The Editors of The Washington Post Shrugged
I don't hail from the Ayn Rand wing of the libertarian movement, so I'm not usually moved to defend her when she's attacked. But Michael Gerson's column on Rand today has a passage too unself-aware to ignore:
Many libertarians trace their inspiration to Rand's novels, while sometimes distancing themselves from Objectivism. But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness. This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path, embracing equality as an absolute value. Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.
There are people who say libertarianism is selfish, and there are people who say it requires you to be a self-denying ascetic who won't even use the government's roads. They can fight that battle out among themselves.
The interesting thing here is the identity of the author. Before Gerson was a Washington Post columnist, he was a speechwriter in the Bush White House, where he was one of the chief propagandists for the invasion of Iraq; he helped prepare Colin Powell's case for war at the United Nations, and he's the one behind the line, "The first sign of a smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud." Now he's lecturing libertarians about leading "good people into supporting policies with serious human costs." Do you really want to open that door, Michael?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity
That is pure nonsense. Justice and equal opportunity, last time I checked, were actually pretty core principles of libertarianism.
Gerson's description of what libertarians believe is not a very good guide to what libertarians actually believe.
I've long thought that the groups of libertarians attempting to educate the country about what libertarianism really means--you guys, Cato, etc.--do more good than the LP running candidates. It's an ever-present message about an alternative to the statist status quo.
Once (and if) people start to understand what libertarianism is all about and how consistent it is with long-held American values, maybe we'll start seeing some substantial political change.
If the LP wants to do any good then it abandon national politics and aim itself at local and state level reform.
And stop nominating bad and/or insane candidates.
I'm not seeing how getting to vote for someone running as an LP candidate rather than an R or D for a national office harms me or any other libertarian.
Opportunity cost.
I've long thought that the groups of libertarians attempting to educate the country about what libertarianism really means--you guys, Cato, etc.--do more good than the LP running candidates.
Think how much good Rob Swanson is doing then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Swanson
Ron Swanson is my favorite character on TV right now. We are very alike. I hate talking to people on the phone and I love breakfast.
One out of two for me. I don't like breakfast, unless it's a few sausage links downed with a swig of hooch. Unless the message is from mum or girlfriend, I let them all go to voice on my personal phone where I have recorded a joke message stating that you'll get a call back with an appointed time within three business days.
I hate talking on phones. It's almost impossible to read another person's mind if he isn't face to face. So it is like losing a sense and being crippled.
Breakfast is a great thing.
A few sausage links and a swig of hooch is a great thing too
Are you autistic? You can't read another person's mind over the phone? Yes, it cuts out some information like facial expressions, but really?
Mum was a bit of a hooch hound back in my formative stages of development.
THIS IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
You guys could do a who issue compiling all the recent attempts by the wholly ignorant to explain to us what we believe.
A "who issue"? Have you been reading io9 again without decontaminating?
We won't get fooled again.
I don't know, you think he was going there? Smelt time-lordy to me.
*whole* issue! *whole* you bastards!
Dr. Whole? I'm not familiar with Dr. Whole.
he's my OB-GYN and my proctologist.
I don't know... I think "who" still works!
I mean, your idea is an issue dedicated to "who" are the idiots writing about something they know not.
Unfortunately, we are operating under different definitions of equal opportunity and justice.
The socialist/progressive view of justice and equal opportunity includes a view that all 'wealth' is the property of society. Under this view 'justice' demands that wealth be equally distributed. Unequal distribution of wealth is by definition an injustice.
They also hold a view of justice which includes race debt, a mark of Cain to be born in perpetuity by descendents and those who look like they might be descendants.
So although they may use the same words, they hold entirely incompatible meanings for our two groups.
Gerson's idea of "justice" is modified by adjectives like "social", "economic", and "environmental".
Hayek makes a complete argument on such notions of justice, and concludes:
There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone'.
Nonsense. That's a pretty good summary of anything Gerson writes.
Social justice in action.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/ne.....1_12871288
No thanks.
the logical response to this is for comedians to refuse to perform in Canada, or any country with these draconian speech laws. They're ruining my vibe.
He doesn't mean what you mean when he uses those words.
When he says "justice", he means "social justice". When he says "equal opportunity", he means "equal outcome".
Don't tell me you have just figured out that writers are professional whores?
Prostitutes are people providing an honest service in often difficult circumstances, Gerson doesn't deserve to be lumped in with them, he isn't worthy.
Of course, just like every honest profession, there are good and bad prostitutes. This is true even for journalists and lawyers.
However, some professions are inherently evil. That's why there are no good statist politicians. Gerson is just a lackey for the state.
"professional whores"
Is there any other kind?
Seriously, isn't that a bit redundant?
Do you enter your PIN number at the ATM machine?
Sorostitutes? It costs you lots of money to sleep with them, but they rarely take cash up front. And they'll eventually get that MRS degree or a career of some sort. Maybe its a college town thing.
Of course. How else was I going to withdraw the cash to buy a new hot water heater?
How's that blog coming?
what blog?
EOM
it requires you to be a self-denying ascetic who won't even use the government's roads.
DRINK!
Well, when the choice is between being a so-called hypocrite, separating yourself from everyone and everything to hold to an "idealogy" as defined by those who would rather see you impaled on a pike for opposing the approved "consensus", or getting raped in prison for not basking in the wilderness with crude implements and refusing to hand money over to those threatening rape, most of us resign to use roads. Men/Women and children used to eating on a regular basis are not going to live in the wilderness so daddy/mommy can be a "true" libertarian.
