The Essence of Libertarian Naïveté

Justin Logan gives a sneering criticism of Ryan Sager’s TCS article.  On a whole, Logan is right in criticizing the lack of depth in Sager’s article.  Ultimately, however, the critique has little more substance than the object of the rant.  Aside from the implicit ad hominem, (e.g. making fun of the newspaper he writes for, referencing big libertarian names,...) the critique has only the merit of pointing out the want of depth. 

Until we get to this point in Logan's post, in which the timeless refrain of the naive libertarian begins to play:

Most libertarians believe, as Robert Nozick did, that: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)"  I believe this, too.  For me, this group of rights includes the right to one's own life.  This right is possessed by all people, even Iraqis.

This is Logan’s first and last article of faith.  And he leaves it out there naked and vulnerable (like most libertarians do).  Again and again, we must ask the naïve libertarian what he bases these premises on.  “Principle” he answers, as if he’s been talking to God or somehow limning the ultimate nature of morality by reading gradschool textbooks. 

And please: don’t tell us you got it from the libertarian “tradition.”  That doesn't suffice.  That’s not an argument for universal rights. Don’t cite some scholar, like Nozick or Rawls (or some guy at Cato).  We all like Nozick.  But Nozick provides no justification whatsoever for universal rights in Anarchy, State and Utopia besides a nod to Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative. 
I’m really not trying to be hostile.  But for people so eager to be sanctimonious, I’ve seen little apart from naked dogma from libertarians to base this sanctimony upon.  The real question is:  how do you arrive at these rights?  Faith?  Wish?  Hope?  You don’t know.  Please, go back to the theoretical drawing board and figure it out.  In the meantime, I’ll be supporting leaders who will take the necessary measure to protect the real rights that are conferred solely by the political institutions (and military power) I live under – however imperfect.  And I will still call myself a libertarian.

This claim [the “right to life”] is not absolute, and can be overridden by other claims, such as the claims to protect a people from impending attack or to prevent a prior attacker from attacking again.  In my world, though, it does not mean that Iraqis' right to their lives can be overcome by Ryan Sager's (or President Bush's) ideology about how things need to be run in the Middle East. 

In your world of mysterious free-floating essences and defense-only foreign policy, the world is constructed of two teams - offense and defense – all fighting with enlightenment ideas and weapons.  This is what Sager meant, for all his simplicity, by the term "pre-9/11 mentality."  But it’s even worse than that.  It’s a pre-Reagan mentality.  It’s a pre cold-war mentality.  So many libertarians out there are so passionate about their principles that they are blind to the dangers of the world.  And they fancy themselves armchair strategists, while at the same time trying to stake the moral highground. 

(And yes, the Middle East needs to be run differently, or we’re going to have a hell of a lot more problems in the long term. That's my bit of armchair strategery.)

The U.S. government, for all the arguments that have been made to the contrary, is not responsible for those who were murdered by Saddam Hussein.  There are mediated consequences and unmediated consequences, and they are not of the same moral importance.  When the U.S. government drops a bomb on an innocent Iraqi, his death is an unmediated consequence of the act.  When Saddam Hussein murdered an Iraqi, the Iraqi's death was, at most, a mediated consequence of the U.S.'s failure to depose Saddam Hussein.  Putting the same moral weight on the two is absurd.

Huh?  Mediated, non-mediated?  Moral weight?  OK, I don’t believe that the life of an Iraqi has the same “moral weight” as mine or any other American’s.  But that is a political distinction, not really a moral one.  But didn’t you say:

"Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights.)"  I believe this, too.  For me, this group of rights includes the right to one's own life.  This right is possessed by all people, even Iraqis. 

But of course, you also said those rights can be “overridden.”  I suppose those self-same rights of Iraqis can be overridden by your libertarian right not to be taxed for interventionist projects abroad?  I’m really not sure that’s an argument you want to make, (even if I might agree with you in the letter and not in spirit).  So self-defense is ok.  But coming to someone’s defense is not ok under naïve libertarianism…?  Maybe this isn’t the point, but if not—what is it?

