Social Libertarianism
Apr 23, 2007, 10:10p - Culture
Pure libertarianism, while disproportionately popular among several of my friends and among the privileged, is neither a feasible nor a compassionate philosophy for social living. As much as I value my independence and want people to stop butting into each other's business, libertarianism will not work as a solution to the overreach of government and our culture of victimization. I, ... more »
Read comments (10) - Comment
omar
- May 4, 2007, 7:23a
a long time ago i read stuff by john rawls, the famous political philosopher who wrote "A Theory of Justice" which sparked nozick to write "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" which put forth libertarianism as an alternative to rawls' liberalism. fascinating stuff -- especially nozick's examples, which really gets one thinking that the minimal state might not be so bad. you may want to read a bit of rawls and nozick to get the gist of their argument.
i was going to say something else but i suspended my computer and have now awoken and can't remember what...
nikhil
- May 7, 2007, 11:41p
thanks omar - i'll look up the two write-ups you recommended and let you know what i think after reading them.
dan
- Jan 19, 2008, 7:28a
As a man who runs a business I came to the conclusion many years ago and from pratical experiance that Capitalism is not Free Enterprise. Capitalism abhors competitions, and it's not the State that's the probem, it's simply that Capital and power centralize. I consider myself a Left Libertarain. Libertarians from the econimic side are disatrously naive.
Russ
- Nov 17, 2008, 7:45p
Most non-libertarians like yourself find it necessary to define libertarian thinking(usually incorrectly or incompletely) before tearing it down. And it's strange, but most of the attempts to describe libertarian thinking (at least the attempts that originate from non-libertarians) attempt to define it in a sort of hyper-pure form, the impractical and unbending idealogy that can only make sense to radical ego-centrists. Imagine if I attempted a dissertation on "pure democracy" or "pure communism" or "pure capitalism"? Our world has never seen any one of these pure ideals put into practice on the ground. And so it is with libertarianism. So why not consider a society that puts personal liberty and responsibility first and social service issues second (instead of abandoning them)? I therefore respectfully suggest that you stop discounting libertarianism as an impractical idealogy and start considering the profound positive influence it could have on a free society were it ever implemented like other idealogies - that is, the leading political and social influence rather than a dominating and all-consuming force.
nikhil
- Nov 17, 2008, 8:46p
Russ,
If you come back to this, I'd be curious about how you, as a libertarian, would change policies that are in place today? I appreciate the sentiment of your comment, but find it very vague. Any specific policy changes would help me better understand your point.
Rob
- Jan 12, 2009, 3:26p
This raises some good points. I got into libertarianism for a while, but the dogmatic reliance on the market to solve all our problems was a big turn-off. Socially, I believe in as much freedom as possible. I don't believe in legislating morality or good taste. I'd like the government to be a support structure that helps people, not something that dictates how they should live. I also think there's room for free enterprise - I don't condone true socialism - but I don't think laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing either. The government should provide protection of resources and the environment. It should protect certain workplace rights, such as safety and a minimum wage (I'm less sold on living wage). I think there's room for a national health care plan too, which wouldn't go over too well with most libertarians.
Mr Speaker
- Feb 5, 2009, 7:21a
Great article.
Sandro Shanidze
- Mar 25, 2009, 11:41a
100% agree with you, I have the same problem of my friends believing ,,everyone by themselves" would work.
Jiggers
- Jul 15, 2009, 3:57p
As a social libertarian I found the article interesting. I tend to agree with Russ that it is flawed to look at "pure" libertarianism. By advocating libertarianism as an ideology you encourage change of the current big brother attitudes ever increasing held by governments worldwide. The example of the individual who could even "run for mayor" is a good example of micro-politics within a community in action. This, for me is an example of how a person can be empowered by libertarianism to take initiative, the result being one the entire community is happy with, hopefully even the band members after some reflection upon how their actions affect others (in an ideal situation).
