I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
If you think about it, everything that comes after "initiation of force" is a question-begging qualifier. You might ask whether it's OK to initiate force to advance goals that are neither "political" nor "social" -- perhaps "economic" goals? For that matter, what do the Libertarians mean by "political" or "social?" We know that they don't believe in "social justice," while they seem to identify "politics" directly with the initiation of force, as an instrument people use to get by force what they can't earn otherwise. But unless libertarians are also anarchists -- unlikely on the assumption that anarchists still believe that "property is theft," while libertarians believe that politics is theft -- they must reject the state completely, since the making of law is an implicit initiation of force if you assume that the law will be enforced. As usual, libertarians make a show of renouncing the initiation of force, understood as direct physical harm to a person, while worrying far less about other forms of coercion that might be considered no more just. For a libertarian it's terrible to say, "Do it my way or I'll hurt you," but no problem, it often seems, if someone says, "Do it my way or starve." Wouldn't a pledge to oppose that sort of coercion be equally principled? I suppose the Libertarians imagine their pledge to be a succinct model of moral clarity, but as I've pointed out there are too many words for it to be other than an act of political obfuscation.
7 comments:
Well, if Mandela was expected to repudiate communism before he is acceptable, why aren't the conservatives held to the same standard: They must repudiate the racists in their own party before they are acceptable.
But don't we expect law enforcement to "initiate force" in order to achieve a political/social goal (law and order, apprehension of dangerous criminals)? So are they suggesting we should eliminate local, state and federal police? I'm sure there are any number of gangsters, mobsters and common human predators that will jump on that bandwagon. But then, at heart, aren't libertarians predators as well?
"don't we expect law enforcement to "initiate force" in order to achieve a political/social goal (law and order, apprehension of dangerous criminals)?"
That's why words matter. Libertarians obviously want a police force to protect their persons and property, but obviously don't count that as either "social" or "political." They might also argue that someone apprehending a criminal has not initiated force, since the criminal presumably did, but that doesn't void my first criticism.
I think the bit about Mandela belongs with my Tuesday post, but I'll say here that it all comes down to who decides the standard for acceptability.
Seems to me the Libertarians are getting desperate. You don't see the GOP or Democrats sending bulk mailings out, so the Libby's want to get it out there that they're still here. Yeah, until the next decade when someone decides it ain't worth the risk anymore......
The Democratic and Republican parties don't have "members" the same way the Libertarians do. To be a Democrat or Republican, all you have to do is register as such with your local election board. All that gets you is the right to vote in a primary in states that don't have open primary. Neither the DNC or RNC collects due, though once upon a time it was customary for the party in power to make payroll deductions for campaign expenses from government employees who owed their jobs to the party. The Libertarian membership fee, of course, comes with no promise of any sort of job.
I'd have to say paying to join the libertarian party, given their current overall record, is like betting a horse you already know is lame.
I understand the notion of "no such thing as a free lunch", but if I pay for a lunch, there damned well better be something to eat. I don't see the libertarian party ever being in a position to deliver. Plus the menu they're advertising isn't very appetizing.
Well I'd sort of argue. The democraps and repugnicans do have paying members. The corporations, the special interest groups, etc. They don't pay for membership - that would be absurd, since they're owners, not members. But they do pay for the campaigns and they do get a return on that investment - to the detriment of the rest of us.
Post a Comment