A Non-Libertarian FAQ, Version 1.4
Mike Huben
Archive-name: libertarian/non-lib-faq
Posting-Frequency: monthly
A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Last updated 04/17/97.
Version 1.4
Copyright (c) 1997 Mike Huben.
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is
reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.
Please send comments to mhu...@world.std.com . I welcome suggestions for
redistribution, additions, enhancements, and corrections.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
* INTRODUCTION
* ABOUT THIS FAQ
* WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
* STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT
* LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS
1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
3. The Declaration Of Independence says...
4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
5. Taxation is theft.
6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your
house, initiate force and put you in jail.
7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
8. The social contract is like no other because it can be
"unilaterally" modified.
9. Other misc. claims denying the social contract.
10. Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social
contract?
11. Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?
12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?
13. Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't
we be left alone?
14. We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.
15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the
Mafia.
16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
17. Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes
on my rights of ownership.
18. Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.
19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
compensated.
20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.
21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.
22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.
23. I want self-government, not other-government.
24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.
26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.
27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?
28. Have you read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"?
29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.
30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
enforcement of slavery.
31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]
32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.
33. You're a Statist!
34. Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk?
* QUOTATIONS POPULAR WITH LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTS
o Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
o Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
o Thomas Jefferson
o Alexander Fraser Tyler
o Ayn Rand
o Andre Marrou
o James A. Donald
o Unattributed
* LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY
* CRITICAL REFERENCES
* BIBLIOGRAPHY
* CREDITS
INTRODUCTION
Many USENET readers encounter libertarianism for the first time on USENET.
Such unfamiliar claims might be quite difficult to judge if we haven't had
the time to think of reasons why the claims might be false. This FAQ is
intended to review a few common libertarian claims that seem wrong to
newcomers, and present some arguments in opposition that show their
shortcomings.
ABOUT THIS FAQ
The purpose of this FAQ is not to attack libertarianism, but some of the
more fallacious arguments within it. That done, libertarians can then
reformulate or reject these arguments. This is also needed to help people
place libertarianism and its arguments in context. It is very hard to find
any literature about libertarianism that was NOT written by its advocates.
This isolation from normal political discourse makes it difficult to
evaluate libertarian claims without much more research or analysis than most
of us have time for. Compare this to (for example) the extensive literature
of socialism and communism written by ideologues, scholars, pundits, etc. on
all sides. Libertarianism is scantily analyzed outside its own movement.
Let's fix that.
This particular FAQ is mostly a personal view of libertarianism. It is
impossible to have an objective view of something like libertarianism, and
it would be a mistake to presume this FAQ is. (Or that the FAQs written by
proponents are.) It is also impossible for this FAQ to represent all the
opposing positions to libertarianism, though I hope to see many future
contributions from others. One notable failing (common to many libertarians
as well) is that this FAQ is rather US-centric. All statements in this FAQ
can be argued further by both sides, and indeed most have in several answers
to this FAQ. However, feel free to save a copy of this FAQ and cite from it.
It may not be ultimate truth, but it can be a starting point for answers to
libertarianism.
The editor and primary author, Mike Huben , has 20 years experience in
debate over electronic networks. Much of that has been with religious
believers and creationists, and this colors some of the arguments and
examples. No judgement or personal offense is intended, though there is a
substantial amount of ridicule of arguments (based in large part on my
belief that it is the most effective antidote to pompous argument.) I
welcome recommendations for alleviating offense while retaining the sense
and humor of the arguments.
This FAQ is an unfinished work. Vast sections have yet to be created: as in
talk.origins, we might expect perhaps 20 FAQs to eventually result. Only the
first major section (Evangelism) has been written and included here. This
FAQ is written in HTML, then converted to plain text for posting.
WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
It's hard to clearly define libertarianism. "It's a desert topping!" "No,
it's a floor wax!" "Wait-- it's both!" It's a mixture of social philosophy,
economic philosophy, a political party, and more. It would be unjust for me
to try to characterize libertarianism too exactly: libertarians should be
allowed to represent their own positions. At least two FAQs have been
created by libertarians to introduce their positions. But the two major
flavors are anarcho-capitalists (who want to eliminate political
governments) and minarchists (who want to minimize government.) There are
many more subtle flavorings, such as Austrian and Chicago economic schools,
gold-bug, space cadets, Old-Right, paleo-libertarians, classical liberals,
hard money, the Libertarian Party, influences from Ayn Rand, and others. An
interesting survey is in chapter 36 of Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible:
A History of Anarchism", "The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism."
This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have
a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or
against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types. This is a
cause of much argument in alt.politics.libertarian: non-libertarians may
feel that they have rebutted some libertarian point, but some other flavor
libertarian may feel that his "one true libertarianism" doesn't have that
flaw. These sorts of arguments can go on forever because both sides think
they are winning. Thus, if you want to try to reduce the crosstalk, you're
going to have to specify what flavor of libertarianism or which particular
point of libertarianism you are arguing against.
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted
by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a
libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian
ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian
ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for
practical purposes.
STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT
Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend
upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not
notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists
like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict
the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and
their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and
their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that
"right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are
there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own
class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other
critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a
historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we
adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the
disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only
without safeguards?
There are some common counterarguments for which libertarians have excellent
rebuttals. Arguments that government is the best or only way to do something
may fail: there are many examples of many government functions being
performed privately. Some of them are quite surprising. Arguments based on
getting any services free from government will fail: all government services
cost money that comes from somewhere. Arguments that we have a free market
are patently untrue: there are many ways the market is modified.
There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical
concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point.
These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the
commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed
economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc. Please feel free
to suggest other concepts for this list.
One way to bring about a large volume of argument is to cross-post to
another political group with opposing ideas, such as
alt.politics.radical-left. The results are quite amusing, though there is a
lot more heat than light. Let's not do this more often than is necessary to
keep us aware that libertarianism is not universally accepted.
LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTIC ARGUMENTS
Evangelists (those trying to persuade others to adopt their beliefs)
generally have extensively studied which arguments have the greatest effect
on the unprepared. Usually, these arguments are brief propositions that can
be memorized easily and regurgitated in large numbers. These arguments, by
the process of selection, tend not to have obvious refutations, and when
confronted by a refutation, the commonest tactic is to recite another
argument. This eliminates the need for actual understanding of the basis of
arguments, and greatly speeds the rate at which evangelists can be trained.
Without preparation, even blatantly fallacious arguments may disturb or
convince a targeted individual. Evangelists, who tend to be more interested
in effect than in accuracy, don't tend to point out that there are usually
lots of valid counterarguments available, sometimes known for millennia.
If the target is not the person spoken to (it may be a group of onlookers,
such as the lurkers in newsgroups or listeners on a radio show), we might
expect that the "discussion" will focus on making the person spoken to seem
wrong, ridiculous, uncomfortable, at a loss, etc.
Small wonder many people are not interested in entering "discussions" with
evangelists! They're likely to be out-prepared, swamped (or worse convinced)
by specious arguments, and possibly used as a cat's paw in the persuasion of
listeners.
The arguments treated here are not strawman misrepresentations: they are all
evangelistic arguments that have actually been made by libertarians. Many of
them have been made frequently. Although they are often used
evangelistically, we can't presume that someone making them doesn't
understand their basis or cannot support their argument. And on the other
hand, often other libertarians cringe when they hear these.
Most of these questions are phrased as assertions: that is simply a less
clumsy shorthand for "How could I respond to a libertarian claiming X?",
where X is the assertion.
1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on
any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented
that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them:
few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to
the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them.
Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is
just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while
there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources.
For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of
original intent.
I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the
founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts,
especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its
interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs
the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the
possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of
the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain
its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding
from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.
There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the
Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many
libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders
unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what
the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some
bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be
questioned."
Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions
with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the
Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the
preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be
beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the
progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more
enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance
also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
2. The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government
followed the Constitution."
"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can
well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical
context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning"
endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical
purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.
Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their
beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to
"plain meaning" are not "common sense".
3. The Declaration Of Independence says...
The Declaration Of Independence is a rhetorical document, without legal
standing in the USA. That status was a deliberate decision of the
founders, not an accident. If it is purported to reflect the intent of
the founders, then we can only conclude that they changed their minds
when writing the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution.
