Comments on: More deep thoughts on libertarianism

By: Simon’s World » Blog Archive

Simon’s World » Blog Archive — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:49:47 +0000

[...] Simon: Thanks for your comment. I don [...]

By: Simon

Simon — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:54:38 +0000

Thanks for your comment. I don’t agree with you on several points – I’ll just outline those here, saving a more rounded reply for a later post.
First, you write “A business can put me out of a job, but it can’t prevent me from finding work elsewhere, it can’t seize my property, it can’t tell me who I can worship or marry, and it can’t tell me where to go or what to do.
That’s almost true, except that the limitations on what a business can do to you are exactly due to the control put on them by the government. Also, when I referred to employers’ limitations on employee liberty, I wasn’t referring to what they can do AFTER they fire you.
Then you go on: “These encroachments, however, are well within the domain of any government, and governments historically have done all of these things and will continue to do so.”
Well, yes. That’s why I’m all for maximum transparency and accountability in government. However, these have precious little to do with the extent of control a government has over the public sphere.
You: “Libertarians don’t want NO government, they just want a LIMITED government. That is, a government which uses force only as a last resort, and plays by a fair set of rules.”
Nice sounding stuff, but fact is that the world of power does not like a vacuum. Where one kind of power recedes, another rears its ugly head. Deregulation since the 1980s has strengthened corporations to the point where they’re barely accountable to anyone any more. How does that expand your personal freedom?
And finally: “For all its wealth, Microsoft could never burst into your home, cuff you, throw you in prison, and execute you. That’s because the government has laws against things like trespassing, kidnapping, murder, etc.”
The government also has laws against keeping people locked up in sweatshops, child labor and other niceties of completely unregulated economies. For all of Milton Friedman’s rhetoric, I don’t see how these are the founts of personal liberty. Regarding the power of corporations, if it wasn’t for government regulation, I’m not sure if the likes of Microsoft wouldn’t deal with obstacles to their business in a much more direct way than they do today.
In conclusion, I’m no less interested in expanding people’s scope of personal freedom (and hey, my own along with it) than you are. I’m just not as dead-sure that a dogmatic approach calling for the removal of government regulation is the way to accomplish that goal.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:00:37 +0000

The last three paragraphs here have been summarized, perhaps not with the same intent, by John Donne with the phrase “No man is an island, entire of itself.” Very well, I agree.

The point of libertarianism (and liberty) is not to exile yourself from society, it’s to live with as little compulsion as possible. You are absolutely correct in your conclusion that where any human interaction exists, positive and/or negative consequences result for all those involved. However, the force of open interaction is not the same as the force of government. A business can put me out of a job, but it can’t prevent me from finding work elsewhere, it can’t seize my property, it can’t tell me who I can worship or marry, and it can’t tell me where to go or what to do. In short, it can’t encroach on any “unrestricted freedoms within the system.” These encroachments, however, are well within the domain of any government, and governments historically have done all of these things and will continue to do so.

Libertarians don’t want NO government, they just want a LIMITED government. That is, a government which uses force only as a last resort, and plays by a fair set of rules. For all its wealth, Microsoft could never burst into your home, cuff you, throw you in prison, and execute you. That’s because the government has laws against things like trespassing, kidnapping, murder, etc. But who is to prevent that power of law enforcement from being turned on the citizenry? Who, in short, will police the police? Certainly not those who, after having their homes ransacked and property seized in the name of the “greater good”, would turn to the hand of power and bemoan their ineffectual status as a mere cell in a vast, immovable blob of society.

Well hell, you’ve already acknowledged that much yourself: “[...]and it’s only up to your strength of will whether you yield or stand.”

Using my strength of will to determine whether I yield or stand? Sounds a lot like liberty to me. Liberty isn’t about constant happiness or total isolation from the ill-effects of the choices of others, it’s about the ability to protect (even if unsuccessfully) your own interests. I’ll take it any day.