Jorj X. Mckie: High Dogmatic Priest of Libertarianism:
I still didn't get any clarification or questioning of your dogmatic unquestioned principles on which your libertarianism rests. I was insulted- Not- so don't make me laugh and try to think and question the dogmatic faith that underlies your reasoning.
No doubt, Libertarianism is in vogue. Libertarianism is particularly attractive to younger people and computer professionals, with approximately a quarter of all libertarians in the computer industry. There are numerous libertarian bulletin boards and websites. In addition, money from corporations and well-heeled individuals has poured into the Cato Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other right-wing libertarian think-tanks.
Libertarian ideas have bolstered the ongoing Congressional assaults on the public sector, environmental protection, and the social safety net. Ideological denunciations of "big government" have translated into the realities of school vouchers and cutbacks in public services. One of the movement's greatest successes has been its partially effective assault on the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I know you like to preach and convert when you come on a thread which is predominately left wing in orientation. Am I going to hear now that you like to listen to the other point of view? If so, it sure doesn't look that way.
I know Libertarians favor a minimal state. But the Libertarians' crusade against antidiscrimination laws best illustrate the pitfalls and paradoxes of libertarianism. They view with hostility any attempt to regulate or control business practices because such laws diminish individual liberty and interfere with freedom of contract. Specifically, antidiscrimination laws limit the freedom of employers, landlords, and other property owners to use their assets as they wish. Although libertarians also argue that the compliance costs of civil rights laws outweigh the benefits, their core argument is that such laws unjustifiably restrict individual or private prerogatives. Concepts of fairness and equal opportunity may be desirable, but in the libertarian worldview such values are outweighed by the supreme values of personal liberty and property rights.
I'd like to know whether individuals have an absolute right against coercive interference in one's affairs and the right to property. Unfortunately, dogmatic high priest libertarians like yourself do not explain why such personal and property rights are absolute or why they override other moral claims or conflicting rights. It is far from self-evident that the rights of a billionaire investor (like Warren Buffet) to preserve and expand their wealth free of government interference should take precedence over the rights of a desperately starving person to receive public assistance. Moreover, the dogmatic libertarian assumption that the original and subsequent historical acquisition of goods is just is undermined by the historical facts of slavery, racial oppression, and colonial tyranny.
Other dogmatic high priest libertarian claims to justify the absolute priority of property rights and laissez-faire economics also founder upon closer examination. Some libertarians claim that absolute noninterference with individual and corporate property rights promotes maximum personal autonomy and personal responsibility. However, if the promotion of personal autonomy is a paramount goal, it can be argued that redistributive taxation is justifiable because redistributing ten thousand dollars of a billionaire's fortune to the pocket of a homeless woman will increase the homeless woman's autonomy and not in the least reduce the billionaire's. Yet, Libertarian doctrine forbids any type of redistributive taxation.
Does limited government leave people with the freedom and responsibility they need to mold satisfying lives both as individuals and members of families and communities? Does limited government enable people to pursue happiness. This dogmatic libertarian argument states that people are primarily responsible for their good or ill fortune. But does the ability to make a good living depend overwhelmingly on good luck on dispositions, habits, and skills that an individual cannot acquire on her own, but is sometimes fortunate enough to acquire from others. Is it to the upper middle-class child's credit that he enters an Ivy League university savvy in the ways of modern institutions, relatively well-educated, and organized enough to accomplish tasks and make short-term sacrifices? Is it the ghetto child's fault that he or she emerges unskilled and illiterate from public school, bereft of self-discipline from a disintegrated family, or listless and afraid from 18 years in a housing project? Do people never lose their jobs because of a recession or a shift in market conditions for which they are not the cause; and do they never gain them because the talents and experiences they happen to have or that they were able to acquire because of dispositions they were lucky enough to inherit or learn from others position them well to take advantage of whatever the market now happens to value? Of course, one might try to defend libertarianism on purely pragmatic grounds. If a minimal government and noninterference in the free market produce the best possible society, the flawed philosophical arguments of libertarians may not matter. But most libertarians disdain any historical or economic arguments for libertarianism because they believe that government should enforce self-evident individual rights rather than pursuing any social or economic objectives. However, there may be another reason why libertarians are such dogmatic high priests. In practice, an unrestrained free market and absolute noninterference with property rights does not necessarily lead to greater freedom, happiness, or economic prosperity. The libertarian model thus fails both as a theory and as a practical prescription for change.
Let's call a spade a spade here High Libertarian Priest: The distinguishing characteristic of a libertarian society is not the absence (or lesser degree) of government coercion, but its restrictive definition of rights. Libertarians view private property as sacrosanct and equate capitalism with freedom. Even democratic politics is suspect in the eyes of libertarians because it can undermine property rights and lead to government schemes to redistribute income or wealth, regulate business, or impose environmental controls.
Of course, one can avoid arguments over alternative visions of freedom or liberty by defining freedom from poverty, racial oppression, or economic inequality as competing rights rather than alternative definitions of freedom or liberty. However, high priest libertarians like yourself dogmatically assume that their vision of liberty automatically trumps other rights and that the unrestricted activity of property owners and market forces will produce the ideal society.
America's founding fathers rejected any blind faith in laissez-faire economics or the absolute inviolability of property rights. For example, Tom Payne attacked the wealthy and argued that a democratically elected government should provide social services and free education for all. On a more philosophical level, Thomas Jefferson argued that the best government is that which produces the greatest degree of happiness and safety for the greatest number, not the society which grants citizens the greatest property rights or which maximizes the happiness of the most fortunate members of society. At the other end of the political spectrum, Alexander Hamilton and other conservative Federalists favored a strong central state, a national bank, and government aid to creditors, financiers, and bankers.
International human rights law also embodies a wider and more meaningful definition of human rights than Libertarianism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved without dissent in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and shelter. The United Nations Economic and Social Covenant, which has been ratified by over 100 nations, requires each ratifying nation to take immediate steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to achieve full realization of the economic rights contained in the Declaration of Human Rights.
To be sure, international human rights law does not necessarily guide public policy. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that libertarians will dictate public policy or bring about a withering away of the state. But ideas do matter. The Republican counterrevolution has drawn heavily on Libertarian theories and think-tanks in carrying out their partially successful campaigns to destroy the social safety net and to weaken environmental protections. The political struggle to reverse the Republicans' attacks on the poor, working people and racial minorities will be at least in part a battle of ideas. |
