Libertarians Are Really Not Nice.

I had two run-ins with right-wingers last night. The first was when I went to go see a debate on Social Security between Paul Krugman and Michael Tanner (of the CATO institute) at the Society for Ethical Culture. The second was on the train home. Both were instructive.

The SEC event was fun - it was to a packed house. It was a pretty liberal audience and a hostile moderator, so I have to give Tanner credit for bravery. Josh Marshall was there too, but he didn't get the chance to speak much. I spoke to him briefly after the debate though, and he was very gracious about all the people mobbing him.

Tanner's performance confirmed a great deal of what I suspected about privatization in particular and libertarianism in general. They aren't too strong on rational argument. For example, Tanner claimed that he wasn't going to use the "crisis" argument for promoting privatization, and then proceeded to do so. He claimed that he was going to argue the philosophical merits of the plan, but his only argument, that beneficiaries feel demeaned by Social Security, is patently false. (I used to handle SSI claims, and let me tell you, those people do NOT feel dependent. Indignant is more like it. They deserve those benefits, and God help you if they don't get them.) Tanner's arguments were so weak and riddled with fallacies and bad numbers that Paul Krugman looked pained.

What Tanner did do was preach a lot. He spoke a great deal about choice, appealing to emotions using buzzwords. Maybe because libertarian theories are so intellectually bankrupt (a subject I have spoken to many times before), they have to resort to such demagogic methods. But it certainly doesn't inspire much confidence in their positions.

The second right-winger I met last night might have been a libertarian, but I'm not sure. The train was packed and there was this dude taking up three seats, which is one of the major no-no's in NY subway travel. I squeezed in next to him anyway, and he scowled at me and started reading the Weekly Standard. "Figures" I thought. Then when he got up from his seat he left a bunch of magazine trash all over the seat, demonstrating for all to see the problem of the tragedy of the commons, which libertarians are always at such pains to deny. The parallels between Tanner's "if they're old and poor let them starve" laissez-faire paradise and the selfish jerk on the train were too obvious to ignore.

One more thing - in the Social Security debate both sides did something which drives me crazy. They used "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" or "faith." The participants in the debate suggested that the chasm between "opportunity society" advocates and liberals was probably unbridgeable because of differences in philosophy. This assumes that philosophies are deeply held moral convictions not amenable to rational argument. Which is just wrong. The essence of philosophy is reasoned debate on issues of moral concern. Stating that we have two rival philosophies should not be the proverbial hands thrown into the air. It should be an invitation to further discussion.

What is particularly frustrating about this phenomenon is that liberals always fall for this "philosophy as faith" argument in the name of tolerance. You have to tolerate a private belief, but not a bad philosophy. Bad philosophies should be thrown into the thrown in the wastebasket. The fact is that you can have a meaningful debate between proponents of rival philosophies, and you can reach a conclusion. Nobody argues for divine right of kings anymore, because John Locke dismantled the theory. If liberals actually engaged these issues, they would win, because the various conservative ideologies have very little philosophical grounding. Which by the way is why there are so few conservatives in the Academy - right wing ideas are just bad ones.

So the next time a libertarian you have backed into a corner tries to escape by stating that "it's just my philosophy," smile and apply the logical thumbscrews. Because he's asked for it.