The essay states that " Many libertarians are pro-choice, less because they believe in a woman's right to choose, and more because they believe that the government sure as hell shouldn't tell a woman whether to give birth or not", I ask if there are any stats. to back up this statement because although I would agree that there may be a few I would disagree with saying "most".
I have found that the more well considered libertarian-socialism (contemporary anarchism as opposed to classical anarchism or pure liberalism) does not just concentrate on the liberties or rights of each individual, it empowers each individual and encourages them to become an active part of their community - this focus respects the rights of each individual while helping them to feel a sense of responsibility towards the well being of the community as a whole.
To those who say they believe in pure liberalism I would say that yes encouraging each individual to be independent are important but how would it be a good thing for all?
Scott
- Jul 15, 2010, 2:07p
Russ, to answer the question, the ideals stated are very similar, in theme, to the ideals set forth in the "Libertarian Manifesto" which is called Anarchy, State and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. In short, Nozick argues that as minimal a state as possible should be developed. He further states that he believes democracy to be incompatible with libertarianism...
The first, and most important, answer to your question about putting personal liberty ahead of social justice would arise from a simple concept, which came first? Human existence is but a blip in the span of Earth's history. Nature reigns supreme. Nature is what is shared by all mankind. Where Nozick misses the boat in his description of why a man is entitled to the entire amount of the fruits of his labor is in his first description of the acquisition of property.
He states, unequivocally, that if someone takes a liberty from you, that man then owes you compensation. What he misses is that the very original acquisition of land violated the rights of another man; it had to. By taking a tree and cutting it down, my rights to the aesthetic beauty of that tree and the oxygen producing capacity of that tree have been violated. All of nature exists for the benefit of all mankind. As soon as one man "acquires" that property, he is really taking my liberty away.
It is not relevant whether he makes a product that will enhance existence. He has taken something FROM me and the rest of mankind. As such, he would owe us compensation. That compensation would be owed to society as ongoing payments for it's continued use... redistribution.
I believe that a market structured society better equips a society to ensure the welfare of all born into that society. A man may be granted property rights, but it is with the explicit implied instruction that ownership of the land and cultivation requires a societal debt on the part of the owner. That debt funds the many programs a society needs to function.
Further, Nozick misses another very important concept... the definition of a DOMESTIC enemy. A domestic enemy is not simply the man who commits the crime. Do you wait until your car is out of oil and the engine blows up to take it to a mechanic? I sure hope not!
Society has the same problem, poverty and illiteracy are the root cause of crime. They are as much an enemy of the state as a drug dealer. Poverty and illiteracy ARE within the realm of the states protection against domestic enemies.
I have read "A Theory of Justice" am 2/3 through "Anarchy State & Union" with "Spheres of Justice" awaiting...
Walls of Wealth
Jan 16, 2007, 10:58a - Culture
Why do we build walls?
As early as the 3rd century BC with the Great Wall of China, wealthy civilizations have made it their business to erect physical barriers for what they saw to be encroachments on their territory. Land is second only to human capital as the greatest source of wealth and power. We see the instinct to ... more »
No comments - Write 1st Comment
Our Culture of Caution
Jan 2, 2007, 3:24a - Culture
Last Saturday, Becca, my mom and I took Zoe on a walk in my parent's neighborhood in Santa Monica. I've always hated walking Zoe on a leash - imagine what it would feel like if your parents walked you on a leash when you were little. It seems like a violation of a primal freedom. Of course, most of the ... more »
Read comments (3) - Comment
Jon
- Jan 2, 2007, 6:01a
The internet is an interesting place for this culture, as well... In the online world, we are trained to download protective programs, be cautious in our footprint, and be skeptical about what we read/see. Yet trust is what forms the most valuable relationships (like, say, with your social network, news site, or, dare I say, search engine). Does this hamper the internet? Does user caution make it a worse place?