In other words, most libertarian-types use roads because they are forced to pay for them, and jail-rape or forcing your family to potentially get Wacoed is like choosing between standing in an endless line or going into a darkened room emanating blood-curdling screams. Moving to Somalia(let's ignore the fact that this is failed state being fought over by people who would like to institute another state) is not really an option if you can't speak the language and the effort required would be a very irrational investment of time considering the applicability of Somali as opposed to Spanish, English, and Chinese.
Oh I mentioned Somalia...DRINK!
No, no. We're completely against division of labor. We all live in log cabins that we built with trees that we cut down with axes that we forged with steel that we dug out of the ground and smelted. And if you don't, you're just a poser and really a member of the Crest or Colgate party (doesn't matter which one).
Colgate. That Crest is some nasty shite, yo!
a member of the Crest or Colgate party (doesn't matter which one)
I like it. I'm stealing this.
I got it from The Jacket.
I prefer Aquafresh.
Extremist!
I'm a Tom' of Maine man, myself. Once you stop using the artificial sweetened shit for a while, it really tastes like shit. And unlike some of the other crunchy brands it actually has fluoride in it and the other things that actually clean your teeth.
Granola- hippie-Nadertarian!!
I like that Tom of Finland toothpaste myself...
What?
AQUAFRESH BUDDHA!!!!1!!1!!
it requires you to be a self-denying ascetic who won't even use the government's roads Somalia.
FIFY.
already am
But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.
And you, as a paternalist collectivist, are terrified by freedom. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Now go set yourself on fire and jump off a building.
I don't care that collectivists make stupid comments...what I don't like is them stealing my money and giving it to the useless.
I trace my libertarianism to Albert Schweitzer. Libertarianism is the most life affirming political philosophy I know.
C. S. Lewis was my biggest influence.
I really need to read more C.S. Lewis. I'm not into fantasy stuff to the Narnia trilogy never really interested me, but The Screwtape Letters is fucking brilliant.
This is his best "political" essay. If I had to pick just one thing he wrote - this piece is why Im a libertarian.
That Hideous Strength is a very libertarian book.
It is also the ONLY novel I have ever read that gave me nightmares.
Harrison Bergeron.
"'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman"
"No Truce with Kings" by Poul Anderson.
Thanks Sugar, I will have to check that out.
"Where did they get the jellybeans, Harlan?"
Excellent. Thanks very much for the link.
"Two wars necessitated vast curtailments of liberty, and we have grown, though grumblingly, accustomed to our chains."
Lewis wrote that 50 years ago.
To live his life in his own way, to call his house his castle, to enjoy the fruits of his own labour, to educate his children as his conscience directs, to save for their prosperity after his death --- these are wishes deeply ingrained in civilised man.
That is the simplest explanation of libertarianism I have ever seen.
Dang man, good thing I refreshed, because I was going to copy and paste the very same.
The Welfare/Warfare State has attempted to and partially succeeded in indoctrinating "civilised man" to the contrary. Instead of wishing deeply "to save for their [children's] prosperity", Americans want to encumber their progeny with incalculable debt to pay for welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Lewis is expressing a concept of civilized man that held in ancient time as well his own. For example, in one of his epistles, Saint Paul observed as an obvious metaphor for his readers that "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." Of course, the Welfare State does precisely the opposite.
Wow. I've been avoiding him because I had assumed he would be one of those who damns the material world as ugly bondage in order to fluff you up for the after death stuff.
I take it back though. He sounds like he loved life and knew why it is good.
@robc
Just read that essay. Excellent.
We must give full weight to the claim that .... unprecedented Government controls.... nothing, in short, but a world Welfare State. It is a full admission of these truths which impresses upon me the extreme peril of humanity at present.
Good article. He identifies the problem of the actual desire for more Government by many and treats it seriously instead of just dismissing it as so many would like to do.
On the fiction side, I recommend The Great Divorce and Til We Have Faces.
Time to update my reading list...
I trace my libertarianism to Ultima V.
My favorite CRPG! (Not sure how it would hold up, though)
I trace mine to being a latch-key child during the 70's.
Is that the one where Blackthorne corrupted the virtues?
WZRD Chicago was mine
I've read a couple interesting articles recently that looked at the concept of "real" versus "fake" (one within the context of beer, the other dealing with rap music). I've never been big on the concept of dismissing things as fake; to me, it's a matter of what you're really into. If you're not that into beer, a Bud Light will do just fine. If you're not that into music, the Black Eyed Peas may work for you. Simply put, if you're not that invested in something (music, beer, whatever) it's not worth it to become a sophisticated consumer so you'll settle for something inferior. I'm pretty sure we all have something we like that connoisseurs would smirk about (I'm a hardcore beer geek but always have boxed wine on hand).
Anyway, it suddenly occurred to me: conservatism and liberalism are for the casual consumers. Libertarianism is for the connoisseur; it's counterintuitive and requires more than a superficial understanding of politics, and thus the average citizen who only knows politics from the Daily Show won't get it. Unfortunately, unlike Bud Light or the Black Eyed Peas, when somebody picks the Republicans or Democrats it fucks over everybody.
Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that I didn't really have a single biggest influence in becoming libertarian. I just got into politics more and quickly realized that both major political camps were wrong.
Unfortunately, unlike Bud Light or the Black Eyed Peas, when somebody picks the Republicans or Democrats it fucks over everybody.
Im stealing this.
I should add the caveat that most people liking the Black Eyed Peas did fuck up my Super Bowl viewing earlier this year.
Half time. You should have switched to lingerie bowl or something.
It came on, I heard the autotune, and switched the channel. Immediately.
It's as if they thought "hey, we're a really shitty band. What could we do to be even shittier? I know, lets use autotune all the time."