Nor should it be mistaken for a philosophical treatise: that was not
its purpose. If a libertarian would like to defend it as philosophy, he
should rely on sound argument, not reverence for the founders.
4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join
to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of
which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists)
also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you
wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that
they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement
in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.)
It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie
issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are
EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something
libertarianism lacks.
Nor might we need or want to accept the versions of "freedom" and
"rights" that libertarians propose. To paraphrase Anatole France: "How
noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor
are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets
(without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without
paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"
5. Taxation is theft.
Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.
The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that
A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still
wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others
from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a
basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This
criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably
viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction
taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the
government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most
people who question the creation of property would agree that after the
creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the
second argument)
The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially,
tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of
argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a
contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example,
essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of
government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the
contract.
6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house,
initiate force and put you in jail.
This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this
case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of
"men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men
with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system.
Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate
force", they would still enforce with guns.
7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are
commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.
The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the
government.
There are several explicit means by which people make the social
contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose
your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your
parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of
custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to
continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and
renouncing your citizenship.
Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of
citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency
permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they
take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a
fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until
explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases,
most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.
Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a
contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to
walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it
is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered
anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of
contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a
libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?
8. The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally"
modified.
Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract
with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy
for the services they provide and obey the rules that they create. You
have an equal vote with the other residents on the budget and the
rules. If you don't like the budget or rules that are enacted, you can
vote with your feet or persuade everyone to change them.
There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow changes
by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water,
phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most
they need to notify you in advance when they change their rates.
Insurance companies raise their rates, and your only input is either
pay the new rates or "vote with your feet". (The exception is when
rates are supervised by government regulatory agencies.)
9. Other misc. claims denying the social contract.
One commonly cited Spooner argument is that the social contract is like
no other, and thus not a contract. That's a nonsequitur. A unique
feature or combination of features doesn't disqualify something from
being a contract.
Some complain that the social contract is fundamentally unjust because
it doesn't treat people equally, that people are taxed unequally or
receive services unequally. So? Like insurance, rates can vary from
individual to individual, and services received may be more or less
than premiums paid.
Some complain "Any contract where the enforcing agency is one of the
contractors is hardly fair." But the U.S. Constitution is a contract
between SEVERAL parties: the three branches of the government, the
states, and citizens. It's a multilateral contract where every party is
subject to enforcement by one or more of the other parties, and every
party is involved in enforcement for at least one other. This pattern
of checks and balances was specifically designed to deal with precisely
this fairness issue.
10. Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract?
Why leave an apartment if you change your mind about the lease? You do
not own the apartment, just as you do not own the nation. At most, you
may own some property within the apartment, just as you may own some
property within the nation.
11. Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract?
If you define contracts as voluntary, then you probably wouldn't say
the Cuban government operates by social contract, since most people who
wanted to emmigrate have not been permitted to.
Most libertarians have a peculiar definition of voluntary: contractual
agreement makes all requirements of the contract "voluntary", no matter
how unexpected they are, no matter how long the contract lasts for, no
matter if the contractee changes his mind. However, they're seldom
willing to view our social contract in that manner.
Our social contract in the USA is one of the nice, voluntary contracts
that libertarians should like. Even better, because you can terminate
it by leaving at any time. There is no US government obstacle to
emmigration from the US.
12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?
Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of
libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to
leave.
For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of
it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how
firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current
condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you
still have a choice.
This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live
in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things
about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.
You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and
perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4)
Revolt.
13. Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't we be
left alone?
You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you
are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live. If pretty much all
territory is owned by governments, and pretty much all houses and
apartments are owned, well, did you want them to grow on trees? There
ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
14. We can't emigrate because there is no libertarian nation.
Yes you can emmigrate, just as you could buy a different car even
though your favorite company doesn't produce cars which let you travel
at the speed of sound and get 2000 mpg. Even if nobody produces EXACTLY
what you want, you can choose any car the market produces or you create
yourself.
There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emmigrate. They are
the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no
over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only
difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that
anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These
nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves
territorially.
If any other market provided 200 choices, libertarians would declare
that the sacred workings of the market blessed whatever choices were
offered. The point is that choices do exist: it's up to libertarians to
show that there is something wrong with the market of nations in a way
they would accept being applied to markets within nations.
Libertaria is a combination of values that just doesn't exist: the
government equivalent of a really posh residence for very little money.
You can find nations which have much lower taxes, etc.: just don't
expect them to be first class.
And the reason these combinations don't exist is probably simple: the
free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is
no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not
competitive.
15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.
This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems
strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider
contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally
territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those
owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't
own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land (in a
limited sense.) And the US government owns rights to govern its
territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights
are a form of property. Let's not confuse them with rights of
individuals.) Thus, the social contract can be required by the
territorial property holder: the USA.
16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
You'd have to ignore an awful lot of history to claim this sort of
PROPERTY didn't exist. The US government can demonstrate ownership of
such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original
colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as
all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance
rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians
would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual
obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.
17. Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes on my
rights of ownership.
This question comes up rather often, since absolute ownership of
property is fundamental to most flavors of libertarianism. Such
propertarianism fuels daydreams of being able to force the rest of the
world to swirl around the immovable rock of your property. For example,
there were trespass lawsuits filed against airlines for flying over
property.
A good answer is: what makes you so sure it is yours?
18. Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.
What do you hold the deed to? Property as recognized by a government.
As such, you can address infringement of your rights through the legal
system. However your property as recognized by the legal system is
limited.
This isn't too surprising, since limitations created by private
transactions are also common. For example, property is often sold
without water rights or timber rights. Property is commonly sold with
easements: for example a neighbor may have the right to cross to reach
the road. And property may be sold with limitations to its usage: for
example, the Adirondack State Park was bequeathed to the people of New
York State with the stipulation that it remain forever wild.
Most government limitations on property are analogous, and you bought
property that was already under those limitations. Just as it would be
wrong to deny the validity of an easement sold by the previous owner,
it is wrong to deny the validity of the current system of limited
ownership of property. For example, a clear statement of such an
"easement" is in the Fourth Amendment, which essentially says that the
government can enter your property with a valid search warrant and not
be trespassing.
There are many existing limitations such as government rights to tax
and to zone property, limitations to ownership of navigable waters, how
far property extends to the water, etc. And sometimes new limitations
are specified, such as non-ownership of airspace above property.
19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
compensated.
Some new limitations can be viewed as merely making specific that what
was claimed was never really owned. For example, where was ownership of
airspace above property ever explicitly granted in our system of
property? Where were polluters ever explicitly granted the right to
dump wastes into air or water that they do not have a title to?
Other limitations (such as rezoning to eliminate undesirable business
or protecting wetlands from development) might be viewed as control of
negative externalities. Most libertarians would recognize the right of
a mall owner to write his leases so that he could terminate them if the
renters cause externalities: why shouldn't communities have this right
to self-governance as well?
20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.
This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete
equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll
need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.
(2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and
wages will change as well.
Here's a really ludicrous (but real) example of (1): "With taxation
gone, not only will we have twice as much money to spend, but it will
go twice as far, since those who produce goods and services won't have
to pay taxes, either. In one stroke we'll be effectively four times as
rich. Let's figure that deregulation will cut prices, once again, by
half. Now our actual purchasing power, already quadrupled by
deTAXification, is doubled again. We now have eight times our former
wealth!" (L. Neil Smith)
And here's an example of (2): "I'm self-employed. My pay would
absolutely, positively go up 15+% tomorrow if I wasn't paying
FICA/Medicare." But only briefly. Standard microeconomic theory applies
just as well to someone selling labor as to someone selling widgits. If
FICA disappeared, your competitors in the market to sell labor would be
attracted to the higher wages and would sell more labor. This increase
in supply of labor would drive down your wage from the 15% increase.
You'd earn more (per hour). But less than 15% more.
21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.
A classic libertarian roll-back-the-clock argument, that sounds good at
first because none of us directly remembers it. Libertarians do usually
remember and criticize some of the more prominent non-libertarian
features of that period, such as unequal protection under the law for
blacks and women. However, they seem to overlook a lot of other
important things.
Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However,
state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not
one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not
exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.
All the biggies were there except income tax. The equivalent of income
tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states.
