United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: What’s the Matter with Libertarianism?
Source:
Psychology Today
URL Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/ ... at-s-the-matter-libertarianism
Published: Aug 1, 2011
Author: Peter Corning Ph.D.
Post Date: 2018-07-06 13:16:56 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 2105
Comments: 30
Who can object to the libertarian principles of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to hold property - at least in the abstract? The problem is that the real world is never "abstract." All philosophies must ultimately confront reality, and the more radical versions of libertarianism (there are many, from extreme anarchism to limited government "minarchism") rely on terminally deficient models of human nature and society. Let's (very briefly) take a look at the problem. The libertarian model of individual psychology is grounded in the utilitarian, neo-classical economics model of " Homo economicus" (economic man). Our motivations can be reduced to the single-minded pursuit of our (mostly material) self-interests. Accordingly, mainstream economists seem to consider it their mission in life to help us do so more "efficiently." The Nobel economist Amartya Sen many years ago scathingly characterized this simplistic model as "rational fools who are decked out in their one, all-purpose preference function." The selfish actor model of human nature was tacitly endorsed with the rise of "Neo-Darwinism" in evolutionary biology during the 1970s, as epitomized in biologist Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene. As Dawkins summed it up, "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes....I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness....we are born selfish." A line from libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick's path- breaking book, Anarchy, State and Utopia, says it all: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group [or state] may do to them without violating their rights." (When asked to specify what those rights are, libertarians often cite philosopher John Locke's mantra "life, liberty, and property.") Not to worry, though. Through the "magic" of Adam Smith's "invisible hand," the efficient pursuit of our self interests in "free markets" will ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. One problem with this (utopian) model is we now have overwhelming evidence that the individualistic, acquisitive, selfish-gene model of human nature is seriously deficient; it is simplistic, one-sided and in reality resembles the pathological extremes among the personality traits that we find in our society. The evidence about human evolution indicates that our species evolved in small, close-knit social groups in which cooperation and sharing overrode our individual, competitive self-interests for the sake of the common good. (This scenario is reviewed in my books The Fair Society and Holistic Darwinism.) We evolved as intensely interdependent social animals, and our sense of empathy toward others, our sensitivity to reciprocity, our desire for inclusion and our loyalty to the groups we bond with, the intrinsic satisfaction we derive from cooperative activities, and our concern for having the respect and approval of others all evolved in humankind to temper and constrain our individualistic, selfish impulses (as Darwin himself pointed out in The Descent of Man). So we are not, after all, like bumper cars in a carnival, where we all range freely, and, if we cause "harm" by crashing into others, we simply say "excuse me" and move on. Rather, we are (most of us) embedded in an exceedingly complex network of social relationships, many of which are vital to our well-being. Every day we confront issues relating to the needs and wants of others and must continually make accommodations. And in addressing these conflicting interests, the operative norm is - or should be - fairness, a balancing of the interests and needs of other parties, other "stakeholders." Indeed, libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests. For instance, the canonized conservative economist Friedrich Hayek posited a stark choice between two alternative models - either a "free market" of atomized individuals rationally pursuing their self-interests in transactional relationships or an authoritarian, coercive "state" that seeks control over us. In Hayek's words, "socialism means slavery." The libertarian novelist Ayn Rand went even further. As she saw it, there is a perpetual class war going on between the "creators" and "producers," on the one hand, and the great mass of "parasites" and "moochers" who use government to steal whatever they can from the deserving few. One of Rand's heroes, the defiant architect Howard Roark in her novel The Fountainhead, tells us: "All that proceeds from man's independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man's dependence upon men is evil...The egotist in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices for others....Man's first duty is