“I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians]
in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”
- Christopher Hitchens.
I'm fairly certain that a fair proportion of you, my subscribers, consider yourself
libertarian, and so with this in mind, I invite you to reply to what I have to say on this
topic below, in the comments.
If you think my following reasons are insufficient, let me know, as I appreciate that I might
just be missing something, and if I am, I want to know it.
Anyhow, to explain why I'm not a libertarian, it stands to reason that I begin by describing
what exactly libertarianism is, right?
And so, here's an attempt to steelman it.
Likewise to all political philosophies, “libertarianism” represents a wide array of movements and beliefs,
but all are predicted on the core principle of liberty.
Now what exactly liberty means, depends on the libertarian, as traditional libertarians
sought to abolish capitalism and private property, while contemporary libertarians advocate laissez-faire
capitalism and strong private property rights, but a fair summation of all libertarians is
that they seek maximum freedom of the individual and minimal authority of government.
As such, they tend to insist upon freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to
bear arms, freedom of and from religion, freedom of the Press, freedom of ownership, freedom
of the economy, and they almost always oppose the welfare state and taxation (which they
see as a form of slavery).
Or as the American Libertarian Party puts it, “We hold that all individuals have the
right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever
manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
others to live in whatever manner they choose.”
Now that sounds pretty damn reasonable, right?
Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer seem to think so (“But I’ve voted libertarian
for many years now.”
“I've leaned libertarian most of my life, since college”).
As does Ron Paul (“They said the role of government ought to be but one thing - protect
liberty.
That's the purpose of government”), Clint Eastward (“And now, you've called yourself
a libertarian - is that right?
Is that correct?"
"Yeah... libertarian values, as for Rubublicans used to be when they were saving money and
everything”), and according to libertarians websites, Keanu Reeves, Chris rock, Vince
Vaughn, Will Weaton, Matt Groening, and countless more… and so why doesn't it convince me?
Well, what follows is my three primary reasons.
This is Why I'm NOT a Libertarian.
One of the most eloquent and convincing summations of the libertarian philosophy that I've ever
heard of comes from Walter Edward Williams, who in his book titled All It Takes is Guts,
wrote the following: “But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what
I earn and you keep what you earn.
Do you disagree?
Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?”
And so, what's my answer?
Why do I think that strangers are entitled to some of Walter's fruit?
Well, to put it bluntly, Walter fell out of the right vagina at the right time; he inherited
a biological and/or socioeconomic advantage that he did not earn, and thus, he does not
“deserve” all of the fruit if his labour.
He was dealt good cards…
Now Walter came from a broken family, in a relatively racist country, and so how the
hell can I say that he had an advantage?
Well, for him, it’s got more to do with nature than nurture, and to explain why, let
me rewind a bit.
In 1971, the American political philosopher John Rawls wrote A Theory of Justice, and
within it he (as many of you likely know) observed that when people contemplate and
determine the structure and rules of society, they do so selfishly, based on their personal
circumstances, characteristics and preferences – such as their mental and physical abilities,
social status, ethnicity, gender, and most crucially, their conception of what's good.
Thus, it's no surprise that some people who can afford the bare basics (such as shelter
and food) want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay towards other
people's bare basics.
Likewise, it’s no surprise that some people who can afford to pay for their family’s
medical bills want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay towards strangers’
medical bills.
Just as it's no surprise that some people who can afford to send their children to school
want a society in which they're not obliged (through tax) to pay for other people's children
to go to school, and so on and so forth.
But the only reason they seek such a society, Rawls argued, is because of their lucky circumstances.
They’ve been dealt good biological and socioeconomic cards, and as such they stand to lose a card
or two should society attempt to equalise the hands of those less fortunate.
Now to get around this prejudice, Rawls proposed what he called the “original position”,
and argued that “A just society is a society that if you knew everything about it, you'd
be willing to enter it in a random place.”
He reasoned that if people determined the basic structure of society behind a veil of
ignorance, which would deprive them of information about their specific characteristics, such
as their ethnicity, social status and gender, they WOULD create a welfare state.
They’d elect a society that maximizes the prospects of the worst of because they themselves
might be the worst off.
They’d create a society that would ensure that if they or their loved ones were born
blind, deaf or dumb, they’d nevertheless have a life worth living.
Thus, this is the primary reason I’m not a libertarian.
Despite the fact that I came from a broken family and had a very rough upbringing, I
am extremely lucky to have the characteristics that I do, and while I’ve worked extremely
hard to get where I am, I did not “earn” the temperament, patience, charisma, and,
if you will, intellect that I have – I was simply dealt good biological cards.
