Hardhearted Libertarian

Reply

Gero Posted: Sat, Feb 4 2012 10:37 PM

rated by 0 users

In contrast to the so-called bleeding heart libertarians, you could call me a hardhearted libertarian or a real libertarian, not a libertarian whenever it is convenient.

In a blog post, Kevin Vallier talked about the basis of libertarianism. He rightly rejected utilitarianism as the basis because “we often have reason to keep our promises even if it makes us worse off. Further, we usually have reason to respect rights even if we sacrifice utility in the process.” However, “the self-ownership principle overcompensates for the deficiencies of utilitarianism. As BHL-ers well know, the self-ownership thesis coupled with right-libertarian principles of acquisition, transfer and rectification can leave people out in the cold and fail to provide for the least-advantaged.”

I don’t believe there are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. There are libertarians and non-libertarians. You either oppose nonconsensual initiatory aggression or you do not.

When arguing about confiscating wealth to redistribute it to the poor, libertarians often argue about how poverty would be lowered, or eliminated, with a freer economy and how government causes so many economic problems. Despite all the economic reasoning, there is a question many libertarians tend not to answer with a yes-or-no: Should a poor person be allowed to die?

I say yes. You read that right. The poor person should be allowed to drop dead. You are not entitled to my property because you need it to live. If that means you will die, so be it. Harsh? I don’t care. I care about family, friends, and voluntarily assumed obligations. If you cannot help a poor person by getting the person a job or any charity, then no one is willing to help.

Rothbard complained how some libertarians became low-tax liberals. I want to spread libertarianism, not compromise it.

Thoughts?

Reply

Groucho replied on Sat, Feb 4 2012 11:36 PM

rated by 0 users

Gero:

I don’t believe there are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. There are libertarians and non-libertarians. You either oppose nonconsensual initiatory aggression or you do not.

Bingo. Such "right-libertarians" and "left-libertarians" are epitimozed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Bill Maher, respectively, who claim the "libertarian" moniker only for their stance on a very narrow range of issues such as certain prohibition laws. In no way do they respect the NAP as a matter of course for government action, but only at times when that action might interfere with their personal indulgences.

But libertarianism can never be understood through left/right paradigms, as left/right and democrat/republican movements have long since lost any semblance of a principled philosophy from which their stance on issues can be derived. While their "platforms" represent the accumulated debris of decades worth of political deals, cultural wars, and team mentalities, libertarianism is based upon adherence to fundamental principles of just versus unjust actions.

For non-libertarians, when a desired course of action conflicts with some fundamental principle, it is seen as a reason to abandon the principle rather than the course of action. 

Reply

Nielsio replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 12:03 AM

rated by 0 users

If you have a reason to keep your promise even if it makes you worse off, then it doesn't actually makes you worse off.

Reply

Neodoxy replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 12:05 AM

rated by 0 users

1. According to your definition of the term Mises was not a libertarian

2. This doesn't make sense:

 “we often have reason to keep our promises even if it makes us worse off. Further, we usually have reason to respect rights even if we sacrifice utility in the process.” 

Because it's impossible for an individual to consciously sacrifice the greatest amount of utility available to him.

3. These are your value preferences, I have value preferences that include ensuring that the vast majority are taken care of, and if it comes down to breaking down your door and stealing from you in order to save a man's life then I will most likely do it, depending upon the circumstances.

"Harsh? I don’t care"

In the end this matter comes down to preference, there is no form of discussion that can change our underlying values. It's obvious that you don't care for strangers, I do. There is no science of ought. By the same token there are no rights, no property rights which make it immoral to steal your property, nor human rights which make it moral for me to steal from you. Such is the nature of the world in which we live.

Fortunately for both of us from many points of view, however, the chances of this occurring, in such a dire value, on a free market, is slim to none.

Reply

hashem replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 9:55 AM

rated by 0 users

The only alternative to libertarianism is statism, so I always flip the question on them. How many people, poor or otherwise, already die, in our statist system? How about in the past?

