"Libertarian Delusions"

[K.o.t.H.]

Hello all, I am a new member and I wanted to share this story of mine and article. I will try to make this quick and to the point. My wife works as a legal assistant in a large building, the other day in the elevator someone whom she does not know well walked up to her and handed her an envelope with my name on it. This man is somewhat of a friend of my father and he knows that she is my wife, and that is about it. She promptly texted me that this had occurred and that it was weird. I felt a little weird due to the fact that I know this man but do not know him well. Ten years ago I helped with his failed run for office by knocking on doors and passing out flyers. I have not seen him much since but my father sees him occasionally. The whole day I was curious as to what on earth was in this envelope. Was it some sort of gift? Some sort of offer? I really could not figure out for the life of me what he could possibly want with me. I asked my Dad that day "what have you told 'Bob' about me?" "He has given my wife a mysterious envelope." My father had no clue and had only mentioned a conversation we had about friendship to this man, as far as he knew. Well, in order to get to the point I will speed this story up. So I forgot about the envelope until late that night and asked my wife about the envelope, which she promptly handed me. The curiosity was killing me so I tore into it hoping it was full of money,lol. Inside I found a post-it note stuck to some papers. The post-it note read "I thought you might enjoy this, I emailed a copy to your dad,All my best." I opened the papers and saw in big bold letters 'Libertarian Delusions.'

So apparently in some discussion with my father it was mentioned that his son was a libertarian. This apparently prompted this man to print this article and seek out my wife to deliver this article to save me from the evils of freedom. I have seen Stefan's breakdown of several articles similar to this and of course immediately thought of that and searched in hopes of finding something from Stefan about this particular article. No luck there. I sent this man a short generic email in the morning thanking him for the article.(he put his email address in the envelope.) I will share this email and his response if anyone is interested.

So I decided to join here, which is something I was planning to do, so I could get your thoughts on this article. I immediately hoped Stefan would do a breakdown of it, but after reading it through realized that it is really not even worthy of a video. The background on this guy who delivered this to my wife is that he is a catholic republican. I have decided that I can not discuss this article with him due to the metaphysical and ethical differences we have, I don't believe that I could make my points without him being insulted. So I figured I would share it here, with the hopes that this is not old news here and I have just missed the thread. If you get a chance read it through and let me know your thoughts.

http://pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=1241394

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Nothing new. As soon as I hear "human flourishing" I get creeped the hell out.  

[Ace]

"Most happy, then, is the arrangement whereby people who have inherited through the great statesmanship and sacrifice of others both a set of political principles and institutions that limit political authority to its rightful ends and moral habits that favor the civil resolution of differences. Most wise are people who regard themselves as stewards of that inheritance. And most foolish are people who would squander that inheritance for a false dream of liberty."

 

That really describes modern democracies... Limited political authority, civil resolution of differences.

[higginsp]

As far as I'm concerned, the only argument in his article worthy of serious consideration is the following, which is not uncommon:

 

"Let us turn then to the counterarguments, beginning with the principle of self-ownership. There is something powerfully intuitive in this principle, something that captures our moral judgment that human persons have an intrinsic dignity and therefore must never be used by anyone simply as a means. But on closer examination, the defects in this principle become clear.

 

Some readers will notice that the language I have just used comes from Immanuel Kant, and indeed it is to Kant that Robert Nozick appeals in making his case for the principle. Nevertheless, Kant himself explicitly repudiated this principle. In the first place, Kant regarded the notion of self-ownership as self-contradictory: Persons are subjects of ownership, whereas ownership is of things. Were persons to own themselves, they would be simultaneously persons and things, which is impossible.

 

The only way to avoid this self-contradiction, Kant suggested, is to divide the self partly into a person (such as the conscious, thinking part of the self) and partly into a thing (such as the body part). But this entails an untenable body-self dualism. As Robert George has written, "The dualistic view of the human person makes nonsense of the experience all of us have in our activities of being dynamically unified actors-of being, that is, embodied persons, and not persons who merely 'inhabit' our bodies and direct them as extrinsic instruments under our control, like automobiles."

