LIBERTARIAN EGALITARIANS

The only realm in which people are equal is (when properly instituted) the political realm. Everyone — regardless of economic status, race, creed, religion, sex, beauty, or stupidity — has the same fundamental rights as a human being and equal protection under (properly constituted) laws.

But that’s about it. People are otherwise not equal. People vary in ability, in intelligence, in dexterity, in beauty, in friendliness, in accomplishment, in integrity, in independence, in honesty, in productivity, in self-esteem, in character, in the size of their houses, in the love or admiration or hatred they give or receive, in desirability of where they live, in the variety and quality and number of their possessions, in the respect they earn and/or receive, in virtually any and all qualities and characteristics that might describe a person.

Some people are creeps. Some people are bland. Some people are exciting. Some people are admirable. Some people are bad. Some are good. Some are great human beings.

Why is any of this at all controversial to anyone the least bit familiar with the human condition and the context of freedom?

Yet — apparently — egalitarian populism is alive and well among a subset of libertarians. (See here.)

This writer and some of his readers seem to disagree with some facts of reality. For instance:

• Children do not have full human rights. A baby does not have the “right” to refuse medical care or education deemed necessary by a parent. A child does not have the “right” to ignore his chores or drink a fifth of Scotch. A teenager does not have the “right” to have orgies in front of his parents while they watch TV. Full human rights are dependent on the physical maturation of one’s brain and the capacity to care independently for oneself. If a child disobeys a proper demand of a parent, the parent does have the right to force the child to obey.

• Those who do not respect property rights have no claim to property rights. Mayans or Aztecs or Incans or other Indians who did not establish and enforce property rights had no basis for complaint against Spanish or English or Dutch settlers who utilized the same immoral means to obtain what they wanted. Slavers and sacrificers of live human beings have no moral ground to object to being sacrificed or enslaved themselves.

• All property should be private property. “Public property” is an oxymoron. The “public,” i.e., the State cannot own anything. At best, it should be a caretaker until unowned land becomes someone’s property. The modifier “private” in conjunction with “property” is as much a redundancy as is “individual” in conjunction with “rights.” Sadly, in today’s corrupt intellectual and political environment, such adjectives must be used to clarify the thinking of those unclear about the true meaning of liberty and rights.

Despite the various valid points this writer makes, his adherence to the discredited idea of “anarchy” is not a promising signal of his intellectual acuity. If one does not properly understand freedom and its requirements, then subsequent analyses of related concepts must be suspect.

In reality, many people are “inferior” to others in terms of their productive capacity, their creative ability, their drive, their dedication, their hard work, their willingness to take risks, their independence, their capacity for rebounding from and overcoming failure, their skill in overcoming obstacles. This fact does not mean that an Eddie Willers is inferior as a person to Dagny Taggart. But I fully acknowledge the superiority to me in this realm of those who create jobs, who build and distribute products and services I use, and who are able and willing to do all those things that eventually improve my life in so many ways. I am not demeaning myself by acknowledging my debt and gratitude to entrepreneurs and their kin. There is nothing “odious” about recognizing and acknowledging that the “status” of some individuals is (much) higher than that of others.

What is “odious” or “cringe”-worthy is pretending that (beyond the realm of fundamental rights) that there is something immoral, something improper in stating that some people are — in reality — better than some other people...not in all areas, certainly, but in some.

Frankly, I am better than those who advocate involuntary servitude and who work to enslave me.

I am better than those who hate freedom and use the State to steal “legally” what is not theirs.

I am better than those who think other people should support them.

I am better than those who advocate sacrifices.

I am better than those who think there are basic “rights” to health care or food or shelter or education or any other goods or services.

I am better than those who judge individuals by collectivist notions such as race or class or sex.

I am better than those who resort to statist smear tactics to discredit ideas by reducing a philosophy to identification with a particular person (e.g., “Randroids”).

In the end, I’ll take liberty over “equality” any day of the week.


(from Don't Get Me Started!, 2-09-09)