[Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

Wed Mar 11 14:03:29 CDT 2009

No one is talking about Hobbes the person or even suggested that he was a
libertarian.  What was being referred to was the Hobbes's depiction of the
state of nature for humans prior to any social contract; and of course, this
pre-existing state is and was a fictional device for contrasting to and
explaining the social contract upon which society is based.  Moreover, my
reference to Christian in my phrase "Christian libertarianism" was not
intended to suggest that "everyone for themselves" was part of the Christian
doctrine or the "Christian" part of libertarianism in "Christian
libertarianism" as opposed to secular libertarianism which Chomsky is
referencing.  "Everyone for themselves" is what I attribute to
"libertarianism" of all kinds (and especially as found in American thought)
as a more or less key value.  The "Christian" part of "Christian
libertarianism" references the assertion that the premises of libertarianism
are somehow natural law given by God which universally hold for everyone
independent of cultures and socio-political systems and have some innate and
inherent intrinsic value that all recognize and understand even if they do
not abide by them.

You obviously are prone to cherry picking what people write and
reconstructing their arguments so as to furnish a straw man with your spin
on it, which you then proceed to respond to as if that reconstruction was
the actual argument. As illustrated by the above, you tend to read into
others comments what you want to and ignore what has been actually written. 

I arrive at my statements based on the libertarian placement of value and
priority (a) on private property as some sort of inherent natural right
rather than a socially granted right and its private ownership as also an
intrinsic right of people rather than a socially defined privilege, (b) on
the right of owners of private property to do with it and use it as they see
fit for personal uses and gain with or without any necessary obligations to
the common good of the collective community except as they define that
obligation or the common good, (c) on the sanctity of individualism and self
interest over that of the collective or the interests of their fellow
members of the collective society, (d) on the natural right of individuals
to be free from any societal governance, interference, or control except
that which they agree with even if a majority of the community see a common
benefit to be derived from such governance, interference, or controls such
that the costs to the particular individuals are overridden by the benefits
to the population at large, and (e) on the notion that any positive exercise
of authority by society that impinges on the activities of the individual
beyond a bare minimal needed to protect private property and that regulates
individualism beyond protecting their ownership rights and the maintenance
of order and safety of person and property is authoritarianism.  

My statements were not intended to be an ironic quip.  They were intended to
note that a libertarian envisioned society (of the secular and the Christian
kind) would in practice result in a form of social Darwinism where
ultimately the strongest would survive and their survival would be justified
on the basis of their having been the strongest; everyone would be out for
themselves, the promotion of their own individual personal interests, and
the protection of their property and privilege along with their survival in
a world where all would be at essential war with all.  In short, I question
the reliance of anything like Adam Smith's magic "invisible hand" to guide
the marketplace or remedy conflicting interests among individuals.

-----Original Message-----
From: E. Wayne Johnson [mailto:ewj at pigs.ag] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 12:32 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist

"everyone for themselves in a war of all against all."

I am not sure how you arrive at this statement, Laurie, unless you are 
intending it as an ironic quip.

Hobbes sure enough "ain't no libertarian", and "everyone for themselves" 
is not Christian.

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> And what Chomsky says even holds for Christian libertarianism.  With God
on
> their side, they march into a Hobbesian hell of everyone for themselves in
a
> war of all against all.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:07 AM
> To: peace-discuss
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Libertarian/Anarchist
>
> Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?
>
> Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing.
But
> you 
> see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United
> States 
> is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called 
> "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been
> opposed 
> in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a 
> socialist-because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have
> all 
> kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.
>
> If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent 
> themselves in order to survive. Now, you can say, "they rent themselves
> freely, 
> it's a free contract" -- but that's a joke. If your choice is, "do what I
> tell 
> you or starve," that's not a choice -- it's in fact what was commonly
> referred 
> to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and
> nineteenth 
> centuries, for example.
>
> The American version of "libertarianism" is an aberration, though nobody
> really 
> takes it seriously. I mean, everybody knows that a society that worked by 
> American libertarian principles would self-destruct in three seconds. The
> only 
> reason people pretend to take it seriously is because you can use it as a 
> weapon. Like, when somebody comes out in favor of a tax, you can say: "No,
> I'm a 
> libertarian, I'm against that tax" -- but of course, I'm still in favor of
> the 
> government building roads, and having schools, and killing Libyans, and
all
> that 
> sort of stuff.
>
> Now, there are consistent libertarians, people like Murray Rothbard -- and
> if 
> you just read the world that they describe, it's a world so full of hate
> that no 
> human being would want to live in it. This is a world where you don't have
> roads 
> because you don't see any reason why you should cooperate in building a
road
>
> that you're not going to use: if you want a road, you get together with a
> bunch 
> of other people who are going to use that road and you build it, then you
> charge 
> people to ride on it. If you don't like the pollution from somebody's 
> automobile, you take them to court and you litigate it. Who would want to
> live 
> in a world like that? It's a world built on hatred.
>
> The whole thing's not even worth talking about, though. First of all, it 
> couldn't function for a second -- and if it could, all you'd want to do is
> get 
> out, or commit suicide or something. But this is a special American
> aberration, 
> it's not really serious.
>
> (from Understanding Power)
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>   