From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sun Dec 03 2000 - 09:44:15 MST
Chris Russo wrote:
> > > > > He claims to be mostly a Libertarian, but he actually votes
> >for Democrats.
> >> >
> >> >Yep. Because he believes that Libertarian aims can be more effectively
> >> >achieved by improving the system - which requires working within it, and
> >> >thus working with The Powers That Be - than the current ideal of
> >> >destroying the system and starting over (which is presumably what the
> >> >L candidates he voted against were promoting).
> >>
> >> He never explicitly mentioned voting "against" Libertarians. He said
> >> that he voted "for" Democrats. Whether that means that he wanted to
> >> vote for possible winners in a major party or he wanted to vote
> >> against a revolutionary LP candidate is unknowable from this piece -
> >> I find support for both positions. They both seem equally likely so
> >> taking one side or the other would be special pleading.
> >
> >Technically, under most of the American political system (which, to my
> >knowledge, is what Mr. Brin votes in), a vote for one candidate for a
> >position (where only one person may fill that position) is a vote
> >against all others. (I personally would not mind seeing that change,
> >but that is the reality for now.)
>
> Above, you characterized Mr. Brin's voting for Democrats as being a
> direct vote *against* the LP candidate. Implying his intent from his
> arguments is not discernable. Yes, we all know that the American
> voting system is basically a zero sum game.
Right. And therefore, a vote for any candidate (say, the Dem's) is a
vote against all others (say, the Lib's). That is what I meant. If it
were possible to vote for more than one candidate, I would not have
made that statement, but since it's not...
> If we're supplementing his argument with speculation, he might have
> meant that we can achieve Libertarian goals by also co-opting the
> Green party.
Not in the same way. Much as we might wish otherwise, Greens don't have
nearly the current voter acceptance of the Democrats.
> Speculation aside, he said that he votes in general
> elections for Democrats. How he goes from voting consistently for
> Democrats to achieving Libertarian goals is beyond me.
He never said "consistently". In fact, I believe his point was more
that he does not consistently vote Libertarian, but instead sometimes
goes Democrat.
> If he had said:
>
> Whether Republican, Democrat, or independent - vote for the candidate
> who both has a chance to win and espouses (and you believe will stick
> to) the following goals:
>
> 1. Across the board reduction of taxes
> 2. Reduction of military expenditures for nation-building exercies
> 3. Increase of individual rights for drug use, euthanasia, sexual
> interaction, etc.
> 4. Promotes strict responsibility for and enforcement of property laws
> 5. ...
>
> ... I might have agreed with his conclusions (although his arguments
> would still have been fallacious and in need of work).
>
> However, he didn't really say any of that.
He did, but not very clearly, apparently.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Below are portions of Mr. Brin's essay with my comments indicating
> fallacious arguments.
> ------------------------------------------------------
[snip start of essay]
> >Moreover, recent advances in anthropology, neuroscience and
> >complexity theory all converge toward one conclusion; even the most
> >compelling or beguiling ideological description can never encompass
> >the range of emergent and often contradictory qualities contained in
> >a single human being, let alone whole societies.
>
> Straw man: Political ideologies aren't about encompassing all of the
> qualities in a human being. They're more about the goals of the
> society and how to go about achieving those goals - so learning that
> Libertarian principles don't have all mutations of Human DNA in them
> does nothing to diminish the validity of their political ideas.
Granted, this one is weak. He might have done better just to skip right
to the next section.
> >What do I need right now? Because I'm a brash eccentric, I need a
> >society that is open, tolerant, even welcoming of eccentricity. One
> >whose institutions are accountable enough to minimize the inevitable
> >capricious power abuses that fester in every human culture. One
> >where competition takes place under conditions that maximize fair
> >comparison of quality (in goods, services, and ideas) while
> >minimizing the destructive effects of our most loathsome human trait
> >-- our talent for rationalizing cheating and oppression.
> >
> >What do I want for tomorrow? A world where coercion is minimized
> >and individuals are free to achieve the maximum they can by making
> >fair deals with each other, leveraging off others' talents and
> >benefiting from the mutual criticism that only true freedom
> >engenders.
> >
> >Now I concede -- heck, I avow! -- that these desiderata sound
> >awfully libertarian. But let's recall that, ironically, the same
> >futurist dream was shared by idealizing Marxists!
>
> I'm no expert on Marxism, but did the Marxists believe in trading for
> things or leveraging talents for any sort of personal gain? If
> someone needed something, you gave it to them if you could: From each
> his ability, to each his need. Melding Marxism and Libertarianism
> seems disingenuous at best.
Ah, but see his next paragraph.
> > They, too, envisioned a final destination without states or any
> >coercive institutions, only human beings interacting autonomously.
> >The chief difference was always over the right path to achieve that
> >envisioned paradise of emancipated individuals. Marxists fantasized
> >that it would emerge semi-violently from some "final stage of
> >industrial capitalization" -- as if that ongoing task could ever be
> >finished! Libertarians, on the other hand, see the ultimate
> >apotheosis of individualism coming as a result of...
Compare-and-contrast. Libertarianism and Marxism have the same goals,
but seek to achieve it by different means. Mr. Brin points out an
apparent fallacy in Marxism's means that prevent it from ever
achieving its ends. He uses that to highlight that Libertarianism
should have achievable means - which is part of the point he makes in
this essay: the "revolution" methodology is not working, and probably
can not work, as well as his suggested alternative.
[snip non-objected to part]
> >Drop by http://www.kithrup.com/brin/ (or http://www.davidbrin.com/ )
> >and see my "questionnaire on ideology".
>
> I encourage you to follow the above links and look at the questions.
> They're so loaded and riddled with false dichotomies that they seem -
> to me - to be farcical.
Maybe, maybe not. Irrelevant to this article.
> >Does the commonly held libertarian self-image - as a doctrine
> >arising solely from evidence and reason -- really hold? The answer
> >may embarrass you.
>
> Ad Hominem.
Unstated but implied: "...and does embarrass some people similar to
you." That's the meat of this one.
> >For example, do you want to talk about propaganda? I'll show you
> >propaganda! Modern western media messages -- e.g. in nearly every
> >Hollywood movie -- emphasize in-your-face individualism and
> >suspicion of authority, pounding these themes more relentlessly than
> >any other motif in human history. Never before has an idea been
> >given such play! So might our libertarian attitudes actually arise
> >from this everpresent indoctrination? From lessons we've imbibed
> >since childhood, suckling them from the teat of a society that is
> >much less conformist and more cherishing of individualism than we
> >let ourselves imagine?
>
> Here's a cause and effect problem. The "in-your-face individualism"
> expressed in movies could be (and is most likely, IMO) a reflection
> of pre-existing human desires, not the cultivation of them.
True, but irrelevant to his point. He's presenting one possible view,
setting up for the fact that this view is perceived by others.
> >When I mention this in public, some audience members greet the
> >apparent paradox with displeasure, even anger. It's discomfiting to
> >imagine that a proudly singular trait might have arisen from
> >relentless propaganda! How much more satisfying to say to yourself
> >-- "I invented individualism and rebellion!"
>
> Fallacious a priori. He's proven no paradox.
Nor does he need to. He's only referencing an "apparent" paradox.
I think the main problem is that you thought he was pondering on what
is, while he was really addressing what is perceived as being and how
that can/should be manipulated to bring about changes in what is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:10 MST