From: Corwyn J. Alambar (nettiger@best.com)
Date: Tue Sep 26 2000 - 13:47:26 MDT
"Samantha Atkins" wrote:
> "Corwyn J. Alambar" wrote:
*my comments snipped - they're in the archive*
>
> For someone who cares deeply about political principles and positions
> you managed to broadly tar what you call "Libertarianism" without saying
> hardly a thing about what sort of politics you do hold much less why you
> are convinced it is better and more beneficial than this bunch of
> notions you loosely label "Libertarian". I find that quite curious. I
One of the main issues that result in my questioning about sociopolitics is
the fact that I do not HAVE a unified political view. So yes, I'm standing
on unstable yet unassailable ground. From what I have seen of libertarianism
in practice has some, for lack of a better phrase, deficiencies as far as a
political system I could adopt. I will go into these in a little more detail
to attempt to prove that I am not standing up a straw man here - I've put
a lot of thought into this, though not a lot of it is easily condensed into
words.
> would be interested in a talk about general political philosophy and
> relative merits and demerits of different systems with some level of
> agreement about how the different systems are defined and
> distinguished. But just ragging on one or another of them and
> threatening to take your ball and go away if this "is the cost of entry"
OI realize it was alittle melodramatic - I did not intend it to be a "or
else" ultimatum - It was an unfortunate choice of words. What I was trying to
find was how many people felt the way that I did - that there was somewhat of
a chill toward "non-libertarian" viewpoints. I've almost gotten to a point
of putting the GUNS: discussion in my killfile - which is unfortunate because
it could well end up spinning something useful out later.
> is pointless. In the first place, Libertarians are a pretty diverse
> bunch. In the second place, the list of things at the front of your
> post is not held in utterly unqualified form by many on this list. In
> the third place I am not very interested in conversations that require
> me to buy into a bunch of assumptions up front either, including yours.
Points well-taken - you answered the gist of my concerns with your second
point. But since I've been called to the carpet, I will attempt to sketch,
to the best of my ability, what some of my sticking points are:
As a first point, many of the libertarian principles that I have seen seem to
be a slightly repackaged form of some of the more practical theories of
anarchism. In this case, it almsot seems libertarianism is an example of both
predictive anarchism and possibly a series of templates for the construction
of social temporary autonomous zones (and here is where I fail in attribution;
this idea is NOT mine). But as such, I see the problems that associate with
anarchism raising their heads: The difficulty of organizing projects that
require more than one or two indiviuals and/or more than the standard
lifetime of the project organizer, the issues raised under the heading "The
Tragedy ofthe Commons" (including and especially environmental effects),
and the strong potential for pockets of tyranny and other social systems to
rise and slowly absorb and perhaps subjugate those neighboring., either
cognitively or grographically.
As a second point, there seesm to be a strong technological requirement - one
of which we cannot be so sure is feasable to attain with our current knowledge
of chemistry, physics, and biology. While the application of this sort of
philosophy woul dbe applicable with the requisite technology (and admittedly
is a very good thought experiment and planning project), I am concerned about
its direct applicability (i.e. without MNT, is the possibility of the MNT-
enabled being worth discussing as anything but one of a number of possible
futures?) With our current technology, some of the goals that would doubtless
be amenable to this mindset (including and especially extraplanetary
habitation) seem to be difficult if not impossible to achieve without either
outstanding personal wealth and power (enabling one person the role of
benevolent tyrant), or it would require an association of people within some
sort of framework that could (and arguably should, to a degree) be considered
coercive/limiting of personal freedom.
As a third point, on a purely systemic approach, it seems that somehow the
key features of a libertarian system in practice rely upon some sort of
external power structure beyond the libertarian sphere. AS an example, I
go back to the environmental protection issue I raised in an earlier thread,
where NGOs (particularly the Sierra Club) were suing to prevent certain
environmental damages from happening. But to be able to sue, you require a
court system. A court system must have a way of enforcing its rulings (one
can say a great deal about "binding arbitration" - but if one party doesn't
like the arbitrator's ruling, that's breach of contract - and back into the
courts.). That enforcement is by nature corercive, and therefore counter
to what I understand as alibertarian philosophy.
As a fourth point, there are assumptions made about human nature, for lack of
a better phrase, that I cannot simply accept. I don't beleive anyone can say
the members of this list are a statisicaly (sp?) random or representative
sample of society at large. In fact, I would trust (to a greater extent) a
libertarian type system if the only people within it were highly educated,
thoughtful, and forward looking like most everyone on this list is. But that
is unfortunately not representative of society at large in nearly any nation,
and it is that fact that troubles me most about a "non-coercive" system. It
is a Pyhrric victory at best to know that the group to which I subscribe for
law and justice will track down the group o ffundamentalists that lynched me
(for whatever reason - I could give 10 or 20 that would put me high on the
list of most religious organizations) - that doens't make me any less dead.
ANd one can speak a great deal about the personal incentive to protect
onesself as well - but 15 people with equivalent armament to myself will,
statistically, overcome my own defense, if they care enough about killing me
to outweigh their numbers. They might even get lucky and not take significant
casualties. (see the above section on technology for why this is a "primitive"
example.)
The reason I do not have a philosophy of my own is that in my searche I have
not found anything that balances mechanisms of restriction and enablement. I
am not a believer in absolute freedom - as it stands now. I am seeking a
practical political philosophy, not somethign that works well in theory, but
doesn't seem likely from where I stand to survive first contact with the
enemy. Its just disheartening to see the most promisig method of achieving
the end results with which I sympathize wrapped up in a philosophy that I
cannot accept in its entirety as presented.
Of course, all this is personal observation, and may deviate from accepted
fact quite highly. Rebuttals are welcome and encouraged.
-Corey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:13 MST