Last updated 03/18/07.
Published on: September 30, 1999
I've mostly avoided detailing my skepticism of libertarianism in these articles, because there are too many other important dimensions of skepticism to discuss. However, since my frequency of articles has been dropping, and good new material requires a significant amount of time to develop, I'm going to let myself get off cheap this time.
A friend wrote to tell of how his sister considered Heinlein's views to be very much her own. He selected the following passage for me to critique.
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, page 64:
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as "state" and "society" and "government" have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share bnlame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and _nowhere else_. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in am imperfect world... aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowelge of self-failure."
"Hear, hear!" I said. "'Less than perfect.' What I've been aiming for all my life."
"You've achieved it," said Wyoh. "Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals - surely you would not want... well, H-missiles for example - to be controlled by one irresponsible person?"
"My point it that one person _is_ responsbile. Always. If H-bombs exist - and they do - some _man_ controls them. In terms of morals _there is no such thing as 'state'_. Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts."
There are quite a few philosophical bloopers in this compact bit of propaganda.
First, there is the attempt to classify blame, guilt, and responsibility as individual, subjective emotions. Blame, guilt, and responsibility are all SOCIALLY DERIVED from inter-relationships with other people and are judgements of social interactions: they are not individualistic.
Second, blame, guilt, and responsibility are as much reifications as state and society, and for that matter as individuals. For example, individuals are really just separate cells, which in term are just separate atoms, etc. We use these models where we think they are most appropriate, and where emergent properties appear we tend to use new models.
Third, the background context in which blame, guilt, and responsibility are assessed is socially created, and may be socially changed. For example, laws which establish social obligations are established socially and provide the environment in which blame, guilt, and responsibility are assessed.
Fourth, the notion of "rational" Heinlein uses really is just propaganda. In fiction it's easy to set up situations where your preferred analysis out-competes other people, but the real world isn't so simplistic. Which of course is why the rational Archimedes was slain by a common foot soldier.
Fifth, many actions are taken in concert, many decisions are made jointly, and there are significant emergent effects from such joint behavior. Which is why we have companies, rather than nothing but contracting individuals. As for the example of H-bombs, well it is counterfactual: for example, it requires simultaneous operation of launch controls for ICBM's. Real power comes from organizations, not individuals.
Sixth, the notion of anarchy cannot abdicate shaping society: instead, it merely dictates that society be shaped by different processes of decision making. In this respect, movements for anarchy can be viewed as attempts to force political disenfranchisement of whatever groups are currently powerful in favor of whatever groups will be the keystone shapers of the anarchistic society. Most likely, warlords and mafias rather than the merchants that the libertarians would want. You cannot abolish power: at best you can regulate or disperse it.
The basic pattern in such arguments is to point out the common cases where their arguments fit, but ignore the really important cases where their arguments fail badly. People really want to think they can comprehend the world better through a simple ideology, and thus are easily persuaded. It's only with years of exposure to the failings of the ideology that the problems become apparent, which of course is why so many people became Marxists and Communists for so long. (It takes many years, because inevitably an apologetics grows to "explain" the discrepancies and assuage the believers.)
Of course, there's lots more that we could say about Heinlein's libertarianism: why, it works really well for the super men and women he uses as heros. The other 99.99999% of humanity is left to "justly" suffer (or at least "buy retail"). If there's a problem too big for the supermen to solve for themselves, why they just traipse off to the frontier: but they leave the problem for other people to solve.
Many polls of libertarians have established that among their most influential authors are Heinlein and Ayn Rand, both of whom targeted their heroic fiction at vulnerable and ideologically ignorant adolescents. I've known many who've outgrown that, and sadly many others who haven't.
Copyright 2001 by Mike Huben ( mhuben@world.std.com ).