My Week with Libertarians: An Accidental Socratic Socialist vs. Capitalism’s Euthyphros

[PDF][Print]

Image

This story begins where all good stories do; I hit a bit of a rut with the second to last chapter of my dissertation, a dissertation which looks at the psychological aspects of capitalism that undermine arguments for global justice that are deeply entrenched in the liberal political-philosophical tradition. When I get stuck, I try to motivate myself by reminding myself how necessary this kind of demystifying critical scholarship is. Naturally, I usually turn to Fox News for such motivation. However, for whatever reason, I decided to look on Facebook for something that would piss me off and send me on a writing blitz.

I had no intention of writing anything about my experience. Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and a few Tea Party platforms have been plenty for me to work with. I was looking for motivation and inspiration—what I found was all sorts of both.

Here is what I learned about libertarians (some of which I knew or could have guessed, but to experience it first hand and to have successfully resisted the urge to slam the computer closed was something that I will remember until I die—or lose my mind). In fairness to libertarians (another idea that they think is a complete joke: I was told several times that because there are always some natural differences between people and luck varies, doing anything that exacerbates this unfairness—however preventable—is completely acceptable because we can’t ever get rid of all unfairness. Follow the logic? Me neither), I don’t think that a thoughtful, sophisticated libertarian political philosophy would actually include all of these dimensions exactly as they were presented to me. With that qualification, much of what follows represents actual-existing libertarianism (and these points are not wholly inconsistent with those made by the most prominent purveyors of this philosophy like Mises, Friedman, and Rand…Paul).

1.     Everything the government does based on taxation is violent. Taxation in and of itself is violent and coercive, even if it is voted on by an actual non-corrupt direct or representative democracy. Yet, manipulative practices of capitalists, including proven-psychologically manipulative advertising and marketing are not coercive in any way.

2.     Free exchange cannot harm anyone under any circumstances. I asked if I sold someone a bomb, not telling them it was set to detonate in ten minutes—though never telling them the opposite—and the person I sold it to was killed along with several bystanders, would that constitute a harm from free exchange? My interlocutors agreed this was a free exchange, but it was not the free exchange that was harmful, it was the bomb. (I also used the more realistic example of pollution, but they were even more dismissive of that possibly being a real harm or the result of unregulated trade.)

3.     Relatedly, lying and coercion should be outlawed, but they oppose all government attempts to enforce this, because obviously that would be central planning and Hitler did that (and apparently from what I was told, that inspiration came from Marx. I’m still waiting for the textual or historical bases for that claim…I won’t be holding my breath much longer).

4.     After one generation, people have no responsibility for where their inheritance came from (e.g. from slavery or other forms of outright theft).

5.     Inheritance though is legitimate, yet everyone’s wealth (not acquired during any recent theft and/or government policy) was acquired and/or maintained through hard work.

6.     An individual does not benefit from society if they work hard and make a lot of money, no matter what their career is (unless they are a college professor because “they contribute nothing to society”), and therefore owe nothing to anyone else. Even asking the question of where their justification for their irrevocable right to whatever they possess, however obscenely excessive amongst so much extreme poverty of their fellow citizens or human beings globally comes from, makes you a “bullshit Marxist” and worthy of death or at least grievous bodily harm.

7.     Libertarians like to quote John Locke—out of context. They may (as they did to me) accuse you of intentionally misquoting Locke when you post the exact language from Locke that asserts (in Ch. 2 Sec. 6 of the Second Treatise of Government): "Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not quit his station wilfully; so by the like reason when his own Preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of Mankind." Instead of saying “well I guess I don’t agree with Locke,” they would rather accuse me of lying.

8.     Anything that is not profitable by definition has no social importance (see any college degree that cannot obviously get you a job like “Women’s’ Studies” or “Race” (though I think they meant African-American Studies?)). I was told that no matter how useful and necessary these fields may be for society (a point none of the avowedly non-racist, non-misogynistic libertarians would concede to), because they are not profitable they are “stupid majors.”

9.     Military wages paid by the government are not in any way in principle similar to a college professor’s wage from a public university. Why? Because a military is necessary and education is not. I was told twice that I was forbidden from speaking on the topic because I was too biased, being an instructor at a public university. However, the soldiers were not too biased to speak on the subject.

10.  Lastly, and this one truly is the most egregious: voluntary slavery (including pimping) is okay so long as it is agreed to “voluntarily.” When I inquired as to what counted as “voluntary,” I found out nearly everything we do is voluntary by virtue of the fact that we do it. I came to the conclusion that according to libertarians on Facebook, the only things that wouldn’t be voluntary would be if you were given very specific drugs that made you 100% susceptible to suggestion and/or were attached to strings like a marionette and someone was literally controlling your movement.

What surprised me the most, I must say, were the number of people who came to my defense either by “Liking” a comment I made or by posting something expressing their agreement, thanking me for being polite and continuing to challenge libertarians to provide justifications for their views and provide more coherent arguments for their opposition to alternatives, but the most humorous gestures of support asked me more or less why I was wasting my time arguing with fundamentalist “psychos.” Little did they know, they were answering their own questions.

