Libertarianism, the Atheism of Politics

Some people look at the full glory and diversity of the environment and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened. Proofs that it can and does happen naturally fail to convince, because the system is just too diverse and complex for these people to accept it as something that happened without a guiding force. These people are Creationists.

Creationists refuse to believe that evolution can happen because there is so much complexity and diversity. It boils down to an argument from incredulity. Although there are Theistic Evolutionists (not to be confused with advocates of Intelligent Design) the arguments from Creationists focus on trying to accuse atheist opponents of supporting evolution as a religious doctrine. They try to paint Darwin as a prophet, and random mutation and natural selection (RM/NS) as divine forces.

Some people, of the more liberal persuasion, look at the full glory and diversity of the economy and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened.

Statists refuse to believe that the economy can simply happen spontaneously because there is so much complexity and diversity. They see that economies can only happen with a central plan. They try to accuse libertarians as having the central market as a mystical central planner and the invisible hand as a divine force, when in fact "invisible hand" and "free market" are only metaphorical representations of what is happening in the market.

Some people, of the more conservative persuasion, look at the full glory and diversity of society and come to the conclusion that it cannot have just happened naturally, that there must have been some guiding hand behind it otherwise it could not have happened.

Statists refuse to believe that society can simply happen spontaneously because there is so much complexity and diversity. Much as theists often ask atheists "what is to stop you from committing crimes without god?" statists often ask libertarians "what is to stop you from committing crimes without government?" Atheists and libertarians both reply "because I choose to be so, I don't depend on an outside agency to tell me right from wrong."

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God and a divine morality. Libertarianism is simply the lack of belief in government and a mandated morality.

Near-miss Libertarian

Although the world is full of unpleasant examples of socialism, apparently not a single country that embraced central planning has ever counted as an example in any discussion of the subject. In each and every case the country in question wasn’t “real” socialism. It is a giant international game of "No True Scotsman" with regards to socialism. Every country in the Warsaw Pact, as well as China, Cuba, and North Korea are not examples of real socialism.

It may be necessary to deny all the examples of the failures of central planning are examples of socialism. After all, if one were to admit them as evidence, it would be necessary to conclude that socialism as an economic system does not work.

This stands in stark contrast to classical liberalism, where imperfect examples are embraced, with the caveat that they are imperfect examples and there are aspects of those examples that are illibertarian.

One of the first examples is the United States, usually prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve but often prior to the New Deal. Libertarians will grant that the setup had the flaws, most notably slavery. Other examples include many other western countries during the time between the final defeat of Napoleon and the outbreak of World War One, in spite of their colonialism. Or further back in history, there is Medieval Iceland, which lasted three hundred hears before becoming a territory of Norway.

Although each example had flaws, libertarians embrace them as examples because they show that the closer a country has gotten to the classic liberal ideal the better off that country has been.

Statists have counter-arguments to the trend the examples show. The first counter-argument is The Temporal Fallacy wherein they argue that, due to technological advancements since then, that today’s situation is clearly better in every respect. The truth is that technologically today’s situation is improved, and the rest does not follow.

A second argument is to deliberately confuse the flaw with the example. If a libertarians says "although this example had the glaring flaw of slavery…" the statist will respond as if the libertarian had said “this example has the virtue of slavery” and accuse the libertarian of being a defender of the flaw instead of condemning the flaw. The statist will then feel free to ignore the point of the example.

Either of those arguments is easily countered. The principle stands as a shining one – the closer a country has gotten to liberty the better off that country has been. This includes many countries that count as examples, and even a few that are decidedly not libertarian countries but have become more free in various areas, such as when communist China decontrolled various parts of the economy creating an economic powerhouse. The principle is clear to anyone willing to see.

Government Goods

One fact that makes things difficult for those who would argue against excessive interference by the state is that occasionally the state actually produces something that a sane person would actually pay for. This happens more often in first world nations, less often in the thug governments of third world countries, but it does happen.

After all, people do have a desire to get from point A to point B, and the government does produce roads. People do have a desire to educate the young, and the government does provide schools. People do have a desire for some basic security, and the government does provide some basic security with the military and the police.

The government provides these goods at twice the cost and half the quality, if one is feeling generous in the description of government provided goods, but they are produced. These good are provided in a very abusive and inept manner, but they are produced.

The fact that they are produced enables defenders of having an intrusive state to invoke the Statist Fallacy. This is an unfortunate, but deliberate, act on the part of the government, because in enables defenders of the state to accuse defenders of liberty of being against the production of those very goods.

It is, however, a sham. The point of providing those goods is to control those goods. By having the government provide education, the government controls the content of the education. By having the government provide the roads and provide security at the airports and the border, the government controls freedom of movement. By having the government guarantee the quality of medications taken through FDA approval, the politicians now have the ability to restrict the ability of the individual to choose which medications may work best for said individual.

The question then becomes; are those invoking the statist fallacy "useful fools" or are they the ones who actually aspire to control others? Or are they the final type of statist described in The Authoritarian Mindset, someone who actually desires to be a slave?