QandO

May 18, 2004

Neolibertarianism - Pt 2
Posted by Jon Henke

Kevin Drum has an excellent post on the problem with ideologically dependent politics....

The fact is that pretty much any intellectual principle becomes absurd and unusable when taken to extremes...
[...]
...history is littered with the corpses of movements that had a single overarching vision that metastasized over time and eventually led them to their doom.

The reason for this is simple: ideas have to reflect reality to have any power, and the actual human world doesn't run according to a single overarching principle. At a certain point, even if an idea continues to make some kind of logical sense, it no longer makes human sense as it starts coming into conflict with other human principles and desires that are equally strong. If you insist on taking your ideas past that point, you have essentially become a fanatic.

To put it in simpler terms: human nature being what it is, a Party which promises just the right degree of bread and circuses will almost always beat a Party which promises no bread or circuses at all. Always, in the long term.

So, what's the point in being a libertarian at all if we can't "win"? As Kevin writes..."Various viewpoints ebb and flow, but they very rarely get to the catastrophic point that is sadly common under authoritarian systems". We don't reach that state of authoritarianism precisely because there are people who insist on whatever degree of liberty they can achieve. There are, after all, degrees of winning and losing.

TrackBack