💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › d-j-ivison-futilitarianism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:11:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Futilitarianism
Author: D. J. Ivison
Date: January, 1960
Language: en
Topics: Australia, authority, futilitarianism, Sydney libertarianism, Utopia
Source: Libertarian  No. 3.  January, 1960.  Published by the Libertarian Society at Sydney University.
Notes: Transcribed by P. J. Siegl.

D. J. Ivison

Futilitarianism

Sydney Libertarians have been attacked on two grounds:

Since they recognise that authoritarian activities are not going to

disappear, why do libertarians continue struggling and protesting

against them?

Libertarians claim to oppose policemen, priests, moralists and

authoritarians of all sorts, but what are they going to do about it?

(Where are their bombs?)

Both these criticisms have been advanced against libertarianism

recently, and libertarians have found some difficulty in giving a short

answer to either question — in fact, some libertarians would reject any

attempt at a short answer on the grounds that it would misrepresent a

complex position. Nevertheless, I shall outline the form which a short

answer might take.

In order to understand how these questions come to be posed, it is

necessary to have some knowledge of the social theory of Sydney

libertarians. In brief, this social theory is based on a pluralist view

of society, on the recognition that any society is composed of a number

of ways of going on. These different social activities are never

completely reconcilable; there is no lowest common denominator among the

ways of going on which would give rise to some consensus of which the

state (or some other institution) could be the guardian. Different

social groups just do pursue different activities, and these activities

often conflict. What does occur are compromises and limited agreements,

concessions in return for the implementation of some parts of a policy,

and these compromises, concessions and adjustments are sometimes made

through the machinery of the state. However, the state is never an

impartial arbiter, but a biased referee, a system of social activities

which have interests of their own.

Libertarians believe that pluralism is an account of what is the case

and that it is utopian to believe that there will ever be an end to the

conflict of social interests. The history of society is one of social

conflicts; it is unhistorical to believe that history will cease and a

millennium dawn — whether the millennium be the Kingdom of God, the

classless society, the national interest or any other form of the common

good.

Now one form of social conflict is that between authoritarian and

libertarian activities, and it is just as utopian, just as unhistorical

to believe that this form of conflict will ever disappear as it is to

believe that all social conflict will ever cease.

In particular, Sydney libertarians hold that conflict with

authoritarianism cannot be overcome by libertarians capturing social

power — through the machinery of the state, the general strike, or any

social revolution — because the mere fact of being in a position of

power leads to interests which are authoritarian rather than

libertarian.

I have done no more than outline the general position involved and have

ignored the amplifications and qualifications that a full treatment

would require, but this brief account of social pluralism may suffice to

indicate how the two questions come to be raised — why do libertarians

continue to protest if they recognise that they will never eliminate

authority, and, if libertarians are opposed to authority, why don’t they

take some effective action against it?

It has generally been found easier to attempt to answer the second

question, usually along the lines of “set a thief to catch a thief.” If

libertarians were to organise either to effect reforms within the

existing social order or to overthrow it and to create a new order, they

would have to become authoritarian. They only remain libertarian while

they eschew moralism, while they refrain from telling people that what

is good for libertarians is good for the whole world, while they remain

pluralists and recognise that other social groups have interests

different from those of libertarianism. The libertarian way of going on

is by means of hypothetical imperatives: if you are interested in

anarchism, atheism and free love, then come and listen to us; if you are

interested in security, certainty and authority, then libertarianism is

not your cup of tea.

The answer to the first question, I think, lies in the same direction.

Just as libertarianism involves anarchism, atheism and free love, so

libertarianism involves conflict with authoritarianism, just because it

is libertarianism and not something else. It is a social fact that the

interests of libertarians and authoritarians do conflict, and this is

“why” the opposition between the two exists.

This kind of answer may appear to be dangerously close to circularity —

why are libertarians libertarian? Because they are libertarian. But the

apparent circularity arises only when the complexity and diversity of

libertarianism are ignored. Both questions ask the same thing: why do

libertarians both oppose authority and accept the fact of its continued

existence? The answer can only be found in other features of

libertarianism, by showing the connections between these other features

and the opposition to, along with the acceptance of the continued

existence of authority.

I have tried to show how the acceptance of the continued existence of

authoritarianism derives from the pluralism of libertarianism, as well

as from its non-moralistic way of going on. The opposition to

authoritarianism, besides deriving from the “anarchism, atheism and free

love” of libertarians, is connected with their social pluralism, for to

expound consistently a pluralist theory of society is to reject the

monist and solidarist views of the authoritarians (how can you accept

their claim that what is good for the nation is good for you if the

truth is that there is no national good, no interest common to all the

many social activities which exist in that geographic region?) and in

rejecting these views as illusions, one may come to inquire into the

motives of the authoritarians. [1]

Because libertarianism is the way of life that it is, it finds itself in

conflict with authoritarianism, with no hope of ever eliminating

authoritarianism from the social scene.

It is from this sort of analysis that libertarians have adopted such

slogans as “anarchism without ends,” “pessimistic anarchists” and

“permanent protest” to describe libertarianism and libertarians.

D. J. I.

[1] Such an inquiry may, of course, lead one to side with the

authoritarians in an attempt to win power or profit (e.g., Pareto). It

is the combination of social pluralism with other views, such as

anarchism and atheism, that makes for the distinctive libertarian

position.