The *Case* Against Libertarianism

A commenter over at the Roissy Chateau elected to attack libertarianism. In doing so, he reveals a dearth of knowledge of what libertarianism really is. Specifically, he spouts out the incorrect but widespread meme that libertarians assume that mankind is generally good. His words below:

Libertarian philosophy is compromised by a number of flaws in the philosophical foundations of their philosophy; these errors are entirely due to their refusual to look at human nature as it actually is instead of what they want it to be.

A partial list of errors:

-The majority of people can understand the benefits of limited government and free trade (most people are stupid and/or ignorant)
-That their is no underlying biological wiring between the sexes or races that will cause them to favor tyranny over freedom
-That people will handicap themselves by principles of “justice” instead of amorally grabbing what they can in life (most people will rationalize any advantage they can attain for themselves)
-That Human nature is fundamentally “good”
-That Humans are a “blank slate” and are basically interchangable
-Based on the preceeding two premises- that the threat of force and fear of resiproisty is not necessary to keep the untermensch in line (it is).
-That other groups of people (governments) will play by the same nice rules that they want our government to play by

Ultimately, Libertarians take their native high intelligence and combine it with their do-gooder/moralist brainwashing and mirrorimage the the combination onto the rest of soceity while not realizing that they are the exception and not the rule.

This is a remarkably ignorant set of arguments. First, libertarians absolutely DO NOT believe that human nature is "fundamentally good." Human beings are so corrupt that they should never possess illegitimate power over others because they will invariably abuse it. This argument knows no introspection; it fails because it doesn't take into account that the Ruling Class are people as well, and are by virtue of their position more susceptible to corruption. While it is true that private exchange by mutual consent can bring about negative externalities, so do public-private exchanges. Critics of libertarianism love to vent around words like "market failure" and "failure of the commons." But there can be no heaven on earth, at least not through political or economic means, the marxists hope notwithstanding. And those things are vastly preferable to interventionism that eventually mutates into full-blown totalitarianism.

As for his other arguments, they can be easily dismissed. Libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism; there are rules, its called private property. And the Government still has role of preventing oppression and violation of the private property laws.

So, while this is probably the best that libertarian would-be critics have to offer, it is so spectacularly incorrect that one is forced to conclude that libertarians really don't have to face much of a challenge in the intellectual marketplace.

Technoblog Found

Earlier this year I stated:

I have, however, neglected the role of technology in the entire process of cultural evolution. What reminded me of this was a dinner table conversation with my father, brother, and I about the possibility that Robots and advanced computers will obviate conscious driving; that cars will be driven by autopilot.

I tried to think of the future state of technology and its ramifications for the world, but I didn't get very far. I just realized that this was a job for much finer and more informed minds than my own. So I am looking for a blogger or author that writes with a morbid wit and expounds about not the technical details but of the general implications future technology will have upon our society. He must also have a major, a perhaps a bit insane, thesis.

Well, I finally found a site that purports to fulfill the criteria above: FuturePundit; Future technological trends and their likely effects on human society, politics and evolution.
It is the cousin blog of parapundit, which I enjoy as well. I haven't read a whole lot of material over there so I can't say for sure whether it is what I am looking for, but from what I have read it seems to be a promising start; the post about how the rise of the personal computer has lead to decreased amount of leisurely reading time made sense.

I await the vast sea of knowledge that will overflow me.

Hapless critics, please step it up

There is a recurring theme to every written discourse that I have with people when arguing a point. It goes like this:

Vanfair: X is wrong, Y is correct.

Hapless opponent: What?! No X is right, and how can you seriously believe in Y?

Vanfair: No, you ignoramus. X is not only incorrect, but it can easily demonstrated to be incorrect because it is contingent upon A,B, and C, which have been proven incorrect for 70 years. And Y is correct because D,E,F necessitate Y.

Hapless opponent version 1: Wow, I can't believe you think like that. Good thing you don't write for a popular news site deluding so many people.

Hapless opponent version 2:.......... [doesn't bother responding at all]


The reason so many of the written debates I engage in inevitably take the aforementioned path is because many people quibble with my seemingly insane conclusions without realizing there is nevertheless a sound and wholly conclusive foundation for them. Once I inform them of those foundations, they have no course of action but to retreat and pretend that nothing happened. Readers will know that this is exactly what happened to a woman I engaged in about feminism. So in keeping with this narrative, a facebook friend found it within himself to dispute one of my status updates:

Me: if America waves its collective middle finger at Rep. Ron Paul again in 2012, then it will surely deserve the ultimate destruction that undoubtedly awaits it.

Facebook friend I hope he doesn't get anywhere near the Presidency.

Vanfair: Ron Paul is literally the only candidate that respects human liberty, the constitution, and the rule of law.So what about him is so objectionable?

