Debate of the Year
Published by Gaurav Sabnis June 9th, 2004 in LibertarianOpening Salvo
I did not attend an LSS and become a Libertarian. I always had ideas and opinions about the social, economic, political and religious side of life. It is after I attended the seminar that I realised that my ideas fall closest to the Libertarian school of thought. A few years prior to that I had also discovered that the school of thought my ideas are farthest from is the Leftist/Communist/Socialist school or any of its variations.
So basically the ideas I am putting forth are my own. Yes, there have been influences, but I will not be passing the baton to those influences when it comes to defending my ideas.
Here are some of the basics of Libertarianism as i understand it -
1. Human beings are born free, and have rights. They are entitled to exercising these rights as long as they do not infringe forcefully on the rights of others.
2. Each human being has a natural tendency to do things for his own benefit, or the benefit of a select few he holds close to his heart. Crudely put human beings are selfish.
3. Each human being has a right to define his own happiness, and his own sorrow, and be allowed to pursue and avoid them respectively, in a way he thinks best as long as his way does not harm someone else’s rights.
Let us start off here. Any objections to these assumptions? If so, any counter-assumptions?
There are two types of libertarians, those who become libertarians from a moral point of view like Robert Nozick and there are those who become libertarians because they believe it’s the best way to promote growth and prosperity in a society like FA Hayek.
I became a Libertarian only when Yazad pointed the existence of the term to me. Till then, I was just adhering to these very same principles.
Yes many objections:
1. Human beings are born free, and have rights. They are entitled to exercising these rights as long as they do not infringe forcefully on the rights of others.
You just say that humans have rights. Which rights? Both the Indian and US constitutions clearly define what these rights are. Both also make it clear that these rights are not absolute and can be withdrawn. In which case who has the right to withdraw rights? You can’t just say humans have rights and then ask if there are any objections - yes there are and no they may not be any depending on what you consider rights.
2. Each human being has a natural tendency to do things for his own benefit, or the benefit of a select few he holds close to his heart. Crudely put human beings are selfish.
Here are you talking about psychological or economic benefit? A drug addict takes drugs and benefits psychologically but suffers financially. According to you all the people who voluntarily fought in the Civil Rights movement, against apartheid, for Indian Rule against the British and gave up their lives neither for themselves nor for their select loved ones are all abberations to humanity. On the flip side are the VietCong, Al Quaida, Hammas etc. all abberations?
3. Each human being has a right to define his own happiness, and his own sorrow, and be allowed to pursue and avoid them respectively, in a way he thinks best as long as his way does not harm someone else’s rights.
Can I pursue my happiness only on my propoerty or can I pursue happiness on public propoerty as well (assuming here is something called public property - many libertarians beleive there isn’t). What if 10 people ‘beleive’ that my pursuit of happiness is causing them sorrow? Can they gang up and then try to curtial my pursuit of happiness?
There is a lacuna in 3.
Species require supra-individual effort in order to progress at a decent rate.
Now, as it turns out, a 4th assumption
4. Humans are mostly dumb.
creates a spanner in the works.
Note that most of the progress of humanity is by a Newtony Einsteiny few. Tell me how the average farmer chugging ale in a pub is to be brought out to a progress pov in a libertarian setting.
I feel libertarians - while enjoying the success of progress due to centuries of non-libertarianism - are just being plain ol drunk with progress.
“centuries of non-libertarianism”
What! You mean to say that goverment control was stronger in the 19th cetury and before that?
4. Humans are mostly dumb.
creates a spanner in the works.
This is precisely the reason you don’t want them making centralized decisions. Politicians routinely believe stupid stuff like protectionism creates prosperity.
If people are stupid, let them be stupid in their own lives and not create consequences on the rest of us through politics.
I feel libertarians - while enjoying the success of progress due to centuries of non-libertarianism - are just being plain ol drunk with progress.
The greatest transition of societies over the last few centuries of history has been the tranisition of the fixed-sum worldview of Hobbes, to the positive-sum worldview of classical liberals. The Enlightment and the Industrial Revolution, which created the living standards present today in most modern nations, were squarely the result of classical liberal ideas.
The biggest problem I see with Libertarianism is that it does not scale well. I agree with all the libertarian principles on a personal level i.e I agree that it is wrong to initaite force, everybody should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it doen’st impact me negatively etc. And even go so far as to say that individualy most people in the world agree with these principles which are based on an innate human desire for selfishness as well as leaving others to pursue their own destinies.
However the problem arises when Libertarians try to scale these intrinsic principles up to the level of community, society and to a nation and the world at large. These principles immediately start breaking down. The activities of a single person don’t usually have a huge impact but when you move into the macro world of millions of people it is no longer possible to maintain these principles.
As an example - most people are against killing or harming anybody who has not harmed them. Yet in a war a soldier will not think twice about spraying his machine gun or pushing a button that will release a 4000 lb bomb over a city. And that very same solder will in all likelihood come home and rescue an injured dog and cry at the end of a sentimental movie. It’s still the same person but when he is at home he is acting as an individual - he feels for animals and is sentimental. But in the army he is acting as one unit of a collective - he automaticlaly gives up some of his rights and more importantly loses his sense of responsibility. Nobody is going to call him a bastard for dropping that bomb - most likely they will give him a medal for it.
The same thing tends to happen in society in more mundane events. Human beings are social and when placed with lots of our fellow humans, we automatically (genetically programmed for collective self preservatin according to Jared Diamond - ‘The Third Chimpanzee’) alter our actions. This is a well documented phenomenon and is refered to the mob mentality. The power and the properties of a mob have been well recognized by politicians and philosphers since ancient times (see referenes to Anthony talking about controlling the Roman mob in Julius Caeser).
