We had a busy weekend last
And as a result missed not only the first good Indy 1500 of the season but the first blogmeet.
I looked at the people that I had missed meeting, and old friends I didn’t get to see, and was a bit annoyed.
So I read the linked pages, especially of people I hadn’t met before, like this one from Tbeck on libertarianism.
He raises some interesting points, and the comment that most sticks with me is this one:
“Unless a person’s actions cause unjustifiable direct harm to others, their conduct should not be criminally sanctioned. Period.”
My question to Tbeck, and the most important question, is this: Who gets to decide what is harm?
This is the hamartia of Libertarianism.
á¼Î¼Î±Ïτία, for those lucky bastards that didn’t have greek jammed in them in high school, means “Tragic flaw” sort of. There isn’t, strictly speaking, a perfect english translation. It sort of means “That flaw which is, in itself, a core principle of the individual, and it’s undoing”
The Hamartia of Libertarianism is that that it purports to be a philosophy of individual liberty, but in espousing that supposed liberty it specifically denies others the right to their own liberties.
Case in point: Gay marriage. No big deal, right? Gays can do anything they want. Who are we to stop them?
THe simple fact is that the gay agenda is specific to one thing, and that is the destruction of religion in any forms it considers unacceptible, in other words, any theology that is antithetical to homosexuality.
Libertarians have been around long enough that they should understand the law of unintended consequences, but this is a classic case where they are deliberately blinded to their own ignorance.
Tbeck goes on to say
“Once we start legislating based upon personal opinions and biases we end up with the ugly mess we have now”
which is of course the whole problem. If Libertarians had their way, we would all be living accoring to their personal opinions and biases, wouldn’t we? it is inconceivable to most libertarians that everyone in their heart of hearts isn’t a libertarian. Yes, Virginia, they actually think that, or at least the most ardent ones I know personally do. Like Communism, they think if someone just gets it right once, then everything will be pixie dust and roses.
As I’ve said before, if libertarianism didn’t exist, the liberals would have to invent it. No other single force has done more to destroy conservatism and classical liberalism in America than the influence of the Libertards, and that includes the large L and small L types, just because of the tragic, fatal flaw in the concept of libertarianism itself; libertarianism wants everyone to be libertarians- or else.
34 comments Og | Uncategorized
My fundamental problem of libertarianism is that there is a built in assumption that people will always behave the “right” way. In my nearly six decades of life, I have observed that people rarely respect the rights of others. Libertarianism is the “Tragedy of the Commons” writ large.
One of my major failings as a member of the Jewish faith is that years of experience has made me a believer in original sin. And that’s probably why I look at libertarianism and snicker.
Ah yes. the “or else”. the ambiguous threat that is more deadly as your imagination runs amok.
Runs hand in hand with guilt. Our parents made us feel guilty as they should, however we did not learn how to make our children feel guilty. If anything they turned it upon us.
Anything that ends in ism and covers politics, in my mind, is suspect.
Some what off the topic, but I hope a riff on what you wrote, Og.
Libertarianism can only work when most of the population is fundamentally moral most of the time, so criminality is a rarity. I suspect we once lived in a society that, while it didn’t reach that ideal, came much closer than what we have now.
Just as a for instance, let’s say we agree that we’ll take turns serving on a panel which will determine if harm has (or at least may have) been done, like a Grand Jury. The panel is presented with the evidence, and a decision is made whether or not there’s sufficient evidence to have a trial. If so, another panel weighs the evidence in more detail and determines is harm has actually been done and, if so, what the appropriate punishment should be.
Only if the prosecutors, defense attorneys. judges and jurors (not to mention the police) are basically moral people who wish to see justice done will anything approaching justice work. Once the prosecutor is more concerned with conviction rates than justice the whole thing goes out the window.
I DO think we can get a whole lot closer to the ideal than we are now, even with the flaws in the people handling the system. But maybe I’m just naive.
I think you are saying that because there is no answer to “who decides who is harmed?” libertarianism is fatally flawed. Since there is an answer – a whole system of answers – I’m intrigued about what you gain by avoiding them.
Libertarian social structures are certainly flawed, like all human constructs. But you can’t find anything of value there?
Hard to imagine that even in our society with all its laws and restrictions, there aee still people who would rather club you like a baby seal just for amusement than to order their own lives to better themselves.
Acz: I am not responsible for the voices in your head. You have to actually read what I wrote, not comment on things I did not say.
mark: yes, we have been closer to the ideal than we are now, and for the most part, the drift away from the ideal is specifically due to people “not voting because “our” candidate is not good enough for me”
We might get back there someday, but it will be due to cooperation, if it happens, not libertarian ME ism.
Hale: That’s the inherent problem withlibertarianism and anarchy; there are and always will be assholes.
That flaw in Libertarinism is the flip side of the coin that Communism also got wrong.
Communism assumes that the “perfect man” (the New Man) could be produced by a perfect state and/or environment.
Libertaianism presumes that the perfect state can be achieved by the unfettered man.
The flaw is that presuming that any kind of “perfection” can be achieved, at all.
