A smack down of Michael Gerson, who never fails to unimpress. And, as Glenn notes, there is nothing generous about being charitable with other peoples’ money.
93 thoughts on “Libertarianism Versus Selfishness”
Comments are closed.
A smack down of Michael Gerson, who never fails to unimpress. And, as Glenn notes, there is nothing generous about being charitable with other peoples’ money.
Comments are closed.
So much for Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness…
Do not confuse libertarianism with objectivism. Rand and many objectivists are hostile to libertarianism.
I never bother reading what the ignorant masses thing libertarianism is about.. it’s not like it’s a hard to understand concept.
“Do not confuse libertarianism with objectivism.”
Yes. Selfishness isn’t actually moral, not matter how much Ayn wanted to rationalize her own inability to connect with something greater than herself.
I find the thunderous accusations of selfishness to be interesting. While Gerson is probably an exception, being as I understand the originator of the term, “compassionate conservative”, most of them ignore truly selfish ideologies such as hedonism.
Second, I find Glenn’s quip appropriate. For some reason, the people who accuse libertarians of being selfish are people who favor spending Other Peoples’ Money (OPM) on their own causes. I consider that conceit the epitome of selfishness.
As to Michael’s words, I find this telling:
Of course, freedom is indistinguishable from selfishness. We place decision-making power in the hands of the individual and they often will make decisions that are self-interested and can be in some cases reasonably considered selfish (in my view, selfish behavior would be such things as refusing to act altruistically in situations, such as opening the door for someone with a burden, where the cost is very low or inflicting considerable harm on others to pursue my goals, such as spending OPM for a petty cause).
How does justice get compromised? It doesn’t. Instead, without such freedom, we can’t have justice. It isn’t after all the freedom to harm others without consequence to us, but merely the freedom to make decisions for ourselves using what we have earned.
Why should we be concerned, if “equal opportunity,” code words for “institutionalized racial discrimination,” is compromised? Freedom is a necessary foundation for true “equal” opportunity.
Gerson is in a head-space that just isn’t relevant to me.
When people start flinging about the accusations of selfishness, my brain shuts them off. “You’re so selfish” is usually code for “you’re not paying enough attention to me and my wants and needs.”
Don’t forget “…my moral superiority!”
Andrea is correct — it’s a vacuous protestation, one which would be unseemly enough from a child, but downright vile issuing from the mouth of an “adult.”
Yes, Ayn Rand worked hard to provide a moral basis for Objectivism rooted logic whereas the only moral foundation Libertarians have is Social Darwinism.
Dismantle that accusation, and they’ll just flip-flop back to the opposite. See “What’s The Matter With Kansas”, wherein the same pundits who call economic liberty “selfish” also can’t understand why poor people don’t regularly take the torches and pitchforks to their richer neighbors, like us selfless pundits would do if we were poor. Since there’s no conceivable moral or consequentialist reason not to eat the rich, they must just be stupid bitter clingers or something.
Does “Social Darwinism” fall under Godwin at all? Maybe it should.
“the only moral foundation Libertarians have is Social Darwinism.”
Those Libertarians and their plans for governing the masses with an elite group of scientists and engineers! And their plans for guiding the human race into a New Age of Superior Evolution! Down with them!
Does “Social Darwinism” fall under Godwin at all? Maybe it should.
It definitely should. It’s just part of leftist lies and propaganda to demonize and marginalize Herbert Spencer, when in fact things like eugenics were promoted by Margaret Sanger and other socialists.
This is the reason Objectivists become frustrated with libertarians. The refutation is entirely negative, rather than presenting a positive alternative motivation. It’s not very convincing.
What the leftists consistently seem to mean when they talk about “selfishness”, and the definition which Ayn Rand merely clarified and stated (even if it doesn’t match up with the usual useage) is simply *having* goals of your own in the first place.
To the left, society has a purpose, goals, objectives – you had better not. If you have any goals or purpose of your own, you can’t be used as a tool to accomplish *their* goals and purpose. Its a very dominating and exploitative worldview, and one that isn’t challenged at the root anywhere nearly often enough, IMO. While I don’t always agree with the Objectivists, I think they should be lauded for taking the fight to the left at the root of this distortion.
