It is currently 03/28/24 4:53 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 33 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/25/11 7:46 pm • # 1 
Editorialist

Joined: 08/04/09
Posts: 660

Rightly or wrongly, I equate "libertarianism" (most visibily that form which is related to Ayn Rand's fictional depiction) with a form of religious ideology, or cultish following.  This author has some difficulty trying to explain why Libertarianism is not representative of "freedom," anymore than facism is.  One can be free of all burdens of responsibility if the State  or the powerful are the only ones permitted to have an opinion or a carte blanche to do as they please, without question. 

I like the analogy of the pike and the minnows.  There are, of course, many more minnows than there are pike.  The minnows are needful for the pike to survive.http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/20-5

 

Published on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 by the Guardian/UK This Bastardized Libertarianism Makes 'Freedom' an Instrument of Oppression
It's the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99%
by George Monbiot
Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the right-wing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Right-wing libertarianism recognizes few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers' Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Policy Exchange. Their concept of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterized as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music. I will try not to mangle it too badly.

Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.

Rightwing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.

As Berlin noted: "No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. 'Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows'." So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed "to secure the freedom of others". In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.

Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. "If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral." It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms – or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.

These conflicts of negative freedom were summarized in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. "Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free."

The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterizing the tree as an impediment to freedom – his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man. Clare then compares the felling of the tree with further intrusions on his liberty. "Such was thy ruin, music-making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine."

But right-wing libertarians do not recognize this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even – among the gun nuts – to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterize any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow.

Last week, on an internet radio channel called The Fifth Column, I debated climate change with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas, one of the rightwing libertarian groups that rose from the ashes of the Revolutionary Communist party. Fox is a feared interrogator on the BBC show The Moral Maze. Yet when I asked her a simple question – "do you accept that some people's freedoms intrude upon other people's freedoms?" – I saw an ideology shatter like a windscreen. I used the example of a Romanian lead-smelting plant I had visited in 2000, whose freedom to pollute is shortening the lives of its neighbors. Surely the plant should be regulated in order to enhance the negative freedoms – freedom from pollution, freedom from poisoning – of its neighbors? She tried several times to answer it, but nothing coherent emerged which would not send her crashing through the mirror of her philosophy.

Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardized, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned "freedom" into an instrument of oppression.

© 2011 Guardian/UK
 George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper. Visit his website at www.monbiot.com

more George Monbiot ...



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 3:56 am • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This is a VERY thought-provoking read to me ~ I've never thought of the concept of freedom itself as including opposing forces: both "positive" and "negative" poles ~ I've always thought of the "positives" and "negatives" produced as being the results of using/abusing freedom ~ I need to think this thru ~

Terrific find, JD ~ thanks!

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 4:09 am • # 3 
Absolutely - I especially like "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

There's another subtle, and at first blush, seemingly wise words that are really a way to justify doing nothing: "If you feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". I've had this one thrown at me occassionally from libertarians and rightwingers, but when I it counter with a few questions - it becomes apparent that the words are hollow and meaningless.

Do you intend to teach the man to fish? - No

Do you intend to feed the man while you teach him how to fish? - No

So how would you describe a person who teaches a man to fish? - Damned unionized teachers!

How do you describe one who would feed the man while he learns to fish? - goddamed socialist commie bastard do-gooder.

So, in other words, that phrase is really just a means to stifle the discussion and appear wise while masking the true nature of the one who spoke them.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 4:13 am • # 4 
The hallmark of libertarianism is the belief that an individual should be able to do what he/she pleases, up to the point that their actions infringe upon the rights of others.  They believe that the function of government is to protect people, both from physical harm and from harm to their enjoyment of their freedom.  The devil is in the details of how those protected freedoms are defined.

In general, the US is set up as a libertarian society - it's based in classic liberalism.  Whether someone in the US is labelled as a liberal or conservative in our political context, the vast majority are adherents to the ideals of classical liberalism.  There certainly are differences in where individuals and groups would depart from the libertarian ideal, and that's where the majority of the conflict in US politics occurs.

Libertarianism is no more cultish than is the American "progressive" movement.  It's merely based on drawing the line on government power in a different location. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 4:26 am • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I agree with your take in theory, gop ~ but again I see you as focusing on the "pure ideal" and ignoring [or at least not recognizing] the "reality" of today ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 4:37 am • # 6 
The reality of today is that Libertarians have no influence on public policy decisions.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:13 am • # 7 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The Ayn Rand crowd, mentioned in the OP appear to be pretty "cultish". The irony is that many of them are also religious nutters.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:13 am • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
The reality of today is that Libertarians have no influence on public policy decisions.

I disagree absolutely with that statement ~ while perhaps not publicly self-declared "Libertarians", the acts of the Koch brothers, ALEC, the US Chamber of Commerce and many other individuals and groups are practicing extreme Libertarianism and enjoy great influence on public policy decisions ~ 

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:35 am • # 9 
Your views are blurred by your own biases and belief that those who see the world differently from you are stupid or malicious.


