Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Theory and Consequences

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Carl Milsted, Bob Capozzi, and Stephan Kinsella are having an important debate on the role of the state and the possibility of anarchy as the best way to organize society. It is important for the libertarian community to challenge itself to have the best ideas it can – otherwise, it may be offering an inferior product compared to competing ideologies.

Kinsella brings an important question to the fore – should we concern ourselves with the “workability” of the ideas we promote? That is, does it matter what happens as a result of those ideas being implemented?

As Richard Weaver observed, “Ideas have consequences.” That is primarily why we care about obtaining them, using them, and improving upon them. Parents discipline their children to give them the “idea” that aggressive behavior is unacceptable in a free society. We use ideas to discern between moral options, and to navigate our day-to-day experiences. Should I walk into oncoming traffic? No, because my theory is that I will die if a speeding car hits me. Aircraft designers want to know if a new plane will be faster and stealthier than previous models. If their idea is incorrect, they can lose millions of dollars after building a series of lemon fighter jets.

Should we not include the consequences in our formulation of our political ideas? Does it matter whether we exert our intellectual energies towards ideologies which can improve the world, versus harming the world? There is no intellectual or moral difference between a car designer who markets a car that will not run and a political theorist who suggests solutions which cannot work.

I am not saying that anarchy could not work. I don’t know if it could or not. It would be quite interesting to see it tested on a small scale to give us some data to base our decisions on. But, suggesting that it does not matter what happens as a result of our ideas is dangerous. If libertarians adopt this view that it is acceptable to divorce theory from reality, it removes their moral standing to demand that policies promoted by socialists and statists provide “workable” solutions rather than needless despotism and suffering.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Comments

Kevin Rollins wrote:
>It is important for the libertarian community to challenge itself to have the best ideas it can – otherwise, it may be offering an inferior product compared to competing ideologies.

Kev, I think you're creating an imaginary community.

The only community I count myself a member of is the _human_ community.

I do what I can from time to time to nudge a few of my fellow humans to wake up from that long historical nightmare which pretends that a bunch of murderous, thieving mobsters who call themselves "the government" is something other than a bunch of murderous thugs. Every now and then, someone wakes up from the nightmare.

I do not suffer from a neurosis that causes me to believe that I (or anyone) can ever bring about a total end to aggression, and I certainly do not suffer from the delusion that there is a "libertarian community" that can have any effect on the world beyond the effect that individuals have!

Of course, if enough people awaken from the nightmare, then government as we know it -- i.e., as a large-scale, open and public criminal activity -- will simply fade away as a bad dream.

This is not an idle daydream -- it actually happened in late 1991 in the Soviet Union. I hope and pray that I will live long enough to see the government of the "United States of America" suffer the same fate as the government of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

But neither I nor any "libertarian community" has the power to bring that about.

The idea that libertarians can avoid "offering an inferior product compared to competing ideologies" is preposterous. If you live in a land where people believe in voodoo, there is going to be a market for voodoo stuff. Someone who claims to believe just a teensy bit in voodoo will never be in a good market position to sell his product compared to hard-core voodooites.

Any sensible person who believes in government will always find the liberal or conservative "product" superior to the libertarian "product." You guys have never achieved a significant market share (after more than thirty years of trying!) and you never will.

However, someday, we anarchists just might succeed in eliminating your political marketplace altogether.

Dave

Posted by: DrDave | January 30, 2006 07:20 PM

>Kinsella brings an important question to the fore – should we concern ourselves with the “workability” of the ideas we promote? That is, does it matter what happens as a result of those ideas being implemented?

No; I just think it's important to be clear and honest about what one is advocating, and to recognize the difference.

>Should we not include the consequences in our formulation of our political ideas? Does it matter whether we exert our intellectual energies towards ideologies which can improve the world, versus harming the world? There is no intellectual or moral difference between a car designer who markets a car that will not run and a political theorist who suggests solutions which cannot work.

Whatever. How does any of this show that THEFT IS JUSTIFIED? Or, that it is libertarian?

>I am not saying that anarchy could not work. I don’t know if it could or not. It would be quite interesting to see it tested on a small scale to give us some data to base our decisions on.

It is truly maddening and infuriating that you people seem blithely unaware that not everyone is a goddamaned positivist-empiricist. Are you even aware of this??

