Recently, I encountered this image above on Google+. I became somewhat interested in the discussion and while I will not be reproducing the entirety of the discussion, I would like to here highlight a portion of the discussion that seemed reasonable. :-)
Jacob S.: - While I do find many points of agreement with libertarians, I do not personally self-identify with libertarianism as such, but I feel a need to express my empathy for everyone who has had an emotional reaction in response to seeing either this political cartoon or in response to the comments in reply to the cartoon. I am getting the sense that many people are feeling frustrated because they do not feel that their concerns are being recognized from the “other side” and that the would like for their concerns to be recognized. Please permit me to recognize both sides:
The political cartoon depicts a life-guard overlooking a swimming pool, while everyone in the pool as presumably drowned. The caption reads, “Libertarians make poor life-guards”. The cartoonist, as participating in the genre of the political cartoon is trying to express a perspective, so I think we may forgive the cartoonist, if he expresses that point in a dramatic fashion, as this would be in keeping with the genre.
First, allow me to recognize the cartoonist and those that agree with the cartoonist's perspective;the expression of the cartoon is an expression of concern, that if the 'life-guard' (the State) is not sufficiently energetic or active,then people may suffer as a result. At the heart of the concern, isa fear that many people will be left “unguarded” by a State,controlled by libertarians. This is a natural concern that I think we all have; we all (I suggest that this applies even to libertarians) a need to feel secure, to feel guarded (I would suggest again, that this applies even to libertarians).
Now, allow me to recognize the libertarians; they express a frustration, in that they believe the cartoon is a mischaracterization, of their thoughts and concerns;they feel exasperated that the cartoon would present this mischaracterization in such a dramatic way (i.e.: all of the people in the pool have drowned). At the heart of the libertarian's concern, is that they have a sense of fear, that the State acts in ways, that are coercive and do not meet the needs for autonomy and independence; that the State has a tendency to dominate; to setup rules that cannot take into consideration, a need for voluntary/consensual human interactions, and then sets up punishment if those rules are not followed.
Just as the cartoonist (and those that agree with the cartoonist's perspective) are not heart-less tyrants bent on controlling every aspect of personal action, so too,libertarians are not heart-less persons who would uncaringly let people drown. Let us not look at those that are not in agreement with us, and there see the face of an enemy, but rather let us recognize what each are feeling and thinking, and then to understand that those feelings and thoughts, represent human-needs and important-ideas-to-consider.
I do not believe that Libertarians wish to see anyone “drown in the pool”, they rather are afraid that the State, in its attempts to protect people, would require such life-guard-protection that would be unnecessary and prohibitively costly (such as everyone gets provided by the State, their own life-guard & ambulance) and would in turn be burdensome to all in terms of taxation. While everyone needs to feel secure and would like some measure of protection/security provided by others,libertarians suggest that perhaps through voluntary (non-coercive)means, these needs could be met; a personal group of soldiers and a tank would certainly be more than enough security, for nearly any person, but of course, such a measure of protection would be impossible economically to provide (who protects the soldiers &tank-operators?).
I do not believe that the cartoonist or those that would agree with the general point the cartoonist is making, would want the State to coercively (through threats of punishment if demands are not obeyed) provide such a degree/measure of services, that all would be so heavily indebted by the State that they could not meet other needs they may have (such as for entertainment/fun/diversion).
So perhaps, rather than see enemies in others, we can recognize that we are all well-intentioned persons; we are all trying to have our basic human needs met; allow us to discuss ways we could best do that, such that would recognize the fears of some, that people will not be cared for and recognize the fears of others, that they will not be treated voluntarily, that the provision/exchange of services will not be consensual.
Roger Burgess: - @Jacob S. said "I do not believe that Libertarians wish to see anyone “drown in the pool”,"
I have empirical evidence that shows otherwise.
Witness the crowd cheering at the idea of letting people die who don't have health insurance at the Republican debate last year. A very large portion of those people self identify as Libertarian.
Look at the cheers coming from people who agree that the for-pay Fire Department in Kentucky(?) let the man's house burn down because he lacked the requisite insurance.
No, the case is quite clear - large portions of the Libertarian among us are perfectly willing to let people drown.