 

I'll just focus on his argument that there is a conceptual impossibility implied in asserting self-ownership. Specifically, he states it is contradictory because if ownership means 'ownership of things' then saying 'I own myself' implies that I am both the subject and object of that statement. The biggest problem with his argument is that he smuggles in a vague, unspoken definition of ownership. Even from his critique, it is not clear what he means by 'ownership.' Instead of defining what 'ownership' means, he simply alludes to ownership as a state in which something is 'the owner of things.' It is pointless to go into a semantic analysis of a predicate without first defining the concepts involved in the predicate. Without a definition of 'ownership', it is not certain that there is a contradiction involved in the concept of self-ownership. 

 

If ownership is defined as 'exclusive use' or 'exclusive control' over something, it is not clear to me that it is necessarily contradictory to say: 'I have exclusive use over my physical body.' The author could come back, however, and apply the same argument: that I have again made myself both the subject and object of the predicate. But I think this is shortsighted. There is no contradiction implied when saying, "only I can use myself" because we are capable of recognizing that the subject of this predicate ('I') is capable of acting upon itself ('myself'). More broadly speaking, it is not impossible for a thing to both act and for the object of its action to be itself. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the logical status of a predicate is contingent upon not only its structure, but more importantly upon the use of the concepts involved. This is why definitions are important. If 'ownership' is left murky and undefined, it is easy to smuggle in unspoken definitions which only muddy the waters.

[StylesGrant]

Bullshit #1 

As with many defenders of same-sex marriage, ignoring the children seems to be a common practice of libertarianism.

 

 

I come from a background of Catholics and Pentacostals, trust me they don't understand child psychology.

 

Bullshit #2  

For, unlike libertarians, modern liberals speak the language of politics. They appeal to notions of citizenship, social justice, and the common good in ways that ordinary Americans recognize and approve of.

 

Because no concepts of volunteerism involve any forethought of societal ramifications and peoples quality of life whatsoever, right? Define ordinary American.

 

Bullshit #3 

The so-called Benedict option-leaving politics to others and retreating into our moral communities-is no option at all. If we do not bring our arguments to modern liberals in the political sphere, theirs will come for us.

 

This one is true, actually. Anyone who favors nation-state identity, and civil political-moral cultural linguistic frameworks as a method of imposing legal authority will ultimately resort to normative ethics to regulate smaller communities or just out right arbitrary classist exploitation. Colionial powers have done it. Michel Foucault explains how the Socialist did it, Zizek Slojov does as well, both of which are Socialist with deep criticisms of socialism. Not to mention Chomsky. This is what is better known as cultural hegemony, something I consider more dangerous than statism. Most of the pitfalls in 'ancapistan' and 'ancomistan' arguments rest on the issue of multiplicity and cultural conflict. This is why I am a big proponent of Open Source, Crypto Finance, the Internet, and Panarchy. As well as here is a thought.....being more open minded and empathetic to different ways of life. So in affect, using the same political discourse of Plato, Rousseau, and Kant to justify cultural demagoguery to defend yourself from people doing the same. Honestly, things haven't changed since Rome.

 

Bullshit #4

Unfortunately for the public-choice model, a substantial number of people seem to prefer their clothing, acting like citizens rather than pre-political individuals: They honor the important political figures and events of their history; they respect their flag; they learn their national anthem; they take time to vote-even when they know their individual vote has only an infinitesimal chance of affecting the outcome of the election-and often against what libertarians regard as their own individual interests; and, in exceptional cases, they are willing to expend their "last full measure of devotion" in service to their country. Could all of this really be the behavior of alienated suckers brainwashed into false consciousness by exploitative elites?

 

Considering the deep layers of psychological flaw in our primitive cultures and the effect it has on the mind, (I recommend watching those videos of drawings on a marker board by Jeremy Riffkin) and books by people like Lolyd Demause, and the well studied effects and history of progressive public education and nation state identity, and the endless bag of horror of the psychological effects of religion... it isn't so hard to see that it is indeed strongly predicated on violence, inculcation, and indoctrination by a ruling class that wants... once again cultural hegemony. So the resounding answer, is YES, YES, YES it is the result of false consciousness.

 

More over it is to assume through reduction that, just because deeply anti-national people do not like manufactured cultural consent and civil discourse through moral, political, and legal systems against their consent, that they lack any identification whatsoever with the greater society.

