So, I learned a fancy new word recently, “solipsism” and every so often, it grinds against one of my other hobby horses and gives me an interesting notion that may or may not hold up under further scrutiny. Today, it bounced up against libertarianism, Libertarians, and why Libertarians struggle so mightily at the ballot box.
Solipsism has a more formal meaning in philosophy and then a more casual every day usage. In philosophy, it has to do with the idea that knowledge of anything outside of your own mind is uncertain – your experience of the outside world, if it even truly exists, is mediated through your mind. So, you don’t really know how accurately the outputs match the inputs. More casually, it speaks to interacting with the world in a self-centered way.
Libertarianism holds up liberty of the individual above all else. Individualism isn’t bad. Liberty is good. So, what’s the problem? It might be that the solipsism inherent in the ideology short circuits the ability to empathize. And, I’m referring to empathy rather than sympathy where, as I understand it, the distinction is that the former is the ability to comprehend things from the perspective of another; whereas the latter has more to do with feeling bad for the other person because you understand that the position they are in is an unhappy one. I think you can empathize with someone without feeling bad for them, and I think you can sympathize with someone without really knowing how they feel.
So, if I’m correct that solipsism short circuits empathy and libertarianism creates this sort of blind spot in its adherents; then that would help explain electoral difficulties. It’s difficult to sell liberty without really understanding how others experience liberty. And even those who subscribe to the same basic ideology have a tough time really understanding each others vision of that ideology.
On the other hand, maybe electoral difficulties are nothing more complicated than that fiercely individualistic people are inevitably going to have a tough time engaging in what is fundamentally a group effort. (Which I think is a lot more likely than what seems to be the preferred explanation within the group: that non-Libertarians are too stupid and/or lazy to see the Truth.)
Anyway, like I said; just an idea that occurred to me. I’m still chewing on it.
” (Which I think is a lot more likely than what seems to be the preferred explanation within the group: that non-Libertarians are too stupid and/or lazy to see the Truth.)”
This was also the preferred explanation of Communists about people who did not accept Communism, although they preferred the term “false consciousness”. And, inevitably, had an elaborate theory to explain it.
“Solipsism” is one of the words I became familiar with by reading Christopher Hitchens. It was a favorite of his.
To paraphrase:
Harry: Was this all only in my mind or was it real?
Dumbledore: Of course it was all in your mind, Harry. How does that not make it real?
The problem isn’t libertarianism. The problem is that an authoritarian, reactionary, far right-wing ideological movement has dishonestly called itself “libertarianism,” and sought to convince people of the ludicrous notion that capitalist relations of production somehow have anything at all to do with individual liberty based on a completely essentialized and decontextualized interpretation of late Enlightenment thought that, far from merely offering a different perspective and understanding of the implications of developments in the humanities and social sciences over the subsequent two centuries for deciding how to best ensure human liberty, completely ignores those developments altogether.
Real libertarianism is anti-capitalist.
Well, your theory certainly helps explain this: [Slate article]
Some freedoms are more freedom-y than others.
(Edited to embed link -Doug)
Interesting Slate story and “freedom-y” is potentially pregnant with meaning.
Last July 4 holiday, I heard a discussion in which the person said that “freedom” meant different things to people in different regions. In the northeast, it’s more “don’t tread on me”; in the south, it depends on the social class of the person, with the higher social classes deserving more freedom, and a couple of other observations. The validity of these kinds of observations notwithstanding, it drives home the point that the meaning of freedom depends upon who you ask and what they feel is at stake. It often boils down to “as long as I have what I call ‘freedom’, I’m fine, and I really don’t care about you.” I personally believe that walking into a room in which many of the persons are carrying a .45 restricts my freedom (and scares the stuffing out of me), while there are some others who think that is Valhalla. There is much to be learned in a discussion in which we delineate “freedom” from “liberty”. The latter folks seem to be in the “liberty” classification.
Two things I can think of that hurt Libertarians at the ballot box:
1. 100 or so years of training by Ds & Rs that any other party is capital-E Evil.
2. A broad rejection of libertarian concepts by the voting populace. whether they understand the concepts or not, but especially when they do.
The consideration of solipsism is interesting, particularly the consideration of empathy. I myself gave it a decade, trying to demonstrate empathy for others, leading with it, going waaaaay out of my way to avoid any appearance of ‘fuck you, I want mine’ and going all Voltaire in seeking to promote the individual liberty of others even where I may have disagreed with them on points. For my efforts? Abuse. On good days. The mileage of others may vary.
I’m more optimistic: the horribly-misnamed Libertarian Party (because what it really stands for is laissez-faire capitalist authoritarianism, which is the opposite of real libertarianism and real individual liberty) has trouble at the ballot box because people reject the authoritarianism is promotes.
There’s a vast difference between Laissez-Faire and crony capitalism. I concede that many self-styled libertarians are really only pro-business, and have this as a huge blind spot. But lately, the Libertarian Party have been assailing the crony capitalism (corporatism, fascism- call it however) in favor of genuine Laissez-Faire- which is the antithesis of authoritarianism.
I would be interested in your examples of laissez-faire as authoritarianism, for truly, I hold them as complete opposites.