There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc. As a matter of
fact, things got much better when powers of states were interpreted to
be restricted by the US constitution (much later.) Powers such as state
religious authority.
Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial
revolution spread to the US. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a
nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by
the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of
that era would be as out-of-place today as the tarriffs and scientific
knowledge of that era.
22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.
No, "Might makes ability to make something", Right or Wrong. You can't
even try for Right until you have Might to back it up in the real
world. That's the reason that some real governments have survived and
all utopian governments that have tried to abolish force have failed.
However, government is not alone in requiring might. All property is
based on might as well. Nobody is beholden to your notions of what
constitutes your property. Property is just as "involuntary" as the
social contract. There is no moral obligation for anyone to respect
your property: only a practical one.
Recognition that the fundamental nature of property is based on force
is essential to recognition that there are costs and benefits to the
principle of property. It is not as negative a "right" as libertarians
like to portray it.
23. I want self-government, not other-government.
"Self government" is libertarian newspeak for "everybody ought to be
able to live as if they are the only human in the universe, if only
they believe in the power of libertarianism." It's a utopian ideal like
those of some Marxists and born-agains that would essentially require
some sort of human perfection to work.
More explicitly, "self government" is the peculiar notion that other
people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would
like to be free of such regulation, most people also want to be able to
regulate the behavior of others for practical reasons. Some
libertarians claim that they want the first so much, that they will be
willing to forgo the second. Most other people feel that both are
necessary (and that it would be hypocritical or stupid to want just
one.)
24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
Because there are no working examples of libertarian cities, states, or
nations.
Innumerable other ideologies have put their money where their mouths
are, if not their lives. Examples include most nations that have had
Marxist revolutions, Israel, many of the American colonies, a huge
number of religious and utopian communities, etc.
Yet libertarians want us to risk what many of them consider the best
nation in the world with their untested beliefs. It's not even sensible
to convert here first for the claimed economic benefits of
libertarianism: there would be less marginal benefit to converting the
USA to a libertarian system than most other nations. Let libertarians
bear the risk and cost of their own experiment.
Let libertarians point to successful libertarian programs to seek our
endorsement. For example, narcotic decriminalization in Holland has
been a success. So has legalized prostitution in Nevada and Germany
(and probably other places.) Privatization of some municipal services
has been successful in some communities. But these are extremely small
scale compared to the total libertarian agenda, and do not rule out
emergent problems and instabilities of a full scale libertarian system.
25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.
Right. Uh huh. [Read: sarcasm.]
Libertarians sometimes cite the Minerva project (armed squatting on a
Tongan island) and an attempted overthrow of the government of
Suriname. If libertarians are too inept to compete internationally
through diplomacy, politics, bribery, or force of arms, it hardly takes
a conspiracy to explain that they lost. That's what sovereignty takes.
A working libertarian experiment could be easily county sized. A tiny
religious sect was able to buy control of Antelope, Oregon and relocate
there a few years ago: the vastly more numerous libertarians could do
much more. Privatize the roads, schools, libraries, police. Abolish
property taxes, zoning, anything not required by the state. Then show
the benefits. Yes, the state will prevent you from achieving some
libertarian goals: do what you can to show how you can improve things.
You shouldn't have to go 100% libertarian to show marked benefits
according to most libertarian claims.
26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.
This is really a class of argument, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", that
is made all too often by arguers of all stripes. The claims made with
this sort of argument by libertarians are innumerable. Counter examples
and other issues that plainly had influence are usually extremely easy
to find. Here are some real claims actually made in a.p.l.
For example: "The automotive recession started in October 1989, which
was the start of the requirement that some cars of each manufacturer be
fitted with air bags... Perhaps the reason that car sales have gone
down is that many consumers are not willing to pay for a car with air
bags."
For example: "There are as many military reasons why the draft is bad
as there are moral ones. Witness our success using a volunteer army
versus a conscripted one."
It would be possible to collect libertarian examples of the other
classes of fallacies of argument, but this frequent one can serve as
the exemplar. This particular one comes up a lot because of the lure of
testing theory with reality.
27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?
Every belief system has its evangelistic writings, designed to help
convince or draw in new members. The Campus Crusade for Christ uses
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict", Scientology uses "Dianetics", and
libertarians use "Libertarianism in One Lesson".
All of these books are very convincing-- in the absence of
counterargument. However, they are easily rebutted by skeptics because
they MUST omit the exceptions to their point of view to be convincing.
If I may cite a convert: "Libertarians like me believe in a simple
morality-- everyone should be free to do what they like, so long as
they don't initiate use of force... If you're not familiar with this
morality, I urge you to read "Libertarianism in One Lesson", by David
Bergland. I was personally shocked to find that things could be so
neatly axiomatized, and what's even more remarkable is that in the
empirical world, societies seem to me to be punished in an eye for an
eye fashion from their deviation from this simple morality. We are
deviating quite a bit and suffering accordingly... in my view this is
why economic growth is stagnating, the inner cities are dying..."
Any time I read how simple it is to understand the world through system
X, I know I'm dealing with a convert from evangelistic writings. They
blithely assert that their explanations show the true cause of current
problems. And the key to showing them to be wrong, is to show that
there's more complexity to the world than is encompassed by their
simplistic explanations.
28. Have you read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"?
"No Treason" is a lengthy rant that doesn't take longer than the first
paragraph to begin its egregious errors.
For example, in the first paragraph: "It [The Constitution] purports,
at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years
ago." Thus he focuses his attention on the Preamble, and evidently
ignores Article VII, which says EXACTLY who contracted for the
Constitution:
"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient
for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so
ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the
States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In Witness
whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names."
[signatories FOR STATES omitted.]
He's wrong on this simple matter of fact: the constitution says who
contracted with whom. But then he goes on to make a big deal about the
people of that era being dead, as if contracts between organizations
lapse when their office holders depart.
The rest of his "analysis" is equally shoddy, and consists largely of
calling government a collection of thieves and murderers at least 75
times. David Friedman, in "The Machinery of Freedom", says Spooner
"attacks the contract theory of government like a lawyer arguing a
case": but REAL presentations of cases have to cope with
counterarguments, and can't depend so heavily on invalid presumptions
which are easily shot full of holes.
29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.
How noble. And I'm sure that in a real libertarian society, everybody
would hold to this morality as much as Christians turn the other cheek.
[ :-( For the sarcasm-impaired.]
"Initiation of force" is another libertarian newspeak term that does
not mean what the uninitiated might think. Libertarians except defense
of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them retaliatory force.
But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to
commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that
libs like to play so that they can pretend they are different than
government. You know: break a law (like not paying your taxes) and MEN
WITH GUNS initiate force. Sorry, but you've gotta play fair: it can't
be initiation for government and retaliation for you.
Like most other non-pacifistic belief systems, libertarians want to
initiate force for what they identify as their interests and call it
righteous retaliation, and use the big lie technique to define
everything else as evil "initiation of force". They support the initial
force that has already taken place in the formation of the system of
property, and wish to continue to use force to perpetuate it and make
it more rigid.
The National Libertarian Party membership form has "the pledge" on it:
"I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of
achieving political or social goals." It's quite amusing to hear how
much libertarians disagree over what it means: whether it is or isn't
ok to overthrow the US because it has "initiated force" and they would
be "retaliating".
Beyond this perceived class interest, libertarian dislike of
"initiation of force" isn't much different than anyone else's. It may
be humanitarian, defensive, etc.
30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
enforcement of slavery.
No. There's a subtle distinction: they were enforcement of property
rights of slaveowners. It was entirely the owners assertion that he was
property that the government was acting upon. If the owner had at any
time freed him, he would not have been a slave.
Libertarians would love to lay slavery at the feet of government
precisely because slavery is a sin of capitalism. The US government
NEVER enslaved the blacks. The US government never said "you must now
own this slave" or "you've never been a slave before, but you are one
now." US slavery was initiated by capitalists.
The US government was NOT in the business of proclaiming people free or
slaves: that was a private sector responsibility until that Evil
Statist Lincoln stole that sacred private right for the State. Until
that time, only private, capitalist owners had the right to declare
whether a black person was free or slave.
31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]
This libertarian quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to
proclaim yourself a libertarian. The big trick is that if you answer
yes to each question, you are a macho SELF GOVERNOR: there is an
unspoken sneer to those who would answer anything else. It is an
ideological litmus test.