Remember when BEP was marketed as like the next Roots? They had the song Joints and Jams and there was no Fergie.
It was awful, the worst live performance I've ever heard from anyone anywhere. But it was too bad. I couldn't stop watching.
When an Asian dude with long hair comes across as a dork, you know you are in a shitty band.
That 'tonight is going to be a good night' isn't even substantial enough of a tune to have originated as a beer commercial jingle. They don't even seem embarrassed when they are on stage performing it.
Then you have Usher who brought what exactly to the show? Expensive clothes? A half assed martial arts demonstration?
I had to keep watching too, but it cost me some of what little is left of my innocence. I would have no idea that insipid diddy was a pop tune that made millions of dollars for the malefactors who created and promoted it if I had just tuned in to the puppy bowl instead.
When that Rebecca Black "Friday" song came out and everybody was making fun of it, my initial reaction was "If this was performed by the Black Eyed Peas it would be a #1 hit." That "I Got A Feeling" song (or whatever it's called) has lyrics that are just as bad as "Friday" (and even features a recitation of the days of the week, IIRC).
I like Colin Quinn's take on that. How bad must a person's self esteem be if he finds release in picking on a thirteen year old girl? Then translate that to a nation and you get one fucked up society.
The mistake was watching the super bowl in the first place.
Now if we can only have a craft politics revolution and get the LP vote up to 5%!!!!
THE REVOLUTION WILL BE OVER-HOPPED!
I hope not. Dogfish Head sucks.
Pass the Urquell.
Dogfish Head suck...you're dead to me, dude. Dead.
I went through my Imperial phase, but now I think the stuff is gross.
I mean, really. What's the point of using five batches worth of hops in one batch?
Its only one batch worth of hops if you use it in one batch.
Hoppiness == Good.
Also Maltiness == Good.
If you dont like hop monsters, that is cool, but to not get the point is silly.
I'm not a diehard hophead. I can go for the occassional round of hopinsanity, but I generally prefer the additional maltiness to the additionall hoppiness.
But I have to admit, during the warm summer months, I will generally choose the wetter pilsner varieties myself.
I like to use the analogy to prog rock. I knew lots of kids (percussionists mostly) who got all into prog rock in high school. You're listening to normal pop shit and all of the sudden you discovery this crazy-ass sound that's totally disorienting and you think, "Holy shit! Where has this been all my life?" And some folks may still be listen to nothing but ELP and Gentle Giant to this day, but for most of us you eventually move on to other things and pull out those albums every once in a while. It's the same thing with extreme beers. Some folks may forever love nothing but hop bombs but most people I know start to discover the joys of a well-crafted German lager or English bitter.
Where does progressive metal fit in that analogy?
How did going from Yes to King's X change my drinking habits?
Your problem is that you didn't switch to King Crimson. That would change your drinking habits.
Speaking of Prog Metal, any idea who will replace Mike Portnoy as the new drummer for Dream Theater?
(Personally I have never left the panoply of "prog" music...something about actual musicians playing rock and metal has lasting appeal.)
The rumor is Mike Mangini. Personally, I would prefer Marco Minnemann, but he's far too interesting a drummer to work in that context.
Mangini was where I had been leaning, although all of the "candidates" had good bonefides.
Just wish they would get the announcement done and the new album finished.
Not sure how different the vibe will be without MP, but I am ready to hear the new product.
I'll have to think about the prog metal part... For what it's worth, Surly is totally into metal and they brew hoppy shit, and Short's is into Ween and they brew weird, off-the-wall shit. Coincidences? I think not.
I just enjoyed a couple of Surly Coffee Benders yesterday afternoon. Life is good.
http://365beers.files.wordpres......jpg?w=470
I'm into sarcasmic bitter and currently have two sarcasmic lagers in the basement.
I drink, therefor I brew.
I just want to know if Fates Warning will put out another album. Despite the Internet, getting news on those guys is difficult.
The next step is jazz fusion. I know from experience. And then you're into free jazz. And then, well, there really isn't anything beyond that.
And then there's the Planet of the Apes soundtrack
Unfortunately, unlike Bud Light or the Black Eyed Peas, when somebody picks the Republicans or Democrats it fucks over everybody.
I don't know....those two examples might convince me that the market really doesn't know best.... 😛
US Beer Industry 2010: Down 1% overall
US Craft Beer 2010: Up 12%
I dont know the numbers in the music industry, but I bet they are worse for the big guys.
The market is correcting for past misallocations. I blame Nixon.
I'm sure they are.
The great thing about the rise of the iTunes/Napster generation is that it has finally created a market where individuals and publishing collectives are able to deliver their content directly to their fanbases.
There are far more small/independent groups that are making a living from music now that have been in the past. You are seeing the same model in areas such as Comics with the rise of web-based comics and the decline of the syndicates and newspapers.
I think it will only be a matter of time when the book market starts to break in the same way. As more books are consumed in easy to access digital formats, you will see it become easier for individuals to distribute and make a living bypassing the large publishing houses.
Fluffy?
Any comments on this?
How much have you made self-publishing so far?
I pay my electric bill and cable bill with it.
If I produced 3 or 4 times as much content, I could probably pay my mortgage with it.
But I'm lazy. Even at the shortish length that I'm comfortable with, it will be a while before I have that many titles out.
I've been interested in doing electronic self-publishing for a while myself (I have a few completed manuscripts sitting on my hard-drives).
As someone who does it, how do you handle editing and some of the other similar proofing tasks? I have a small stable of alpha-readers, but noone who I would really trust to be a final editor or proofer. Do you use a writing group, contract individuals, self, etc?
