Sunday, July 09, 2017

Libertarianism is not traditionalism 2

I published a post a few days ago on the Cato Institute, a leading libertarian organisation. I was therefore interested to find this in my Twitter feed:



Libertarians, like other right-liberals, look to the free market to regulate society. They believe that this is the engine of human progress. Hence the following quote:
"Capitalism reduces the oppression of traditional societies that impose hierarchies of gender and caste,” writes Cudd, because embedded within market exchange itself is the idea that each individual should be free to pursue her self-interest.

So there you go. The Cato Institute approves a model of society in which there are simply individuals in pursuit of their own self-interest (in particular their economic self-interest).

To a traditionalist this is a model of society that is not only ultimately unworkable, but that also has too limited a view of individual life. Are we really just atomised individuals in pursuit of our own individual profit? Is that what defines us as humans? Are men and women simply interchangeable units within a system of production and consumption?

Capitalism, as an economic system, should not define what humans are. Nor should it define our concept of society. Nor our understanding of the roles of men and women in society.

Does anyone really believe that if we tell young men and women that the highest good is to pursue their own individual self-interest that we will arrive at successful relationships between men and women? Stable families? High levels of trust between the sexes? A commitment to raise children successfully?

Capitalism alone cannot create a good society. It's necessary to keep to those traditional values and institutions that cohere or successfully order a society and which express deeper truths about man, community, belonging and identity.

The one good thing to draw from the Cato tweet is that it reminds us of what to look out for. Perhaps it is, in fact, true that a market system encourages the idea "that each individual should be free to pursue his or her self-interest." This idea goes back a long way in Western political theory - it brings to mind the view of man and society of John Locke in the late 1600s. It is likely that men made wealthy in the market will be attracted to the idea and give patronage to those holding it. But wherever and whenever it arises it needs to be vigorously opposed.

21 comments:

  1. In a perfect free market (something as utopian an impossible as communism), all the profit would be competed away and society would stale and never progress - it would be am eternal fight for lower prices, and when people run out of "innovative" ideas to make cheap-good products, it will end up actually degrading the overall quality (we're seeing these today, when Chinese cheap bad stuff outcompete better ones due to price) and it will also burn up wages and worker's rights.
    Libertarianism is an ideology of doom, even the British in their colonnial high admitted using Free Trade to destroy other countries' industries through violent competition (like China today). The founding fathers were also totally against it and were very protectionists, they knew of Britain's real weapon.
    I think the only way this ideology is pushed so hard still is due to the side effect that big corporations would be free of regulations and would engage in even bigger monopolies and selling monsanto-poisoned food, trans-shit, etc as the Libertarian concept of the Free Market itself preventing monopolies is so naive that makes you think if these people ever worked in a company instead of doing mental masturbation with each other. You see, companies involve themselves in cartels, or they help their friendly ones. It would be very easy for a Bank to uphold "X" company and crush others because that company is their favored, or if the stock market gamble machine provided profits.
    Society would truly self-destruct from greed.

    Now, the solution then is the American System of Economics, created by Benjamin Franklin, used by Imperial Russia in their final decades, by Imperial Japan, by National Socialist Germany, etc
    All countries that were villified and nuked by the Financial Elite. The wars were wars on a Financial System that would destroy the monopolies of Private Bankers then and their heirs now.
    A great book on this matter is "Web of Debt by Ellen Brown".

    Sorry for my english, not a native.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what's the solution? Empowering a civil government, unlike the church, an institution not under the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost, to forcibly regulate? No! Rather, a well-formed conscience is the most effective restraint on behavior. And the formation of such a conscience is the exclusive responsibility of the only governments on earth with divine charter and mandate - the Church and family.

      Delete
    2. James Urling, I agree with the importance of family and church in forming conscience but the problem is that there are powerful institutions that are not the church or family that form people's consciences. Think schools, universities, mass media.

      Realistically most parents will not compete effectively with these institutions in terms of influencing their children. And not only do most churches not compete, they themselves are influenced by these secular institutions.

      So there has to be a level of organisation above that of family. Fathers have to be concerned not only for their own families but for the "polis" - for the larger society. They need to organise at this larger level, to harmonise the influence that they would wish to have upon their children as individual fathers, with the much greater influence carried by the secular institutions of society.

      Delete
    3. So there has to be a level of organisation above that of family.

      Agreed. We can't fight back as individuals, or even as individual families. We'll just be crushed one by one. Only organised resistance has a chance.

      Delete
    4. People of good conscience derive mainly from conscientious families and parents, going on to form conscientious societies. Any organization higher than the family that is focused on the good is dependent on such people.

      What institutions aside from Church are focused on the good as a primary objective or function? A regard for the "good" must come back to something universally meaningful that is primary, spiritual, and not strictly driven by "worldly" outcomes.

      Traditionalists and conservatives will never win against the tsunami of atheistic liberalism (or libertarianism) by disregarding and neglecting Christian religion and morality as the basis for society.

      Delete
  2. Capitalism alone cannot create a good society.

    Do you think there's any way that capitalism can be made compatible with traditional values? I have my doubts. I think it would have to be a very different kind of capitalism compared to what we have now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it would have to be different. I have some ideas, but they are not currently practicable so I don't dwell on them much. My ideas are similar perhaps to the distributists, in that you would regulate the market to encourage local producers who would be protected to some degree and so have a reason to support the cohesiveness of their local communities. This might mean higher prices for some goods, but it could be offset by avoiding speculation in the housing market, so that people weren't paying so much for mortgages.

