Friday, June 3, 2016

Give a Libertarian An Inch, And He'll Waste It.

I'm beginning to think that Matt Bailey is the Eric Hoffer of libertarianism. By that I mean that both are known as solid working-types, Hoffer a longshorman and Bailey a farmer, but both still had/have time to out-philosophize the majority of philosophers with academic positions and tenure, even. Maybe it helps to work for a living. Maybe it keeps your mind clear and your language straightforward.

At any rate, Matt keeps saying stuff that just has to go up on this blog, because he says it better than I do. This conversation just happened on the net, in response to Matt's remarks here [link], asserting that even if he became an absolute monarch, Gary Johnson would probably bollix things up worse than Hillary would:

A Libertarian: Gary Johnson or any other libertarian doesn't want to be king of anybody.
That's what makes us libertarian.

Matt Bailey: "Gary Johnson or any other libertarian doesn't want to be king of anybody." — If Gary Johnson were an autocrat he could repeal laws that infringe upon person and property by fiat. It is very unlikely that even as president he could have much effect otherwise, considering the forces that are against such policies. Democracy is not necessarily (or even commonly) enhancing of personal freedoms, and autocracy is not necessarily the worst choice in regards to property rights, particularly if an autocrat busies himself with crushing communist/socialist revolutionary during times of crisis.

Matt Bailey: But [A Libertarian]'s statement does contain a lot of truth, in that almost all libertarians act *exactly* like they prefer to have no power and to do nothing practical to push policy in a direction that is more preferable to them. Instead, they seem to vastly prefer to simply whine about why things are so bad while they sit on their hands, while sometimes passionately advocating for policies sure to make policies even less libertarian, such as mass immigration from the socialist third world.

Matt Bailey: "That's what makes us libertarian" — Actually what makes you libertarian by your definition is religious devotion to a principle (really, just a short maxim) made up by science fiction writers and a willingness to ignore any aspect of history, science, or human nature that might indicate that taking that principle as a 100% absolute 100% of the time may sometimes be unworkable. As I said elsewhere: "Libertarians tend to be fairly intelligent, logical people who assume that most people are like them mentally. They assume that most other humans don't mean them harm without provocation, and they think they can broker a deal between profoundly different people that goes 'Don't tell me what to do with my person and property and I'll accord you the same right.' If those things were true/possible libertarianism would be the best system of government. But actually the world has plenty of people too dumb to logic their way out of a wet paper bag, people who have everything to gain from theft rather than competition, people who will hate and want to destroy you just for existing or just for the sport of it, and not only do most non-White, non-Westerners not see freedom as something worth attaining for its own sake, many are positively *against* it."
Quibcag: I know I just used this one recently, but it sure does fit. That's Lum of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら). looking at the bat.

1 comment:

  1. There's internal consistency, and there's consistency with reality. The former is of interest to autists. The latter is of interest to people who actually want to live in the real world.