Economically, the free market will prevent more people from becoming poor by raising the living standards of everyone dramatically and consistently. The free market will allow people to have more discretionary resources with which to aid the people who manage beyond all odds to become destitute.

Morally, we already know statism is based on moral fallacies and the might-is-right principle, not to mention it is held together by lies and guns. It is an abomination machine, all the horrors and evils of real life institutionalized. We should expect such a system to attract moral delinquents, and that such a system will be less caring for the poor than a free market.

Historically, I think we see that freer markets have provided better circumstances and opportunities for the poor.

Reply

mikachusetts replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 10:20 AM

rated by 0 users

Gero,

The non-aggression principle doesn't interpret itself.  Libertarians consistently disagree over a number of issues where its not clear whether or not such and such an act constitues aggression.  The mere opposition to agression shouldn't even be the litmus test of libertarianism because that alone doesn't bring about the kind of society libertarians wish to acheive.  After all, you don't just oppose aggression, you want to live in a world where institutionalized aggression is as minimal as possible (or non-existent).  How to achieve such a goal is an extremely divisive issue.

Should we expect everyone to agree to agree to the NAP, or should we advocate market institutions which make aggressive behavior costly?  Should we use electoral politics, secession, education, or civil disobedience to achieve our ends?  Are there sub-disciplines besides ethics which should be considered part of libertarian social theory like economics, history, psychology and jurisprudence?  So long as libertarians disagree on the answers to these questions, they will differentiate themselves - left, right, thick, thin, etc.

Reply

Marko replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 11:06 AM

rated by 0 users

When you make sweeping statements you are bound to sound stupid.

So if there is a person who has been taxed into poverty you would prefer to let him be "allowed to die" rather than redistribute state property to him in order to alleviate his suffering?

Congrats, comrade Stalin.

Reply

Groucho replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 1:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Libertarianism isn't about "opposing aggression" - it is about rejecting the initiation of force. In fact, the Libertarian Party used to have signing a statement to that effect as their only membership requirement (I don't know if they still do). The initiation of force is a very important dividing line - one that separates aggressive actions from those which may be justified as remedial or retaliatory.

That's the NAP.

Reply

Eric080 replied on Sun, Feb 5 2012 9:07 PM

rated by 0 users

There are too many factors to decide whether or not to "let somebody die."  Bleeding-heart socialists let people die every day since they live above subsistence levels and yet don't donate to the starving poor in the 3rd world.  They would rather have refrigerators, AC, TV, health insurance, etc. for themselves.  It's like an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of thing.  If I saw an individual, I would probably help them.  It's a very ad hoc situation.

Reply

Albert replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 10:41 AM

rated by 0 users

"The question "Should we "let" a poor person die" is just a misleading way of clouding the issue with inflammatory rhetoric..

(It makes it sound that your only choices are giving them your money or they die. Should libertarians fight to avoid such circumstances for everybody? YES, does money solve it-NO)

It cannot be answered or even responded to as if it is a single question with a permanent constant answer.

It reminds me of blanket statements like "are you going to vote for those conservatives that hate the environmenmt and minorities?"

Or "Do liberals know that their taxes harm the poor?' -Some do,, some don't some care,some don't. There is not a standard answer.

Let's dissect it:

How do you define "letting" them die?

They are stranded in the desert with a broken down car and no water and you drive a water tanker? Are they your neighbor, their trailer is on fire and they are asleep? Unless you are the one that sent them on the trip without water or set their trailer on fire you are not the one "letting" them die. You may choose to help them or not, totally personal choice nothing to do with libertarian principles.

Are you "letting" starving Indians and Somalis die? Just because you know they are there and they are dying, why does that mean you are the one letting them? Does the principle change when they are in Canada or Mexico, or California? Who or what is letting them die and did you contribute to that political system that created the peril, that is the question.

If there are minimum wage laws that are keeping them unemployed, while thousands of small businesses would have otherwise hired them- sure it is your duty to not let them (or yourself or your kids) die from intrusions into personal liberties.(not charity, just self preservation)

If government taxation caused it "Taxed them into poverty" as was suggested, ..... would taxing the remaining citizens into poverty be defined as "saving them from death temporarily?" or is it another  "letting them die"? or is it letting the rest of us die? How would funding the cause be helpful? Then under those circumstances by not giving charity, but by changing the system you are not "letting them die" but you are "saving them and their children" from dying.

