Philosophy

Libertarianism and Psychology

Fred Foldvary Liberty, Philosophy , , , , , , ,

by Fred Foldvary

Recently there have been a stream of negative critiques of libertarianism. All of them are misunderstandings.  It seems that these critics are just dressing up their antagonism with pseudo-scientific textiles.

The latest attack is in Psychology Today. Peter Corning, Ph.D., asks and answers “What’s the Matter with Libertarianism?” under the rubric “The Fair Society.”

He says, “The libertarian model of individual psychology is grounded in the utilitarian, neo-classical economics model of ‘Homo economicus,'” by which he means selfish economic man. Corning provides a couple of quotes by Nozick and Dawkins, but no general evidence that such is the viewpoint of most libertarians.  Is there a survey?  Is there  inductive logic leading to this conclusion? No, there is nothing. And this is supposed to be a scientific finding of a scholarly psychologist.

He cites the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, but is evidently unaware of Smith’s other book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which Smith explained the other human motivation, sympathy for others.  Most libertarians that I know personally or from writings believe that it is quite good to be benevolent.

Perhaps Corning is confusing libertarianism with an extreme version of Randian Objectivism. He cites Ayn Rand as writing “Man’s first duty is to himself.”  But libertarian philosophy posits no such “first duty.”  The only libertarian moral duty is to avoid coercive harm to others.

Some libertarians are “anarcho-capitalists” who seem to envision an atomistic society of individuals contracting with protective agencies.  But libertarianism includes the communitarian vision of consensual communities with collective goods.

Corning claims that “libertarians generally have no model of society as an interdependent group with a common purpose and common interests.”  But no libertarian denies that society is interdependent. What is denied, and properly so, is that all the persons in a country have some common purpose and interests.  A multicultural society such as the USA consists of many interests, sometimes in conflict.  The interest of a thief clashes with that of peaceful victims.  If libertarianism is applied to society, the diverse interests can co-exist, the rule being that one may not force one’s interests on others.

Corning then notes that corporate interests sometimes perpetrate malfeasance. Yes, and if they commit fraud, that is theft, and libertarian policy would be to punish this.

He writes, “our first collective obligation is to ensure that all of our basic needs are met.” Now we see his political agenda.  Corning is a statist collectivist who favors the governmental welfare state. There is no abstract moral collective obligation. All obligations are individual. There can be a group with a mutual contract that then creates a collective obligation, but only from individual delegation.  As to basic needs, libertarian policy enables people to apply their labor and keep all the wages from that, which enables them to provide for their needs.  It is today’s statist restrictions and taxes that deprive workers of the ability to obtain their needs.  The few adults unable to work would get charity. The mass poverty of today is caused by government, not by the non-existent free market.

Evidently Corning believes that a libertarian world would be too selfish to care about the few who fall into misfortune.  But there is no evidence that greater freedom results in greater selfishness in the sense of not caring about others.  So here we have an article that seeks to apply psychology to an ideology, but with no evidence and with flaws in logic.  Psychology here is being applied as a cover for ideological views.  Has this been peer reviewed, or are the peers just as biased and lacking in scientific principle?

Lies and Untruths

Jacques Delacroix Philosophy , , , , , ,

Big lies are pretty much the same on all ends of the political starfish. I am more interested in persistent white lies and in the mechanisms of collective self-delusion. I think they are more common on the Left. In fact, I believe they underlie liberal thinking to a large extent.

Although I have been living most of my adult life with these kinds of untruths, in academia, I am only now trying to gain a precise understanding of the relevant psychology. It takes leisure time and some perspective, I suppose. I have spotted two big sources of half-involuntary mendacity, so far .

I have frequent conversations with a young liberal I chose deliberately because he is thoughtful, curious and he seems intellectually honest. (I don’t waste time on older people and I don’t waste time with liars; they are almost always boring.) We have had several exchanges on the reality of global warming. He sent me a long email explaining why he believed it was real while admitting he did not understand the science behind the claim and did not try to. I don’t try either; I don’t understand it either; I don’t have to. I know a liar and a fabricator when I see one. If your cause or your theory is good, you never have to lie about it. The last sentence of his last email stated that he had to go, on this issue, with the “majority” of scientists. I heard a click go off in my brain. This sounds oddly familiar though I have not heard it said so clearly. Continue reading →

A Good Society: The Coffee Proof

Jacques Delacroix Philosophy , , ,

We still live in a good society. I keep forgetting this and life keeps reminding me.

I have a younger friend who graduated with honors and with a major in Philosophy. I liked him just for that. It sure beats a major in”Psychology,” or one in “Management.” Incidentally, I know that some of my readers know that I used to teach from a “Management Department.” My excuse is that I tried very hard never to teach whatever you think is “management” and that I pretty much succeeded overall. (This story will have digressions. It’s one of those days. Go with the flow.)

Anyway, my friend takes care of several coffee shops. He has become the owner’s right hand by din of being hard working and just plain reliable. Two things happened to him as a result. The first is political. My friend went to the University of California at Santa Cruz, where Stalinists communists are considered conservative. So, of course, he used to be kind of a left-winger. (That would be the honest kind, the kind that does not knowingly make false statements.) Nowadays, though, the closer the he gets to the books, to the actual accounting of the coffee shops, the more he moves to the political center. Who ever said philosophy is “useless?”

The other thing that happened to my friend through his work is that he became a coffee connoisseur. One day that he inquired about a present for me, I said, “ Surprise me with coffee.” He did. He brought me a small quantity of a variety I had never heard about. “How did you like it? “ he asked two days latter.

Well, I stopped lying – except in emergencies – at about the time I stopped lying to women. And, incidentally, there was never much reason to believe that I ever, ever deceived a single woman. Mostly, they listened to my lies smilingly because they liked the poetry of them.

At any rate, I replied to my friend that his gift coffee did not paint my particular town red. He had this superb response I have not been able to get out of my head for days now; he said that that particular coffee was “divisive.” I am so lucky! I live in a society so peaceful, so prosperous, so fulfilling that here, expensive coffee can be considered divisive!