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:42 am • # 10 
Perhaps not "stupid" or "malicious" but more like "self-serving" and "short-sighted".


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:53 am • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
Your views are blurred by your own biases and belief that those who see the world differently from you are stupid or malicious.

You're entitled to your opinion, gop ~ but that's insulting and bullshit ~ and I think you know that ~ if not, it's more evidence of "you ... ignoring [or at least not recognizing] the 'reality' of today" ~

Sooz


Last edited by sooz06 on 12/26/11 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:55 am • # 12 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
sooz08 wrote:
gopqed wrote:
Your views are blurred by your own biases and belief that those who see the world differently from you are stupid or malicious.

That's insulting and bullshit, gop ~ and I think you know that ~ if not, it's more evidence of "you ... ignoring [or at least not recognizing] the 'reality' of today" ~

Sooz
I'm beginning to think gopqed lives in the same world as school boards where "official" means "real".


Top
  
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:09 am • # 13 
sooz, the entire premise of JD's OP and the article is that libertarians are malicious in their views.  Your posts consistently paint those with whom you disagree as stupid ("anyone with two working brain cells" is a favorite line) or mailicious.  There's virtually never a recognition or admission that someone on "the other side" can hold their viewpoint because they believe it would provide a beneficial result to others.

The claim that the US Chamber of Commerce is a "libertarian" group reveals a maladjusted view of what the Chamber is trying to do and what libertarianism is.  It's like calling all Democrats "Socialists" or worse - something people trying to have a reasonable conversation don't do.  I don't do anything like that, yet the common theme here is that conservatives are stupid and/or malicious.

oskar is a wondersul example of this - his first instinct is to insult.  I don't agree with him, so he paints me with a broad brush of ignorance or worse.

It leads me to the observation that this board has devolved into an echo chamber without a desire to discuss issues, devoted to whining about and denigration of those with differing views.  I'm disappointed this has happened.  I try to bring a different viewpoint to be heard, yet the overall environment here is that differing viewpoints are not respected.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:22 am • # 14 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Reckon you didn't read and understand the OP.
It specifically addresses rightwing libertarians. JD further emphasizes the Ayn Rand crowd.
So you are the one assuming that all libertarians are the same.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:40 am • # 15 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
As I posted earlier, you're entitled to your opinion, gop ~ what you are NOT entitled to do is belittle the beliefs of those of us who don't tout the far-right line ~ many of us have not only discussed our opinions but presented the evidence that formed our opinions as well ~ we often don't agree with each other on the details ~ you, on the other hand, only defend everything the GOP/TP does or says ~

Disappointment is a two-way street ~ you are deeply knowledgeable on how things should work ~ I easily give you great credit for that ~ but you are woefully [voluntarily?] blind to how things are actually working ~ nor are you willing to even try to understand why some of us believe the way we do ~ we are just immediately "wrong" ~ perhaps instead of judging me [or us] as having "a maladjusted view", you might consider exactly what forms my [our] views ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:43 am • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
And FTR. JD's op is simply one man's view ~ THAT view is thought-provoking to me because it raises issues I've never thought about before ~ I didn't accept or reject it ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 7:09 am • # 17 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
gopqed wrote:
The reality of today is that Libertarians have no influence on public policy decisions.
Quite untrue, Gop.  Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee and the driving force behind the Gop's economic policies, makes no bones about his admiration of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and even quotes her in official speeches.  The same applies to Ron Paul, who, though not as influential as Paul Ryan, does influence public policy decisions in the Senate.  In fact, the Tea Party refers to her often and seem to have adopted Atlas Shrugged as their creed.  I don't think it would be wrong to say most of the Tea Party endorsed representatives in both houses of congress are libertarian to a high degree. 



  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 8:03 am • # 18 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I honestly believe this election has the potential to be a real game changer for the U.S.  In the past there hasn't been a whole lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.  In fact, that's probably why there used to be a lot of slop over from one party to the other over support for various policies in the House and Senate.   This commonality of policy and purpose is probably why the false rhetoric and personal attacks have replaced debate and rational consideration in American elections.  When everything of import is basically the same, you need to find something to fight over.

This time, though, the Republican "big tent" is gone.  Starting in 2009, the Party's leadership started to court the dragon and the dragon ate them.  Unless they can regain some control the centre/right Republicans of old are in very real danger of being replaced by the far right of today.  What moderate Republicans - those who vote for anything breathing as long as it has (R) behind its name - have to look hard at are the actual policies put forward and defended in the House over the past couple of years and whether they really want them or not.  The reality is that Obama has lost most of his shine and, despite some polls to the contrary, there is a good chance Tea Party controlled representatives will expand their hold on the House and take control of the Senate.  There's also a fair chance that wishy-washy Romney could become President for a clean Republican sweep. 

Gop has often talked about how negotiation and compromise have prevented extremes in the past.  But, what if there is no negotiation or compromise?  Thus far the Republican dominated House has shown no inclination for either except when it's been shoved down their throats and, even then, a goodly chuck have tried to spit it out.  What Gop and the other moderates have to consider is do they really want the consequences the policies put forward by Paul Ryan and the other Tea Party darlings to become the law of the land in their raw form because that is what they will get if they let their party carry on along it's current track.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 3:41 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
There are lots of ways to approach political discussion. I think the two main ways are descriptive and prescriptive.  I personally really value both, and I personally appreciate and respect differing viewpoints. Keep them coming, everyone!


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 5:59 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Sidartha wrote:
Absolutely - I especially like "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

There's another subtle, and at first blush, seemingly wise words that are really a way to justify doing nothing: "If you feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime". I've had this one thrown at me occassionally from libertarians and rightwingers, but when I it counter with a few questions - it becomes apparent that the words are hollow and meaningless.

Do you intend to teach the man to fish? - No

Do you intend to feed the man while you teach him how to fish? - No
you can take that argument a LOT further, sid.  who protects the waterways from pollution?  who prevents wild fisheries from overharvesting?

Libertarians act as if the tragedy of the commons and other well known unregulated systems INVARIABLY produce good results.
they don't.

the difference between now and more enlightened times is that it now there are very few wealthy persons who will openly articulate the need for collective action to preserve common interests.  in the time of Adam Smith it was not only not unusual, it was the NORM to find such people- active and engaged and helping to form fair and reasonable solutions to societal problems.  i know that such people are still out there- but the fact that most are afraid to speak is deeply troubling.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:05 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
The hallmark of libertarianism is the belief that an individual should be able to do what he/she pleases, up to the point that their actions infringe upon the rights of others.  They believe that the function of government is to protect people, both from physical harm and from harm to their enjoyment of their freedom.  The devil is in the details of how those protected freedoms are defined.

In general, the US is set up as a libertarian society - it's based in classic liberalism.  Whether someone in the US is labelled as a liberal or conservative in our political context, the vast majority are adherents to the ideals of classical liberalism.  There certainly are differences in where individuals and groups would depart from the libertarian ideal, and that's where the majority of the conflict in US politics occurs.

Libertarianism is no more cultish than is the American "progressive" movement.  It's merely based on drawing the line on government power in a different location. 

i think that Libertarianism is now almost completely overwhelmed by anarchocapitalism and Randianism, gop.  i can't really find a single Libertarian out there that does not believe in the Laffer Curve, in eliminating the personal income tax (or, at a minimum, eliminating progressive income taxes), in deleting Social Security and public education, and, to put it succinctly, unraveling every programme that is centered around the protection, defense and caring of the poor or underprivileged.

but if you are saying that liberalism constitutes a similarly cultish position in American politics as Libertarianism does, i would have to agree.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:16 pm • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
sooz, the entire premise of JD's OP and the article is that libertarians are malicious in their views.  

as you know, i consider myself libertarian, and i don't consider the article to be abusive of me in any way.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:27 pm • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
I think libertarianism has about it a lazy impracticality, no offense intended to anyone. It starts with a premise that, absent a meddling government, everyone will enjoy the maximum freedom possible and as a consequence all things economic and social will work out for the best. And they seem to reason backwards from that, that if bad things result, it must be for the best.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/26/11 6:40 pm • # 24 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
grampatom wrote:
I think libertarianism has about it a lazy impracticality, no offense intended to anyone. It starts with a premise that, absent a meddling government, everyone will enjoy the maximum freedom possible and as a consequence all things economic and social will work out for the best. And they seem to reason backwards from that, that if bad things result, it must be for the best.
i can't blame you, or the author of the OP, for thinking that.  but not all libertarians think that way.

on the social side, most libertarians believe in autonomy and self governance.  they think that so long as a person is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other, the state and other individuals should leave him the hell alone.

the real schism in the US is on the economic side.  the libertarian right in the US seems to think that corporations are perfectly compatible with their vision of economic freedom, wheras the libertarian left thinks that all forms of institutional authority, including those that are precipitated and maintained by wealth, are equally undemocratic, and equally undermine freedom.  thus, you will find libertarian "socialists" AND libertarian "capitalists" BOTH arguing for the withering of the state- but for completely the opposite reasons.

in any case, it is all a fantasy, because human beings cannot be relied upon to self govern.  i am through envisioning that as a possible outcome.  i have dismissed it as a boyish fantasy.  the only thing which remains for me is how representative the institutions are.  and this is where i have my strongest words of criticism again for the libertarian right, who seem to think it is perfectly OK for, as John Jay once so elegantly put it "the people who own the country....to run it".  i don't think that is an acceptable form of Democracy at all, but only because i don't accept Jay's conception of ownership.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/27/11 2:18 am • # 25 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
they think that so long as a person is not harming the person or property of a non-consenting other, the state and other individuals should leave him the hell alone.

Define harm.
Say my neighbour dumps his trash in his back yard and lets it rot there.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 33 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.