hfavr@mtuxo.UUCP (a.reed) (02/04/86)
> > (R. W. Stubblefield) > > I refer anyone who cannot wait until I get around to > > giving my explanation to "Libertarianism: The Perversion of > > Liberty," by Peter Schwartz, now available as a 64-page > > pamphlet for $4.95 from The Intellectual Activist, 131 Fifth > > Avenue, Suite 101, New York, NY 10003.] > > (David Hudson) > Last year I posted a huge list of gross distortions > appearing in the first part of the article that led to the > pamphlet. If the pamphlet did nothing to correct that > stupidity, then Stubblefield lacks probity and his claim to > cherish linguistic precision is insincere. After reading the first two parts of Schwartz's article, my impression was identical to David's. After reading part 3, I changed my mind. The article is very badly written, at least from the viewpoint of someone who starts to read it with an open mind, but it makes a valid point. Unfortunately, while this point is not made until the middle of the third installment, the first 5/6ths of the article consist of documentation selected to demonstrate it. A reader who does not already know why Schwartz selects those particular documents is certain to experience the collection as biased to the point of mendacity. Which is a pity, because Schwartz's argument is a valid one. 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. 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. But a political movement without clearly - that is, philosophically - defined goals is likely to degenerate in a direction consonant with the culturally dominant ideas of its time. 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. 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. So I shall not call myself a Libertarian any more. I shall have to identify myself in philosophy as a Randian, and in politics as an advocate of Capitalism. And I'll keep on wishing Peter Schwartz knew how to write. Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)