October 11, 2013
|
Dear Libertarian:
We don’t know each other, but I’m writing because you’re one of the many people who wrote to me in responce to
a piece I wrote recently ("11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See If They're Hypocrites").
A
lot of people responded. Some of you made reasonable points, while some
of you simply ranted. A frightening number of you expressed hostility
to democracy itself.
I don’t know your name, your age or your life
story. But I’m addressing this to you in the hopes that we can get to
know one another a little better.
Who are you?
I’m
writing because you wrote a blog post, or addressed me on Twitter, or
made a YouTube video about what I’d written. Or maybe you sent me an
email. I’ve learned that you guys use Internet technology quite a bit.
That’s no surprise, since the Silicon Valley is swarming with
libertarians. But it is somewhat ironic, don’t you think, that so many
of you disseminate your opinions on government-created technology?
(Defense Department research created the Internet.)
What’s even more ironic is that so many Internet billionaires (I’m looking at you,
Peter Thiel)
are extremist libertarians in their views. They support their views
with wealth they’ve accumulated using government-created technology,
government-protected patents, a government-educated workforce, and
consumers who are protected and educated at government expense.
I
called that hypocritical in my last piece, which made some of you angry.
Hey, it’s my opinion! Sue me, as the expression goes. (Wait: as
libertarians, I suppose you can’t literally sue me. Courts are a
government entity.) But I’m not writing this letter to pick a fight. I
want to address those libertarians who were essentially courteous and
respectful. You wrote thoughtful responses to my piece, and I’ll respond
to some of your specific points shortly.
But first, let me say
that I appreciate the dedication so many libertarians have shown in
defending civil liberties and opposing the militarized state. I wish
that liberals had been more steadfast on these principles since Obama
took office. Ron Paul was the only 2012 presidential candidate to speak
the truth about US military intervention, and Rand Paul’s anti-drone
filibuster was admirable.
I also appreciate and admire your
willingness to reject conventional thinking. We should never stop
discussing new concepts, however radical. Ideas are beautiful things
when they’re well constructed, and some libertarian ideas are admirable
in their construction—even if I find them sorely lacking in real-world
situations.
Finally, libertarians have also been great allies on
the subject of Wall Street and large corporations, especially when it
comes to ending their government funding, their implicit subsidies and
exemptions from prosecution.
Anecdote Break
Before we continue, an anecdote: I went on a talk show to discuss banking reform with one of the guys from
Reason magazine,
and in the kitchen afterward we were both surprised at how much we
agreed. He was funny and imperturbable. We decided to air our
differences over coffee.
I said “You people are 60 percent great, and 40 percent irrational.”
“I’ll take 60 percent,” he cheerfully. “What else?”
“Talking
with you guys is like being on a first date that’s going really well,
until all of a sudden she starts talking about her alien abduction and
how space people are speaking to her through her fillings.”
He said, "The existence of alien life is a very real possibility."
Like I said: Very funny.
Finally I said “Okay, I’ve told you what I think. What do you think about people like me?”
His answer: “Nice, but way too serious.”
The Libertarian Experiment, 1776-1929
On
the other hand, there’s a lot to be serious about. It’s true that
libertarian ideas can be intriguing. But political debates have
real-world, human consequences. If an exciting idea doesn’t work in
practice, we have a moral obligation to change our thinking.
My
deepest criticism of libertarians is that they aren’t willing to change
in the face of experience. This nation conducted a long experiment in
libertarian economics, after all, from its inception until the
mid-19th-century or thereabouts. Our economy retained many libertarian
features—minimal regulations and labor laws, for example—until the early
20th century.
They weren’t the “good old days,” at least not for
most Americans. It was a time of robber barons, poverty wages, unsafe
working conditions, and financial instability. To return to that level
of deregulation in today’s advanced industrial economy would be even
worse. We’d see frequent BP-type environmental disasters, accelerated
climate change, and financial crises that span the entire globe.
Triumph of the Will?
