|
April 05, 2010
Submission to authoritarianism is freedom!
Like most libertarians, I don't like authoritarianism. But defining it is another matter. At the most basic level, I do not like people telling me what to do. Meddlesome, tyrannical, busybody control freaks -- whether they're working for the government or whether they're private assholes, I just plain don't like em. I would characterize all such people as authoritarians. Some might possess real authority, some might be petty tyrants who are insecure about the amount of authority they possess, while others are bullies who enjoy wielding authority they have only because people go along with them. Most street criminals are authority figures, and if you think about it, what could be more authoritarian than using force to compel someone to give you that which rightfully belongs to him? What never ceases to fascinate me is the sheer gall of liberals in attributing "authoritarianism" to conservatives and libertarians while pretending that liberals are the authoritarian antithesis. It is one of liberalism's biggest lies. Like so many of the people who drive around with bumperstickers that say "QUESTION AUTHORITY" -- while they really mean to say "QUESTION AUTHORITY SELECTIVELY." A great PJM piece by Amit Ghate looks at authoritarianism in the form of the growth of government czarism: The flip side of this government growth is the shrinking of the domains in which private citizens can make their own decisions and pursue their own values. The individual's thoughts are marginalized -- primacy is given to whatever the president and his cronies happen to think. Science czars push science in directions they prefer, regulatory czars restrict affairs they deem objectionable, etc. Substituting the government's judgment for that of private individuals is the essence of authoritarianism.This was a point I tried to make during the hubbub over Kevin Jennings: the debate over the man's qualifications carries with it an implicit admission that we NEED a safe schools czar -- the argument being over who should be heading another useless, intrusive federal agency. Thus (and quite ironically) the culture war once again hoodwinks the right into unwittingly acknowledging the legitimacy of something that they might otherwise dispute. Might as well argue over who gets to be in charge of putting the condoms on bananas....Actually, that analysis is a bit overstretched (!), as I'm not sure they would literally want to be in charge of putting condoms on bananas so much as they would want to have their own person in charge of the banana condom department, and switch the emphasis from condom demonstrations to chastity lectures. But the basic principle -- substituting the government's judgment for that of private individuals -- remains the same. I agree that it is the essence of authoritarianism, and I think such authoritarian positions should be abolished. I don't merely question their authority, I advocate getting rid of it. What is more insidious about the authoritarian left is the way they are often able to wield their authority without any resort to government force. As Theodore Dalrymple explains, politically correct censorship of writing works precisely in this way: I have noticed that whenever I used the word "Mankind" in an article, it emerges in the printed version, without my permission, as "Humankind," a word I despise as both ugly and sanctimonious. (In the Oxfam shop round the corner from where I live there is a poster with a slogan that nauseates me: "Thankyou for Being Humankind.") The change is made with such regularity, and in so many publications, that the government might as well have decreed it, though in fact it has not. There is, presumably, a monstrous regiment of sub-editors at work, all of like mind.(Emphasis added.) That might not be government authoritarianism, but authoritarianism it is. These petty tyrants have the power to stop a writer's work from being published, and if someone is trying to make a living from his (yes, his; the masculine subsumes the feminine) writing, the writer either complies or starves. Dalrymple resorts to a workaround method: I now simply avoid the use of certain ways of putting things so that the question does not arise. I do not want to have a blazing argument with editors or sub-editors each time I use the word "Mankind" and it is changed without my permission, nor do I not want to stop writing altogether; and the matter, after all, is a very small one. How petty one would look to argue about it, how foolish to cut one's nose off to spite one's face if one refused to write any more because of it!Yes, they will. And they get their way because they are relentless authoritarians who not only deny their authoritarianism, but who loudly accuse their critics of being authoritarians. I can almost hear them chiming in to say that anyone who uses the male pronoun is obviously a patriarchal chauvinist -- and probably diagnosable as having what Adorno called "the Authoritarian Personality." In this way they delude themselves into thinking that by telling people what to do, they are combating "authoritarian attitudes" and thus fighting rather than promoting authoritarianism. In a discussion of burkas and free speech, Phyllis Chesler discusses another form of leftist authoritarianism which literally promotes the worst sort of patriarchal authoritarianism while claiming to do the opposite, and which fights dissent by silencing people, shouting them down and finally by social shunning: Right here in the good old U.S.A., we do not yet have European- or Canadian-style punishment for certain kinds of free speech-but we do censor, denigrate, and silence free speech with which we disagree. "Wrong" thinking is simply not published; if published, it is not reviewed in the mainstream media-or it is damned; therefore, such books are not read by too many people. "Wrong" thinking speakers