In that “The Perfect is the Enemey of the Good”, I vote for “Minarchism”, that is, the minimum amount of government necessary to ensure the smoothest and freest society possible, within the bounds of both individual liberty and mutual responsibility.
Hence, our Constitution lays out things such as roads, defense and the mails as being within the scope of government, to be funded by excise taxes and such.
There’s an awful lot the government needs to butt out from, but there’s a lot that the government is supposed to DO.
Minimal government, maximum liberty, and a helluva lot less regulation, would be a sweet thing, indeed.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Steve said: My fundamental problem of libertarianism is that there is a built in assumption that people will always behave the “right†way. In my nearly six decades of life, I have observed that people rarely respect the rights of others
I’ve never seen a libertarian or libertarian theorist suggest that people will automatically behave “correctly”, though I suppose some of the naive kiddies might.
That’s why libertarian theorists include law enforcement and courts, to punish/deter “wrong”.
Now, they do think that people will tend to cooperate to their own best interest by voluntary interaction… which seems defensible, on the grounds that we can observe people doing it now.
(Which, all in all, is why I’m confused by Og’s last comment above… of course there are assholes, and always will be.
Why this means the State needs to do more than protect property and person, is beyond me… it doesn’t seem to stop them from being assholes now by having greatly more power – indeed, it seems mostly to empower assholes in Government.
And to couple with Og’s other point, it sure seems that a vastly expanded non-libertarian State is a much more powerful tool to co-opt to do things like, oh, attack religion, than a libertarian minimal state is, doesn’t it?
That and “make everyone else be libertarians”… I mean, yeah, it’s true at some level; putting a rigid limit on government power does prevent other people from achieving their wishes, if their wishes are dependent on using State power to force their ideals on others, instead restricting them to convincing people to follow voluntarily.
I see that as pretty much un-alloyed good, rather than a fatal flaw.
Voluntarism would seem the most moral of all possible ways to interact with other human beings, no?)
What color is the sky on your world, Sig?
that whooshing sound you hear is the point going way over your head, sig.
and thus is my point proven as eloquently as it could ever be.
And Jim, I tend towards “Minarchism” somewhat as well; I know that most important thing to me has been and will always be the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Men. And the law needs not to be an ass.
Well, I truly think we are nearing the point where we will all get to try some other method of government.
I just hope those Anarchists don’t get to run things for a time.
“I just hope those Anarchists don’t get to run things for a time. ”
I dunno. Might be fun to take their shit and leave them naked in the ditch wondering why it didn’t work.
Yeah, that could be fun.
Course most anarchists I know of run in packs. Could be a challenge dealing with a pack of feral anarchists.
flashbang and some pepper spray. Most people have no idea how easy it is to completely disable someone who isn’t expecting it, and nobody is always prepared.
Y’know, linkin’ to me don’t make it any more fun to have to deal with your misapprehensions.
Cripes, Og, do I spend column-inches in my blog runnin’ down your crazier stuff — or, worse yet,*my* *impressions* of your crazy stuff? No, I have not.
I’m gonna hafta go write about libbytaianism now, dammit.
Paul, if you have “anarchist” who are “running things,” you better shoot ’em, they’re not workin’ right. What next, atheist priests?
Yeah, I was thinking that most anarchists don’t exactly have what it takes to operate in anything resembling actual platoon sized elements.
But that’s just me.
Ms X: I cannot control what you think nor what you believe. I can only report what I see, and I have done so. I have not run anything down, and if you got that impression it is wholly internal- and pretty well demonstrates my point.
Dave: By the real definition (Not the fantasy definition of anarchists) of anarchy, it is a mob. The opposite of Anarchy is not Monarchy, or Democracy, it is the rule of law. The rule of law and anarchy are at diametrical opposites, and the rule of law is, in my opinion, the most important construct of mankind.
“Cripes, Og, do I spend column-inches in my blog runnin’ down your crazier stuff — or, worse yet,*my* *impressions* of your crazy stuff? No, I have not.”
Actually, that’s a lie. I can search through my archives-and yours- and find plenty of places where you have been disparaging, and in each case you ran away the moment it looked like your firmly held beliefs were tissue paper thin.
Fine, do so.
I won’t debate you, Og; Jesuits trained you and you consider internal consistency to be equivalent to making objective sense. It’s an excellent technique, but it’s manipulative and deceptive. It comes down to religion, which is not usefully debatable.
Accept that we *disagree.* Geez, accept that INTJ anarchists aren’t your enemy, they’re like 1% of the population. And accept that verbally beating up on gay people who want to get married is considered rude by some onlookers, even if you do it by erecting a facade of how they’re really, actually, secretly out to ruin your perfectly good, 2000-year-old, staggeringly wealthy ritualized cannibalistic religion, which could not possibly be expected to stand against so outrageous an assault. –Darn it, now you have me wondering if we landed anyone on the Moon, either.
“Yeah, I was thinking that most anarchists don’t exactly have what it takes to operate in anything resembling actual platoon sized elements.”
If they did that, wouldn’t the paradox make them explode?