Thus, I’m convinced that SOME of the fruits of my labour should go to those less fortunate,
and that the same is true of Walter’s fruit.
Now Sam Harris, in a post titled “How to lose readers without even trying” (which,
admittedly, makes me a little bit nervous about my releasing this video), put Rawls’
original position this way: “Many of my critics pretend that they have been entirely
self-made.
They seem to feel responsible for their intellectual gifts, for their freedom from injury and disease,
and for the fact that they were born at a specific moment in history.
Many appear to have absolutely no awareness of how lucky one must be to succeed at anything
in life, no matter how hard one works.
One must be lucky to be able to work.
One must be lucky to be intelligent, to not have cerebral palsy, or to not have been bankrupted
in middle age by the mortal illness of a spouse.
Many of us have been extraordinarily lucky—and we did not earn it.
Many good people have been extraordinarily unlucky—and they did not deserve it.
And yet I get the distinct sense that if I asked some of my readers why they weren’t
born with club feet, or orphaned before the age of five, they would not hesitate to take
credit for these accomplishments.”
Anyhow, moving on, the second reason I'm not a libertarian is because I don't believe in
natural rights, which I would argue is the very bedrock of libertarianism.
If it wasn’t, then all of morality would come down to arbitrary private contracts,
and libertarians certainly don't believe that this is the case; they hold that we are born
with certain inalienable rights – namely life, liberty, and (in most cases) property,
but I see absolutely no justification for this.
Many libertarians, such as John Locke, insist that these rights are god-given – that we
have the right to liberty because god said so (but I, as an atheist, obviously don’t
find this convincing… and what’s more, even if I was a Christian like Locke, I’d
still reject his assertion, as in my opinion the bible explicitly states that it’s perfectly
fine to deprive certain people of liberty).
While other believers in natural rights (though not strictly libertarian), such as Immanuel
Kant, insist that natural rights are derived from reason alone; that, in Kant’s case,
they’re categorical imperatives – but I reject this because I don’t believe any
action is non-contingent (and I’ll likely explain exactly why in a future video, rather
than needlessly cluttering this one).
And so to those of you who’re libertarian and non-religious, I’d like to ask a question:
what makes you think we're born with natural rights?
What part of the state of nature possibly yields the RIGHT to liberty?
Sure, we’re born free, but that doesn’t mean we have the RIGHT to be free, does it?
As it stands, I maintain that Thomas Hobbes got it right when he said that in the absence
of a social contract, life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
(And yes, I know that Hobbes believed in natural rights, but I find his argument to be inadequate,
albeit practical – again, I’ll try and address this in a future video).
The third reason I'm not a libertarian is because I don't believe in libertarian free
will.
On top of the fact that we’re not responsible for the biological and socioeconomic characterises
we posses, I also don’t think we’re responsible (in the libertarian sense) for anything.
I’ve discussed the illusion of free will in previous videos, and so won’t repeat
myself here – but in case you still believe in free will, and especially if it plays a
vital role in your libertarian worldview (which I’d assume it must), please consider checking
out said videos.
If we’re not responsible for our actions in the libertarian sense (which is to say,
for example, if my being a YouTuber isn’t entirely of my own volition), then how can
I sincerely take credit for the fruit that it produces, let alone insist that I deserve
them?
To use Rawlsian terminology, I might be “entitled” to most of the fruit, but I don’t “deserve”
them – and I certainly don’t deserve all them.
If we’re deterministic entities, libertarianism simply doesn’t work.
And so there you have it… the three primary reasons as to why I’m not a libertarian.
Now don’t get me wrong – I consider myself a liberal (at least in the classical sense),
and in many situations I stand side by side with libertarians, but I don’t call myself
a libertarian because I don’t believe in free will, I don’t believe in natural rights,
and, most crucially (and ironically), I don’t believe libertarianism represents true liberty.
True liberty, in my opinion, requires equal opportunity, and libertarianism doesn’t
deliver this.
In fact, to the contrary, it protects those ARBITRARILY dealt good cards, and leaves those
arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die… it addresses “freedom from” but it utterly fails to
address “freedom to”.
Now, as said at the beginning, if you think any of my reasons are insufficient, or that
I’m missing something crucial, then please let me know, as I’m entirely self-taught,
and as such I appreciate that this makes me vulnerable to missing a thing or two – despite
extensive research.
Anyhow, I’m Stephen Woodford (or Rationality Rules), and as always, thank you kindly for
the view, and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve
supported the channel via merchandise and PayPal.
Until next time my fellow apes, until next time!