Hmm, this is my first time posting here, and while I'm definitely a capitalist I'm fairly turned off by Libertarianism. I'm actually finding the more I read and have debates about it, the more I dislike it ... But I figured I might be able to contribute to the conversation by listing some of the reasons I don't like libertarianism.
1) Arguments like "that criticism doesn't apply because there's a sect of Libertarianism that says X!” This is incredibly annoying, and actually makes libertarianism look weaker in my eyes. I'm aware that there is a diversity of views, but making a claim then trying to dodge the rebuttal by throwing up this Red Herring doesn't help your case, it just makes you look wishy-washy. Unless you are saying something like "your point has merit; maybe I should consider modifying my views to match sect X of Libertarianism that tries to accommodate your concern,” I don't care. I've heard this often enough that I just start tuning out when I hear it.
2) Not admitting to past failures or to the successes of other systems. I don't want to talk to someone who dismisses Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" as socialist propaganda without actually bothering to read it or check its sources, or keeps dodging around the fact that per capita Canadians pay just over half as much on healthcare as Americans, yet are on average healthier (if you leave out Americans with no health insurance then both countries are approximately as healthy apparently, but Americans are still paying twice as much for the same product). (Source: OECD Health Data 2006)
3) Plutocratic bias. I commonly see contempt among libertarians for the poor, outright hostility towards unions, and praise and advocacy for corporations and the wealthy. I find the fact that some people don't see why this would bother people mind-boggling. I know not every libertarian is like this, but enough are to make the philosophy a tough sell. The bias also leads to libertarians arguing for policies that, as far as I can tell, are the complete opposite from what would actually be needed to create a libertarian society.
4) Refusal to accept that altruism is just as fundamental a drive as libido. Just like some people have greater sex drives, some people have a greater 'altruism drive'. There are clear evolutionary advantages to being altruistic; given my audience, I'm not sure if I really need to go into it. Anyways, expecting people to be perfectly selfish and inquisitive is just as much a mistake as communism's expectation that people be perfectly altruistic and accepting.
The reason I bring this up is that it's important to realize that for some people, like me, the Social Darwinist leanings of libertarianism are repulsive. There is no faster way to turn me off then dismissing the needs of others as unimportant, saying that people are suffering because they aren't 'motivated' enough to deal with their problems, or that maybe the stupid should just die if they can't cut it. This IS me being selfish, as I find trying to not be a bleeding heart unnatural and a bit painful. My altruistic drive is just too strong for me to easily ignore, even if I am aware that not everyone can be helped.
5) Dismissing the danger of altruism; saying that rational greed will always triumph. If that were true, there would be a lot fewer wars. Being a soldier is a very altruistic decision. Recruitment advertising is basically designed to inflame people's altruistic lust if you think about it - 'teamwork', 'part of something bigger', 'serving your country'. I mean, how much would I have to pay you for you to agree to have, say, a 5% chance of dying, a 30% chance of being seriously injured, and a 50% chance of suffering severe mental trauma (i.e. stuff like PTSD, not just a bad experience)? Probably more then a soldier is paid (in Iraq mercenary contractors are paid between 2 to 5 times as much if I recall correctly, and usually aren't put in the worst situations).
Now, I've heard some people go big whoop, lust can make humans do stupid things, so what? If you read up on the evolutionary logic of altruism, it's not being a sucker that wins, it's tit-for-tat. In other words, if someone takes advantage your generosity, find a way to punish them so that the cost of defecting is greater then the benefit. In the extreme this creates 'scorpion players', or individuals start valuing the chance to hurt another, in this case the defector, as much as possible over their own well being, for example suicide bombers.
Unions are a less extreme example, where a company tries to get too much productivity out of its workers at the cost of their well-being, and so the workers assemble into an entity with enough power to retaliate. While this may reduce the total pay off available to the company and the worker, it assures that the worker doesn't get the sucker's payoff which would be even less. Of course, unions may get corrupt and greedy after creation, and some unions may get formed for exploitative reasons, but the core logic of them in general is altruistic retaliation.
4) Calling altruism evil or stupid. This is contradictory for all kinds of reasons, but also beside the point. Altruism is just as fundamental a drive as greed; a libertarian arguing that humans should stop being altruistic is really just like a communist arguing that people should stop being greedy. It's not going to happen. It doesn't matter how nice a political theory is, if it cannot work with human nature then it isn't going to work.
