Is Libertarianism Evil?
by Joseph Rowlands
There's an old argument made popular by the ARI and continued by its supporters. It goes something like this:
The Libertarian Party claims to promote freedom but doesn't require its members to be Objectivists. You can be a Christian, a nihilist, a subjectivist, a Buddhist. Anyone is allowed under the Libertarian banner. Their reasons for supporting freedom are not considered important. But those who try to divorce politics from metaphysics, epistemology and ethics are implicitly supporting subjectivism. By saying it doesn't matter how you arrive at the non-initiation of force principle, they're divorcing the idea from reality.
Now let me define a term. Rationalism: "a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions."
Rationalism is what you get when you try to use deductive reasoning for everything. Trying to "prove" that reality is real? You're a rationalist. Trying to deduce how to make toast from the three axioms? You're a rationalist. Are you unconcerned with evidence that conflicts with your theory? You're a rationalist.
And so are the people who repeat this childish argument about Libertarianism.
Only a rationalist would believe that you must have an explicit, rational philosophical base in order to see the benefits of freedom. They somehow believe that without a solid grasp of the Law of Identity, you can't possibly work your way up to realizing that freedom is beneficial. Without an explicit theory of rational self-interest, there's no possible reason to support freedom. Without having clearly identified an objective metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, you can't really be supportive of individual rights. They probably think you can't even grasp the concept.
Let me put the record straight. The ideas of individual rights, self-ownership and freedom pre-date Objectivism. How is this possible? For a number ofreasons.
One reason is that it's easy to see the benefits of particular freedoms. Even religious people learned quickly the benefits of freedom of religion when another religion had the guns. Even Marxists saw the benefit of freedom of speech and press when they weren't in charge. Even children grasp the idea of property rights.
Why is it easy for people to see the benefits of particular freedoms? Because of the second reason: Individual rights objectively exist.
Individual rights are not subjective. They're not just mere conventions to which we offer lip service. They're not bourgeois rationalizations to keep the proletariat down. We didn't make them up. They are facts of reality, observable by anyone. To live, man has certain requirements, one of which is social. We need to be left alone so we can get on with our lives.
The rationalists who argue against libertarians seem to think the only way to understand the concept of rights is to deduce them from the more fundamental branches of philosophy. They never suspect that there's another kind of proof possible: evidence.
How do we know that Capitalism is a life-affirming social system? Yes, we can show the deductive connections to ethics and create a nice logic chart. Or instead, we can show the correlation between freedom and wealth. We can look at the free nations of the world and compare them to the poor nations. We can look at North Korea and South Korea, East or West Germany, Hong Kong and China, western Europe and eastern Europe.
A third reason that the ideas of freedom pre-date Objectivism is that the negative effects of a lack of freedom are so visible. When the tax-man cometh, it's not hard to see that there is a cost. When a new tariff is raised on food, it's not hard to see that the cost of your dinner goes up.
The simple truth is freedom isn't some super-complicated idea that requires studying philosophy for years and years before you can grasp it. Everyone is capable of understanding it and maybe even appreciating it, although they may reject it ultimately based on fears of living their own lives, or greed, or a sincere belief that men can't be trusted.
The rationalists are wrong. A solid philosophical base can refine your understanding of freedom, but it is not required to grasp it. And regardless of the philosophy promoted by any particular libertarian, they can still see the benefits of freedom. It is not subjectivism. It's simply understanding that freedom actually has many benefits, and they can be seen by anyone.
Obviously this does not mean we should write libertarians a blank check of endorsement. Those who try to justify individual rights by reference to some magical being in the sky should be put in their place. But we must acknowledge that there are many reasons to support freedom and many paths people may take to get there. Some are better than others, but it doesn't necessarily make the others wrong.
Discuss this Article (26 messages)
|
