persuasion & envy

When I was newly aware of libertarianism as a movement and not yet decidedly part of it, I learned that there had been a contest of sorts between socialists and libertarians. Each side had to argue that Dilbert belonged to their political philosophy. Scott Adams himself judged the contest. The libertarians won, sort of. Scott Adams said they had employed the brilliant tactic of defining libertarianism so broadly that almost anyone would have to be a libertarian.

I'd read the 2 arguments. I can confirm Adams's assessment. Here's the one I remember most clearly: Dilbert is against bureaucracy, therefore he is a libertarian. Got that? Anyone who is against bureaucracy is a libertarian. Man oh man. Now ... I do recognize that move. It's a ham sandwich argument, in fact. First you define bureaucracy the old-fashioned way, and then you point out that Dilbert opposes bureaucracy -- but now you mean the word in the newfangled way.

bu·reauc·ra·cy n. pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies

1. 1. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.
   2. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.
2. 1. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy.
   2. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy.
3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.

See? Libertarians oppose bureaucracy by definition #1 above -- as a form of government. Dilbert opposes bureaucracy by definition #2, which can apply to the administration of any organization, even private and voluntary ones. Ham sandwich.

This is one of my main problems with those within the movement who emphasize persuasion. I'm not opposed to persuasion, certainly. I even wrote about it in one of my earliest pieces. But those who emphasize persuasion tend to want to lower the net and enlarge the tent. They end up asserting a lot for which they don't offer arguments. When I became a libertarian it was for ethical reasons. I finally just rejected aggression in all its coercive forms. I had no sense that there were solid economic arguments for non-intervention. And the persuaders didn't persuade me. They just kept saying that a free market would be more prosperous ... for everyone ... raise all boats, etc. Yeah, fine, I could hear the assertions, but they never explained why. I had to start researching it for myself over a decade later before I became convinced that freedom was not only moral but also generally beneficial in the consequentialist sense.

Not only did the persuaders not persuade me, but they hurt their own cause, by sounding more like political candidates than political philosophers -- more like ad execs than truth-seekers.

If they're succeeding in expanding the movement, they're doing so by dumbing us down, and possibly driving away the deeper thinkers who share my reflexes and suspicions of certain rhetorical styles.

Anyway, I'm not convinced that either Dilbert or Scott Adams is or ever was libertarian. Comics -- both the stand-up variety and the squiggles-on-paper -- are sensitive to irony, more literalist than most, and chafe against political correctness. This combination might make them seem libertarian at times. But comics don't tend to look for logical consistency, don't tend to follow things through to their unfunny consequences, don't tend to be intellectually or ethically rigorous. These traits will always produce half-assed ideologies -- more attitude than content.

But while I'm not convinced that Dilbert is libertarian, we now have some pretty strong evidence that Wally is a leftist:


(Click to Enlarge)

---

PS Rex Curry, attorney at law and libertarian activist, suggests:

Dilbert could be improved in most cases with a simple computerized "find-and-replace" program changing "buzz-words" such as "management" "business" and "corporation" and replacing them with "politics," "bureaucracy" and "government."

PPS According to the LP, the contest took place in 1999, rather than when I was remembering it -- about 1994 -- and it was between libertarians and "liberals" rather than self-labeled socialists. Apparently my memory is a fiction-generating machine. Or someone tampered with the records. I did remember this part right:

After pondering both sides -- and "based on the persuasiveness of their arguments and not the truth behind them" -- Adams rendered his verdict: "The winner is: Jeremy Lott." [the libertarian]

But not so fast. Adams then noted: "In my view, Mr. Lott won the debate by cleverly creating a definition of libertarianism so inclusive that almost everyone on earth -- including Mr. Burlingame [the leftist] -- would be a member."