Speckles, you are confusing "Libertarianism" with "Objectivism."
But on some points you are flat wrong, like unions. Unions are not market actors. There is only one way to know if you are being paid to little, if someone else is willing to pay you more. If no one is willing to pay you more then why do you feel you deserve more? Theres a word for that: envy.
The labor theory of value which has long been given as the answer to my question is today thoroughly disproven.
If you defend unions, who's main tactic involves violence against fellow laborers(called scabs), why should anyone be suprised that you disagree with libertarians, who are defined by opposition to the iniation of violence?
*Sigh* I'm not actually really trying to make a case against Libertarianism, so I'm not going to try to defend my views. The question of the thread was why libertarianism isn't appealing to people; thus I listed some of the top reasons I don't like it. By the way, immediately attacking someone who's just said they already don't like libertarianism? Not a good selling strategy. How many people, especially if they already believe unions are a good idea, are going to stop listening right then and there do you think? I'm not really trying to be overly snarky, this is a valid point in the discussion.
Instead of doing a quick "ha-ha, you're wrong, submit to my intellectual greatness", a mistake I've seen several libertarian evangelicals make, try to tie the values I expressed back to libertarianism. Google and read some "how to persuade people" pages. Considering that apparently I'm confused about the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism, is it really a good idea to just dump me in Wikipedia and expect me to do all the work? Particularly considering what I listed as my top complaint? Remember, if you are trying to spread Libertarianism, the point isn't to prove me wrong, it's to convince me that you are right.
Anyone else want to give it a go?
Speckles: *Sigh* I'm not actually really trying to make a case against Libertarianism, so I'm not going to try to defend my views. The question of the thread was why libertarianism isn't appealing to people; thus I listed some of the top reasons I don't like it. By the way, immediately attacking someone who's just said they already don't like libertarianism? Not a good selling strategy. How many people, especially if they already believe unions are a good idea, are going to stop listening right then and there do you think? I'm not really trying to be overly snarky, this is a valid point in the discussion. Instead of doing a quick "ha-ha, you're wrong, submit to my intellectual greatness", a mistake I've seen several libertarian evangelicals make, try to tie the values I expressed back to libertarianism. Google and read some "how to persuade people" pages. Considering that apparently I'm confused about the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism, is it really a good idea to just dump me in Wikipedia and expect me to do all the work? Particularly considering what I listed as my top complaint? Remember, if you are trying to spread Libertarianism, the point isn't to prove me wrong, it's to convince me that you are right. Anyone else want to give it a go?
The difference between objectivism and, what I call liberalism, is that objectivists put full faith in reason and the abandonment of "subjective feelings" as their name entails. Obviously, being human we cannot scourge our emotions, as they make us what we are. A lot of the objectivist materials is full of their own subjective designs as well. It is intolerant of other views, and this was well parodied in Murray Rothbard's play Mozart was a Red.. A very fun satire of Ayn Rand.
Liberals, at least in perception, believe men should try to act rationally, but also realize that they won't always. Because humans do not have anywhere near perfect awareness of the universe, it is impossible to be fully rational. We give full room for all people to live out their lives as they choose. We believe, and hopefully it is reasonable, that material and mental progress have come from man's freedom to act; and let's face it, nobody knows what objective truly is. Ayn Rand has done far more harm to our movement through her silly philosophy. Her book isn't that great to my "subjective" tastes anyway. ;)
I hope that was at least half way helpful for anyone... I have trouble conveying ideas eloquently and with coherence.
<></>
http://www.myspace.com/telpeurion
krazy kaju: Because the Ron Paul movement didn't convert anyone.
Because the Ron Paul movement didn't convert anyone.
Your argument is false, it converted me.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag:Your argument is false, it converted me.
Haha, I was being sarcastic. It converted me as well.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
I'll indulge you somewhat, although this information is not too hard to find.
1. This appeal to authority is prevalent everywhere. If you're going to judge the philosophy by some of it's adherents, I'm sorry to say, you will be disappointed. In every group, class, movement etc. are people who don't grasp the concepts well, or have a lot of trouble communicating them effectively without strawmen.
