I face a persistent misunderstanding when talking to people about our society, our government and politics. People reflexively assume that I intend to impose my particular worldview on them and the rest of society. So they are defensive and unreceptive to the concepts I am eager to share. It becomes a contest over "your way" or "my way" – they are not looking for a win-win solution. While extremely annoying and frustrating to me, it is no longer surprising. After years of reflection, I have come to terms with this barrier to sharing the freedom mindset.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. Our whole system is based on the lust for power – it is consistent with the primal animal drive in the human condition. Democracy is an orderly form of mob rule, where might is right – this is a horrible method and means. So horrible that once you look beyond your own fear and let your head clear, you may wonder how you ever tolerated, advocated and participated in such a wretched process. This is the crucial gap between having a genuine orientation toward freedom and rights and having most any other view. It puts modern liberals and conservatives on the same side of the fence; it does not matter that their goals may differ slightly. While appearing civil, they sustain the barbarism that is our legacy as a species. They have in common a belief that imposing their will, their lifestyle, their value system, their judgement on other people is a legitimate use of power – we believe otherwise.
We believe it is wrong to impose with force one’s views on others. This principle is essential to a freedom orientation, so those of us who hold this principle are not trying to impose our will or views on you. However, the public’s mindset is so focused on power and the control of others, they assume that we are trying to take away "their way" of life and impose "our way" on them. Might is right – that is the only way most people know – it is the way they expect us to be.
We promote the use of non-violent means to accomplish social goals. We believe that violence and the threat of it in any form is revolting. We understand force is sometimes necessary and appropriate. Even so, we believe every new use of force must be a choice of last resort – every peaceful and voluntary means must be exhausted first. Whether on a local or world scale, we are not strictly doves or hawks. We are pragmatic and support the use of force in response to force or in response to fraud, which is an intellectual form of assault.
This principle on force is the unfortunate crux of the divide among libertarians regarding the Iraq War. I believe we all share the same philosophy on force and non-violence. We only disagree whether military action in Iraq is a plausible response to direct violence or a credible threat of it, or if it is an act of vengeance that has no connection to an ongoing threat. We would be hypocrites to advocate acting as the world’s police force, imposing our values and will where there is no threat to the people of the United States. Therefore, pro-war libertarians believe Iraq is an immediate and continuing threat. Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.
Regardless, libertarians agree it is wrong to tell others how to live their lives, and it is uncharacteristic for us to force this or any view on society. As such any form of collectivism might exist in a society founded on individual liberty and natural rights. This is because people who believe in individual liberty respect the right of people to band together and share their resources in any way they choose. My marriage is an example of just such a voluntary affiliation. Pat and I may be libertarians, but our household is communist; we each give according to our ability, take according to our needs and put the good of our relationship above our individual interests. It is our choice. It is given freely. Had we forcibly imposed on each other the burden of our needs and demanded the other’s abilities, resentment would be the natural consequence.
In contrast, a collectivist viewpoint is inherently antagonistic towards expressions of individualism. Individual freedom cannot be permitted in a collectivist society, where the needs of the many are valued over the rights of the few. I am talking to you Democrats and you Republicans – if you turn to expedient government solutions before exhausting private ones, you are advocating collectivism. You are looking to impose by force your idealized way of life on everyone. You can’t realize your vision and allow people to pursue their own vision; your vision involves controlling them. You will tolerate only so much failure and you will permit only so much success. So you invite government to regulate every aspect of our lives to ensure mediocrity, limiting both failure and success. When we fail miserably you will force your aid on us, including providing medical treatment if we are injured or ill. You could not allow us to suffer, even if we never contributed towards a medical plan and we claimed no entitlement to such services – you would not let us die if we begged you to. Even your charity is oppressive. When we succeed too blatantly, you must diminish that success, because that would allow some individuals to have more influence than others have. It is also necessary to take away the "excess" fruits of our enterprise in order to alleviate all the suffering you won’t tolerate.
This is the worldview that the Republicans, Democrats and statists of all stripes are collaborating to cram down our throats. For them government is not about keeping the peace and defending the natural rights of individuals. It is not about creating an open society where people have the choice to collaborate or not and succeed or fail. How do we, as libertarians make our voice heard, that we want to be left to our own devices, without being politically active? There are other ways to get our message out. This article is one of them, but political action seems an obvious choice. Silence is considered our consent to the will of the majority. Unfortunately, participating and losing is also taken as our consent, but we don’t always loose; we do have some influence. More important is that politics is entangled with the use of force and a controlling mindset, which are contrary to our ideals. When we speak out politically as Libertarians, people assume that we wish to control others and force our ways on society. That is the nature of politics – intellectualized barbarism – it is similar to fraud, the other form of intellectualized violence.