The most obvious criticism of this quiz is that it tries to graph the
range of politics onto only 2 axes, as if they were the only two that
mattered, rather than the two libertarians want the most change in. For
example, if socialists were to create such a test, they would use a
different set of axes.
The second obvious criticism is typical of polls taken to show false
levels of support: the questions are worded to elicit the desired
response. This is called framing bias. For example, on a socialist
test, you might see a question such as "Do you believe people should
help each other?" Libertarians would answer "yes" to this question; the
problem is the "but"s that are filtered out by the question format.
Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By
making it easy to get high scores on both axes, subjects can be told
that they are already a libertarian and just didn't know it. This is
the same sort of suckering that cold readers and other frauds use.
32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.
Wow, third! That sounds impressive until you realize that the
Libertarian Party is about 0.1% of the size of the other two. Funny how
they don't mention that in their slogan. I guess they should get a new
slogan. Let's have a new slogan contest for the Libertarian Party!
o A party a lot smaller than the Communists used to be?
o The party that can't get as many votes as any one-shot third
party?
o The party that's elected fewer to national office than the
Socialists?
o The party whose symbol is a big government statue.
o The party with the oxymoronic name?
o The party of Pat Paulson, uh, I mean Don Imus, uh, I mean Howard
Stern!
o America's Third Most Comical Political Party?
o Preschool for hyperactive Republicans?
Join in! Submit your slogan today!
Almost as comical is the Libertarian Party's '94 election results. They
now have even fewer elected dogcatchers and other important officials.
Most notable, their loss of 2 out of 4 state reps in New Hampshire.
33. You're a Statist!
Don't be surprised if you receive some ad-hominem abuse from
libertarian evangelists when you don't accept their arguments. It's no
different than if a communist called you bourgeois or a Bircher called
you a commie lover. Sometimes they'll go overboard and even accuse you
of mental disease, at which time you can point out to them the fine
company they keep: Stalin, Hitler, etc.
34. Why do you spend so much time trying to debunk?
As I told creationists who wondered why I bothered, it's interesting to
me to study unusual beliefs for the same reason it's interesting for
doctors to study pathologies. You don't have to catch a disease to be
able to understand it, fight it, or vaccinate against it.
QUOTATIONS POPULAR WITH LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTS
The purpose of bumper sticker phrases is not to enlighten: it is to
misdirect and channel your thoughts. That's a prime need for evangelism, and
thus we see a lot of these from libertarian evangelists.
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
* "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws.
On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property
existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
This quote is one of the central ideas of "The Law", a piece of
philosophical propaganda full of errors and uncompelling arguments.
Let's start with a simple demonstration of its ambiguity. Did men make
laws to support or suppress life, liberty, and property? At first
glance, since we like those three glittering generalities, we'd say
support. But if we change the generalities and keep the "logic" the
same:
"Death, enslavement, and indigence do not exist because men have made
laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that death, enslavement, and
indigence existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first
place."
Now we'd say suppress. The fact is, this ringing statement can be
interpreted to praise or damn law supporting or suppressing any
generality.
Now, Bastiat does get more specific. If you read a few sentences
further into "The Law", he presumes natural rights from god, a simple
fallacy of reification (pretending an idea is a real thing.) But the
real source of rights is might. Individuals don't have rights to
protect their lives, liberty and property: they have miniscule powers
to attempt to create such rights. Law is an attempt to benefit those
within society by creating rights through conventions that reduce
in-society conflict and utilize combined powers efficiently. Bastiat
has the tail wagging the dog: collective rights being justified by
individual rights, when in actual society individual rights are
produced by collective might.
It's hard to accept philosophy like this which starts by preferring
imaginary rights to basic observable facts of society.
Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)
* "A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years."
When you contract for government services, you are a customer, not a
slave. If you think you cannot change with whom you contract, you have
enslaved your self.
Thomas Jefferson
* "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
government." (First Inaugural Address)
Perhaps as an unreachable goal. Certainly Jefferson practiced
differently than this would seem to imply he thought. For example,
Jefferson supported compulsory tax-supported schools and kept slaves.
Jefferson was very much a political pragmatist full of such
contradictions, as any non-hagiographic biography will tell.
But if you want get into a founder quoting contest, Ben Franklin wrote:
"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the
Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even
to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public
Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling
the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the
Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just
Debt." We could find quite a few other appropriate quotes with a little
searching.
Libertarians might endorse their interpretation of the initial quote
without the backing of Jefferson: if so, let them present a working
example of such a government before we take it as more than a utopian
ideal.
* "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of
himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or
have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history
answer this question." (First Inaugural Address)
History shows that the USA has been one of the best governments, by
most people's standards, even libertarian. The last sentence indicates
that Jefferson intended these as rhetorical questions, not as
statements against all government. He also said (in the same address:
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to
change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of
the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is
left free to combat it."
Jefferson clearly had more confidence in government than the initial
quotation out of context would imply. If libertarians want to adopt
this position (as some do), they'd be better off supporting it with
something more than an appeal to the inconsistent authority of
Jefferson.
Alexander Fraser Tyler
* "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the
Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over
loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." From: "The
Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic".
I wasn't aware that there was any "permanant form of government".
However, we could make a pretty good case that voters in the US have
always known that they could vote themselves benefits from the Public
Treasury. Indeed, it's been done pretty often. Yet we've lasted 200+
years.
Unlike the Athenian Republic, in the USA the money in the Public
Treasury comes directly from the pockets of the majority, the middle
class. This might be the most significant deterrent to loose fiscal
policy.
Ayn Rand
* "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters."
Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one on
me.
Andre Marrou
* "Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want
government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an
adult."
Libertarians want to kill mommy and daddy so that they can stay up
later and buy more ice cream than they can now.
Bumper sticker analogies are as poor a method of understanding
libertarianism (let alone anything else) as science fiction. Too bad so
many libertarians make such heavy use of those methods.
James A. Donald
* "We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the
kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state."
The two red-alert-for-a-whopper phrases in this quote are: "the kind of
animals that we are" and "true law".
People who compare us to animals usually know little about animals and
less about people. If we look to animals for models we can find all
sorts of unacceptable (and conflicting) behaviors which are entirely
natural. Characterizations of humans as animals for most philosophical
purposes have historically ignored sociological, anthropological, and
sociobiological knowledge in favor of conveniently parochial
observations.
There is no "true law". Innumerable political and religious sects might
claim it, but I'd think that if there was such a thing, people could
recognize it and agree on it.
Unattributed
* "Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a
government."
Corporate feudalism isn't any prettier merely because the corporations
prattle about free markets. Strawmen are SO easy to create.
The presumption that the US government is the equivalent of mob rule is
ludicrous. The assertion that libertarian anarchy would be better is
unsupported by real examples. (Libertarian minarchy doesn't change the
form of government from "mob rule".)
* "It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money."
Almost all charitable organizations use other people's money. Their
real point is that the money used for government social programs is
"coerced" (libertarian newspeak for taxes.) What they overlook is that,
in many philosophical and religious systems (including Judaism and
Islam), charity isn't a virtue of the giver: charity is the relief of
the receiver.
* "Utopia is not an option."
This is the libertarian newspeak formula for overlooking problems with
their ideas. Much like "Trust in Jesus". Used the way it commonly is,
it means "libertarianism might do worse here: I don't want to make a
comparison lest we lose."
It is also another motherhood and apple pie issue; it applies to EVERY
political theory. The question is what provisions are made for coping
with necessary imperfections; libertarians tend to assume "the same as
today but better", without any experience of what their proposed
changes actually will do.
According to Perry Metzger, who claims to have popularized the phrase,
the correct usage is "you *have* to make a comparison of libertarianism
against the existing system rather than against your ideals of what
you'd like your system to do." However, since there is no real example
of libertarianism, that would be comparing the real current system
against an ideal libertarian system. That's hardly a fair or valid
comparison.
There is one valid way of using this phrase: to indicate that
perfection is not a possible result. That is a rare usage.
* "Democracy is like three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for
lunch."
We are not a simple democracy: we are a representative democratic
republic: there are not direct elections of laws and there is a
constitution that limits what laws can be enacted. Extend the analogy
to take that into account and lo and behold, it becomes: "deciding what
to have for lunch that is not meat."