to himself...His moral law is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men....The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is - hands off!" The benign free market model of society is equally deficient. Many libertarians seem to be myopic about the prevalence of self-interested "organizations" in the marketplace, from the many millions of mom-and-pop businesses with only a few employees to mega-corporations with hundreds of thousands of workers (whose freedom they may severely restrict). These "corporate interests" sometimes oppose the common interest and perpetrate malfeasance. (Do we need to rehearse the recent examples of Enron, Capital Management, Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, BP, Massey Energy and other disasters?) So-called free markets are routinely distorted by the wealthy and powerful, and the libertarians' crusade for lower taxes, less regulation and less government plays into their hands. Perhaps unwittingly, anti-government libertarians would have us trade democratic self-government for an oligarchy. A more serious concern is that the libertarian fixation with individual freedom distracts us from the underlying biological purpose of a society. The basic, continuing, inescapable problem for humankind, as for all other living organisms, is biological survival and reproduction. Whether we are conscious of it or not, most of us spend a large majority of our time and energy engaged in activities that are directly or indirectly related to meeting no fewer than 14 domains of "basic needs" - biological imperatives ranging from such commonplace things as food, clothing and shelter to physical and mental health and the reproduction and nurturance of the next generation. In a very real sense, therefore, every organized economy and society represents a "collective survival enterprise" - an immensely complex "combination of labor" (a term I prefer to the traditional "division of labor") upon which all of our lives literally depend. And our first collective obligation is to ensure that all of our basic needs are met. If there is a "right to life," as our Declaration of Independence and pro-life conservatives aver, it does not end at birth; it extends throughout our lives, and it imposes on all of us a responsibility for ensuring the "no-fault" needs of others, when they cannot for various reasons provide for themselves. So why is libertarianism unfair? It rejects any responsibility for our mutual right to life, where we are all created approximately equal. It would put freedom and property rights ahead of our basic needs, rather than the other way around. It is also oblivious to the claims for reciprocity, an obligation to contribute a fair share to support the collective survival enterprise in return for the benefits that each of us receives. And it is weak on the subject of equity (or social merit) as a criterion for respecting property rights. It presumes a priori that property holdings are deserved, rather than making merit a precondition. Imposing a test of merit would put strict limits on property rights. Finally, it is anti-democratic in that it rejects the power of the majority to restrain our freedom and limit our property rights in the common interest, or for the general welfare. The conservative Washington Post op-ed writer Michael Gerson observed in a recent column that "Conservatives hold a strong preference for individual freedom. But they traditionally have recognized a limited role for government in smoothing the rough edges of a free society. This concern for the general welfare helps minimize the potential for revolutionary change, while honoring a shared moral commitment to the vulnerable." This kind of "traditional" Burkean (and Platonic) conservativism is radically opposed to libertarianism, which Gerson calls a teenage fantasy that we need to outgrow. Freedom, as the social commentator Charles Morgan put it many years ago, is the space created by the surrounding walls. It's time to begin paying attention to the walls. Poster Comment: Its models of human nature and society are terminally deficient. What was true on August 01, 2011, is just as true today.
There have been no changes to libertarianism.
Libertarians are still suspended in time.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
#4. To: Gatlin, libertarian takeover of White House (#0)
Gatlin's Koch Bro Libertarians are taking over!
It is deeply rewarding to know I have your undivided attention....I shall continue.
I'm glad you feel that way. So as to not distract you in your posting activity, and thus provide you the most opportunity to post anti-liberty articles, I shall put you on bozo. You are welcome!
Which definitely proves in the psychology of libertarian behavior, you libertarians all too frequently resort to denialism as a person’s choice to deny reality.... gatlin Fess up gatlin, -- ,how many times have you been a bozo, --- used the bozo on me? --- I'd bet it's been close to a dozen by now, here and on the other sites we've been opponents.. YOU are the denialist...
The Libertarian Party (LP), is the political action wing for those who wish to implement Austrian economics, and property rights, right? It would seem, based on evidence ranging from policy preference, social media marketing, as well as conversations with higher level members within the LP, that the common agenda of many rootless cosmopolitans within the Party is geared more towards chastising police and championing social degeneracy including: drug use, sexual promiscuity, and fetishizing the transgenderism/nonbinary mental illness. Basically everything which Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephen Kinsella, Curt Doolittle, and the Alt-Right have pointed out as “counter-productive degeneracy” or “liberalalalatarians” when it comes to these libertarians pushing their ill-conceived vision of libertarianism. A shining, prime example is that of James Weeks II, the Libertarian Party affiliate who stripped on stage live on television during the Party’s 2016 convention. Libertarians that express such muddled views of ‘freeing’ the market by allowing any and all trespass everywhere, aside from one’s own individual person, are tantamount to left-libertarians. Some are honest and openly declare themselves as leftists whilst others explicitly deny that a “left” and “right” political spectrum even exists. The rampant and excessive focus on hyper-individualism abandons the conclusions made from Western culture, Philosophy, epistomology, argumentation ethics, etc. When it was founded in 1971 by David Nolan and his close allies, the LP was inspired by the writings of Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and other like- minded authors. The LP Later obtained funding from the Koch brothers, who were likewise inspired by Murray Rothbard. Charles Koch was also a founding member of the Cato Institute. The LP was founded due to concerns about the Nixon administration, the Vietnam war, and removing the US Dollar from the gold standard. In the beginning, the Libertarian party had a positive influence on the public debate which helped to shift the political discussion in the United States in the right direction. In its current form, the Libertarian Party is primarily comprised of “Lolbertarians” or “lolberts” who are more obsessed with ending the ‘racist’ war on drugs, rather than understanding and implementing libertarianism proper as described by Rothbard, Hoppe, and others like them. These lolbertarians are the reason libertarians are seen as radical laughing stocks, for what they endorse and demand is hardly dissimilar to that of Green Party communists and leftist progressives. This leftward drift is inherent to any public political movement or institution which is not explicitly right-wing. According to Robert Conquest’s second law of politics: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left- wing.” A simple example of this leftward trend can be found at Libertarianism.org, a website run by the Cato Institute. A piece titled: Why Aren’t There More Black Libertarians? showcased their neo-Marxist allegiances. Their argument being that since blacks in America have, and still experience government discrimination, that they should naturally be anti-government. This argument is built off the neo-Marxist assumption that there are no differences between the various races of man, and that we are all interchangeable. Never did it cross their minds that perhaps the reason why libertarianism appeals so much to the Faustian Spirit of Western Man, is due to the fact that it’s rooted in Anglo-Saxon common law, and is an expression of who we are as a people. Maybe, just maybe, the reason it doesn’t speak to other groups who happen to live in our societies is because they have no organic roots in it. It’s not part of their legal, cultural, or genetic heritage. There’s also the IQ debate. Blacks, on average are two standard deviations below the IQ of whites , who make up the majority population of the United States, and are the group that pioneered, built, and created the legal system of this nation. As seen in Africa and places of black majority, they are not able to reliably uphold and sustain their own governments. With that lesson in mind it follows that if there is a welfare state, they would on average be reliant on it, not be its net contributors, nor does it stand to reason that many would be incentivized to advocate for the removal of said programs. This can be seen by their disproportionate reliance on government