A friendly discussion with a more libertarian friend
A friend on FB made a cogent argument about freedom that I find wrong:
"Okay, I'll bite. The problem I have with authoritanism is the same problem I have with progressivism, conservatism, democracy, etc. They all presuppose that one person can better decide for another person what is best for them. In some cases, as with a parent and a child, this might work. But, in the grand scheme of life, no one is more qualified than the individual to determine what is best for themselves. Any proponent of any form of authoritarianism can cite the benefits of what they're proposing, but in every case there will be some who suffer."
I disagree thus:
How high must a person's IQ be to actually know what is
best for himself? Serious question do you know the answer? Let's say the median
IQ for a nation is 85 what percentage of those people are ready for self rule?
How many can meet the daily struggle of
the modern world & succeed? How many should vote? I don't know the answer.
The whole world is not the faculty lounge at Andover, nor is it Mayberry NC.
Most of it is a bad year away from being Somalia. The Somalis in Somalia could
use a Pinochet more than an Ayn Rand. Am I wrong? Iraq could use a Mubarak more
than a Thomas Paine. Hobbes is right when he calls this the "war of all
against all." What use is freedom to a cannibal? What use is it to a
person with an IQ of 68? or 88? It took 500+ years of forced(by the Church)
eugenic outbreeding & massive rates of execution of violent men for Europe
to achieve the very beginnings of a civil society. Freedom can only be earned
(perhaps only briefly) by a vast expenditure of Social capital its maintenance
is even more difficult. Freedom is not good in & of itself. Washington knew
this Paine & Rand didn't.
I can't disagree with any of what you said. Some people do not have the mental capacity to make the right decisions for themselves. Even highly intelligent people often make bad decisions. But that is precisely why authoritarianism (or any form of collective control, including progressivism) is so dangerous... if most individuals are prone to bad decision-making, how then can some individuals be trusted with the power to decide for the rest of us? Even if we could find a wise and benevolent dictator, his successor would likely be more tyrannical.
ReplyDeleteThere is no perfect form of government for humanity. The next best thing is for individuals to have the liberty to decide for themselves and experience the consequences thereof. I would propose this be done under the framework of the Non-Aggression Principle. The purpose of government at the highest level would be to enforce the NAP, basically maintaining laws against fraud, theft, and assault.
If a group of individuals wish to enter into a voluntary social arrangement with each other they can freely do so, whether it be as a communist collective or a mayor/city council structure. Of course, they would also have the freedom to leave such arrangements.
Most modern and historical forms of government place the highest power at the highest level, i.e. the national government, and it devolves down through lesser sovereignties with the individual at the bottom of the ladder. I propose turning the ladder upside-down with the supreme power of choice residing in the individual, local authorities having the power of regulation and law enforcement, and the national authority existing solely to protect individual liberties.
Ultimately my view is leaving people alone, for the most part people will regulate & order themselves at least among white western people. This vision of orderly liberty is a creation wholly of the West (i.e. Christendom) and is of no value to the rest of the world. It is my contention that without 500+ years of authoritarian social (i.e. eugenics) engineering this would be a pipe dream.
DeleteConsider, where have all the tribes of ancient Europe gone? Western Europe was divided between hundreds (Jutes, Lombards, Picts, etc.) of these tribes. The Romans identified by tribe & so did the Celts & Germanic peoples right up to the middle ages. The middle east is still divided & tribal both the Muslims (e.g. Hashemites) and the Jews (e.g. Levites). Only in the Christian West has tribalism subsided and out-breeding become the norm. A western world that allows in these tribal populations is defenseless against their in-bred, nepotistic, tribalism.
If what you desire is a libertarian nation then it must be exclusionary (no third worlders, no hispanics, no blacks, no Muslims). You can have libertarianism & free trade in one nation (national libertarianism?) or you can have international free trade & authoritarianism. Keeping in mind there is no free trade without freedom of movement.
International free trade leads to Tyranny inevitably keep in mind in the tolerant west libertarians are a tiny minority with no prospect of achieving even modest political gains anywhere. While the siren song of tribalism and progressivism are permanent features of the centrifugal forces unleashed by immigration (i.e. colonialism) and frankly by allowing women to vote. As a Formalist I argue that the worst thing possible is lying to ourselves to make us feel good.
Every immigrant from outside the historic American Nation is a knife in the back of freedom. Blacks will never be libertarians, Mexicans will never be libertarians, Asians will never be libertarians if any libertarians love freedom they will be against immigration & free trade. There is no Utopia the choices are between what is possible & what is also possible. We can have multicultural Tyrrany, Authoritarian imperialism or Nationalist Libertarianism. That last is least likely, but multicultural/multiracial libertarian internationalism is a fantasy just like Communism.