The Sad State of Libertarian Discourse, and the Total Misunderstanding of Christianity
Part of why I am so disappointed in the Gary Johnson campaign is that his remarks on the wedding cake controversy lead Scott Sumner to say this: “Sorry, but bigots having their feelings hurt is not high on my list of problems…”
I eventually realized that my critics on this thread truly had no idea what the standard libertarian view on business issues is, and they had even less understanding of the gay wedding stuff. So here were two of my comments, one snarky and one pretty straightforward.
The snarky one, explaining why it is incorrect to say that Christian bakers want to “refuse to serve gays”:
…Last thing, for the record, for those who are lurking: It is completely inaccurate to say the wedding cake thing is about “denying sales to gay people.” Have any of you ever in your life been in a bakery, seen a guy trying to buy a pastry, and heard the cashier ask, “Just double-checking: You like girls, right?”
Of course not. There are Bible-believing Christians who sincerely believe (and you can think they’re nuts if you want) that marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.
Look, suppose a brother and a sister have for years been buying pastries from a bakery. Then one day they say, “We are marrying each other, and want you to bake a cake for us to celebrate the event.” The owner says, “Yikes, uh, sorry I just am not comfortable doing that, please ask someone else to do this.”
According to Benny Lava, this baker refuses to sell to siblings, and any…commenter who supported this anti-sibling stance would be described as racist. (Really, go look above at his comments, that is how he has been handling himself on this discussion.)
I understand most people reading this don’t agree with my conclusions, but I hope you can at least appreciate that it has been difficult for me to argue with Scott and Benny Lava, when they apparently have no interest in even correctly framing my position.
And now theless snarky comment that spells things out from scratch:
OK this needs to be my last post.
Benny Lava, let me apologize. (You weren’t expecting THAT, I bet.) I now see that you really didn’t know what the standard libertarian position was on matters like this, and so my earlier interactions with you were unhelpful. I was not trying to be evasive, I honestly thought everybody knew what the default libertarian view on this type of thing was.
OK watch this and (I hope) you will see how I am being perfectly coherent. You might think it’s a horrendous type of coherence, to be sure, but let’s at least make sure you see the logic behind it:
(1) The standard libertarian position says, “Hey, I may not personally endorse using heroin, but a heroin user isn’t violating anybody’s property rights and so it would be wrong to imprison or fine someone for heroin use.”
(2) The standard libertarian position says, “Hey, I may not personally like racists, but if they want to print literature talking about white supremacy, that isn’t violating anybody’s property rights and so it would be wrong to imprison or fine someone for publishing white supremacy literature.”
(3) The standard libertarian position says, “Hey, I may not personally like pacifists, but if they don’t want to volunteer for the Army even if we’re being invaded, it would be wrong to institute a draft and force them to fight against their will. The draft is tantamount to slavery. Slavery isn’t OK just because you endorse the ends to which it is put.”
And pertinent to our discussion this week:
(4) The standard libertarian position says, “Hey, I may not personally like evangelical Christians who think marriage is between a man and a woman, but it would be wrong to force them to participate in such ceremonies against their will. If bakers refrain from baking a cake for a lesbian couple, that is certainly not violating anybody’s property rights and so it is absurd to fine the bakers $135,000 for exercising discretion over their own labor and materials. To force people to bake a cake against their will is forced servitude, even if we approve of the end.”
I’m not expecting you to agree with the above positions, but I hope you can admit that they are consistent.
I’m kind of in the same boat you’re in here, Bob; it’s a bit difficult for me to grasp the evident fact that anybody with even a distant familiarity with the idea of libertarianism could be unaware that the standard libertarian answer to all questions of the form “should the government force people to do X” is “no.”
I’ve written a few thousand words on the subject over the last few days; perhaps people who aren’t sick to tears of the cake controversy will find them interesting:
http://www.bumblingbees.net/articles/eating-your-cake-nor-having-it-neither
http://www.bumblingbees.net/articles/second-helpings
Bob, what if a private entity has a monopoly on something critical. Say for example, that I own the exclusive rights (and have the exclusive know how and resources) to produce a vaccine which can prevent people from succumbing to an extremely deadly pandemic sweeping the globe. The speed of the pandemic’s spread and the amount of time required to develop a replacement vaccine precludes any means of saving any people from the pandemic other than using my pre-existing vaccine formulation. Now say I don’t like humans and would prefer they die, and I can accomplish that by withholding my vaccine from them. It’s possible for me to provide adequate amounts of the vaccine in time, I just don’t want to. Would you defend my decision to do so as my right? Forcing me to provide the vaccine for people I don’t like amounts to slavery and/or a violation of my property rights, correct? That would be evil.
