Let me begin by stating that the title is maybe
misleading, I don’t mean that libertarianism is self contradictory nor that it
is inconsistent with its own principles. Libertarianism, properly defined,
is the philosophy of promoting individual Liberty, in contrary to most other
political philosophies, it believes in the uniqueness of the individual and it
places a high value on how each individual values, pursues goals and, broadly
speaking, lives his life. The word Liberty (if you have noticed, written with
capital letter L) must be distinguished from the new invented liberties that
the left speaks of today. This division of Liberty into layers can only be
misleading and dangerous (for more details see F. A. Hayek: the constitution of
liberty), it opens the door for a completely flawed interpretation of the
meaning of liberty itself. But liberty is one and it cannot be divided, for
that it means absence of coercion, and any violation of this principle is a
violation of Liberty. This principle should be applied to all people with no
exception, including the State, society, tribes, groups of people etc. No group
of people should violate the freedom of the individual, no State should violate
it either, and no one should coerce anybody to submit to his wills. I wonder
how some people think that liberty is the path to chaos and absence of the rule
of law. How could it be so according to the definition above? Some argue that
without coercion the preservation of the rule of law would be impossible, and
therefore of liberty as well. However, that’s another concern that is beyond
the point of this essay.
This is a vague introduction to the concept of
Liberty and I shall advance my excuses for this very short introductory
paragraph but that’s because this is not my concern, it took Hayek probably 100
pages to fully make a very clear understanding of what liberty is or is not and
I don’t merely want to restate what I read. I want to argue why libertarianism
as a set of ideas, a political stance and convictions cannot and usually fails
to compete with the other political ideas with which it is wrestling. It does
so because of its emphasis on “the individual” while its competitors on groups.
Libertarianism does not believe in global shared values except those related to
the none aggression principle (NAP), it believes that each individual should
run after his goals in his own ways and according to his own valuations as long
as he is not interrupting anybody else’s way. Intuitively, the starting point
to know why an ideology (a set of ideas, politics, or mere convictions) is
gaining popularity is to ask how it did so. What purpose is it there to
fulfill? Is it based on rational arguments that convinced the individuals who
hold it? Or it is because it serves the interests of some special groups? Where
does it find its origin? Does it make evolutionary sense? Does it fulfill, say,
an inner need of individuals?
How society is organized is no easy question, probably this is the hardest of questions in social sciences. But there is an axiom from which we can begin our analysis, that is, the institutions (the set of laws) governing human interactions in societies are partly determined evolutionary. In almost all societies, we observe “patterns” of behavior, or rules governing their interactions, such as ethics and hierarchies (e.g. all societies have rules that prevent crimes such as killing for no reason, theft, etc; and in all societies there are individuals who are viewed as the elite, the aristocrats, the wise, etc.). The institutions that are shaped by evolution are universals and are not our concern here. The difference among societies stems from the ideas and the conflict of interests, that is, they are partly determined by intellectuals (i.e., the ideas of intellectuals) and partly by those who are in positions of power, anyone in a position of power tends to use it in his own interest, but despite that, the power of ideas is so strong, as noted by David Hume, even special interests are shaped by ideas, and therefore this is the conclusion we will use to explain differences in institutions between societies – or in how societies are organized/shaped. To put it simply, if a nation is dominated by, so to speak, conservative, progressive or libertarian politics, that is because the ideas held by the majority of its inhabitants are conservative, progressive or libertarian. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out, either a regime is dictator or democratic, it can’t be maintained unless it is supported by the majority. Now we got a glimpse of the answer, but the question still can’t be solved, we know that the ideas of the majority are the key, but we don’t know why intellectuals hold a specific set of ideas and how the majority follows. There are two kinds of intellectuals, the honest and the dishonest. The honest intellectuals tell really what they believe and they are objective in their views, they are neutral from any subjective whims or emotional influence and they don’t shape their ideas to serve anyone’s interests. The second type of intellectuals is the kind who has the least interest to pursue the truth, they say only what is emotionally appealing and what serves special interests, i.e., their own and the interests of politicians and people in positions of power who bribe them. According to this assertion, it is clear what set of ideas will prevail rapidly and what set of ideas is condemned to be in the margin. The ideas of progressives (the left) serve the most interests of people in power since they seek big governments and as I have already wrote elsewhere, they are emotionally appealing to the morality of the herd. The ideas of conservatives, by definition, they seek to prevent progress, they prefer the status quo and they want to maintain the current situation as it is, they don’t want change, since according to them, change is dangerous and they use the power of the law to prevent change, no wonder, this kind of ideas is also appealing emotionally, since there is a lot of people who value traditions, beliefs, history and they regard everything new as a danger of these. That’s why conservatives also have their share in the arena of political power. But libertarians, poor libertarians, their ideas are largely ignored, they don’t serve any special interests, they don’t have a sacred view of traditions, they don’t fear change and they don’t appeal to the morality of the herd. And that’s why they have the least share of the power in the political arena.
