Welfarism vs. Libertarianism, Collectivism vs. Individualism

[Einherjar86]

In Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov, the character Ivan details a very intellectual and intricate opposition between the philosophies of welfarism (collectivism, essentially) and libertarianism. This is not libertarianism in its political sense, but in its more philosophical sense.

So, Ivan basically equates welfarism and libertarianism with the ideals of happiness and freedom, respectively. He argues that most people prefer happiness over freedom, and would rather have some institution (in The Grand Inquisitor, it's the Catholic Church) bear the burden of freedom for them. For Ivan, the Catholic Church becomes the embodiment of welfarism and the ideal of happiness. The Protestant Church stands for the ideal of freedom and libertarianism.

Ivan basically declares that the ideals of happiness and freedom cannot coexist. Dostoevsky, on the other hand, tries to respond to Ivan by arguing that they can. He encourages a compromise between the two ideals represented by his own Russian Orthodox Church. I, personally, feel that such a compromise is truly impossible.

In another section of the book, Ivan writes that:

"Tell me yourself, I challenge you-answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature-that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance-and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?"

So, I suppose this question has multiple parts. For starters, the question above should provide some good debate. Furthermore, can the ideals of happiness and freedom truly coincide in the same society? Can collectivism and individualism find a middle ground?

 

[razoredge]

I dont think people can live happily and truely free together unless they all have a lobotomy. There will always be manipulators or puppet masters controling some aspect of other peoples life. The neighbor next door that cant keep their nose to themselves, invaders from distant land on a conquest, you name it there will always be someone screwing up the works.

 

[Einherjar86]

I actually mildly agree. In Dostoevsky, Ivan believes that a libertarian philosophy of life essentially ends in nihilism (utter disregard for/disbelief in all values). And why would nihilists care at all about communal happiness? These two ideals seem absolutely anathema to one another.

On the other hand, there are those who simply refuse to accept the responsibility of their own personal freedom. They will continue to demand relief from choice (i.e. freedom) so that they can be happy, but essentially unmotivated. Whether its government, religion, or any other institution, if it relieves us of our choice it prohibits our freedom.

 

[razoredge]

I actually dont know enough about these ideals to "argue" with you this time Jarman, to your good fortune and my disappointment... lol. I can tell you that my former occupation which made me happy in work, life and dreams where I felt that my work was a way of life not a job, went down the tubes in "the free world" due to capitalism/globalism. Not sure where these economic ideals fall in with these other social ideals your speaking of but damn my life went down the shitter in 2000, yet Im supposedly free to capitalize and be happy. Guess I missed the boat because I was never much on reading/learning things that didnt interest me.... truth ! Times changed as they always have and I set myself up on the wrong side of the river... which I was free to do in the 80's but no longer free to do in "The New Millennium"

 

[Dak]

And why would nihilists care at all about communal happiness? These two ideals seem absolutely anathema to one another.

Since I am fairly far "right" in regards to libertarianism, I think the above statement doesn't really do justice to the actual opinion.

I care about communal happiness. What I don't care about is the happiness of leeches who get cut off from sucking. I do not consider them part of the community, merely leeches.
When they care enough about their own happiness to contribute then I will start to care about their happiness as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

The statement doesn't necessarily apply to all libertarians. What it applies to is the extreme belief known as libertarianism; the complete support of individual liberty, with disregard for the welfare of others. Obviously, this almost unreal situation is not that common, and I wouldn't expect anyone here to admit to having such a belief. The question merely asks whether such a far-fetched version of libertarianism can coexist alongside absolute welfarist philosophy. I believe that it cannot. It is impossible that our country could ever be a completely libertarian state, although at times I've wished we were. We will always have our collectivist tendencies, and these will almost always conflict with someone's own individualistic aspirations.

Individuality is not a bad thing though, and I cannot bring myself to blame those who do not wish to help others, as I've said before. The philosophy of individuality is a sound one. The fact of the matter, regarding those you call "leeches," is that they care nothing for advancement and progress; they merely want just enough to get by on their own, but they don't care enough about advancement to achieve it on their own. They're content with letting someone else make choices for them, as long as they're provided for.

The idea that Dostoevsky posits is as follows:

Libertarianism holds the value of individual freedom higher than all others. This sprang from what is now referred to as the "Radical Enlightenment," which was a smaller branch of the better known "Classical Enlightenment." The Radical Enlightenment was founded on adherence to the scientific method and logic. This, in turn, led to a belief in mechanistic materialism. Reason alone could not provide a basis for or prove the necessity of values and morality. This led to a belief in "scientific determinism," which, in a sense, is a kind of fatalism. Men believe they have no control over their own destiny, so therefore what purpose is there in morality and virtue? In conclusion, you have nihilism.

This in no way catalogues the belief of every libertarian everywhere. On the contrary, I believe it describes very few of them. However, it demonstrates a line of thought necessary for debating in this thread.

Another question can now be raised: how can a philosophy that supports individual freedom to its highest extent also possibly believe in scientific determinism (i.e. that individuals aren't in control of their own fates)?

 

[razoredge]

Since I am fairly far "right" in regards to libertarianism, I think the above statement doesn't really do justice to the actual opinion.

I care about communal happiness. What I don't care about is the happiness of leeches who get cut off from sucking. I do not consider them part of the community, merely leeches.
When they care enough about their own happiness to contribute then I will start to care about their happiness as well.

While I agree with this in part I think it is over looking what I believe to be fact, that there really isnt enough employment to keep the entire world population contributing and busily happy. So we blame it on machines ? Many, many generations ago our ancestors had a much harder life but I often question if they were more easily contented than we are, which leads to happiness ?