My apologies – it appears that the commenter lashing out at us “selfish libertarians” this time is a *conservative*, probably of the branch of the party that I can’t stand.
I’ve said it before – in the rather all inclusive definition of selfishness that our would-be masters use to accuse us, I *am* selfish. And I make absolutely no apologies for it whatsoever. My life belongs to me and I will use it to accomplish goals of *my* choosing.
Does the libertarian belief that people should have the right to run their own lives extend to the belief that they should have the right to not run their own lives, instead letting other people run their lives for them?
It’s still a choice that *they* make, unless they are forced into doing so.
There is a logical inconsistency in the idea that you can freely choose slavery. If you have a choice, it isn’t slavery.
There is also logical (and economic, and political) inconsistency in the idea that you are better off with your range of choices constrained by force. As an adult, no one coerces you for your own good, but it seems the majority of people will tell you that is what they are doing.
There is a logical inconsistency in the idea that you can freely choose slavery. If you have a choice, it isn’t slavery.
A person might choose to become a slave. However, once a slave, freedom to choose otherwise is rather limited. For example, a people might choose to give the government more power in the name of security, but once the power is given, it’s hard to take back.
True – I wasn’t including time variation of the availability of choice – Just saying that if you could choose to walk away from following anyone else’s orders, quit, leave, ect, then it isn’t the same thing as most coercive authority and the people who support it.
Sort of like how people who want to get together to form a commune (even though I think something like that’s a waste of time and energy) aren’t the same thing as actual communists who want to force *you* into supporting them.
In real life, it doesn’t happen that way. In real life, people enslave other people, usually by demographics. In previous generations, it was by ethnicity (look up the etymology of “slave”) or “race”; in modern times by “socio-economics”.
“In real life, it doesn’t happen that way.”
Except for the few who actually vote for libertarian parties, which in most countries is probably about 1% of the electorate, everyone votes for other people to have the power to run most aspects of the voters life, there are way more followers than leaders.
After thinking about it some more, I suppose the answer to my question is that if you’re a libertarian who accepts the current democratic systems, you must accept that people should have the right to not run their own lives, instead letting other people run their lives for them.
This is the reason Objectivists become frustrated with libertarians. The refutation is entirely negative, rather than presenting a positive alternative motivation. It’s not very convincing.
You can’t convince that which is immune to reason. As for the rest of humanity, merely noting that libertarians aren’t selfish by common standards is good enough.
No, see at least in the US, most “aspects of the voters life” are still in the hands of the citizenry. No one micromanages us from day-to-day. Each of us decides on our own what to eat, when to sleep, where to work, how to relax, where to go to church (if at all), whom to marry, how many kids to try for, etc.
Rather, what we mostly have here is resource capture. Those are the most contentious votes — as we’ve basically established in this thread so far: trying to capture more of one’s own production is considered “selfish” and evil, or something. Trying to capture more of other peoples’ production (“Anyone who makes over $200,000 a year…”) is somehow noble.
“Yes, Ayn Rand worked hard to provide a moral basis for Objectivism rooted logic whereas the only moral foundation Libertarians have is Social Darwinism.”
I’ve long noted that Matula is a know-nothing, but he really clinches it with “Social Darwinism.” It’s like “neocon:” a term beloved by people who don’t actually know what it means, but use it as a substitute for real thinking. Read much William Graham Sumner, TM? How many libertarian writers, philosophers, and economists have been Social Darwinists, TM? I mean, you SEEM like a cocooned idiot, but I’m sure that’s just a prejudice on my part and you’re actually quite familar with libertarian thinking.