Just picking your brain for a minute.
might have to spend some time digging through your blog...can't really do it while @ work.
My blog sucks.
I would recommend that you read J. A. Konrath's blog.
He actually knows what he's doing, unlike yours truly.
http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/
Thx, I need to start consuming some more info on the industry again.
You would think that while I was unemployed I would have had plenty of time for writing, but it never seemed to work out that way.
Weird that i seem to organize my time better when I just have the late evening and early morning time to get my hobbies/interests done.
There is an author in Minnesota who has made millions self-publishing. I forget her name at the moment, but it was in the papers a few weeks back.
There is an author in Minnesota who has made millions self-publishing. I forget her name at the moment, but it was in the papers a few weeks back.
I think there are people who truly like the two main options (of ideology -- the parties are all pretty terrible) and, even after expending a great deal of time "researching" as a consumer, would come back to them. Some people like techno. De gustibus non disputandum est.
But, if, for example, you were a true conservative and after researching all the options, wouldnt you join the Constitution Party instead of the GOP?
No? I mean, the shit parties do have one thing in their favor, they actually have some influence on the way the country is run, which is the point of the political system at the end of the day.
It's like QWERTY keyboards, and I don't even think there's some corrupt conspiracy that benefits from QWERTY.
I always know my left pinky will find the Q key.
That's essentially drinking Bud Light at the shitty local bar because there's nothing better on tap.
And, as a practical matter, there's nothing else on tap at the Winner Takes All Lounge.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!
Or, in the immortal words of A.E. Housman, malt does more than Milton can/ to justify God's ways to man.
I understand what you mean. It's a horrible world in which the Black Eyed Peas (in their modern sellout incarnation...they were actually underground at one point) outsell Papoose and Saigon, and I prefer a microbrew to the swill churned out by your typical macrobrew. I'm also a proud libertarian. That said, you're sadly right. Politics, for the average voters, is about dumb things like feelings, and unless we somehow find a way to hack the system, we're doomed.
Tanto Metro and Devonte too...speaking of sellouts, didn't one of those Peas pay $50,000 for a plate at an Obama fundraiser?
"it's counterintuitive"
Libertarianism is not counterintuitive to those who have not been indoctrinated by the State.
Libertarianism is natural. High regard for the State is achieved only by indoctination and maintained by continuous propaganda that perpetuates a state of fear.
Cato,
Are you telling me that being shoveled into indoctrination centers under the auspices of crushed-soul automatons to learn about the glory of murdering those who dared oppose the techno-porno-scanning-people-numbering Leviathan-mommy is not natural? Surely, you jest.
Well, I think your description is a little bit hyperbolic but, no I'm not jesting.
Good point, though unfortunately most are. I guess to me the counterintuitive stuff comes on the economic side. Intuitive thought says, "People should be able to go to college. College is too expensive. Let's have the government make low-interest loans readily available and then everybody will be able to go to college and better themselves." Most people are too lazy to actually think about the unintended consequences (you know, graduating with six figures of debt but no job).
Charles Murray: "The proposition that I hereby lay before the house is that the BA degree is the work of the devil. It wreaks harm on a majority of young people, is grotesquely inefficient as a source of information for employers, and is implicated in the emergence of a class-riven America."
http://www.cato-unbound.org/20.....ge-degree/
Acceptable beer opinion ranges from Michelob Ultra to Budweiser.
Acceptable political opinion ranges from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell.
Otherwise, you're an extremist.
Me, I prefer homebrewed Triple and anarcho-capitalism.
Your analogy would have been better if you hadnt picked two beers made by the same company: Miller 64 to Budweiser works better.
Good point.
Actually, it makes his analogy even better.
I think two competing corporations selling the same American-lager style of swill makes the analogy better. Inbev and SABMiller really do compete. However, the three-tier system that their lobbying and political contributions maintains makes it very difficult for craft brewers to compete against them. Thus, the US has a duopoly in crappy beer that is similar to its duopoly in crappy politics.
Tripel
Basically, your approach is the same as Michael Gerson's: the people who disagree with you aren't just in different schools of thought, they're "stuck on stupid/adolescence/sheep mode".
Not just wrong, but deficient and/or broken human beings.
I urge you not to think of them this way. Because:
A) This is impossible to deny: there are many, many people with IQs higher than yours, who have studied politics much longer than you have, who may have experienced their own Enlightenments, who did not come to the same conclusions you did.
Doesn't make you wrong. Doesn't make them right. It just "is"; there are different schools of thought that develop out of different cultural starting points and different psychologies and etc.
B) Having achieved the Libertarian Enlightenment, you now assume there is no further Enlightenment you will reach. What if you continue to get MORE experience, MORE wisdom and MORE education... and find new Enlightenment that perhaps contradicts what you now believe?
You can say you've reached the pinnacle, but unless you continue to climb, you cannot say for absolute certain.
A) There's no difference between Stalinism, Fabianism and Quaker pacifism? Got it.
B) Oh, I agree. The more I learn about the corrupting influence of political power, the less libertarian I am and the more I become an anarchist.
Not just wrong, but deficient and/or broken human beings.
That sounds about right. Gerson could be their poster boy.
Reality is unknowable and it's impossible to make moral and intellectual differentiations between political ideologies. There's no right or wrong, just differences in opinion that are equally valid.
Sigh. There's a reason why my closest friends are immigrants from post-communist countries, because I don't hear this utter drivel from them. They know damned well the reason they emigrated and which side the grass is greener on.
Only someone who has never left the West, never studied history, and never tried to run a business could spew it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1_QXkwBrt4
"This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity -- is the evidence of a rigid ideology."
Public goals, you say? If these are the goals of the people, what conflict is there with freedom?