But, to your point, I believe that people reject the Libertarian Party because it rejects authoritarianism, and the people want authoritarianism. This is precisely why I am pessimistic. (Realistic?)
Given that I was a right-“Libertarian” myself for a decade and a half, I’m well aware of what they mean by “capitalism.”
And I renounced it for real (anti-capitalist) libertarianism because I discovered that what they wanted was quite authoritarian indeed.
The necessities of survival imposed by external, objective reality can be–and are–every bit as coercive as someone holding a gun to your head.
Private and unequal ownership of the necessities of survival forces those who have not to subordinate themselves to those who have. It compels one to place the need to serve and satisfy someone else (be it a boss, a customer, or a shareholder) above pursuing one’s own individual goals, pursuits, and desires if one wishes to continue to have access to the mere material requirements of survival.
Only through an end to private ownership of the means of production and equal distribution of social wealth, then, can we build a libertarian rather than an authoritarian society.
Your definition of “libertarianism” strikes me as much the same as “socialism”. Or did I miss something? And I AM asking for purposes of clarification, that was not a right-wing word bomb I threw.
They’re essentially the same thing, yes. Communism or socialism are the only non-authoritarian, libertarian forms of social organization.
I haven’t thought it through, so I’m not prepared to embrace that statement. But, I will say that I think one blind spot libertarians have – and which our society does generally – are as to the assumptions buried in our notions of “property.” They’re buried so deeply, I have a difficult time articulating them. (Of course, my difficulty with articulation could be because I’m: a) wrong, or b) not very bright).
We take property for granted. But, it’s a government construct setting forth the conditions under which you’re not just entitled to continued possession of something but also entitled to have the government’s monopoly on force unleashed in your favor if someone attempts to interfere with that continued possession. The conditions under which property rights attach to a person are laden with decisions that amount to “picking winners and losers.”
So to bring about your ideal non-coercive world, you need to employ coercion. Else, how do we voluntarily arrive at an end to the private ownership of the means of production? Or, equal distribution of wealth?
Who would oversee that, then, pray tell, and how it the execution of it not be authoritarian?
Coercion is going to be on the table no matter what. People will disagree. When they do, there has to be some method of resolution and the means to enforce that resolution.
For example, private ownership of real estate includes the right to quiet enjoyment of that real estate. Quiet enjoyment necessarily includes the right to eject someone who is interfering with that enjoyment. And, if the person interfering doesn’t leave when you say “pretty please,” you’ll need a more forceful alternative. Currently that usually means a bunch of government employees with guns coming to assist you.
Mike, isn’t there a factor that the Libertarian Party is not seem as capable of getting elected, thus many who might support it drift to the two major parties, or out of politics altogether? Which of course is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem for the LP.
Absolutely, Greg. See my first response above, bullet point #1.
I wish Paul Ogden had better taste, sense, and a greater respect for academic rigor than to include a link to your blog on his page.
Freedom,
They just can’t keep those meds adjusted, can they? My neighbor is a proctologist, maybe I can get you an appointment with him.
Freedom, the more I watch you post, the more I’ve decided that people like you are one reason why so many countries decide that their constituents should not have the freedom of speech. Not that they might say something unpopular, but because they might just be jerks. Sure, you’re trampling on the will of the people and all, but who wants to deal with people who don’t add anything to the discourse?
Honestly, you should be banned from the blog. If you can’t see that, you don’t need an eye doctor, take Carlito up on his offer for the visit to the proctologist.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The world is a cruel place sometimes.
Ironic comment given that this blog is built for the Left to whine about being trod underfoot by the cruel ones.
Am I Left? Maybe. I grew up country club Republican. I’m a remorseless collection attorney. Certainly social conservatism isn’t my bag, and I think crony capitalism is inefficient.
So, if I’m a builder for the Left, you enemies must be Legion.
A “Legion?” You flatter yourself. A squad, at best.
Personally? Not even a squad. But, generally, I was going not for “a legion” but more for legion as “a multitude” with somewhat of a religious undertone.
Hey Freedom – how’s your blog going?
Care to post a link to it, or are anonymous potshots all you can muster?
Freedom has blog?
How do you work with crayon over the Internet. I would like to troll that dead zone.
Probably calls it the Wingnut Trollbooth.
Look at Joe.
He mad.
Mad? I’m laughing at you. I got much bigger things in life to worry about than anonymous Internet bozos who want to be taken seriously, yet refuse to supply a name and just act like a jerk.
I mean, I can go elsewhere and read the perspective of the Right and not have to deal with the hostility and attitude. So the value-add of your participation on this blog is, frankly, rather low.
If I was Doug, I’d have banned you weeks ago with no qualms.
Doug- since you put the word ‘solipsism’ in my head and tied it to libertarianism, I found it interesting that the next place I found the word was on libertarian site Reason, in an article about the President and the recent gun control vote: http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/obama-responds-to-his-gun-control-defeat
Interesting. But, I think that piece is a mess. The author concedes that Obama empathizes with the victims. He notes that Obama spoke about putting one’s self in the shoes of one’s political opponents. He criticizes Obama for a lack of empathy because Obama did not believe that his opponents were acting in good faith, which the author defines as arguing based on empirical evidence.
He basically says that solipsism means a failure to agree that an opponent is arguing in good faith. I think the two concepts are orthogonal to one another.