Posted by: kinsella | January 31, 2006 10:08 PM

Dr. Dave: the people in the Soviet Union did not wake up and decide upon no government. They woke up and decided they wanted democracy, and a bit more freedom. Humongo difference.

Stephan: I am sadly aware that not everyone is a "goddamaned[sic] positivist-empiricst." Why, a few years ago I was trying to explain some free market environmentalism to a Green activist responded, "That's just true in your 'scientific reality.' In my reality..."

I also know people who seriously believe that the government is sitting on free energy technology obtained from UFOs. Clean, non-burning, UFO technology is a priori better than oil, coal, or nuclear energy.

I know people who live in broken down trailers who buy lottery tickets. Getting free money without having to work for it is normatively superior to having a job.

I know people who believe in free health care. It is normatively superior to get taken care of by greed-free doctors who care only about the patient and don't have to be paid. It is normatively superior to have drug companies develop drugs and immediately turn over the patent rights.

There are all sort of normatively superior concepts in a priori fairyland. I hear the food's better too; tasty without being fattening. However, I don't live there -- and neither do you.

Posted by: balph | February 2, 2006 07:55 AM

Balph wrote:
>Dr. Dave: the people in the Soviet Union did not wake up and decide upon no government. They woke up and decided they wanted democracy, and a bit more freedom. Humongo difference.

Hmmmmm... Balph, I know that is the US gov. propaganda line, but how sure are you that it is true?

I don't know that many Russians, but I did marry into a family of Chinese immigrants, many of whom were born and raised in Communist China. I don't know any of them who believe in "democracy" and "freedom," as defined by the US gov (or by the Libertarian Party or FreeLiberal.com!). However, all of them have lost much of their faith in government, given their life experiences -- they're only partial anarchists to be sure, but much sounder than you pro-government libertarians!

Anyway, my point was much narrower than that. I was merely pointing out that, like Tinkerbell, any particular government will just fade away if people stop believing in that particular government, even if people have not completely lost their faith in government per se. One dramatic recent example of that is the USSR, and I'm hoping the USA will eventually be another example.

More broadly, I think you're still missing the basic point Kinsella and I are pushing -- let me try an analogy.

Again and again, family and friends have asked me why I "believe" in atheism. Again and again, I have patiently explained that I simply lack a belief in any particular religion or any particular God (I'm happy to discuss this in detail when asked), and a person lacking a belief in God is conventionally called an atheist. The other person usually agrees that this makes me an atheist, but then asks again why I "believe" in atheism. I can't get them to see that one can simply decline to play the "belief" game, and, if one does so decline, one is then an atheist.

Similarly, you pro-government "libertarians" are intent on trying to get us anarchists to argue for our belief in anarchy. But an "anarchist," at least as Kinsella and I (and I think nearly all self-described "anarchists") are using the word, is not a person who "believes" in anarchy or who is trying to establish anarchy.

We anarchists are simply people who lack a belief in "government" and are unwilling to play the verbal games used to hide the fact that "government" is just a criminal gang that has figured out how to get away with carrying out its crimes -- robbing, murdering, kidnapping, etc. -- in broad daylight, unlike most common criminals who find it necessary to skulk in the shadows.

I don't "believe" in anarchy any more than I "believe" in atheism. I simply lack a belief in God and in government -- that lack of belief makes me an atheist and an anarchist.

Of course, many of the leading figures in the Libertarian Party, our friend Carl Milsted, for example, want to be part of the "government" so that they can participate in the looting and other fun games the government engages in. (Yes, I know, Carl wants to cut down on the looting a bit -- that's what Gingrich, Reagan, Bush, etc. all said -- been there, done that.)

Can you see that Kinsella and I and most anarchists are simply not willing to be part of the "what-political-system-do-you-believe-in?" game but are people who are merely unwilling to lie about what government really is -- a gang of thugs who lie, steal, and murder to get what they want?

Posted by: DrDave | February 2, 2006 05:47 PM

Balph: "There are all sort of normatively superior concepts in a priori fairyland. I hear the food's better too; tasty without being fattening. However, I don't live there -- and neither do you"

How does this trite observation show that positivism is sound? Are you even aware of the serious criticisms of its many manifest errors?

DrDave--great comments. Well put.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 4, 2006 12:08 AM