Thursday, January 19, 2017

Is Libertarianism Compatible with Leftism? HELL no!

First off, the quibcag is here to introduce a Rothbard quote:

“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

The emphasis is added by Hans-Herman Hoppe, who is probably my favorite libertarian.

There are, you see, two kinds of libertarian. The most common, or at least the most common among those who self-identify as libertarian, are, unfortunately, so contaminated by leftist "principles" and the liberal narrative that they've become nothing but Social Justice Warriors with guns. They think, or, better, accept without thinking, that you can allow all kinds of self-destructive behavior on the part of individuals — drug addiction, sexual deviancy, polygamy, feminism, etc. — and somehow still have a libertarian society. In practice, of course, as we've come to not only allow, but encourage such behavior, we've become less libertarian as a society. It's simple, inevitable cause-and-effect. As you make individuals less sovereign, by promoting self-destructive behavior, they become more needy, and needy people want government and taxpayers to take care of them.

This sort of libertarian (who are usually accurately called "left-libertarians," the "left" being more central than the "libertarian") would immediately and indignantly claim that people have a right to use heroin, have multiple marriages, etc. Okay, I answer, that may or may not be true, but if people exercise such rights, our libertarian society becomes unstable and collapses in short order.

I belong to that other faction of libertarian. I believe that you need a population of people who take care of themselves and their families, and who are as sovereign as they can possibly be, to form a libertarian society. Great Britain was probably the most libertarian place on earth 300 years ago, and then it was surpassed, almost accidentally, by the United States, where a more or less self-selected group of people who wanted to take care of themselves migrated from Britain and settled here, and taught their offspring the glory of freedom.

I was about to reprint the article the quote came from, and then I realized I already had, a couple of years ago. After the Rothbard quote, Hoppe goes on to say:
---------------
Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).

The rest is here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/09/libertarianism-for-non-dummies.html
-----------
Quibcag: Number one: the two girls look equal, but they aren't at all. They're Narusegawa and Mutsumi from Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina). The second is illustrated by the gang from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), and the third I found somewhere on the net.

4 comments:

  1. 1. Both Leftists and Libertarians consist of ivory tower academics (behind protectionism, subsidy, and tenure) telling everyone how society should be structured, what the rules should be (including water rights in an anarchy - ignoring centuries of common, organic law), and how people should live their lives (Nanny v.s NAP).

    2. Where people ARE taking care of themselves, minding their own business, they don't need the Libtards of any species telling them that people ought to have a right to debauchery or dissolution.

    3. Most libertarian intellectuals are in segre-Gated communities, so the drug addicts won't be breaking into their homes and robbing them for their next fix. Some abstract and technical right to do something is also the right to go feral, and having a large population of feral people is the zombie apocalypse - they will get past the gates of NAP.

    4. Libertarians seem to have no problem with megacorporations - even outright crony - monopolies, though they will complain about "cronyism" in the abstract. But if you are dependent on Apple, Google, Microsoft, AT&T, Verizon, or Amazon, you are still a slave.

    Hoppe is another stupid ivory tower libertarian:
    If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.
    Tell that to Osama or ISIS. The problem is the "given thing" in the above is you - your person. I demand you worship me. I demand you must or can't engage in some behavior and will do violence. That isn't scarcity. Scarcity (Adam's curse) saves us because the indolent starve so often don't have the time or resources to enslave. Some people just want to enslave others, even in a world of total abundance.

    Then, the "I own me". No you don't. Your parents might if you go to the normal theories - they created and nurtured and "grew" your body. At best you are the guardian or steward of your body (think lease car, go anywhere, but you are responsible for damage when you turn it in and can't sell it or sell parts). When you say "I own me", you can have already sold yourself off for whatever mess o'pottage - like a driver's license. I reject self-ownership because I reject slavery in all forms.

    Following the link, Hoppe makes a category error
    In a world where all places are privately owned, the immigration problem vanishes. There exists no right to immigration.

    There is no right to immigration now, and there are PRIVATE property owners at the border, and the illegal immigrants use those properties as trash dumps and public toilets.

    This gets to the final observation:

    5. Most Libertarians are both unwilling and unable to use violence. I put it differently elsewhere "Without the second amendment, the constitution is idealistic graffiti written on a parchment barrier". Take Hoppe. Lets say I broke into his home and squatted. Currently he is unlikely to have someone not of the state who would do violence to remove me. I doubt he knows how to use a gun. I may have no "right" to his home, but rights aren't enforced by a libertarian deity zapping violators with thunderbolts. Liberty has minimally a frictional cost.

    Where there are Constitutionalist Christians (gun nuts), there is almost no violence. But knowing even granny can and will shoot back changes the equation. The NAP becomes something different in such places since if you violate it, and someone is around to take note, you might get lead poisoning. Instead of getting lectured about each detailed violation as the home is ransacked.

    Would Hoppe authorize and approve of the CURRENT owners of land on the border arranging to shoot trespassers?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Truth is that the World is full of interests - Competing Interests. Every people must have a territory, just like animals do. Without a territory, you cannot live much less thrive. Culture and Economics are merely reflections and facets of Interests. Every Interest is a Nation, an In-group based on race. Race is the core group of every Interest or Nation. Races may be divided but never added or extended. Race is NOT a Social Construct.

    SOCIETY IS A RACIAL CONSTRUCT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Equality is the one true social construct.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anarchists come in two flavors. Posers and terrorists. Posers are the freaks who constantly talk non-conformity, but conform to each other with the frightening consistency of a cult. You met them in High School I imagine. In the 80's they were seen in Rock Band T-Shirts and jeans. Fighting "the powers that be" by buying designer clothes and worshiping corporate icons. LAME...

    ReplyDelete