janw@inmet.UUCP (02/09/86)
[ Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)] >Schwartz argues that Libertarianism is a political movement whose >members have no common philosophical ground from which to derive a >consistent set of political goals. Agreed. The operative word is *common*. >The nominal objective of eliminating >coercion is not enough, since different groups of Libertarians hold >philosophical positions leading to widely different, and mutually >inconsistent, definitions of coercion. Premise granted, conclusion does not follow. Precisely identical objectives are unnecessary for an alliance to be beneficial to all the allies. It is enough that objectives overlap. >But a political movement without clearly - that is, philosophi- >cally - defined goals is likely to degenerate in a direction con- >sonant with the culturally dominant ideas of its time. Not at all clear. Imagine an idealized picture: an alliance of *several* movements, each *with* a clearly, philosophically de- fined goal - all different. Why should each strand degenerate ? And if not, why should the alliance (if it serves some purpose)? Degenerate is loaded language. You sound like a saint who doesn't want to have anything to do with this evil world. A political movement is not for saving souls in isolation: it is a part of the culture of its time - a *different* part if it's any use; but it can gain from dialogue with other parts. Ayn Rand was predicting, for decades, degeneration and decay of the whole nation and the world for exactly the same reason: no coherent philosophy. Not only didn't it occur, but the tide in many areas has turned in *her* direction. My explanation: the world isn't run by professional philosophers, as she thought. Grass roots matter more. >The documentation in the first 5/6ths of the article is >there to demonstrate that this process has already started and, whatever >my differences with Schwartz's evaluation of specific trends within the >Libertarian movement, I think that he has demonstrated the applicability >of his thesis beyond a reasonable doubt. You keep using capital L. What about libertarian trends in society at large ? They seem to be on the increase. >I would like to add something Schwartz has not said, but I think follows >from his argument. The Libertarian movement is repeating the history of >the Liberal movement. In the time of "Classical Liberalism", Liberals >were advocates of liberty, but they lacked a sound philosophical base >from which either to derive an exact definition of what they meant by >Liberty, or to demonstrate why liberty was desirable. What Schwartz has >done is to identify the mechanism by which the Liberal movement >inexorably devolved into that loathsome antithesis of classical liberal >ideas which goes by the name of "liberalism" today. A decline of classical liberalism is indisputable. New liberalism usurped its name; libertarianism (with a small l) is much the same thing as old liberalism - but weaker. However, the attribution of old liberalism's decline to the lack of "a sound philosophical base" is unsubstantiated. It even seems implausible: how do you explain the *rise* of old liberalism ? And what *is* a sound philosophical base - do you mean *a* philo- sophy or *the* correct philosophy ? Was it really lacking in the declining movements more than in the rising ones ? My own explanation is quasi-Marxist: between the 19th and the 20th century, society became less atomic; more people became *em- ployees* in hierarchical organizations, small cogs in large machines. Consequently, individualism waned and collectivism waxed. The bureaucratization process has not run its course yet, but a counter-current is already felt. Centralized hierarchical struc- tures are less efficient in new conditions. In the economy, small companies are multiplying. Stultifying assembly-line jobs are disappearing. A new, semi-independent professional class is grow- ing. (They are mostly employees, too, but in a seller's market of labor). Individuals feel less crushed by the giant anthill Look at the net: the cocky self-assurance of so many people is a pleasure to observe. Consider the Yuppie phenomenon. Look at the new political agenda - *which* part of the Leviathan to cut. Look at private space industry; at Sliva (of Guardian Angels); at Marva Collins (of that ghetto school in Chicago); at the list of intellectual best-sellers (compare to past decades); at discredited European Socialism, at libertarian, anticommunist French intelligentsia (brought up on Sartre). Look at the newly-rich, capitalist 3d-world countries, and at winds of change in poor countries - including China and India. Does it still look as if we are moving towards the world of Atlas Shrugged? No, de- generation or decline of a *party* is always possible, but this is a minor matter, it's the small "l" that looms large. Jan Wasilewsky