While many libertarians take this viewpoint, it is unfortunately true that many take only the “as long as I am more free” viewpoint. Considering other people’s freedoms is, to some of these people, too “collectivist” an idea. Only their own freedom is important to them.
(And even that is not really “arrogant.” Some might call it limited or narrow in scope. But a certain amount of self-concern is not at all irrational; we all do it to some degree!)
But how many libertarians have devised a system in which only they are free, and everybody else isn’t? That’s not libertarian, it’s totalitarian.
Just to be clearer, he said nothing to indicate that he was free to do any of that, or that Libertarians would be the only ones to restrict that freedom. He specifically said that he was allowed to do it in his homeland, and gave a link to the legal definition of “freedom” in his homeland that explained why.
edited to add: One of the arrogances of Libertarians is the assumption that they, and they alone, have a lock on the definition of “freedom”.
Yes, I do. Because I’m an idiot who thinks Swedish law is applicable in the United States.
Despite my arguments with libertarianism, I don’t agree with this. In my experience, most libertarians do believe everyone should have the same freedom. The problem is they believe everyone should only have their version of freedom.
But in my system, I can’t set policy by myself. Policies are set by the majority. Saying that you will live by the views of the majority is not arrogance.
That’s not how libertarianism works. A libertarian says that nobody can walk across his field. It doesn’t matter if everyone else wants to be able to walk across private property. The libertarian says “It doesn’t matter what all of you think. Private property is protected even if the majority don’t like it. I don’t have to obey your rules. But all of you have to obey my rules.”
My experiences with libertarians involve actively being one for nearly 20 years. In that time my personal beliefs ranged from near anarchy to more practical. So yes, I know that there is a range of libertarian thinking. But I can say with confidence that I understand how libertarians think at least as well as most active libertarians.
You don’t know my assumptions. You assume I hold certain assumptions based solely on the fact that I disagree with libertarianism. That’s arrogance: the assumption that anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint is simply wrong-headed. Ultimately libertarian discourse is about witnessing, not debate.
If you think those things are universally agreed upon you should start paying more attention.
As I’ve said, there’s a wide variation of views within libertarianism. Practically speaking though, the only tenets of modern libertarianism that really matters are smaller government and lower taxes, even in cases where it’s objectively shown to create more harm than good. If you don’t hold those as ideals above all other concerns you’re going to be in conflict with the major thrust of libertarian thinking.
Full stop. I never said anything about positive rights. I said that societies that provide things like public education and healthcare are generally more free than those that don’t.
The fact that you leap to “positive rights” just shows that you’re more interested in witnessing than discussion. You have stock apologetics ready for the strawman arguments you’re hoping to hear, and you use them regardless of what’s actually said. It’s like Searle’s Chinese Room: we can’t know that you understand anything, because you’re jsut giving stock responses to inputs.
More witnessing. There’s currently a thread in the pit for this if you really want to go down that path.
No, I’m not misinterpreting. It’s plainly obvious that libertarian ideals will only benefit the small percentage of people that already have wealth and privilege by removing obstacles to acquiring more wealth and privilege. Middle class people like me (and presumably you) will certainly suffer a loss of liberty by making them more dependent on corporations for things like roads and education rather than a government that has some degree of transparency and accountability. Representative governments aren’t even close perfect, but at least the people get a voice, a chance to be heard.
Everyone is not more free in Libertopia.
But that’s exactly what libertarians say: that they know what’s best for everyone. And it doesn’t matter that the vast majority of people would objectively have less liberty as long as they pay less taxes.
Yes, the rich and poor are equally forbidden to sleep under bridges, or free to obtain whatever level of education or health care they can afford.
Not so much that, as they (this subset) just don’t care. For instance, they don’t care about you having to have a dog license…because they don’t have a dog. They wouldn’t want totalitarianism, because that would certainly leak over into their lives. But they just don’t give a poop about lesser regulations and restrictions that only affect other people.
Well, I can certainly attest to some of these types, having met them, interacted with them on forums similar to this, read their letters to the editor, etc. I accept that they may be a very small minority (but my personal sampling puts them as a significant constituent.)
These are the ones who, for instance, oppose clean air and water regulations – unless they, themselves, come to live near a polluted stream, at which point they hold that companies should not be allowed to dump chemicals.
It isn’t exactly that they only thought others should be free; it’s that their focus on who should be free changed from the companies to the citizens living nearby, based on their own personal circumstances.
You seem awfully eager to jump down my throat for somebody more interested in discussion and less in ‘witnessing’ (whatever that means). 
Anyhow, the thread is about arrogant philosophies so is not limited to your interactions with particular people calling themselves libertarians, and my response is not invalidated because I haven’t ‘witnessed’ (normal sense of the word) your debates with libertarians.
You also could have saved space in your long response on tangents like Chinese Rooms etc. and spent it on explaining further what you’re actually talking about in terms of ‘public education’ (taxpayer support for education, govt monopoly on education, ‘free’ education to high school, to college or post grad?) and ‘healthcare’ (what degree of public involvement/support other than zero?).
And in general, public benefits are often justified by the left as people’s rights, positive rights. It’s not ‘arrogant’ to assume that’s what an anti-libertarian means when they claim liberty is increased by more collectivism. The idea that freedom of speech say would be increased in the US by somewhat increasing social spending is a puzzling and unusual argument I can’t take blame for not guessing, if that’s what you meant.
And again I think you should have spent less space scolding and more space explaining why you think basic non-economic liberties are contested as much as economic liberty, again let’s use the US just as example. Lots of people now want to pretend they don’t agree about anything and the other side is evil, but I see much more of a basic consensus on say first amendment rights than the degree of consensus about property rights, particularly as it relates to taxation and redistribution.
I didn’t deny you might debate with libertarians who hopelessly dream of a govt which only spends a few % of GDP. And those people might be arrogant (or still not be). It doesn’t make it arrogant to want to go in a relatively more libertarian less collectivist direction. The ‘philosophy’ of libertarianism as you seem to say yourself is not limited to extreme and unrealistic versions.
And why can’t a libertarian advocate for change towards more libertarian rules, while at the same time respect the laws as they are? It’s what I do - it’s what I think most mainstream libertarians do in this country. A libertarian can’t set policy by themselves - that’s dictatorship.
In this country, denying access to private property comports to libertarian beliefs AND is consistent with the rules that the majority of people have agreed to via our laws. Win / Win.
My point isn’t to argue why libertarian beliefs are better or worse than others - but that they need not be arrogant and often are not.
Regardless of whether this is true or not - how does this result in libertarian beliefs being the most arrogant?
In my experience libertarians are constantly arguing about “lesser regulations and restrictions”, regardless of whom they affect.
In case you missed it, you’re “this is the problem with libertarianism” is the “problem” with every system except the one in Sweden. Every western, liberal country proclaims to be in favor of freedom. But how many follow the Swedish system? If you want to criticize Libertarianism, you would be advised to criticize it for things that are unique to it, or that at least are not issues with almost every other system on the planet.
See above. Name me one system that recognizes other forms of freedom that it does not. That doesn’t think it’s definition is the best one.
Other systems don’t make the claims libertarianism does. Majoritarians don’t claim they have maximum freedom; they’ll openly say they have some freedoms and don’t have others.
Libertarians deny this applies to them. They claim they are the most free system possible and use this as justification for their beliefs. This is, as you point out, the claim that libertarians say is unique to them.
I was rebutting those claims but pointing to an example of a freedom that exists in a real world system but which would not exist in a libertarian system.
But what about the libertarian ideal? What are libertarians trying to achieve?
Suppose I was a monarchist. I believe America should have a hereditary ruler as its head of state. And this monarch should have real powers to rule.