As for me, a libertarian–one of those weirdoes who believe that my life and property belong to myself and not to Lord Thomas–I don’t mind being called “selfish.” As Nathaniel Branden once wrote: “Every breath you take is a selfish act.” If, let’s say, someone put a pillow over Matula’s face (but only for the Common Good, of course), I’m guessing at that point he would have only one overriding selfish thought: to start breathing again. (A family man might think something like, “Who will take care of my wife and kids?”–but that wouldn’t do him or his family as much good as thinking of a way to get that pillow off his face.)
Now, to some of us (and I know aspiring serfs* like Matula and Gerrib find this difficult to comprehend) liberty is almost as important as breathing. (And to people who have died in the cause of liberty, MORE important than breathing.) If, instead of putting a pillow over my face, you put a gun to my head, I will have one overriding selfish desire: to stop you, by any means necessary.
In any event, whether one adopts the Randian view of selfishness as a virtue, David Seabury, decades before Rand, in his very perceptive book THE ART OF SELFISHNESS, pointed out something I always try to remember: when people criticize you for being “selfish,” they’re trying to control you in some way. They want you to do something they want you to do, or not do something they don’t want you to do. Seabury, writing about control in human relations, was talking about social pressure and manipulation-by-guilt; statists want to control you by means of actual physical coercion, or the threat of it.
So maybe I am selfish for not wanting to be Lord Thomas’ serf, or anyone else’s. BFD.
*Or possibly aspiring masters, as in Rand’s dictum: “Anyone who tells you that your self-interest should be sacrificed for the good of the State, wants to BE the State.”
“No one micromanages us from day-to-day.”
The vast majority of laws have nothing to do with resource capture, they’re about channeling people into behaving in ways that the majority deems acceptable.
No, the “vast majority” of laws are various forms of business regulation. The rest revolve around protecting people from coercion and, of course, redistribution of wealth. We’re not serfs, not yet at least.
“The vast majority of laws have nothing to do with resource capture, they’re about channeling people into behaving in ways that the majority deems acceptable.”
Not really much of a difference when you get down to brass tacks. The social conservative wants to force you to behave in ways he and his gang want you to behave; the “liberal”
wants you to behave in ways he and his gang want you to behave. In the first instance, the behavior usuallly involves sexual conduct; in the second instance, the behavior involves how you spend your money and/or run your business.
Bilwick,
Funny how in order to defend Libertarian beliefs you use an argument from an Objectivist. BTW you do know who Nathaniel Branden was and who gave him his name?
“Funny how in order to defend Libertarian beliefs you use an argument from an Objectivist. BTW you do know who Nathaniel Branden was and who gave him his name?”
Yes, I do–and your point is?Is referencing a point (even a valid one) made by Nathaniel Branden verboten? And do you know the difference between a point and an argument?
By the way, TM, I’m still waiting you to expound (using your vast scholarshoip on the subject) on the relation between libertarianism between libertarianism and Social Darwinism. Some references instead of your usual party-line regurgitation would be nice.
I think to Mr. Matula the relationship between libertarianism and Social Darwinism is that he thinks both are bad, so they obviously are part of that giant conspiracy of Bad Things and are working with each other against correct-thinking Good people like Mr. Matula.
BilWick,
Sounds like you are not familiar with the roots of Libertarian thought.
Herbert Spencer writings on how government interference with the survival of the fittest had a major influence on folks like Andrew Carnegie and on Frederick Hayet, as did his political opposition to the emergence of socialism in England in the late 19th Century. He philosophical works on freedom of choice argued against government regulation since it interfered with selection of the fittest in the marketplace. They were even cited by the Supreme Court in a case involving how the Liberty of Contract is violated by regulation.
Andrea, please provide a quote showing where I think both are bad. Or stop making things up.
Karl,
You illustrate another key difference between Objectivists and Libertarians. Objectivists are not ashamed of being exceptional and embrace terms like selfishness and greed as things to proud of. That is part of the theme of the “money” speech and John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged. They have the self confidence to care if society accepts them or their philosophy. Libertarians don’t and want society to accept them. They need social approval.
That is “not to care” if society accepts them. Rand does need an edit function.