Now, if you were making the analogy about anarcho-capitalism, it would
become "three wolves competing to be first to 'add value' to the sheep
by slaughtering it and sell it to the others."
This is really a classic libertarian strawman, used by many flavors of
anarchists for centuries. The authors of the US Constitution were well
aware of this: they devoted a segment of the Federalist papers to it:
"... it may be concluded that a pure democracy... can admit of no cure
for the mischiefs of faction... A republic, by which I mean a
government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a
different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
Federalist No. 10, James Madison.
LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY
Libertarianism does have a lot of philosophical literature which is much
more sophisticated than the evangelistic and bumper sticker arguments
critiqued above. However, much of it can be critiqued as fundamentally
flawed. James K. Galbraith, criticizing many economists, might well have
been criticizing libertarians when he wrote (in a letter in Slate, Nov. 5,
1996):
I don't accept that much of use can be learned about policy in
this way [well-structured deduction from metaphysical first
principles.] When the world deviates from the principles, as it
usually does, the simple lessons go astray. This is not a
complaint against math. It is a complaint against indiscriminate
application of the deductive method, sometimes called the
Ricardian vice, to problems of human action. Mine is an old gripe
against much of what professional economists do; not against
science but against scientism, against the pretense of science. To
combat it, I spend my research time wrestling with real-world
data, and I spend much of my writing time warring against the
policy ideas of aggressive, ahistorical deductivists.
A thorough discussion of problems of libertarian philosophy would be well
beyond the scope of this FAQ, though an overview might one day be developed.
In the mean time, a few sources are available at the "Critiques of
Libertarianism" site ( http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html ), and
still better are a number of the excellent critical references listed below.
CRITICAL REFERENCES
I am seeking references to critiques and analyses of libertarianism or its
positions, which seem to be very scarce. So far the following have been
found or recommended (special thanks to James Hammerton and Robert Lockard):
* Walter Adams "The Bigness Complex" Pantheon Books, 1987. (opposes
libertarian antitrust position)
* Norman P. Barry "On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism" MacMillan
1987
* Jeremy Bentham "Anarchical Fallacies"
* John Bryant "Libertarian Dirt" Socratic Press, 1995. A ranting pamphlet
about Murray Rothbard; 2/3 self promotion and blank pages.
* George W. Downs and Patrick D. Larkey "The Search For Government
Efficiency: From Hubris to Helplessness" Random House, 1986. A serious,
scholarly study of efficiency. Not a polemic but very necessary to
balance the government as inefficient polemics.
* Charles T. Goodsell "The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration
Polemic" Chatham House, 1994. Reexamines empirical findings on U.S.
bureaucratic performance, noting how well the American system really
works.
* Allen Buchanan "Ethics, Efficiency, and the Market" Rowman &
Littlefield, 1985. From the cover: "... contains the most thorough and
systematic analysis of economic and moral arguments both for and
against the market as an instrument of resource allocation." The
chapter, "Moral Arguments For and Against the Market" occupies most of
the book.
* G. A. Cohen "Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Studies in Marxism
and Social Theory)" Cambridge Univ Press, 1995.
* John Gray "Beyond the New Right: Markets, Government and the Common
Environment" Routledge 1994. John Gray once held views very close to
libertarianism, but in this book he repudiates both neoclassical
liberalism and libertarianism. Chapter 3, "The Moral Foundations of
Market Institutions" contains some strong criticisms of the libertarian
position.
* Donald P. Green "Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory" Yale University
Press, 1994. A serious, scholarly study of the intellectual failures of
Rational Choice Theory.
* Alan Haworth "Anti-Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy, and Myth"
Routledge 1994.
* Dennis Henigan, Bruce Nicholson, David Hemenway "Guns and the
Constitution" Aletheia Press 1995. A book-length FAQ of refutations of
the gun-ownership propganda and mythology promulgated by the NRA and
gleefully parrotted by libertarians. Essential reading.
* William E. Hudson "American Democracy in Peril" Chatham House, 1996.
Chapter 3 "The second challenge: radical individualism" has a
subsection "The flaws of libertarianism."
* Attracta Ingram "A Political Theory of Rights" Oxford University Press
1994. Ingram argues that the libertertarian concept of self-ownership
is inadequate, and proposes a (much more complex) theory of rights
based in a principle of self-government. Chapters 1-3, form a useful
exposition and critique of the standard libertarian position.
* Roland Kley "Hayek's Social and Political Thought" Oxford University
Press 1994. Shows that Hayek's concept of a spontaneous order doesn't
stand up to scrutiny, undermining a body of theory libertarians often
draw upon to show that free markets work.
* Will Kymlicka "Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction"
Clarendon Press, 1990. Now the standard text in the field; very highly
regarded. Has a long chapter on libertarianism. Not at all kind to it.
* Steven Luper-Foy "The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics"
* Stephen L. Newman "Liberalism at Wits' End: The Libertarian Revolt
Against the Modern State" Cornell University Press in 1984
* William J. Novak "The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in
Nineteenth-Century America" Univ. of North Carolina Pr., 1996. "Blasts
to pieces... the libertarian fantasy that until the twentieth century
the American state left private property owners and economic
entrepreneurs alone." --Robert W. Gordon, Yale Law School.
* Jeffrey Paul, editor "Reading Nozick" (anthology of essays about
"Anarchy, State, And Utopia")
* L.A. Rollins "The Myth of Natural Rights"
* Robbins, John W "Answer to Ayn Rand : A critique of the philosophy of
objectivism"
* Schartz, Peter "Libertarianism: The perversion of liberty" (Article)
* Thomas A. Spragens, Jr. "The Limitations of Libertarianism." RESPONSIVE
COMMUNITY (Spring 1992)45-47. (Part 2.)
* James P. Sterba "Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy"
Wadsworth, 1994. His chapter on libertarianism makes the argument that,
"... the right to a social minimum endorsed by welfare liberals is also
required by the libertarian's own ideal of liberty."
* James P. Sterba "Morality in Practice" Fifth edition, Wadsworth, 1997.
Another statement of the above argument. A longer version of this
article will appear as "Reconciling Liberty and Equality or Why
Libertarians must be Socialists" in Liberty and Equality, edited by
Larry May and Jonothan Schonsheck (MIT, 1996).
* Lars Udehn "The Limits of Public Choice: A sociological critique of the
economic theory of politics" (Routledge 1996).
* Robert Anton Wilson "Natural Law"
* Donald A. Wittman "The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political
Institutions Are Efficient" University of Chicago Press, 1995. "...
refutes one of the cornerstone beliefs of economics and political
science: that economic markets are more efficient than the processes
and institutions of democratic government."
* Jonathan Wolff "Robert Nozick: Propery, Justice and the Minimal State"
Blackwell 1991. (Details Nozick's political theory and exposes its
flaws and incompleteness.)
I've yet to read most of these, and welcome reviews, summaries, and better
citations.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
* Bergland, David "Libertarianism in One Lesson"
* Friedman, David "The Machinery of Freedom"
* Marshall, Peter "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism"
* Spooner, Lysander "No Treason"
CREDITS
Thanks to many people who have contributed directly or indirectly to this
FAQ. Some specific recommendations have come from (in alphabetical order):
Ken Arromdee (arro...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu)
Chris Auld (au...@econ01.econ.QueensU.CA)
Paul Barton-Davis (pa...@cs.washington.edu)
Bruce Baugh (Bruce...@p23.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org)
Jeffrey Bolden (bol...@s5.math.umn.edu)
Daniel Brown (dbr...@ai.uga.edu)
Steven Burnap (sbu...@netcom.com)
Caliban (cal...@gate.net)
Tony Cox (tc...@SSRL01.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU)
Merle Christopher (me...@a.cs.okstate.edu)
Ervan Darnell (er...@cs.rice.edu)
Lamont Granquist (lam...@cs.washington.edu)
James A Hammerton
Chris Holt (Chris...@newcastle.ac.uk)
Aman Jabbi (Amandee...@Eng.Sun.COM)
Steve Kangas (kang...@scruznet.com)
Jim Larson (j...@zeus.Jpl.Nasa.Gov)
Robert Lockard (RLock...@aol.com)
Calvin Bruce Ostrum (c...@cs.toronto.edu)
Glen Raphael (rap...@fx.com)
Scott Susin (ssu...@econ.Berkeley.EDU)
Russell Turpin (tur...@cs.utexas.edu)
Bob Waldrop (bwal...@xmission.com)
Matthew Daniel Walker (mdwa...@1.amherst.edu)
I owe a debt to the many people with whom I have discussed libertarianism on
the net whose ideas have helped to inform and shape my own.
