Libertarianism/individual freedom

[Kralizec]

Are you talking about classical liberalism, or about this quasi-anarchist ideology?

Either way:

Firstly, libertarianism makes a lot of assumptions about human nature and the rights that follow it. In many ways it is a bastardised form of the ideologies of the likes of John Locke and those he influenced who carried on the tradition off into various branches. One of the biggest assumptions it makes is that people are rational agents capable of willing whatever they please (without of course always being able to act upon it). And this the root belief from which we get all the various human rights etc. However, the underlying assumption is a very bold one to make. What if someone believed that people are born depraved and unable to do any good? Lunacy! And this isn't of course just a religious thing, I think it is quite difficult to defend free will from a purely scientific point of view. And yet, most people believe that the underlying assumption of libertarianism is correct, and so it is in effect no different from other ideologies built on what are unfounded assumptions, and all the resulting beliefs of this assumption are then formed into a system to which people are forced to comply.

Eh, no. Wether people act rationaly with their freedom is besides the point.
Those whom we now call "liberal" thinkers directed most of their attacks against government interference wich they saw as despotic, not against the benevolent nanny-states wich we're now accostumed to. But some arguments still apply; individuals should have rights and freedom wich should not just be cast aside for the benefit of the king or wider society.

Secondly, we are by nature a social species, and our individualism has always been something which has fitted into the framework of society. The only way this could be avoided is to remove people from society, which would in itself violate their liberty. People simply don't want to be left alone with their beliefs, they want to share them with other people, and shape their role in society. Pure libertarianism allows individual freedom, but completely shackles society to its chains. And yet, almost all the ideologies which people hold to are concerned with society as a whole. A Christian may want shops to close on Sundays. A socialist may want to take one person's money to help another. And yet, this cannot be allowed in a libertarian system. So long as the libertarian ideology is upheld by the state, no ideology can ever come to prominence. The private sphere is free, but that abstract concept of society (something dear to the individual) is strictly confined.

A lot depends on how we define "freedom". You could argue that the ultimate freedom is being completely isolated from society, but that's not what most people have in mind.
Or you could define "freedom" as meaning an artificial construct that derives entirely from laws, like Montesquieu did. Everybody agrees that there needs to be some sort of government to uphold order and punish crimes etc, but those things wich are permissable are all "freedom".
Isaiah Berlin wrote a brilliant piece about so-called "negative freedoms" and "positive freedoms". Negative freedom implies no government interference, like freedom from arbitrary seizure etc. Positive freedom implies active government interference, like freedom from starvation or the right to education. The problem is that many things wich have been taken for granted, and wich have conveniently been glossed over, are the product of government interference. Everybody thinks it's completely normal that contracts are enforcable, but that wouldn't be the case without laws and a judiciary.
A liberal can see why it's a crime to steal, but why is it a misdemeanor to open a shop on sundays? A liberal realizes that he must pay taxes to pay for the police and judiciary, but why should he pay taxes for the sake of wealth redistribution?

(Slightly off topic, but I think sunday closure laws are ridiculous and hypocritical. Even religious people recognise that some services need to be available on sundays, of wich law enforcement and medical services are just the tip of the iceberg. The reasonable ones even go as far as saying that ambulance workers don't necessarily go to hell. But they want to walk through their towns and cities without being exposed to people working on sundays, so they demand that shops are closed. Yet they never wonder how it is that they can buy fresh meat and vegetables on monday morning.)

Thirdly, we are largely a product of our upbringings, and the ideas we were exposed to in our younger years. Of course, on the face of it you could say this is not true and point to some extreme in examples. Heck, I wasn't raised a Christian, but look at me now. However, I reckon, looking back on my life, I can see just how all the little things, a very complicated network of ideas and experiences etc, came together in unpredictable ways leading me to where I am now. In a libertarian system, people are not exposed to any values when they are young (or at least theoretically they must not be). When a young mind is consuming all the information available to it, it is inevitable that this will shape its development later in life. All this is of course presuming children are not rational, free agents, which I would think most libertarians agree with (otherwise stop complaining about those brainwashed from birth religous people). And so, libertarianism denies children from exposure to any belief system (as far as this is even possible), leading to adults who have no belief system. The sad thing is, when they start with no values as an adult, it is in reality just as difficult for them to gain them as it is for them to change them if they had been brought up in a more ideological environment. Want proof, just look at society now.

Liberalism isn't inherently atheist, like you seem to be suggesting. I certainly haven't read anyone making a case that kids have to be raised without religious influences. "Nobody" really questions parents' rights to raise their own kids, and as you say adults are really just the product of their upbringing. Once you're old enough to think for yourself though (earlier than 18 in most cases), you are what you are - and you can't reasonably complain that you've been "indoctrinated" since nobody gets to pick their own parents, just as nobody gets to chose wether they're born or not.
(This discussion reminds me of that Time article from 1970 where a judge denied an adoption to an atheist couple because kids supposedly have the "privilege" to be raised with a religion)