A little debate about Libertarianism
Some months ago, I participated in a debate on our local online Libertarian journal The Rational Standard, a more or less a one-man show run by prolific sci-fi and fantasy novelist Nicholas Woode-Smith. I had largely forgotten about it, but was reminded because of a direct twitter message from one of my followers yesterday.
I’ve met Nicholas in person since, but it got a bit vitriolic at one point, over a rather silly exchange on Twitter, for which I was blocked. Naturally, I was blocked and called a “new-age fascist”, whatever that means (some kind of savage hippy?).
Anyhow, this was soon followed by a series of little essays between myself, Ernst van Zyl, Martin van Staden and Nicholas. Martin is a very nice guy, but he’s an anarcho-capitalist (sort of), which means we argue a fair bit. Neither of the libertarians here responded to my final essay, so I feel like I won. Maybe I haven’t, but I still haven’t seen them address the big issues I raised, so I’m going to let myself be smug for a bit, at least until Martin has a go at me.
It started with Nicholas, who decided a strawman argument was the best way to deal with all of us conservative-reactionary types retreating from liberalism and Southafricanism: You are not a communitarian:
Individuals form communities, not the other way round. The communitarian claims that the community shapes the individual, but without individuals, a group cannot exist.
I didn’t see much in here that was particularly hard-hitting, and he basically suggested that if we don’t embrace unrestricted libertinism and market absolutism we will basically end up under Hitler or ISIS. Yeah, not excellent.
Ernst van Zyl made the case that freedom requires a social structure that provides the moral order under which freedom is possible, libs tend to become egalitarians, and that liberalism requires imperialism and the destruction of local traditional institutions: Not Everyone is a Liberal
Martin van Staden’s piece admits a fair deal, but he clearly has never read de Jouvenal or Saint-Simon: 6 Myths About Liberalism Debunked (and 3 Inconvenient Truths Conceded) A good piece, but a little… mechanical.
Martin’s model of human behaviour still looks like that of atomised individuals, and does not appreciate dynamic effects, including the problem of raising successive generations, and the problems of power accumulation through statelike behaviour among private agents.
My final response addresses these points in particular, and touches on the effects of coordination across national boundaries and the public-private distinction: What is a Community?
Anyway, if you’re interested in spergy little debates like that, here you go.