Friends of freedom are frequently accused of being “extremists” in not being willing to “compromise” with a “reasonable” amount of government regulation, welfare redistribution, and social intervention.
But who really is the extremist, the advocate of liberty who respects diversity and differences among men and their beliefs and actions, or the political interventionist who wishes to impose his vision of the “good society” on all through the use of government coercion?
In a new piece that I’ve written on, “Is the Case for Liberty Too Extreme?” I contrast these two conceptions of man and society by looking at two recent examples: the political banning of smoking in both public and private spaces; and the growing political censorship and prohibition of religious expression and debate over matters of faith in the marketplace of ideas.
I suggest that it is the political interventionist who is really the “extremist” in his attempt to make all conform to his idea of “good behavior,” and not the advocate of freedom who believes in the liberty of the mind and the power of peaceful persuasion.
It is worth recalling Ludwig von Mises’ words in his brilliant book on, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition:
“The propensity of our contemporaries to demand authoritarian prohibition as soon as something does not please them, and their readiness to submit to such prohibitions even when what is prohibited is quite agreeable to them shows how deeply ingrained the spirit of servility still remains within them. . . . A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.”
Richard Ebeling
{ 8 comments }
Absolutely correct. All such labels as, ‘radical’, ‘extremist’ etc. are truly for the enemies of freedom. They are the real ‘radical extreme level hypocrites’.
“In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.†— Ayn Rand
Advocates of governmental violence (i.e. unnecessary evil) are the actual unreasonable extremists.
I happened untaught on this property and I grew and or built something you wanted… but I and my ideas…MY PROPERTY does not belong to me?
Commy this way or commy that.
Everybody says that they’re friends of freedom. It isn’t hard to convince people that one or another way of doing things is best (politicians do it all the time, even when their policies are patently absurd). What is difficult is convincing someone that everyone who believes otherwise is an incarnation of pure evil. The mind recoils at the complete absurdity of it, and anyone who isn’t already singing with the choir thinks he’s being insulted. And he is.
I think that’s what people refer to when they say that anarchocapitalists are “extremists.” It’s not that anarchocapitalists are uncompromising, but that they tend to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly by calling attention to the idea that anarchocapitalism is a) the only good system and b) anyone who doesn’t believe in its goodness is indistinguishable from Hitler.
It’s not an issue of whether the idea is correct, but how the idea is being sold. Many groups sell their ideas the same way, and all have only a marginal following. Some might make the excuse that people just aren’t receptive, or they’re too indoctrinated to see the light, but that’s just what it is–an excuse used to avoid asking “Why aren’t people receptive?” or “How are their pre-conceived notions making them resistant to the idea?” or “What counter-arguments are most effective against my position?”
That’s probably why these groups tend to be inwardly-focused. It’s easy to preach to the choir; to recycle the same gospel day after day. It’s hard to convince an unsympathetic mind to begin with, much more so when the only proffered argument is practically a verbal assault.
There are alternatives to the self-righteous holier-than-thou style of argument: Instead of saying that those who disagree with Austrian theory necessarily support human slavery, famine, and disease, don’t say anything about their beliefs at all! Simply explain how the free market would provide for everyone’s needs and wants. Respond to questions and counter-arguments politely and thoroughly. Only when the listener is receptive to the reasonableness of the free market, can a (polite) comparison to government action be made safely. “Government enslaves while the free market…frees!” is probably not a good way to go about it. If the listener is still receptive at this point, point them to additional sources of information about libertarian ideas.
Above all, avoid sounding like a paranoid, paper-skinned fool. It may not be easy to suppress outbursts against the evils of government, but it is necessary to retain credibility in conversation with a group that pays taxes, obeys the law, and doesn’t find either to be an agonizing burden on their lives.
(The whole post exemplifies the point I’m making. Sorry about that.)
You have to admit that libertarians who believe in seasteading, and anarchists are at the extreme end. That’s not to say their are not extremists in the other direction. That doesn’t mean extremists are wrong, and that’s not the point of the label. The point of the label is that the consensus must be right.
Ribald, to further what you were saying, when someone is shown that there’s another way of handling things that’s not being forced, not being offered as a correction to what he already thinks, he feels more free to explore this other thing at his own pace. Being pressured or shamed into some other way of things is coercion, and once these are withdrawn, he will likely revert to how he was before. Presenting things this way might even result in discussion, where you question your views just as much as he his. Then it becomes a joint exploration of the situation, with each member being a peer and having the same goal: to understand the facts of the matter as best possible.
Freedom: with the stroke of a pen, yesterday the EPA basically made excess biological resperation a crime; they legally made CO2 a threat to human life.
Right, middle, Left, no difference, all our liberties are confiscated. You exhale CO2, the government can do what ever they want to you, whenever they want.
Good job environmental movement. Can you say Soft Tyranny….
Ribald,
If you ignore the moral principle and instead try to sell the practical to people, how are you ever going to convince them that voluntary trade will benefit them more than stealing? To the person who doesn’t care about morality, and has a short time preference (is that redundant?), being the beneficiary of aggression will always appear to be more profitable than actually working/trading for what you want. The seen vs. the unseen. The unseen is the long-term, relative impoverishment of everyone (including the thief). The seen is the goodies that government gives them for “free”.
From an amoral, practical point of view, aggression is superior in the short-term. So unless you broach the moral subject, you’ve got a weak sell.
I agree that screaming “you’re Hitler” isn’t productive. But I’m more and more convinced that the moral issue of the State is the only discussion that has any chance of finally breaking through to enough people. I’m convinced of that, but also very open to learn how to be more tactful, and persuasive so as not to trigger immediate mental barriers in my listener.
Comments on this entry are closed.