Jacob S.: - @Roger Burgess I can certainly appreciate how a cheering crowd of persons, celebrating that some State-policy intended to provide people with needed services, would-not or should-not be implemented, might be disheartening to those of us, that would like to see people in need, be provided those needed services. Still yet, I do not think that attributing some evil intent upon that crowd of persons, is going to meet our needs for understanding and empathy. If I do not attempt to understand the libertarians, then they will have little desire attempt to understand me and neither of our needs will get met. I try to connect with what they are feeling, I sense that they feel annoyed, frustrated, angry and afraid (and I think fear is a very common and prominent feeling for both sides) that their needs for autonomy will not be met by State action which limits voluntary/consensual action. I think we can all agree, that we would like the optimum amount of autonomy in our lives; we would like to make as many free choices as possible, so long as we are not harming others. I think libertarians are afraid of State action that is coercive; that does not respect the need of persons to be autonomous, to direct their own lives; libertarians see State action to provide services for people, as simultaneously limiting their own autonomy. Consider this: If a Star-Trek like "replicator" could provide limitless resources, at the expense of no-one, would libertarians still object to the provision of services? I do not think so; libertarians do not object to the provision of services, they like everyone, would like to see everyone meet their needs; libertarians rather object the to the means or methods/strategies by which those needs would best be met. Libertarians see free interactions of persons in the market-place as best meeting everyone's needs. I can respect libertarians for their desires to see all human interactions, to be voluntary and consensual interactions.
Roger Burgess: - @Jacob S. I understand the need for Philosophical Charity, something I show a distinct lack of in this thread I might add, but we need to stick to facts-as-they-are, not facts-as-we'd-like-them-to-be.
A very specific claim was made, that "I do not believe that Libertarians wish to see anyone “drown in the pool."
I showed that claim to be false. It is a fact that large swaths of Libertarians are, in point of fact, 'wishing to see anyone drown in the pool'.
I'm most specifically NOT attributing evil intent here. I'm attributing no intent at all but one: the intent to cleave to an ideology that rejects compassion as a properly motive force in economics or politics.
I understand what Libertarians believe, I used to be one until I studied up on Libertarianism as a philosophy and was confronted with the horror that my beliefs entailed. Like any smart, intellectually honest person, I rejected those beliefs in favor of ones that actually match my moral proclivities.
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. The thing is, we voluntarily formed this government. In fact, we rebelled against England and struck out on our own. And we created a system in which we hold frequent elections to ensure that the government represents the interests of society. So, no, we really can't claim that taxes are involuntary or nonconsensual.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit I thank you for sharing your solution, to how we may ethically arrive at a condition, in which all persons have voluntarily consented to obey those persons that claim authority over others. I recognize your solution as a valid logical progression, namely; that (A.) IF there is a "we", that includes all persons now living (unanimously), AND (B.) that same "we" consisted of a progression through time, beginning at some point in which that same "we" established of a body of rules that "we" agreed to abide, THEN (or therefore) that "we" (which would consist of each individual, unanimously), has therefore agreed to abide by that set of rules. While I would concede that your line of reasoning is valid, I do not believe we are in agreement that the premises of that argument are sound. I do not think there is convincing evidence to support that, all persons were in agreement as to the set of rules (that all were unanimous), and we might look to the Anti-Federalist writings as evidence for this assertion (check out Brutus & Colombian Patriot); additionally, I do not think we (you and I) are in agreement that this same "we" is a constant progression back in time (no one living then, is alive today). Furthermore, I am not certain how it could be justified, that a father may make a promise, such that, the son is obligated to keep it. I am not certain there is sufficient ethical argumentation to justify a progenitor creating rules for his/her progeny (posterity). Furthermore, I am unconvinced that there is sufficient ethical/philosophical justification to hold any person, to an agreement unconditionally, even if such a person agreed to be held unconditionally; in what other agreements are the parties bound inextricably? Even under an agreement of marriage, which many consider to be a solemn oath, can be undone by the desires of just one party; the idea of unconditional agreements that are not extricable, are ethically unsatisfactory for me, as they seem to dangerously imply the possibility for legitimate conditions of slavery. But I would like to repeat my thanks to Steven, I thank you for engaging these ideas with me; apathy is a deadly poison to philosophy. :-)
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. The problem with demanding unanimity is that a single idiot (hi, Elliott!) can derail all of society. As such, it is an unreasonable demand that I must reject out of hand. What we do instead is allow majority rule within the bounds of law. Moreover, we're not merely given a choice between accepting and rejecting the status quo, but also changing it. The ability of government to change to meet our changing needs is what gives it legitimacy to act in our names.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit I would like to thank you again, for your continued interest in contending with ideas in the realm of ethics and philosophy. I assure you, that I appreciate that unanimity is a strict requirement but not one to be taken lightly; if the argument that we propose, has as its premise, that a "we" at one point at time agreed to follow certain rules, and that is the premise which legitimizes why the rules are binding upon all individuals, the requirement for an initial unanimity is a necessary requirement for the argument to be valid. You and I could agree at one point in time, upon certain rules, but how could we then, impose our agreement upon Elliot? I appreciate that unanimity would make many proposals much more difficult but I am not sure how one could reason with ethical soundness, how you and I could ever legitimately coerce Elliot to follow our agreement. Even the political arrangement of democracy, must presume, that all individuals at one time, agreed upon rules for voting and that all agreed that they would abide by the decision of the majority. For if it would not the case that democracy requires an initial agreement, then we are confronted with the ethical problem of applying/enforcing an agreement against a party that had not joined the covenant/agreement. For instance, if you and I agree to have a democracy and to abide by the results of all majority votes, we could not ethically/reasonably, tell Elliot that we vote, two against his one, that Elliot should do so-and-so, and that we will force him against his will, due to our agreement. I thank you for sharing your ideas with me. :-)
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. It is impossible to form a society with the requirement of unanimity because it amounts to giving everyone absolute veto power. As the number of people becomes nontrivial, the chance of veto approaches certainty, so the whole thing falls apart. Instead, we create a system that is responsive to the needs of the people and therefore enjoys a broad acceptance of legitimacy, even by those who disagree with specifics (and that means pretty much everyone, sooner or later).
