"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called." ~ John Stuart Mill
Tug O’ War: Libertarians and Progressives
Column by new Root Striker Brian Anderson.
Exclusive to STR
Nearly one year ago, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader appeared on “Freedom Watch” to announce a “libertarian-progressive[1] alliance.” At first I was extremely skeptical; libertarians and progressives are polar opposites when it comes to the idea of positive obligation. The libertarian non-aggression principle (NAP) rejects the initiation of force, threat, and fraud. Most progressives agree with our rejection of these three actions, but their concept that an individual has a positive obligation to society is a huge fracture in the libertarian axiom.
In the progressives’ view, it would seem that refusing to provide food to a person unwilling to pay is neither legal nor in accordance with their version of the NAP if it ends with the person starving to death. I’d make the case that it wouldn’t be difficult for anyone to purchase food with without the FDA’s regulations and the government’s other subsidies interfering with prices, but the principle stands nonetheless.
I gave up on the prospect that these two sides of the political spectrum could ever form a coalition, but recently I’ve been optimistic about the idea. It is true that we hate many of the same things, so why don’t we use the thin tangent to educate progressives on the benefits of Austrian economics?
Fighting between the welfare system and free market capitalism is certainly a worthy conversation to have, but agreeing on different aspects of life will strengthen our attempts at living in a freer country, at least temporarily. Chris Savvinidis has been doing this with the protestors in New York, and his month-old speech derailing the central bank has already enjoyed nearly 390,000 views on YouTube.
Young Americans for Liberty released “Philosophy of Liberty” palm cards in its website’s store which clearly outline the political ideals that our two circles share: (1) individual civil liberties, (2) an end to corporatism, and (3) peace in international affairs.
Civil Liberties
It is evident in our everyday lives that authoritarian abuse is becoming the norm. Ever since the beginning of the War on Terrorism—a topic we’ll discuss in the third section—most of our civil liberties have been shattered. We were correct that the TSA’s creation and subsequent transference into the DHS would inevitably lead to even greater abuses; these crimes have come in the form of patting down a 19-month old toddler, groping a 6-year old little girl, leaving a lewd note in a young woman’s luggage, breaking a cancer survivor’s urostomy bag, reaching into another woman’s vagina, and many others.
Then author Ian Falconer included a sickening illustration in Olivia Goes to Venice of the main character—a young pig—being searched by two adult male pigs in security uniforms. He writes, referring to the young pig, “She was very pleased.” Luckily for lovers of liberty, many people have written negative comments about the book on Amazon, warning parents to keep their children away from the indoctrination.
These offenses have also found their way onto our streets where individuals have found themselves cringing during the recent protests. Young females were pepper-sprayed for no reason. Flashbang grenades were thrown into peaceful crowds. A member of Veterans for Peace was shot in the face with a police projectile, fracturing his skull. There are countless stories. Once again many individuals like US Marine Corps Sergeant Shamar Thomas can be seen standing up to the government bullies. Thomas shouted to the cowardly police officers, “This is not a war zone. These are unarmed people. It doesn’t make you tough to hurt these people. It doesn’t make you tough to hurt these people.”
If anything else, government abuse, no matter what label on uniforms and badges, is a frequent occurrence that we can both fully agree needs to cease immediately.
An End to Corporatism
Monetary influence in government—or, rather, government influence in the economy—is a confusing divide for libertarians and progressives. Whereas progressives see regulations as harnesses to reign in irresponsible companies, libertarians see regulations as tools used by the same companies to restrict competitors from entering the market.
In the words of Jeffrey Tucker: “The first great error here is the mental habit that many have of thinking that big government and big business are somehow at odds. The whole of American history from the beginning to the present suggests precisely the opposite. […] Without exception, the corporate elite were behind every push for expanding the leviathan state.”
I recently explained this phenomenon with examples like the Federal Reserve Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, but a discussion of loophole regulation requires an adequate and long-term comprehension of economic history. In the meantime, it is better for everyone if we primarily focus on direct copulation of corporations and government.