2. American health has a lot to do with the cheapness of cigarettes, booze etc. These items are heavily taxed in Canada. Also, the healthcare system sucks, and I'm tired of people telling me otherwise. I just had dinner with a 4th year med student who came back from doing part of his rotation in the US, and he sure didn't sound like he wanted to practice up here. The wait times are tremendous, and the pay has caps and limits. If you're a capitalist, this is anti-capitalism. In fact, people just recently sued the government to have the right to private care, because public care cannot meet their medical needs with the urgency it requires. A lot of propaganda being thrown at Americans about Canadian health care is just that. Propaganda. And as far as cost, the difference between the two system are government policies. In Canada, the government provides everyone with minimum care. You will not get the best care available, and advanced care has long wait times and shortages. In the US, prices are enormously high because the medical industry controls a portion of your government. Competition is limited, and price fixing is in.
As far as Naomi Klein, she's got a problem with free markets and Milton Friedman. Friedman is not exactly a demi-god around here. And she badly misunderstands free markets. No, I haven't read her book. But I have watched and listened to her in hours of online video and audio recordings.
3. I don't know where you get plutocratic bias from. Most libertarians aren't that wealthy, so a disdain for the poor would be a lot like self-hate. If you think we're all motivated exclusively by greed, you couldn't be more wrong. I'd like to believe most of us want to be free, and that would be an enormously wealthy (personally) position to be in. Libertarianism is sophisticated enough to understand that wealth isn't always quantified in a monetary value.
4. This is a strawman. As mentioned, it may be a confusion with Objectivism. You do realize that this institution whose website we are posting on offers enormous amounts of educational material for free? Provides scholarships to nearly all of it's events? That said, the evolutionary advantages of altruism are up to the conclusions of each and every individual. I think that most of the people you will find here are everyday folks in many regards. And not at all averse to altruism, but certainly not altruism forced at the barrel of a gun. That's really the fine edge of libertarianism. We don't necessarily require that everything be different, but absolutely require that whatever we do, is done voluntarily, and not forced upon us by democracy or authority.
5. Strawman. I don't know where you get this from.
6. (4.) Strawman, again, that is not this community or philosophy.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student, I've got to say you truly suck at persuation. Don't attack people who you are trying to convert!! How hard is it to understand that proving me wrong isn't enough? Plus, based on my knowlege and beliefs, some of which should be self-evident if you parse through my original post, I can honestly say that some of your arguments are quite bad. And no, I'm not going to state why, it's your job to figure it out from what I've already said, or figure out a way to coax more information out of me, so you can figure out how to gently correct any misperceptions on my part without offending me to the point I leave. I already started to tune out at the first insult. and didn't bother reading to the end. Also, if you knew an additional piece of information about myself that I haven't revealed, you'd realize you've indirectly insulted my mother.
I repeat, converting people isn't about defending your beliefs from attack, it's about selling them. Think in terms of selling, say, a car. Just me showing up in the forum is a bit like someone showing up at a car lot; it indicates some interest in the product. If the person goes up to a saleman and says "I've heard your cars are bad for x y and z", how should the salesman react? Is liberty student's tone the best way to sell the 'car' of liberty?
Telpeurion did a pretty good job of explaining how libertarianism isn't objectivism though. One important thing to notice is that he found a way to partially agree with me - in other words he sort of said "Yes, your arguments are valid, and that's why I don't agree with Objectivism." This is a good lead in to "I like Libertarianism, and in fact you do to, because ..." However, I wouldn't use the word 'liberal' to describe myself at this point, as it is probably going to confuse me. If I'm confused over the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism, chances are I'm going to think of "liberal" in the conventional sense, particularly taking into account another missing piece of information about myself (which could be easily deduced if you knew why liberty student had insulted my mother actually).
You've still got a ways to go to complete the sale, but you haven't alienated me at this point. Do you, or anyone else, want to give it another go?
Just so you are aware, this site is not so much for conversion as it is for discussing the finer points of libertarian/Austrian economic theory. It is not bent on proselytizing, and hence it is expected that individuals who come here do engage in self-education, as far as possible, although you will find individuals willing to educate you, it seems.
