Libertarianism: A Non-Objectivist Analysis. Part I - Hypocrisy

The libertarian discourse has its share of contradiction, but none is more tangible than the libertarian assessment of leftist philosophy. Essentially, the fictional works and the "objectivist" philosophy of Ayn Rand constitute a majority of the libertarian canon; the justification for complete deregulation comes from the objectivist idea that human existence is predicated on the pursuit of happiness and thus there should be nothing to inhibit that process. What follows, then, is a libertarian argument that is rooted in philosophy. When libertarians argue with leftists, libertarians are quick to point out the failures of the left, and they're even quicker to justify their ideas under the auspices of there "never being a true instance of non-regulation," thus warranting an appeal to philosophical arguments.

Debate with libertarians can invoke much frustration as it is almost always an arduous task; libertarians automatically assume they are aware of leftist philosophy by pointing to the instances of the failure of Communism in what Slajov Zizek calls de facto Communism - the USSR, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, etc. While these may be instances of manifested leftism from classical theory, Zizek is correct in calling them de facto; in each of the aforementioned cases, there had been at some point a digression from classical theory, in which all cases then included the creation of a dictatorship (for example, well after Marx's death, Leninism prevailed over Trotskyism and the Fourth International which created the dictatorship - Marx never discussed HOW a Communist regime should be carried out, thus Leninist Communism is distinguishable from classical Marxism or other instances of Socialism).

What constitutes hypocrisy here is that libertarians assume that de facto Communism and classical leftist theory and philosophy are one in the same, and they subsequently base their arguments on that predication. When submerged in debate, libertarians will adhere to this tactic, and in ad nauseum fashion, constantly assert that every instance of Communism that has existed has been guilty of wanton violations of human rights. The alternative, for them, is that if there is little government and no regulation, corporations will invest substantial capital, monetary and other, in creating a society that is fair; the panacea for social disparity is deregulation. The alternate argument for libertarians is that individuals who are weak will simply be weeded out by the process - those who can't survive the macabre atmosphere of unfettered capitalist competition will die out, literally. Consider the former, which is much more popular in libertarian circles: essentially, libertarians are assuming that capitalists will obey some set of unwritten rules in their discourse, rules that will create a fair society. They argue that corporate leaders and capitalists will fairly distribute capital among their workers, as if they had some vested interest in society as a whole. Obviously we see this wouldn't be the case, it isn't even the case today - the top 1% of the United States owned 39.6% of the gross income distribution in FY 2007 (source).

Operating within the parameters of logic and reason during debate with libertarians is an inutile tactic. Transversely, libertarians exclusively use philosophy to justify their arguments, overlooking the instances of the actual result of deregulation; an egregious error in terms of fairness. A simple syllogism forces libertarians to make a massive concession: that they have no interest in society or others in general, and they exist to serve the exclusive purpose of fulfilling their own rapacious initiatives. For example, let's consider a hypothetical case in which there is a complete absence of regulation. Corporation A, by virtue of definition, exists exclusively to generate profit. Generating profit for Corporation A is supplemented by reducing the labor costs, thus workers will be paid as little as possible; without regulation, there is no minimum wage. Libertarians argue that if this is the case, those workers can move to Corporation B who would pay them more fairly. They argue that people will see that Corporation A pays their workers unfairly, and will boycott their goods and buy from Corporation B. This libertarian maxim has flaws - remember when Wal*Mart got busted for not paying overtime (source)? What was the result? People didn't stop shopping at Wal*Mart. Since Wal*Mart uses these tactics to maximize output and minimize production costs, it can get away with selling products at dirt cheap prices. People don't care about Wal*Mart's failure to practice ethics - they just want to buy things for as cheap as possible. Thus Wal*Mart, like Corporation A, will continue to thrive because it provides people with cheap products - the only difference is that Wal*Mart got caught because of regulation. If there was no regulation, the Wal*Mart employees who were cheated out of their overtime would never have been granted recourse. In fact, without regulation, what would have stopped Wal*Mart from simply executing them? Coca-Cola has already used violence to suppress union movements in South America, interestingly enough, where there is little regulation for global corporations (source). Libertarians will never address this fact, but they will rather attempt to palliate by pointing the finger at de facto Communism - which we've already established as not congruent with classical leftism. These general contradictions often leave leftists nonplussed.

Libertarians remain unabated in their defense of no regulation or oversight. Oversight remains anathema for them, as if it is some scourge to the operation of society. Addressing the good of society is never a concern for libertarians; their exclusive motive is to pursue profit, even at the expense of individual life.