Are libertarians the real hippies?
by Tom Sullivan
John Edward Terrell explores “Evolution and the American Myth of the Individual” in today’s New York Times. It’s an interesting read, as much as anything, for the comments section. He contrasts what he knows of Man from his background in anthropology with Enlightenment philosophy as it has spun out over the last couple of centuries:
Philosophers from Aristotle to Hegel have emphasized that human beings are essentially social creatures, that the idea of an isolated individual is a misleading abstraction. So it is not just ironic but instructive that modern evolutionary research, anthropology, cognitive psychology and neuroscience have come down on the side of the philosophers who have argued that the basic unit of human social life is not and never has been the selfish, self-serving individual. Contrary to libertarian and Tea Party rhetoric, evolution has made us a powerfully social species, so much so that the essential precondition of human survival is and always has been the individual plus his or her relationships with others.
Not either/or. Both/and. Terrell argues that Rousseau and others did not mean their speculations about Man’s natural state to be taken literally:
As he remarked in his discourse “On the Origin of Inequality,” “philosophers, who have inquired into the foundations of society, have all felt the necessity of going back to a state of nature; but not one of them has got there.” Why then did Rousseau and others make up stories about human history if they didn’t really believe them? The simple answer, at least during the Enlightenment, was that they wanted people to accept their claim that civilized life is based on social conventions, or contracts, drawn up at least figuratively speaking by free, sane and equal human beings — contracts that could and should be extended to cover the moral and working relationships that ought to pertain between rulers and the ruled. In short, their aims were political, not historical, scientific or religious.
The rest is well worth your time.
But what’s fascinating are the left/right arguments in the comments. Libertarians, especially, feel their position is maligned and mischaracterized (even as they mischaracterize the left). Many of the libertarian comments echo this one:
“No one denies that human survival depends on cooperation with others. Libertarians ask only that such relationships not be imposed by others.”
Freedom, baby. Or this one:
Libertarians generally believe that :
– In the pursuit of happiness, individuals will value communities.
– Left to their own devices with minimal Government intervention individuals will create good communities.
– These communities will be imperfect.
– Communities will compete with one another for allegiance by individuals.
– Different individuals will choose to live in different types of communities.
– Government is the enemy of communities that choose to cater to individual preferences.
So which way to the commune? I’m trying to imagine a peace symbol atop the Cato Institute and the Koch brothers with long hair, love beads, and fringe. They want to freely establish their own communes without interference from The Man. But they’d like to use His interstates to freely drive their VW buses from one to another. You know, to explore different experiments in communal living.
That’s not kool-aid they’re drinking, it’s grain alcohol and branch water.
Both left and right reduce each other to stereotypes, but the lefties and righties commenting online at the New York Times are as typical of the left and right as the Koch brothers are of your neighborhood libertarian online shouter in the local newspaper. There’s what your side believes in theory and then there’s street-level practice. It reminds me of an old Catholic joke:
A workman is up on a ladder replacing a light bulb up behind the big crucifix in a Catholic church. He sees a little old lady get down in front of a statue of Mary and start to pray.
The workman decides to have a little fun. He whispers, “Little old lady.” No response. Then louder, “Little old lady.” No response. Even louder, “Little old lady.”
Finally the woman looks up at the statue of Jesus and says, “Shutup your mouth, I’m talking to your mother!”
Now if you ask a Jesuit theologian, he’ll tell you that Catholics don’t worship saints, they venerate them. But that distinction is easily lost outside the dusty archives of the Vatican. So it is with libertarian theory and practice.
This is community without responsibility for the well-heeled; it’s the Poors who are the Irresponsibles. Margaret Thatcher famously said regarding social safety net programs, there is no such thing as society, but also that “life is a reciprocal business” in which people have obligations. The trouble is, the “reciprocal business” part gets lost on the streets where people vote. Plus, on Brickbat Mountain, old Cold Warriors just cannot quit The Bear. You say society, they hear socialism. You say community, they hear communism. Plus, they’d like to pick and choose their communities. They don’t like many of those they have to share a country with.
And that’s odd for a country that so venerates its soldier class. I once wrote this for a 30-second radio spot:
Think no child left behind is a goal everyone can embrace?
Then why not no worker left behind, no family left behind, no American left behind?
We train our soldiers, never leave a team member behind. It’s a code of honor.
Why is that good enough for our troops, but not the rest of us?
Been struggling as an army of one?
Don’t stand alone. Register. Vote. Volunteer.
Why does that esprit de corps end at the base fence line?
Finally (just for fun), note that John Terrell is a curator at the Field Museum of Natural History and professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. There’s a video from the Field Museum that’s both ironic and amusing here.