We’ve done a fantastic job so far of convincing people that the two-party system is really a one-party system that loves big government and big bankers. These common attributes of Republicans and Democrats allow people to see that there is no good guy when it comes to voting. There are certainly lesser evils, but how less evil are they?
Herman Cain had a two-year seat as Chairman of a Federal Reserve branch. Rick Perry is in bed with the now-infamous HPV vaccine-maker. Mitt Romney is receiving millions of dollars in donations from his own private equity firm. This comes as no surprise since Republicans are frequently seen as the corporate-friendly candidates. However, upon further inspection, we found out that Barack Obama “has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined.” Obama has also received tens of thousands of dollars from Mitt Romney’s own previously-mentioned private equity firm.
There is no candidate willing to turn his or her back on corporate influence in the government, and there never will be. The only constant factor in this mess is how much power the government has in the first place. This focus will allow us to pull our resources together for a stronger push against the corporatist sphere, and (perhaps the best part for libertarians) it’ll differentiate free market capitalism as a pure and voluntary economy.
Peace in International Affairs
Governments love war. Wars have never been fought by individuals. War allows government to swell up in power and oppress our societal and economic freedoms in the name of national security. The so-called “non-interventionist theory” on foreign policy isn’t so much a theory as it is a verifiable fact. When debating military interventionists on foreign policy, explaining peace as a moral virtue and war as an economic disaster won’t do anything because, above anything else, people want to be safe. Let’s focus on the natural instinct and tell them how unsafe their aggressive foreign policies are making us.
Michael Scheuer worked as Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Issue Station: “This war is dangerous to American because […] of what we do in the Islamic world – because ‘we’re over there.’”
Osama bin Laden’s organization is the reason we went to war after 9/11: “[W]e, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat. […] So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”
Anwar al-Awlaki made the same observation: “The US is the only reason for the survival of some governments in the Middle East. […] The US needs to support freedom and human rights in the Muslim world. The people in the Muslim world only saw America as their enemy when they saw America supporting these governments. They have nothing against America. They are concerned with what’s going on in their own countries.”
I sometimes wonder how many different sides of the spectrum we’ll have to present before people understand. We will only make progress once ordinary people—who currently blindly follow partisan decrees—realize that invasions and occupations of foreign countries actually make our country less safe. Getting rid of senseless military operations abroad will be the toughest and most valuable goal in terms of ridding our world of corporatism and expanding our civil liberties at home.
[1] When I use the word “progressive,” I refer to the younger generation of progressives who actually desire to live in a freer and more prosperous world. We agree on the ends but disagree completely on the means. I cannot say the same for progressive politicians—especially in relation to the Progressive Era—whose misdeeds were summed up well by Murray Rothbard: “I regard progressivism as basically a movement on behalf of Big Government in all walks of the economy and society, in a fusion or coalition between various pups of big businessmen, led by the House of Morgan, and rising groups of technocratic and statist intellectuals.”
(2 votes)
E-mail
PrintUser Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Supporters
Merchandise
User Map
Latest Tweets
2 weeks 2 days ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
Reprint Rights
Comments
Yes! Let us concentrate on what we have in common, rather on what divides us. At least on the issues that we have in common; progress can be made!
"There is no candidate willing to turn his or her back on corporate influence in the government, and there never will be. The only constant factor in this mess is how much power the government has in the first place."
What about Ron Paul?
I do have faith that Ron Paul, if given the chance, would do some incredible things (i.e. bringing the troops home, pardoning non-violent drug offenders) and give great PR to the libertarian movement in general, but I wanted to stay away from promoting a candidate in this one. A lot of progressives are turned off by Ron Paul because they simply haven't heard of Austrian economics and don't understand the mechanisms behind a lot of his policies, so I figured it'd be beter to focus on ideology for this one.
But in fact there is a candidate who's willing to curtail corporate influence in government and massively curtail government power across the board. And he's currently polling in a dead heat for first place in Iowa.