I like how he thinks that policies supported by libertarians and socialists have had "serious human costs." Well sure, but uh, I'm not sure you can compare those two things.
I'd like to see him name a single policy supported by libertarians that has had a "serious human cost". Just one, buddy. Let's see it. Then libertarians get to choose one from him.
I don't think he'll like that game.
Agreed. It's total unsubstantiated BS. Gerson apparently operates under the principle that by making unsubstantiated assertions they are automatically true.
Unfortunately, he's not the only one.
Gerson = Tony?
I like how you set the game up to be compare "one policy from any libertarian ever" with "any policy supported by Michael Gerson all by himself" and that you still think he'll lose - and I agree!
I do not like how all of my posts begin with "I like how."
This one didn't. Nice start.
Well, you know. Letting people suffer even a little from the consequences of their own screwups counts as a 'cost'.
Just once, just once I'd like to see someone in the media do a little research into libertarian philosophy before they talk about libertarian philosophy. Just once. Is it too much to ask?
(yes, that was a rhetorical question)
Oh sure, ask them to research shit before they report on it. Next you'll be asking those poor liberal arts majors to understand science and engineering before they try to report on them. Your sense of entitlement sickens me.
Hey, watch it buddy!
What's to research?
Libertarians = selfish. There, I'm done.
Golly, I'm done.
Severe-to-the-point-of-pathological anti-authoritarianism for me. The libertarianism kicks when I realized that I had no interest in telling other people what to do either.
^^^^
I realized about 10 years ago that all I really wanted out of others, except for the dozen or so people really really close to me, was to be left the hell alone, and Im glad to show others the same courtesy.
I think libertarians tend to be disporportionately introverts, which complicates trying to get any messages out to others.
"Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort." -Heinlein's Lazarus Long
Heinlein did it for me. I didn't read Ayn Rand until about a year ago (only The Fountainhead, because of the Tea Party I couldn't find a copy of Atlas Shrugged in any bookstore within 30 miles of my home).
Read Tunnel In The Sky if you haven't. Heinlein's rebuke to Lord Of The Flies
And Tunnel is all about the pioneer impulse just like Time Enough For Love, but without all the mom-fucking.
you recommended that a while ago and i still haven't gotten a chance to read it yet. i'm scouring the intertubez at the moment looking for a bootleg PDF or ebook right now.
Including the value of your time spent searching for a freebie, you'd probably be better off just buying the damn thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Tunnel-i.....269&sr=1-1
buying media is a last resort in the age of piracy
Nice Libertarian response...steal!
Nice Libertarian comment....steal!
Nice Libertarian comment....steal!
Copyright violation != theft.
Two separate violations of the law.
And dont get me started on intellectual "property".
The two lessons I took from that book:
1. Beware of Stobor
2. Always have a knife
Never trust a man without a knife.
Heinlein's rebuke to Lord Of The Flies
Flies of the Lord?
As an extrovert who grew up in a city neighborhood and embraces the idea of community, I like to point out that libertarianism does not preclude communities, helping other, etc. What I observed growing up was that strong communities were organic and evolved through voluntary exchange. If the government was good at anything, it was inhibiting, or even destroying, communities. I like to use charities as an example: who does a better job of helping people? The Red Cross or FEMA?
I'd add that it's simply looking for other ways to solve problems. government is a tool -- and not the only one, and not even the best one -- to address every issue. is a forced community really a community?
That is why libertarianism is the politics of small business.
Small businesses in the same industry often arent competing against each other, they are competing against big business (with its government support).
Inbev and Sony Music are the competition and within beer and music (to use your examples), the small guys cooperate.
That's why there is a three-tier system for the beer market and IP law for the entertainment industry.
The funny thing is, my hometown has an example of why 3 tier isnt necessary.
Quick History of Falls City:
Due to tied houses (which 3 tier prevents), one beer company dominated Louisville at the beginning of the 20th century. So what government regulation fixed it? None. Taverns and grocery stores got together and formed their own brewery: Falls City. Within a few years, the big guy offered to buy them out. They said no. Within a few more years, they were the largest brewery in Louisville.
Then in the 70s they created Billy Beer and shortly thereafter died.
The End.
postscript: The name was sold from brewery to brewery ending up at Pittsbugh Brewing, from which it was recently repurchased and it is being brewed in Louisville again - they have one product, a 1930s era EPA recipe.
I agree, this is what attracts me to libertarianism as well. Almost every other philosophy either fails to recognize the emergent, bottom-up nature of human behavior or seeks to manipulate it in a top-down fashion.
... libertarianism does not preclude communities
The problem is the contant trend toward more centralization. One neighbor feels compelled to force his other neighbors to follow certain behavior. Then a community needs to force other communities. Then a nation needs to force other nations. There are certainly issues that can only be addressed by a more central entity, but way too many don't. Keep the control at the local level. If people don't like it, they can move. Everyone is happier. It's hard to move out of a nation if you don't like it.
That's kind of how I came to my Libertarianism...I found that over time I started applying a "Golden Rule" principle to my politics...
I didn't want people messing with my life and the choices I make, and started moving to a political philosophy that didn't advocate messing with other's lives and choices.
I think it takes a certain amount of maturity to realize that prizing freedom is going to mean many people make choices that you are going to be unhappy with.
I trace my libertarianism to getting baked and finding out there was a political party that had legalizing the good herb on it's platform.
TOKE!
But both libertarians and Objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea -- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.
Predictably, he botches an Iron Law:
You aren't free unless you are free to be wrong.
He somehow thinks this means that libertarians believe you aren't free unless you are wrong. The idea that free people might, on occasion, choose to be unselfish is an idea that he cannot tolerate, because once you entertain the notion that people might do the right thing all on their own, the justification for using the jackboot goes away.
And he loves him some jackboot. Yes he does.
The problem being that people's notion of right and wrong is subjective. It's not the idea that free people might choose to be unselfish, it's his absolute belief that free people will choose to be unselfish in a way that he doesn't approve of.
Yes,yes, yes. There is nothing about libertarianism that says people need to be selfish. There is nothing to stop people from forming, say, voluntary communes where all property is held in common. You just can't force people to join.
Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with serious human costs.
What libertarian policy has been implemented with serious human costs?
Allowing people to be responsible for the consequences of their personal choices.
The FUCKING MONSTERS!
Obsessing about choice and consequences? I can't tell whether we're libertarians or RPG purists.
They are not mutually exclusive. Thinking about which hot alien chick with superpowers one will fuck one day is probably the pre-occupation of most Libertarians anyway.
Not pre-occupied with that at all.
Decided definitively on Power Girl a long time ago.
What libertarian policy has been implemented, period?
Libertarian policy is a lack of policy - that is leaving people free to make their own decisions.
For people who believe that if something exists then there must be some sort of top down policy for it, libertarianism does not compute.
What libertarian policy has been implemented with serious human costs?
Slavery.
duh
I see a number of blatant falsehoods in the single paragraph:
1. "a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness" - individual rights and freedoms are NOT the same as the personal quality of selfishness, libertarians acknowledge a "freedom" or "right" to be selfish but are silent on the value of selfishness - unlike objectivists.
2. "at the expense of justice and equal opportunity" - justice and equal opportunity are central to libertarianism, an emphasis on these two separates libertarianism from conservatives or liberals who often show open contempt for these principles.
3. "Socialists take a similar path" - This is just stupid. So... if you embrace good while sociopaths embrace evil, you're taking a "similar path?" Seriously?
4. "serious human costs" - As somebody asked earlier, can Gerson please give an example of how libertarianism leads to "serious human costs?" Alternatives to libertarianism have HIGHER human costs.
Given his gift for lies and bullshit, Gerson might fit in well as an Obama speechwriter.
Misinformation spread by idiots such as Gerson is a significant reason libertarianism is so misunderstood. Of course, intellectual laziness and ignorance among most Americans is the biggest reason.
I'll add to this the definition of selfishness that objectivists are using is "enlightened self interest", not childish, spiteful greed.
I once heard a (possibly apocryphal) story about a running debate with Abraham Lincoln who believed there was no such thing as a selfless act. One day he stopped a train, hopped off and rescued some pigs stuck in the mud. His traveling companion was sure he had him dead to rights... he had no possible connection with the pigs or their owner.
Lincoln replied that it was perfectly selfish, because the thought of the pigs suffering would have haunted him.
With a view of "enlightened self interest" that can be this broad in scope, it is easier to understand what libertarians/objectivists mean when they support selfishness.
Too bad that story is about Lincoln and not Calvin-No Subisidies for Farmers-Coolidge. I know most people think Jimmy Carter is History's Greatest Monster, but with the civil war deaths and liberty-destroying efforts of Lincoln's administration, he's got to be in the top ten somewhere.
Damn straight, honkey.
Somehow I have a feeling they will be alright.
http://www.complete-privacy.au.tc
Then you're more optimistic than I, anonbot.
Libertarians believe freedom means being free to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited.
Freedom is up to the imagination of the individual.
Collectivists believe freedom means being free to do only that which is explicitly allowed.
Freedom is limited to the imagination of the ruler.
You couldn't work "the imagination of the imaginer" in there somewhere?
The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load, or unload, go to the white zone.
RACIST!
Don't start with your white zone shit again!
Not really, we also believe in the freedom to do things that ARE explicitly prohibited, like smoke pot and pay for sex.
Ayn Rand was an unapologetic atheist therefore she is no better to Bushites than godless socialists.
Ayn Rand was an unapologetic atheist therefore she is no better to Bushites than godless socialists.
I'm sure many confuse the message with the messenger. It's human nature.
Ayn Rand was an unapologetic atheist therefore she is no better to Bushites than godless socialists.
Quite right. And the Repblican party will nominate one of their many thumper assholes and Obama will continue on.
My base will support me no matter what I do.
Heinlein's rebuke to Lord Of The Flies
I hadn't thought of that steaming pile of shit (Lord of the Flies) in ages.
With the benefit of enlightened hindsight, I see putting that book in the standard curriculum as an explicitly (blatantly) propagandistic tactic on the part of the government school system. "If it weren't for your benevolent rulers, THIS IS WHAT YOUR LIFE WOULD BE LIKE!"
OBEY
Never had to read Lord of the Flies in school. We did read Brave New World and I think a few passages from Shrugged and 1984 though.
I was assigned Lord of the Flies and Anthem by the same teacher.
I have a professor right now who showed Castaway in class (yes, this is college) and said it was an anti-libertarian film. As if Tom Hanks wanted to get back to being controlled, back to the law and order, as opposed to wanting to get back to his friends and family. She clearly sees libertarianism as anti-other people, rather than anti-statism. Friends and family are what life is about. But I have them with or without the government
insert Bastiat quote, I'm sure she's one who equates not having socialized medicine and a guaranteed minimum income with wanting people to die in the streets
I think this paragraph is highly instructive regarding the fundamental philosophical divide we face.
Gerson occupies a philosophical space where freedom and justice are opposites, or at least are distinct virtues or values that compete against one another for primacy of importance.
