Libertarianism Good or Bad?
An informative and enlightening debate about not just the strengths and weaknesses of libertarianism, but, given Yaron Brook’s espousal of all things Ayn Rand, some insights on objectivism as well.
It was a good debate in that it left me pondering questions for which I have no real clear answers. Those follow after my own assessment:
Tam did a decent job defining libertarianism, that is thin libertarianism especially when he stated that objectivist communities with their own forms of consensual government would have a place in Libertarian World. His weakest point was—not surprisingly—on abortion.
The debate is really about deontological vs. ontological underpinnings/justifications of the ideology. In other words, deontological is the Hans-Hermann Hoppe argumentation ethic and/or the Walter Block consequentialism. Ontological is the Rockwell, natural law argument that says it is in human nature to be free as we are made in the image of God, at liberty to direct our lives (human action ala Mises) in such a way as to affect our happiness (not relative) by the avenues which each of us sees fit.
Brook is right and strongest when saying that libertarians like to say the ideology is moral-less, that is devoid of objective morality. What makes the use of aggression so wrong? Especially if the objectives are achieved? He sucks out loud when saying the state is the cause of modernity. That is coincidental (in the strictest sense of that term) and correlative not at all causative. Even worse, he fails to see Ron Paul for the good man and sagacious herald he is.
Questions that remain:
- Do people naturally need/desire more from their political ideologies, since the claim of many libertarians is that it need not have philosophical and ethical underpinings?
- Is this what holds libertarianism back, i.e. its lack of an ethos, historical vision, epistemology?
- Does libertarianism not start out with a moral assertion, namely the non (or zero) aggression principle?
- If indeed it does, can we stop there with moral assertions out of convenience or a need for a broad tent?
