Libertarianism idealistic?

[jaumen]

Hey everybody,

So I have only just begun to find myself... politically speaking. Up until this year I have never found a candidate that I felt that I could vote for (granted this is only the second election I am legally able to vote in... I missed the 2000 election by a few months). I never really understood that there was anything other that Republican or Democrat, and just felt that there was nothing politics had to offer me. But about 2 months ago I discovered Ron Paul... At first I thought some of the stuff he was saying was a little outlandish... but I could also tell that he meant what he said, so I started to seek out more information on him, etc... long story short, I found that ultimately I agree with him on most every position he has... and he is definitely very libertarian in his ideas and beliefs.

Now, both of my parents are Republican, most people in my family are Republican... they are not opposed to Ron Paul in any way, but I wouldn't say they are for him... that is to say, if he won the nomination, I am sure they would vote for him, but I don't think they would vote for him in the primaries (if they felt inspired to vote in the primaries at all).

So speaking to my dad tonight, and asking him about his views on things, vs the things I have been discovering that I believe, he eventually mentioned that he felt that my views were very idealistic, and that while they may work in a perfect world, they could not work in reality. Personally, I find calling something idealistic because it is very different from the way things are is kind of a copout... but... I am new to all of this.... can anyone give me any advice, or direct me to any information that might help me to argue that libertarianism isn't just idealistic nonsense, and that it could actually work in reality?

 

[murrayrothbard]

Well you didn't really mention any specifics so I can't address anything in detail. Anyways, yes libertarianism is idealistic in the sense that it holds liberty to be an ideal. This is the ideal that every individual is by nature a free and independent being and should thus be treated as one. But what is the problem with being idealistic?? Why is bad to have principles and stick to them? However, if your dad really means utopian, as in not possible in reality, when he says idealistic, I couldn't disagree more.

Are there any specific ideas besides "libertariansim" in general that he finds troublesome?

 

[jaumen]

Well I meant in a general sense... but I can give some specifics if it helps....

For instance, ending government regulations on things like drugs, or on trade.

Trying to bring back something like a gold standard (I tried to explain that it would be different from the old gold standard, but I am not completely familiar with Ron Paul's ideas on this).

I think that he agrees with me in principle on a lot of things but he doesn't think it's something that could ever work.. those are the 2 main things we talked about that I can think of right now.

 

[Zarxrax]

Just ask our founding fathers if they thought it was idealistic!

 

[murrayrothbard]

Hmmm. Ok, by drugs do mean "illicit" drugs or all pharmaceuticals? And is your Dad simply saying that this will never happen because of politics, or that it never should happen, as in the government should be regulating?

 

[jaumen]

Just ask our founding fathers if they thought it was idealistic!

I tried that one, his response was that they lived in a different world. I think he might just be too jaded to think that things like personal liberty and small government can work today... so it would be good to find some practical arguments for it that I can use.... I'm having trouble thinking of what I could say to try to convince him.

 

[jaumen]

Hmmm. Ok, by drugs do mean "illicit" drugs or all pharmaceuticals? And is your Dad simply saying that this will never happen because of politics, or that it never should happen, as in the government should be regulating?

Well, both kinds of drugs I guess. It includes pharmaceuticals. He feels that someone needs to regulate it, and I said if there was demand a private organization could regulate it... but I think that he feels a private organization wouldn't do a good job. Perhaps if you know of some good examples where private regulation has been successful that might help.

He asked how you could trust a private organization, and I asked how you could trust the government. Neither of us really had an answer for that.

 

[murrayrothbard]

I tried that one, his response was that they lived in a different world. I think he might just be too jaded to think that things like personal liberty and small government can work today... so it would be good to find some practical arguments for it that I can use.... I'm having trouble thinking of what I could say to try to convince him.

No no arguing for liberty from economic efficiency or practicality is usually a waste of time. Yes the arguments are there and they are solid but they require a lot of knowledge in specialized disciplines like economics, etc. The most direct route to take, but also perhaps the most confrontational / blunt, is an argument from morality.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to analyze and work out your own positions first, then start working on others.

 

[Zarxrax]

Well, you were completely right on your dad using the "idealism" line as a cop-out. Call him on that and ask him to provide you with specific arguments as to why it can not work in the real world. The burden of proof is not on you to prove that these ideas are viable, but on him to prove why they are *not* viable.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Well, both kinds of drugs I guess. It includes pharmaceuticals. He feels that someone needs to regulate it, and I said if there was demand a private organization could regulate it... but I think that he feels a private organization wouldn't do a good job. Perhaps if you know of some good examples where private regulation has been successful that might help.

He asked how you could trust a private organization, and I asked how you could trust the government. Neither of us really had an answer for that.

An important thing to understand about reality is that there are NO GUARANTEES! No one can guarantee what would happen. Not you, not me, and NOT the GOVERNMENT! The "government" is just a group of people, no different than you and me.

Individuals act in their own perceived self-interest. We know that. There are logical implications of this fact. This is the science of economics. However, it is impossible to predict the exact shape or configuration of a market solution to a problem (assuming the market participants have decided the "problem" actually is one).

 

[Shii]

Also, you can point out to him that Ron Paul would only be sizing down the federal government. If his state wanted to regulate drugs or guns or whatever, that would be permitted by the Constitution.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Idealistic is bad now?

 

[murrayrothbard]

quote time

"The Conservative has long been marked, whether he knows it or not, by long-run pessimism: by the belief that the long-run trend, and therefore Time itself, is against him, and hence the inevitable trend runs toward left-wing statism at home and Communism abroad. It is this long-run despair that accounts for the Conservative's rather bizarre short-run optimism; for since the long run is given up as hopeless, the Conservative feels that his only hope of success rests in the current moment. .... The quintessence of the Practical Man, and beset by long-run despair, the Conservative refuses to think or plan beyond the election of the day.

Pessimism, however, both short-run and long-run, is precisely what the prognosis of Conservatism deserves; for Conservatism is a dying remnant of the ancien régime of the preindustrial era, and, as such, it has no future. .... For too many libertarians mistakenly link the prognosis for liberty with that of the seemingly stronger and supposedly allied Conservative movement; this linkage makes the characteristic long-run pessimism of the modern libertarian easy to understand. .... while the short-run prospects for liberty at home and abroad may seem dim, the proper attitude for the libertarian to take is that of unquenchable long-run optimism. "

-Murray Rothbard (Left and Right : The Prospects of Liberty)

 

[beerista]

The accusation that the ideas of liberty are idealistic is common. In a literal sense, it's true. I'm rather fond of remembering the line "Man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?" In other words, ideals are good. Striving to reach them is good. Failure is certain, but you'll get a hell of a lot farther if you strive for an ideal than if you strive for mediocrity.
But that's all really semantics, because that's not what people mean when they accuse us of idealism. What they mean is unworkable. And they think it's unworkable because they think (correctly, I believe) that man is often petty and self interested. You mention that your father is jaded. It is entirely sensible to be jaded. The thing I find eternally surprising is that people are so often jaded at the wrong things. We understand people and so we think that liberty will be messy. This is true; it is. But, if we recognize that man is flawed and therefore do not trust him with the responsibility to govern his own life, does it then make sense to grant that same imperfect creature power over others?
But it's understandable that many are distrusting of liberty. People have often been led to this by some well-meaning but overenthusiastic adherents of liberty who present it as utopia; it's not and suggesting that it is will just make people rightly suspicious. To paraphrase Churchill, freedom isn't the best system, it's just better than all the others. Arguing perfection is a losing cause.
--
Yeah, I know that's not too helpful, but I'm just feeling wordy tonight.