The interesting question, and one that goes back to your point, is how can trust be regained. We seem to have lost it as a society - of our leaders and our peers. So can it be brought back, or are we relegated to protecting perceived weaknesses ad hoc because we have no idea about how to create a real 'safe' and trusting environment.
omar
- Jan 2, 2007, 11:38p
nikhil,
i wonder what you think of soft paternalism.. i'll grab here from the stanford philosophy encyclopedia for the definition:
"Soft paternalism is the view that the only conditions under which state paternalism is justified is when it is necessary to determine whether the person being interfered with is acting voluntarily and knowledgably. To use Mill's famous example of the person about to walk across a damaged bridge, if we could not communicate the danger (he speaks only Japanese) a soft paternalist would justify forcibly preventing him from crossing the bridge in order to determine whether he knows about its condition. If he knows, and wants to, say, commit suicide he must be allowed to proceed. A hard paternalist says that, at least sometimes, it may be permissible to prevent him from crossing the bridge even if he knows of its condition. We are entitled to prevent voluntary suicide."
now, applying such ideas to dogs is a bit tricky, because i think it's pretty clear that a dog doesn't really understand the dangers inherent in being unleashed. in the dog's case, we need to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of being on a leash at all times while out in the world. i think you may be going a bit far by invoking the culture of caution in the dog scenario.
i actually think that considering individual knowledge is key. for instance, in the "riding in the trunk" scenario, i think those kids have a pretty good understanding of the risk, and i think we may be going a bit too far in legislating against it. at the same time, we must acknowledge that since we live in a society where people are necessarily connected to other people, i think it's the duty of the government to weigh the effects of our actions on others, and i think this duty goes beyond the minimal state that guarantees that you won't be attacked by thugs, which is what is advocated by classical libertarians.
finally, i think we need to measure what's at stake. in many of the examples you've given above, what's at stake is no less than someone's life. that seems like high stakes, and often that's where government should be involved.
btw i think you're throwing around "culture" a bit too much.
nikhil
- Jan 4, 2007, 4:47p
the concepts of soft and hard paternalism are interesting. thanks for sharing.
i guess my concern is that almost any action (or lack of action) can be put in terms where someone's life will be at stake. the probability of something bad happening is always non-zero, no matter where you are or what precautions you may take. so the bottom line seems to be what the threshold level should be, in other words, when should the government intervene in some way. For example, if 25% of people who smoke get lung cancer and die 10 years earlier than they otherwise would have, does the government have the right to illegalize cigarettes? What if the percentage was 1%, or 50%? What if they don't die, but those around them increase their risks of lung cancer by 1%?
i guess i'm more of a soft paternalist - if an individual understand the risks that they are taking, let them take it, esp. if a negative outcome primarily affects them. in such a world, government would play a greater role in knowledge disbursement rather than endless legislation.
and in the case of Zoe, since she doesn't understand the risks as a dog, i'm assuming responsibility on her behalf. Becca may disagree with my decision, but it's Becca's unwillingness to take what i perceive to be small risks that is the influence of our culture of caution.
and yes, "culture" was generously bandied about :)
Easy, New, Free, Rare
Jul 5, 2005, 10:52p - Culture
Our culture can be mashed together, boiled down, and crystallized into just four simple adjectives: "easy", "new", "free", and "rare".
We spend much of our time inventing easier ways of doing things. Google is a very easy way to look up information; Starbucks is a very easy way to get coffee; the car is the easiest way to travel short ... more »
Read comments (2) - Comment
Justin
- Jul 13, 2005, 4:01p
I'm sure there are others, but I feel like one significant one that you're omitting is some notion of "cool" or "sexy." The iPod, for example, continues to be successful in the face of newer, easier, rarer, less expensive competition primarily because of the status enjoyed by its owners.
Nikhil
- Jul 13, 2005, 11:26p
Yeah, "cool/sexy" is definitely a quality missing from the post. One interesting difference of this quality is that it is more of an intangible. If you add the word "Free", "New" or "Rare" to the item you want to sell, it will sell better than without the term. "Sexy" can't just be used as a marker but has to really be an innate quality of the product itself.
|