Liber-what?

I wonder how many people who claim to be "libertarians" really understand what's involved. It seems to me to be an absolutist doctrine that is trying to function in a world in which there are no absolutes. It's not a very realistic philosophy, and in its most blatant forms is what I consider completely immoral -- in effect, it reinforces the idea that those with power should use that power however they want to -- not for the benefit of the society as a whole, but for their own selfish interests. (There: my version of Randism in a nutshell.) It's really a philosophy that celebrates selfishness, which for a social animal is suicide.

I ran across this wonderful post by Tristero at Hullaballoo, and I think he's right on target:

Tyler Cowen, after cynically misrepresenting (albeit cleverly) progressivism poses a challenge:

It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.

As a general rule, I think it is wise to ignore conservatives when they double dare you. This one is easy, however.

The dare is one more example of rightwing bullshit. There is no such thing as an intelligent version of libertarianism. It simply doesn't exist, any more than compassionate conservatism or the tooth fairy. More precisely, there is nothing intelligent that libertarianism brings to the table that isn't already part and parcel of liberalism.

And he goes on, basically demolishing the entire edifice of libertarianism. Do read it -- it's a joy for those who understand that the universe is not, indeed, a place of blacks and whites, nor a place that is ruled by absolutes, nor a place where there is anything that is not subject to change. And as a viable political philosophy, let's talk some basic biology: we are, as I noted above, social animals -- it's part of our evolutionary heritage (and yes, boys and girls, behaviors can be adaptive, and if you tend to lean toward the sociobiology camp, they are based in genetics). To put it in more philosophical terms:

Nevertheless, to the extent that libertarians hold up the individual as primary and fail to recognize that individuals simply cannot physically exist without a social/cultural/environmental context, libertarianism is worthless. To the extent that libertarianism does recognize the complex dialectic between the individual and her/his social and physical environment, libertarianism is indistinguishable from liberalism.

It's about the balancing act that is daily life in a species that relies on social behavior to survive, while allowing individuals their own identity. Libertarians, from what I've seen, don't have a clue.

(Footnote: It strikes me, on rereading this, that libertarianism is no more than a primitive version of social Darwinism, tailored to appeal to the privileged.)