welfare programs such as, SNAP, etc. Marxists and the rootless cosmopolitans that dilute the media and all lanes of popular culture enjoy cementing the idea that blacks and other minorities are under-privileged simply because white people allow it to be so. They promulgate the neo-Marxist theory that systemic racism, perpetuated by white people is the cause of all their ills, rather than actually making a genuine argument to address and understand those issues, they seem to always resort to the turn of the century tactic to promote anti-white and anti-western attitudes. The Libertarian Party, amongst practically all other political institutions operates within this purposefully flawed paradigm. This is exemplified by Nicholas Sarwark, the current Libertarian Party Chairman, running for Governor of Arizona this year. He brazenly accused prominent libertarian scholar Dr. Tom Woods of being a racist back in 2017 for advocating Rothbard’s strategy of ‘right-wing populism’. Organizing as paleolibertarians to appeal to the inherent right-wing values that begot libertarianism itself, and allying with conservatives and Old Party Republicans to achieve victory against entrenched leftist programs like: welfare, mass third world immigration and social security. This speaks to the Alt-Right’s existence and origins: it is the Right organizing in a war against the revolutionary Left and against a highly corrupt establishment. Within recent libertarian news, Sarwark has faced the allegation of being a “shadow CIA” asset of some kind. Further explained in this article here is possible evidence of affiliation with Stratfor; a geopolitical intelligence gathering platform. The Free Thought Project (FTP) shows Sarwark’s personal information included in a vast amount of emails leaked from the private company’s database. This could be interpreted as some kind of affiliation. What is inconclusive in FTP’s assertion is the purpose for Sarwark’s name being included in the documents, along with Republican Sarah Palin’s name. Sarwark’s defenders claim that this is some kind of “conspiracy theory” or at the very least, an incomplete allegation. That, there is no evidence of any shady elements in Sarwark’s relationship with Stratfor. It could be anything from his office filing a magazine subscription to the company, to his own business deals. Ultimately, who knows? What this does show, however, is that there is a sentiment of mistrust towards the LP. FTP’s own views are not far from those who populate the LP, as described above. We would invite Nicholas Sarwark to make a statement addressing this affiliation if he wishes to do so. Another example of leftist entryism and subversion is the campaign of Matthew Kuehnel, a self-proclaimed “libertarian-socialist” who is running for the Chairman position of the Libertarian Party using blatantly communist propaganda. Examples such as, “workers of the world UNITE!” and slogans declaring that “rent is theft”, among many other openly communist sentiments. It is beyond absurd that a man who runs on a platform that openly rejects private property norms is able to run for a high ranking office in the Libertarian Party without any scandal. Yet, when Augustus Invictus, a rightwing libertarian from Florida and now publisher of The Revolutionary Conservative, ran for senate in Florida there was a veritable outcry. High ranking members quit and complained to the media in disgust, declaring Invictus was a fascist because of his campaign logo that had a Roman eagle and a picture of a fasces on it. Despite the controversy, Invictus denied any fascist sympathies and instead made an oath to uphold the values of the LP uncompromisingly. Yet, no similar uproar has occurred in response to a candidate who not only uses communist symbols but is openly communist and seeks to undermine the very foundational principles of private property that the LP is built upon. The term libertarian, at least in the contemporary American context, implies private property norms. Thus, if someone of this character is able to gain traction within the Libertarian Party, then the LP’s slogan as the ’party of principle’ is empty and meaningless. Whatever the case may be, the LP has been definitely infiltrated by those who are not libertarians. They use the influence of the private property based philosophy to further pervert achievable goals, replacing them with short-term, high time preference favoring policies. It seems it’s time for a new kind of movement.