Obviously, I can’t just declare somebody is the King of America and expect people to start following his orders. So I have to work within the existing system and try to persuade a majority of the people that they should adopt monarchy as our political system. I’m going to have to use majoritarian democracy because that’s the political system we have.
But my goal is to establish a monarchy. And once that monarch sits on his throne, the political system will be changed. The monarch will not be subject to majoritarian authority.
What’s the libertarian equivalent? Do libertarians envision a system where people are perpetually subject to majority rule, as they are now? Or do they envision a system where there are essential freedoms which are not subject to majority rule?
If it’s the former, then libertarianism doesn’t really exist as a distinct political philosophy. It’s just a form of majoritarianism.
If it’s the latter, then libertarians are using majoritarian means within a majoritarian system to change it into a non-majoritarian system. There’s nothing wrong with that. But they should acknowledge they’re doing this and be open about what they’re proposing. They shouldn’t claim that the changes they’re seeking are minor ones and the overall system will remain the same.
The latter, sort of. They envision something akin to the constitution, which puts severe limits on what the majority can legislate. In that sense, we already have a system where there are freedoms not subject to majority rule.
How exactly this new constitution would be enforced is one of libertarianism’s most glaring shortcomings. What if a bunch of bad people violated it, perhaps by drafting an ordnance seizing property in order to build a dam, because of a severe drought. Our government could do that without breathing hard, but under the imagined libertarian rules, that would be illegal.
But the “Community Organization for Water for Survival” does it, “illegally.” Kicks farmer Smitty out of his house, builds the dam, floods Smitty’s old fields, water for the community, everybody benefits except Smitty. They even pay him fair market value for it. What is his recourse? How could he have prevented it?
My guess would be that what libertarians are ultimately seeking would be a set of amendments added to the present Constitution. These amendments would cover the basic tenets of libertarianism by strengthening property rights and prohibiting an array of government actions.
Of course, there’s nothing in a our current system that would prevent us from enacting these amendments (or enacting equivalent legislation). But I believe libertarians are ultimately seeking to enact these as permanent amendments, that are not subject to future amendment. (Currently there is only one part of the Constitution that can’t be amended; the requirement that each state has an equal number of Senators.) That’s the fundamental difference between libertarians and majoritarians.
It’s certainly true that many libertarians argue for improving the U.S. Constitution (or merely interpreting it more restrictively, such as overturning the current view on the commerce clause.) These tend to be somewhat more moderate, and are willing to work for limited gains and limited goals.
A hell of a lot of them, though, envision something much deeper, with vastly deeper cuts in what the U.S., states, counties, and cities can do. It would go beyond amendments, and require a completely new way of doing business entirely. These are the guys who verge up against anarchism (and a very few are anarchists entirely.)
The former, at least, have clearly specified tactics to achieve what they want. Elections of representatives, proposal and passage of amendments, appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret government power restrictively, and so on.
The latter don’t even seem to have a pathway to success defined. They seem to rely a little too much on “then a miracle occurs” without specifying a real program.
I have a fair amount of respect for the former group, but suggest that the latter are too disorganized (well, yeah, anarchists, disorganized, duh!) to earn much respect.
I don’t know what all other libertarians have as their ideal, but I personally envision a system similar to how we have now, with stronger constitutional protections for various things, overturning certain SCOTUS precedents, etc. A libertarian is not an anarchist - there must be a government and there is no superior way than some form of majoritariansim. But I reiterate - this is about the belief system itself, and doesn’t address why it is more arrogant than other systems.
You mean like the Free State Project? That’s probably a blend of both, but it is certainly out in the open. A belief system that says, hey, let’s all do this together, let’s all agree that this is the best way…that’s not arrogance at all.
It’s the former, so I guess Conservatism and Progressivism don’t exist either then.
And unfortunately, there have been end runs made around the Constitution, to the point where the federal government has become EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.