Several
of you told me that economic transactions, including the
employer/employee relationship, should be based on “free will.” But
garment workers in early-20th-century New York or 21st-century
Bangladesh aren’t allowed to exercise their free will. They either
accept poverty wages and lethal working conditions or they starve. Why
does an employer’s freedom to negotiate trump the employees’ right to
organize collectively? “Free will” is pretty narrowly defined.
One
of you wrote that, “You have a right to the product of your labors, but
you can’t force someone to pay you more than what you are due.” But you
can force someone to accept
less than what they’re due, if the alternative is starvation. That’s not a free and fair transaction.
You
wrote that no transaction is immoral “as long as force is not
involved.” But what human forces are more brutal than hunger, privation
and death?
Market Wisdom
Several of you
said that, in the words of one email, “The only reason big corporations
are bad right now is because of big government.” That’s simply not true.
Big corporations were big and bad in the 1900s, too, when the federal
government was much smaller than it is today.
A lot of you took
umbrage at my observation that the public lost interest in
libertarianism until it received artificial subsidies from corporations
and wealthy individuals. I asked, shouldn’t the “market” in ideas
decide? Many of you reacted by implying that I think unpopular ideas
should be suppressed. That’s not what I said. I was observing some
hypocrisy in your position, not stating my own.
Remember: I’m not
the one who believes in the all-knowing “wisdom of markets.” I support
public education and nonprofit journalism, so that unpopular ideas can
flourish without being manipulated or suppressed by big-money interests.
Democracy, No!
My
question about democracy was, “Does our libertarian recognize that
democracy is a form of marketplace?” This is where it was disturbing to
hear some of your opinions—especially knowing they’re shared by many
wealthy and powerful people.
One of you wrote that, “Democracy is
no more of a form of marketplace than a rampaging mob is a form of
marketplace.” You added: “Democracy is no more than theft by popular
vote.”
This is a very Randian—and very wrong-headed—view of
democracy. It’s absurd to suggest that a line of people waiting to vote
is “rampaging,” while a line of people at the Walmart checkout counter
is “preparing to make a rational market decision.”
What you call a
“mob,” we call “the majority.” Your choice of language betrays a fierce
contempt for “ordinary" people—that is, the non-wealthy—which is deeply
disturbing. This elitism is libertarianism’s dark heart, and I ask you
to reexamine your assumptions about it.
The “theft” in question
is, at least for most of you, taxation. But taxes are collected in
return for services provided, often more effectively and at lower cost
than the “privatized” alternative.
One of you quoted Ambrose
Bierce as saying, “Democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on what to
have for lunch.” Unfortunately, that useful government-sponsored
resource called the Internet offers no proof (other than user-written
websites) that Bierce ever said that. Whoever said it was wrong,
especially in Bierce’s time. (Or Ben Franklin’s. The saying is
misattributed to him, too.)
Our democratic processes have been
subverted by big money and big media, two forces whose corrupting
influence is often defended by libertarians. Our system is run by a few
lambs. First those lambs enriched themselves, often by cheating and
manipulating the flock. Then they gave the throng a choice of pro-lamb
candidates and called it democracy.
Goodbye For Now
Well,
my libertarian friend, there you have it. You’re engaged with the world
of ideas, and that’s good. I hope you stay open-minded, as I try to do,
and let experience—including the BP oil spill and the financial crisis
of 2008—influence your thinking. I hope we can continue to work together
to resist militarism and defend our individual liberties.
I’m
sorry if my last piece was too brusque or sarcastic. I’ll work on my
tone. But if you think my ideas are no good, I hope you’ll take comfort
in the thought that market forces should therefore crush them and
replace them with better ones—maybe even yours!
Your democracy-loving friend,
Richard
PS: How about that whole Bitcoin thing, huh? Looks
kinda bad for your side right now, don’t you think? Talk to you soon.
RJ Eskow is a writer,
business person, and songwriter/musician. He has worked as a consultant
in public policy, technology, and finance, specializing in healthcare
issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment