I think both of these forms of political activity succumb to one basic critique:
People are in denial of this obvious fact:
Being part of a civilization requires you to cooperate with others, usually through some central authority or power.
I guess where I agree with libertarians and anarchists is that less government is more effective. Economically, I’m a libertarian; keep stuff simple, avoid the kinds of weird economics that require tons of regulation. Letting the markets handle things is usually far more efficient than government; that doesn’t mean the government should just cheer while rampant commerce destroys culture, people and environment alike.
I can understand libertarianism as a statement against bureaucracy. Who doesn’t find that appealing? But as a political idea in and of itself — that’s as ridiculous as unfettered socialism!
No, it is precisely because “society requires you to cooperate with others” that libertarianism is correct. Read: The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
Being forced to pay taxes isn’t cooperation. Even if they take 100% exactly how much you would have given voluntarily and the tax money is spent on 100% what you would have spent it on, it was still taken from you by force. Which is very uncivil.
Dear Other Brett,
I disagree. Most people will not contribute voluntarily, and if you build a society around the idea of self, selfishness follows. Libertarianism is social Darwinism taken to an extreme, at which point all collective activity ceases and infrastructure/values collapse. Sounds like a big shopping mall to me. But you have good taste in first names.
Cheers
Brett Stevens
As deep as your insight lies elsewhere (specifically with what I think is an incredible insight into the state society psychology, which I admire), I can’t help but think you are being fairly superficial regarding libertarianism and/or anarchism, especially when anarchism has been recently updated with some rather exciting new stuff regarding post-structuralism (Todd May, “Political Philosophy of Post-Structrualism Anarchism”), that challenges it’s own past assumptions of humanism & views of hierarchy (which, despite my subscription to the two philosophies, I still saw inherent humanism as a weakness in libertarianism and anarchism).
Your dismissal seems to rest entirely on a vast assumption that libertarianism & anarchism are entirely based on the self for the sake of being based on the self. Admittedly, however, your criticism of libertarianism / anarchism being only focused on the self seems more appropriate for Objectivism / Randianism.
To me it seems you are also conflating libertarianism and/or anarchism with libertinism, narcissism, & nihilism, when plenty of that is already found & even enforced in today’s state society via The Crowd, the co-opt of culture via The State & consumerism (resulting in a society of no-culture, or at least one in which the society is too young for one yet, at least). I think you would’ve appreciated the Hoppean perspective on libertarianism / anarchism, taking this into account, if you haven’t already read Hoppe before.
The main dismissal I grudge is the assumption that the external coercive power has always existed (via The State, or Crowdism, etc.), therefore, coercion in of itself is the justified doctrine (versus non-coercion). It is similar to arguing to tradition, that because a society has always existed that is counter to libertarianism & anarchism, that it will continue to exist, & that no one should fight against the idea of it.
One could say that this very argument is often used to deflect many of your valid criticism’s regarding The Crowd, the search for self-control, social fascism, etc. One could say that what you write @ Amerika.org would never work because in light of recent history, those counter to what you advocate @ Amerika.org is the majority, or has been in power more, etc. While there is arrogance in those you oppose, there is also arrogance in what you might advocate, if it’s based on this type of argument, if that makes any sense.
Additionally, I have not read a single thing in libertarianism that argues against a society from existing, merely that there would be no state apparatus to coerce a collective society into forming into a certain way. Emergence, memetics, etc. would all seem to point out that The State is not an absolute necessary method or tool for a society to form, or at least not the only way.
I think at some point in the future, if you haven’t already (I’m still working through your archives in my spare time, so if I run into one, this comment of mine would be redundant, lol), you should give a more referenced & complete rebuttal of libertarianism, as I think it would actually draw more libertarian / anarchists’s eyes to your blog.
While I haven’t recanted my own ideas regarding libertarianism & anarchism, you have certainly given me more than enough to challenge, nuance, & re-think some of my positions & ideas.
I’ll stop now, you’re probably tired of reading my ideological rambling, but I wouldn’t have forgiven myself if I didn’t at least try to comment.
Anyways, I look forward to future posts, regardless of disagreements :)
Would you mind if I added a link back here from my blog?