For me, there is something else that is missing from the puzzle. That’s not all. There is another factor that makes an ideology more appealing than the others. If we look to what is common among progressives (liberals in the U.S. language) and conservatives, it’s easy to notice that both are collectivists, they work in groups and they campaign to spread their ideas, because they believe in absolute valuations, and they don’t mind the use of the power of the law and legislation to put their plans into practice, both don’t mind coercion and the use of force. Humans have a tendency to believe that things can’t work unless regulated; they believe that, if there is no one to make sure that everything is alright, a chaos will emerge. On the other hand, libertarians believe in the spontaneous order and they are convinced that if things are left to function without any central planning, they will be just fine. As previously stated, libertarians are utter individualists and they don’t believe in collective campaigns to spread their ideas, they work individually and they don’t believe in the use of force to violate freedom in order to gain freedom. It is this, indeed, what I call a paradox, for that libertarianism is about freedom and individualism and to spread itself it must not either adopt the collective thoughts of its rivals nor to violate freedom and use the power of legislation. If it uses collectivism - that is, the members who believe in its values work in groups and violate freedom - then it’s no longer libertarianism.
My fellow libertarians might think that I am too pessimistic and that this might mean that there is no way in which a libertarian society can exist, but that’s not true. First of all, the battle should take place in the arena of intellectuals. A libertarian society must be necessarily a society in which the majority of individuals are well educated. Once the intellectuals are convinced that the values of liberty are superior to any form of coercion, then, necessarily, it is only a matter of time that the majority of individuals will follow and with it the politics. We have all the reasons to believe this is true, per example just see what fueled the revolutions that gave rise to the communist regimes? Isn’t it the ideas of philosophers? What gave rise to a politician like Margaret Thatcher? Isn’t it because of the book (the Road to Serfdom) that was a best seller few decades before her election and that she herself had read? Indeed, I don’t think there would be anything such as communism if it did not appear in the writings of an intellectual. And without Adam Smith (along with other intellectuals before and after him) and his neat arguments in favor of free trade and the emphasis that markets spontaneously regulate themselves through the mechanism of prices, there would be no industrial revolution. Even the minor differences are explained by the presence of intellectuals. If you look at France and Germany from a historical viewpoint, both had great intellectuals but why France is falling behind Germany (though even Germany today is making the same mistakes)? Isn’t it because of the French intellectuals and their tendency to promote socialist ideas? I’ll answer no more any of these questions and I’ll leave the wise minds to decide.