      Delete
    2. My ideas are similar perhaps to the distributists, in that you would regulate the market to encourage local producers who would be protected to some degree and so have a reason to support the cohesiveness of their local communities.

      That's pretty much how I see it as well.

      The frustrating thing is that so many people (especially on the right) think there's simply a choice between capitalism and socialism. In practice both capitalism and socialism have failed. There are alternatives, but it suits the interests of those who control our society to make sure we don't hear about those altern

      Delete
  3. A handful of years ago, in a discussion of "free trade", I wrote: "Free trade is an ideal. It’s near mythology. Each of us is at the center of a series of concentric circles radiating out to a final global circle, i.e. husband/father, family, neighbor, town,… the closer to the center, man-to-man, the most pure is free trade. Free trade is the unfettered exchange of goods and services between unconstrained entities. As we get out beyond that and beyond the community, free trade becomes “commerce” and is entrenched in politics. There really is no such thing as free trade when it is touched by government." http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/09/a-debate-on-free-trade/
    Self-interest is undeniable and unavoidable. Each of us has his own needs and motivations.
    Note that I said "his". I'm sure that it escaped no one, that the Cato tweeter quotes an unchallenged misuse of "gender" and says "that each individual should be free to pursue her self-interest". "her self-interest".
    Otherwise...Devout libertarians are delusional. Their romantic story-line collapses when Friday shows up on Crusoe's mythical island. There, all alone, Crusoe would exist the only true libertarian, a man unfettered by any other man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Otherwise...Devout libertarians are delusional.

      Libertarianism is a cult.

      Delete
    2. Yes. As we know, private property and the right to it and the right to protect it and to shape it; is the bedrock of Libertarianism. One's body being the most private and precious of all property. All their rights and their hierarchy of values flow from that. How do you transcend such a clinically self-centered view?
      Certain fundamental issues tie them up into knots. Hard as they try, they simply can't get out of their own way.

      Delete
  4. This is along the lines of a comment I made at VFR about Ayn Rand's fatal contradiction. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand eviscerates collectivism, yet her rugged individualist, self-interested heroes are incapable of realizing their interests on their own. They must band together, as a collective force. They must go on strike?
    All of the isms appear to have fatal contradictions. Communism, capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, feminism...cynicism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Cato Institute approves a model of society in which there are simply individuals in pursuit of their own self-interest (in particular their economic self-interest).

    So do I. There is nothing in libertarianism that precludes people from living a more traditional lifestyle, if they so choose. In fact many libertarians do just that. It seems you have a beef with those who want to make choices differently than you.

    They must band together, as a collective force. They must go on strike?

    In a certain sense all human endeavors are collective. For example, a start-up company. You seek out others who share your commitment to a particular goal, then work together to accomplish that goal. So what? I work with all kinds of people in my daily life and in pursuit of my life goals. As long no coercion is involved, this is perfectly compatible with libertarianism.

    One's body being the most private and precious of all property.

    Of course. This is a tautology, especially with regards to bio-medicine and life extension.

    I will say it again. There is no reason why like-minded individuals cannot live a "traditional" life in a libertarian society. It appears that your problem with libertarianism is not that it prevents you from living your own life, but that you can't force your choices onto others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kurt, I intend to respond to comment with a post of its own.

      Delete
    2. There is no reason why like-minded individuals cannot live a "traditional" life in a libertarian society.

      This is a good example of the ways in which libertarians do not understand how society works. If society goes down the toilet everybody goes with it. If moral degeneracy is permitted as a "lifestyle choice" it will infect all of of society. If greed and selfishness are A-OK then everybody will be affected. Which is exactly what has happened. We are not individuals. Individualism is a myth.

      A healthy society is not a random assortment of individuals, it is a social organism. And an unhealthy society makes everybody unhealthy.

      Delete
    3. dfordoom, well put, much more succinct than my response.

      Delete
    4. "It appears that your problem with libertarianism is not that it prevents you from living your own life, but that you can't force your choices onto others."

      Libertarians claim to be concerned mostly about coercion from interests other than their own. It seems more likely the deeper problem is a mistrust in connectivity and cooperation, without which society cannot exist. Most of us lament the loss of these things which seem to be eroding and fragmenting before our eyes.

      As with most progressives, libertarians do not mourn for the past but have all attention fixed on "what could be". It is a rebellious spirit that seeks to destroy that which lies outside the self rather than to create both inwardly and outwardly.

      Delete
  6. Human are necessarily communal. Being excluded from society leads to death or insanity. Libertarianism cannot work because we were not created to live only pursuing our own, temporary( once we did our interests are history) interests.

    It robs life of meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Libertarianism cannot work because we were not created to live only pursuing our own, temporary( once we did our interests are history) interests.

    One can't help wondering if libertarians are kind of autistic. The need for community is something they just don't seem to comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've thought that as well. But do libertarians skew young? People who've yet to start a family seem more drawn to it than those with a spouse and children. Anecdotally, I've never met a married one.

      Once liberals settle down, their worldview can change.

      Delete
  8. Agreed on these articles, but the 'private vices, public virtue', goes deep in liberalism, at least back to Mandeville's 'Bees' and won't be overturned by all this.

    And I think there's something in me which sees the 'selfish interest' elements within genetic legacy (from family out to salter's EGI) as being valuable to the idea of a traditional society structured upon similar peoples. The legacy of more copies of your own genes in the population etc. The social trust elements that rely upon it.

    ReplyDelete