Though I began my week with the libertarians, and this weird case of gonzo political philosophy, simply trying to get inspired to write forcefully and creatively against capitalism, I continued on because of the support from like-minded Leftists and the few middle-of-the-road people who posted that the debate was helpful or interesting to them.

Once I realized where these debates were headed, I looked back on a number of previous posts on this page and the comments that followed. There are tens of thousands of people following this page, and about 300 to 500 might “Like” or comment on a particular post. From what I found there was very little beyond masturbatory self-congratulating and fully-capitalized (pardon the pun) posts of agreement and reinforcement. With that said, I found out that not everyone who follows or comments on a far-right wing libertarian page or blog does so because they agree that page. Sometimes, they’re people like me who know they disagree and just enjoy calling out the bullshit, but sometimes they are people who are overworked, raising children, with little time to figure out their own political views or are unsure what to do with all the conflicting narratives, so they follow a variety of pages representing different political perspectives (I only know because I asked a couple of these people that exact question).

Gaining access to the so-called “undecided” with clear, cogent, rational argumentation from the radical Left against the contradictory, cold-hearted, idealism of unquestioned belief in the unregulated “free” market and the complete rejection of all government and all taxation, is worth the effort. Though my experience certainly hasn’t made me more sanguine about the possibility of the Internet and social media being a potential progressive public sphere, it didn’t completely erode that hope either.

Though I have always understood the value of a good conversation and a good argument with smart people, I don’t think I have ever come close to arguing for as long and as in-depth with as many different people who seemed to hate me than I did during my week with the libertarians of Facebook (though some were rather explicit and appeared to possess some intimate knowledge about what kind of phrasing does and does not count as an illegal threat of bodily harm…). What I learned, more than anything, is how passionately people can believe that capitalism is inherently just and how viscerally they react when someone merely questions it—never mind providing ample historical and contemporary evidence for its injustice (and I also learned to never EVER ask a libertarian what the “free” in “free trade” or “free exchange” means).

For the first time, I felt like I knew how Socrates must have felt arguing with Euthyphro and how difficult such conversations can become when they take place on social media (though I was pleasantly surprised at how few people attempted to derail the conversation with absurd trolling—at worst there were vague threats and mindless sloganeering).

I wanted to conclude by saying that my experience provided evidence for the importance of the Socratic figure in a social-mediatized society, and although solidarity found me at times, I may have provoked these people more than I successfully convinced the unsure or inspired the already-Leftists. I think reminding those on the Left of the ideological baggage we are up against and the violent fervor with which people defend capitalism, are important take-aways from my experience. I am thoroughly depressed about the possibility for genuine democracy in a society so thoroughly conditioned by the ideals that I confronted in my view brief but all-too-long encounter on Facebook, but not so depressed to ignore the possibility that as easily as these people were convinced of the virtuousness of their beliefs, so too they can be unconvinced or convinced of our alternative. We’re only generations behind capitalism, but luckily we have conscience and truth on our side—along with the contradictions of capitalism, which eventually everyone will be unable to ignore.

Perhaps I got precisely what I should have expected or perhaps this experience represents little more than an aberrational coterie of the American Right—but based on the success of Tea Party candidates and Donald Trump’s unconscionably popular racism-driven superrich-as-hero worship (though Trump himself is not a libertarian, his “message” is certainly popular with them), I think this experience represents more of a scary microcosm than it does some fringe exception. According to Reuters’ polling done in April 2015, 20 percent of Americans self-identify as libertarians, and 32 percent of people aged 18- 29 adopt that label. As opposed to labels like liberal or conservative, labels like socialist or libertarian tend to get used more often when the person has some idea of what those labels actually mean. Having 32% of young people sympathetic to these far-Right ideas, regardless of the increase in favorability to the term “socialism” (now 31 percent), should motivate us more than ever to call-out the injustices and sheer hypocrisies that are central to American libertarianism.

I am still processing the experience myself, but I, at the very least, accomplished my goal: these people certainly inspired me to keep writing and working toward a more just and emancipated society—however we can.

*Bryant Sculos is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Florida International University. His dissertation deploys the social-psychological understandings of capitalism developed by Theodor Adorno and Erich Fromm to criticize contemporary theories of cosmopolitanism and post-Marxism. Bryant teaches Modern and Contemporary political theory, and he is also a regular contributor to the open-access journal Class, Race, and Corporate Power.

Note from the editorial board:
If you’ve read this article to the end, you probably thought it was worth your time.
We hope you’ll also think it’s worth a few bucks (maybe more!) so that New Politics, run entirely by volunteers, can continue to give readers informative, timely analysis that is unswerving in its commitment to struggles for peace, freedom, equality, and justice — what we call socialism.
You have only a few weeks to donate to our annual fund appeal, during which we raise the money to publish. You can also subscribe, if you haven’t already. A digital-only sub is shockingly inexpensive and gets you our print issue weeks before the material is posted.
We won’t send you  a coffee mug, T-shirt, or tote bag.  What you’ll get instead is our thanks and a  deep, fuzzy satisfaction that you’ve contributed to bringing ideas that are more relevant than ever to new readers, helping to change the world.

