Duh. Or, to put it another way, the social conflict between freedom and restriction is an argument that liberals and progressives have been struggling with since the days of Spinoza, if not earlier.Well sure. Or since the days of Erasmus, if not earlier. Since the days of Augustine. Since the days of Heraclitus. Since the building of the pyramids. Since the advent of agriculture. Since the mitochondrial Eve.
-Tristero
Well, as Baruch Spinoza often said, "The basis of virtue is not arguing with morons." We might note instead that libertarianism, properly understood, is a political philosophy concerned with the scope of power, to which the specific applications of power are largely considered irrelevant, whereas liberalism, properly understood, is a political philosophy concerned with the specific applications of power, to which the question of power's proper scope is largely considered irrelevant.
Both approach the relation of human beings to power as physics might approach the question of just how much strong nuclear force a man needs in his life, and just which atomic nuclei he wants it to affect in what manner.
34 comments:
stop with your rightwing bullshit, IOZ
Which libertarianism is that again? Because I've noted that it is often as much about specific application with self-described libertarians as much as any scope. "Private good, public bad" is even heard, though not in so few words.
Liberalism and libertarianism... They can be shockingly similar, which makes sense because they're different flavors of the same Anglo-American cultural tendency.
i'm rather fond of the idea that the modern american democrat has arrived at this point on a direct line from spinoza, or bertrand russell, or whoever. "progressives" are not the last best hope of the grand white liberal tradition, and i wonder how long the entire world of ideas has been segregated into "the right" and "the left" anyway.
i wonder how long the entire world of ideas has been segregated into "the right" and "the left" anyway.
Since the French Revolution, when La France, again failed to protect its capital from the rabble who opposed restrictions on their freedom.
And WTF has this got to do with Spinoza? What the fuck are you talking about?
You've spent a lot of bile on poor Digby, IOZ, but good God--Tristero has about a third of her intelligence and a tenth of her integrity. What a glowing asshole.
I hate it when you make me go over there to see the context of some remark you've quoted.
You know, Tristero largely discredits libertarianism by tarring Alan Greenspan. I wonder how well progressivism holds up when judged by the actions of government officials who claim to believe in it?
Not to mention, the whole post is extremely nasty, since the person asking progressives to try to intelligently define libertariansim seems to be doing so entirely in good faith.
I do not like that Digby blog.
The only sensible "ism" is theocrofascism. The individual must be completely subordinated to the Living God, not for his own benefit, but to punish him for being an annoying shit.
I was very confused by the strong and weak nuclear forces for a long time, but thanks to the Advanced Physics Forum, I am now just rather confused.
It's like liberty is a nuisance, man.
To be fair to liberalism, if you get the applications of power right, surely the correct scope is implicit?
Sure, I'd like to see more discussion of the proper scope (for example, it might clarify the issue of legalizing drugs in a way that guesses about relative harm do not.) Nevertheless, compared to the libertarian approach of trying to define some highly abstract boundary between what constitutes a moral exercise of my rights, and what constitutes coercion, it works pretty well. In other words, liberalism works some of the time, and libertarianism is a silly mishmash of ideas that only attains the semblance of coherence when viewed through the crazy kaleidoscope of American ideology.
And frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how one method of human organization or another is fundamentally unworkable just because Americans fuck it up.
My only hope is that the Big Lebowski kills me before the Germans can cut my dick off.
I can only assume Spinoza is given the mention because of some half remembered reading of an introduction to political philosophy singled him out as the first modern political philosopher to favor to democracy. The only other way this could have happened is if she'd read the Tractatus in a vacuum, and I doubt she even got past the title.
Tristero sure seems like a disingenuous asshole
At least it's an ethos.
And no, actually, Skarl. rather, it implies a more or less limitless power to which the only reasonable restraint is that the right sort of people be elected or appointed to exercise it. In its disregard for how much power a government ought to have in favor of the procedural, ethical questions of how such authority is best constituted and most widely used, modern liberalism has less in common with Classical Liberalism than it does with so-called enlightened despotism.
modern liberalism has less in common with Classical Liberalism than it does with so-called enlightened despotism. Given the manner in which modern liberalism selects it leaders, I'd say still more in common with benighted despotism.
And your definitions are based on what, precisely, IOZ? I'm sorry, but once you drag out that old phrase "classical liberalism," I get extremely skeptical. Modern liberalism is, like any liberalism, extremely subject to abuse of power. Need we go over American history?
In any case, I see no reason to believe that modern liberalism is more absolutist than any other vein of liberal thought. We are living in a state in which various safeguards and institutional conflicts have been overcome in the interest of those constituent powers; it is only natural. And your suggestion that somehow liberalism has fallen astray (as opposed to given in to the inevitable) is an odd echo of that which you decry in liberalism itself.
Liberalism, you say, is about the right sort of people being elected, and then you posit that there is a quantitative difference between the holders of two philosophies. It is my assertion that libertarians would govern damn near like liberals govern, like conservatives govern, like despots govern.
But who would you rather turn your back on, a libertarian or a liberal?
Cüneyt, I'm afraid your comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but regarding the meaning of Classical Liberalism, I think you will find that it has a fairly specific meaning. It refers to the anti-monarchist theories of representative, limited government that animated the American Revolution and the development of constitutional democracy during the 18th and 19th centuries. What we call "liberalism" today is another thing altogether, a kind of center-right Democratic Socialism with some vestiges of labor unionism and a minor tradition of integrationist racial policies owing in large part to the inclusion of racial minority groups in the American Democratic Party coalition.
