Punching Out

[The Tatterdemalion King]

What would a libertarian be conserving, anyway?

[D.S.McBride]

Originally posted by The Tatterdemalion King
What would a libertarian be conserving, anyway?

Rights. Rights of the individual to take whatever actions are deemed necessary to bring about happiness and profit for him/herself and (hopefully) those around them.

The libertarian point of view is, really, a pretty optimistic one - the die-hard belief that humans, given reign to run around free without leashes, will make the correct decisions and show the sensibility to act in their own best interests; and, as an outcome, lead to advancement and evolution of the individual and species as a whole. Those who don't...well, that's where the nasty spectre of natural selection comes in. Which still, in the libertarian's view, results in advancement and evolution of the species in the long run.

I find it rather interesting that both Communism (and we're talking Karl's vision here, not that half-century-plus long nightmare that men call the Soviet Union) and libertarianism - as diametrically opposed as they might be - both draw their thesis from a very positive, friendly view of humanity: Libertarianism proposing that what we are is good, Communism stating that what we can (and hopefully will) become is good. Both outlooks, in my humble opinion, have got their definite thumbs-up moments and crippling flaws and drawbacks...but it's fun to talk about anyway.

[First of Two]

The flaw in the reasoning being that not all people are essentially good. There's always a small 3-5% who will **** it up for everyone else intentionally.

[D.S.McBride]

Heh. Agreed absolutely, FoT; brings to mind Frank Herbert's thesis in Chapterhouse: Dune - power does not corrupt. Rather, it tends to attract the corruptible (i.e., the insane), and therefore those who end up in such positions (intelligence notwithstanding) will by nature abuse it and make the lives of countless others miserable for no real reason whatsoever.

I've advanced this theory a number of times in class; when proof is asked for, I point out individuals ranging from the antique (Caligula and Nero) to the modern (Adolph Hitler and Joe Stalin) and the post-modern (Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Bernie Ebbers and Scott Sullivan are the first non-political ones to come to mind here).

My conviction on the matter is that both Communism and libertarianism suffer from a very similar crippling flaw - which you've already mentioned, FoT - regarding an assessment of human nature. To wit: Communism believes that humans can stop being greedy. It's a nice thought - a wonderful thought, actually - but as Karl himself said was probably the case, this is an evolutionary end-point that is still far, far down the road. Greed lives and reigns with us; give us another ten thousand years of evolution and we'll try it again.

Libertarianism's outlook has a nice perpendicular line of reasoning: When given free reign, and informed that they're working without a net, humans will do what is in their own best interest. Again, wonderful thought - but as Alan Moore clearly states in V (the graphic work), we keep making the same lethal, stupid errors over and over again, both as individuals and a species. A true libertarian would propose that there be no corporate controls in place to hamsting a company, because that hampers its ability to take full advantage of the marketplace and maximize profiteering. This, of course, heightens competition between individuals/companies, means that the consumer recieves the best products and services at the lowest prices, and forces us to perform at our best: this leads to the elimination of the unfit and the advancement of the species. And what if its owners/CEOs start making Skilling/Lay/Fastow-type decisions that result in their personal benefit and the destruction of the company and all associated with it? Well, those Skilling/Lay/Fastow types are cautionary tales for later generations - and as for the tens of thousands of employees who lost their life savings and millions of investors who lost their capital? Caveat emptor; and hopefully you'll learn from this experience and, next time, conduct an investigation and think about the results before you let these people take such liberties with your money. Otherwise, you get bred out of the gene pool and let those with sharper sensibilities manage the marketplace.

Be nice if that was the case - that we could get burned once and learn from it - but it hasn't come true yet. Thus my reasoning with regard to Karl Marx's outlook and the libertarian viewpoint (I'm not going to say this is Adam Smith's thesis, because, as a true child of the Enlightenment, he would have been even more aghast at the heartless greed and inhumanity shown by the excesses of the modern corporate world than Marx would have been. Smith's capitalism in Wealth of Nations was no more a work celebrating predatory traits than Marx's Das Kaptial was).

Sorry to go on in such (probably unnecessary) detail, but I often get my dander up when mention is made of the libertarian/capitalist/socialist/Communist identity. Anyway, back to the actual thread's contents...

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Rights. Rights of the individual to take whatever actions are deemed necessary to bring about happiness and profit for him/herself and (hopefully) those around them.

So we're not talking neocons, then : d

The flaw in the reasoning being that not all people are essentially good. There's always a small 3-5% who will **** it up for everyone else intentionally.

And the other 97-95% who will fuck it up for everyone else out of blindness, greed, arrogance, and fear.

[The Tatterdemalion King]

Heh. Agreed absolutely, FoT; brings to mind Frank Herbert's thesis in Chapterhouse: Dune - power does not corrupt. Rather, it tends to attract the corruptible (i.e., the insane), and therefore those who end up in such positions (intelligence notwithstanding) will by nature abuse it and make the lives of countless others miserable for no real reason whatsoever.

Actually, that was his thesis in the original Dune trilogy. His thesis in Chapterhouse: Dune was "nobody buys any of my other books, so I'll just jump the shark and write more Dune books."

IMy conviction on the matter is that both Communism and libertarianism suffer from a very similar crippling flaw - which you've already mentioned, FoT - regarding an assessment of human nature. To wit: Communism believes that humans can stop being greedy. It's a nice thought - a wonderful thought, actually - but as Karl himself said was probably the case, this is an evolutionary end-point that is still far, far down the road. Greed lives and reigns with us; give us another ten thousand years of evolution and we'll try it again.

Communism was born at a time when authoritarian or demi-authoritarian governance was seen as a legitimate rationalizing force for society. Maybe too much of my Marx came through Fromm, but I'd phrase it as "Capitalist greed is product of lack of control of production of the self's environment," and that a socio-economic environment could remove the problems which taught individuals to be greedy.

And then someone decided violent revolution was the answer and it all went to shit.

C'est la vie.

[Evan van Eyk]

Please have political discussions were it is appropriate - meaning in "The Lounge". Thank you.