Difference between revisions of "A Non-Libertarian FAQ"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights. | The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights. | ||
| − | Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists) also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.) | + | Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists) also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.) Another obviously effective organization is the NRA (National Rifle Association): it is not libertarian either. |
It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks. | It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks. | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc. | Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc. | ||
| − | Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation? | + | Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. Shrink wrap contracts are common in several business realms: government too. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation? |
| + | |||
| + | We might also point out that libertarians assume property, which is just a different "social contract that nobody signed". Ask anybody when they agreed to the property system, and if they have a choice to opt out and not respect the property others claim. | ||
====The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.==== | ====The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.==== | ||
| Line 153: | Line 155: | ||
====Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.==== | ====Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.==== | ||
| − | This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land | + | This is a prize piece of libertarian rhetoric, because it slides in the accusation that taxation is extortion. This analogy initially seems strong, because both are territorial. However, libertarians consider contractual rental of land by owners (which is also fundamentally territorial) ethical, and consider coercion of squatters by those owners ethical. The key difference is who owns what. The Mafia doesn't own anything to contract about. The landowner owns the land in a limited sense called "[[Fee Simple|fee simple]]". And the US government owns rights to govern its territory. (These rights are a form of property, much as mineral rights are a form of property. They are known as allodial title. Let's not confuse them with rights of individuals.) Thus, the social contract can be required by the territorial property holder: the USA. |
====There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!==== | ====There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!==== | ||
| Line 309: | Line 311: | ||
; "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." | ; "Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." | ||
| − | : | + | : [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Washington#Spurious_attributions This is a well-known false attribution to Washington, and its first known use was 1902.] But, if we still wish to use that analogy without the pious authority of a founding father of the US, let's note that we now exploit combustion for vastly more purposes, in vastly greater quantity, and for vastly greater benefit than George Washington would have dreamed of. Likewise we use modern liberal government for more purposes and benefits than George Washington would have dreamed of. |
:We could also note that "Capitalism, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." | :We could also note that "Capitalism, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." | ||
| Line 316: | Line 318: | ||
; "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." | ; "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." | ||
| − | : This quote is one of the central ideas of "The Law", a piece of philosophical propaganda full of errors and uncompelling arguments. Let's start with a simple demonstration of its ambiguity. Did men make laws to support or suppress life, liberty, and property? At first glance, since we like those three glittering generalities, we'd say support. But if we change the generalities and keep the "logic" the same: | + | : This quote is one of the central ideas of "The Law", a piece of philosophical propaganda full of errors and uncompelling arguments. Let's start with a simple demonstration of its ambiguity. Did men make laws to support or suppress life, liberty, and property? At first glance, since we like those three [Fallacies_Of_Philosophy#Glittering_Generalities_Of_Propaganda|glittering generalities]], we'd say support. But if we change the generalities and keep the "logic" the same: |
: "Death, enslavement, and indigence do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that death, enslavement, and indigence existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." | : "Death, enslavement, and indigence do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that death, enslavement, and indigence existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." | ||
| Line 361: | Line 363: | ||
====Alexander Fraser Tyler==== | ====Alexander Fraser Tyler==== | ||
| − | ; "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." | + | ; "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." |
| + | |||
| + | : [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler This is another false quotation. Its first known use is in 1951.] But if we pretend to take it seriously: | ||
: I wasn't aware that there was any "permanent form of government". However, we could make a pretty good case that voters in the US have always known that they could vote themselves benefits from the Public Treasury. Indeed, it's been done pretty often. Yet we've lasted 200+ years. | : I wasn't aware that there was any "permanent form of government". However, we could make a pretty good case that voters in the US have always known that they could vote themselves benefits from the Public Treasury. Indeed, it's been done pretty often. Yet we've lasted 200+ years. | ||
| Line 372: | Line 376: | ||
: Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one on me. | : Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one on me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ; "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." | ||
| + | |||
| + | So much wrong packed into two sentences! (a) Which individual rights? Rights of conquest? Who decides what rights and their extent? (b) Change "when did you stop beating your wife" to "when did you start denying individual rights". (c) We can be defenders of minorities without defending ALL minorities. (d) Rand made plenty of choices of which individual minorities to defend (or admire) and which to despise and attack. (e) And yet those individuals comprise the entirety, a majority. Ayn Rand was not good at paradoxes. | ||
====Andre Marrou==== | ====Andre Marrou==== | ||
| Line 390: | Line 398: | ||
: There is no "true law". Innumerable political and religious sects might claim it, but I'd think that if there was such a thing, people could recognize it and agree on it. | : There is no "true law". Innumerable political and religious sects might claim it, but I'd think that if there was such a thing, people could recognize it and agree on it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====John Stuart Mill==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ; "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." | ||
| + | |||
| + | : This sentence, from the first chapter of his "On Liberty", seems rather final. But a mere two paragraphs later, he starts explaining at greater length traditional liberal duties: "There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defense, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenseless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing." Mill was obviously not a libertarian. | ||
====Unattributed==== | ====Unattributed==== | ||