In its disregard for how much power a government ought to have in favor of the procedural, ethical questions of how such authority is best constituted and most widely used, modern liberalism has less in common with Classical Liberalism than it does with so-called enlightened despotism.
Is single-payer health care an example of "enlightened despotism"? I mean, it gives the government an enormous amount of power, but people claim that's justified because the power will be used to achieve a good end. If that's despotism, I say bring it on. Oh, how I yearn to be as oppressed as the people of France!
"But who would you rather turn your back on, a libertarian or a liberal?"
I'll gladly turn my back on both.
Thank you for explaining. The problem I have with that is that "classical liberalism," as you refer to it (and I believe that yours is a fairly standard definition), is not a program but a theme. It's an academic definition of a movement that was very heterogeneous and fractious. There were more and less authoritarian veins from the very start, and the revolutionaries in America began to alter their roles as soon as they took power. Ideal gave way, as it does, to expediency.
And yes, modern liberalism is different, but you attribute to design what I see as circumstance. It's not a philosophical distinction that sets the two apart, but history. One flowed neatly enough into the other.
As far as the libertarian vs. liberal thing, I feel that you have described very well two different approaches--power limited, applications be damned vs. power unlimited--but you attribute them to libertarianism and liberalism without proving either. You're defining, not illustrating. What makes libertarianism uninterested, generally, in applications of power? Why is liberalism uninterested in power's proper scope? You declare it; you do not back it up.
And I harp on this because I have had many, many conversations in which this or that partisan seeks to define his camp and the opposite one into this or that philosophical distinction so that his point is made. And frankly, I think libertarians are no better than liberals, and in any event, this all boils down to a family feud; liberals, libertarians, and conservatives are all partners in a grand liberal tradition, children of classical liberalism and heirs to its flaws, errors, and virtues alike. The tyranny you would see in the very bones of modern liberalism (and which I will not deny) is just as easily found in its legendary ancestry, and libertarianism is not immune, either.
You're defining, not illustrating. Yes.
Christ, but you're maddening.
here you go mister Cüneyt, sir.
Fascinating, though I don't feel that there's as much of an incompatibility there as might first appear. One man's "accountability" is another's tyranny, or the desire for control, or technocratic tendencies, which I thought we had decried previously.
In any case, so far as libertarianism consists of a materialist criticism of state power, I follow it. When it starts into its routine as to the limits of action, how governance is just not possible over such sublime and elevated phenomena as "the market" I start to walk away. The average citizen should not trust, as the liberals and conservatives tell me, but neither am I entirely won over by the "size, cost, and limits" bit. Just because I don't believe I can economically define the scope of government doesn't mean I'm on the slippery slope to saying "Sure, let the SWAT team blow my door down and shoot me."
And just because I believe in some state option in healthcare alongside private and employer-offered insurance doesn't mean I'm on that same slope, either.
I don't have the slightest idea whom or what you're arguing against, Cüneyt, but you sure gave him a drubbing there.
Oh, and forgive me for not thanking you for taking the time to educate me. I do appreciate it and know that I can be a bit obtuse.
I think there are more than enough libertarians who don't worry about the scope of power, so long as it's in the right hands, and more than enough liberals who want to limit the powerful as well as "do the right thing," whatever the hell that is.
I dispute either the categories as described by IOZ, or the labels he assigns to them.
Let me take a few hours; there's something that's clearly overheated in my brain.
And that should read "'right hands'". Usually wealthy. Alright; back to work.
"I think there are more than enough libertarians who don't worry about the scope of power, so long as it's in the right hands, and more than enough liberals who want to limit the powerful as well as "do the right thing," whatever the hell that is."
is this not where we get into IOZ's favorite phrase, "so-called"? only intend to be 50% snarky here.
Enh. I suppose you have to draw a distinction between "libertarianism" and whatever it is that is spouted by Jonah Goldberg, my friends on Facebook that who knew were politically such tools, and maybe half of the Usenet posts I hazily remember from 1994. Not unusual to advocate for power needed for the military, keeping the Mexicans out and that sort of thing, and extensive generalization from one's own experience wasn't/isn't rare either.
No doubt avowed liberals share these (basic, human) tendencies, but I manage to avoid Digby and some others okay.
I liked the gist in your last paragraph.
Well, Anon 1:31, the phrase of IOZ's that I'm thinking of right now is "properly understood." Well, I don't claim to understand anything properly, but that's the no-true-Scotsman fallacy or erin4iraq is my sockpuppet.
But yes, the whole so-called thing. That's why I hate argument by definition. Libertarians say they believe this; liberals say they believe that; conservatives insist they believe another. They are all liars!
On further reflection, and the clarifications of our host, I don't know that I have any disagreement with the idea of modern liberalism as "so-called enlightened despotism." After all, I've described my (Canada's) federal government as an elected dictatorship often enough.
I am curious what political philosophy you see as being a more realistic approach to the "relation of human beings to power." (This isn't rhetorical - I really am curious!) I've read various manifestos of anarcho-syndicalist-whatever philosophy on the Web, and they never really seem very realistic either.
Good to see some clear, concise thinking from the proggies
I would have commented sooner but your post didn't come up on my blog searchers.
Thanks you for your definition of libertarianism. As I said, there are no insights that libertarianism provides that liberalism hadn't already addressed. A concern about power, regardless of how it is used, is one of liberalism's most fundamental values and has been since Spinoza's time, if not earlier (I have no idea if mitochondrial Eve was a liberal, but she was clearly smart enough to have many followers so she couldn't have been a libertari- but I digress ).
love,
t
Post a Comment