Basically everything which Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephen Kinsella, Curt Doolittle, and the Alt-Right have pointed out as “counter-productive degeneracy” or “liberalalalatarians” when it comes to these libertarians pushing their ill-conceived vision of libertarianism. A shining, prime example is that of James Weeks II, the Libertarian Party affiliate who stripped on stage live on television during the Party’s 2016 convention. Libertarians that express such muddled views of ‘freeing’ the market by allowing any and all trespass everywhere, aside from one’s own individual person, are tantamount to left-libertarians. Some are honest and openly declare themselves as leftists whilst others explicitly deny that a “left” and “right” political spectrum even exists. The rampant and excessive focus on hyper-individualism abandons the conclusions made from Western culture, Philosophy, epistomology, argumentation ethics, etc. When it was founded in 1971 by David Nolan and his close allies, the LP was inspired by the writings of Murray Rothbard, Lysander Spooner, and other like- minded authors. The LP Later obtained funding from the Koch brothers, who were likewise inspired by Murray Rothbard. Charles Koch was also a founding member of the Cato Institute. The LP was founded due to concerns about the Nixon administration, the Vietnam war, and removing the US Dollar from the gold standard. In the beginning, the Libertarian party had a positive influence on the public debate which helped to shift the political discussion in the United States in the right direction. In its current form, the Libertarian Party is primarily comprised of “Lolbertarians” or “lolberts” who are more obsessed with ending the ‘racist’ war on drugs, rather than understanding and implementing libertarianism proper as described by Rothbard, Hoppe, and others like them. These lolbertarians are the reason libertarians are seen as radical laughing stocks, for what they endorse and demand is hardly dissimilar to that of Green Party communists and leftist progressives. This leftward drift is inherent to any public political movement or institution which is not explicitly right-wing. According to Robert Conquest’s second law of politics: “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left- wing.” A simple example of this leftward trend can be found at Libertarianism.org, a website run by the Cato Institute. A piece titled: Why Aren’t There More Black Libertarians? showcased their neo-Marxist allegiances. Their argument being that since blacks in America have, and still experience government discrimination, that they should naturally be anti-government. This argument is built off the neo-Marxist assumption that there are no differences between the various races of man, and that we are all interchangeable. Never did it cross their minds that perhaps the reason why libertarianism appeals so much to the Faustian Spirit of Western Man, is due to the fact that it’s rooted in Anglo-Saxon common law, and is an expression of who we are as a people. Maybe, just maybe, the reason it doesn’t speak to other groups who happen to live in our societies is because they have no organic roots in it. It’s not part of their legal, cultural, or genetic heritage. There’s also the IQ debate. Blacks, on average are two standard deviations below the IQ of whites , who make up the majority population of the United States, and are the group that pioneered, built, and created the legal system of this nation. As seen in Africa and places of black majority, they are not able to reliably uphold and sustain their own governments. With that lesson in mind it follows that if there is a welfare state, they would on average be reliant on it, not be its net contributors, nor does it stand to reason that many would be incentivized to advocate for the removal of said programs. This can be seen by their disproportionate reliance on government welfare programs such as, SNAP, etc. Marxists and the rootless cosmopolitans that dilute the media and all lanes of popular culture enjoy cementing the idea that blacks and other minorities are under-privileged simply because white people allow it to be so. They promulgate the neo-Marxist theory that systemic racism, perpetuated by white people is the cause of all their ills, rather than actually making a genuine argument to address and understand those issues, they seem to always resort to the turn of the century tactic to promote anti-white and anti-western attitudes. The Libertarian Party, amongst practically all other political institutions operates within this purposefully flawed paradigm. This is exemplified by Nicholas Sarwark, the current Libertarian Party Chairman, running for Governor of Arizona this year. He brazenly accused prominent libertarian scholar Dr. Tom Woods of being a racist back in 2017 for advocating Rothbard’s strategy of ‘right-wing populism’. Organizing as paleolibertarians to appeal to the inherent right-wing values that begot libertarianism itself, and allying with conservatives and Old Party Republicans to achieve victory against entrenched leftist programs like: welfare, mass third world immigration and social security. This speaks to the Alt-Right’s existence and origins: it is the Right organizing in a war against the revolutionary Left and against a highly corrupt establishment. Within recent libertarian news, Sarwark has faced the allegation of being a “shadow CIA” asset of some kind. Further explained in