Rx: Do not confuse your prejudeices with mine. I demonstrably have none, and it has nothing to do with “Internal consistency”, it has to do with facts. Your unwillingness to have a conversation on the subject is adequate demonstration that you are only interested in your beliefs; not actual facts. Otherwise, you could prove me wrong. Which you cannot. You ascribe to me all manner of “beliefs” that I provably do not have, becaus it is easier for you to “believe” I am the bogeyman than learn that I am correct. We do not disagree. As I have explained before; disagreement is a matter of the opinions of different people. I have only facts, and facts cannot be disagreed with. I’m sorry this causes you so much grief, but painfully, it is an illustration fo the problem that I posit in the original post, which, fortunately, many people did in fact understand.
Project much?
Og, there are gay people out there who want to marry or are married, who don’t want to “destroy…religion.” They are, in fact, indifferent to it. Poof, your assertion is disproved.
You have facts, opinions, personal conclusions and assertions, Og. Like the rest of us. (Or are you presuming perfect logic and personal infallibility? Kewl!)
Debating you presupposes there is some actual, universal resolution to be reached. There isn’t. You want a Solution. The only “solution” government offers — all it can offer — is the Final Solution. Force is all they’ve got.
This is why questioning Government motives, methods, utility and justification is important. You just question it a bit less than I do and that’s not a thing we get anywhere by debating.
(As for the other — One of us has faith in a Sky God who collects souls. One of us has no faith in anything and just hopes it all works tomorrow pretty much like it did yesterday. Objectively, neither of these stances is all that sane, though you can certainly justify yours more fluently than I can mine. Hooray, you win! –You win a prize I was never after, but hey, winning. But it’s fact-free on both sides.)
I do not project at all. Every single thing you have said is your belief about who and what i am, and in every case, you are wrong. I will have this debate, in person, in any open forum you like, moderated by anyone you choose, and you will lose, point, by point, by point. I’m in. Are you? No. All you have is your preconceptions and the lies you tell yourself to make me the bad guy. Stand up and come at me, if you dare. You do not. If you did, you would have to have the neat packaged world you cling to damaged by the truth.
No, Og, no.
Your religion — and my lack of it — assures that we have no common ground on which to debate and, as I have already pointed out, there is no resolution possible.
Or are you now telling me that you *don’t* profess the existence of a Deity or of souls? That’s just something I’m claiming for you? Or have I unjustly accused you of having written, “THe simple fact is that the gay agenda is specific to one thing, and that is the destruction of religion in any forms it considers unacceptible, in other words, any theology that is antithetical to homosexuality.” –Gotta cite for that last one? There’s some Universal Queer Underground chipping away at the faith held by way more than half of all Americans? –Hey, ever hear of “The Protocols Of The Elders of Zion?”
Now I’m sure we didn’t land on the Moon. Darn those gay NASA Jews, they faked the whole thing to undermine the Abrahamic religions, didn;t they? (
Excellent evasion. But typically wrong. None of this has to do with my personal faith, of course, but if you need a reason why I’m the bad guy feel free to use that. It is as erroneous and irrelevant as everything else you have posited, so it is at least consistent.
It seems to me that every time one of the religious sees someone NOT bowing to their idol/diety/ham sandwich, there is this giant hue and cry about how that person is trying to “destroy their religion” (to be fair, I have never seen Odinists do this, but then, Odinists are… different…).
I have known a number of people in the LGBT community over the years, and all but a very small number of them just wanted to left alone. The others are just a statistical anomaly, all groups contain a small percentage of assholes.
That said. There are groups that I have seen who pretty openly want to force everyone into their fold. Guess what… Christianity… Islam… I’m looking at you.
Now Og, please accuse ME of trying to “destroy religion” (just to prove my point).
s
Stuart; that whooshing sound you hear is the point going way, way over your head. Do please be quiet when adults are having a conversation.
I was merely poking holes in your deluded example.
Your “Tragic Flaw” theory didn’t go over my head at all. Yes, how droll, by pushing personal liberty, the Libertarians would force people to… have liberty or something. People might not want liberty! Cause teh gays might destroy religion!
Your argument is sad.
Writing me off as a child because you don’t have a valid response is even sadder.
s
“Now Og, please accuse ME of trying to “destroy religion†(just to prove my point).
The irony that you proved my point with that sentence is utterly, utterly lost on you, isn’t it?
BTW: You have in fact missed the point, because you
a: accuse me, as Roberta does, of things of which I am incapable, because you know nothing about me. Of course it didn’t stop you from making a judgement about what I think without having the least comprehension of what it is.
b: Choose to be deliberately ignorant of the provable fact that there is and has been an ongoing assault of the Church by the LGBT folks.
I am treating you as a child because you are one, emotionally ant intellectually. Pretending to be an adult is just- well, sad.
You have no argument. Every time someone tries to debate you on a point, you evade with personal attacks and vague statements of “you know nothing about me”. Now where have I seen that line of argument before?
Damn Og, you aren’t a liberal are you?
s
of course you’re wrong, you have not chosen to debate a thing. You come here with accusations and nastiness. Bring a debate, and I will debate. in the meantime, you’re just a tedious little child. And you do know nothing about me, at all. As your petulance demonstrates. You want to debate? Show back up with an adult and I’ll clean your clock.