Libertarians do not want to prevent you from collaborating with others. We believe it should be your choice to pool your liabilities and assets as well as your contributions and demands. We simply want the choice not to. As much as we believe that a liberty mindset is empowering and beneficial to all, we would not force on you a preconceived vision of how you should run your life. We want only to be left to our own devices. That includes reducing our compulsory contributions and limiting our entitlement to government services to the basics – sort of a "basic cable TV" version of government – public access, news and local channels, but no HBO, no Showtime, etc. – public roads, highways, police and military, but no Medicare, no Social Security, etc. This pay-as-you-go system is what I call "opting out", a concept I will continue to explore.
5 comments:
Interesting post. I'd like to comment on one thing in particular: libertarian responses to the Iraq war. You wrote:
= = = = = = =
Therefore, pro-war libertarians believe Iraq is an immediate and continuing threat. Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.
= = = = = = =
I suppose I would have questions for both sorts of libertarian. To the pro-war one, the one who sees Iraq as "an immediate and continuing threat," I ask:
1. What, exactly, are you smoking? Can I have some, too?
2. What level of "threat" justifies killing, maiming, imprisoning, and torturing civilians -- even swarthy ones?
And to the antiwar libertarian, who sees the Iraq war as "retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection," I ask:
1. Retaliation or punishment for what, exactly?
2. What is the source of the United States's alleged authority to hand out punishments to foreigners?
3. How exactly does the "protection" of Americans -- even real protection -- justify the killing of even one human in Iraq who hasn't done anything to harm Americans? What price may we exact from the rest of the world for our (illusory) absolute safety?
I understand, of course, that you may not be either one of those libertarians. I'm not either, as far as that goes.
Bartleby,
I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. Your bias against the war is obvious.
That’s fine. Really it is. What I don’t understand is your accusatory tone towards the anti-war libertarians. They are on your side, it would seem. Your second set of questions directed to them is simply bizarre.
"1. Retaliation or punishment for what, exactly?"
What does it matter? They are against the war. All that matters is that they don’t think military action was justified.
"2. What is the source of the United States's [sic] alleged authority to hand out punishments to foreigners?"
Gosh, wouldn’t it make more sense to ask pro-war libertarians this question? Asking anti-war libertarians this is kind of like asking, “When did you stop beating your wife?”
"3. How exactly does the "protection" of Americans -- even real protection -- justify the killing of even one human in Iraq who hasn't done anything to harm Americans? What price may we exact from the rest of the world for our (illusory) absolute safety?"
Again, why would you ask anti-war libertarians this kind of question?
You are antagonistic even to libertarians who share your opposition to the Iraq war. That is perplexing. You seem to be looking for enemies even among those who agree with you. This is all the more confusing since you also seem to support libertarian viewpoints, as with Lew Rockwell.
Your rhetorical tone is the kind of wholesale partisan condemnation I normally see coming from liberal Democrats. Did you support Clinton’s military action in Kosovo? Did you condemn his war mongering with questions like these?
:)-K
Mr. Singh,
Two things seem to trouble you: my "tone," and the rationale for asking the questions I asked of your hypothetical antiwar libertarian. For my tone, I offer no apology, but I will explain it: it is the tone characteristic, I think, of someone who loves his country and is sickened by what it has become.
About my questions: the Hypothetical Antiwar Libertarian (HAL) is someone I know only from what you told me about him:
Anti-war libertarians believe that the war is retaliatory and punitive, rather than offering any real protection.
(1) Someone who believes that the war is retaliatory and punitive presumably has some idea what offense is being retaliated against or punished; hence, my first question. (2)Anyone who perceives that a punishment is being handed out will presumably have an opinion about whether the punisher has any legitimate authority to do what he's doing; my second question was to find out what HAL's opinion is. Obviously, his opinion might be that no such authority exists, and which case -- as you suggest -- I'd have no disagreement with him. Of course, he might have some other opinion, which I'd want to hear and possibly discuss. Fair enough? (3) Anyone who opposes the war on the grounds that it does not provide Americans with "real" protection presumably has some criteria by which "real"protection is identified, and may also have some criteria for deciding when the protection is "real" enough to merit the deaths of the uninvolved. I would have some morbid interest in exploring the moral calculus involved.
You describe my tone in condemning the conduct of the U.S. government as "partisan." Well, yes and no. I am firmly convinced that both Major Brand Parties are properly to be viewed as mere nominally-competitive caucuses within what I call the War Party, and I carry no water for the Donkey Caucus. However, you may recall the late 2004 triumphalism of the Elephant Caucus, for having been established in firm control of all three branches of Leviathan-on-the-Potomac. Since the Gee Oh Pee is indeed in power, pretty much any criticism of the government's actions is going to sound critical of its current proprietors. You ask if I condemned Clinton's Eastern European warmongering; the answer is yes, I did. And Bush I's, and Ronnie Reagan's, and on back about as far as you want to go. Of course, I didn't have a blog until about a year ago, so I'll ask you to take my word for that.