Regarding Objectivism, the difference between it and libertarianism, aside from the fact that Objectivism (in Rand's pure formulation) is not anarchist, is that libertarianism is essentially a collection of various philosophies that only share the non-aggression principle in common. Objectivism is an entire philosophic system, grounded in a form of Aristotelian metaphysics and modified epistemology, that moves all the way down to aesthetics. It is a complete system, and Objectivism proper (as opposed to neo-Objectivism) is a closed system. Libertarianism is not; it is an ideology, though there are particular forms of it that are complete systems too. Some libertarian philosophers believe this is a flaw, and that it should be made a complete system, because one cannot ethicize devoid of deeper (e.g. ontological) commitments.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Well, the OP was specifically asking how to better spread the message of libertarianism ... Most evangelical libertarians could do a better job by using some basic selling techniques. I see the same mistakes over and over again, and it get annoying. In your case, you are talking over my head. Once a person is hooked, then it's okay to start teaching them the proper terminology, but doing it before that point is risky. I may just dismiss you as an ivory tower egghead, and go back to being closed minded.
If you really don't want me to go into this, I can go away though.
Then ask for clarification. I made the difference pretty clear - libertarianism is a collection of political philosophies bound together by no more than the NAP. Objectivism is a complete philosophical system, whereas the former is not, all the way from philosophical views on being (ontology), epistemology (theory of knowledge) to politics and aesthetics.
Speckles:Well, the OP was specifically asking how to better spread the message of libertarianism ... Most evangelical libertarians could do a better job by using some basic selling techniques
Selling's hard! Especially if you're an introverted armchair political philosopher. I agree that anyone who wants to convert people to libertarianism would do well to learn more about sales techniques. Advocates for Self-Government is a good group that helps people to "sell" libertarianism. See "Ransberger Pivot", for example.
The simple fact is that a lot of people are not easily persuaded by rational argumentation. While I don't think we should abandon libertarian principles or logic, we can certainly supplement them with basic emotional appeals. If libertarianism is as good as we think it is, there are plenty of reasons ordinary people should be in favor of it.
One of my pet peeves about 'sales' is the idea that it's about selling freezers to Eskimos, that is, it's about acting like a used car saleman and conning people into buying the product. In reality, the best salesmen are the people who help people find what they want and can afford. Want to help the poor? Government welfare's a bad way to do it. Want better, cheaper health care? Government regulation makes health care less affordable and restricts medical innovation. Want a better education for your children? Then maybe letting legislators and education unions control teacher salaries and curriculum is a bad idea, etc., etc., with more specific examples of what's wrong with the government way of doing things.
Speckles:liberty student, I've got to say you truly suck at persuation.
Do you want a refund?
Speckles:Don't attack people who you are trying to convert!!
What attack? You posted a bunch of falsehoods about libertarianism, conflating it with Objectivism, and basically making us out to be amoral greedy fascists, and when I correct that by calling the strawmen what they are, you say that is an attack? Did you consider that your lack of knowledge and misperception was an attack on every libertarian reading your post? That you were spreading misinformation?
Or are you not responsible for what you write, only that others should be held to a standard of treating you gently, or coaxing you? Look, I get the impression you are an adult. If you are going to turn your back on knowledge, because someone won't whisper it sweetly in your ear, while patting you on the head, then honestly, that's a problem beyond my patience and capacity to discuss. Someone who chooses to avoid debate, or set irrelevant linguistic standards is yanking my chain, not really searching for any sort of wisdom or knowledge.
Speckles:How hard is it to understand that proving me wrong isn't enough?
I dunno. I mean, if I can point out irrationality, and show that there is a more rational way to look at something, I would certainly hope that would be enough for you to stop and reconsider your position. Unless you insist upon holding positions you know are irrational. Or if someone chooses to be closed-minded, that's their problem not mine. I can't think for you. I can't make decisions for you. You have to decide what is best for you, and likewise, I and others will have to decide if you are worth our investing any time at all in, to share what we know about libertarianism.
You present the argument that you must be "sold" on libertarianism. Well here is my question for you. Why should we take you on as a customer? What do you bring to the table? How are you different from anyone else on the web? What will we gain spending the time to correct your misperceptions, instead of someone else, who perhaps already knows the difference between Objectivism and Libertarianism? You see, I'm driven by the motive for profit, I want to reach the most people, and the people who will be most effective. Discussing libertarianism with you looks like it will be a long term project, as you are openly hostile to it, and condescending to the people in this community.
Speckles:I can honestly say that some of your arguments are quite bad.
