of a cat” and so on.
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Is a man down a hole free?
August 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Ah yes, I forgot about the effect of market failure that causes people to fall down holes.
Good thing we have the National Institute of Trapped Human Rescue Excellence to get him out. Otherwise he’d just die there while we all groped around for profit, ignoring his plight.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ziggy:
“libertarians seem to think they have a monopoly on the concept of freedom”
No. Libertarians think that nobody should be forcing their concept of freedom onto others (especially if you think freedom means “Arbeit”).
Is a man down a hole free?
Ask the man down the hole… That thought never occurred to you, did it?
And what would you say to somebody who wants to die?
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
what would you say to somebody who wants to die?
Go ahead
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
‘Good thing we have the National Institute of Trapped Human Rescue Excellence to get him out. Otherwise he’d just die there while we all groped around for profit, ignoring his plight.’
Julian don’t be a dick you know exactly what I meant
I hsuggest you go & ask somebody who’s mentally ill or disabled or screwed up some other way whether they think the market has failed them?
I think deep down you know the answer
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Ziggy: You are obviously much smarter than the rest of us - you win.
August 3rd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
You think the market screws over disabled people? How?
I don’t like getting personal, but it really is remarkable that you stood (until very recently) under the banner of libertarianism with people like Ed and Gavin - given that your sole concept of freedom seems to rest upon a personal desire to smoke dope and wear dresses. By all means do both to your heart’s content, I might join you one day, but to passionately defend those freedoms while peevishly mocking other freedoms is, I think, a bit strange.
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
‘but to passionately defend those freedoms while peevishly mocking other freedoms is, I think, a bit strange.’
That’s because your seeing everything in blackk & white terms where as I judge each issue seperately & differently.
As it goes I defend the freedom of others I’m not particularly keen on what the likes of Michael Savage or Nick Griffin have to say about the world but I’ll defend their right to say it.
You think the market screws over disabled people? How?
Oh things like getting fired or not getting hired for being mentally ill.
‘but it really is remarkable that you stood (until very recently) under the banner of libertarianism with people like Ed and Gavin’
Being dignosed with liver disease can change one’s perception
August 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
JS Mill once famously defended free speech on the grounds that even if you believe someone is wrong, at least their presentation of their point of view gives you the wonderful opportunity to understand your own opinions better. So I find it ironic to say the least that “Devil’s Kitchen” wants me to shut up, and thereby forego the benefits of free speech accordingly!
I believe in freedom but I think it is a complicated value. Giving freedom to a psychopath will allow him to kill others and in effect take away their freedom. So removing restraint does not always increase freedom. In parts of the world where governments have little or no power; Iraq, Afghanistan, DRC, Columbia the absence of restraint from government has handed de facto power over to criminal gangs, religious fundamentalists and terrorists creating the most illiberal parts of the world in existance today.
Now I would like to thank LV for drawing my attention to this article which I am sure makes uncomfortable reading to libertarians.
Logically I assumed that the intention was to have an intelligent conversation about the points it raised. Up until now all I can say is that the most intelligent comments so far are those contained in the original article. Whether it stays that way is really up to you, and what it is that you want people who read this blog to understand about libertarianism.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
‘JS Mill once famously defended free speech on the grounds that even if you believe someone is wrong, at least their presentation of their point of view gives you the wonderful opportunity to understand your own opinions better’
‘ free speech allows you to see the assholes for what they are’ - Anton LaVey
August 5th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Geoffrey: You ought to shut up if you’re not going to actually read or attempt to understand other peoples’ comments; there’s plenty intelligent that’s been said in this thread, and if you were paying attention, you’d understand that libertarians don’t feel the need to make a point-by-point rebuttal of the article because it is self-evident that the writer is of rather low intelligence, and strikingly ignorant vis the subjects he foolishly deems to pass judgement upon.
Your latest “point” above about psychopaths is typical of the kind of superficial argumentation which has led to our current predicament. People do not reason from cause through to effect, instead they tie themselves up in knots.
If you attempt to define the terms psychopath, criminal, government etc then you ought to realise that you are talking nonsense.
If you really want some fun, try to define the word “terrorist” on an individual basis and without reference to that person’s group affiliation, but solely on the basis of the things he/she does.
Simply, if you want to understand libertarianism, try thinking about individual people and the ways they interact with one-another. ZOOM IN from your current distant and muddled view, and start to think of other people as equal to yourself, not as distant rats occupying a maze of your design.