require bodyguards on American campuses, their lectures are interrupted or end in violence. Mainly, "wrong" thinkers are not invited to speak at mainstream universities.All I can say is that this woman did not "lose" a friend. That neighbor was never her friend; she only wanted to control her (which is not friendship at all) and once she could not, the "friendship" was over. No doubt that neighbor endorses tyrannical and murderous regimes which are far more authoritarian than the tiny democratic state which only wants to be left alone in peace. And no doubt she would call her former "friend" an authoritarian for disagreeing with her! Sorry, but someone who dumps a friend for not agreeing with his politics did not have a real friendship. More likely, what was going on was a personal power game over who gets to be in charge, and who has to submit to whose will. Petty authoritarianism. It's sad that it happens, but don't think the phenomenon constitutes friendship. The idea that authoritarianism is right wing is heavily promoted by the left, though. Pseudoscientific "tests" claim that a high authoritarian ranking is inherent in conservatism, and some conservatives even seem to go along with it. To me it only indicates the bias of the tests. Considering the history of the many horrors perpetrated by left-wing authoritarianism, the claim of authoritarianism being "right-wing" is downright Orwellian. As Jonah Goldberg noted, leftists have long been trying to define communism and authoritarianism as opposites: Ever since Theodor Adorno came out with his scandalously flawed Authoritarian Personality in 1950, liberal and leftist social scientists have been trying to diagnose conservatism as a psychological defect or sickness. Adorno and his colleagues argued that conservatism was little more than a "pre-fascist" "personality type." According to this school, sympathy for communism was an indication of openness and healthy idealism. Opposition to communism was a symptom of your more deep-seated pathologies and fascist tendencies. According to Adorno, subjects who saw Nazism and Stalinism as similar phenomena were demonstrating their "idiocy" and "irrationality."In other words, our authoritarianism is not authoritarianism but is actually freedom. And your freedom is not freedom, but is actually authoritarianism. UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link. I sincerely hope that America's new slogan does not become "Submission to authoritarianism is freedom!" Comments welcome, agree or disagree. AND MORE: If you want to do something about authoritarianism, I don't think there is any better antidote than the leaderless Tea Party Movement. And watch this video from Bill Whittle that Glenn linked earlier. posted by Eric on 04.05.10 at 01:11 PM
Comments
This is what happens when people start defining "positive rights" like a "right to health care" which is actually a "right to seize the income of others and use it to pay my health care costs." TallDave · April 5, 2010 07:52 PM Yes, and once when people start defining "positive rights" as including a "right to seize the income of others and use it to pay my health care costs," then those who champion individual liberty and the right to be left alone are seen as "authoritarians." That's why leftists see those who want individual rights as authoritarians. Communitarian authority is the ultimate in freedom! Individual rights constitute "authoritarianism" -- if not fascism! There remains only group authority, and it is not authoritarian at all, because it is "democratic." Individuals who want the right to be left alone are the only authoritarians, because they believe in the "authority" of self. I could write the script for these tyrants. Little wonder there's no way to have a rational debate. Eric Scheie · April 5, 2010 09:42 PM Eric, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Robin Hanson had a post last year about the urge to dominate and how subtle it can be; the person who, uninvited, offers a fat friend advice on how to lose weight, or harangues a friend who smokes about smoking, etc. These little everyday events reveal people's desire for power even if wielded in passive aggressive forms. Mencken's words keep echoing in my head, "The urge to save humanity is almost always the false face of the urge to rule it." That about sums up the left's agenda. Not just the left, the right has it's own version when it comes to social issues, but the left always sells theirs under some vague notion of "compassion for _______". Truth is I believe that the vast majority of people out there are little tyrants in their hearts, craving to bend their fellow humans to their own wills. In my experience, there are only few self actualized people who possess the awareness needed to quell their own very human desire to dominate others. Crawdad · April 5, 2010 11:21 PM Robert Heinlein wrote to the effect that people can be divided into those who are devoted to controlling others and those who have no such desire. Were the philosophy of individual liberty upon which the U.S. was founded were enforced, the controllers would be nowhere near the public trough, and our laws would comprise several volumes, rather than several thousand. We have failed. Brett · April 6, 2010 08:57 AM Freedom is Slavery!!! Winston Smith · April 6, 2010 10:23 AM I'm a very simple guy. These leftist BASTARDS have to be defeated on every front, politically and otherwise. I wouldn't waste spit on someone whose mind is so twisted that they refuse to debate "facts" and resort to "shunning" or ad hominem BS. We are either going to DESTROY these leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists or they are going to destroy our country. It's time to man-up and I mean you too American women and stand for our Constitution, our American Values and kick these liberal robots down the road onto the "trash heap of history". (TY RR) jgreene · April 6, 2010 10:35 AM Shunning is a right. It is not censorship. Calling it that is whiny faux-libertarianism. libarbarian · April 6, 2010 11:09 AM The left will give you the freedom to fornicate with anything, anywhere, anytime. All other matters are left to your caretakers working for the state. dfenstrate · April 6, 2010 11:15 AM SUBMISSION TO AUTHORITY IS FREEDOM Smartass quip #1: This from the generation that brought us the 60s? Smartass quip #2: Tell it to my teenage kids. KLH · April 6, 2010 11:29 AM "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Goethe retro · April 6, 2010 11:43 AM libarbarian, Yes, it is a right. Just like the harangues Crawdad refers to are free speech. However, the fact that they are within one's rights does not make them any less coercive in intent. And it doesn't make the tactic any less the method of a jerk. Bill Dalasio · April 6, 2010 12:24 PM I LOVE having people tell me what to do. Always good for a light-hearted interchange of ideas. And petty tyrants who believe they possess authority to make me comport with their wishes... practically a hobby. I've left a number of 'em in my wake pondering the puzzling new limits on the scope of their reach. Still, we can kiss America, Land of the Brave, Home of the Free goodbye. Progressives are hardcore pessimists who believe (just talk to 'em, you'll see) we will go astray if proper controls are not in place on a variety of fronts. And I'd guess a third of conservatives still suffer from masturbatory guilt syndrome and want their hands on the controls, so to speak. That's a lot to overcome. I sent my sons abroad widely in their youth and from the beaches of Monaco to the pharmacies of Guatemala to the hotels of Beijing, they discovered there are materially greater freedoms just about everywhere than here. Last desperate chance? A Constitutional amendment stating that any law now existing or to be passed lacks effect to the extent it can be demonstrated in court that there is at law or custom a freer approach on the matter anywhere else in the world. Then we really would be the Home of the Free. Charlie · April 6, 2010 12:30 PM I've recently started referring to the left in this country as "right wing progressives" because liberal definitely does not fit. I'm glad other people are starting to take notice; I get the feeling that things aren't to be as bad as people make them out to be. Thanks for this post. John · April 6, 2010 12:41 PM Y, people are free to shun former "friends" if they wish, as the latter are free to say "Eff you and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out of my life." Or just "Eff you" for short. Bonfire of the Idiocies · April 6, 2010 12:42 PM Submission in Arabic is Islam. Mike H. · April 6, 2010 12:50 PM One of the advantages of living a long time is finding out who your true friends are. When your circumstances change, particularly for the worse--losing a job, getting divorced, illness--the false friends disappear and the true friends rally round. This woman's friend was a fair weather friend. miriam · April 6, 2010 01:38 PM One of the advantages of living a long time is finding out what true friendship is. When your circumstances change, particularly for the worse--losing a job, getting divorced, illness--the false friends disappear and the true friends rally round. This woman's friend was a fair weather friend. miriam · April 6, 2010 01:39 PM WAR IS PEACE Orwell had the leftist idea about freedom right... personal responsibility is oppressive. Anonymous · April 6, 2010 02:21 PM WAR IS PEACE (S--T IS SHINOLA!) Charles Eaton · April 6, 2010 03:06 PM A fellow, who had lived overseas for an extended period of time, was asked upon returning to the US: "How is it to be in the land of the free?" He replied, "Its great and I sure miss it." Claude Hopper · April 6, 2010 08:38 PM Politically correct censorship of writing also has the effect of making old books less accessible to the young. The language used seems antiquated and bizaar. This makes the ides they contain less accessible. It helps the authoritarians disguise just how much of the instinctive psychology of freedom we have lost. Robert Carruthers · April 6, 2010 09:44 PM Urge to control? What do you think this post is meant to do? wanderer · April 7, 2010 06:44 AM wanderer: It may be true in a very trivial way that any statement that people should do this or that is an attempt to control them, but in practice there's a world of difference between trying to persuade through argument, which is what I see Eric as doing, and trying to win debates by keeping opposing beliefs entirely out of the public discourse. Sean Kinsell · April 7, 2010 08:12 AM The state of being left alone is not control, but its antithesis. If people will not leave me alone and I try to make them leave me alone to prevent them from controlling me, I am not controlling them, but defending myself. If I decided to break into my neighbor's house and he defended himself by stopping me, I could not reasonably argue that he was "controlling" me if I was the invader. The word "control" in the sense I use it involves invading the lives of people who have done nothing other than minded their own business. Eric Scheie · April 7, 2010 11:51 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2010
March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Social shunning promotes self-censorship
Rockford Tea Party Pictures 6 April '10 Freedom from the press? Northern Lights Submission to authoritarianism is freedom! The impossibility industry Tea Party Coming To Rockford and Madison Fun with Linux on Easter! A Layman's Explanation Of Polywell obma Has A Plan
Links
Site Credits
|
|
which fights dissent by silencing people, shouting them down and finally by social shunning:
Since when have libertarians considered "social shunning" to be "censorship"? Don't people have a right to decide with whom they will associate?