I have a love-hate relationship with libertarianism. The non-aggression principle, the world of voluntary transactions and the emphasis on individuality all sit well with me. As any form of minarchism, libertarianism is not without its problems, but they sound more like fun challenges than unsurmountable obstacles.
The libertarian reasoning I find on the Internet is another story entirely. Libertarians often see the state-market dichotomy as the only real division in politics, and approach it with a dialectical fervor that you rarely see outside Marxist circles. They don't need to be this way, but tradition has it that they see no real difference between social democrats, socialists and communists. As the anti-leftist FrontPage Magazine says: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out."
That might sounds like a nice and easy approach to politics, but it causes problems. Take the following reasoning, lifted straight from Soviet days.
This was really how people reasoned at the time. The first premise follows from dialectic thought, which was pretty much the official cognitive style in the Soviet era. In those days, it was literally lethal: dialectic logic led to slavery and executions. In libertarianism, it leads to name-calling and some pretty strange beliefs.
The libertarian reasoning I find on the Internet is another story entirely. Libertarians often see the state-market dichotomy as the only real division in politics, and approach it with a dialectical fervor that you rarely see outside Marxist circles. They don't need to be this way, but tradition has it that they see no real difference between social democrats, socialists and communists. As the anti-leftist FrontPage Magazine says: "Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out."
That might sounds like a nice and easy approach to politics, but it causes problems. Take the following reasoning, lifted straight from Soviet days.
- All who do not subscribe to the Communist Party Line are saboteurs who wish to establish capitalist rule.
- Field worker Andrei does not agree with the Party Line.
- Therefore, Andrei is a saboteur who wants to establish capitalist rule.
This was really how people reasoned at the time. The first premise follows from dialectic thought, which was pretty much the official cognitive style in the Soviet era. In those days, it was literally lethal: dialectic logic led to slavery and executions. In libertarianism, it leads to name-calling and some pretty strange beliefs.
To appreciate how these beliefs form, consider the effect that misrepresenting the beliefs of others can have in the long run. Once you start inferring other beliefs, motivations or even character traits from this misrepresentation, you're bound to get stuck. This is straw man reasoning in its purest and most insidious form. Libertarian thinking is not necessarily like this -- it is just a tradition that goes back to Ayn Rand, and that many libertarians have not yet left behind.
As an example, take a recent contribution to Google+ by +Michael van der Galien, a classical liberal with a libertarian streak. I often enjoy reading his views, but had great difficulty with this particular post.
Even if you assume Michael means something like 'leftists' when he says progressives -- the two are often erroneously lumped together -- it is easy to object to many of his claims. For example, there are many mixed economy leftists who are not anti-capitalist. Sure, they put a lot value onto social equality. They will always check whether there is too much of a conflict between the market and that core value. But they do not oppose the market system in itself. And while some leftists indeed see a mixed economy as the path to full socialism, others think that a dualistic economy in itself can be optimal. In any case, neither see capitalism as the root of all evil.
For Michael, the differences between various types of leftists are probably not interesting, because he subscribes to libertarian dialectics. The state-market dichotomy is all that counts then, and there are only radical sides to choose from -- all leftists are equal and all are pro-state and anti-capitalist, says the libertarian mantra. It is easy to see how such reasoning follows from dialectics.
It is less easy to see where Michael's claim about anti-colonialism comes from, more so because it is poorly phrased. People across the spectrum tend to believe that colonial powers acted as colonial powers in colonial times. That tautology is true by definition. Also, most of these same people agree that colonialism wasn't a very nice thing to do. In that sense, anti-colonialism is not confined to the heads of leftists or progressives, but much more widely spread phenomenon. So why does Michael focus on leftist anti-colonialism?
My guess would be that he meant to talk about neocolonialism. Leftists tend to worry about the accumulation of wealth and often claim that economic power is used to subjugate foreign lands. This economic power projection is akin to colonialism, or so they claim. Interestingly enough, even this view is shared more broadly than just among leftists. In fact, the (progressive) libertarian platform Antiwar.com often condemns modern-day equivalents of colonialism, be they through economic or military force. Of course, there is no room for such shades of gray in libertarian dialectics, and so Michael places anti-neocolonialism in the leftist camp.
Taking these caricatures, Michael goes on to claim that the Muslim Brotherhood thinks the same way as leftists do, and that this "explains" the support leftists give to the Muslim Brotherhood. This claim is dialectics at its finest: since it dictates that only two sides exist, people who share convictions are necessarily allies.
For Michael, the differences between various types of leftists are probably not interesting, because he subscribes to libertarian dialectics. The state-market dichotomy is all that counts then, and there are only radical sides to choose from -- all leftists are equal and all are pro-state and anti-capitalist, says the libertarian mantra. It is easy to see how such reasoning follows from dialectics.
It is less easy to see where Michael's claim about anti-colonialism comes from, more so because it is poorly phrased. People across the spectrum tend to believe that colonial powers acted as colonial powers in colonial times. That tautology is true by definition. Also, most of these same people agree that colonialism wasn't a very nice thing to do. In that sense, anti-colonialism is not confined to the heads of leftists or progressives, but much more widely spread phenomenon. So why does Michael focus on leftist anti-colonialism?
My guess would be that he meant to talk about neocolonialism. Leftists tend to worry about the accumulation of wealth and often claim that economic power is used to subjugate foreign lands. This economic power projection is akin to colonialism, or so they claim. Interestingly enough, even this view is shared more broadly than just among leftists. In fact, the (progressive) libertarian platform Antiwar.com often condemns modern-day equivalents of colonialism, be they through economic or military force. Of course, there is no room for such shades of gray in libertarian dialectics, and so Michael places anti-neocolonialism in the leftist camp.
Taking these caricatures, Michael goes on to claim that the Muslim Brotherhood thinks the same way as leftists do, and that this "explains" the support leftists give to the Muslim Brotherhood. This claim is dialectics at its finest: since it dictates that only two sides exist, people who share convictions are necessarily allies.
I don't think that claim stands up to scrutiny. When the military coup in Egypt ousted Morsi, there was condemnation from the religiously conservative regime in Ankara, but not from progressive politicians. There was disappointment about the failure of the democratic process; there was no disappointment about the Muslim Brotherhood not being able to push through its political agenda. Not even in progressive newspapers. If there's been any clear-cut, western, leftist or progressive support of the Muslim Brotherhood, I haven't come across it. Of course, I asked Michael if he could point me to specific statements of support, but his answer was not that helpful:
If this conclusion seems to be at odds with about fifty years of leftist politics, you've been paying attention. Michael, however can explain this paradox. It is not that progressives and the Muslim Brotherhood aren't friends, nor is it that the conclusion of his final syllogism is unwarranted (it is, but I will leave that exercise in logical thinking to the reader). Instead, Michael argues, the New Left's flirtations with civil rights can be explained as a great way to undermine capitalism, colonialism and Christianity.
That's right. +Michael van der Galien is claiming that gay rights and feminism are just tools in a crusade against the free market and the Christian faith. According to him, leftists don't support these issues because they care about them as ends, they support them because they work well as means for some secret agenda. And he, I should add, is an otherwise intelligent guy, who often has sensible opinions.
This crazy conclusion is what happens if you stack misrepresentations and then draw conclusions from them. It is what happens if you choose to view the world in terms of two diametrically opposed camps. It is what happens if you accept libertarian dialectics.
How about actually reading twitter and opinion pieces, looking at policies, and listening to what politicians say? Laughable response by a typical progressive.
This response did serve as yet another example of the Hegelian, libertarian mind at work: to Michael, my disagreement meant that I was a "typical progressive". While I don't want to join Michael in calling comments 'laughable', I have to admit this name-calling made me smile.
Of course, I could have known that I would not get a straight answer. Michael's reasoning didn't stop with the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood and progressives are in cahoots. This apparent conclusion is just another premise for an even grander Soviet Syllogism. In true libertarian fashion, Michael doesn't just want leftists to be wrong, he wants them to be evil.
- The Muslim Brotherhood does not respect gay or women rights.
- The "progressives" side with the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Therefore, the "progressives" do not respect gay or women rights.
 |
| Misrepresentation of political opponents can lead to false beliefs |
If this conclusion seems to be at odds with about fifty years of leftist politics, you've been paying attention. Michael, however can explain this paradox. It is not that progressives and the Muslim Brotherhood aren't friends, nor is it that the conclusion of his final syllogism is unwarranted (it is, but I will leave that exercise in logical thinking to the reader). Instead, Michael argues, the New Left's flirtations with civil rights can be explained as a great way to undermine capitalism, colonialism and Christianity.
That's right. +Michael van der Galien is claiming that gay rights and feminism are just tools in a crusade against the free market and the Christian faith. According to him, leftists don't support these issues because they care about them as ends, they support them because they work well as means for some secret agenda. And he, I should add, is an otherwise intelligent guy, who often has sensible opinions.
This crazy conclusion is what happens if you stack misrepresentations and then draw conclusions from them. It is what happens if you choose to view the world in terms of two diametrically opposed camps. It is what happens if you accept libertarian dialectics.
No comments:
Post a Comment