The following appeared as a series of comments on a private forum for conservatives, libertarians and Objectivists, and is re-posted with permission. It was (and is) scheduled for publication on the new blog system, since it has been made topical by the ASI's civil war I felt it was worth bringing forward:
Dear Libertarians
The problem with anyone trying to divorce politics from ethics, epistemology or metaphysics is that your opponents are not playing by the same rules.
Let's take two libertarian positions -- sexual freedom and economic freedom. For example, in the US, the end to sodomy laws and the end of farm subsidies.
The libertarian goes and makes his political point: end ethanol! get out of people's bedrooms!
And the democrat says -- you can't end ethanol, it is your duty to support the farmers who are in need.
And the Republicans say -- you can't end sodomy laws, it's your duty to submit to God's will.
And the libertarian argues and argues for individual rights, free markets, practicality, etc-- he makes all the pragmatic cost analysis arguments.
And receives 1% of the vote.
Why?
Because ethics is more fundamental than politics. If a man makes a political case only, he is trumped by an opponent who can make a more fundamental moral point. Yes, the socialist argues -- ethanol is costly, but it's our duty to serve the environment. We all must sacrifice. And who said morality was practical? Yes, the theocrat says -- sodomy laws involve getting the government into people's bedrooms but what else is the government for but to impose the good on everyone? Isn't that what you want to do? Impose by government force your notion that freedom and rights are a good thing? By what argument can you claim it is? "Just because" you say, and you get 1% of the vote.
If Libertarians want to know why they have been doomed to wander the electoral wilderness -- it's this simple answer -- those who make the moral point move the body politic, not those who make the political points. Men will lash themselves across the back, lie on a bed of nails, kill or be killed if they think it's how to be moral. They will never come to prosperity, life, success and liberty via any ethics that tells them such things are evil and selfish.
If a man is free, you don't teach him to keep and maintain that freedom by telling him to serve others, and see himself as a slave to the common good, or tell him every Sunday that he needs to be humble. That's a formula for convincing the man to shackle his own legs and whip his own back voluntarily.
Richard Gleaves
Richard is an objectivist playright living in New York. He blogs at Uncommon Sense, and is deservedly prominent on YouTube for his adaptations of Galt's Speech.
Why is it?
1 day ago
7 comments:
And so the answer is?
Play them at their own game and feed morals back to them, from a Libertarian perspective?
Change the rules? if so, how and to what?
We cannot continue in the direction we are travelling; we continually present arguement against the presumptions of the elite and the state, and as the good Dr. North has been waxing lyrical for the last week or so we need to start presenting a positive vision of the future; our message frequently perishes at this hurdle, a veritable modern Cassandra of ideology.
As for the Objectivist overtones they are perhaps the worst culprit, falling into vain pretentions and righteousness worse than any Rabbi or Priest burdened with dead mens bones: Objectivism is Libertarianism for single people.
We need to understand our inherently right message; we advocate freedom not only because it leads to the best outcomes overall, but because their is something inherently wrong about constraining an individual's freedom beyond the point where another's begins.
We need to vocalise that message in a way that the sheeple can understand.
Otherwise we fail.
@Tomrat: I'm not sure what you mean by "overtones", the content is all explicitly Objectivist. As for being righteous, are the Left not righteous *all the time*? Who is winning?
@John: we argue on the basis of NAP and self-ownership, and do so proudly.
Growing a crop for an ineffective and wasteful end product is not moral. The farmer, and everyone else, would be better off if he was producing something truly beneficial. That would be moral.
To take a judgemental attitude to a sodomite is immoral from a Christian point of view because one of the most important points made by Jesus was not to judge.
The only people Jesus really had any hard words for were hypocrites and those who thought they were better than others.
So is Greaves saying that that which appeals to the mass electorate is in fact immoral? Does this mean, according to him, that the electorate likes immoral, judgemental leadership or politicians?
The truly moral approach is to set people free.
Individual freedom and individual responsibility is the only moral way to conduct life.
Coercive intervention and control ultimately produces thugs and idiots, which is not moral. Is he saying that libertarians should in fact become immoral if they want to succeed politically?
I don't think that is, in fact, a requirement. People are receptive to the truth when presented accurately. All one has to do is set one's own prejudices aside and address reality.
John Blainey
"We need to understand our inherently right message; we advocate freedom not only because it leads to the best outcomes overall, but because their is something inherently wrong about constraining an individual's freedom beyond the point where another's begins. We need to vocalise that message in a way that the sheeple can understand. Otherwise we fail. 17 March 2011 23:31"
Objective ethics ARE the answer. Libertarians will never overcome the artificial justifications for tyranny as long as you resist the argument from ethics and stick to the unsuccessful argument from effect. The endless challenges from the sheeple such as 'what about the poor?' Will be impossible to overcome with consequential-ist libertarianism.
Without ethics all the pro free market minimal state rhetoric will be perceived as subjective opinion by a statist drone society indoctrinated with centuries of 'moral' justifications for coercive tyranny. Historically our oppressive and extortionate overlords have cycled through these justifications for the dominion - divine right, moral standards, social justice and now environmental protection. We all know the state at least exacerbates if not causes these problems and that only a natural free market is capable of providing the necessary solutions - but - you cannot oppose the fallacy of these subjective justifications from an equally subjective position. You will lose this battle for the minds of the sheeple because.fighting centuries of generational indoctrination is like trying to kick water uphill. The tyrants have always controlled all the propaganda channels - education, media, 'free'speech laws etc.
The comment I quoted seems to be clamouring for a cast iron argument for individual freedom. Objectivist ethics provides just such a case. The concept of self ownership is at the heart of deontological libertarianism. It is easily understood by the sheeple and impossible to challenge without advocating slavery.
Stefan molyneux has been hammering this message. The consequentialist libertarian argument from effect will win individual freedom for noone. The deontological libertarian argument from ethics is the only way.
@Guthrum. The strategic suggestion is to argue our ethics our way with full pride, honesty and integrity.
I agree that compromising our integrity is not required and is in fact a really easy way to lose. Winning by compromising your integrity would mean some piece of flesh labelled "Guthrum" has won, but it won't be you, but some other entity that is non-you.
Present the truth, and include moral truths amongst them.
Post a Comment