Granted, he's the only one I've seen in my lifetime...
"When I use the word “progressive,” I refer to the younger generation of progressives who actually desire to live in a freer and more prosperous world. We agree on the ends but disagree completely on the means."
I'm skeptical. Can you point to any such progressive web site/community comparable to Strike The Root whose ends you agree with?
I'm afraid I can't point you to a specific webpage. I'm currently in college, so most of the progressives I meet are in classes, social networking sites, etc. They're basically where I was before I was introduced to libertarianism. I wanted the world to be a better place and for people to be able to afford their basic needs, so the progressives to which I refer are just idealistic kids who haven't taken the time to research the effects of their stances.
"I wanted the world to be a better place and for people to be able to afford their basic needs, so the progressives to which I refer are just idealistic kids who haven't taken the time to research the effects of their stances."
You an I may already have conflicting ends. I'm a libertarian because I recognize individuals as ends in and of themselves themselves, not because I think it must make the world a better place. Back when making the world a better place was one of my ends I was much more susceptible to utilitarian arguments for wielding force aggressively.
Consider: Will robbing from the rich to give to the poor make the world a better place?
You could look at that as an empirical question that must be tested to be settled.
You could look at it from the point of view of economic theory; the principal of marginal utility strongly suggests the possibility that robbing from the rich and giving to the poor could increase net utility.
But I recognize it as a moral question and recognize that it is simply wrong to hold collective welfare superior to the individual. I find that relatively few people share my recognition of ends.
No doubt the progressives you meet in school have very mushy and muddled justifications for their political opinions. It is plausible for someone in your position to think that this can change over time, but what you're going to find is that in almost every case it will not change. Oh, these people will change their political opinions from time to time but their justifications for those opinions are extremely likely to remain mushy and muddled their whole lives.
They will likely never invest the effort necessary to research the effects of their political opinions because there is negligible return to the individual on such investment. Your political understanding may be far superior to their's, but so what? For all your efforts you get the same crappy government they do.
No. I understand the 'making the world a better place' thing, but I'm not a libertarian in the sense of utility. I'm first and foremost a moral libertarian in accordance with the NAP. You can't hold the collective welfare superior because it ignores the individual, and, without the individual, there is no society in the first place. That's why I made sure to mention my rejection of positive obligations. Most of the voluntaryists I know share those ends with me as well.
I think it's too pessimistic to say that those people will never change. At one point in my life I'm sure I considered myself to be a liberal and had zero interest in politics, and here I am only a few years into the future with a completely different outlook on life. If you instill in people the moral base of 'you shouldn't use aggression to stop people from doing anything that doesn't hurt others', it becomes nearly nature to them.
"I understand the 'making the world a better place' thing, but I'm not a libertarian in the sense of utility. "
Then if your progressive acquaintances hold making the world a better place as an end, they don't share your ends.
Brian,
I don't comment often here, though I read much. I'm curious, you mentioned "fraud" in your article as being a part of the non-aggression axiom, or at least that a prohibition on such behavior is required in libertarian theory, why do you think so? Fraud does not involve violence, it is simply a lie. Why should we concern ourselves with lies? Is the idea not that we should be free to act so long as we do not cause physical harm or threaten it? That has always been my understanding.
I have a thing for fraud, I suppose. As a historian, I'm familiar with many societies that are anarchic, or quasi-anarchic, where, while otherwise the system of justice (yes, anarchic societies have justice systems)is quite libertarian, trickery and fraud are not only tolerated but lauded. I'm thinking here of Dr. David D. Friedman's work on Iceland, and my own studies on Anglo-Saxon England. Tangentially, in customary law systems in modern Africa I believe that trickery and fraud are, if not lauded, at least tolerated(see von Notten's Law of the Somali's). Why do you suppose this is?
What if I told you that within those same societies that outright theft of chattel (moveable pieces) property was/is effectively acceptable, and that the onus is on the owner to protect his or her property...and if they cannot, well then perhaps it now has a more worthy owner? If you have any interest in history, and I know you are a Biology student but I cannot resist attempting to infect others with my passion, you will discover that one of the levers that the Anglo-Saxon, and truly the later Norman, rulers of Britain used to consolidate power was an offer to prosecute theft-to effectively socialize theft and establish arbitrary rules of evidence, and place a burden on the entire countryside to find YOUR stuff and point out the thief or face criminal prosecution themselves. What do you make of that? It is, so far as I am aware-and I'm current on scholarly writing of the period-undisputed historical fact.
Mr. Kennedy has told you how hopeless it is to become a libertarian evangelical-I could give a hoot. Politics is a waste of time. You are smart enough to question everything at a young age-that makes you a part of the remnant. Good for you, never stop.
And please do respond.
I think some instances of fraud should be treated as violence, others not.
The market handles low level fraud best. Running a Psychic Hotline is a form of fraud but I don't think it should be actionable. If I were a judge or an arbitrator in a private court I would want to dismiss any cases of people suing the hotline for fraud. The victims have a responsibility to know better.
I used to work for a restaurant that served up shark for what the menu called swordfish, a mild form of fraud best sorted out by markets.
Getting shark that's purported to be swordfish is one thing, but what if someone sold you a bottle of aspirin without telling you that some of the capsules contained cyanide? We could say this is "simply a lie" as you put it, but in this case hasn't it crossed the line into actionable violence? Now I'm confident in the free market that big companies like Bayer will take great care to see that there is no cyanide in their bottles, but this fraud could be perpetrated by someone whose interest isn't in selling you medicine but who would just like to bump you off for some reason.
Do you agree that some such lies are implicitly violent?
"I think it's too pessimistic to say that those people will never change. At one point in my life I'm sure I considered myself to be a liberal and had zero interest in politics, and here I am only a few years into the future with a completely different outlook on life."
That's why I said it's plausible to think what you think. I was a communist at your age, an apologist for Stalin. I changed, so can't others change? They can and they will change their political opinions but rarely will they ground their political theory in reality because there is negligible individual incentive to do so.
Bryan Caplan's concept of Rational Irrationality explains why it is rational for most individuals to hold irrational political views. We all have biases. We tend to only overcome our biases when the expected reward for doing so is greater than the effort that must be invested. For most individuals there is negligible reward for overcoming their political biases so they invest negligible effort in overcoming those biases. Currently you have biases which tell you that it really shouldn't be too hard to persuade people of political truths. There is little incentive for you to challenge that bias, in fact I bet you kind of think that discarding that view would be accepting hopelessness.
Remember this five years from now when you realize how little headway you've made in persuading people to adopt the NAP. Maybe then the prospect of more effort without progress will be sufficient incentive to challenge the bias. Probably not, but it's possible.
From a more empirical standpoint I've been watching libertarianism closely for 15 years and I can tell you that libertarianism is not growing and that moral grounding like the NAP is currently a declining influence in libertarianism.
"If you instill in people the moral base of 'you shouldn't use aggression to stop people from doing anything that doesn't hurt others', it becomes nearly nature to them."
How do you propose to instill it? I hold that there is an objective moral reality that ought to be recognized, not instilled. But what incentive to you have to offer individuals to overcome their political biases?
Realism is not pessimism. Useful optimism must be grounded in realism. If persuasion by rational argument was a viable solution to the problem of collective politics then collective politics wouldn't be much of a problem in the first place.
John, if I'd received such a welcome here as you have given Brian, I probably would have given up on Strike-The-Root. One can go overboard with anything, including cynicism. I hope he ignores yours.
Again, realism is not cynicism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
"Rational irrationality simply states that when it is cheap to believe something (even when it is wrong) it is rational to believe it."
It's a fact of life that political beliefs are very cheap for an individual to hold - so it is reasonable and to be expected that most people will never invest the effort necessary to ground their political opinions in reality and reason.
How would you dispute this?