You are not required to provide a service or product to anyone in a libertarian society.
But you don’t need to invent fantasy scenarios where this kind of thing happens. It happens right now in the world we live in. Real companies use patent laws to prevent competition, resulting in millions of deaths, and all of it enforced by the state. In fact, without the state’s monopoly protection, this wouldn’t be happening. http://c4sif.org/2013/01/patents-kill-millions-die-in-africa-after-big-pharma-blocks-imports-of-generic-aids-drugs/
Further, anyone acting like a jerk would/could be the subject of a massive boycott and could be chased from “polite society”. There are an unlimited number of potential sanctions that could be applied to these situations other than the initiation of violence.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156
The jerks would be the ones suggesting that my private property rights be violated.
Tom, did you realize something can be both immoral and not a violation of rights? For example, you’d be an immoral monster in your scenario even though you haven’t violated any person’s rights.
Then you have scenarios that are immoral, rights violations, and legal. Like when the state kills millions of people to protect a government granted monopoly.
For some reason, you think libertarians should be uncomfortable sticking with their principles because you’ve come up with a scenario where someone could do something immoral that isn’t a rights violation. Yet, the statist system you support is already killing millions in nearly the exact same way you described. This is absurd.
“Tom, did you realize something can be both immoral and not a violation of rights?”
I wouldn’t be hurting anybody if I let everyone die, but you’d be hurting me by enslaving me and violating my property rights, which is evil right?
So would you defend me from the evil people wanting to enslave me, just because they selfishly want themselves, their families and their friends to live, even though I’m not hurting them at all?
Plus maybe my faith tell me the moral thing is to let everyone die. Would you tell Noah that he was morally wrong?
My response would be the same as below.
I saw it and left a question for you. But I have a further question, which I’ll ask here:
Assume that we live in a Libertarian Utopia were all resources and property are privately owned, and I agree to provide my vaccine to everyone on Earth if they all give me all their property. They do, so I’m now the sole owner of all property (i.e the whole Earth). However I don’t wish to allow people on my Earth and ask them nicely to leave immediately, but they initiate violence against me by violating my property rights (i.e. existing on my Earth, breathing my air and drinking my water.) Some of them are even wearing my jackboots! (Jackbooted collectivist thugs!)
Am I justified (in this Libertarian utopia) in defending my property by killing all those (i.e. all humans except me) whom are initiating violence against me with their evil and savage crime of terrestrial existence?
Tom Brown, perversely thinking his actions are justified by his flawed understanding of libertarian rights theory, wails in a painfully irritating fashion, “Take off my jackboots!” He pulls his pistol from its holster and shoots John and Jim dead.
Steve, in order to prevent further bloodshed, grabs the pistol that used to belong to him, but that he agreed to give to Tom for a dose of his vaccine, and shoots Tom dead! Poor Jim and John. We must remember them as martyrs. And we will hold Steve as our hero. It is a sad state that we find ourselves in. Thank God for our salvation: that the vile Tom was unaware of the proportionality rule.
With its rightful owner, Tom, being dead all property becomes unclaimed. Everyone decides to homestead what previously belonged to them and everything returns to normal. Tom is remembered as a tragic fable against the pitfalls of greed and Internet trolling with inadequate knowledge.
Your scenario is pretty ridiculous:
“I hate humanity so much that I’m going to develop a vaccine that would save billions of lives! Then, if there just so happens to be a pandemic that my vaccine is able to prevent, I will withhold the vaccine! Haha! Of course, I will have to let everyone know that I have developed the vaccine and that they may not have it. Otherwise no one will know that I have the ability to save their lives, rendering all the time I spend developing the vaccine moot…
“Hmm… I mean… since I hate humanity so much, maybe I shouldn’t even develop any life-saving vaccines in the first place. I wouldn’t want something like that falling into the right hands. I’ll just tell everyone I have a vaccine and that they can’t have it. They won’t know I’m lying. And that’ll save me a lot of money on R&D. Yeah, I think I’ll put that money into schemes to kill people instead. You know, because I hate them.”
