Socialists' Objections: October

Right!

Here we go with last month's report in terms of objections, insults and other non-founded arguments to why libertarianism is evil, capitalism is awful and I, as an advocate of both is obnoxious in every way.

OBJECTION #1

"I really hope that one day you'd change your view on the value of other people. Otherwise I fear that you will live a very, very lonely life. Nobody wants to be around someone that only cares about themselves and doesn't have any understanding of other people."

That sounds like a valid claim for an overall hateful person. What did I do to provoke this effect? Am I really guilty for such severe charges?

Found in a facebook debate, I had been explaining the idea of self-interest as Yaron Brooks interpret Ayn Rand. That is, that we all pursue our self-interests, strive for more personal satisfaction, through illustrations of what's going on in the market place; a farmer sells me a litre of milk for 1£ because he prefers 1£ to a litre of milk (his satisfaction goes up with the trade). I buy the litre of milk, because I prefer 1 litre of milk to £1 (my satisfaction goes up). Also I had expressed my wish not to pay taxes for what the government does.

For some reason, that played out as a "you-hate-all-non-white/wealthy/males-and-what-about-the-disabled-you-horrible-prick" kind of argument. Deep down I suppose they're fair accussations, and I'll come back to the topic of disabled people in a free, libertarian society.

We pursue that which gives us highest satisfaction. As satisfaction differs between people (and over time within same person), the outcome will necessarily be different. That difference is what creates a value of trade, a way of getting something I value at the expense of something I value less. That is what self-interest is about, and it doesn't make anyone an awful person. Nobody is hating disabled people, and admitting to ideas of pursuing self-interest does not make people ruthless, cold, unfeeling etc. It's a way of describing market activities. No more, no less.

OBJECTION #2

"Without taxes we wouldn't have anything. No infrastructure, no schools, no health care. Basically nothing!"

Right, after explaining that taxes essentially and for all intents and purposes are a violation of property rights (namely, theft), a commenter laughed and explained to me all the beautiful things tax-funded, public services provide. As if I for some reasoned had missed out on state interference throughout my life.

All of those examples above are build and made because they're demanded by individuals. Not because we have taxation. There's a proper misuse of causality here. Furthermore, if nobody in a welfare society would want any schools, few (or any?) politicians would decide to spend tax money on such things. They are in existence because we demand the goods or services they provide. In a libertarian society (without, or with a very limited state only) that demand would still exists - and will be satisfied accordingly. Through trade or voluntary effors of individuals who pursue their self-interest. Also, the statement assumes that such things can only exist under a tax-funded government. Nonsense, such activities are perfectly able to be held by private individuals, enterprises or voluntary societies. Ye, I think I made my point now.

OBJECTION #3

"You cannot be taken seriously. You are so obsessed with your money that you'd rather see people succumb without the social protection, before paying taxes."

Ok, so this is a typical example of where someone else is trying to tell me about my opinions. Again, libertarianism has very little to do with obsession about money or preference to someone's death. It has to do with justice; a government, at the point of a gun, can never justify stealing property from private induviduals, whatever the cause, however noble the cause might seem, as the statement implies.

And, as oppossed to general leftist ideas, libertarians normally refuse to believe that people merely 'succumb without social protection'. A society without an interventionist state will have other ways of organisation social protection, ways set up voluntarily by acting individuals. History has given us examples of workers' societies, where medical care was at the centre of cooperation. Solutions can be arranged through business on a free market. Charitable societies can freely devote themselves to such issues, should they wish to.

There's no reason to believe that people would 'succumb' without a state-based social protection.