Which is where Govt. and Rules and Regs come into play. As an individual I could get along just fine without a Govt. I don’t need somebody to take part of my pay check away everymonth or tell me that I can only drive at 65 mph. But the Govt was not created to control what I as an individual do but what the nation and society does. ut I recognize that I am not the only person in society there are others as well and their actions affect my own. We need those rules and regs to ensure that society contimues to function. There is a downside to this - I will unfortunately have to drive at 65 mph when my car can easily do 120 mph. I could argue that on an open stretch of highway it should be left upto me to decide what speed I go at but I realize that I will have to give up that privilage and a little of my common sense and boq to the 65mph speed limit (in Germany they don’t have a speed limit but have you seen the number of car inspections you have to do and the hoops you have to jump through to get a driver;s license).
To summarize - Libertarianism is a great personal philosophy but it does not translate to the world and society at large.
Excellent argument by Ck.
To answer Gaurav:
Change 1: remove entitled and add ‘want/have a tendency’
Same thing for 3.
Add a zeroth assumption:
0. Progress of the species is paramount.
(One rule to rule ‘em all ;)
Ck: One flaw in your (and others’) logic (against Lib.) is that you’re subconsciously trying to implement Lib. over an existing system and then commenting on how it’s coming short. What is missing is that if the world followed Lib. from the beginning, it’s societal dynamics would be completely different from the existing one.
An anthill or a beehive cannot be compared to a pride of lions (in terms of how it works and is held together). Similary, to imagine a completely Lib. society, one has to start from scratch. For example, one has to ask the question, “Would there be (so many) wars if we had a different kind of society?”, or even “Would we have national boundaries?”. We cannot simply take a group of people that have been conditioned since birth to live in a certain (cretin?) way and hypothetically give them a different form of governance/philosophy.
Another thing that bugs me a lot is how little trust we’ve come to place in an individual.
Why do so many people have this idea that if we humans were “cut loose” from the laws of the land, we would instantly descend into chaos and anarchy. Does that mean that we’re ALL beasts inside, not committing crimes only because of the fear of getting caught? Does that mean that if a baby was raised since birth and had no contact with society, it would instantly kill another human being on sight?
This underlying assumption actually has it’s roots in religion. It’s religion that states that we are born sinners and apportions a dollop of guilt to every kid that’s born.
Unfortunately, this is, IMHO, the one single (and biggest) factor that works against Libertarianism. Nobody feels proud of themselves any longer.
In reponse to Asli
WEe you are going into the realm of the extreme hypothetical - “..if the world followed Lib. from the beginning, it’s societal dynamics would be completely different from the existing one.”
Of course it would but the truth of the matter is that it didn’t so what are you going to do now. It is not possible to base an entire argument on how much better the Libertarian system MIGHT have been had it been implemented - nobody know the answer to that question and short of inventing a time machine and going back to the dawn of civilization there is no way to test it so what is the point in the real world. It could still be an academic exercise and there are historians who actually speacilize in developing alternative veriosns of history and conjecture on how the world might have been. For e.g there is a book (the name escapes me) on what the world would be like today had the Nazis won WWII (by forming an alliance with Stalin rather than attacking USSR - in which case there is a high chance that they would have won).
As I said an interesting exercise but what the point outside of academic?
If people are stupid, let them be stupid in their own lives and not create consequences on the rest of us through politics.
THIS I think is the crux of libertarianism. A fairly logical thing at first sight.
But on looking at it further:
Isn’t this a laid-back let’s-not-take-risks approach. I mean, if the greatest progress to mankind can only come by supra-individual efforts, shouldn’t we take the chance?
Isn’t Libertarianism then tantamount to intellectual and actionary cowardice?
I do trust the individual I just do not trust the mob of individuals.
I believe that it will descend first into chaos and then into a monarchy. The Lord of the Flies is a classic example of this. You see the same thing happening on Survivor - first there is chaos, then cooperation and then a leader/competing leaders emerge - my argument being that a Libertarianism is not a natural equilibrium state of affairs.
Isn’t this a laid-back let’s-not-take-risks approach. I mean, if the greatest progress to mankind can only come by supra-individual efforts, shouldn’t we take the chance?
Isn’t Libertarianism then tantamount to intellectual and actionary cowardice?
This is a good question. Before I answer, can I ask you how you define ’state’?
I do trust the individual I just do not trust the mob of individuals.
If you do not trust the mob of individuals (neither do I), how can you trust democracy?
how you define ’state’?
A state is a collection/set of individuals.
But I guess you are looking for the connotation of the ‘ruling body’ for the set of individuals.
Ideally this ruling body would take in the available macro-level information and take only the required amount of optimal macro-level decisions while leaving most of the micro-level decisions with individuals since it is individuals who have the highest degree of ‘local’ or ‘micro-level’ information.
But as you can see, it is an undefined optimization problem - the person at the macro-level has no inkling of the extent of micro-level information and vice-versa. So, one can only laugh when people claim either Libertarianism or Communism is the panacea or the even the most tractable solution.
Ck, first up, let us take your latest comment
I believe that it will descend first into chaos and then into a monarchy. The Lord of the Flies is a classic example of this. You see the same thing happening on Survivor - first there is chaos, then cooperation and then a leader/competing leaders emerge - my argument being that a Libertarianism is not a natural equilibrium state of affairs.
Very nice.
Now let us rewind and look at another comment on another thread.
It is impossible to argue rationally with both libertarians and religious men. Both hold a belief which cannot be proved - so when you do argue with them they just reference some obscure text. When pressed or you dig a little deeper you find that the text is just that - words written by somebody else which cannot be proved because the events which the text references have never occurred.
Errrr…..are there two Ck’s?
Now, a general comment. A lot of you have gotten ahead of the debate. Here I am trying to establish the A, B and C. hence I will not respond to questions about the spelling of supercallifragilisticexplialidocious(sic).
7*6,
I do not agree with your zeroth assumption. All the terms in it are very shaky.
