Debating "first principles" when only one side has any

Daisy over at her blog Dead Air provided a link to what she called an "in-depth 'first principles' (Right vs Left) political discussion." It was her against a couple of libertarians, as it turned out. I started to write a comment about it at her place but it got so long I just moved the whole thing here instead. (You can check the link to see the whole exchange, although it's not necessary in order to follow what I say here.)

I looked at her debate with the libertarians. Not all of it, I admit; I simply no longer have the patience to deal with that sort of nonsense and have long since abandoned efforts to be polite in the face of smirking justifications for selfishness. I also could not/would not have remained as polite as she did. But I did have some reactions.

I'll note first that the blogger's handle is Martel, which, lacking knowledge, I'm assuming is a male name, so I'll use "he" and "him."

His supposedly crushing argument against "lefties" is to ask why he has to support the poor and on getting answers like some are not as lucky as you, need, circumstances, and so on, he says "Those are all good reasons why I should support the poor. But why do I have to?" That question, he says, produces only silence.

Well, Daisy wrote an answer and he insisted that yes, yes, that's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question: Why do I have to support the poor?

That's the point where I'm starting because instead of dealing with the supposed content of his argument, such as it is, I want to look at the actual structure of it.

Note, that is, the restricted use of the phrase "have to." All meanings referring to acting based on moral or ethical standards or social obligation or even logical self-interest have been ruled out in advance. The only meaning for the phrase which is allowed refers to some use of force.

So in essence, the argument translates to "I can do whatever I want and if you say I 'have to' do something I don't want to, you are [his words] 'either a fool or a tyrant.' QED." Any response which does not accept that premise, i.e., which does not accept at the start that Martel is correct, lies outside the scope of the argument as defined and so does not "answer the question."

It's a somewhat clever bit of rhetorical trickery - but it's insubstantial, without weight or merit. It is, after all, easy to win an argument when you get to define the terms used such that "heads I win, tails you lose" are the only possible outcomes. Again, it may be clever - but it does not constitute logical argument.

More significantly in terms of actual meaning, there was in the course of the discussion a lot of talk about "rights" and about "individual rights" and about how "the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights." But again, just as in the case of "have to," the extent of what is covered by the term "individual rights" is curiously restricted - restricted, that is, to those areas where libertarians feel they might be personally impacted. (Which, on second thought, means the restriction is not "curious" at all.)

So, for example, in their minds you have an "individual right" to have the government protect your property and so they have no problem with the concept of "government force" to protect them from, for example, crime. On the other hand, because they're not poor and they're not hungry and they're not homeless and they're not the targets of bigotry and they don't see themselves as becoming such, there is to their mind no "right" to be protected against or at least receive some relief from any of those conditions and so any government attempt to do so is "illegitimate force," even "tyranny."

Put another way, any use of any sort of "force," physical or otherwise, such that they "have to" contribute to some end which they do not see as benefitting them personally is anathema. To them, society as a whole and government more particularly are required to protect the interests that libertarians endorse, but that same society and government are not allowed to define "interests" in any other way. (Which, parenthetically, means they reject the founding document of the United States, since the Preamble to the Constitution says among the purposes of the government being created is "promot[ing] the general welfare.") Which, when you come right down to it, means advocating the "freedom" to not care about the interests of anyone else. More bluntly, the freedom to be a sociopath.

Of course, they would never put it that bluntly and doubtless would proclaim their great offense at the term, but the fact remains that instead of government programs, instead of any sort of social obligations, a word with which they seem singularly unfamiliar, they demand instead that all rely on "voluntary charity" and "competition," insisting despite an historical record of centuries of failure that these "incentives" will miraculously create the best of all possible worlds. In fact, centuries? We don't have to go back nearly that far in our own country: Jabob Riis' How the Other Half Lives was published in 1890; Lewis Hine's best known work was in 1908-1909. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men came out in 1941; "Harvest of Shame" was first broadcast in 1960; The Other America was published in 1962. Hey, libertarians and other assorted right wingers: That is what happens when you rely on "competition" and "the free market." That is the record. So cut the crap: We know what you're actually about.

So here's my challenge to you: If "competition" is so terrific, if "voluntary charity" is the answer to all social problems, if "freedom" is the highest goal, why not do away with all criminal laws, all police? Seriously. Wouldn't that create "incentives" for people to "compete" for the best solution, a solution that did not involve the government "forcing" you to do something? Wouldn't that lead to "the survival of the fittest?" Wouldn't it avoid the horrors of collective action (except, of course, for the "voluntary" sort now commonly referred to as "gangs" and "vigilantes")? Wouldn't the "best," the "most capable," rise to the top? Isn't that exactly what you espouse for the hungry, the poor, the victimized? Why not do that?

Never mind, we know why: You're not afraid of being hungry. You are afraid of somebody taking your stuff. And to you, having stuff matters more than justice - in fact, to you having stuff defines justice and so frames your entire worldview.

And that's a damn shame.