Modern American Libertarianism and the Just-World Fallacy

We're brought up on the American Dream. From the time we're children, we're told we can accomplish anything if we work hard enough for it. If we see someone with a crappy life, it's only natural that we tell ourselves, "It's their own fault! They didn't work hard enough!"

 

It seems weird to me to come at libertarianism from that direction. I am not a supporter of libertarianism because I think it is the most likely system to make the good people do well and the bad people do poorly. A benevolent dictator would do a much better job of that, as he can directly reward the virtuous and punish the wicked. Libertarianism is about not having people telling you what to do. It is about freedom and independence. It is about not having someone take from you to give to someone else, or take from someone else to give to you. Deserving doesn't enter into it.

Let's look at Ayn Rand, since you brought her up. John Galt is a genius. He makes a motor that runs on lightning (later stolen in Back to the Future ). He was also fit and didn't have kids. In the place where he worked, his genius was not appreciated, his efforts were not rewarded and his pay was taken away and given to those who had kids or missed work with illness (real or fake). He chose to leave that and determine his own worth.

Does he "deserve" more than the other workers? While his genius is more valuable to his employers than the illness or procreative abilities of his fellows, that does not mean he is good or virtuous, only more productive. He doesn't leave because he is a better person and is getting less, he leaves because he is more productive and is getting less.

Does he "deserve" to be a genius? That was just a trick of fate/genetics/the lottery of life. He is no more deserving of his genius than a child is deserving of their leukemia.

The point is not about deserving. Midas Mulligan was a rich braggart. Francisco d'Anconia was a trust fund baby that inherited his family's copper mines. Ragnar Danneskjold was a notorious pirate. None of these are the most virtuous men. It is about freedom of choice. Galt left because the commie children were running the motor company. d'Anconia was destroying his families empire because the looters were trying to take it from him. Reardon went on strike because the government was co-opting his metal and then not even letting it be produced/used. Danneskjold became a pirate to take back the wealth that was being taken from the strikers.

The philosophy is not that if you have no regulation everything will come out kittens and rainbows and the good people will be rewarded and the wicked punished. It is about people being free to make their own choices and to live with the results of those choices. That appeals to people who cherish freedom of choice over fair outcomes. It is especially appealing to people who believe that "fair" outcomes are not going to be the result of any political system we have tried, so you might as well maximize freedom.

To make a long post short (too late) the appeal of libertarianism is not rooted in the just world fallacy, it is rooted in freedom (or the illusion of freedom, according to critics).

 

Exactly.

The author has a utilitarian view of a just world. A libertarian's just world is one in which there is maximum individual freedom. It has nothing to say about how people should behave with that freedom.

Basically, don't hit, don't steal, don't destroy, abide by contracts. Otherwise, live and let live, to each his own, different strokes for different folks, etc.

Of course there are externalities that might justify compensation or regulation. But they should be the exception and should be applied as locally and sparingly as possible.

It is the other forms of governance that use force to compel individual private behavior to achieve a just world. Libertarianism starts from the premise that force is wrong except in defense of individual rights.

I happen to believe a libertarian system would have greatest utilitarian outcomes, but that's not my primary reason for supporting it.

 

This is one of the best threads I've ever seen in the D&D. I'll be sure to come back to it when I'm less inebriated. Actual discussion going on in this thread.

 

This thread makes me think of that episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia when they institute "pure freedom" in their bar.

 

Exactly. This is the fundamental problem with the Rothbard-esque american libertarianism (sometimes called anarcho-capitalism).

 

To be honest, that article was....very very depressing. Probably because I have yet to experience the real world yet....

 

I don't think you can take th question of deserving out. Now, you're replacing deserving for goodness with deserving for productivity.

In Galt's case, he can break ties with the rest of society and see his productivity on his own. For a normal person in US society, the value if his work in intertwined with the work of others. How much of the resulting productivity is to his credit? The market value says X, the use value says Y, the book value says Z. Which one is right. Libertarians would want to think the market value is what the producer deserves because it's the best tool for assigning value dynamically.

Of course, on the micro-level there are inefficiencies that some profit from and for which others suffer (thus the unjust world). But even on a macro scale, how do you know that people are really getting out of the economy what they put into it? There could be (and I think there is) a consistent bias. So why should a person deserve to be free, especially if his freedom is essentially stealing the fruits of the productivity of others through a free market bias?

 

great post, and this is the crux of the matter- the animating philosophy of the T(axed) E(nough) A(lready) movement in this country. the perception the Obama admin (and to an extent, W in his last days) weighted the system to pay off political cronies, unions, etc. W/ the twin scandals of Solyndra and Lightsquared, notto mention the disasterous state of the economy and jobs market, we're seeing the results of Obama's policies, and political thinking, made manifest.

 

Small wonder. Organized religions tell you that the world is ultimately made just.

 

the us has created a net number of jobs under this admin and the stock market shot back up after the disaster before him left.

 

what's the net?

 

you're right, its not a net but its been positive since the effects of the recession.