 

Clearly people want a global society, free of tribalism, exclusion, and racism. Clearly humanity is heading towards more empathy and understanding, and in reality, the nation-state model interferes, because it is not in favor of a multiplicity of moral and political outcomes that also preclude violence. Because we see identity with other people and do not feel the need to obliterate them with relative civil religion ,i.e. American foreign policy, something like a open access economy, open finance, bitcoin, peer to peer, objective extension of natural rights by access and technology and economy, as opposed to delegated civil, moral, religious, and political prescription would indeed be supported because it favors collective identity and empathy, with the fucking human race! 

 

Bullshit #5

As Buchanan and Brennan put it, "the maintenance of the standards of public life, it could be argued, may require a heroic vision of the 'statesman' or 'public servant,' because only by holding such a vision can the possibility of public-interested behavior on the part of political agents be increased." In practice, therefore, "politics without romance" could be a prescription for disaster. Like Rothbard, Buchanan and Brennan apply the story of the emperor without clothing as well, but they draw a different moral from it: "Public choice analysis allows us to see politics without blinders. In that sense, we play the role of the boy who called attention to the emperor's nakedness. But the familiar story might be given quite a different twist if it went on to relate that the emperor fell into disgrace, that the nobles fought among themselves, that the previously stable political order crumbled into chaos, and that the kingdom was destroyed." In light of this sober assessment, they conclude that "the moral might then have been not that one should call a spade a spade, whatever the possible consequences, but rather that a sensitivity to consequences might require one to be judicious in exposing functionally useful myths."

 

 

You wanna live in a useful myth to prevent somalia/congo? This is an appeal to authority, as well as a form of fatalism. The reality of the fact, is that people are poorly informed, poorly educated, easily manipulated, except when they step outside that realm and make use of access to information, primarily the internet, which continues to the primary bane of modern liberalism and state capitalism, and certainly religion. The internet is eroding nation state identities. Now, because we lack the ability to make good choices in most cases, it stands that we would have no rational interest in the civil discourse that effects us, so the solution is to continue to appeal to authority in a romantic sense, as opposed to.....learning! Yes the solution to apathy is tyranny, and to virtue, terror. Bombing for peace, fucking for virginity, etc.

 

Why are people apathetic, why are they under informed, why are the uneducated, why are their actions infinitesimal? 

 

 

 

Perhaps in a sense, volunteerist concepts, and anarchy on a broad front, all bickering and purism aside, does lack a cohesive moral ecology or culture, or sense of yearning, perhaps. But, it does seem to be picking up. It's the how, that makes Nation State ideology so dangerous. Where there is a lack of empathy there tends to be absolutist terms, and imperialism, toward as Zizek Slojov calls it the 'The Other' or as Lolyd Demause calls it 'The Bad Self'. 

 

These moral impositions come from culture (see Edward Berkins Terror Management Theory and The Denial of Death) and often traumatic childhood experience. It shapes tribalism. On a macrocosmic level this evolves to demagoguery, and certainty of morality and civil systems. 

 

Collective ideology is running on an engine of 'dangerous monkey DNA' for lack of a better way of describing. The key to getting past this lies in understanding a multiplicity of interests, diversity, plurality, that can be tolerated in a peaceful way, openess, collaboration - not moral absolutism. 

 

So if you are a statist conservative scared of the progressive Boegey Man, resorting to the same psychological trap isn't going to protect you from Soviet style politburo coercion in the long run. These things ultimately boil down to generic fascism that discriminates against all.

[regevdl]

If Stefan doesn't break it down I would recommend Tom Woods (www.tomwoods.com)  he is also a very articulate libertarian (I think he's a closet anarchist) lol as Stefan has interviewed him and he often has anarch-friendly guests on his show.  Anyway, he often breaks down challenges against Libertarianism etc.  Good luck!

 

 

 

http://www.schiffradio.com/pg/jsp/verticals/archive.jsp?dispid=310&pid=65782

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I. 

As far as I'm concerned, the only argument in his article worthy of serious consideration is the following, which is not uncommon:

 

"Let us turn then to the counterarguments, beginning with the principle of self-ownership. There is something powerfully intuitive in this principle, something that captures our moral judgment that human persons have an intrinsic dignity and therefore must never be used by anyone simply as a means. But on closer examination, the defects in this principle become clear.

 

Some readers will notice that the language I have just used comes from Immanuel Kant, and indeed it is to Kant that Robert Nozick appeals in making his case for the principle. Nevertheless, Kant himself explicitly repudiated this principle. In the first place, Kant regarded the notion of self-ownership as self-contradictory: Persons are subjects of ownership, whereas ownership is of things. Were persons to own themselves, they would be simultaneously persons and things, which is impossible.

 

The only way to avoid this self-contradiction, Kant suggested, is to divide the self partly into a person (such as the conscious, thinking part of the self) and partly into a thing (such as the body part). But this entails an untenable body-self dualism. As Robert George has written, "The dualistic view of the human person makes nonsense of the experience all of us have in our activities of being dynamically unified actors-of being, that is, embodied persons, and not persons who merely 'inhabit' our bodies and direct them as extrinsic instruments under our control, like automobiles."

 

I'll just focus on his argument that there is a conceptual impossibility implied in asserting self-ownership. Specifically, he states it is contradictory because if ownership means 'ownership of things' then saying 'I own myself' implies that I am both the subject and object of that statement. The biggest problem with his argument is that he smuggles in a vague, unspoken definition of ownership. Even from his critique, it is not clear what he means by 'ownership.' Instead of defining what 'ownership' means, he simply alludes to ownership as a state in which something is 'the owner of things.' It is pointless to go into a semantic analysis of a predicate without first defining the concepts involved in the predicate. Without a definition of 'ownership', it is not certain that there is a contradiction involved in the concept of self-ownership. 

 

If ownership is defined as 'exclusive use' or 'exclusive control' over something, it is not clear to me that it is necessarily contradictory to say: 'I have exclusive use over my physical body.' The author could come back, however, and apply the same argument: that I have again made myself both the subject and object of the predicate. But I think this is shortsighted. There is no contradiction implied when saying, "only I can use myself" because we are capable of recognizing that the subject of this predicate ('I') is capable of acting upon itself ('myself'). More broadly speaking, it is not impossible for a thing to both act and for the object of its action to be itself. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the logical status of a predicate is contingent upon not only its structure, but more importantly upon the use of the concepts involved. This is why definitions are important. If 'ownership' is left murky and undefined, it is easy to smuggle in unspoken definitions which only muddy the waters.

Agreed.  I know, K.o.t.H your original concern was responding in a way that would hopefully not insult him.  As libertarians and anarchists it's always a tedious balance of communication to keep it going as long as possible but inject enough insightful 'wake up calls' to encourage them to think on their own.   But higginsp makes an important point when addressing any argument.  make important, critical and foundational definitions clear.  Since 'self ownership' is a HUGE and fundamental aspect of libertarianism, it's an easy go-to for those trying to rebutt it.  Therefore spin it back on him.  Put the burden of responsibility on him to give you his definition of self-ownership.  He is trying to split air by suggesting you are an object and subject.  If you don't own yourself, then you are allowing others to take ownership of you which is slavery.  Check out the two links I posted.  They might help solidify clear definitions.  But he needs to define to you clearly what he means by self-ownership before you can proceed.  Otherwise you will be talking over each other's heads.

[Andrew79]

Since 'self ownership' is a HUGE and fundamental aspect of libertarianism, it's an easy go-to for those trying to rebutt it.  Therefore spin it back on him.  Put the burden of responsibility on him to give you his definition of self-ownership.  He is trying to split air by suggesting you are an object and subject.  If you don't own yourself, then you are allowing others to take ownership of you which is slavery.  Check out the two links I posted.  They might help solidify clear definitions.  But he needs to define to you clearly what he means by self-ownership before you can proceed.  Otherwise you will be talking over each other's heads.

+1You beat me to it.Libertarianism makes no claims, scientifically or philosophically, on exactly how the whole mind/body thing works.Self-ownership is simply the idea that no one has a higher claim to you than you do.So anyone wanting to refute it needs to explain why that's not the case.