I assume what you are asking is about giving them money. And more specifically does a government have the right to take money from citizen A to help citizen B. Which is a completely different question than "should we let them die?" You sound like you want to discuss libertarian thought on charities or government sponsored charities?

Is that the question you want answered?

Reply

Gero replied on Mon, Feb 6 2012 10:07 PM

rated by 0 users

“1. According to your definition of the term Mises was not a libertarian”

Mises may be an inch away from my libertarian definition, so I would classify Mises as classical liberal, not libertarian.

Mikachusetts, my post was about libertarianism’s definition, not libertarian strategy, so I consider your whole post off topic.

“So if there is a person who has been taxed into poverty you would prefer to let him be "allowed to die" rather than redistribute state property to him in order to alleviate his suffering?”

Good point. The problem with the hypothetical I created, and other hypothetical, is that there are many circumstances that could shift a libertarian’s position. I assumed a poor person to be starving, caused by no government intervention, to show how seriously I apply the nonaggression principle.

“Congrats, comrade Stalin.”

Well, I am not a man of steel, but of titanium, partially at least.

“There are too many factors to decide whether or not to "let somebody die."  Bleeding-heart socialists let people die every day since they live above subsistence levels and yet don't donate to the starving poor in the 3rd world.  They would rather have refrigerators, AC, TV, health insurance, etc. for themselves.  It's like an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of thing.  If I saw an individual, I would probably help them.  It's a very ad hoc situation.”

Agree.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Feb 8 2012 8:26 AM

rated by 0 users

Gero:

In a blog post, Kevin Vallier talked about the basis of libertarianism. He rightly rejected utilitarianism as the basis because “we often have reason to keep our promises even if it makes us worse off. Further, we usually have reason to respect rights even if we sacrifice utility in the process.” However, “the self-ownership principle overcompensates for the deficiencies of utilitarianism. As BHL-ers well know, the self-ownership thesis coupled with right-libertarian principles of acquisition, transfer and rectification can leave people out in the cold and fail to provide for the least-advantaged.”

As I've written before, it seems to me that "left-libertarians" and "bleeding-heart libertarians" don't actually uphold freedom first and foremost. But doing exactly that is what strikes me as being the essence of libertarianism. It follows, then, that I (for one) shouldn't consider "left-libertarians" and "bleeding-heart libertarians" to actually be libertarians. They seem to consider freedom simply as a means to other ends, not as an end in itself.

Gero:

I don’t believe there are right-libertarians and left-libertarians. There are libertarians and non-libertarians. You either oppose nonconsensual initiatory aggression or you do not.

My understanding is that aggression is nonconsensual and initiatory by definition. Jus' sayin'.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Feb 8 2012 8:30 AM

rated by 0 users

Albert:

(It makes it sound that your only choices are giving them your money or they die. Should libertarians fight to avoid such circumstances for everybody? YES, does money solve it-NO)

Another person dying is not your choice. Choices are about actions, not outcomes. You can't choose whether, for example, income distribution is going to be more or less egalitarian.

Reply

Neodoxy replied on Wed, Feb 8 2012 2:18 PM

rated by 0 users

"Mises may be an inch away from my libertarian definition, so I would classify Mises as classical liberal, not libertarian."

Mises only supported the "liberal" society (which was more or less be synonymous with a libertarian society) because it benefited the majority of people within society, and was beneficial towards civil society, so I believe that it would be more of than inch in your classifications. 

"Bleeding-heart socialists let people die every day since they live above subsistence levels and yet don't donate to the starving poor in the 3rd world."

Nationalism exposes nearly all of the absurdities, and really pure evil contradictions of statism. Remember, they're not human if they aren't born in America, because "all men are created equal" . It's acceptable to kill someone if they try to protect their property from being taxed so as to ensure that another group of people can live with heat, food, water, cleaning, support for the children that they chose to have, and a modest disposable income.