Mike Huben ( mhu...@world.std.com )
Henry Blaskowski
Mike Huben (mhu...@world.std.com) wrote:
>
> A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
>
> Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
>
99% of the time complaining about libertarian debate tactics ands 1%
actually discussing libertarian philosophy, attempting to blur the
line between the two, hoping the naive reader will be fooled into
thinking that you have valid arguments against Libertarianism.
But since you are so in love with this little piece of silliness
that you post it repeatedly, I will return the favor and repeat my
response:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This diversity of libertarian viewpoints can make it quite difficult to have
> a coherent discussion with them, because an argument that is valid for or
> against one type of libertarianism may not apply to other types.
Feel free to compare and contrast this to, say, a Republican or
a Democrat or a member of the Reform Party. What are their core beliefs?
What, in the end, do they stand for? Apparently, their beliefs are
"it's my turn to drive now!" -- with no apparent destination in mind.
> They are utopian because there has never yet been a
> libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian
> ideas.)
As flawed as it was, the original United States, back when it first
started, was fairly close to Libertarian (that slavery thing was a
serious mistake!). Would anyone argue that the US is a failure? Compare
this to "anti-libertarian" states, like the USSR and Cuba. Does
anyone really believe that _more government_ looks good when held
up to the light of history?
> their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and
> their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that
> "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are
> there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own
> class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other
> critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a
> historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we
> adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the
> disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only
> without safeguards?
Subject the philosophy of others to even a fraction of this scrutiny
demanded here, and it falls down much more quickly than libertarian
beliefs. Would you hold those who believe in smaller government to
_higher_ standards, despite all the obvious failures of _too much_
government through the ages?
>
> 1. The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
>
> The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on
This can be debated as an academic exercise, but really doesn't
have much bearing on libertarianism. Libertarianism is
based on a few simple principles, not on "the founding fathers".
Debating whether they would agree or not with a partiucular position
may be great fun, but not particularly relevant. This is also true
for arguments about the Supreme Court and the Dec. of Ind.
> 4. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
>
> It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie
> issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are
> EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something
> libertarianism lacks.
In other words, the libertarians are right, but historically those
who crave power over the lives of others have been able to use
government to get their way. What's sad is that some people will
believe that this is a reflection on libertarianism, rather than on
statism.
> 5. Taxation is theft.
This is discussed endlessly on the groups. Anyone who is interested
in this tired subject should look there for both sides.
> 7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
>
> There are several explicit means by which people make the social
> contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose
> your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your
> parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of
> custody.
Agreeing to be governed is not the same as waiving your fundamental
rights. If the SC decided that free speech is no longer in the
constitution, are we to quietly put up with it? This is where
libertarians are different than the "mushy" philosophies: libertarians
support consistent respect for the rights of indivduals -- not just when
it is politically popular or politically expedient.
>
> 8. The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally"
> modified.
>
> Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract
> with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy
The difference, of course, is when the US "unilaterally" changes the
rules, it affects 260,000,000 people, and then, there is nowhere
to go. Libertarians, in general, believe in voting with your feet,
but minimizing the difference between switching condos and switching
job, friends, and country is just an "argument in desperation".
> 12. Isn't that "love it or leave it"?
>
> For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of
> it.
>
> This is analogous to living in a nation.
Oh, look, here it is now. Having to move six blocks because you
can't get 30 people to agree with you is "analogous" to having
to move 2000 miles and learning a new language because you can't get
260,000,000 people to agree with you.
Sorry, analogies don't stretch that far, even under the most
liberal definitions. The author of such a claim doesn't believe it
any more than libertarians; it is just a last ditch attempt to
distract rom the real issues.
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Yet, opponents of libertariansism frequently claim that they
can "provide" houses/food/medicine/whatever for free, without
infringing on the rights of others, because "the government will
require it". Sure.
>
> 15. Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.
>
> This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the
> accusation that taxation is extortion.
And yet, oddly enough, this "prize piece of libertarian rhetoric" is
more frequently proposed by _opponents_ of libertarianism than
by libertarians themselves....
> 16. There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
I have not seen a libertarian make such a claim, so enjoy your
inflatable date!
> [discussion of property rights deleted -- this subject has been
> beat to death in this group lately, and this FAQ adds
> nothing, and is, in fact, a sorry subset of the discussion...]
> 19. New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be
> compensated.
> [... mild examples deleted...]
Comparing the changes that just formalize accepted practice or
are put in for safety reasons to those in which a politically
connected group gets their vision of utopia enforced into law at
the expense of a few is another not-so-subtle trick to evade the
real issues at hand. By claiming that things that most libertarians
don't object to is the same as those that they do, you have again
set up a strawman, and may auto-eroticize on it all you like.
> 20. Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.
>
> This is a classic example of libertarians not looking at the complete
> equation for at least two reasons. (1) If taxes are eliminated, you'll
> need to purchase services that were formerly provided by government.
Most libertarians have thought about this and would be happy to pay
for things they actually use via user fees. This can be compared to
the statists who want _others_ to pay for the things _they_ want,
whether the others will use it or may even be opposed to it.
> (2) If taxes are eliminated, the economics of wages have changed, and
> wages will change as well.
I'll admit, this is frequently ignored. But a little logic shows the
fundamental reason behind the "taxes makes us poorer" claim. There is
a certain amount of money to be spent on things. Each person can
decide what they want to spend it on, or the money can be
sent to Washington with the hope that the politicians, after they take
their cut, will pick the right thing for us. "Politicians making
decisions" is not a good that most people want or an end unto itself,
therefore, the money spent on that is wasted. If nothing else, we will
be poorer by that amount due to taxes. And if they make the wrong
decision (i.e., helium reserves), we are poorer by that amount, too.
So unless you can claim that the federal government can meet the
desires of 260,000,000 people better than those people can do it
themselves, taxes are a drain on society.
>
> 21. We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.
>
> Yes, the Federal government had a much lighter hand then. However,
> state and local governments had a much greater influence. There is not
> one class of positive duty or obligation in the US today that did not
> exist 200 years ago at state or federal level.
The total burden was significantly less than today.
> Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial
> revolution spread to the US. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a
> nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by
> the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops.) Government of
> that era would be as out-of-place today as the tarriffs and scientific
> knowledge of that era.
So, becuase society is more complicated, a few central planners are now more
able to make decisions for the masses? I would like to see the
defense of this incredible claim!
> 22. "Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.
>
> However, government is not alone in requiring might. All property is
> based on might as well. Nobody is beholden to your notions of what
> constitutes your property. Property is just as "involuntary" as the
> social contract. There is no moral obligation for anyone to respect
> your property: only a practical one.
Encoding the "commonly accepted" definition of ownership and force
into law is hardly the same as encoding the right of you to take my
money for a project that I have no interest in! Once again, the blurring of
two clearly distinct concepts should be dismissed as the sillinesss that
it is.
>
> 23. I want self-government, not other-government.
>
> More explicitly, "self government" is the peculiar notion that other
> people ought not to be able to regulate your behavior. Much as we would
> like to be free of such regulation, most people also want to be able to
> regulate the behavior of others for practical reasons.
Do you mean practical reasons like "I don't like it when you do that"?
There is no questions that rights often collide. That is the point
of government. What libertarians object to are laws that regulate
the rights of others to *behave peacefully and cooperatively* when
such behavior *has no effect on others equal rights*.
> 24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
>
> Because there are no working examples of libertarian cities, states, or
> nations.
Your argument here seems to be "Because there are power hungry people
who have corrupted governments everywhere, we should just live with the
corruption and be happy with it". I don't buy such a lame argument,
and I doubt if many people will.
> 24. Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
>
> Because there are no working examples of libertarian cities, states, or
> nations.
> [...]
