Radical Libertarianism: Another Fatal Conceit?
Friedrich Hayek called belief in socialism the “fatal conceit” because it supposes that all wisdom and knowledge about how society should be ordered can be known all at one time and apply to all eras. Radical libertarians believe the same thing. So can radical libertarianism be considered another “fatal conceit”?
posted by modlib at 3:34 PM
6 Comments:
Well, yes and no.
Yes, you're right. Some "radical libertarians" are utopians. That is, as always, a mistake. If the "good society" suddenly arose tomorrow, life would still have most of the problems that have been around as long as there have been human beings.
No, you're wrong. What classical socialists wanted was to plan the details of life centrally and collectively. What radical libertarians want is to free individuals so that they can individually make their own decisions, mistaken or not, and receive or bear the consequences of those decisions.
So the equivocation is suggestive, but not really very accurate.
Whenever an individual interacts with others, the question arises as what constitutes permissible behavior and what does not. People interact with each other both in socialist societies and in less socialist societies. Radical libertarians believe that even without government, or with a government that enforces laws without making them, humans will always agree as to what the law is. They believe that there can be a relatively peaceful society that is instantaneously achieved and sustained indefinitely without any central authority setting rules. Radical libertarians believe that people will always agree as to what the law should be concerning contracts, partnerships, marriage and divorce, inheritance, real estate, environmental protection, crimes of violence and dishonesty, medical malpractice, product liability, and duties to support one’s spouse, children, and elderly parents. When a person believes this, or when a person believes that a libertarian society would entail nothing more than freeing “individuals so that they can individually make their own decisions”, this would normally indicate to intelligent observers a certain degree of conceit.
Again, you are right and you're wrong. Those "radical libertarians" who are anarchists do, indeed, believe that government created law is unnecessary and often pernicious. That, of course, does not mean that there are no social rules and no means for enforcing those rules. There are a number of resources on line which discuss just how that might work [or has worked], but here is a fair survey http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf
The article you mention discusses how anarchism "might" work. The word might implies uncertainty. The radical libertarians who inhabit the LP are known for their certainty. They are not interested in how things "might" work. They have an emotional need for certainty and enforce it with an iron fist. It is this insistence on certainty that I am critical of.
The LP has always been run as a totalitarian regime. Quite ironic really :)
I'm a fellow moderate libertarian who can be contacted at buzzy@student.fdu.edu
Regards,
Ryan
Modlib, it would help if you whould read what some radical libertarians actually believe. I suggest reading articles by radical libertarians such as Roderick Long, John Hasnas, Michael Rozeff (panarchy) and Sheldon Richman. "Anarchism as Constitutionalism" by Roderick Long, "In Defense of Rational Anarchism" by George H. Smith, "Open Letter to Ayn Rand" by Roy Childs, Jr. and "The Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas would be a good place to start (you can easily find these on the internet using google.com). And, please, read the wikipedia entry for non-aggression principle. You might also, if you feel ambitious, read Lysander Spooners "No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority." and Adam Knott's "The Present State of Liberty". They are mind-changing articles, well worth the time spend reading and digesting them.
Post a Comment
<< Home