Libertarian insanity on why societies and communities do not exist From robert mackay: "There is no entity called "society" or "the people." These are just expedient words to describe the combined actions of many individuals. Society does not express preferences or act. Only individuals within society do those things. As such, references to "the will of society," are only meaningful in a metaphorical sense. They do not represent any real-world phenomenon. Ironically, the error in this kind of collectivist thinking becomes more apparent to most people when applied to groups which are even less heterogeneous than society as a whole. For example, consider how strange it sounds to say, "Black people have decided such and such." or "Asians believe XYX." If we can see that these statements are meaningless when applied to various racial subgroups, we must immediately recognize the absurdity of applying them to more diverse groups, such as society, "the people," or Americans. It is pointless to talk about what society has decided or what society believes. Every decision, belief, or action is attributable only to individuals." And here Robert Mackay has posted a rebuttal to the idea that libertarians deny the existence of society or the need for people to cooperate. Robert McKay “A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. On the contrary, as we have indicated, the State is an antisocial instrument, crippling voluntary interchange, individual creativity, and the division of labor. “Society” is a convenient label for the voluntary interrelations of individuals, in peaceful exchange and on the market. Here we may point to Albert Jay Nock’s penetrating distinction between “social power”—the fruits of voluntary interchange in the economy and in civilization—and “State power,” the coercive interference and exploitation of those fruits. In that light, Nock showed that human history is basically a race between State power and social power, between the beneficent fruits of peaceful and voluntary production and creativity on the one hand, and the crippling and parasitic blight of State power upon the voluntary and productive social process. All of the services commonly thought to require the State—from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property—can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.” –Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, 1982
Posted on: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 22:20:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015