> Let libertarians point to successful libertarian programs to seek our
> endorsement. For example, narcotic decriminalization in Holland has
> been a success. So has legalized prostitution in Nevada and Germany
> (and probably other places.) Privatization of some municipal services
> has been successful in some communities. But these are extremely small
> scale compared to the total libertarian agenda, and do not rule out
> emergent problems and instabilities of a full scale libertarian system.
>
Libertarians are actively trying all tacts -- large scale, small scale,
theoretical, pragmatic. But no matter how many working examples are
provided, or how clear the effects, people opoose the plan due to
a remote "what if" scenario -- usually one that occurs *due to* statism!
> 25. There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.
This has nothing to do with libertarianism and is really just name
calling. If there are people with such views, they are nutcases, and
exisit in all parties. Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat -- does that
make "Democratism" (whatever that would be) invalid?
> 26. An event is explained by the issue at hand.
Most of your discussion under this heading falls into the "some
libertarians are bad at arguing". Big whoop. You're not so good yourself...
> 27. Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?
>
Again, your arguments fall into the "some people can't argue" category.
Mostly the reason a particular book is recommended is because people
get tired of discussing the types of strawmen that you happily
refer to in this FAQ by people who don't even know what libertarianism is!
> 29. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.
>
> Libertarians except defense
> of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them retaliatory force.
> But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to
> commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that
Ok, would you be happier, if, instead of "force and fraud", libertarians
said "force fraud and theft"?
> libs like to play so that they can pretend they are different than
> government. You know: break a law (like not paying your taxes) and MEN
> WITH GUNS initiate force. Sorry, but you've gotta play fair: it can't
> be initiation for government and retaliation for you.
Now you are getting into semantic games. Government *IS* the set of
things that we authorize the use of force for. Libertarians think
this set of things should be minimized. Statists think it should
be adjusted to suit _their_ personal needs.
>
> 30. Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Laws were examples of government
> enforcement of slavery.
>
> No. There's a subtle distinction: they were enforcement of property
> rights of slaveowners. It was entirely the owners assertion that he was
> property that the government was acting upon. If the owner had at any
> time freed him, he would not have been a slave.
I sort of agree with you here. Slavery was not government enforcement of
slavery, it was a failure of the government to endorse civil rights
for all persons. It is certainly not libertarian. If your morality
is that blacks are not people, there may even be logic to slavery.
Fortunately, this nation came to it's senses and decided to acknowledge
that slaves were humans, thereby reversing the government failures
of the past.
> 31. The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test]
>
> This libertarian quiz asks a set of leading questions to tempt you to
> proclaim yourself a libertarian. The big trick is that if you answer
But even in unbiased questionaires, the number of libertarians far
exceeds the expectations of pollsters, and, in fact, the majority
of the population mistrusts the government.
> Many libertarians use this as an "outreach" (read: evangelism) tool. By
That's because libertarians can't rent out the Lincoln Bedroom or
give rides on Air Force One as an "outreach (read: evangelism) tool".
Yet.
>
> 32. The Libertarian Party: America's third largest political party.
I'll agree, it's sort of a silly claim, although probably no more
silly than things the D&Rs repeat regularly (see, e.g., mandatory
volunteerism, a 5% increase is a "cut" if 30% was previously threatened).
> 33. You're a Statist!
>
> Don't be surprised if you receive some ad-hominem abuse from
> libertarian evangelists when you don't accept their arguments. It's no
Calling somebody who believes that government can solve the problems
of 260,000,000 diverse and dispersed individuals better than the
individuals themselves a "statist" isn't an ad-hominen attack, it
is the word that is used to describe people who believe the state
functions better than cooperative individuals. If you feel this is
an attack, could it be that you are embarrassed by the philosophy it
encompasses? Would you really rather have people type "those who
think government can solve problems better than individuals think...."
instead of "statists think....". If you are embarrassed by your
philosophy, don't come cryin' round here.
You don't see Libertarians claiming that the use of the word
"Libertarian" is an ad-hominen attack.
>
> QUOTATIONS POPULAR WITH LIBERTARIAN EVANGELISTS
>
> The purpose of bumper sticker phrases is not to enlighten: it is to
> misdirect and channel your thoughts. That's a prime need for evangelism, and
> thus we see a lot of these from libertarian evangelists.
Since I don't use quotes to try to score points, I almost agree. Of
course, the statists are happy to resort to quotes when it suits
their whims, as you did earlier on in this propaganda piece. You
weren't attempting to "misdirect and channel" our thoughts, were you?
>
> Thomas Jefferson
> * "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring
> one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
> own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
> mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
> government." (First Inaugural Address)
>
> Perhaps as an unreachable goal.
And therefore not worth attempting? Are you claiming that, since
perfect libertarianism can't be reached, we just may as well accept
full scale socialism? What is the point of this comment?
> Certainly Jefferson practiced differently than this would seem
> to imply he thought.
Same questions: since Jefferson, and early proponent of Libertarian
ideas, had human flaws, should we just dismiss the philosophy? I
don't think fans of Clinton, Gingrich, Rostenkowski, etc, etc, want
to get into that game. You'll lose in a big way.
>
> But if you want get into a founder quoting contest, Ben Franklin wrote:
I don't and won't.
> Ayn Rand
> * "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters."
>
> Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one on
> me.
???? Your response makes no sense whatsoever. This thing is too damn
long already, why include something you have no response to?
> Bumper sticker analogies are as poor a method of understanding
> libertarianism (let alone anything else) as science fiction. Too bad so
> many libertarians make such heavy use of those methods.
Have you done an analysis of newsnet posts and/or other debate forums
to arrive at the conclusion that Libertarians do this more than others,
or are you just taking cheap shots to beef up the size of your
article, hoping that it will give you credibillity?
>
> * "It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money."
>
> Almost all charitable organizations use other people's money. Their
You completely (and I suspect intentionally) missed the point: you
can't take credit for your charitable ways if the extent of your
charitable ways is spending other people's money, through force of law.
That's not charity, it's hypocrisy.
> real point is that the money used for government social programs is
> "coerced" (libertarian newspeak for taxes.) What they overlook is that,
> in many philosophical and religious systems (including Judaism and
> Islam), charity isn't a virtue of the giver: charity is the relief of
> the receiver.
And once again, a statist tries to blur the distincintion between
voluntary cooperation and coercion. It's sad, really.
>
> * "Utopia is not an option."
>
> it means "libertarianism might do worse here: I don't want to make a
> comparison lest we lose."
Actually, I've only seen in used in the context of "we have that exact
same problem under statism, plus many others that are *caused by* the
statism, so why are you holding libertarians to a higher standard than
you hold yourself?"
>
> According to Perry Metzger, who claims to have popularized the phrase,
> the correct usage is "you *have* to make a comparison of libertarianism
> against the existing system rather than against your ideals of what
> you'd like your system to do." However, since there is no real example
> of libertarianism, that would be comparing the real current system
> against an ideal libertarian system. That's hardly a fair or valid
> comparison.
When a law can be shown to cause direct and avoidable harm, sitting
around waiting for a case to occur, somewhere, in which that harm
was avoided due to not having the law seems like a painful means
of progress. What about the needless victims in the meantime?
>
> * "Democracy is like three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for
> lunch."
>
> We are not a simple democracy: we are a representative democratic
> republic:
This is the point the libertarians are trying to make. No, you cannot
vote to take my money to pay for your pet project, just because you
need/want a big screen TV. No, you can not stop me from writing a book
with the F-word in it because you are offended by that word.
Libertarians believe in individual rights, not group rights. Statists
of all flavors just want _their_ opinions codified into law, at
the expense of those who disagree.
>> [...A very long essay against libertarianism...]
All in all, the essay had little to add to the discussion. The
arguments boil down to a few types:
1) Libertarians are occasionally bad arguers, sometimes using flawed
logic or using quotes. No attempt is made to show that these
things are more common among libertarians than among others.
This is just presented as an attack tactic, which, oddly enough,
suffers from the very flaws it decries. You attempt to blend
this argument in with a description of Libertarianism, hoping
that if the message is presented simultaneously with attacks
on the messenger, you can discredit both. Fortunately, most
people are more clever than to fall for such a shallow trick.
2) There isn't a libertarian country, so it must be a bad idea.
Why the fact that "power corrupts" is a reflection on the
philosophy that wishes to limit such power is not explained.
3) Libertarians want to use force, too. This is one of the few
interesting and valid points in the essay, although the essay
completely ignores the fact that Libertarians are the ones who
prefer to point this out. Libertarians wish to *make explicit*
the government's use of force. If all laws were discussed in
the context of "Would you be willing to haul your mother off
to jail to acheive this social goal?", we would have made
some real progress. It is the statists attempt to deny this
use of force that allows many ridiculous laws/programs to
exist at all.
4) The arguments that blur the distinction between two radically
different things, e.g., cooperation = coercion, or moving
six blocks = moving 2000 miles to a new country, or getting
20 people to agree is the same as getting 260,000,000 to agree.
These arguments are last grasps to score points by playing
semantic games. The best response to such arguments is pity,
as in "I'm sorry you couldn't think of anything intelligent
to say"
5) Some Libertarians are confused/not perfect/weird/whatever. This,
of course, has nothing to do with the philosophy, and is just
an example of attacking the messenger when no valid arguments
can be found. I don't really think this is a game that statists
should be happy to engage in, since, just by sheer probablility,
based on quantity, they have more nutcases/losers/whiners/whatever
than the libertarians. In fact, if you really want to get down
to it, libertarians tend to be _more_ educated and stable than
the general population. It is only through the kindness of
their hearts that they tolerate, legally and morally, the
loonies in the other parties and continue to support the civil
rights of those others -- something the statists are not likely
to do for others.
Henry Blaskowski
Mike Huben (mhu...@world.std.com) wrote:
> Archive-name: libertarian/non-lib-faq
> Posting-Frequency: monthly
>
> A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
For more information on the difference between Libertarians and all
flavors of statists, consider this: Mike recently added a post of
mine to his web site that includes this FAQ. When I asked him to
remove it, his response was, basically, "it's not against the law
and you can't make me, nyah nyah nyah".
Now we see the end result of the statist game, exemplified by Mike's
behavior. "If it's legal, it must be OK" the statists cry, "We don't
care about all those old-fashioned things like 'respect', 'courtesy',
'morality', and 'civility' -- after all, those aren't part of the
law!".
You see, in the statist world, if it's bad, we need a law. Therefore,
if there is no law, it isn't bad, they claim.
Enjoy the world you and statists everywhere have created, Mr. Huben.
I can still find enough polite, honest people to surround myself.
We don't need your types.
hblask
Henry Blaskowski
Mike Huben (mhu...@world.std.com) wrote:
> Archive-name: libertarian/non-lib-faq
> Posting-Frequency: monthly
>
> A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
For another example of the difference between Libertarians and all
flavors of statists, consider this: Mike recently added a post of
mine to his web site that includes this FAQ. When I asked him to
remove it, his response was, basically, "it's not against the law
and you can't make me, nyah nyah nyah".
Now we see the end result of the statist game, exemplified by Mike's
behavior. "If it's legal, it must be OK" the statists cry, "We don't
care about all those old-fashioned things like 'respect', 'courtesy',
'morality', 'politeness', and 'civility' -- after all, those aren't part
Mike Huben
Henry Blaskowski is a very funny guy. He posts criticisms of my FAQ for the
entire world to see, but then doesn't want me to be able to show them to
people.
And even more hypocritically (for someone who's supposed to be libertarian)
he whines that I'm a statist because I won't kowtow to his imperial requests.
I'm exercising a FREEDOM, and he has the nerve to object?
In article <5or07h$ug$1...@news3.microserve.net>,
Henry Blaskowski <jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net> wrote:
>For more information on the difference between Libertarians and all
>flavors of statists, consider this: Mike recently added a post of
>mine to his web site that includes this FAQ. When I asked him to
>remove it, his response was, basically, "it's not against the law
>and you can't make me, nyah nyah nyah".
So what do you want to do? Coerce me?
I've included the entire message below. Libertarians can judge for themselves
whether what I'm doing is consistent with notions of liberty.
>Now we see the end result of the statist game, exemplified by Mike's
>behavior. "If it's legal, it must be OK" the statists cry, "We don't
>care about all those old-fashioned things like 'respect', 'courtesy',
>'morality', and 'civility' -- after all, those aren't part of the
>law!".
This is an enormous laugh. Most of the time libertarians are the ones
whining about law INFLICTING those things on them.
We might also note that in essentially every culture, 'respect', 'courtesy',
and 'civility' exist PRECISELY because of the threat of coercion (or some
other form of negative consequences.) Heinlein was absolutely right when he
wrote "An armed society is a polite society"; only thing is we don't have to
want politeness that much. A true measure of freedom is that you DON'T HAVE
TO outwardly respect people if you don't want to.
>You see, in the statist world, if it's bad, we need a law. Therefore,
>if there is no law, it isn't bad, they claim.
How long have you claimed to be a libertarian? If it's "bad" and there is
no law, what do YOU want to do about it? Coerce me?
>Enjoy the world you and statists everywhere have created, Mr. Huben.
>I can still find enough polite, honest people to surround myself.
>We don't need your types.
Ah, come the revolution I'll be the first one up against the wall, huh?
Well, the whole idea of individualism, which YOU don't seem to grasp is that
what you need doesn't have to matter to me.
I'm not going to engage in your stupid game of "politeness", though I could
probably make a good case for your criticisms being impolite, ad-hominem,
and uncharitable. If you wish me to remove my link to your post and my
criticism of it, then you will have to make me WANT to, uncoerced. I'm not
crass enough to demand money. All I'd ask for is a public repudiation of your
criticisms.
Here's the message I sent crybaby Henry.
From mhuben Tue Jun 24 14:54:58 1997
To: jhb...@nothinbut.net
Subject: Re: A Non-Libertarian FAQ, Version 1.4
Why do I need your permission for something you've broadcast publicly over
the web twice? Why do you wish to infringe on my liberty? Do you want to
coerce me to stop?
In a more practical sense, I don't believe you have any more legal basis to
make me remove it than you do to make DejaNews and zillions of other sites
remove their copies. But as a precaution, I've changed my link to make
AltaVista bring it up. I don't believe there's any legal basis at all to
prevent that. (You may want to check the Web Law FAQ,
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht) If you don't like their having a copy,
talk to their lawyers. :-)
And I don't really need it either: my response to your criticism can stand
alone with its fair use of citations.
You want liberty? It cuts both ways. You need to learn to live with the
disappointment that other people don't have to hop when you say frog, no
matter how impotent that makes you feel.
Mike Huben mhu...@world.std.com http://world.std.com/~mhuben/
For rebuttals to libertarian arguments, check out:
Critiques of Libertarianism http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Liberalism Resurgent http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/tenets.htm
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is
something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect.
Oscar Wilde
Bill Koehler
Mike Huben wrote:>
> Mike Huben mhu...@world.std.com http://world.std.com/~mhuben/
>
> For rebuttals to libertarian arguments, check out:
> Critiques of Libertarianism http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
> Liberalism Resurgent http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/tenets.htm
>
For a waste of time check this out.
Hardy Macia
> Henry Blaskowski is a very funny guy. He posts criticisms of my FAQ for the
> entire world to see, but then doesn't want me to be able to show them to
> people.
>
> And even more hypocritically (for someone who's supposed to be libertarian)
> he whines that I'm a statist because I won't kowtow to his imperial requests.
> I'm exercising a FREEDOM, and he has the nerve to object?
If Henry Blaskowski is asking you to remove HIS posting from YOUR site then
I believe you should. I'm not sure what the current ruling on the internet
about public postings. Perhaps Henry should of had a (c) 1997 at the bottom
of his posting with a disclaimer that it is his work and he can restrict
the distribution of it. Being a macintosh user, I see a lot of postings
with signatures stating that this post cannot be redistributed on the
microsoft network.
I would honor Henry's request. If you copied a picture from the sport
illustrated/playboy site and posted it on your website then SI/Playboy
asked you to remove it would you refuse saying it is within your liberties
to take their property?
Hardy
--
Hardy Macia * Catamount Software * Newton Software Development
(802) 372-9512 * ha...@catamount.com * <http://www.catamount.com/>
** Aloha, PocketMoney, MPG, and more...see web site for full list **
** new >> MORGAN - the Newton Media ORGANizer << new **
_____________________________________________________________________
"That government is best which governs least" - Henry David Thoreau
Libertarian Party <http://www.lp.org/>