Ck, you dear little bag of twisted logic. Let us take up your first comment.
You just say that humans have rights. Which rights?
I have not specified those rights yet. As of now I am making an assumption that human beings have rights. Some rights. Which rights? That comes at the next stage. So understand the assumption and then object.
Here are you talking about psychological or economic benefit?
Again, I am talking about benefit. What kind, is the next level of discussion.
A drug addict takes drugs and benefits psychologically but suffers financially. According to you all the people who voluntarily fought in the Civil Rights movement, against apartheid, for Indian Rule against the British and gave up their lives neither for themselves nor for their select loved ones are all abberations to humanity. On the flip side are the VietCong, Al Quaida, Hammas etc. all abberations?
The “select few” people hold close to their heart include people, ideologies and motivations.
What if 10 people ‘beleive’ that my pursuit of happiness is causing them sorrow? Can they gang up and then try to curtial my pursuit of happiness?
At the risk of repeating myself - Each human being has a right to define his own happiness, and his own sorrow, and be allowed to pursue and avoid them respectively, in a way he thinks best as long as his way does not harm someone else’s rights.
7*6,
Tens of thousands of individuals can gather together to watch a concert. Yet, most of us would not call that a state. The owners of a business also “rule over” their employees. Yet, most of us would not call them a state. Your definition of state is lacking some crucial features.
–Why do so many people have this idea that if we humans were “cut loose” from the laws of the land, we would instantly descend into chaos and anarchy–
Maybe you should have been in Mumbai during the riots!! Chaos is the ‘operative’ term!! I have personally seen mobs ransack stores in the name of religion, they don’t really care who you are … they simply (at that point of time) wield power and and use an excuse as a right!!
GK, I was in Mumbai during the riots of 1992-93 and also was out helping people (simple things like getting bread to relatives and friends who were stranded)
From what I saw and later discussed with others who were also out during that time is that the riots were NOT chaotic. They were well organised. Ten years later, Gujarat 2002. Same story. Orchestrated riots to achieve political and other aims (which in both cases were achieved).
I believe that according to the definitions given by Gaurav, I may also call myself a Libertarian. But, before I call myself one, can somebody answer the questions below. Basically my viewpoint in life is pretty much the same as that given by Gaurav, but I would not change my viewpoint to be called a libertarian. On the other hand if I am already one, I should start calling myself one. My questions are–
a) Let us say there exist a hypothetical country with a mostly libertarian population. Some non-libertarians decide to get active behind the scenes, because they think their viewpoint is much superior. They also manage to get support on most of the non-libertarians, and are very successful at creating cracks in the libertarian fabric of the nation. What would be a libertarian response?
b) Can you be religious and libertarian? After all, if I understand correctly, libertarians support personal method of pursuit of happiness as long as it doe not harm others. correct?
c) What if there is a new granfalloon(for Definition: click me ) that does not support personal form of pursuit of happiness, i,e, it considers and will try to enforce violently its own “group pursuit of happiness” viewpoint on others. What would be a libertarian response in such a situation? What if this group is a substantial part of the population in the libertarian country? What if the libertarians even after trying for decades are unable to change viewpoint of this group, and still have to face violent enforcements?
My main reason for asking these questions is that I want to understand, if the libertarian point of view is a Utopian point of view or not. Basically, is it good as only an individual point of view? and cannot work in a mixed group, because of frictions inherent in a mixed group. A mixed group can impose some form of stimulus/response just for survival. In other words is it flexible enough to realize what is needed today for a better tomorrow.
Thanks for indulging me with your answers.
Ck: You’re again doing the same thing as i had said earlier. You’re trying to implement Libertarianism on top of an existing sytem. Obviously, the result of this discussion would be a moving target because it would depend on the existing system in addition to the system that Libertarianism would lay down.
An example of this would be implementing Libertarianism in France as opposed to implementing it in Sudan. Anybody would tell you that these are two completely different scenarios and would produce completely different results. What i’m saying is that this (or any) topic has to be argued upon it’s own merits and demerits. The philosophy behind the system does not fail just because it’s difficult or even impossible to implement. If nothing else, it can become a goal that we can try to acheive over a period of time.
As for this argument being academic, this topic IS academic. All said and done, we’re going to argue this topic and get on with our lives. This is not a power breakfast for politicians.
Kautilya, taken at its extremities, yes, it is a Utopian point of view, like any other philosophy at its extreme. Opponents with enough muscle can make anything fail. No system is infallible. I do not believe in Libertarianism because it is an “end-to-end” solution that will cure everything. There will be miscreants, there will be rebels.
The scope of this discussion is that if we have to choose a system, whether on a personal or a group level, what should it be? The answer as i think is a Libertarian system, of course, the Gaurav Sabnis version of Libertarianism.
While the ideas of Hayek, Friedman, Jal, Menon and Sabnis may vary on the minute specifics, we broadly agree on the basic principles. And on this thread we are debating in favour of these basic principles.
It has been our endeavour, successfully might I add, to NOT refer to texts written by someone else, which have never been proven. :)
Oh since Ck is taking a TV show(Survivor) as a reference, I must extend my apologies. Now that I think about it, an episode of Simpsons was based on ‘The Lord of the Flies’. Maybe that is what Ck takes as demonstrable proof for the validity of the book as a reference to show that Libertarianism will fail.
Gaurav,
In that case, as a personal point of view I agree that I am a Libertarian. But, due to demands of the society I will still maintain flexibility.
So, I will probably call myself pragmatic-libertarian. I think that is the best way to describe my viewpoint. Thanks for clarifying.
Hear ye all! Henceforth Kautilya declares himself to be a Pragmatic-Libertarian.
P.S. in the meantime I also went ana studied the Libertarian website in detail, hence the declaration.
On a serious note, Ck, let me point out the fallacy you inevitably commit while debating. You take up one cause which you think Libertarians would support, and then proceed to tear it apart.
For instance here you have taken the example of speeding. Now have any of us ever advocated removing speed limits? Have we advocated abolition of traffic rules? No, we have not. Then how is it a valid argument on your part to assume that is analogous to a Libertarian demand, and then criticise its practicality?
Take up the actual demands we have made and then tell us why they are impractical.
I was expecting a rational logical debate from you. And here you are, quoting fictional novels, quoting so-called reality shows, and taking totally unacceptable analogies.
Get your act together man.
Well, I call myself quasi-Libertarian, so welcome aboard. :)
I’m getting in pretty late into the “discussion”.
The underlying assumption you start with is that each human being has “rights”(to or over something?). The second assumption is that as long as my rights don’t infringe on another persons rights, things are okay-dokay.
My disconnect is the fact that in a world with limited resources and goods, one person’s rights will invariably infringe on anothers rights simply because the items to which people have rights over are limited and/or decreasing, whereas the number of people with rights is increasing.
More people claiming rights over less resources would inevitably lead to someone’s rights holding precedence or trampling over another person’s rights.
What then?
If all of us were born equal and had an equal attempt at fighting for/traying to attain the “goods” over which we have “rights” then I have no complaints. But we are not born equal.
Hence some people’s “rights” will end up translating into a lot more “returns” when claimed, than many others.
Finally combine “selfishness” with “rights” and we have an argument to protect inequity not spread equality.
Jivha, when did this “equality” assumption slip in? What makes you think everyone is agreed on the desirability of forced equality?
People are born equal. That we all agree with. But inevitably some people become CEOs while others become janitors. The janitor shouldn’t have a right to take the CEO’s Mercedes.
Jivha’s idea of “equality” goes by another name -”communism”
Gaurav, time for the second salvo. I suggest a focus on “rights”
Gaurav, for some people the idea of equality(I’m not qualifying it) is almost as dear as greed to some others. For some the idea of a world where people are truly born equal is worth fighting for - just like for you the idea of unrestricted personal liberty.
But since you mention that I am “forcibly” bringing in “equality” to the argument I feel compelled to ask where you saw me advocate equality by force? My lamentation about the fact that blind adherence to greed/selfishness leads to inequity does in no way imply that I am favour of a “forced” levelling of society to create equality. Madman’s accusation of me favouring communism* directly follows from this assumption that you’ve made.
Madman, people are *not* born equal…whether you’re looking at physical, economic or social indicators to measure this equality. Not by a long shot.
* P.S. I’m not in favour of communism.
For instance here you have taken the example of speeding. Now have any of us ever advocated removing speed limits? Have we advocated abolition of traffic rules? No, we have not. Then how is it a valid argument on your part to assume that is analogous to a Libertarian demand, and then criticise its practicality?
Check the logs of this very same blog. Your dear friend Yazad only a few months ago was crowing with delight and proclaiming to one an all as a great victory for libertarianism when the mayor of some obscure Mexican town decided to do away with all traffic rules. Yazad argued vociferously for ths model being followed all over the world - at which point I suggested that perhaps dear Mr. Jal had never seen a 12 lane freeway where the rules were very different from pottering around Bandra at 10 kmph.
Jivha wrote, “My disconnect is the fact that in a world with limited resources and goods, one person’s rights will invariably infringe on anothers rights simply because the items to which people have rights over are limited and/or decreasing, whereas the number of people with rights is increasing.”
I would disagree. Quite a few economists have argued against the theories of Marx (scarce capital vis-a-vis demand) & Malthus (overpopulation).
See for instance Von Mises and Julian Simon
(Yazad: URLS converted into links)
Jivha,
I am not an expert in Libertarian viewpoint, but since I have called myself Pragmatic-Libertarian, let me give you my opinion from all the reading that I have done.
I think libs are only pushing for the right to “personal pursuit of happiness” with no “restrictions” imposed by the society as long as it does not effect other persons equal rights.
In no does this imply that a person has to be “equal anything” except right to personal pursuit of happiness. Let us take an hypothetical in an ideal Lib society situation to explain–
a) A son of Janitor wants to become a computer engineer. Govt./society will not subsidize such a guys education. If such a guy is deserving, and their is **good market** for computer engineers, then this person has two options —
i) get a loan — which in a free market economy, with good possibility of paying back(good computer market), some private party will give to make interest money.
ii) some philanthropist in his/her private capacity has provided scholarships for such persons.
Now, Libs only call for no discrimination based on birth/place anything for availing either i) or ii). No handouts, no forces equalities.
b) Let us take a second hypothetical situation. A rich dude’s son wants to do computer engineering, but is not very smart. A university wants to auction for some of the seats in order to make money. Rich dude bids for it and pays an exorbitant amount to get it.
Libs in this case would not place any restriction on the university to go out and make money by selling seats to the highest bidder. If the univ does it for too many seats, its reputation will go down, and free markets take care of the rest. No forced “inequality” for the rich dude either.
In real world there might be outrage for situation b in some societies, hence it might be pragmatic to do this in a different manner, but we are talking about ideal Lib society here.
Madman wrote, “People are born equal. That we all agree with”
WHOA!!!!
Yazad - who are you letting in your libertarian cartel? Didn’t the directors themselves pass the test? :-) Flog Madman 100 lashes with a wet noodle. Madman, you are hereby punished to brush up on your libertarianism by sitting on the floor, rocking back & forth madarasah style and reciting this
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=804
Quizman,
you are right. Free market societies are self-correcting. If there is real shortage of a certain resource, then a free market either creates a substitute, or the growth/resource usage goes down.
Let us take an example of oil running out argument. When it starts running out(production should heat its permanent peak in next two years), the price of oil will start shooting up. This will automatically create a conducive situation for a substitute, and/or reduced usage. Of-course in the real world we have no such thing as completely free market, and some powerful nations will still continue to binge on oil, while other weak nations will suffer.
But, as we should all be able to agree that US is probably in the top 10 countries in terms of free markets **internal to the country**. So, the scenario that will/should play out within US should be very close to self-correcting mechanisms of a free market societies, and we will see substitutes/less usage.
The appropriate response to argumentum ad Dominum Muscarum is to cite another work of fiction:
Desmond Hawkins in Blue Mars (Kim Stanley Robinson 1995)
Kautilya: “Can you be religious and libertarian?” Certainly. Most of my libertarian friends are secular, but at least two are Roman Catholic.
Most(?) Christians say there is little virtue in doing good under compulsion. Nor are the religious blind to the corruption that the statist campaign against vice brings to everything it touches.
Anton,
thanks for the reply. Though I would think that some denominations like evangalism’s whole belief structure is contructed on the foundation of belief that the “others” have to be changed to their point of view for “their good”, and will be in direct conflict with libertarian views.
In indic beliefs it is never a conflict because we believe that all paths(religions) are correct, and are based and chosen on personal tempremant etc. Ofcoure some people today want to change that.
So, this does show that at least some “ways” of practicing a religion can be conflict with Libertarian views. This statement can be true for at least some sects in any religion.
Now that I think about it this brings up another question.
We have realized that some “ways of thinking” religious or non-religious can be in direct conflict with libertarian viewpoint and cannot coexist.
In order for a libertarian to create a libertarian society he/she has to remove these “ways of thinking”. But, the very act of removal is in some ways imposition of one way of thinking on another. Would a pure-Libertarian be able to bend the rules today for a better tomorrow and acheive this?
I think a Pragmatic-Libertarian would be able to, but I am not too sure about pure-libertarion.
7*6: “if the greatest progress to mankind can only come by supra-individual efforts, shouldn’t we take the chance?”
Obviously any individual may join a group, but the track record of efforts to bring progress to mankind by compulsory grouping is not good.
If I correctly understand Ck’s point in the parable of the soldier, here is my answer: libertarianism does not deny that we are social animals whose behavior depends in part on the groups around us; but it insists that the ethical standards applicable to groups are the same as those applicable to individuals. As a man, conscious of history, I may forgive the soldier who kills innocents in the belief that duty requires him to do so; but as a libertarian I will condemn the act whether done by an army or by a single madman.
Anton wrote, “Kautilya: “Can you be religious and libertarian?” Certainly. Most of my libertarian friends are secular, but at least two are Roman Catholic.”
Could you clarify how they manage to do that, given my view that Roman Catholicism by its very nature abrogates all responsibility of lawmaking and interpreting to one individual, viz; the pope? [I’m assuming that the cardinals report to him, so strictly he has -what the founding fathers of the US constitution could claim - tyranical powers]
Btw, I’m not making a value judgement. I’m merely seeking clarification on that dichotomy.
Kautilya, the wars of religion in Europe ended because all parties were weary. Later the truce was rationalized as the great principle of freedom of conscience.
If (as I believe) most people benefit more by escaping the state than by erecting one, we can hope for states to wither as more people find ways to escape taxation, whether or not they personally accept the libertarian message. As private agencies increasingly take over “public” functions (such as schooling and policing), people’s belief in the necessity of the state should decrease.
Someday, when some Ceausescu’s regime collapses, its former subjects will try not replacing it.
I’ve heard that in northern Somalia (the formerly British part) the tribes have put up a dummy central government to show to foreigners, but deny it any real power. Unfortunately, accurate information about that region is hard to come by.
Quizman, as far as I know (for what little that’s worth!) the Church of Rome has no dogma concerning political organization; it says what is sin, but not what to do about one’s neighbor’s sins. Taking moral advice from the Pope or from Dear Abby is not unlibertarian unless the advice itself is.
7*6: “Note that most of the progress of humanity is by a Newtony Einsteiny few. Tell me how the average farmer chugging ale in a pub is to be brought out to a progress pov in a libertarian setting.”
It is not clear to me what you have in mind. The improvement in the ale-chugger’s condition over the last several centuries has been effected largely by inventors looking for a quick shilling.
Ck:
The Constitution of the USA neither defines rights with one hand nor withdraws them with the other. It recognizes a few rights (established by custom), and forbids the Government to violate them; and it expressly says that the list is incomplete.
Wow, all ethical questions cannot be addressed in three sentences?
Newsflash: nobody’s perfect.
Either that or their notions of “select loved ones” are broader than average.
Well, would you say they are a majority in their respective societies?
(By the way there is no /u/ in Qa`ida. It is not a Latin word.)
Well, is your use of public property consistent with its preservation, and with others’ lawful pursuits? (I personally don’t believe in public property, but I do accept public easements.)
Every society, including stateless ones, has formal ways of resolving such disputes.
Ck
I have a presentation so will write the second salvo later in the day. But I do have time for a short post.
a. To all the posts by us, you have just one tiny comment to make? No explanation about why after criticising libertarians for using unproven texts, you quoted a 100-page fictional story as a reference to say how our ideas would turn out?
b. And again you go, concocting things, and cooking up analogies, about the traffic fine -
Check the logs of this very same blog. Your dear friend Yazad only a few months ago was crowing with delight and proclaiming to one an all as a great victory for libertarianism when the mayor of some obscure Mexican town decided to do away with all traffic rules.
This is the link to that post. Where has yazad proclaiming it as that? He just gave it as an example of spontaneous order.
Read the Post article. The mayor did not do away with all traffic rules. He just abolished “traffic fines”.
Yazad argued vociferously for ths model being followed all over the world
You have no issues lying through your teeth, do you? Read every word Yazad has written there and tell me where he has argued for this model to be followed all over the world. Copy paste and tell me.
Here are a few things he said to the contrary
Spontaneous Order does not mean an absence of rules or order.
I am pointing out to what we are observing in a city in Mexico.
This is just the start. I am keen to note what the results will be 6-12 months down the line.
I’m just waiting and watching.
You need a serious crash course in comprehension skills.
Basically the point is, as i averred earlier, none of us have suggested doing away with traffic rules. So that analogy is fallacious. Your defense of your fallacies has shown to be not just fallacious, but also a big liar.
Waiting for your next comment, and hope it is not a shrill-but-tiny squeak like the last one and has some actual logical and rational arguments.
Anton, the Roman Catholic church has quite a lot of control in an individual’s life, including the right to recognize marriage and divorce. i.e. their “advice” is binding, if you want to retain “membership”. Would that cause a schism between an inherent need for retaining individual liberty versus abrogating it to avoid being “excommunicated”?
It is the same contradiction that John Kerry is facing today - how can he receive communion and yet support a woman’s right to choose? Most practicing Catholics find his stance in conflict with the church.
All this is imho.
When I said “people are born equal”, I didn’t mean “all people are born with the same socio-economic status”. I meant “people are born with the same rights as other people”.
Quizman: During my two years as an active member of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (before I moved away in 1985), the club expelled two members for such acts (if memory serves) as writing bad checks to a friendly business - acts utterly unrelated to the functioning of the club itself, but deemed likely to damage goodwill toward the club. Is libertarianism inconsistent with membership in such a club?
Anton, negative is what I would say. They caused harm knowingly, a clear unethical, even illegal breach.
I’m sure the two members were glad as well. To paraphrase the funnier Marx, “I don’t want to be a member of a club that would admit me.” :-)
Madman, the ice is really thin man.
But I will not crack it.
Thin ice? The idea that “equal” means politically equal before the law and not equal in capabilities and skills is a well established sense of the word. (I hope I am allowed to quote other texts in this instance because… well how else can I prove a point like this)
If you’ve actually read Orwell’s 1984, (I hope you have, you keep referring to him) one of the examples of how Newspeak eliminates distinctions between words relates to this. To a person trained in Newspeak, “All men are created equal” makes no sense at all because the idea of political equality is foreign to him. The only sense in which he understands “equality” is that all men are equal in their height, weight, etc.
Ravikiran, look again at what I’ve written and tell me where I’m saying that equality means “political equality”?
All I said was that people are *not* “born” equal no matter which metric you use for measuring it. If you say that people *are* born equal, then please specify your metrics. Are they “height, weight etc.” or are there more?
And yes, I am aware of this book you speak of, the one called 1984. People tell me it is a great book.
Well let’s see.
Madman claimed that people are born equal.
Quizman called him on it saying that people are obviously *not* “equal”
Madman clarified that he meant political and legal equality i.e. equality as to rights and not equality in the sense that Quizman was talking of.
You accused him of skating on “thin ice”
I pointed out that the sense of equality meaning political and legal equality is a rather established one. If Orwell, a careful user of English and a sensible political commentator could distinguish between equality before the law and equality in attributes, it is legitimate for someone to say “people are equal” in a discussion like this and expect people to understand what it is referring to.
What did I do wrong?
Well if the horse isn’t in a million pieces by now, lets flog it some more.
MadMan *never* clarified that he was talking about either political or legal equality. He merely said that all people are born to the same rights. Now unless there is some libertarian subtext that I’m supposed to catch here or some auto-translation device which I’m missing, I don’t know how “people are born with the same rights as other people” translates magically into “people are born with the same political and legal rights as other people”. If MadMan meant it, he didn’t say it.
And the “thin ice” that I was referring to was MadMan trying to pass off a *very* broad statement like “all people are born equal” to much more narrower “all people are born with the same rights”. I objected to the original statement which was too broad and too unqualified and asked for the metrics with which we measure this equality…which incidentally I never got.
So if MadMan wants to veer off from “are people are born equal” to “all people are born with equal political and legal rights” then he should do so by disowning the original statement and making a clear and logical newer one.
The last statement from him was that all people have the same rights and my question to him still is, “what are these rights”?
In short, if we’re debating about something as nebulous as the meaning of equality then the onus of defining the term(or restricting the scope) should be on the person making an argument. Trusting a reader or a debater to pick up subtext or tangential context is only going to lead to further confusion.
I think I already answered you when I said this:
“I pointed out that the sense of equality meaning political and legal equality is a rather established one. If Orwell, a careful user of English and a sensible political commentator could distinguish between equality before the law and equality in attributes, it is legitimate for someone to say “people are equal” in a discussion like this and expect people to understand what it is referring to. ”
You really ought to read 1984. It is a good book.
First, I have read 1984 quite a few times and consider it one of my favourites.
Second, it is may be “legitimate” but certainly not good debating to expect your debaters to understand your meaning of “people are equal” when the discussion and debate is about equality itself.
Third, are you saying “political equality” or “legal equality” or “political and legal equality” because MadMan hasn’t specified either.
Fourth, are those the *only* rights that all people are born blessed with(I want to close out further extensions along the “…oh but I actually meant…” line)?
Fifth, I still maintain that a good debater will clearly state his/her point without letting ambiguity or subjectivity slip in. The fact that “all people are born equal” went to “all people are born with the same rights” and then to “all people are born with the same political and/or legal rights” explains this point.
I have some doubts. I not convinced that Human beings are born free, even politically or legally, unless we are talking about an utopian concept here. And I do wonder how kids born in different countries, say in USA, and say in Somalia are free, when they need atleast 2-3 years of care (from parents or others) even to survive.
I read about half the comments, I am very distrubed by the extreme short sightedness of the attack on libertarianism. Ck, you say that libertarianism does not scale up well, I’ll try and argue that point later, at the moment I’d like to ask - Does statism scale down well? If so then what do you have to say to the tribals in Aamlasheel who have been d eprived of their rights to forest resources, and as a result have been rendered destitute and dead because of the greater wisdom that the government has displayed?