Libertarians frame these values as aspects of each other. In fact, I would go so far as to say that libertarians regard "justice" as "that state of affairs where each individual's liberty, properly understood, is respected by all and protected from encroachment by mutual aid." "Equality of opportunity" is understood as "that state of affairs where each individual possesses the liberty to develop their talents and exchange the product of their labor without state or para-state interference."
This is an old, old, old debate - old enough that it has its very own Socratic dialogue. Is the Good coherent and consistent within itself, or are there many Goods that contradict each other? If you think the former, then everything Gerson has to say here is nonsensical.
Everything Gerson has to say here is nonsensical.
However, you don't have to be Plato to understand that Gerson is full of shit.
I'm pretty sure just about everyone in the mainstream media knows exactly what libertarianism is. They just write convenient untruths like this so the gullible masses who still consume trash like the WaPo won't start having the DLTs*
*Dangerous Libertarian Thoughts
I'm pretty sure just about everyone in the mainstream media knows exactly what libertarianism is.
You give them far too much credit. They live in an echo chamber full of distortions, and know little else.
I'm not giving them any credit at all....I'm saying they're more cowardly and evil than you think.
What I find alarming is the concerted campaign in much of the liberal press over the past six months or so against any flavor of libertarianism. The hysteria over the Koch brothers, stuff like this article, and so on. I've been intrigued by the fact that the liberal Detroit paper, the Free Press, has not reviewed Atlas Shrugged, even thought it's been here for over a week, but yesterday their award-winning cartoonist, Mike Thompson, had an anti-Rand cartoon (comfortable-looking man sitting in easy chair shrugging while poor folks knock at his door, caption 'Atlas Shrugged' http://www.freep.com/article/2.....an-cometh-).
"...a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness...."
This sort of blindness is a continual mystery.
Wanting to keep what I've earned is 'selfish'; wanting to take by force what others have earned isn't?
It seems pretty "selfish" to espouse a political program that is 100% based on telling everybody else to do what you want them to do.
Liberty requires the un-selfish act of accepting that other people will do things you don't like.
There are many inspirations to libertarianism. Rand is quite en vogue right now. Not a problem. Her works are easily accessible, so much so that even devout Christian libertarians dismiss her dismissal of religion and bother to read her works. Several years ago Reason championed Isabel Paterson. Unaware of her work, I read God of the Machine and the biographical Woman & the Dynamo. There is more to Libertarianism than Rand, obviously.
What annoys anyone is his being explained what it is that he believes. I suppose many of us are guilty of that in distilling our own opponents weltanschauungen, but hey, I must say, their antfarm gets people elected.
Around here, I say, should cryonics go such that Ted Williams's frozen head could lead to changes in the MLB record books, you boys n girl (or 2) are the folks I'd wan't to hang out with at a Superbowl party or have as neighbors.
NiceHot
A dot.org site? Congrats. Who doesn't love porn.
Imho, Rand's principal miscalculation was in so prominently featuring her nuanced use of the word selfishness. If you insist on encoding your meaning such that only the initiated have the tools to properly decode it, you should not be surprised when the uninitiated (a) fail to do so, and (b) are easily misled by those who have a motive to deliberately misinterpret you. Even worse when you choose to use this strategy in the titling of a book -- is it reasonable to expect your reader to defer judgment on the book's title until after its content has been sufficiently digested? This is not to suggest that you wouldn't be willfully misinterpreted anyway -- obviously, that would happen regardless -- but why supply your opponents with ammunition?
The question, I guess, would be: how much less well-known would she be today had she chosen a different title for that book? Perhaps something along the lines of The Prime Virtue; would doing so have reduced the ultimate of success of The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, etc.? It's not unlikely, but on balance, and especially given pop culture's susceptibility to the soundbite, I would have to estimate that this particular gamble was ultimately a bad one, and perhaps even tragically so for Rand, though only history will be the judge of that.
The Fountainhead contains phallic imagery: fountain, it spews and head, as in give head. Atlas Shrugged contains Atlas, a collection of maps (ok, joke, greek Schwarzenegger holding up the Earth) and shrugged, didn't have any idea.
When you carry the weight of the world on your shoulders...
Maybe she was getting on that?
I think it was a deliberate provocation.
Because of the legacy of Judeo-Christianity in western civilization, the notion that "good" and "selfless" are synonyms and "bad" and "selfish" are synonyms is rooted quite deeply in the popular mind. Because that notion is one of the basic building blocks of collectivism, it required (and requires) a deliberate and direct challenge.
Sure, people can misconstrue it deliberately. But since that creates an opening for a discussion of the proper relationship between the individual and the group, it's a productive misunderstanding.
Oh, definitely, I don't disagree that the strategy was deliberately conceived and employed. I just think it would be a bit ironic* if she, as a personality, ends up having chosen to fall upon the sword of a specific misinterpretation which owes its very existence to her own invention alone, in the name of furthering, and possibly successfully so, the powerful core principle which she meant to illustrate by its employment. I highly doubt she herself would have argued that such was not among the possible outcomes of pursuing this particular strategy.
*probably not ironic from her point of view, as I assume she would explain that not being made into a pariah in the pop culture consciousness, in return for not challenging it intellectually, would not represent a value to her.
So many Libertarians commenting without mentioning one of the core elements of Libertarianism; the necessity for one to be RESPONSIBLE for whatever actions one takes (selfish or not). While Libs say folks should be individually free, they also say if you screw up, YOU have to fix it, not run to some govt safety net to pull your fat out of the fire. If you cheat or hurt others YOU pay the lawsuits, if you mess with the environment, you pay the fines and clean up your mess, and you don't give money to politicians to fix things for you, or give your company an unfair advantage.
Leads to more folks thinking through things before they let their selfishness run away with them.
Not so for those who think the government should fix everything for everyone. When you know you have a net you don't need to think, so we all pay the costs for that. When you can con the politicians you paid for to get stimulus bucks, you don't have to be responsible for the housing mess that screwed so many people.
It's intrinsic to the equation.
It's intrinsic to the equation.
It's still not clear, though. This is especially useful to those who deliberately distort their opponents' ideas.
I don't know how many other had this experience, but this seems to be a good place to take a poll.
Rand was *not* the seed of my libertarian streak. That was already there, in pretty full force, when I started reading "We the Living". What her parables did was to provide some words, and also a sense that I was not alone in my distaste for fascism (from either left or right).
Anyone else have the same experience?
I was a libertarian way before I read Rand. And remained pretty much the same kind of libertarian after I read her.
What Pro Lib said.
In fact, what Lewis did (since I mentioned him above) was clear out some of the clutter in my head. I was always a libertarian, I just didnt know it. After reading Lewis, my thought process was more clear and the results clearly lined up with libertarianism.
I was still pretty much a moderate libertarian, Ive become more extreme with age.
You actually made it through "We the Living"? Fuck. I actually read a ton of Rand before I became a libertarian. I always agreed with her message of non-coercion, it just took a while for me to get enough personal experience to understand that governments are no better at getting things right than individuals, usually worse. Then it seemed easy to say that the less government there was, the less harm would be inflicted on society.
Never read Rand at all, aside from some choice snippets reproduced here and there. She figured not at all in my migration to being libertarian.
Formerly a lefty teenager, I became libertarian mostly because it got less and less tenable to argue freedom in some contexts and not others. Once you accept that people might be coke-snorting polygamists or devil-worshipping prostitutes, is it really so bad that they might also be rich?
I became a libertarian in civics class where we were taught that as Americans, we were free to do anything we wanted as long as it didn't screw over someone else.
Me, too. I'm definitely an "originalist" in that sense.
They're probably covering a social justice curriculum in your former high school nowadays.
Thank you for the article. Libertarianism seeks to champion rights and enable progress notably through more voluntary alternatives in public administration. For information on work by those using Libertarian tools worldwide, please see: http://www.Libertarian-International.org
There are people who say libertarianism is selfish
Most of it is, if you use the Objectivist definition of "selfish", i.e., not sacrificing your own self-interests for people you don't care about.
This definition includes a lot of things generally defined by non-Objectivists as "altruistic".
Shrug. Not a big Gerson fan, but let's not pretend leaving Saddam in power was a policy with no human cost, in lives and liberty.
Nathaniel Branden once said, "Every time you take a breath, it's a selfish act." If you stuck a pillow over my face and tried to smother me, at that moment I would have no other thought or desire but the single selfish desire to stop you and get that pillow off my face so I could breathe again. To those of us who value liberty, it is as dear to us as the desire to breathe. Selfish? Yeah: so? Decades before Rand became popular, David Seabury wrote a very good book called "The Art of Selfishness" in which he pointed out that when people accuse you of being "selfish," it's invariably because you won't yield to THEIR desires. In Gerson's view, those of us who believe our lives belong to ourselves are being "selfish" because we won't let him and his ideological gang rule us.
But you know what State-fellators really hate about Rand? It's that if enough people accepted her basic premises, the tax-serfs might revolt and real freedom could break out! The horror--the horror!
Tall Dave:
Shh! The anti-war libertarian bubble of self-righteousness is thin and laughably misguided.
Plus, what better way to express your political superiority over your fellow citizen by voting for a candidate (I'm looking at you, LP) who'll get nearly 49 votes?!
I became an Objectivist after I heard Alan Greenspan give an uninterrupted 6-hour speech in front of Congress explaining how A is A and the regulation of synthetic credit default swaps is tantamount to tying Prometheus to a rock to have his eyeballs plucked by vultures. Then I taught myself to play an electric guitar I built with my own hands, using materials I produced myself, and composed a rock opera called "2112 or 666 to 1984". I now spend my working time monitoring the internet for false premises, anti-concepts, psychologizing, and package deals, correcting them whenever possible. In my spare time, I shout "Hitler" in crowded movie houses. It's an Objective life, but someone has to do it.
I'm a conservative who just a few years ago thought of libertarians about the same way Gerson does.In fact, I still think many of the people who call themselves libertarians in my community are crazy, although I now realize that most of these people are cafeteria libertarians who just think about freedom for certain groups and on certain issues the way a progressive democrat would. They might be for legalization of pot or gay marriage, but they are big supporters of public schooling and public sector unions, and know nothing about economics or the history of the ideas that support the legacy of liberty of Western civilization. These people have hijacked libertarianism and in the eyes of many regular folks represent what a libertarian is. This can only be stopped by educating the public and also by shunning. The same thing must be done to these people that Buckley and Kirk did to the Birchers back in the early '60's. You can't have people like this being the face of libertarianism any more than conservatives allowed Birchers to misrepresent conservatism to the world.In any system of thought there is an orthodoxy and a heresy. The idea that any inquisition is bad because one somewhere once was, is actually quite ludicrous. It's just like saying that it makes no sense to try and keep the peace in a town because there was a bad cop once upon a time. Once you buy into that idea you're done. You might as well not even go on.
Very interesting series of posts - particularly the great sense of humor and then Geoff's remarks at 11 O'Clock on 4.22.
Libertarian since Econ 101 35 years ago -- was particularly impressed by the laws of unintended consequences and opportunity costs, self-selection bias, moral hazard, and arbitrage theory - and that post-Keynesian macro-theory is dominated by one idea: how can we control the peons' behavior.