The Angels have Gone Galt

I should have just left it alone.  But I saw the above graphic on a friend’s Facebook feed, and I guess I had just reached the limit on how much bullshit I could take for the day.  I engaged, thus breaking my rule to keep politics out of my Facebook encounters.  But I didn’t argue.  Simply commented and moved on.

Arguing is for the blog.

Let’s look at this.  “Libertarians make bad lifeguards.”  The joke is, libertarians are selfish, and would rather see people drown than throw them a life preserver.  Ha ha … we want to see people die.

Problem #1:  The chair should be empty. Assuming that this is a metaphor for how we view state intervention.  Or perhaps the life preserver should be absent, due to spending cuts. That would be funny. perhaps a little wonky, but it is a political cartoon.

Problem #2:  If a libertarian were to operate a pool, it would be in his best interest to have the best lifeguard under his employ.  Particularly in a cartoon world where drowning is so easy that four people drown simultaneously.

Or let’s say the owner of the pool is a socialist and the lifeguard is the only libertarian on the scene.  Presumably, the lifeguard took his position on a voluntary basis, hired on merit, to freely exchange his service (life-guarding) for currency. There is an actual contract in place, not some nebulous “social contract” that haunts us from the distant past like “original sin.” If said lifeguard then refuses to uphold his end of the contract, he’s not a libertarian*, he’s a dick.  He should be fired, sued, and thrown in jail for criminal negligence.

Problem #3:  And this is really what pisses me off.  This cartoon is part of a larger narrative that says libertarians are selfish and self-serving at the expense of all others. I call this “being tarred by the Ayn Rand brush.”  It’s objectivism, not libertarianism.  It’s wrong-headed and dismissive; a thought-stopping and conversation-ending canard along the lines of calling Democrats “socialist” and Republicans “fascist.”  It’s an ad hominem.

I see where it comes from. There’s this idea that if you are against State solutions, you’re against all solutions.  Gary Johnson nailed it in his campaign for President. I don’t recall the exact quote, but he said something like, just because you are against the Department of Education that doesn’t mean you are against education.

Just because I’m against State-provided life preservers doesn’t mean I’m against life preservers.  Likewise, I don’t believe the State is the ultimate moral authority.

Does that make me immoral?  Let’s sidetrack for a moment with Penn Jillette:

Religion is not morality. Theists ask me, “If there’s no god, what would stop me from raping and killing everyone I want to.” My answer is always: “I, myself, have raped and killed everyone I want to … and the number for both is zero.” Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don’t need religion.

Likewise, the State is not morality. Libertarians (and anarchists) get this.  The State is merely a concentration of power, and like any concentration of power, it will fall into the wrong hands and it will be abused with tragic consequences. Gun control?  Let’s talk about State control.

People are moral.  People help people.  You don’t have to look far to see this.  We are active in our communities, we contribute to disaster relief, we put ourselves in harm’s way to help each other — sometimes in direct violation of the State.

Are there dicks?  Sure.  There are seflish libertarians, just as there are selfish statists.  There are selfish people.  Stipulating for the moment that we are all horrible selfish people who need a State to keep us from screwing each other over, and further stipulating that such a State would be organized and run by a portion of said selfish people, why on earth would we surrender our personal sovereignty to them?  Or, to end with a quote from Uncle Milt:

Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest ? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?

Don’t look to the angels.  They’ve gone Galt.

[*I dislike the “No True Scotsman” fallacy as much as I dislike “Argumentum Ad Hominem,” and I think it’s a cop out.  Having said that, respecting and honoring contractual obligations is part of the libertarian philosophy.]