I think it’s all out on the table.  The burden of proof is not on Ryan Sager to show why he thinks one nation is justified in invading another.  The burden of proof is on Justin Logan to show why any nation should not do what it perceives to be in its interests – but especially on grounds of so-called universal rights.

Comments

[Matt McIntosh]

Well done. I saw the same post and thought pretty much the same thing. When you press natural rights people they're revealed to be one of three things: 1) Dogmatic Lockeans (we all have rights because God grants them to us, or just because, dammit), 2) Naturalist/essentialist Aristotleans (it's man's nature!... whatever that is, and don't ask me how we get from the is to the ought), or 3) they suddenly begin turning into pragmatists (the right to live is inaliable!...except when I say it's not). Funny shit.

[M]

Thanks Matt... Happy Thanksgiving.

[Matt McIntosh]

Happy thanksgiving Max. :)

[no name]

This is a pathetic response. Max pull out a quote from Nozick and ignores paragraph after of paragraph of argumentation. The problem is that Max doesn't care to engage any serious argument about Iraq, so all of his articles on the libertarian hawks - written without attention to grace, style, or even grammar - are essentially "think-pieces" - on the nature of rights, or social contracts.

[Max]

The grammarian commenter says: "Max pull out a quote from Nozick and ignores paragraph after of paragraph of argumentation. " Wow.

No name doesn't care to engage directly. But anyway, 1) there ain't no argumentation in the Logan piece. 2) I'd rather write think pieces than unthinking pieces. 3) I'll debate the merits of Iraq on strategy any day. At least my arguments don't appeal (constantly) to feeble, cliched 'moral' premises. 4) My graceless, styleless poorly-grammarfied prose managed to make it past the editorial eyes of Nick Schulz at Tech Central Station. Maybe this cowardly commenter should take it up with him.

[b.]

http://justinlogan.typepad.com/justinlogancom/2004/11/the_poverty_of_.html

and

http://www.techcentralstation.com/112904F.html

[-------]

While you're busy waxing pop-philosophical about how Iraqis don't have the same moral - nay, political - weight as Americans (and why not? because they don't live under the same social contract, natch, etc. etc.) - there are actual real things happening over in Iraq:

"One guy talked about guard duty in Kosovo one day and getting angry about being there, in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of nothing. He saw a mentally ill child who always came to the gate, asking for candy. The soldier told him to come over, and then he punched him as hard as he could, over and over, just to see if the kid would come back the next day. When he did, the soldier beat him again, laughing.

After that story, Laird told the soldier he was a coward and an ass."

http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2004_11_28.html#005686

Of course, the intrusion of facts into your world might cause to write another rant about how rights are a myth etc., so I'm wary of posting too many on this blog.

[Max]

The anonymous commenter strikes again. I liken this fellow to lonely men who pretend to be women online in order to scam dirty pictures.

[Lancelot Finn]

I posted some input on my blog:

http://lancelotfinn.blogspot.com/2004/11/libertarians-debate-foreign-policy.html

The anonymous commenter's second story, about the jerk soldier, is something more malign than merely naive. Far worse things happened under Saddam, and on a far greater scale. If you think a case against the war in Iraq can be made with anecdotes like this one, you may be deeply uncurious and unserious, or you have made a calculation that you're more likely to win this "debate" through cheap shots than substantive discussion. Punish the jerk soldier, by all means. Lock him up for a week. And punish Saddam. Lock him up forever.

[Max]

For those interested in this exchange:

http://jujitsui-generis.typepad.com/jujitsui_generis/2004/11/logans_run_at_m.html

[-----]

the point of me posting the story was not to say worse hadn't happened under Saddam.

It was to make the point that there are real lives at stake than Max's "philosophy" - if one can call the mish-mash of prejudices he posts that - acknowledges.

At core, Max's "philosophy" with its nice talk about "social contracts" amounts to: Brown people don't have rights, kill them.

Also, the U.S. invaded to stop WMD. There were no WMD. Thus, no reason to invade, unless you think the U.S. has some obligation to rid the world of tyrants, in which case why stop there?