Don’t forget: “never underestimate the power of your ideas”
How society is organized is no easy question, probably this is the hardest of questions in social sciences. But there is an axiom from which we can begin our analysis, that is, the institutions (the set of laws) governing human interactions in societies are partly determined evolutionary. In almost all societies, we observe “patterns” of behavior, or rules governing their interactions, such as ethics and hierarchies (e.g. all societies have rules that prevent crimes such as killing for no reason, theft, etc; and in all societies there are individuals who are viewed as the elite, the aristocrats, the wise, etc.). The institutions that are shaped by evolution are universals and are not our concern here. The difference among societies stems from the ideas and the conflict of interests, that is, they are partly determined by intellectuals (i.e., the ideas of intellectuals) and partly by those who are in positions of power, anyone in a position of power tends to use it in his own interest, but despite that, the power of ideas is so strong, as noted by David Hume, even special interests are shaped by ideas, and therefore this is the conclusion we will use to explain differences in institutions between societies – or in how societies are organized/shaped. To put it simply, if a nation is dominated by, so to speak, conservative, progressive or libertarian politics, that is because the ideas held by the majority of its inhabitants are conservative, progressive or libertarian. As Ludwig von Mises pointed out, either a regime is dictator or democratic, it can’t be maintained unless it is supported by the majority. Now we got a glimpse of the answer, but the question still can’t be solved, we know that the ideas of the majority are the key, but we don’t know why intellectuals hold a specific set of ideas and how the majority follows. There are two kinds of intellectuals, the honest and the dishonest. The honest intellectuals tell really what they believe and they are objective in their views, they are neutral from any subjective whims or emotional influence and they don’t shape their ideas to serve anyone’s interests. The second type of intellectuals is the kind who has the least interest to pursue the truth, they say only what is emotionally appealing and what serves special interests, i.e., their own and the interests of politicians and people in positions of power who bribe them. According to this assertion, it is clear what set of ideas will prevail rapidly and what set of ideas is condemned to be in the margin. The ideas of progressives (the left) serve the most interests of people in power since they seek big governments and as I have already wrote elsewhere, they are emotionally appealing to the morality of the herd. The ideas of conservatives, by definition, they seek to prevent progress, they prefer the status quo and they want to maintain the current situation as it is, they don’t want change, since according to them, change is dangerous and they use the power of the law to prevent change, no wonder, this kind of ideas is also appealing emotionally, since there is a lot of people who value traditions, beliefs, history and they regard everything new as a danger of these. That’s why conservatives also have their share in the arena of political power. But libertarians, poor libertarians, their ideas are largely ignored, they don’t serve any special interests, they don’t have a sacred view of traditions, they don’t fear change and they don’t appeal to the morality of the herd. And that’s why they have the least share of the power in the political arena.
For me, there is something else that is missing from the puzzle. That’s not all. There is another factor that makes an ideology more appealing than the others. If we look to what is common among progressives (liberals in the U.S. language) and conservatives, it’s easy to notice that both are collectivists, they work in groups and they campaign to spread their ideas, because they believe in absolute valuations, and they don’t mind the use of the power of the law and legislation to put their plans into practice, both don’t mind coercion and the use of force. Humans have a tendency to believe that things can’t work unless regulated; they believe that, if there is no one to make sure that everything is alright, a chaos will emerge. On the other hand, libertarians believe in the spontaneous order and they are convinced that if things are left to function without any central planning, they will be just fine. As previously stated, libertarians are utter individualists and they don’t believe in collective campaigns to spread their ideas, they work individually and they don’t believe in the use of force to violate freedom in order to gain freedom. It is this, indeed, what I call a paradox, for that libertarianism is about freedom and individualism and to spread itself it must not either adopt the collective thoughts of its rivals nor to violate freedom and use the power of legislation. If it uses collectivism - that is, the members who believe in its values work in groups and violate freedom - then it’s no longer libertarianism.
My fellow libertarians might think that I am too pessimistic and that this might mean that there is no way in which a libertarian society can exist, but that’s not true. First of all, the battle should take place in the arena of intellectuals. A libertarian society must be necessarily a society in which the majority of individuals are well educated. Once the intellectuals are convinced that the values of liberty are superior to any form of coercion, then, necessarily, it is only a matter of time that the majority of individuals will follow and with it the politics. We have all the reasons to believe this is true, per example just see what fueled the revolutions that gave rise to the communist regimes? Isn’t it the ideas of philosophers? What gave rise to a politician like Margaret Thatcher? Isn’t it because of the book (the Road to Serfdom) that was a best seller few decades before her election and that she herself had read? Indeed, I don’t think there would be anything such as communism if it did not appear in the writings of an intellectual. And without Adam Smith (along with other intellectuals before and after him) and his neat arguments in favor of free trade and the emphasis that markets spontaneously regulate themselves through the mechanism of prices, there would be no industrial revolution. Even the minor differences are explained by the presence of intellectuals. If you look at France and Germany from a historical viewpoint, both had great intellectuals but why France is falling behind Germany (though even Germany today is making the same mistakes)? Isn’t it because of the French intellectuals and their tendency to promote socialist ideas? I’ll answer no more any of these questions and I’ll leave the wise minds to decide.
Don’t forget: “never underestimate the power of your ideas”
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire