The unbearable lightness of libertarianism* - a peevish rant

Anne pops back for a well deserved rant about libertarian ideals, practical reality and the vanishingly small intersection between those two sets.

I disagree with a lot of political positions, but I disagree with Libertarians the most. It seems to me that they, more than any other political sect, have a philosophy based on a complete failure to grasp the reality they live in. I've never yet talked to one who seemed to have the slightest understanding of how drastically our society would change, entirely for the worse, if they managed to put their Azaelf-baked ideas into action.

None of them have ever said so, but I get the impression they think the country would still be pretty much what it is today but we'd all be magically free from...whatever evil they think it is the Department of Commerce is doing to us, and that other than having more money in their paycheck every two weeks, nothing else would change.

I often thumb through Why people believe weird things when I'm wondering around book stores. It looks to be a fascinating book, and I really loved the chapter The Unlikeliest Cult. I just get a chuckle out of Michael Shermer's contention is that to be an objectivist one has to uncritically accept Rand's version of reality, under penalty of excommunication from the group.

In The Skeptics review of the book, there's a little delicious bit about the chapter.

Other than being an example of colossal self-deception and egoism, the debunking of a second-rate meta physician and the cult of adoration which grew up around her is of little more than historical interest. He might as well have done an essay on the Beatles and their adoring fans. Rand did not claim Objectivism is a science, but a philosophy. It's not a very interesting philosophy, nor was it innovative, despite what she and her followers believed.

A non trivial advantage to being a democrat these days is that we really don't have any danger of becoming a cult of personality. I mean, John Kerry lost, and the right wing is running around burning him in effigy. We could very well see John Kerry actually sacrificed in some bizarre revival of ancient Mayan rituals sweeping the second Bush administration.

So he's an unlikely candidate to rise to cult like status.

Michael Moore? I guess you could claim that there's someone on the planet who is involved in a vanishingly small Michael Moore cult. Moreover, I would postulate that the number of right wingers who complain about Michael Moore vastly outstrips the number of people who are locked in this hypothetical personality cult of Michael Moore.

And besides, isn't the entire democratic leadership offering up Michael Moore and fellow kindred like Ted Rall on the altar of political sacrifice (not to mention abortion rights - but that's the subject for another rant) in the vain hope of appeasing the all powerful moral values voter?

Pickin's are pretty slim on the democratic personality cult figures.

On the right, we have the chosen one - he who was "chosen" for this time by God. Whether this is Karl Rove or George Bush seems to depend on whether you are a cynical corporate type of republican or a evangelical theocrat kind of republican. And if George Bush isn't your type, there is always the uber father figure of God's Own Party: Ronald Reagan. I mean, the Reagan cult of personality makes Objectivists look like a seriously engineered social group of optimal human behavior.

The Cowboy and the Cross.

Or just Dale Gribble. Take your pick.

Update: Since every one else is linking to this stinky log squeezed out by David Holcberg over at the Ayn Rand institute, I thought I would as well: U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims.

It's a touching look into the mind of a research associate at the institute.

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?

It's like a broken record.

______________
* Note. This is not a criticism of your particular phenotype of libertarianism. No one would ever suggest that this strain wasn't anything but the most pure and virulent meme strain that can stand up to the trickiest of problems encountered in the wild and wacky real world.

You know the kind of people I'm talking about. Them. Not you. They are Dale Gribble. You are a soaring Icarus amongst the clouds. Gliding through the lofty ethical heights on glorious wings of pure, unassailable reason.