There's more than one way to oppose the war. Some, such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, oppose it (as far as can be judged by their words, which isn't far) as being poorly managed, and not "getting the job done." HAL sounded to me as if he might have been of this mind; of course, since he's only HAL, I had questions for him. Others are in principled opposition to the war -- not only this war, but nearly every particular war. That would be me, and some others; not many, I suspect. In any case, though, there's nothing partisan about it; a principled opponent of the war who voted for Kerry was making a serious mistake.
Well Bartleby, I surely appreciate you efforts toward a more even "tone". I'll admit, I knew from the start exactly what type of response you were trying to provoke HAL into giving. I just wanted to hear you say it plain.
I am concerned that I have not gotten the benefit of the doubt so far. Even the term HAL presupposes that an anti-war libertarian is mythical in your view. I say why would they lie? Why would I? Surely I am not the first libertarian you’ve ever met. My freedom-loving friend Debbie Harbeson and you seem to get on well. And I understand that war may be a hot-button for you, but if you’ve never met a Real Anti-war Libertarian (RAL), how am I to convince you that RAL is no Unicorn like HAL.
But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and overlook your doubtfulness of me.
Plain and simple... I don’t know of any local libertarians who support the Iraq War.
If you’ve read much of my blog you must surely see that minding our own business and leaving others alone are essential to the libertarian viewpoint. There is nothing inherently hawkish in that view. Yet to address your concerns as to what libertarians would consider a just cause for war, let me offer the following analogy. I detest violence, but if I were to find you breaking down my door and offering violence to my loved ones and myself, I’d drop you where you stood.
Now, I realize this is an extreme scenario – sort of like finding enemy warships and tank transports coming ashore on the Atlantic Coast. Is it safe to assume you would support military action under such circumstances? If so, then everything else is a matter of degree. What you are really trying to feel out is whether my threshold for tolerating military action is the same as your threshold.
And THAT’S exactly the point I was trying to make. Believe me, suggesting to my RAL friends that someone could support the Iraq War and still lay claim to libertarian ideals is a hard sell. It is true; we RAL’s are adamantly opposed to the use of force, whether applied by a teacher in a classroom or by a soldier in the desert. That’s why I have an uphill battle trying to get other RAL’s to step back and give pro-war libertarians the benefit of the doubt. Many RAL’s think that pro-war libertarians are the mythical creatures, that you can’t possibly support the Iraq War and in good conscience call yourself a libertarian.
Silly me, seeking peaceful accommodation among these disparate groups and trying to take an objective "tone". As I said, I think it is only a matter of degrees. When it comes to situations like Iraq, I say that the only difference between us is whether or not we believe idiots like Sadam are credible threats. I say we can all share the core libertarian philosophy against initiating force and reach different conclusions regarding this specific use of force.
The libertarian philosophy against "initiating" force does not preclude the use of force to defend our lives, our liberty and our property. I think that very few people would sit idly by while an intruder assaulted their loved ones, and likewise they would gladly take up arms against tanks landing on our shorelines. Most of us are willing to use force under the right circumstances. Once again, it is just a matter of degree.
The Iraq War was a predictable overreaction to the slap in the face we got on 9/11. Today’s reality is exactly kind of vision of the future that flashed into my mind and brought me to tears, when I saw the second plane crash into the WTC live on the Today show. By then it was too late – our past had already caught up with us and we were beyond the point of no return.
But what if our military had acted in accord with libertarian ideals all along? Here I think libertarians are united. Before that tragic point of no return, libertarians stood together opposed to the stationing of roughly 250,000 US troops in over 100 nations around the world. We all opposed the constant meddling of the US in the affairs of sovereign nations, and opposed us acting as the world’s police. If our military had always operated under libertarian ideals, our shores would have remained safe from all aggressors, yet no one could have justified terrorizing us for being a nation of honorable people who leave others to their own devices.
We would have been able to give and get the benefit of the doubt. Now everything is suspect, and I can't blame you for being so suspicious.
:)-K
Kirk,
Excellent observations!
Democracy is an orderly form of mob rule, where might is right – this is a horrible method and means.
if you turn to expedient government solutions before exhausting private ones, you are advocating collectivism.
That includes reducing our compulsory contributions and limiting our entitlement to government services to the basics – sort of a "basic cable TV" version of government –
Post a Comment