Sorry for the delay; my email was down for days.
in my experience, Libertarians tend to behave gratingly self-righteously
(“taking pride in being right”) and shut down disagreement with mental other
than physical cudgels: “Just admit that I’m right and you’re a liar, a thief,
and a fool, and we can get along.” Note that positive self-regard is much
nearer to the base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs than is the level of critical
thinking needed to analyze why one has such self-regard. Thus it is not
surprising that people fiercely defend their positive self-regard when it is
attacked. In attempting to persuade, I think Libertarians would do well to
learn and apply the techniques of Street Epistemology and/or the modes of
discourse espoused by Braver Angels.
The presumption of magical transportation is in assuming that, for example,
getting rid of all taxation will magically cause people to step forward to
voluntarily fund the programs that have customarily been funded by the taxes
and/or decide they and their neighbors can do without them; that they will
suddenly agree that everyone has the right to do and say things they find
morally reprehensible (even though those things are none of their business);
that they will suddenly develop the skills needed to handle their lives à la
carte when they used to be prix fixe. None of this excuses the
doing-things-that-don’t-work-over-and-over insanity of the status quo; all I am
saying is that we need to gently lead people in the direction of Freeland
rather than presuming they are already there.
Note that even starry-eyed progressives don’t think the government can spend
unlimited amounts of money (though Modern Monetary Theory can look a lot like
that); we do have a budget that we wrangle over, even though we overrun it.
And note that those same starry-eyed progressives tend to be on our side when
it comes to drugs, s prostitution, etc. We really do need to get better at
forming coalitions with them on issues where we agree; Libertarian Purity Tests
have not served us well.
Live long and prosper - Kennita
On Aug 22, 2021, at 23:31, Starchild
<sfdreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sfdreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Kennita,
Politicians who don't believe in things like individual sovereignty, free
markets, free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to control
your own body, etc., may occasionally enact good, pro-freedom legislation by
accident or whim, but it's a lot less likely that they will consistently do so
than that an office-holder with sound libertarian values will do the same.
Doing the right thing tends to result from having correct ideas (being right)
about public policy; they are connected.
Compared with people of other political stripes, how much do libertarians – who
generally do believe in free speech – really want to "shut down disagreement",
or otherwise resolve disputes via the use of force? Not so much, it seems to me.
Taking pride in being right may not be the most laudable emotion, but it
certainly seems more laudable than taking pride in any number of other things
that people often take pride in with far less logical justification, such as
their nationality, gender, race, ancestors, sexual orientation, etc. (things
they had little or nothing to do with).
Sometimes it seems like there's a weird tendency to discount the value of being
right, as if it counts for nothing, when in reality it counts for a great deal.
Would you rather, for example, be an astronaut on a mission where the engineers
got the calculations wrong, or a mission where they got the calculations right?
Where does the Libertarian Party presume any "magical" transportation or
transformation? Can you give any examples? Our approach seems to me to involve
far less "magical thinking" than that of different varieties of statism –
believing, for example, that even though criminalizing drugs, prostitution,
etc., has never worked, it will work if enough resources are devoted to it; or
believing that government can spend unlimited amounts of money without
provoking an economic collapse.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
On Aug 22, 2021, at 5:31 PM, Kennita Watson wrote:
I note the asymmetry; changing “be right" to "do right”. When people complain
about libertarians want to be right, what they often mean is that the
libertarians want to shut down disagreement so they can look like the smartest
person in the room and feel smug, or worse, holier-than-thou.
The Libertarian party line seems to presume that we are somehow magically
transported to Libertopia, and that the people are magically transformed into
the sorts of people who wantto live there. Right will win if and only if you
can convince voters that it's right for them, preferably as soon as possible.
Meaning: our task as libertarians is to be right AND win, which will require
picking up the Overton window and dragging it in the direction of freedom. It
will also require picking up the window from where it is, not where we wish it
were. In golf this is called playing the ball where it lies.
Live long and prosper - Kennita
On Aug 20, 2021, at 01:36, Starchild
<sfdreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sfdreamer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
People seeking to change politics, include sometimes libertarians, have often
been charged with caring more about being right than about winning elections.
This is typically expressed in a way meant to convey something along the lines
of, "You're too radical; you should compromise more, water down your ideas in
order to get more people to support you."
But being accused of caring too much about being right is rather interesting,
when you think about it. Because the reverse implication of "you care more
about being right than about winning," is that those who make the accusation
care more about winning than about being right.
Consider what that means, to value winning over being right. It suggests a
willingness to do what's wrong, to act unethically, if you think it will help
you win. Do we really want or need more ethically bankrupt politicians who care
more about winning than about doing the right thing?
If the ideas and approach advocated by a person or a group won't make the world
a better, freer place, that person or group does not deserve your political
support, no matter how popular, charismatic, successful, famous, rich,
compassionate, cool, or nice they may be.
So do care about whether your ideas are right, and when you believe they are
right and worth defending on their own merit (not just because they are
yours!), defend them and advocate them in their purest form. Run on them, if
you run for office. Don't hold back based on your guesses about who or what you
think can win. People's guesses about that are often wrong, especially over the
long haul. Do be willing to adopt and support whichever ideas you think will
make life, the universe, and everything as good and free as possible. Be and
support the change you want to see in the world. De-emphasize winning, and
focus on doing what's right.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – TLDR, Short answer: Yes, I would. Better to be right and not win, than
win and not do right.