Andrea Harris Says:
“I think to Mr. Matula the relationship between libertarianism and Social Darwinism is that he thinks both are bad, so they obviously are part of that giant conspiracy of Bad Things and are working with each other against correct-thinking Good people like Mr. Matula.”
….and that said conspiracy of Bad Things ™ is exemplified, codified, and promulgated by the Tea Party which, according to TM, will implode any moment now.
*Or possibly aspiring masters, as in Rand’s dictum: “Anyone who tells you that your self-interest should be sacrificed for the good of the State, wants to BE the State.”
This reminds me of something written by the humorist and logic master Leo Rosten: “People who shout ‘power to the people’ want all power given to people who shout ‘power to the people.'”
“Herbert Spencer writings on how government interference with the survival of the fittest had a major influence on folks like Andrew Carnegie and on Frederick Hayet, as did his political opposition to the emergence of socialism in England in the late 19th Century . . . .”
Again, your point is? Lots of writers and thinkers have had influences on libertarianism, some Social Darwinists, some not. I didn’t know Andrew Carnegie was a libertarian, but if so good for him. (For a Social Darwinist he seems to have donated a lot of money to charity.) And was Hayek a Social Darwinist? Really? Could you show some writing of his that indicates a strong Social Darwinistic tendency? Was Milton Friedman a Social Darwinist? Murray Rothbard? How about Bastiat? The Abolitionists? Going back even further, how about John Locke?
Here, I’ll put this in terms that even someone stupid enough to believe in statism can grasp:
Libertarianism means rejection of force for any reason other than self-defense or the defense of others. Period. (And there have even been a minority-within-a-minority pacifist libertarians, such as Robert LeFevre or some libertarian socialists, who rejected even self-defense.) Within that overall umbrella, people have believed and argued for and against all sorts of other ideas, including Social Darwinism. I’ve been involved with and studied libertarianism for about forty years, and I have encountered only a few libertarians I would consider actual Social Darwinists.
No matter: “Social Darwinism,” like “neo-con” and “trickle-down economics,” is mainly a straw man put-down term used by leftist bozos who want to avoid actual thinking about what they’re saying.
” Libertarians don’t and want society to accept them. They need social approval.”
Care to give us some evidence of this?
Well, Thomas, what did you mean by this passage: “the only moral foundation Libertarians have is Social Darwinism”? It’s part of this entire sentence, which seems (at least in English, I don’t know about Matula-ese) to be a backhanded compliment to Objectivism:
If this is in the English most people today speak, it means “Objectivism isn’t good, but at least its founder tried to base it on morals. On the other hand, libertarianism is just bad, because it is based on only one moral, Social Darwinism” — from that I infer that you believe that Social Darwinism is bad, because otherwise your sentence makes no sense whatsoever, and it already is struggling to make any kind of sense. For example, Social Darwinism isn’t a “moral,” it’s a theory of how human societies develop.
But we’ll just leave that honking great error of yours to one side now and concentrate on your claim that you didn’t say libertarianism or Social Darwinism were “bad.” Okay. So what did you mean by that sentence of yours? Did you actually mean to say that Objectivism is based on morals and libertarianism is based on only one moral and… what? Were you just typing? Why did you even bother if you didn’t mean to compare one philosophy to another?
By the way, perhaps what is throwing you off is my use of “good” and “bad.” I realize that these words are to simple and non-nuanced for today’s Big Thinkers and their delicate sensibilities. Let me assure you that I know that no political philosophy is all good or all bad. For purposes of not having to type so much I use those terms here to mean “political philosophies that Thomas Matula likes” when I use “good,” and “ones he doesn’t like” when I use “bad.” It’s just easier on my tired fingers.
“‘political philosophies that Thomas Matula likes’ when I use ‘good,’ and ‘ones he doesn’t like’ when I use ‘bad.'”
Four legs good, two legs bad — BaAaAaAaAah!
Stop bringing-up what’s relevant today! /sarc
Libertarianism recognizes a distinction between acting in self interest and force against your neighbor. For small minds unable to see the distinction, the philosophy could easily appear as a Social Darwinist free for all.
