James P. Sterba thinks libertarianism implies a right to welfare.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/110/Li ... s_Equality
Liberty Requires Equality
Re: Liberty Requires Equality
I would first confess that there is a bit (maybe a lot (of bias involved here in that I can hardly pass up an opportunity to bash libertarians. In fact, from my disposition, both Sterba and Badger (both of whose articles I hope to work from and bounce off of for the few days I have here (seem a little too kind in that, as I see it, the libertarian position seems like an evolutionary backlash with a fascistic streak that can only serve as an obstacle to our cultural evolution as a species or could even result in our extinction or enslavement -that is through globalism and multinational corporations that are beholden to no one nation and have every interest in the dismantling our democracies, or through man-made climate change and the exhaustion of our natural resources. That said, I get, understand, and even admire their civility for the sake of protocol.
“Libertarians recognize that this liberty might well be enjoyed with the consequence that the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor will not be met; they just think that liberty always has priority over other political ideals. And since they assume that the liberty of the poor is not at stake in such conflict situations, it is easy for them to conclude that the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of the poor may be met.”
I would first like to focus on:
“….they just think that liberty always has priority over other political ideals.”
We have to ask how they can argue this when what they are presenting is a political ideal. Granted, I have an issue with skeptic’s paradox (and its variations (as it is applied to skeptics. There is big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. But its use against the skeptic comes down to a failure to make the leap from a semantic argument to an existential one. But this case has very real world implications.
What it comes down to is the nature of discourse. By its inherent nature, discourse must always involve the goal of figuring out what will work best for everyone involved. However, the libertarian always comes into it at a disadvantage in that they have to argue what is strictly in their self interest and make it sound as if it is in everyone’s interest. This leaves them with no other choice than to play the language game to its fullest, to work from assumptions that, based on common doxa, they can assume that everyone shares. This was inferred in the next part of Sterba’s statement:
“And since they assume that the liberty of the poor is not at stake in such conflict situations, it is easy for them to conclude that the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of the poor may be met.”
And that’s just it, isn’t it? They assume too much. While enjoying the power that capital gives them over others (they usually are people doing so, they are completely incapable (or unwilling (to recognize the loss of liberty involved in having to depend on the rich to meet basic needs. It gets even more disturbing when you consider the unspoken fascistic element involved based on Social Darwinism. Right now, about 45,000 people in America are dying from lack of access to healthcare each year. And we can safely assume that the way they justify this (and the benefit they get from it (is that the people that do are not adequate producer/consumers –in other words: undesirables that the world is better off without. We need only watch an episode of COPS (our public whipping post (to see this at work.
And in this implicit Social Darwinism we can find yet another self-contradiction among the libertarians. Sterba writes:
“So what we need to do here is appeal to the priorities that are determined by the principle of non-question-beggingness and have high-ranking liberties enforcibly trump low ranking liberties in these conflict situations. In this way, the high-ranking liberties of the poor in having their basic needs met will enforceably trump the low-ranking liberties of the rich in being able to use their surplus for luxury purposes. This, I claim, will ground a right to welfare.”
Libertarians, in their neo-Nietzscheian appeal to Social Darwinism, will often argue that it is perfectly natural for some people to have power over others. They, for instance, make appeals to the alpha male in tribes of apes. But given that, wouldn’t it be just as natural for the weaker members of that tribe to pool their power and overthrow the alpha male? And by that same token, wouldn’t it also be perfectly natural, as Sterba describes, for the poor (for the sake of liberty (to forcibly take excess resources from the rich to meet basic needs?
And this allows for overlap with Badger’s article. But this window is closing and I will have to get to that (among other things (tomorrow.
“Libertarians recognize that this liberty might well be enjoyed with the consequence that the satisfaction of the basic needs of the poor will not be met; they just think that liberty always has priority over other political ideals. And since they assume that the liberty of the poor is not at stake in such conflict situations, it is easy for them to conclude that the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of the poor may be met.”
I would first like to focus on:
“….they just think that liberty always has priority over other political ideals.”
We have to ask how they can argue this when what they are presenting is a political ideal. Granted, I have an issue with skeptic’s paradox (and its variations (as it is applied to skeptics. There is big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. But its use against the skeptic comes down to a failure to make the leap from a semantic argument to an existential one. But this case has very real world implications.