2 comments on “My Week with Libertarians: An Accidental Socratic Socialist vs. Capitalism’s Euthyphros
  1. Marcy Fleming says:

    Very Stupid Anti-Analysis Of Libertarianism & Objectivism

    There are intelligent critiques that can be made of Rothbard, Mises and Rand but 100% of the time since 1957 or so they have not been made at all by the statist-collectivist forces on the left and only infrequently by the more traditional or in some cases by the religious forces on the right.

    You need to seriously read Economic Controversies by Murray Rothbard, Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises, Capitalism by George Reisman, all quite massive but very readable works plus the deluxe edition of Man, Economy And State with Power & Market by Rothbard (revised deluxe ed.) available from Amazon at reasonable prices or the Ludwig Von Mises Institute at Auburn University.

    Atlas Shrugged is worth reading very much but novels are not everyone’s bag so if you can just read the 60 page This Is John Galt Speaking towards the end of Atlas and try to deal with that.

    Almost no libertarians or Austrian economists or Objectivists believe in voluntary slavery, a contradiction-in-terms. The Rothbardians don’t believe in state monopolies of defense, police, court and prisons in contrast to the Randians nor do they believe in WMDs including nukes in contrast again to the Randians. Why shouldn’t people be able to leave inheritances to someone they want to without it getting stolen by the state, as NJ stole a 15K bank acct left to me by a friend who died there ? Simply out and out theft by criminal government. Only NJ and MD even have this inheritance tax rip-off. Somehow the other 48 states get along without it. Why should any descendants be responsible for the sins of their ancestors ? Only 8% of southern whites even owned slaves AND the slaves were for hundreds of years traded by their fellow blacks in Africa, to Arabs for 5 centuries and Europeans for 3. And if the Germans had to pay reparations after WW2 why didn’t the Allies who killed millions of German and Japanese civilians in the same time period ? And the 200 million murders of the Communists, half under Mao, 60-70 million under the Soviets, 1-2 million by Ho, 5 million by North Korea, 2-3 million Sudentens, a million Ethiopians, 3 million Cambodians, etc., etc., etc. Why the double standard ? Why is Trump a racist for properly wishing to deport 11 million Mexican illegals when Mexico itself deports millions of Guatemalans from southern Mexico every year ? Are you comparing voluntary advertising with compulsory taxation ? Is the author too stupid to even figure out what free trade or free markets or free enterprise is ? Imagine someone relying on the utterly discredited Marcusian hacks like Adorno, ad nauseum, as authorities !!!!!!!!!!! There has never been any clear, cogent, rational argumentation from the Left as my boyfriend noted after a 20 year correspondence with Chomsky. And who said any inheritance had to be claimed from hard work ? Where did that Puritan nutcase Protestant ethic come from ? Mr. Sculos is one of the most utterly stupid writers I’ve come across.

  2. Bryant Sculos says:

    Author Response

    Thank you Marcy for taking the time to read my work and to comment on it. I’m not going to respond to each part of what you said, but some of it gets the root of what I wrote about in my essay here. First and foremost is the guttural urge to defend capitalism against any and all criticisms and to immediately accuse the questioner of supporting statist thievery and being stupid. This is more or less the behavior of Euthyphro in Plato’s famous dialogue (hence the title). Second, while I see many many similarities between Rand’s and Mises’s work (see the “Anti-Capitalistic Mentality”) and most of the arguments I was confronted with in my week long interaction with a number of self-proclaimed libertarians (who themselves hid behind similar slogans and authority figures you deployed here), my essay is more of a summary of those interactions than a comprehensive critique of libertarianism. I even explicitly state in the essay “I don’t think that a thoughtful, sophisticated libertarian philosophy would actually include all of these dimensions as they were presented to me….” My essay is about the violent, ignorant, and cruel defenders of capitalism who refer to themselves as libertarians–these are not an isolated few though. All of the points in my essay represent actual comments and back-and-forth conversations. These points were actually made and defended by libertarians. Their aggressiveness (which included several death threats over the course of the week) is a function of capitalist ideology. I’m not saying that Friedman or Hayek wouldn’t have been able to at least explain what the “free” in “free exchange” meant, but rather, the loudest everyday representatives of this position today assume its meaning is obvious (and then they cannot explain it when asked). In your effort to defend this position, you also committed some of the same fallacies as many of my interlocutors. Third and finally, most of us who write for New Politics are not “statists.” We believe in socialism from below (that is, a truly radically democratic socialism). We would never deny that states are often major purveyors of injustice, but those injustices are almost always in the service of capital (just ask Haliburton or Lockheed Martin!). Generational injustice is a part of that: though I never owned slaves, why should I be able to benefit from the remnants of slavery? Similarly, why should I be able to pillage the Earth’s resources for profit now, leaving an inhabitable planet for future generations? These are just just a couple of the issues that a truly democratic (and thus socialist) government should address. Our current government barely does at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*