I am a young and college-educated professional. Thus, my expected
political orientation gears toward libertarianism. You know, earning
good money pushes one toward the right, as taxes loom greater of a
concern than, says, the amount of welfare I collect. On the other
hand, youth and college education ween me off any love of medieval beliefs,
such as anti-abortion, homophobia, etc. Therefore,
libertarianism presents an excellent compromise: lower taxes, yet
still free to explore whatever philosophy and lifestyle strike my
fancy. As a matter of fact, many of my friends tend toward this school
of thoughts. And too many programmers (my kin, obviously) only
proclaim their fondness for this political school.
However, I myself never like libertarianism. For one, I don’t like the
rolling of the tongue to get the whole word out. For my accent, I must
push out like 7 syllables to pronouce it. For such a youthful wing,
their failure to a better name is quite remarkable! I mean, did they
not learn anything from Ayn Rand? For a philosophy from a third-rate
philosopher that is anything but objective, Objectivism sounds so good
that one can’t help but like it. The name plays a huge marketing role,
guys, so shape it up!
Anyhow, if you have not realized that I am kidding, I am kidding. I
dislike long words, but the name alone does not arouse such
suspicion. I mean, I like a lot of Eastern schools of thought whose
names are just ridiculous. So, bad name is a joke.
In fact, for a long time, I am not sure why I don’t like
libertarianism. I used to attribute such dislike to my general
principle of disliking most right-wing stuff. But every time I look at
libertarianism, a huge suspicion just pops up and haunts my mind. It
feels very similar to a quest to avoid sweet and embrace broccoli: you
know what you are supposed to like, you motivate yourself to like what
you are supposed to, all the way until some invisible force (aka the
sweet tooth) breaks down your will power and jumps at the dear dear
dessert. Libertarianism is the opposite of dessert to me. I even
bought books on the matter, and forced myself to read it. I gave up
after about 3 chapters. Just can’t do it. Given that I can crank
through 800 pages on Civil War, will power alone (or there lack of)
can’t explain it. Must be something else.
I searched for that “something” for a long time. After all, I pride
myself as an open-minded person. I always try on the other pair of
shoes. I always believe that all ideas embraced by sufficient number
of people are entitled to some degree of consideration. Thus, I
continuously speculated on why I can’t stand libertarianism.
And one day, it hit me. By “it,” I meant, “why I hate libertarianism.”
Not libertarianism. No, I still hate that school of thought. But, at
least, I know why I hate it. There are actually 2 reasons, and both of
which run against my core beliefs. No wonder I can’t stand the
thing. And here they are.
First, libertarianism (and, to some degrees, the whole conservatism
movement) divides the world into 2 camps: the good and the
bad. The good is always good, and the bad always bad; there is no
mixed, no gray area. An idea is either bad, and must be destroyed; or,
it is good, and must be worshiped. There is no middle ground.
According to libertarianism, the government is bad. It’s just bad. Why
is it bad? It’s political, which, to many people, is synonym for
“dirty” and “tyranny” and “oppressive.” It’s artificial, which is
synonym for “plastic” and “poisonous” and “unnatural.” In conclusion,
it’s bad. And because the government is bad, all of its creations are
bad. Paper money is bad. Infrastructure is bad. Taxes are especially
bad. Welfare is extremely bad.
Reversely, the market is good. By the way, the image of the market
conjured up by libertarianism is especially lovely. One can imagine a
civilized bazaar, where all the sellers are honest and all the buyers
are all-knowing. Oh, and the market is supremely natural, and has
been around since forever. Similar to above, because the market is
good, all of its creations are, by default, good. In fact, they would
argue, with a straight face, that monopoly is way better than
regulation.
Here lies the central difference between libertarianism and classical
conservatism: Conservatives are, I think, quite romantic. They define
God and Demon, but they also want heroes and myths. So, despite their
hatred of Lucifer, I meant the government, they love the army, the
police, and the church; they long for a good old day when love,
traditions, and justice prevail. This romanticism, unfortunately, gets
in the way of their otherwise black-and-white vision. Libertarians,
meanwhile, hold no such follies. Army? Heroism? Traditions? All
begone! One thing matters above all else: the classification of Good
and Bad. And, sorry Pentagon, you are on the wrong side of the grand
design of the universe. So bye bye.
Oh, and another difference between libertarianism and conservatism,
the difference that renders the former utterly unbearable to me, while
the latter merely distasteful. Conservatism is at least
practical. After all, longing the past requires some sort of
practicality. Otherwise, such past can’t exist. Libertarianism
requires no such sentiment. Its greatest sentiment is the purity of
its grand order of the universe. Again, in such universe, the
government is bad, and the market is good.
This makes quite some comical expression of the world. I mean,
Conservatism has some quite funny ideas (cutting taxes always raises
the revenue, anyone?), but I can at least glimpse how their minds
work. Libertarian expression of the world, on the other hand, is just
purely comical to me. For example, they would say something like,
politics is bad: it encourage people to cheat and step on each
other. This, of course, I agree with. Then, they make a great jump:
market, on the other hand, is good, because people will somehow turn
180 degrees and always compete fair and square. This is where I
choke. Huh? So, the cheating, cruel bastards in the political world
will just compete with only in quality and prices in the market. This
brings to mind the collapse of 2008, the collapse of Enron, and about
half a dozen other crises and crashes without me even trying.
Plus, the divorce with observation and careful study of the world
(such time consuming process can be replaced with ideology, can it
not?) leads to some very funny interpretations of history and
predictions of the future. For example, they will reach back in some
obscure merchant laws during medieval time to prove how natural and
self-relient the market has been, and claim that the market will
sustain the world if we just destroy the government. Well, then why
did the medieval governments appear in the first place? (Need I remind
everyone how oppressive these were compared to our gentle
governments?) I mean, our species started out as small bands, without
any government of any sort, like a bunch of monkeys. How did something
so artificial as a government appear, if the market is so omnipotent
and natural? By the way, this was not meant to be a rhetoric device. I
seriously wonder how a libertarian explains that.
Enough with the design of the universe. There is another big reason
why I hate libertarianism. It’s how irresponsible they are.
Should a libertarian group of people read that, they would jump up in
protest. No, they ain’t irresponsible. Those liberals who can’t think
for themselves are the irresponsible ones. They, on the other hand,
never ask for anything from the government, and thus can’t be
irresponsible.
It’s frankly hard to argue against such beautifully constructed
argument. It is why Conservatism can claim responsibility for so
long. When one pays the bills without external support, one is
responsible, right? Well, kinda.
See, there are 2 types of costs: private and public. Private costs
are the bills one pays. They are the prices of most goods and services
that one consumes. They are not the only costs. There are public
costs. For example, let’s say that you use a car. The private cost
consists of the cost of maintenance and gasoline. However, there is
another set of costs: the cost of pollution, the cost of building and
maintaining the roads, social impacts (eg. noises and smoke) to the
surrounding communities, etc. These are public costs.
The responsibility of Conservatism generally does not include public
costs. That said, as mentioned above, conservatives are a romantic
bunch, and they generally accept a subset of their public costs,
especially those affecting their communities and legacies. Again,
Libertarianism entertains no such romanticism. Like a true corporate,
they deny any liability that they have the lightest chance of
winning. And remember, in their fantasy of the marketplace, it will
always drive the prices down to the lowest possible point. As such,
they seek to always minimize their share of costs. If a firm destroy
the world to make a cheap toys, well, that’s capitalism at work.
In fact, it is amazing how disconnected their complaints and solutions
are. For example, they would moan loudly about the size of public
debt. Yet, they would not pay a cent to it, if not forced to by
laws. And in fact, they would fight tooth and nail to reduce the
amount they have to pay. Never mind the debt will naturally grow
(interest rate, anyone?); never mind that the roads and infrastructure
they use require maintenance. If they don’t own something, it’s not
their responsibility. So laughable.
In conclusion, my dislike of libertarianism turns out to be quite
rational! After all, who want to live with holier-than-thou narcissist
who refuse his portion of the public costs? Phew, they make me doubt
my own rationality for quite a while (a few years!), which is quite a
feat. Anyhow, now you know why Libertarianism is poisonous. It’s a set
of fantasy that is proven by bad math and supported by pure narcissism
(at this point, selfish is such a overly used word that it lost its
bite). Let’s move away from it.
