Selwyn Duke's Folly-Part 1

Download Selwyns Folly Part One

Selwyn Duke of the American Thinker has written two essays which be believes are refutations of libertarianism. Instead he has demonsrated that he understands very little of actual libertarian thought. Originally I planned to write a short blog post, but the more I read of his essays, the more I felt compelled to write a more thorough response to his ignorance. There are entire books in print that refute Mr. Duke's arguments, but it is clear that he is completely unaware of their existence. He does not refer to any libertarian thinkers; He does not mention Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand or Leonard Read or Albert J. Nock or Frank Chodorov or anyone. It appears, in fact, that he is responding to the handful of libertarians that email him in response to his articles. This might make for an effective blog post to a conservative audience, but his essays do not address any of the fundamentals of libertarian thought.

My first essay is available for download as a PDF file. I'll respond to his second essay later, but it will probably also be a long response that will be uploaded rather than a blog post.

Comments

[www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmxJ3mZbkchWWkKjNwwC6-qbMovpKjhsUw]

I love most of your article.

I disagree, however, with the assertion that the State is necessarily evil and can never be anything but bad. It's not the State that's the problem, and you basically show that you know this -- it's the people who misuse the State for their own twisted ends.

State is a tool. It's an artifical construct. It is true that it's an easily abused tool by those who would seek to abuse it, but then so are AK47's. I do not see why libertarians cannot or will not grasp this concept. If it's the people who are doing the killing and not the weapon, if it's the people making the spelling mistakes and not the pencil, then it's the people who are abusing the State's power and not the State itself.

The problem is the people. As long as there are people who want to use the State to violate the single fundamental right of the individual to make his own choices for himself, to force their opinions on others, we will never be genuinely free. It doesn't matter if we have a State or not. Get rid of the State. Go ahead. The abusive people will still be there, inventing new ways to continue to abuse people.

Yes, the use of the State to compel obedience to taxation and everything else (except the protection of rights) is wrong. It was not, however, the State that made itself into itself, but the willingness of the people under the State to vote for or tolerate or support abuse whenever it suited their questionable purposes.

Until people generally value liberty enough to want it so much for themselves that they are willing to let others be free, too, in spite of disagreements about personal life choices, it doesn't matter what system we have, or whether or not we have a system. We have a system now that is perfectly capable of self-correction, if only the people actually wanted it to be corrected. If everyone wanted to end the abuses of our system and actually support liberty, we would have that, even under our imperfect system. Even if only most of us wanted to end these abuses, or even just a lot of us, it would happen. But this is not the case. For example: A lot of liberals won't be satisfied until they've managed to change the mind of every conservative that it's OK to be gay. A lot of conservatives won't be satisfied until they've managed to force every gay person back into a well hidden closet or, better yet, eliminated them entirely. Both sides are correct to think of homosexuality as acceptable or unacceptable. The problem is the failure on both sides to accept that everyone is entitled to his opinion and to make this choice for himself. This one example demonstrates the general pattern perfectly. Convince people that it's their right to violate other people's rights, and then the real abusers can trample rights freely.

So this, then, is my problem with libertarians. Ultimately, libertarians blame the tool and not the users. If only we got rid of the tool, they argue, we'd be free. We won't be, any more than making laws against gun possession will keep us safer from violent criminals.

[John Cullison]

Not sure why Google is identifying me so weirdly, but I'm the author of the previous reply.

[Misteriousness Al]

The State IS criminality by definition, as resting on basis of monopolized coercion. Thus, there is no way this 'tool' cannot be used for evil, since this 'tool' itself is evil. And it cannot even be considered a tool: first, it is not morally or ethically neutral as shown, and second it is not a moral agent apart from its participants, meaning that the State is simply a collection of people acting in unison in a certain particular methodology for a particular goal, which is: monopolized coercion, or 'to coerce monopolistic-ally.' Thus, the State itself, which is not a tool since it is defined only by the actions of its composed moral agents, who, if ceasing such action (monopolized coercion) necessary for the State, would cause the State to cease, is what's wrong. If an action is to be deemed a tool, then certain tools--those which need be actions--are not morally neutral. Objects can be morally neutral, regardless of their function, because their function does not dictate the purpose. The action that is essential for the State to be considered existent is itself evil, and that's not going to change no matter what face is behind it--a gun is not inherently evil because it commits no act by itself and can have a variety of uses. Your analogy between guns and the State is faulty. One is an object, the other a system of human interACTION.

Also, you say "until people generally value liberty enough to want it so much for themselves that they are willing to let others be free, too, in spite of disagreements about personal life choices, it doesn't matter what system we have, or whether or not we have a system" as though the goal of, not only valuing liberty, but striving towards it, in spite of disagreements in lifestyle, has NOTHING to do with the abolition of the "system" of the State. If it is already established that the State is essentially unethical by being coercive, and that liberty is being devoid of such coercion, the disestablishment of the State is necessarily connected to the re-fertilization of liberty. That's like saying that disestablishing the Mafia's system of theft to fund their own drug selling on my block, has nothing to do with me being able to voluntarily keep and spend my money and establish security (safeguards against what is deemed enough of a risk or danger to me in order to need safeguards).