Then if you go back... for example... to 1800's NYC, you find high rates of unemployed, street gangs, crime, whatever one had to do to survive (sound fimiliar). This is not going to bring happiness to bystanders or victims and the "criminal" mind is not going to be truely happy either. I think you can chase this scenerio all the way back through history, only finding breif periods... if any of prosperous cultures that did not also prosper at the expense of others which equals unhappiness and all the fallout from this economic dispersement of the population.

Mankind has tried it all and short of some modern masks that have succeeded in temporarily making it appear sunny until the bubble bursts... nothing has worked.

 

[Blowtus]

I find libertarianism to be a flawed ideal - it seems to posit the assertions of state authority as somehow more fundamental than all manner of other elements that affect our lives and limit our choices. It's like they were all brought up with some intense, unquestioning regard for authority, and can't view it as simply one amongst a myriad of conflicting pressures in life. If we work on the view of state authority as not fundamentally different to threats (to our perceived freedom of action) from neighbours, disease, or even gravity, then it becomes clearer that one who truly desires such 'freedom of action' is likely to accept various trade-offs - in the form of increasing state authority for decreasing other effects deemed as negative.

Essentially, I think libertarians view 'freedom from state authority' as the whole story of important freedoms, and I find that naive and beside the point for all but those already possessed of large quantities of power. So perhaps it is not so naive at all but simply an ideological cover for a grab at a bigger slice of power pie...

I do not support the other alternative either, no Brave New World for me thanks - I do not desire happiness, rather desiring and fulfilment of such desires makes me happy. In order to have and fulfil desires I must feel myself somewhat free to think and act, and will utilise such freedoms to procure more of such.

The consequence of all this is that I believe state bodies can contribute to personal empowerment, through education and the reduction of menial work required. Whether this actually increases happiness according to some objective standard is beside the point, it is a consequence of my desire for power (not necessarily 'over' others, so much as 'with' others) that I view it as good and desire such. What I think must be watched for is when the state body attempts to exert influence over desires directly, rather than through honest education - as in the case of drug use for instance. There are times when such can be positive - ie, my desire to educate myself on, and manage my own, long term finances is relatively low, so if the government can do it efficiently and effectively through automatic superannuation payments from my income, this is not felt as any substantial loss to me. Obviously individual desires conflict, and this is the point many current state bodies do not manage to my liking - in such cases I would much more strongly err on the side of no or minimal state management.

In sum, yeah I think happiness and freedom as ideals can co-exist, as I do not think they exist in the same manner. Happiness is a result, and freedom is a tool so important that it gives off it's own happiness results.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

Collectivism and libertarianism are diametrically opposed, for the collective may rob life, liberty, and property from the individual if so empowered. Thus they will never peaceably coexist, not in the same territory anyway.

If they want happiness, let them be industrious and prudent so that they may have things which make them happy, instead of robbing someone else in the name of some communitarian nonsense.

 

[Blowtus]

libertarianism robs opportunity from the individual through archaic property laws. Let anarchy reign.

 

[Ocelot2010]

I'm happy when I'm exercising my freedom.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not speaking about happiness on a personal level. Happiness, as an ideal, is on a communal level. Therefore, because some libertarian ideals of freedom impede on the happiness of others, those who merely want happiness are willing to sacrifice their freedom (and the freedom of others) in order to achieve their own happiness.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

libertarianism robs opportunity from the individual through archaic property laws. Let anarchy reign.

That's all well and good until someone gets shot for trespassing, and if you were to be on the business end of such a repercussion, it would bring me sardonic joy.

 

[razoredge]

I'm not speaking about happiness on a personal level. Happiness, as an ideal, is on a communal level. Therefore, because some libertarian ideals of freedom impede on the happiness of others, those who merely want happiness are willing to sacrifice their freedom (and the freedom of others) in order to achieve their own happiness.

Can you explain how happiness on a communal level is possible if you have victims within that have lost their freedom to do their own productive thing and become unhappy ?

This is where I loose comprehension of these various ideals.

And is any of this possible in our current complicated society ?

 

[Blowtus]

That's all well and good until someone gets shot for trespassing, and if you were to be on the business end of such a repercussion, it would bring me sardonic joy.

A response of force is fine, (I can bring a few thou of my anarchist mates) it's just this petty bullshit of hiding behind some concocted law while you argue against all other concocted laws that makes me laugh

 

[Blowtus]

I'm not speaking about happiness on a personal level. Happiness, as an ideal, is on a communal level. Therefore, because some libertarian ideals of freedom impede on the happiness of others, those who merely want happiness are willing to sacrifice their freedom (and the freedom of others) in order to achieve their own happiness.

Man, I thought measuring individual happiness was hard enough.

I think a big mistake starts with any discussion or worry of 'freedom'. We can never be 'free' from the world, we simply have differing levels of power within it. When evaluated in such a light, the apparent fundamental motivational differences between the different 'isms fall away - this 'happiness / freedom' dichotomy is a false one, imho.

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

A response of force is fine, (I can bring a few thou of my anarchist mates) it's just this petty bullshit of hiding behind some concocted law while you argue against all other concocted laws that makes me laugh

Can your mates stop a bullet? No? That's what I thought; your banter is about as useful as a $3 bill.

 

[razoredge]

weird dude.... no ?

 

[Blowtus]

Can your mates stop a bullet?

I'm sure enough of them can

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

I'm sure enough of them can

Bring them over to my place and we can find out. I need a skull from which to drink my ale anyway...the last one got chipped.