Jivha, equality is very dear to my heart too, and to draw from Hayek, individuals are not equal in ability that is an accepted fact, but equality of individuals before the law is critical for a fair chance, an equal chance in life. That i think encapsulates the libertarian outlook on equality.
Ok if you want some real world examples (I have yet to see a single example of real-world libertarinism)
1] Iraq: a tightly controlled despotic regime. What is the first thing that happened when the US invaded and deposed Saddam? The general populus immediately looted their own country - from shops to even their own museums which had preserved over 5000 years of Iraqi history. Just goes to show that the Iraqi mob had scant respect for property rights and looted thier own culture and history the instant controls were lifted.
2] Gujarat: Generally a law abiding place (I’ve lived there for over a decade). The avg. Gujarati is viewed as a savy businessman and is generally peaceful. What happened the instant Modi instructed the police to look the other way and not enforce the law? The supposedly peace-loving capitalist Gujarti immediate looted his Muslim neigbors property and raped and pillaged and murdered. All this in 2 weeks that the Govt withdrew and did not apply the law.
3] LA - the now infamous race riots. The mob incensed by the Rodney King trial and the lack of polic intervention proceeded to drag people from their cars at traffic ligts and beat them to death in the streets. All this in one day when the LA Police withdrew from the streets.
There are numerous examples of what happens the moment you let a mob (not the negative connotation of a mob but the mob as in a group of people) have its way you end up with chaos.
There are (according to me) two kinds of people in the world - leaders and followers. In different situations we humans like to either lead or follow a leader - this is genetically programmed into us and much though we would liek to change it and assume that each of us can lead ourselves, in reality this just does not pan out.
Gaurav is right Statism does NOT scale DOWN well. Individuals and communities suffer as a result of it but the country as a whole benefits. This is a top down model. Libertarinism assumes teh reverse and starts with the individula and hopes that if each individual acts responsibly there is no need for the State. But this is just not true because a single individual may act responsibly but put him in a group and he will not. You can see that in the case of the soccer hooligans in Europe. Individully each of them is no doubt a responsible law abiding situation. Put them in a stadium with 50,000 other people and suddenly that individualism is lost. A few leader will arise (not democratically elected mind you) who will lead the rest (the followers) on a rampage. When the long arm of the law intervenes and breaks up the mob, the individulas once agian turn into law abiding citizens and quietly return to their jobs.
In conclusion:
- Yes I have faith in the individual - most people are fair people who just want to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their children.
- I have no faith in the mob. History has proven time and time again that an unconstrained mob (though made up of law abiding citizens) acts in a completely different manner. The fundamental libertarian assumption that a mob made up of law abididing citizens will also be law abiding is false.
- I agree with Gautam that Statism does not scale DOWN well - individuals get hurt - but that is an unfortunate consequence that I for one am willing to live with in favor of the obvious benefits it offers.
I don’t have time to answer/refute the points raised by all of the members on this list - Gaurav if you do wnat my answers could you list them all in a post and I caould answer each one in one post - nly if you relaly want to know my views on the subject.
Ravikiran, this is one of the rare moments when I agree with Jivha. He was quite correct in arguing about Madman’s statement which, was
A rational man would conclude from the above that:
a. people are born with equal abilities (physical, intellectual, etc)
b. people are born in similar economic circumstances
c. people are born with with equal rights to pursue happiness (or economic prosperity)
d. people are born in a world of equal opportunity
You can also out the boolean AND or OR between each of the above bullets.
I took Madman’s statement to mean either, some or all of a, b, c, d due to the nature of his second sentence, which implies that people who become janitors do not make use of the above equality to become CEO’s. Note his use of the word “But”.
His third sentence is a disconnect since there is no “however” at the beginning of the sentence. It seems to state that the janitor’s has all rights as long as it does not impede on the CEO’s rights.
I do admit that this is all a bit lawyerly like, but hey, when it came to equality we all jumped up on the semantics since it is so very vital.
A rational man would conclude from the above that:
a. people are born with equal abilities (physical, intellectual, etc)
b. people are born in similar economic circumstances
No, a rational man would take one look at the world around him, realise that there’s no way in hell that’s true, and giving me a teeny bit of credit for common sense, think, “there’s no way he could have meant that!” (I’m after all a capitalist libertarian.)
Heck, even the US constitution says “all people are born equal” when they obviously mean “the government shall give all citizens the same legal and political rights”.
Ravikiran has already clarified my stance for me. Jivha, if you want to continue to be pedantic and indulge in gratuitous splitting of hairs, please go ahead. Next time I write something, I will link to dictionary.com entries for each word I use.
quizman continues:
which implies that people who become janitors do not make use of the above equality to become CEO’s. Note his use of the word “But”.
How about if I rewrite it as “People are born with equal right from the government, but not with equal abilities (DUH!!!!!!) which is why some fellows become janitors while more capable (mostly) people become CEOs. That’s capitalism for you, dudes.”
His third sentence is a disconnect since there is no “however” at the beginning of the sentence. It seems to state that the janitor’s has all rights as long as it does not impede on the CEO’s rights.
Why yes, people’s rights are only as long as they don’t impede on other people exercising the same rights. That’s what libertarians argue all the time. Oh, hang on, this is where I have to make everything explicit, so add a “and vice versa” to that last sentence, lest some nut ask if the CEO taking the janitor’s car is OK.
And continuing with the “duh!” explanations, yes, I missed a “however” which I thought was implied. And I added the sentence to clarify that my “equality” was not the same as the communist “equality”.
Ck:
And why was there nothing to take their place, hm? Because any organization that might do so is labelled a “gang” or a “militia” and harassed out of existence. The police did not merely fail to provide peacekeeping, in effect they actively prevented it. (One exception: Korean shopkeepers who defended their premises with rifles generally suffered little damage. I don’t know whether they used Evil Assault Weapons.)
