Does it Make Me a Traitor?
I'm working on a book with a commie dedicated to applying libertarian thought to the socialist process. I know that sounds completely backwards (and like trying to put two north poles together on a magnet), but basically we are trying to show that despite their huge differences, there are areas they can be melded, and compromised with each other.
So... if I write taxes into my system, does it make me a traitor?!
(Don't worry, this is a what-if book, not a Jeanne-turned-into-a-tree-hugging-hippie-commie. I'm still a tree-hugging-hippie, but you'll never catch me being a commie)
posted by Jeanne Marie at 8:25 AM
10 Comments:
Hello Jeanne Marie, it is good to hear from you!
No, it doesn't make you a commie associating with those evil people, and it might even help you to understand where those commies are coming from so that you can fix them!
As a matter of fact, I got caught up reading a series of books this summer by Ken McLeod (maybe MacLeod?) that, while being brilliant science fiction pieces, also developed very impressive lines of political thought. The series included an account of two separate, and opposing, political societies: anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-socialist. Very interesting stuff, to say the least.
As it happens, I spoke with Steve Davies about these books and he told me that he knows Ken McLeod personally, or at least has met him and discussed the basis of the books. I wouldn't doubt that he may be able to get you in touch with McLeod, or himself discuss the interesting interplay between commie/socialist and libertarian thought. As far as I know, McLeod is a former Trotskyist but is now a rather anarchical fellow. Davies claims he is quite informed and prepared to defend both strains of thought amply, which I suppose has led to his attempted reconciliation of both.
Again, good to hear from you! I hope things are going well.
C.J.
Depending on your particular libertarian perspective, I think your project is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I know that if you are trying to start from Hayek and Marx, that your project would be impossible. They have radically different assumptions about the way humans and societies organize themselves.
I think that is also the case with starting from Ayn Rand and Marx, though I'm not familiar enough with her to definitively conclude that.
Actually, John, the commonalities among Marx, Hayek, and Rand are much greater than you might think. I commend to you (and to Jeanne Marie) the work of Chris Sciabarra, who has done outstanding work on these issues.
See the following two books:
http://tinyurl.com/ceprk (Chris's book on Rand which interprets her as a dialectician)
http://tinyurl.com/7qjnn (His book on Hayek and Marx - also excellent)
And for a more general treatment of libertarianism that sees the best way of explaining/defending it as "dialectic" and emphasizes its commalities with the left:
http://tinyurl.com/cl5fd
My own view is that libertarianism IS a progressive political philosophy that is more at home on the left than the right.
Professor Horwitz,
Could you further explain your view that Libertarianism is more at home on the Left than the Right. In what way do you mean this?
Clyde - I mean that I view my libertarianism as, essentially, sharing the values of the Left but believing that they have frequently chosen the wrong means to those ends. Historically, of course, classical liberalism was the left/progressive force against the conservativism of its time. This is also why Hayek wrote "Why I'm not a Conservative" in 1960. Libertarians have no interest in preserving/conserving the old orders of privilege and power.
In particular, Hayekian libertarianism is one that understands the unpredictability of the future and understands that culture and markets change in unpredictable ways, and that we can and should be open to such changes. Think back to my comments on cultural change and markets in my lecture on the family. Classical liberals have also shared the left's tolerance for cultural change and their opposition to US military adventurism. Classical liberalism's commitment to peace and free trade with all peoples, entangling alliances with none, puts us closer to the left than the right.
On a more personal level, I'm simply much more comfortable around leftists than conservatives. Perhaps this is a result of being in academia, but I find that I share more values with my leftist colleagues than with the professional conservative movement. Yes, we disagree on how to achieve those values, but that's a much more interesting conversation than the ones I have with many conservatives. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which I would vote Republican. I can imagine some under which I would vote Democrat.
This question is, to me, a really important one to talk about among libertarians - so thanks for asking me to clarify.
Professor Horwitz,
Thank you for your response! It has given me a lot to think about. I did at one time have quite similar inclinations; I never imagined myself voting Republican; felt oppressed here in Utah under the Mormon Curtain and tended to blame Christian Converativeness for many evils; identified myself as a social 'liberal' and economic 'conservative'. After my time D.C. however, I was shaken somewhat in my beliefs. To try to put it succinctly, I have come to think that liberty in America has more to fear from the Left than the Right, admittedly by an often slight and muddled margin. But I must also admit that I am somewhat surprised to see an attempt to bridge the (what I have hitherto assumed to be an insurmountable) gap between Leftist political thought and Libertarianism, likewise am I surprised to hear your contention that true Liberals are likely to feel more at home on the Left than the Right. Having said that, I must clarify, as once I would readily have agreed. I guess it comes down to my holding that underlying all other freedoms is the economic one. I no longer suspect, as I once did, that protections of civil liberties is more important than property protections. In fact, if anything, I would suppose that it is the opposite. Obviously, this is jagged and leaves one in an uncomfortable spot. But I guess if I have to choose between two evils, I find today's Right the lesser of them.
What I see is that even if in some issues the 'outcome' of libertarian and leftist ideas may be the same - eg opposition to militarism - each 'side' comes to this conclusion based on completely different and irreconcilable premises
(but of course living in a different country the left I'm talking about could be radically different from what you're talking about...), while the many differences of opinion between libertarians and what's traditionally called the right still allow for common views on some (dare I say many?) fundamental issues, such as individuality, responsibility, etc.
To Joseph and Monica, I agree with your assesments, both. And, no, the left here in America is not very different from yours Monica, just less successful so far.
And I would love to hear from you Joseph what a good Libertarian argument against drug legalization would be.
Actually Joseph, I don't think there are strong libertarian arguments on the pro-life, pro-prohibition, pro-imperialism, and keeping legal marriage exclusive to heterosexuals side of the issues.
I think there ARE libertarian arguments against abortion (I think the pro-choice ones are stronger) and against the state having any role in marriage (one I agree with in a first-best world), but I don't think you can make a libertarian case AT ALL in favor of drug prohibition or the Bush administration's imperialism (defending the US proper is one thing...).
I'd love, like Clyde, to hear a libertarian argument in favor of prohibition and a libertarian (non-conservative!) argument in favor of "nation building" etc..
Thank you Joseph, for your arguments! I shall dwell on them.
Post a Comment
<< Home