Kevin and I were scratching our heads today over why some people are much more worried about loss of civil liberties under Obama than under McCain. Not only is McCain more in favor of “security” theater than Obama, but he also as a VP who is anti-abortion, anti-gay and pro-banning-books. How many more liberties can you lose?
Well obviously quite a few, and there are those for whom the freedom to own guns and shoot things with them trumps all other freedoms. From that point of view, Mrs. Palin is a clear winner.
But it struck me that there might be a clear difference between Liberals and Libertarians here. Liberals are all about preventing discrimination. They are liable to pass laws that stop some groups of people oppressing other groups of people. Libertarians, on the other hand, are all about being free to do what they want, and for many of them that very much includes being free to oppress other people. Libertarians may argue that they want to be free to be racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic if that’s how they feel about the world. So one man’s civil rights is another man’s prison.
Does this make any sense, or am I just talking nonsense here?
In theory, freedom for Libertarians ends at a point. The freedom to swing your fist ends short at the end of someone’s nose.
Similar to “do what you will, an it harm none.”
So it can be argued that the “do whatever I want” interpretation of Libertarianism is a misinterpretation that gives the rest a bad name.
I guess it’s moot if you live far enough out in the desert/mountains/forest.
In a short video Obama made for his volunteers, asking people to get out and talk to people, to counter the lies being spread by the other side, he said two things very clearly.
“Tell them that I’m not going to raise their taxes, and I’m not going to take away their guns.”
Governor Palin may be more visible on this point, but for *most* people concerned about restrictions on the right to bear arms, I dare say Obama has other things to do, and other priorities, and furthermore, he has specifically said he won’t take away their guns.
spread the word. 🙂
Stacie:
It kind of depends on what you mean by “no harm”. Swinging a fist at someone’s nose can be quite harmful to them even if it doesn’t actually connect. Freedom of speech in the US requires that people be free to hate, and to express their hatred openly. Oddly enough, that tends to lead to actual violence.
In theory, freedom for Libertarians ends at a point.
Theory is all good and fine, but, in the pop sense you’re using it, rarely is congruent with reality (unlike the scientific use, where it’s the most examined and tested way of explaining reality).
We need to look at libertarianism in practice.
In practice, libertarians rarely accept the points at which their freedom should end because it conflicts with the freedoms of others. In practice, libertarianism is pure selfishness. It’s wussy anarchism.
A libertarian system (much like a conservative system) only works if there’s a satisfactory amount of altruism evenly distributed through the culture. Liberalism assumes that altruism isn’t evenly distributed throughout the culture.
The topics raised are both interesting and important and of such complexity that scholars write long papers about them. So I doubt I can cover all of the points in the comments section of a blog.
Yes; you will see bigoted jerks who call themselves libertarians. I have also seen bigoted jerks who have identified with virtually every political philosophy. Unfortunately bigoted jerks seem to have a desire to pontificate about those matters on which they are least informed.
I disagree with Andy’s comment about a libertarian system only working in a culture with altruism evenly distributed; however I think Andy is getting at a very interesting question. Given that individuals vary in virtually everything we can measure; it does raise the question of which (if any) system works best in various human cultures. Of course defining “works best” usually gets to a question of values.
For those interested in these topics a useful historical place to begin is to read a classic work in the modern liberal tradition “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls and a libertarian response “Anarchy, State and Utopia” by Robert Nozick. These works are certainly not definitive but at least provide a flavor of some of the ideas.
Fred:
You are quite right that this stuff is complicated, and that not all Libertarians are alike. If they were all like you I might be tempted to sign up. But I think the percentage of self-professed Libertarians I have met who are bigoted jerks is rather higher than for most political groups I know of, and I suspect that this is because they think that the Libertarian philosophy gives them license to be bigoted jerks.
The same is of course true for religion. Bigoted jerks are attracted to fundamentalism because it gives them plenty of excuses to be bigoted.
Eh, most of the libertarians I’ve either known or heard of in my neck of the woods are just Republicans who want to rebrand themselves and probably have as much relationship with the philosophy as espoused by folks like Rawls and Nozick I have with Mao’s Little Red Book.
Basically, in a place where most of the political folks fall inexorably toward a mushy center, people start clinging to the edges any way they can. (I’m thinking also of the “fascist” and “communist” thread several after this)
Perhaps also its a way to feel a false solidarity with the struggles of folks on the other side of the globe, also, in a place where you could almost be anything within two broad major parties who gatekeep the kingmaking system…a conservative Democrat can be the same thing as a leiberman I mean liberal Republican. I definitely see that in what I might call my fellow socialists (of course, its so hard to know what that means sometimes).
just an imho though.