What kills me is this guy is worrying about some imaginary evil scientist when the state is already killing millions of people by nearly the exact same method he fears. Somehow libertarianism won’t work because a mad scientist might take the role the state is currently playing.
“Hmm… I mean… since I hate humanity so much, maybe I shouldn’t even develop any life-saving vaccines in the first place.”
Well, I’d want to create it for my own sake. And maybe a handful of carefully selected women.
I just want to know to what extremes libertarians will be “consistent.” Fair question, no?
Tom,
What if the mad scientist with a super-secret miracle cure is sitting in his evil lair reflecting on something his parents told him when he was a kid. He’s starting to have a change of heart about humanity. He’s thinking, “Mom, Dad, you were right! I’m going to pull all of my secret vaccine resources out of my super-secret hiding place where no one could ever find them and I’m going to save humanity!”
Then, out of nowhere, government agents smash into the evil lair in an attempt to force the evil scientist’s hand! A trigger happy young grunt thinks the evil scientist is going for a weapon and shoots him dead! “Better him than us,” he growls. Unfortunately, the valiant government forces aren’t able to recover the evil scientist’s work and the pandemic sweeps the globe unabated.
Oh man, what a tragic twist! What dramatic irony! If only, the government hadn’t gotten involved, the world would have been saved. Oh well, at least they didn’t sit idly by while a mad scientist sat on a life saving cure.
“What if the mad scientist with a super-secret miracle cure is sitting in his evil lair”
Only I wouldn’t be the evil one.
Yes, you would. Perhaps if you spent time studying political philosophy before wading into these topics you wouldn’t believe nonsense like anything that doesn’t violate a right is automatically moral.
How would I be evil? Maybe letting everyone die wouldn’t be moral (or maybe it would because God told me to let them die just like Noah), but it’s certainly not immoral! Think about it: I wouldn’t be hurting anyone!! How would me letting everyone die be hurting them?
But if people forced me to provide the vaccine against my will they’d be enslaving me and violating my property rights, which is 100% pure unadulterated evil (no exceptions), and all because they selfishly put their lives ahead of my property rights.
Are you consistent in your philosophy? If you’re consistent then you should defend me in such a situation. This whole post is about being consistent right?
Seriously, Tom, crack open some books on libertarianism and ethics before pontificating on these issues.
“How would I be evil?”
For the same reasons that the state is evil to let millions of people die to protect a government granted monopoly.
“Think about it: I wouldn’t be hurting anyone!! How would me letting everyone die be hurting them?”
Do you seriously think that whether something is moral or immoral comes down to simply whether you are hurting someone with your actions? I’d like to give you more credit as an intelligent person, but you’re making it difficult.
“But if people forced me to provide the vaccine against my will they’d be enslaving me and violating my property rights, which is 100% pure unadulterated evil (no exceptions), and all because they selfishly put their lives ahead of my property rights.”
Not all actions that don’t violate property rights are moral, and not all actions that violate property rights are immoral. Like I said, study libertarianism and ethics. You’re coming across as a person that just discovered these topics 15 minutes ago. You think you’re being clever, but I promise you that is not what is coming across.
“Are you consistent in your philosophy? If you’re consistent then you should defend me in such a situation. This whole post is about being consistent right?”
I don’t have to do shit that I don’t want to. Libertarianism doesn’t obligate me to defend anyone with either words or deeds.
“Not all actions that don’t violate property rights are moral”
I agree, but they’re not necessarily immoral either. In this case I’d just want my rights respected. I’m not hurting anyone.
“not all actions that violate property rights are immoral.”
OK, now we’re getting somewhere! Can you give me an example where violating an innocent person’s property rights isn’t immoral?
‘“Not all actions that don’t violate property rights are moral”
I agree, but they’re not necessarily immoral either.”
I didn’t say that they’re necessarily immoral. That would be idiotic. Seriously, are thinking through what you’re writing?
