Comments on: The Social Production of Libertarians

By: Chris G

Chris G — Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:09:33 +0000

Finally, Libertarianism has never come to terms with the fact that most property and wealth are, if not actually held in the form of land, are derived ultimately from the uses to which land has been put by certain people who have claimed to own it. Not to undermine your astute comment, but I would deny your apparent claim that all wealth is derived from natural resources. No natural resource can become a finished good without labor. One does not have to be a "big-L" libertarian to think one has a right to his own labor. Obviously the acceptance self-ownership and denyal of ownership of natural resources leads to conflcit. Fortunatly, Henry George wrote about this issue 125 years ago. Vallentyne and Steiner frame the problem in a modern context in thier anthology Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics It's probably inappropriate to get into the details of the arguements here, but these works do a beautiful job of argueing certain degrees of egalitarianism (especially in natural resources) from strictly libertarian premises. However, this line of thought is abandoned by most libertarians. Murry Rothbard did write about the issue a few times, but I am unconvinced by his arguements. Most libertarians I try to dicuss this with are hostile to the idea of the single tax, which would justify a (*gasp*) state.

By: joe

joe — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:15:20 +0000

Is this the right room for an argument? The “followup” comment from pedantry about the fair-to-middling worthlessness of the discussion is depressingly accurate. Didn’t Plato’s Socrates explain a cycle of governmental forms, each one mechanically producing the other within a few generations as a result of the effect upon the populace? Wouldn’t that be a more sensible example of follow-up discussion than the transposition into standing arguments that contain the word “libertarian”? Does history provide empirical data to look at, or do we have to generate all our political ideas logically from first principles? A first approximation of history seems to show that oligarchical empire is best at perpetuating itself (Rome, China, etc.) since the political identity of leading citizens involves devotion to the state’s high “culture”, the compelling beauty of which is an existence proof of the justice of whatever arrangements provide political stability. Or has culture been deconstructed, and though the Romans, Chinese etc. thought they were motivated by it, we have since discovered they were mistaken?

By: scott

scott — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:15:15 +0000

i was questioning [i]your[/i] statements you twit.

By: Peter Levine

Peter Levine — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:55:20 +0000

I agree that it is “sensible” (as Neil says) to ask for evidence that zones without public free speech will produce illiberal children. It’s possible that kids who grow up in anti-free-speech zones will rebel and strongly embrace freedom. No specifically relevant evidence has been collected (to my knowledge). In fact, there is a serious lack of basic data about homeowner asociations and their residents—even the total number is unknown. However, there is a vast amount of evidence about the effects on family environments on political beliefs and attitudes. This evidence does not come from sociology but rather from political science and psychology. Tell me the political profile of someone’s parents and I can predict his or her political beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes 40 years later, with only a modest degree of statistical variance. Tell me the degree of political competition in a child’s congressional district and I can predict his or her likelihood to vote much later in life. (More competition creates more interest in politics.) The bigger point is that political socialization ought to concern libertarians because something is keeping most of their fellow citizens from embracing the liberties that they favor. I agree that it’s very difficult to predict the pyschological effects of new social arrangements. Social engineering is generally unwise—for this reason and others. But it IS wise to worry about the political/pyschological impact of family arrangements. This is a consistent theme in political thought from Plato through Tocqueville, but it is relatively undeveloped in modern libertarian thought.

By: Mike Huben

Mike Huben — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 01:08:56 +0000

Projecting again, Scott whoever you are? I notice you don’t seem able to address any points.

By: scott

scott — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:15:30 +0000

ah yes, mike huben and his pathological hatred of libertarianism show up again. government is nothing more than a group of such agents (but hardly rational), and with much more power than ordinary citizens. a power that should be limited as much as possible. why is government necessary for people to collectively decide on justice?

By: scott

scott — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:15:28 +0000

By: Mike Huben

Mike Huben — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:09:21 +0000

The real reason public schools are anathema to libertarianism is because they are dedicated to what libertarians call a positive right: to publicly financed education for all. The great fault of libertarianism is the assumption that independent, empowered, rational, free agents are all that’s required for justice. Sorry, kids don’t qualify as those sorts of agents. Nor do we qualify in debility. Nor do people think that’s all there is to justice. When you can’t get a basic assumption to align with reality, you’ve got a pretty serious problem.

By: JRoth

JRoth — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:39:37 +0000

Is sebastian’s mother aware that morality was not invented by Christians? And that many cultures have developed comparable moralities entirely independent of Christianity? Heck, CS Lewis argued that the universality of basically Christian morals (summed up, of course, by the Golden Rule) was positive evidence for the existence of the Christian god. Furthermore, Western philosophy has developed from both Christian and pagan roots, suggesting that its humanist basis is not wholly (if at all?) dependent on Christianity.

By: Lance Boyle

Lance Boyle — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:56:14 +0000

Of course Jeffrey Bogdan’s correct; but of course I’d say that, wouldn’t I? How much of this debate would crystallize in the urgency of disaster, or post-disaster? If we had to create workable systems, now. And isn’t that the more accurate view? More accurate than this tacit assumption of a slightly less ignorant slightly less enlightened prior world? And especially the unspoken but felt prognosis of virtually permanent stability and social cohesion. We’re crawling naked out of a swamp of miasmic ignorance into a jungle of shrieking predatory madness. And that’s just 19th century American capitalism. – Are the institutions we live at the whim of capable of weathering turbulent chaotic change? So much of this debate seems centered in a given world of relative prosperity and mild controllable cultural flux. That was the real threat behind the so-called hippies. Who were a media creation – the successful attempt to control that bright and joyous anarchy begun with a derogatory naming. What was there before that name was shackled to it was even more vibrant, and free, and thus more threatening still. To what now only begins to see itself, mirrored in the colorless lens of its security cameras. – Libertarians are the osteopaths of social theory.

By: q

Thu, 10 Jun 2004 04:16:33 +0000

A couple of libertarians I have known used to get bullied at school, and seemed to have become disconnected from fellow children. This disconnectedness seems to have focussed their minds of the dangers to individuals of oppression, and opposition to group and herd mentalities. One of them is fond of saying “I would prefer 9 murderers go free, than 1 innocent man be locked up”.

By: belle waring

belle waring — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 04:02:48 +0000

And a pony. Just thought I’d mention that.

By: Jonathan Wilde

Jonathan Wilde — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:03:52 +0000

On the other hand, the totalitarian environment of (most of) our schools fit us for our roles in the totalitarian environments of our corporations. Good point. Perhaps that is a good reason to reform schools.

By: Markus

Markus — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 03:02:41 +0000

Neil, I think there’s a difference of opinion on what ‘social construction’ is. Berger & Luckmann would say something like: ‘the sociological method of social constructionism is to look at the ways a social phenomenon is created, institutionalized and made into tradition by humans.’ You’re definition is that social construction is the shaping of humans by society/culture. That’s not the standard sociological definition. You first said ‘merely,’ then you said ‘largely.’ There’s quite a difference there. To hold that individuals are shaped (to some degree) by society/culture is perhaps the fundamental tenet of sociology and anthropology. I’m not sure how this generalization can be disputed. The empirical claim at hand certainly could though, but that’s a different thing altogether.

By: Jonathan Wilde

Jonathan Wilde — Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:57:37 +0000

Should I expand on the above note? An interesting novel, whether or not dystopic depends on what you think a society is for. A fairly brutal idea, but if you want to generate good anarcho-libertarians, having 1 six-yr-old watch another six-yr-old die for stealing food is pretty good training in property rights. Yikes!