this article here is possible evidence of affiliation with Stratfor; a geopolitical intelligence gathering platform. The Free Thought Project (FTP) shows Sarwark’s personal information included in a vast amount of emails leaked from the private company’s database. This could be interpreted as some kind of affiliation. What is inconclusive in FTP’s assertion is the purpose for Sarwark’s name being included in the documents, along with Republican Sarah Palin’s name. Sarwark’s defenders claim that this is some kind of “conspiracy theory” or at the very least, an incomplete allegation. That, there is no evidence of any shady elements in Sarwark’s relationship with Stratfor. It could be anything from his office filing a magazine subscription to the company, to his own business deals. Ultimately, who knows? What this does show, however, is that there is a sentiment of mistrust towards the LP. FTP’s own views are not far from those who populate the LP, as described above. We would invite Nicholas Sarwark to make a statement addressing this affiliation if he wishes to do so. Another example of leftist entryism and subversion is the campaign of Matthew Kuehnel, a self-proclaimed “libertarian-socialist” who is running for the Chairman position of the Libertarian Party using blatantly communist propaganda. Examples such as, “workers of the world UNITE!” and slogans declaring that “rent is theft”, among many other openly communist sentiments. It is beyond absurd that a man who runs on a platform that openly rejects private property norms is able to run for a high ranking office in the Libertarian Party without any scandal. Yet, when Augustus Invictus, a rightwing libertarian from Florida and now publisher of The Revolutionary Conservative, ran for senate in Florida there was a veritable outcry. High ranking members quit and complained to the media in disgust, declaring Invictus was a fascist because of his campaign logo that had a Roman eagle and a picture of a fasces on it. Despite the controversy, Invictus denied any fascist sympathies and instead made an oath to uphold the values of the LP uncompromisingly. Yet, no similar uproar has occurred in response to a candidate who not only uses communist symbols but is openly communist and seeks to undermine the very foundational principles of private property that the LP is built upon. The term libertarian, at least in the contemporary American context, implies private property norms. Thus, if someone of this character is able to gain traction within the Libertarian Party, then the LP’s slogan as the ’party of principle’ is empty and meaningless. Whatever the case may be, the LP has been definitely infiltrated by those who are not libertarians. They use the influence of the private property based philosophy to further pervert achievable goals, replacing them with short-term, high time preference favoring policies. It seems it’s time for a new kind of movement. Enter Screen Names of recipients separated by commas or semicolons. To: Gatlin Ping List: (optional) Make blank lines new paragraphs Auto Hyperlink Web Addresses The text you wish to Quote: Your Comments/Response: Hint: Paragraphs beginning with ">>" (2 greater-than symbols) will be auto-indented! Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com I'd like to report to the webmaster that the above rant was probably stolen and copied by gatlin..
He's been doing that for years - going back to the days of Liberty Post.
He's been doing that for years - going back to the days of Liberty Post. There IS a HYPERLINK to the SOURCE.
There are no replies to Comment # 18. End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: All (#4)
Thank you all for closely monitoring my posts and for the bumps.
#6. To: Gatlin (#5)
It is deeply rewarding to know I have your undivided attention....I shall continue.
#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)
(Edited)
I shall put you on bozo.
Which definitely proves in the psychology of libertarian behavior, you libertarians all too frequently resort to denialism as a person’s choice to deny reality....as your way to avoid psychologically uncomfortable truth. Your denialism shows yet another libertarian irrational action when you withhold the validation of a historical facts....when you refuse to accept an empirically verifiable true reality. Your motivation and the cause of your denialism in this case is political reality and your defense mechanisms meant to protect the psyche, of you the denialist, against mentally disturbing facts and ideas.
#12. To: Gatlin (#7)
Pinguinite ---- I shall put you on bozo.
#13. To: tpaine (#12)
YOU are the denialist...
There can be no DENYING that we are all watching the dying Libertarian Party.
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
It would seem, based on evidence ranging from policy preference, social media marketing, as well as conversations with higher level members within the LP, that the common agenda of many rootless cosmopolitans within the Party is geared more towards chastising police and championing social degeneracy including: drug use, sexual promiscuity, and fetishizing the transgenderism/nonbinary mental illness.
#16. To: tpaine (#14)
I'd like to report to the webmaster that the above rant was probably stolen and copied by gatlin..
#18. To: Deckard, tpaine (#16)
I'd like to report to the webmaster that the above rant was probably stolen and copied by gatlin..
Replies to Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]