“In this case I’d just want my rights respected. I’m not hurting anyone.”
Again, morality is not determined solely by whether you’re directly hurting someone. Study ethics.
“OK, now we’re getting somewhere! Can you give me an example where violating an innocent person’s property rights isn’t immoral?”
Sure, if I came across a diabetic in desperate need of something sweet and the only way to save them was to break into a store and steal, it would be moral to do so even though it violates the property rights of someone else. I can think of tons of scenarios like this. But just because it was moral doesn’t mean I should automatically be exempt from owing restitution to the store owner.
Great example! If I were the store owner sleeping in the back and you woke me up by breaking in and I ran out, saw you in my store and shot you dead, would that be fine too? I would be defending my property, correct?
Going back to the restitution example, who decides what that restitution should be and with what authority do they make the decision? What if I (being the person to whom restitution is owed) demand all the property in existence? Who’s to say such a demand is unreasonable? What if you are unable to pay the restitution I (the store owner) demand?
More to the point, it sounds like your example might be applicable to my pandemic example. Would you say that humanity could justify temporarily enslaving me and violating my property rights to obtain my vaccine if they paid me restitution after the fact?
If yes (in either the candy or the vaccine cases),
Can this restitution after the fact concept be used in other cases? Say I need a replacement cake for a hetero wedding about to transpire. Not a life and death situation, I grant you, but the only option to get a cake on time is to break into the cake store of someone opposed to selling cakes for hetero weddings (on moral grounds), and stealing a cake. Can I justify this action by paying restitution to the store owner later?
Sorry, man, that’s as far down the rabbit hole I’m willing to go with you. There is a vast literature on libertarian thought on the Internet for free. If you would really like to learn about it, get to reading.
So, Andrew, it seems that in the end you can only imagine government agents being the heavy.
But isn’t it quite likely that what would really happen is that if the private cure is in private hands it will simply be priced out of most people’s market?
In other words the evil scientist will let people die unless they can afford his life saving cure?
So, my comment wasn’t intended to be an actual argument. I was just responding to Tom’s silly scenario with an equally silly scenario. I find these “let me concoct a bizarre scenario where liberty seems dangerous” to be so tiring. A libertarian could argue with Tom until he’s blue in the face and never get anywhere. I chose to turn his scenario around and point it back at him instead.
But you’ve asked a fair question, so let me give you a fair answer. In an An-Cap libertarian society, there would be no intellectual property, because there would be no organization to enforce it. The major factor that makes vaccines expensive is the patents that protect them from competition. So we should expect that a vaccine that would exist in an An-Cap economy would be cheaper than the same vaccine if protected by patent law because competing firms would be free to reverse engineer the vaccine and reproduce it, unlike firms in existing economies.
Proglodyte “libertarians” like Sumner will never understand consistency on this issue. It’s all about sounding good to the authoritarian left… for some reason.
The issue has always been about power– that is why the standard libertarian positions are not only not understood, but are explicitly denied in the first place. It was never going to be enough that the government allow people to make their own contracts with each other, such as homosexual marriage, which I think any libertarian in good standing supports is so far the marriage is government sanctioned and enforced contract (we can argue, still, whether or not this should be an issue for government in the first place for all marriages, but that is a different day). One had to be actively forced to endorse the position with blood and sweat. It really is only a matter of time before one won’t even be allowed to speak and argue against some positive rights.
FWIW, I’m really impressed by the libertarian arguments on that thread.
Major_Freedom, I liked your comments in particular and am upset that people didn’t reply to you more :-/
It is an uphill battle. People like you help a lot in the effort.
Actually it’s stated the Christian weren’t fined bout baking a cake but harassing the couple.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/debunking-big-media-myth-real-reason-anti-gay-bakers-oregon-were-fined-135000
Sumner says, “shouod we abolish non discrimination legislation?”
Libertarian answers “yes, no legislation is above property rights in libertarianism.”
“Sorry, but bigots having their feelings hurt is not high on my list of problems…”
‘Bigots’ seems a harsh description of the gay couple who filed suit. I’d call them officious busybodies not bigots. But perhaps Sumner knows them and they really do hate Christians.