Facebook friend: He isn't a Republican. He is a libertarian that is using the republican party to dip into a bigger pool of voters. Also he wants to legalize drugs, prostitution and strip the military of its strength. So alot of things =D

Vanfair: Considering that the Republican establishment has produced so many abysmal politicians, I consider Ron Paul's deviance from it to be a good thing. Moreover, he is probably the most conservative candidate out there (at least fiscally), even if he hasn't flirted with the idea of legislating morality through banning drugs, prostitution etc... because it violates individual freedoms. As for the military, the historical evidence demonstrates that empire building overseas actually weakens it. Dr. Paul realizes that an expansionist foreign policy is incompatible with a small and limited governemt...

The point is, Ron Paul has shown he is the only politician with the balls to put an end to this profligate government spending and clamp down on the federal reserve that has financially raped this country. Whatever one's differences are with his other views.

Facebook friend: Thinking like that makes me glad he doesn't have a chance.

In which I would reply that it is very difficult to have sympathy for someone that willfully refuses to acknowledge the obvious. Its like having sympathy for a person that willingly stands in the middle of a highway.

If I didn't have to face this guy in person from time to time, I would have brutally tormented this hapless critic because that is exactly what his response merited. At times, I ask myself why I even bother seeking input by posting intelligent updates on facebook, its like going to the science fair looking for the next Michael Jordan.

Deflation and Neo-Classical Economics

I came across these very enlightening videos on the economy by Steve Keen, blogger at DebtDeflation.com, that articulate the case for why I have believed that the economy will be facing deflation, not inflation. Watch for your benefit, they can be found right here.

I was aware of many of the things he talked about, such as contracting private sector debt being counteracted by an exponential increase in public sector debt. What I found interesting - and i'm embarrassed for not having thought of this earlier - is that aggregate demand is not determined just by income, but by the change in debt as well. This is why I am so confident that the worst of the recession is not over, given that private sector debt is still at astronomical levels. Once the government stops offsetting the contracting private sector debt, and it will have to eventually, then overall debt levels will decrease, shifting the aggregate demand curve way inward.

Because the neo-classical economists don't take into account the change in debt, they are blind to the upcoming crash (and as someone who had a neo-classical economics professor, I can see exactly how they are blindsided). Why they are so sound in other areas like free-markets and the inefficacy of government intervention but don't take this into account is beyond me. It may be because subscribing to a school of thought that originated in the late 1700's, early 1800's, they are unaccustomed to our modern debt-based fractional reserve system, but I don't know for sure. At any rate, the *neo* prefix to their name should have fixed that problem.

Bachmann challenged by a 16 year old girl

Apparently a high-school student from New Jersey called Amy challenged Minnesota Congresswoman and possible future presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann to a debate. (Courtesy to Proph, blogger at Collapse.) Bachmann smartly left the challenge unacknowledged, as it was nothing but a catch-22 for her. This was Amy's open letter:

My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.

Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.

Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:

I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.

Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.

I admire this type of thing, but one must realize that this letter was never meant to put her at the podium to debate; there is no possible way the congresswoman would have accepted the challenge because it poses an inherent lose-lose situation. The letter was merely designed to get her name out there and to fuel a restless intellectual ego. This is not necessarily a bad thing, I being a practitioner of such an action myself.

However, I find myself wondering what type of untenable beliefs she holds. I made a brief skim through her blog, and could find nothing except that she seems to be an enthusiastic activist for public school funding, and you all know my opinion on the matter. Hence, I responded thusly:

Amy, you appear to be a remarkably intelligent and mature person given your juvenile age. I was intrigued because I also am a high-school student that has a personal blog. I heard about your debate challenge to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and how you believe that she is a public embarrassment to your collective gender. Now then, I don't hold an opinion on the congresswoman as I don't really know much about her, except to say that I am generally skeptical of women politicians as even the most staunch freedom-loving ones tend to crumble under political pressure and exhibit fascistic tendencies. So, my question for you: what are your political beliefs? Most people would assume you are a left-winger given that you have attacked politicians on the Right, but one can never no for sure.

With respect, EB

If I had to make a guess, I would assume she is a typical government-expansion proponent who is nonetheless under the illusion that she is a supporter of human liberty and the founding principles of America, given that she attacked Bachmann, who under my scanty impression is more conservative than most Washington-tards, instead of other female and absolutely moronic democratic politicians that have done a far better job to "help to serve an injustice [to]...women everywhere."

But one must always operate under as little ignorance as possible. Lets see if she responds. We all know what happened to the last woman who I engaged in a discourse with.

UPDATE: let this be an apt lesson that one should know as much about the subject matter as possible before commenting or writing emails to interlocutors about it. Apparently she wrote to the Minnesotan because she was incorrect about basic historical facts such as where the battle for Lexington took place... so it is somewhat unlikely - but not entirely impossible - that ideology had anything to do with it. Also, I somewhat misdiagnosed her motivation as what prompted the debate challenge was a desire to prove to her classmates that she wasn't just like an ordinary female politician by running for class president. So we'll see how this turns out. I'm just glad I demonstrated some discretion by refraining from saying some of the things that popped up in my head while writing the letter.

Some thoughts

Neo-conservatism: myopic ideology. Proponents of empire-building probably haven't played a game of risk in their entire lives.

Did 70's 8 times on the dumbell chest press today. I am absolutely in LOVE with the dumbbell chest press.

People think libertarianism assumes people are inherently good. Nothing could deviate farther from the truth. Libertarians believe that human nature is so corruptible that no one should be given illegitimate power over others.

Polarity is the core of a healthy relationship. Its that unique blend of submission and dominance; leadership and abidance.

*Just the way you are* by Bruno Mars has to be the most beta song ever. The singer erected a pedestal for that girl that could easily match the one built for Lord Nelson at Trafalgar square. Bloody shame as well, since it actually has a decent tune.

When will proponents of small and limited Government come out and denounce woman's suffrage? Probably never; most people are idiots.

Speaking of woman's suffrage. If it has been such a disaster, then does chivalry still apply?

Around 90% of people run with incorrect form. They run on their heels and not on the balls of their feet. Injuries ensue.... even with $150 brooks.

Mailfair:

Mrs. Sherrie Owens takes exception to my post "Why woman's rights are wrong." She doesn't even bother contesting my points. Needless to say I wasn't surprised. If you ever take the time to delve into the subject, then you will find that not only are my points completely correct, it is not even possible to dispute them. Her email:

I read your paper out of curiosity. So many thoughts run through my head. Feminism is different than having the right to vote, go to school, drive, and support a family (especially when the males shirk their responsibility).
We all have roles to play, and they are not all the SAME. However, they are all equally important.

Some of your points are valid and proven by historical evidence, but others ignore realities. Our country has chosen to forget the God who brought us here, thus our moral fabric has rent into shreds... Causing the breakdown of the family.

Also these horrible "entitlement" programs were instigated by men to cause other men to be dependent on and obligated to their government handouts. Most the women that I know hate entitlements and want people to work for their keep.

Mostly I resent that you think freedom loving patriots are all men who are wronged by the women who support them, thus allowing then opportunity to become great.

I responded thusly:

First, the dictionary defines feminism as “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” This doctrine, in part, is what I was attacking in my post. The concept of equality is absurd, because it demonstrably doesn’t exist in any material or spiritual sense. Thus any culture constructed upon it is doomed to fail. However, I would say that advancement of woman’s rights equal to those of men would characterize only the first and second waves of feminism, not the third one that we are presently witnessing, which is exceptionally lethal. And I find it interesting how you either agree with or refuse to rebut many of my central points. This includes feminism being responsible for obesity, suppressed wages, a skewed sexual market, and unsustainable birth rates. If you accept those aforementioned things, then I can only conclude that our views really aren’t that much different.

What I also find interesting, however, is that you say, “We all have roles to play, and they are not all the SAME. However, they are all equally important,” given how that is echoing precisely the same message as when I called for a male/female division of labor. I would be the last person to argue with you that a woman’s – particularly a mother’s - role is not as important as a man’s one (happy mothers day by the way). In fact, I attach so much importance to the role of mothers that I even hung the continued survival of Western Civilization upon it in my post.

Moreover, if you had examined more of my work, then you would have realized that I don’t advocate stripping away the right to “go to school, drive, and support a family.” Since I believe that responsibility to educate the kids is rightfully placed on the mother, of course I believe they should get an education, although one can certainly argue that one doesn’t need to go to college to teach a kid 2+3=5. Also, historically about 1/3 of women have always worked; feminism was a middle-class phenomena.

You would be correct in insisting that feminism isn’t the only culprit responsible for America’s eventual fall. But it probably is the biggest one. Now let me ask you a question: what would be responsible for the known symptoms of “the breakdown of the family?” Single motherhood is on the rise, I wonder why. No fault divorce? The shift from the husband to the wife in ownership and responsibility of the kids? The feminists indoctrinating men to place woman on pedestals? Gender parity? For some reason, that doesn’t sound like patriarchy.

As for woman’s suffrage, it can be safely dismissed as a horrible idea. It’s not just men who are against it, many women are too. Woman’s suffrage has led to numerous decreases in personal liberties and is the democratic force behind much spending increases and welfare programs. For evidence of this, I suggest you read the relevant paper I referred to on my blog. Women cherish security over liberty. That’s the norm. And while there are certainly many intelligent women like you and your friends that love political freedom, and you should be applauded for it, your behavior is no more reflective of your collective sex than a monk’s abstinence is indicative of the overall sexual behavior of men. If a country doesn’t want a totalitarian dictator at its helm, then I suggest it should weed out of the electorate the portion of the population that falls for those sweet-talking demagogues. There is absolutely no coincidence that Mussolini saw fit to include universal suffrage in his Fascist Manifesto.

I think you misunderstood me when I declared “WS has been a disaster for freedom loving patriots” as I neither said nor implied that only men were freedom loving. There are certainly many stupid and drunk men out there and thank goodness a lot of them don’t vote. However, it shouldn’t be difficult to fathom that a freedom-loving woman would relish giving up her right to vote if the rest of her half of humanity did the same, given how it has actually resulted in less freedom for everybody – men and woman alike.

If it was a relatively harmless phenomenon, I wouldn’t be so vocal in my opposition. But there no ideology that is as self-defeating as woman’s rights. And it is doubtful that a society can survive it for long.