I won’t go into the history of rioting by police!
(You mislead somewhat when you say this happened “when the LA Police withdrew”. The riot did not follow the withdrawal; the police were withdrawn during the riot, for their own safety.)
Believe it or not, libertarian anarchists have thought about such problems before, and written at length about private provision of such services as law.
Not necessarily the negative connotation of chaos, of course.
Then perhaps you’ll do us the courtesy of assuming that we have answers to your concerns, but no time to write them up.
Rather than “Your system cannot work because of X”, try writing “How does your system respond to X?”.
Ck, you claim
Now if security is your only concern then you should be willing to pay for it yourself, an important reason that the state is supposed to exist and a reason which I think is farily valid is the huge positive externalities it generates in its role as law and order provider. I am not an Anarchist, and am not steeped in the theory of AnarCapLib. Most of what I defend is grounded in a belief that the kind of tradeoffs that you are willing to accept as a reasonable cost, are infact inhuman. I think we need to build on the common ground a little.
Most libertarians or would be libertarians would view the state with suspicion, and would therefore be very wary of economic power being monopolised by it. In India a major facet of statism is its involvement in the economy and its complete direspect of the right to property which is implicit in my opinion in the right to life and liberty. Do we agree that the government should withdraw from the regulation of the economy to such an extent that tribals die of starvation and middle classes are left with half realised aspirations, and poverty is rife and persistent?
Or do you see these interventions as one of those things that you a fairly wealthy, expatriate is willing to accept, because you feel that the Indian people need to be protected from themselves and their own rampant and uncontrollable greed which will destroy them?
It angers me to no end that people - intellectuals , behave in an extremely patronising manner when it comes to making decisions about the lives of the public at large. Especially because they see themselves divorced by some invisible wall from the “masses”, a term that I have some reservations about. I consider myself an individual constituent of the nation, and in intelli-lingo a member of the “masses”. I totally resent discussions that prescribe controls on my life. I totally welcome discussions that give me the freedom to make(and not to make) decisions for myself that do not infringe on others’ rights to do the same.
Every individual is born with, an entitled to just one right. That is the right to their own life. Libertarianism is the “philosophy” that comes closest to recognizing and encourqaging this basic truth.
I don’t have time to answer/refute the points raised by all of the members on this list - Gaurav if you do wnat my answers could you list them all in a post and I caould answer each one in one post - nly if you relaly want to know my views on the subject.
Ahh, here comes what I call the “Earning My Bread” syndrome. This syndrome, which is unsurprisingly very common among either left-leaning or Hindutvawaadi people, is one in which, when confronted with your own mistakes, instead of accepting them gracefully, you dodge them with an argument that goes something like - “I dont have the time…..I have to earn my bread….I am not lukkha like you people”.
Mind you, when on an offensive these people have all the time in the world to churn out nonsense. He will repeat the same stale “scalabiltiy” argument. He will use examples and references to support his claims. When those examples and references are shown to be either fallacious or clear lies, he will repeat the same thing with different examples.
So now Lord of the Flies, and Speed Limits go out of the window and Iraq, Gujarat et al come in. When we will point out why they are wrong examples or analogies, newer and wronger ones will come in.
But no issue will be raised.
Ck, I have listed my points in two spearate posts. To your fallacious replies, I have written structured rebuttals asking for more valid counter arguments. You are the one being blind to most of my comments, and repeating the same old fallacies.
Get your act together. This is a debate, remember?
Gaurav I will be more than happy to reply to each of your ’structured’ replies (if you call putting things in italics that).
Libertarians all obviously have a lot of time on their hands. I don’t reply for 2 days and I immediately get emails asking me to and then taunts and jibes in posts - seriously Gaurav I would love to engage all day and night in debates with you but as you rightly pointed out I have to earn my bread - I am not a career libertarian and have real things to do. I will happily repond to each of your posts as and when I have the time sometime towards the end of this week - so chill you’ll just have to wait with bated breath for my responses.
Libertarians on the other hand seem to be largely jobless or they have jobs which are not very demanding - out of curiosity what do members of the cartel do in real life and how many hours a day do you all work (if at all). The other career libertarian I ran into - Sauvick - seemed to spend most of his time (by his own admission) drunk or doped up. Not meaning to insult the cartel but seriously waht doa ll of you do in real life?
The time it took you to type this 3-para-long pointless comment would have sufficed to respond to at least a couple of points.
“but seriously waht doa ll of you do in real life?”
Apart from other things, we also spell decently.
dudes, mostly whatever armchair critics (such as us, ya, me too, probably) might say, might is right!
The ultimate rights and rules to be followed to deserve the same are set by nature not by humans.
CK isn’t making very good arguments.
The initial principles at the beginning of this thread are correct.
Human rights are not granted by the states constitution. The US constitution, for instance, grants NO RIGHTS. IT merely *recognizes* these rights as pre-existing. The constitution is written from the position of an agreement to give up some rights, in a limited way, to allow the government.
In the early years of the US, the country was very libertarian, very successful, and the fastest growing economy the world has seen in history– and it was totally libertarian. Hell, they even had duels.
Human Rights come from the nature of reality. They are not priviledges which can be taken away. They can be infringed, but the essense of libertarianism is that such infringements are immoral.
To sum libertarianism up very succinctly– Libertarianism is the belief that the initiation of force is immoral. Thus when a government, or a hoodlum uses violence against you, that person is immoral. Furthermore, that you have the right to defend yourself with violence against them.
Every libertarian position I know of is an application of this principle– from the obvious: taxes to the less obvious: environmental protection.
To stand in opposition to libertarianism is to believe that it IS moral to use violence against people to get what you want.
This is why CK will never let a specific issue be pinned down. Much easier to call libertarianism a cult than to admit that he’s advocating violence.
hello, i m a fresher b.tech in computer science &
engg. right now i m searching jobs.