What it comes down to is the nature of discourse. By its inherent nature, discourse must always involve the goal of figuring out what will work best for everyone involved. However, the libertarian always comes into it at a disadvantage in that they have to argue what is strictly in their self interest and make it sound as if it is in everyone’s interest. This leaves them with no other choice than to play the language game to its fullest, to work from assumptions that, based on common doxa, they can assume that everyone shares. This was inferred in the next part of Sterba’s statement:
“And since they assume that the liberty of the poor is not at stake in such conflict situations, it is easy for them to conclude that the rich should not be required to sacrifice their liberty so that the basic needs of the poor may be met.”
And that’s just it, isn’t it? They assume too much. While enjoying the power that capital gives them over others (they usually are people doing so, they are completely incapable (or unwilling (to recognize the loss of liberty involved in having to depend on the rich to meet basic needs. It gets even more disturbing when you consider the unspoken fascistic element involved based on Social Darwinism. Right now, about 45,000 people in America are dying from lack of access to healthcare each year. And we can safely assume that the way they justify this (and the benefit they get from it (is that the people that do are not adequate producer/consumers –in other words: undesirables that the world is better off without. We need only watch an episode of COPS (our public whipping post (to see this at work.
And in this implicit Social Darwinism we can find yet another self-contradiction among the libertarians. Sterba writes:
“So what we need to do here is appeal to the priorities that are determined by the principle of non-question-beggingness and have high-ranking liberties enforcibly trump low ranking liberties in these conflict situations. In this way, the high-ranking liberties of the poor in having their basic needs met will enforceably trump the low-ranking liberties of the rich in being able to use their surplus for luxury purposes. This, I claim, will ground a right to welfare.”
Libertarians, in their neo-Nietzscheian appeal to Social Darwinism, will often argue that it is perfectly natural for some people to have power over others. They, for instance, make appeals to the alpha male in tribes of apes. But given that, wouldn’t it be just as natural for the weaker members of that tribe to pool their power and overthrow the alpha male? And by that same token, wouldn’t it also be perfectly natural, as Sterba describes, for the poor (for the sake of liberty (to forcibly take excess resources from the rich to meet basic needs?
And this allows for overlap with Badger’s article. But this window is closing and I will have to get to that (among other things (tomorrow.
-
sbyates330
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:03 am
Re: Liberty Requires Equality
Unfortunately, the article has a complete misunderstanding of libertarianism. The bases of which is the freedom, and right to be free from violence. Central to that understanding is the non-aggression principle, which forbids the use of force over others. The thesis of the writer, while an extreme, justifies the use of any means, including violence to acquire resources for survival. If you take that to the logical conclusion, it would justify all violence, including theft and murder if it was necessary to provide a subjective level of wealth.
Any other idea, where neo-liberalism, progressivism, or conservatism decide usingt their political, moral, and social ideas what violence is justified. Whether it is abortion, welfare, drug war, or inventionism. While the libertarian idea is consistently against all violence, including violence of government actors, at the behest of oppressive majority.
Most importantly, what the author, and d63 are arguing is similar to what Karl Marx argued. While ignoring how capital accumulation, and investment has lead to the greatest time in human history. The extensions of life expectancy, as well as the improvement in birth rate survival, and an improving environment.
There will always be haves, and have nots; but justifying when violence is okay, is exactly what libertarianism is against. Violence is wrong, regardless of your social wants.
Any other idea, where neo-liberalism, progressivism, or conservatism decide usingt their political, moral, and social ideas what violence is justified. Whether it is abortion, welfare, drug war, or inventionism. While the libertarian idea is consistently against all violence, including violence of government actors, at the behest of oppressive majority.
Most importantly, what the author, and d63 are arguing is similar to what Karl Marx argued. While ignoring how capital accumulation, and investment has lead to the greatest time in human history. The extensions of life expectancy, as well as the improvement in birth rate survival, and an improving environment.
There will always be haves, and have nots; but justifying when violence is okay, is exactly what libertarianism is against. Violence is wrong, regardless of your social wants.
Re: Liberty Requires Equality
Pure nonsense and babble, it has nothing to do with equality, it rather depends on how well people are treated. Here in Denmark our left wing socialists are rarely very bright. They demand equality over everything else, so the gifted children won't be put in gifted classes in school, because that would be unequal, but then the journalist argued that the gifted child would have its abilities enhanced in such class and maybe better be able to help society with its enhanced skills, the socialist didn't care about that, but only cared for this equality.