selfishness

[Michael]

Well bang go my hopes of Damascene conversions clearly. Well, as is my
style, a discursive clarification before returning to the theme.
Firstly, I can’t pretend to have the time for repeated textual
analysis of all that is said in contradiction. This may indeed make
you angrier still as I might be seen to avoid a fight I started (see
also the British Lions). Indeed what I wrote was as much for my
benefit as anyone’s to express what I find so disquieting about many
of the messages I avidly read in the Libertarian forum (or is that
‘libertarian’ forum?). Secondly, I used the word ‘selfish’ quite
deliberately having considered others and found them wanting. But that
was not to imply that this characterises the personal behaviour of
individuals. The only Libertarian I know in the group is anything but
selfish, in fact he is generous to a fault. It iIs in one of the great
errors to ascribe characteristics to groups: all Scotsmen are mean;
all feminists hate men and so on. Look what history tells us when we
act on such assumptions.

However, I think I would like to narrow down what I said as I do not
think the refutations from Garth, Leon or Colin quite address the nub
of what I say having rather taken umbrage at seeing themselves being
characterised as morally lacking, which indeed is not my assertion at
all. I return to that inverted pyramid on which so much burden rests.
Maths has its basic unprovable axioms, religion has its too. Tell me
as often as you wish of the faults of governments and of your love of
communities; tell me that your beliefs arise from a critical analysis
of the abuse that formal authorities extend to the people they should
serve but I still assert that the libertarian philosophy is at its
very core supported by selfishness. I like Marx and happily churn out
the old canard that we will only know if it works when it is tried. So
far it has been abused endlessly. Look at Nietzsche. He too has many
devotees, unfortunately some of those murdered six million people.
Nietzsche may still be right – indeed I think he might well have been
welcomed into this group. All I say is heaven preserve me from a
Libertarian world. Philosophies in action do not match the ideal you
would hope for. In this case that is because it would allow the
selfish to run rampant. Yes. I know: that’s not permitted. And I must
repeat that you cannot rage against the government for its unbridled
power while ignoring the benefit you obtain from the rights given to
you only by virtue of that government. As I (for effect) said maybe
the Zimbabwe war veterans are acting on the Libertarian principles
that prevailed prior to Rhodes? You disconnect yourselves from History
at your peril.

And I have some bad news for Leon. I’m afraid Libertarians receive as
much opprobrium in Europe as do many other forms of political
extremism. Many people in the EU love it and are grateful for the
Court of Human Rights and the European Parliament. The majority in
Britain think the British National Health Service quite a success (I
speak as a user – see the furore about America’s recent criticism).
It does not help the Libertarians of course in having fellow
travellers who think the United Nations has a fleet of helicopters
ready to invade Montana in a few months time and arm themselves with
an arsenal that they are all too ready to use in the name of personal
freedom. It’s not just me Leon, a voice crying in the wilderness. One
might need to look to the somewhat eccentric political history of
South Africa to see why one’s displeasure at government and all it’s
sorry deeds might be so strong. But don’t give up on it because of a
little local difficulty. .

[Ivo Vegter]

I think there's an important point to make about "selfishness" (I prefer
"self-interest", but will gladly settle for "greed" if it makes for a
more entertaining argument).

Let's leave aside for the moment the philosophical right people have to
ensure their own survival and welfare, along with that of their
families, friends, community, and so on in ever-widening circles.

It is this: an economic society that presumes only self-interest relies
on a reliable human characteristic. Though its presence is common among
members of any society, it isn't a necessary feature, which means its
absence doesn't break the system. By contrast, an economic society that
presumes altruism relies on a human characteristic that (though you may
consider it noble), cannot be relied on in everyone. Worse, the system
breaks if altruism is absent even in a few members of that society.
Therefore, a system based on self-interest not only works, but requires
little force beyond protecting life and property rights. Contrariwise, a
system based on altruism requires ever-increasing levels of coercion,
since anyone who doesn't display enough altruism has to be forced to
comply in order to satisfy the needs of the economic system.

Denounce self-interest all you like. It essential for your own survival
and therefore constitutes a natural right. More pragmatically, whether
or not you consider it noble does not affect the fact that a system that
relies on self-interest works without coercion.

--
Ivo Vegter | 084-210-2003 | @ivovegter

[Garth Zietsman]

However, I think I would like to narrow down what I said as I do not
think the refutations from Garth, Leon or Colin quite address the nub
of what I say having rather taken umbrage at seeing themselves being
characterised as morally lacking, which indeed is not my assertion at
all.

 

Garth: Michael your twin contentions that selfishness and arrogance are at the core of libertarian philosophy were directly addressed by Leon and Colin.

 

They made it clear that libertarianism is at its very core explicitly anti-arrogance in the sense that we don't presume to tell other people what to do with their lives.  Now perhaps you think that it is arrogant to think we have a better idea of what's good for us than the government, that it is arrogant to make your own judgements with respect to your own life.  If so then I fail to see what's wrong with being arrogant.  It is obviously a very good thing to be. 

 

Colin and Leon also made it quite clear that libertarianism is not selfish with respect to using others for your own ends. Libertarianism is selfish with respect to an individual's right to deny others using them for their own ends without the individual's consent.  But again I fail to see what's objectionable about that.  Selfishness in this sense is obviously a very good thing.  That principle ensures that no social transaction is ever win-lose but always win-win. 

 

On the other hand Leon and Colin also made it clear that it is non-libertarian philosophies (yours) that are guilty or selfishness and arrogance in the bad senses of the words.  They arrogantly believe they know what people need better than the people themselves and they selfishly use them for their own ends.

 

In short your philosophical assertions are false and misplaced.

 

That's the core issue dealt with.  Now lets look at the other stuff you add.

 

Sure libertarianism has its nuts (paranoid survivalists) but so does every other political philosophy.

 

Government didn't give us our liberty. At best they don't take it all away.

 

Marxism was tried and suceeded only too well.  Both the Soviet Union and Communist China killed much more of their own people than the Nazis ever managed or were even contemplating.  Not only that but they did it at a rate that exceeded the Nazi peak killing rate.  Lets not mention their numerous other abuses.  No doubt you are going to say those states were corruptions of Marxism.  No they weren't.  They were faithful attempts to actualise it and what happened follows from the philosophy. 

 

You say you are grateful you won't ever live under a libertarian philosophy.  Lets consider what it may be like by considering the record of different Christian denominations.  The Christian denomination most explicitly libertarian is Unitarianism.  Compare their record with some denominations whose theology and philosophy is explicitly anti-selfishness, Catholicism or Calvanism say.  Can you honestly say living under Unitarianism would be hell on earth - both absolutely or relative to the alternative?  Furthermore not only are economic and social freedoms desirable in themselves but they are massively more productive of welfare than any other system tried so far - Marx himself said so.  It really isn't clear to me what hell you envisage in a libertarian society.  How do you think this hell would materialise?

 

Regarding Zimbabwe war vets as following libertarian principles is bizarre.  How is forcably expelling people from their property, violating civil liberties or running roughshod over anyone who gets in your way, libertarian?  It appears that your picture of libertarianism contains many decidedly non-libertarian elements to say the least.

[Ivo Vegter]

Garth Zietsman wrote:

> Regarding Zimbabwe war vets as following libertarian principles is
> bizarre. How is forcably expelling people from their property,
> violating civil liberties or running roughshod over anyone who gets in
> your way, libertarian? It appears that your picture of libertarianism
> contains many decidedly non-libertarian elements to say the least.

This is a common error in critiques of capitalism in general.

The first examples of capitalism's supposed failures many people come up
with are the abuses of highly regulated industries, or state-protected
monopolies or cartels. That's if they don't go straight for the outright
thieves and frauds.

Enron? Fraud and theft are crimes among capitalists. Telkom? Nope, no
free market there. Banks? Our mobile trio? Our casinos? All are highly
regulated cartels that need fear no new competition have no reason to
charge you less instead of cheaply competing on marketing. Bernie
Madoff? Barry Tannenbaum? Sorry, but violating private property rights
isn't a capitalist thing to do, much less a libertarian principle.

Once you've spent half an hour pointing all this out, they go for the
bankruptcies. This or that capitalist failed, and lost all his money
(and thousands of jobs). That's true, but that's the market working as
intended, weeding out the inefficient producers, or the producers of
things people don't want or need, in favour of efficient producers of
goods and services people do want or need. (A mechanism, incidentally,
that cannot work when government supplies the goods and services, or
grants a monopoly to do so.)

Once you've spent another half an hour explaining that, the examples of
capitalism's supposed failures turn out to be thin on the ground.

[Trevor Watkins]

Trevor Watkins - 

I refer readers back to the debate on Socialism vs Capitalism held on libsa some months back. The conclusion from this debate was:

1. Socialism is wildly successful, with many countries practising some form of it

2. Socialism is extremely popular, with many people preferring apparent socialist security to the individual freedom and responsibility required by capitalism.

3. Socialism disburses more funds on "good works" than capitalism.

4. Capitalism is more in tune with reality, more consistent and more ethical. The prosperity that flows from capitalism is a side effect, not an objective of capitalism.

I don't know if Michael realises that libertarians are quite happy to be described as "selfish". Like Ayn Rand, who wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness", we believe that a selfish person honestly acknowledges their own interests ahead of all others (which, by definition, one must do in order to survive). A selfish person is self sufficient, self reliant, self assured. Only a successfully selfish person will have enough to spare in order to share with others.

Libertarians are not bothered if the majority of people wish to live in the shadow of the jackboot of government. They just don't want to be forced to live there themselves by well-meaning idiots. We understand that the world is not yet ready for the widespread adoption of the philosophy of individual freedom, as Britain was not ready for democracy during the feudal dark ages. We observe that more advanced societies tend towards greater individual freedom, and that more backward societies tend towards greater group interests.  We believe that our philosophy will prevail if humanity continues to advance socially and intellectually.  We believe that this is an outcome worth arguing for.

[Leon Louw]

Socialism is a staggering success.  It succeeds completely at it's core objective which is enrich and empower politicians and their hangers-on, and to subdue and loot citizens in general and wealth-producers in particular.

 

What makes socialism especially mindboggling is it's incredible marketing triumph.  Socialists lie about their real objective (above) by asserting something so ludicrous that no could predict anyone believing them, namely that their real objective is to redistribute wealth 'fairly', create 'distributive justice', supply quality housing, health care, policing, justice and education for all, and 'fight' corruption.

 

Imagine how impressed (or shocked) we'd be if a private company were to promise delivery then not deliver, seize payment by force, create a coercive monopoly on what it supplies, enrich all sorts of leaches by way of corruption and abuse, and so on ... and still enjoy the loyal support of it's customers.

 

What's more, government (the socialist's crime syndicate) outperforms all other institutions (companies, churches, clubs, NGOs, unions, cooperatives etc).  Governments have an ever-increasing market share, share of national income, share of capital formation and the like.

 

Socialism is by all standards an astounding success.