Speckles:Also, if you knew an additional piece of information about myself that I haven't revealed, you'd realize you've indirectly insulted my mother.
Speckles:And no, I'm not going to state why, it's your job to figure it out from what I've already said, or figure out a way to coax more information out of me, so you can figure out how to gently correct any misperceptions on my part without offending me to the point I leave.
As far as I am concerned, you can leave. You're not a hostage, and I'm not going to prostrate in front of you and beg for your attention. Maybe someone else here will, but I won't. When you lose the sense of entitlement, then maybe we can sit down and have an honest and meaningful discussion.
Speckles:The question of the thread was why libertarianism isn't appealing to people; thus I listed some of the top reasons I don't like it.
Libertarianism isn't appealing to people simply because they don't understand it. You included.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Speckles: Remember, if you are trying to spread Libertarianism, the point isn't to prove me wrong, it's to convince me that you are right.
Not true. If I prove how utterly lacking your ideas are then I have spread libertarianism to our whole audience. Once I've done that, it won't really matter what you end up thinking.
JonBostwick: Speckles: Remember, if you are trying to spread Libertarianism, the point isn't to prove me wrong, it's to convince me that you are right. Not true. If I prove how utterly lacking your ideas are then I have spread libertarianism to our whole audience. Once I've done that, it won't really matter what you end up thinking.
ouch! I agree with JonBostwick, Mises had proven the socialists wrong over and over again but
the socialists will always be socialists.
Irenicus, I don't think you're right to say that libertarianism is bound together by the NAP (only because I like getting to call myself a libertarian, though I reject the NAP). I think that what makes a libertarian is a belief in a presumption of liberty; that individuals have the right to self-determination, and that we must be very cautious of subordinating that right for any reason. That an individual is attacking or has attacked another individual seems to me like a pretty good reason for subordinating the attacker's right to self-determination in certain ways, but even then I'd advocate proportionality, the least force possible, and strict adherence to standards of procedural justice. But I'm very hesitant to say that a person's aggression is the only justification we could possibly come up with for infringing their rights.
The example I like to use is the drunk guy who aimlessly wanders into the street, and we grab his arm to stop him from getting hit by a car. Does he have the right to walk where he wants? Sure. Does he have the right not to have his arm grabbed? Sure. Did he aggress against me? Nope. Does that mean I'm an immoral, unlibertarian jerk? No, I don't think so. It just means that things are a little more complicated than a simple non-aggression principle.
Referring to the boat example we've been discussing in the other thread, it again seems to me that someone might coherently argue that force would be justified, and I wouldn't want to say that the person arguing that is necessarily unlibertarian (though I would expect a non-libertarian to argue that way as well). My essay on the Rich Victim Problem was another example of a line of reasoning which I think falls within the bounds of libertarian philosophy, but flies directly in the face of the NAP.
Maybe I'm not a libertarian, though...I suppose that's always a possibility!
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Donny with an A:The example I like to use is the drunk guy who aimlessly wanders into the street, and we grab his arm to stop him from getting hit by a car. Does he have the right to walk where he wants? Sure. Does he have the right not to have his arm grabbed? Sure. Did he aggress against me? Nope. Does that mean I'm an immoral, unlibertarian jerk? No, I don't think so. It just means that things are a little more complicated than a simple non-aggression principle.
I don't see how that violates the NAP.
Its assumed that the drunk would consent to an action that would prevent him from being hit by a car. But even if the drunk did wish to be hit by the car you are also acting on behalf of the driver by removing him from the street; preventing him from damaging the driver's car by willfully causing a collision.
I've yet to see a libertarian who treats proportionality separately from the NAP, and like the other Jon, I do not see how that is a violation of the NAP, rather than a risk undertaken with the expectation of the consent of the person being aggressed against.
I think Speckles is right about why libertarians have such a low success rate of converting people. The core problem is that it can be very fun to tell people they are wrong and show them that they have no idea what they are talking about. I have done it many times but stopped when I realized that it alienates people. Some people can be converted in this way, but it is rare. The majority of people start to hate libertarians when they are humiliated by them. You may be 100% correct in your logic, and if so you will probably make the other person feel defeated and humiliated and all you accomplish is making yourself into an object of hatred and discomfort. I repeat that this approach may work at times and it is very fun. But be careful with it because you will alienate a lot of people.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap