My experience has been that when liberals attack a conservative for being evil, stupid, or otherwise unacceptable, they usually have a good reason to.
As you and others have suggested I think the feeling that Libertarianism is arrogant comes not so much from the philosophy itself but from the average supporter thereof. The Libertarian philosophy (or at least how it tends to be portrayed by its most vocal accolytes) relies on the idea that those who succeed are deserving of their success due to their merit, and that those who fail do so because they lack merit and so are undeserving of success.
Naturally the supporters of of Libertarianism are in favor of the philosophy favor it because they believe that they are among the elite who thrive under a merit based society, and that their success was entirely due to their merit, rather than having anything to do with luck or the assistance from a collective, and that it is only the constraints of the collective that are keeping them down. Very few people who believe that are a run of the mill individual are going to support a philosophy that puts them in the wide base of pyramid with a very high and narrow peak. So Libertarianism self selects for the arrogant.
You do realize you’re just making my argument stronger? My point was that our government gets its authority from the majority not from any individual. Arguing that it’s not a majority but a supermajority just moves it farther away from individual rule.
I’ve not run across this rationale myself. I think people can succeed or fail due entirely to circumstances outside their control. The way I described the idea I think you are describing to a friend was that a libertarian accepts that when people are free to choose, some people will suffer. Alleviating suffering is not the goal of libertarians, maximizing individual liberty is the goal. That has nothing to do with merit. And while I believe in many areas that libertarian principles will produce a better outcome as measured, even if they did not produce a better outcome they would still be worthwhile as liberty is the goal, not a specific outcome.
Do you think a law that condones slavery is legitimate if the majority or supermajority of people approve of it? I don’t. Some things are as you say subject to the majority, but others are not, IMO. We can argue which fall in which bucket, but as a matter of first principles no law that enslaves a person can ever be legitimate no matter the level of public support. An unjust law is no law at all.
As to the thread topic - any system that purports to know my interests more than myself is arrogant. The degree to which that is pervasive will determine which is more arrogant. So…maybe genocidal dictatorship.
This is an interesting question, and there have been some interesting opinions so far. Two points:
-
An interesting twist is: what is the most HUMBLE political philosophy? If we define “humble” as “least sure of its own correctness/supremacy,” some interesting candidates come to mind. Democratic liberal pluralism - roughly, the strand of thought that runs from Mill to Habermas (I’m being very broad here), emphasizing toleration of different opinions and flexibility of action as circumstances change? Radical pacifism? Depending on how you approach it, lots of answers come to mind. (Interestingly, many of the Neoreactionaries online profess a kind of humility: “we’re not sure what the answer is (except that liberal democracy ain’t it! Also, non-white/Asian people are inherently dumb and violent, and women are only good for either casual sex or raising babies, but not both.)” A strange kind of humility, I admit.)
Ultimately, I’d say that ideologies that emphasize democratic decision-making and the protection of unpopular views are probably the best candidates for the Humble Prize. -
I may be a bit out of date on what the Objectivist cult thinks these days, but from what I remember they’d probably have bristled at being called a “political philosophy.” They were doing plain old philosophy - Objectively Correct Philosophy! Answers on any topic from aesthetics to logic!
Right. Politics is only a small part of Objectivism, and is derived from its epistemology and ethics. This partially explains the animosity between Objectivists and Libertarians, that the latter are only concerned with politics, without any ethical considerations… or any strict adherence to reason.
Again that’s reasonable as a characterization of some people as arrogant who hold a certain philosophy, in this case libertarianism, but relies on denying the idea of the philosophy from its proponent’s POV. It’s like saying (maybe somebody has said, somebody probably will) ‘American conservatives are arrogant in their belief in a white power society’. Some left leaners might think this is a fair characterization, but I think it matters from POV of classifiying a philosophy whether the holders agree that’s what they believe, which American conservatives in general would not.
I’m not one of those who calls themselves a libertarian, although I agree with them to a fair degree, more often than I do with people of the left. As I said before I think people who call themselves libertarians, and don’t want to be called anything else, tend to be doctrinaire and simplistic, in the Will Farnaby mode let’s say for a quick local reference. It’s almost like they’re just demonstrating a principal and using exaggeration, though it’s not clear they think they are exaggerating.
But a theoretical moderate libertarian would push back on at least two assumptions you’re making. First that normal people in a more collectivist oriented society are actually going to end up ahead of those in a more libertarian society in absolute terms over the long run (ignoring whether they are relatively further behind the most gifted people). Second that there’s really a divide between a system which ‘cares for others’ v one based on self interest. They’d say all systems are based on self interest, and there are only differing ways to channel it. They’d also point to the way power can accumulate in few hand via govt just like it can without govt.
Also as Bone pointed out, their goal might not be to raise the median income or some other such measure, but freedom. IMO you can’t call that difference strictly speaking ‘arrogance’. It’s just a value judgment, and depends how you think those things trade off against one another, or if they do at all.
So I don’t agree libertarianism as a philosophy is ‘arrogant’. And I think the self selection is more along the lines that people who advertise themselves as libertarian and are highly critical of ‘conventional’ left and right and don’t want to be associated with either, tend to be strongly opinionated people. Whereas, more people willing to designate themselves conservative/liberal are of mixed or nuanced, or weaker if you want to say, opinions, and have goals closer to the status quo (compared to, eg ‘no govt’).
You might try listening to libertarians at some point. The attitude Buck describes is pretty much universal.
Even under your definition, libertarianism is extremely arrogant. “It doesn’t matter if other people suffer or die, as long as I am more free by my personal standards.” And that personal standard is almost always paying taxes, which is pretty much irrelevant to any meaningful definition of liberty. It doesn’t matter that the things libertarians oppose, like public education or healthcare, actually increase the overall liberty in a society, as long as they don’t have to pay taxes. Massively arrogant.
Well, actually, I wasn’t addressing your argument either way, just rebutting the notion that we (the U.S.) govern by “majority rule.”
I certainly agree that the government does not get its authority or legitimacy from any individual. That’d be a monarchy or despotism. Ick.
I have to read up on the Objectivist/Libertarian conflict - sounds interesting!
(Also, apologies if calling the movement a “cult” offended any Objectivist out there - I think it’s a fair word to describe the movement back in the day, but again: I haven’t followed recent developments.)
I’ve said this before, but I think it bears repeating.
In and of itself, libertarianism is a respectable philosophy. It is not an inherently “arrogant” ideology. I can make good arguments for many of its tenets.
The problem is, as a PRACTICAL matter, based on direct experience, I have to admit… most real, live, flesh and blood libertarians ARE arrogant loonies with absolutely no common sense or people skills.
Why should that be? I don’t know. George Orwell, a committed socialist, once lamented the fact that socialism seemed to attract “every sandal wearer, fruit-juice drinker, nudist, feminist, and nature-cure quack in England.” He thought socialism was an eminently sensible system, but he knew that a huge percentage of its advocates were embarrassingly crazy.
Libertarianism is the same, only more so. I find libertarianism somewhat appealing in the abstract… but real libertarians tend to be plum loco. I have no idea why.
Agreed. The “Libertarian Calculus” is perfectly reasonable: assess every proposal on the basis of how it would affect the specific individual, personally…with some limited generalization to how it would affect anyone.
The narrowest libertarian view of, say, motorcycle helmet laws might be, “I don’t drive a motorcycle, so it doesn’t affect me. I don’t care either way.” A slightly broader view might be, “But it will affect others, so I’m against it.”
A hell of a lot of libertarians fail to take that extra step. It’s “socialist” in a way, as it judges the effect of legislation on “society.” Some libertarians believe in benefits to society, but some do not.
I dunno. Maybe you should ask my wife. She’s a tree hugging liberal.
I listen to them, and the attitude is not universal. I am a libertarian and do not subscribe to it.
You misinterpret. It’s not ‘as long as I am more free’, but it is as long as **everyone **is more free. I don’t want to force another to do something just as I don’t want them to force me to do something. I want us to all come to agreement that this is the best way to do things - even accepting that people will disagree. I think you have to stretch the definition of the word arrogant to make the claim you’re making.
Libertarians aren’t utilitarians, that’s for sure.
Your experiences with libertarians are what they are, and as I’ve said my experience also is that people who make a big deal of calling themselves libertarian or are closely associated with the capital L party tend to be doctrinaire and simplistic.
However again you see their ideas by way of your own assumptions, and definitions which plenty of non-extreme people don’t share. For example I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian particularly but I don’t agree that the degree of taxation has little to do with liberty. It’s got more to do with it than anything else practically speaking in a society where we already agree people can basically express themselves (in speech, religion, art etc) as they please.
We debate more seriously the extent to which people’s property is really theirs, and property rights are fundamental to liberty. Note, that doesn’t mean I oppose any taxation. That’s again the kind of argument at the extreme you might encounter with real people calling themselves libertarian. But is not relevant to the everyday practical political issue in US politics whether we’d would be better off a bit more collectivist or a bit less collectivist. I’d say the latter. You might say the former. Neither position is ‘arrogant’. Someone might say my position is just ‘conservative’ or ‘rightist’ rather than ‘libertarian’ but they don’t really differ in terms of that incremental view, unless we just define libertarianism as being extreme about such things.
Likewise I don’t accept your definition of liberty as including the positive right to receive things from others and see no arrogance in my adherence to the older definition where liberty is about what you or I can do, not what others are forced to do on our behalf. I accept the practical reality in a modern mixed capitalist/socialist society like ours that some people will be be forced to give some of their property to others. But that’s what it is, a reduction in liberty for the perceived common good. There’s no law of ‘conservation of liberty’ by which the recipients have more liberty. There’s less liberty, but a hoped for greater common good. Hence a trade off, rather than the automatic ‘win-win’ implied by your construct.
I again agree with Bone, there’s a good deal of shifting of the definition of words to arrive at the idea that libertarianism is ‘arrogant’ as a philosophy.
That’s how Penn Jillette describes it: *“My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don’t know what’s best for other people.”
*
The issue is that libertarians have one definition of freedom. Other people have different ideas of what freedom is.
For example, what if I’m taking a walk in the country and I want to walk across an open field? I don’t plan on taking anything from the field or damaging it in any way. Am I free to walk across the field?
A libertarian would say no; the owner of the field has the right to prohibit people from entering it. You have to have prior permission from the field’s owner or you’re committing the crime of trespassing. The government in a libertarian society protects property rights and will arrest trespassers.
But I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Swede who grew up in a legal system where people are free to travel across private land.
Can a libertarian system deny me my freedom? Should people who don’t agree with libertarian property rights have to abide by the rules of libertarian property rights? Why does the libertarian get to tell me I have to abide by his version of freedom rather than me getting to tell the libertarian he has to abide by my version of freedom?
So how would Penn Jillette address the situation I described above? If he was the owner of the field would he say that the people who wanted to walk across the field are free to do so and the people who think it’s wrong to walk across somebody else’s property are free to stay out? That would be his policy is he truly doesn’t believe in making decisions for other people.
Of course. That speaks to the belief system itself though, not the relative arrogance of it.
All systems can deny you your freedom. And all systems will have their pros and cons in various ways. But again, this doesn’t speak to the relative arrogance of the belief system.
Just to be clear, you think you are free to walk across any field in the US? Any field in the UK, Germany or China? Hint: You’re not.
None of those countries is Libertarian.