PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

In a resent post I noted a link to a site where I had commented on inquiries into the nature of libertarianism. Since I fancy that label to best describe my own inclinations I took interest in the arguments made that seek to critique libertarianism as a valid philosophy of government. In my comments I had noted my awareness that libertarianism is ultimately an ideal that can not likely be fully implemented in the “real world.” I see the libertarian stance as a sort of buffer to resist the continued onslaught of statist thought – the vigilance that Jefferson and Franklin had warned us of is required to preserve liberty from the natural encroachment of its opposite.

In the on-line libertarian debate I spoke of, the responses and criticisms to my comments were fairly typical of those I’ve become accustomed to hearing from the left. I think my comments speak for themselves – if one doesn’t read into them odd attributes of being the type who would “bring a gun into a person’s house” to push their, “right wing nonsense.” (If you had linked to this post earlier, there are now more comments made from both sides).

Below, a brief follow-up to the comments I’ve made at Tanuki Ramble seeks to summarize the very basic and typical points of contention that separate the left/right dichotomy.

As usual, I have to stress that, in my view, fundamentalist religious extremists and extreme nationalists or racists should not be accurately called “right-wing” because they are ultimately collectivists and statists who seek to use the power of government to force others to obey their own cause (i.e. what Hitler called “the volksgemeinschaft” or folk-community). These people are not supporters of a free market in products and ideas. A 19th century classical liberal (libertarian) and a racist censorship-fiend are not both “right-wing” in my view; the racists et.al. ultimately have more in common with the average socialist in their desire to compel others to obey their conjured plans for the glories of some collective ideal. Also, I don't believe that the much maligned power of “business interests” presents the same threat that government does. McDonalds gets its power and money from people choosing to buy their products. With government, one has no such choice. If the “majority” votes to steal the resource of a minority, the minorities’ free choice is down the tubes --ala government intervention. The examples usually sited of big business abuses of power are the result of government collusion and support for a given business. Clear fraudulence or coercion on the part of business is something that most would feel deserve appropriate punishment from a consistent legal system. Of course, government can commit any act of fraudulence it chooses and it’s always, “legal” (i.e. Social Security). Support from the state to private businesses can accurately be called, “corporate welfare” and is something thoroughly opposed by any libertarian who is consistent in believing that the power of government to collude with any person or institution must be kept to a minimum, if not eliminated entirely.

A phony caricature is often made or implied by the the left, describing those who favor limited constitutional government, the rule of law, individual autonomy, and free choice as “selfish,” cruel, uncooperative “gun nuts” (etc.). While descriptions of socialists as authoritarian control freaks (a description I often use) may not apply to all socialists, they can’t evade the fact that they do, indeed, support a significant coercive role for government – they wish to achieve their goals through compulsion. They are not passive people who believe that others should act as they choose (if they did hold such beliefs they’d be libertarians, not socialists).

To a leftist in any typical “debate” I think I can accurately argue the following:

We can both endlessly read between the lines and contemplate the other side’s level of mean-spiritedness or authoritarianism. Down to basics; I think it’s accurate to say that the left favors a larger and more coercive role for government and folks like myself favor less (yes, it is that simple). The non-aligned can certainly appraise both sides and decide what best describes their own view of the world, but they will certainly form such values in context to their own self-interest (not, “selfishness” or “altruism”).

Speaking for myself, I can honestly say that I will favor the values and interests of those persons I know best – myself among them. Collectivism is a realm of abstractions. Those on the left can continue to imagine themselves to be without self-interest and to merely care for people they’ve never met (always in the abstract).

Like many, I have freely chosen to cooperate and work with numerous people in a variety of circumstances, but I am still skeptical that such actions should be compelled by a powerful state, politicians, or “philosophers” (skeptical is not the right word, actually, I’m thoroughly opposed to such actions).

When I had once summed up my beliefs in the (admittedly simplistic) sound-bite, “I merely wish to be left alone,” a leftist-with-an-edge snapped back that my desire to be left alone was imposing on her freedom [!] I think that response best sums up the the entire left-land worldview.

The Left Is:

*Arrogant (Self-absorbed in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority).

*Phony (Insincere in their self-perceptions as altruistic, passive,and peaceful).

*Coercive (Holding a philosophy that, by its very nature, rests upon compulsion). And...

*Boring (How much fun can a statist ideologue really be?).


Real rebels don't love Big Brother.