When you don't get your way politically, you can either become part of the loyal opposition or a rebel. The former accept their current loss and remain within the system, working to make it better. The latter believe that their voices were not heard -- as opposed to heard and rejected -- and so deny the legitimacy of the system.
So long as they stay within the bounds of law, we tolerate even rebels. Consider the teabaggers who deny that Obama can legally be President because he's black foreign-born. However, when they cannot live within the law, we have a fix for that: exile. This can mean leaving the country to go off to the libertarian paradise of Galt's Gulch Somalia. Or it can mean the internal exile called prison.
We've had a few thousand years of experience creating societies larger than a village and this is what we've learned. There's no room for utopian and absolutist ideals that just don't work.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit I would like to thank you once again for wishing to continue our discussion. It would please me, to meet your needs for readable text by the insertion of spaces, and thereby fulfill your request.
I appreciate your concerns; I sense that you have concerns that such an ethical standard would have significant effects on current or traditional political modes. If you are considering the political implications of such an insight and you find those to be both numerous and significant, I believe we would both be in agreement, that such is the case.
The standard I have submitted for a consistent ethical framework, such that, a unanimity of persons must take place, before an agreement could be ethically/legitimately enforced, is a rather simple one that stands up to the consistent standard of application of all other contracts/agreements. Merely because such a standard would make some political modes illegitimate, I do not think that, for that reason alone, we may dismiss the argument; for such a dismissal would have, as an indubitable premise, that every political mode that currently exists, is indubitably ethically legitimate. Given the various possible current and historical evidence that could be submitted for the unethical nature of nearly any political mode, I would not be in agreement with an indubitable assumption that all of the current political modes are perfectly ethical. I would proceed as if it is possible to question the ethical legitimacy of any particular political mode.
I do not believe we are in agreement in the statement, "It is impossible to form a society with the requirement of unanimity". As there is nothing that would make the requirement of unanimity impossible, though difficult it may be, and though it may be impractical for particular purposes. Perhaps we ought to agree on a particular proposition before proceeding; are you interested in discussing the possible necessity for an initial unanimous agreement before the establishment of covenant, or are you interested in discussing the possible necessity for a standard of extricability? It seemed at first you wished to discuss a "we" that first entered into covenant but now it seems that you may be more interested in the possibility for extricability.
"...we create a system that is responsive to the needs of the people..." I would like to question, who is this "we" to which you refer? If it is the initial unanimous 'we', then your argument holds together much better (assuming inextricability), but if the "we" does not include those "rebels" to which you refer, how it is that you and I, can enforce our agreement on those so-called "rebels"? How could they be "rebels" at all if they have never agreed or assented to 'our' agreement? If they have never agreed or assented, then they can not be considered as party to the "we" of you and I. How do you suggest we remedy this ethical problem, that if you and I make an agreement, how is it, that we can include (force)+Elliott Crismore and +Edward Gao into that agreement, without their consent or agreement? What would be the philosophical or ethical justification for creating a special exemption for certain kinds of agreements, that they can include parties that do not agree?
I would request that your next response, please address some of the issues I have raised, as I have a need to know that you would like to continue the discussion in good faith and with philosophical joy, as I do not think that either of us would like to philosophically labor in vain. If this discussion does not meet your needs (if it does not give you joy in the exchange of ideas), then you need only indicate such and I will respectfully attempt to meet your need for space in this discussion. :-)
*How could an agreement between you and I, be enforced against a non-consenting party?
*How could an agreement between you and I, bind our progeny to our agreement?
*How could an agreement between you and I, that we would vote & abide by the majority of vote, legitimately include other parties that do not consent to this agreement of 'democracy'?
*If an agreement between you and I, can-be/should-be enforced upon a non-consenting third-party, how is our enforcement, not a literal, tyranny of the majority?
*If we accept the principle that non-consenting parties, can be included into the agreements of consenting parties, how do you avoid the problem, that any numerous group of persons, could impose any rules they choose upon a less numerous group of persons? (For instance, how do you suggest we avoid the possibility, (if we accept the principle, that an agreement of democracy can be forced on a non-consenting group) of the group of persons commonly known as "Chinese", voting to include those persons commonly referred to as "Americans", into the "Chinese" democracy?
*If you and I make an agreement, to form a 'government', how can we ethically justify an "exile" to those that wish to have no part in our agreement? [If your two neighbors, do not like the color of your house, and they agree that you should repaint your house some color of their choosing, why is it that you should be forced to move (be 'exiled') to avoid conflict, rather than they who make the arbitrary demands, be 'exiled'?]
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. I don't claim that all forms of government are legitimate or ethical. I do claim that the sort you're suggesting is, in practice, impossible. If it doesn't work at all, then it's a non-starter, no matter how good it looks on paper.
The reason unanimity is impossible is that it only takes one contrary person to veto everything and you're left with nothing. As I explained, for any significant societal size, there will always be a person who takes this approach, at least with regard to the matters they care about. Instead of a potential for a tyrrany of the majority, you suggest a guarantee of a tyrrany of one.
So what do we do with the misfits? Well, we first do our best to see if they're actually correct. If they appear not to be, we then do our best to try to accomodate them in a way that doesn't harm others (although it may well involve allowing them to harm themselves). And if that's not possible, we exile them, either externally or internally.
The part you seem to be missing is that the primary claim of rights comes from agreeing to be part of society. Someone who disagrees has lost their claim, so we may well deny them rights they would otherwise have had. This can go all the way. For example, if Edward likes shooting people, we may have to shoot him first.
Libertarians and other anarchists, unfortunately, do not understand social contract theory, and instead make claims of freedoms or rights based on arbitrary sources, as per deontology.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit In order to meet my needs for understanding your perspective and recognizing its validity, I would very much like to know your direct responses to the questions I have posed. Thank you. :-)
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. I've responded pretty directly. You've offered no support for the plausibility of unanimity.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit I appreciate that we may not be in agreement on many of the issues that have been raised; but my understanding of logically deductive reasoning, is that premises are submitted in order to derive or deduce a conclusion. Your responses to my questions thus far, have appeared to me, to merely re-assert your original conclusions and with that reassertion, you express how the requirement of unanimity would be unsatisfactory to your conclusions. I appreciate that you find the requirement for unanimity as a condition for contract/covenant, a personally unsatisfactory premise. I have already met my needs (for now) for understanding your conclusions; what I am requesting of you now, is to reveal your ethical premises that you have used to derive the conclusions you have asserted. I maintain some curiosity as to how you would ethically rationalize/justify your conclusions. I believe that if you would respond directly to these questions, your responses would help me to understand your premises:
*How could an agreement between you and I, be enforced against a non-consenting party?
*How could an agreement between you and I, bind our progeny to our agreement?
*How could an agreement between you and I, that we would vote & abide by the majority of vote, legitimately include other parties that do not consent to this agreement of 'democracy'?
*If an agreement between you and I, can-be/should-be enforced upon a non-consenting third-party, how is our enforcement, not a literal, tyranny of the majority?
*If we accept the principle that non-consenting parties, can be included into the agreements of consenting parties, how do you avoid the problem, that any numerous group of persons, could impose any rules they choose upon a less numerous group of persons? (For instance, how do you suggest we avoid the possibility, (if we accept the principle, that an agreement of democracy can be forced on a non-consenting group) of the group of persons commonly known as "Chinese", voting to include those persons commonly referred to as "Americans", into the "Chinese" democracy?
*If you and I make an agreement, to form a 'government', how can we ethically justify an "exile" to those that wish to have no part in our agreement? [If your two neighbors, do not like the color of your house, and they agree that you should repaint your house some color of their choosing, why is it that you should be forced to move (be 'exiled') to avoid conflict, rather than they who make the arbitrary demands, be 'exiled'?]
Thank you. :-)
Steven Sudit: - @Jacob S. You need to directly address my argument against the requirement of unanimity. If you cannot, then questions that are predicated upon this refuted premise are of no value.
Jacob S.: - @Steven Sudit I respect your preference not to explain your ethical premises. I understand your hesitancy to do so, as such a request makes one particularly vulnerable to criticism, however, without such an explication of your premises, I do not see how anyone could be reasonably expected, blind of your premises, to reconcile any proposition, no matter how reasonable, with your conclusions, if those conclusions be faulty. Such a request denies the possibility of critique on the soundness of your premises, or the validity of your reasoning by which you derive the conclusions; such a position creates an unassailable collection of bare assertions, without reasoned justification or intellectual merit. Regardless, it is of no importance; my past curiosity as to your premises has now faded. I thank you for the dialog, but I shall excuse myself of further discussion in this forum. :-)
Best Regards,
~Jacob
No comments:
Post a Comment