IWL: Issues With Libertarian Arguments Against Socialism Part 1
Issues with Libertarian Arguments Against Socialism, Part 1 - YouTube
Academic Agent sets out several Libertarian Logical arguments and their Socialist counter-arguments:
From Utility, the Libertarian Argues:
If increasing material prosperity is our aim, then the free market is the best method for achieving it.
Increasing material prosperity is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
(Socialists may disagree with the second sentence)
From Morality, the Libertarian Argues:
If maximizing freedom is our aim, then the free market is the best method for achieving it.
Maximizing freedom is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
(Socialists may disagree with the second sentence)
The Socialist would counter:
If equality for all is our aim, then socialism is the best method of achieving it.
Equality for all is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue socialism.
(Libertarians may disagree with the second sentence)
The Freidmanite retort has been:
Socialism always increases inequality.
Inequality is bad.
Therefore socialism is bad.
Here we see that the Libertarian has already conceded the moral foundation to the Socialist.
Mises' Counter:
Materialism is concerned with prosperity.
Socialist claims are "materialistic".
Therefore, socialist claims about "equality" are about prosperity.
This is much stronger.
Rothbard's Counter:
That which is against human nature is morally wrong.
Equality is against human nature.
Therefore, equality is morally wrong.
Typical Socialist Counter to Rothbard:
Social constructs can change.
"Human nature" is a social construct.
Therefore, "human nature" can change.
The second sentence is highly questionable and is much weaker.
The stronger Socialist counter is:
No "what is" claims can be moral.
All claims about "human nature" are "what is" claims.
Therefore, no claims about "human nature" can be moral.
There are several counters from Libertarians that can be applied:
The Theological argument is:
That which God creates is good.
That which is natural was created by God.
Therefore, that which is natural is good.
The Socialist will then assert his Atheism.
The Ethical argument is:
Eudemonia is not equality.
The goal of human life is Eudemonia.
Therefore, equality is not the goal of human life.
One can also accept Hume's Law and find another argument:
No materialistic claims can be moral.
All Socialist claims are materialist.
Therefore, no Socialist claims are moral.
A clever Socialist counter to the latter option is:
No materialist claims can be moral.
All Libertarian claims are materialist.
Therefore, no Libertarian claims are moral.
Mises and Freidman would have accepted this because they saw themselves as making value-free utilitarian arguments.
Rothbard, however, would counter:
Maximizing freedom is not a materialist goal (unlike equality).
All our claims seek to maximize freedom.
Therefore, none of our claims are materialist.
The kneejerk Socialist counter to Rothbard is:
The highest good is not Freedom.
The goal of human activity is the highest good.
Therefore, the goal of human activity is not freedom.
The well-read Socialist counter to Rothbard through Marx is:
Communism results in ultimate freedom.
Socialism aims at achieving Communism.
Therefore, Socialism maximizes freedom.
The Issue with Libertarianism emerges. The three most prominent Libertarian thinkers all accept a Socialist premise:
Freidman accepts the Socialist premise that equality is the aim.
Mises accepts the Socialist premise that material prosperity is the aim.
Rothbard accepts the Socialist premise that total freedom is the aim.
This tells us that the Socialism-Libertarianism disagreement is over means and not ends.
Although the Libertarians may be correct on all technical and methodical grounds, they will always lose to the socialist as they share the same goals and underlying metaphysical premises. Socialism will not be defeated by anything that shares the same materialist metaphysic, or something that accepts the central assumptions of the French Revolution. The challenge must come from a deeper place.