Further, libertarians are generally opposed to exercise of force to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity or laziness. Again, small minds can be caught up in the unfit suffering if they fail to correct their failings. The libertarian would generally see the individual as capable of improving themselves given natural pressures.
BilWick,
You haven’t a clue what Social Darwinism is do you?
Yes, Andrew Carnegie did donate most from Carnegie Steel. That was HIS free choice to do so, not the government’s decision. And he donated in ways (libraries, museums, colleges) that would enable others who were “fit” (smart, motivated) get ahead from a humble beginning just as he did. You should read his book “the Gospel of Wealth” sometime. He also help found the modern self-help industry by his sponsorship of the young Napoleon Hill.
And Fredrick Hayek made no secret of his application of evolutionary principles to economics, citing the influence of his father, a botanist who was a early adopter of evolutionary theory. That is why he is regarded as one of the fathers of Complexity Economics. Again, have you read his work, or do you know it just from hear say?
Also like Selfishness and Greed, you seem scared to embrace the term Social Darwinism. Is it because you don’t believe in evolution? or do you feel humans are above it? Or are you just afraid of what other folks think? What about the term Social Darwinism bothers you?
Andrea,
Its a mere statement of fact that Libertarianism is a belief system based on faith instead of a solid foundation of reason, one which avoids acceptance of concepts like Selfishness and Greed that are central to its case.
I.e. I have the right to freedom of choice and freedom from government control of my life because its my right, pretty much sums up Libertarian philosophy.
And that is its weakness when trying to argue Libertarian positions which places it at a disadvantage in political debates.
And its also the weakness of the Tea Party when arguing why budgets should be cut and the deficit reduced while reducing taxes. Why? They are all too high! Define too high? What is an acceptable level… Response – they are too high!
Bilwick,
[[[” Libertarians don’t and want society to accept them. They need social approval.”
Care to give us some evidence of this?]]]
Your anger over my use of terms like Selfishness, Greed, Social Darwinism, which most of the public sees as negative.
peterh,
[[[Further, libertarians are generally opposed to exercise of force to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity or laziness. Again, small minds can be caught up in the unfit suffering if they fail to correct their failings. The libertarian would generally see the individual as capable of improving themselves given natural pressures.]]]
Herbert Spencer’s philosophy in a nutshell 🙂
And as Gregory Clark shows in his book “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World” there is empirical data to support Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism based on his study of survival rates England during the industrial revolution, before social programs started interfering with natural selection.
“Bilwick,
[[[” Libertarians don’t and want society to accept them. They need social approval.”
Care to give us some evidence of this?]]]
Your anger over my use of terms like Selfishness, Greed, Social Darwinism, which most of the public sees as negative.”
Wow, that is some stunning argument you got there, Matula.. Am I the representative of all libertarians now? So what you see in me now is indicative of all libertarians everywhere, past and present? The responsibility awes me. And I guess it makes it easier on you than to actually study the ideas and writers you are talking about.
But seriously . . . . You are, to paraphrase Brian on FAMILY GUY, the Thomas Aquinas of Crap.
My “anger” is more due to a revulsion of sloppy thinkjng or no thinking at all, straw man arguments, and mindless party-line jargon regurgitation. I probably should get used to it and stoically accept it (especially since some see the ancient Stoics as being among past thinkers who contributed to libertarian philosophy.
By the way, since “the Thomas Aquinas of Crap” has been mentioning Herbert Spencer (an author whose ideas he is probably familar with mainly from whatever party-line about Spencer his “liberal” professors inculcated him with),I was motivated to re-read parts of Spencer’s MAN VERSUS THE STATE. The edition I own has a very enjoyable foreword by Albert Jay Nock (which, like the book itself, concentrates on Spencer’s anti-statism–which I think is what most libertarians value Spencer for–and doesn’t really have much to with Social Darwinism. It’s well worth revisiting, especially with the Nock foreword. The chapter on “the New Toryism” is especially prescient in light of the reaction by the Ruling Class (and its blogosophere foot-soldiers) to the Tea Party.